# Is Curry considering retirement?



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Say what you like about how valid message board sources can say. Tech N9ne's reputation precedes him. And rightly so. Thus, if he says it's a scoop, it's a scoop.

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=410425&sid=32f18d80ea1729985edfeb9797862576

:uhoh:


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

ShamBulls said:


> Say what you like about how valid message board sources can say. Tech N9ne's reputation precedes him. And rightly so. Thus, if he says it's a scoop, it's a scoop.
> 
> http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=410425&sid=32f18d80ea1729985edfeb9797862576
> 
> :uhoh:


Tech, IMO, is the most reliable inside source in the world of the Bulls. Too bad some of those realgmers ran him off that board. Oh well.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

No, Eddy is not considering retirement.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

sloth said:


> No, Eddy is not considering retirement.



Give me a reason why I should believe you over him. And make it a good one.


----------



## ¹²³ (Jan 8, 2003)

sloth said:


> No, Eddy is not considering retirement.


I agree.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

ShamBulls said:


> Give me a reason why I should believe you over him. And make it a good one.


C'mon Sham, don't play with the poor boy...

You know, as well as I (and many, many others) do, that there is absolutely nothing in the world that sloth (or whatever he is going to start calling himself) can type right now to make you believe him over Tech.

Nothing.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

sloth is like Eddy's left nut.

Always hangin' around Eddy.

If sloth says no, I tend to agree.


(Prays sloth is right)


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

bullsville said:


> C'mon Sham, don't play with the poor boy...
> 
> You know, as well as I (and many, many others) do, that there is absolutely nothing in the world that sloth (or whatever he is going to start calling himself) can type right now to make you believe him over Tech.
> 
> Nothing.




That's the thing I don't get with Sloth. Why does he rate himself as being an insider?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Vintage said:


> sloth is like Eddy's left nut.
> 
> Always hangin' around Eddy.
> 
> ...



Who is that in the avatar? Shhhhaaaazaaaammmmm (to quote those dip****e Phoenix announcers)


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

ShamBulls said:


> That's the thing I don't get with Sloth. Why does he rate himself as being an insider?


I think TB#1 decided that it's because his parents ate the brown acid at Woodstock.

I can't think of any other possible reason.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

bullsville said:


> I think TB#1 decided that it's because his parents ate the brown acid at Woodstock.
> 
> I can't think of any other possible reason.




What about why he thinks he's a cult leader? Same reason?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

I'm not sure "considering" does much for me.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

rlucas4257 said:


> Who is that in the avatar? Shhhhaaaazaaaammmmm (to quote those dip****e Phoenix announcers)


Why did you have to bring them up in the offseason? Now I'll be hearing that sheet in my dreams tonight, dammit. :curse:


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Scoop,

Im considering picking my nose right now. 

In all seriousness, Tech is extremely well connected. During my time as a Moderator on that site I would have offline conversations with him and he is 100% legit. So if he says something I know to give him the benefit of the doubt. Though I do admit this sounds far fetched. But its coming from Tech so file it away as a possibility. 

One question, if Curry wanted to go to Europe and play for 10 mil a year over there, is there anything the Bulls could do to stop him?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

ShamBulls said:


> What about why he thinks he's a cult leader? Same reason?


Yup, I think "his parents ate the brown acid at Woodstock" explains most, if not all, of the posts I have read from the "author". (How's that for using a term incredibly loosely?)


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> One question, if Curry wanted to go to Europe and play for 10 mil a year over there, is there anything the Bulls could do to stop him?




Well since he's tied to our qualifying offer.......yes.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Why did you have to bring them up in the offseason? Now I'll be hearing that sheet in my dreams tonight, dammit. :curse:



Majerle for 33333333333333333333333333 SHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAZAAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

ShamBulls said:


> Well since he's tied to our qualifying offer.......yes.


So is he technically under contract? I mean, if he got a tremendous offer from Real Madrid or something is there anything we can do? I mean if he got 3 million from Seattle right now we could match it but technically he could go if we didnt match.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

rlucas4257 said:


> Scoop,
> 
> Im considering picking my nose right now.
> 
> ...


Once again with the understatement? 

Tech said the conversation took place, the conversation took place.

Seriously, what is so hard to believe, people? Eddy's family is worried about his heart. DUH!! 2 healthy athletes have dropped dead in the last week, what would you be thinking if you were related to Eddy?

I didn't need the Bulls #1 internet insider to tell me that, of course they are worried about it.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

rlucas4257 said:


> One question, if Curry wanted to go to Europe and play for 10 mil a year over there, is there anything the Bulls could do to stop him?






ShamBulls said:


> Well since he's tied to our qualifying offer.......yes.


Yeah I think Sham is right.

The NBA and FIBA pretty much follow each other's rules, and I'm sure a Euro team wouldn't be allowed to "steal" Eddy from us when we are allowed to match any offer.

BUT, it's certainly possible that FIBA would make the Bulls match any contract offer that Eddy could sign in Europe- and if the Bulls didn't match, they would probably say "F U, NBA" and allow Eddy to play in Europe.

But damn, that's a great question, rlucas- any ideas where we can get a definitive answer? I don't know if you know anyone in FIBA's hierarchy but if you do, ask them please?


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Once again with the understatement?
> 
> Tech said the conversation took place, the conversation took place.
> 
> ...


That's a good point bullsville. There has been scary stuff in the news of late on this issue.

If this is true, it's the first I've seen of Eddy's camp showing any doubts that the big guy will be on the court for years to come.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Eddy will take a 6 year 40 million dollar contract, or whatever before he retires. 6 years for 40 million is the QO followed by maximum raised about, correct?. Eddy isn't set too good for money right now. He has a bit left from his Rookie Contract. Right now, he has the money from his Nike endorsment that he thinks he can live comfortable off of. Of course if he lived mine or your life, he'd be comfortable for the rest of his life, but if he wants to maintain his lifestyle he'll ned more than that. He has a nice house setup for him, his fiancee, and mom, so thats really not an issue. But the nice clothes, up to date technology, fancy cars, without a QO moneylike contract or the other stuff thats been talked about, he won't be able to maintain everything like that for his lifetime. Obviously his fiancee and mom have worries, but who wouldn't? Eddy isn't going to throw away his future legacy and all the hard work he's put in this summer.


----------



## Aesop (Jun 1, 2003)

sloth said:


> Eddy will take a 6 year 40 million dollar contract, or whatever before he retires. 6 years for 40 million is the QO followed by maximum raised about, correct?. Eddy isn't set too good for money right now. He has a bit left from his Rookie Contract. Right now, he has the money from his Nike endorsment that he thinks he can live comfortable off of. Of course if he lived mine or your life, he'd be comfortable for the rest of his life, but if he wants to maintain his lifestyle he'll ned more than that. He has a nice house setup for him, his fiancee, and mom, so thats really not an issue. But the nice clothes, up to date technology, fancy cars, without a QO moneylike contract or the other stuff thats been talked about, he won't be able to maintain everything like that for his lifetime. Obviously his fiancee and mom have worries, but who wouldn't? Eddy isn't going to throw away his future legacy and all the hard work he's put in this summer.


Wasn't he caught Bentley shopping a few months ago?


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

I am absolutely unhappy with Mr. Potential's future development
and tired waiting when Curry will turn himself in a solid and consistent player. 

IMO, it is very obvious that management has almost zero faith in that guy and it is not only because of his health condition.

So, may be we should curse JK again and go back the draft table.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

sloth said:


> Eddy will take a 6 year 40 million dollar contract, or whatever before he retires. 6 years for 40 million is the QO followed by maximum raised about, correct?. Eddy isn't set too good for money right now. He has a bit left from his Rookie Contract. Right now, he has the money from his Nike endorsment that he thinks he can live comfortable off of. Of course if he lived mine or your life, he'd be comfortable for the rest of his life, but if he wants to maintain his lifestyle he'll ned more than that. He has a nice house setup for him, his fiancee, and mom, so thats really not an issue. But the nice clothes, up to date technology, fancy cars, without a QO moneylike contract or the other stuff thats been talked about, he won't be able to maintain everything like that for his lifetime. Obviously his fiancee and mom have worries, but who wouldn't? Eddy isn't going to throw away his future legacy and all the hard work he's put in this summer.


So you're saying that he'll play so that he can have more money.

While I don't know much about your credibility, obviously that makes sense. But Curry is weird enough to just put it down and retire at this point, especially with all the athletes whose heart problems are becoming fatal, all of a sudden.

I think I could get most multimillionaires to stop toying with his life.

Could it be that there IS a very valid health risk that keeps the insurers away?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I predicted this about a month ago... Maybe it was longer than that. And yesterday I wrote that I thought the chance was 0-10% he'd have health issues. It may seem contradictory, but it isn't.

If curry insists on playing, I think he's 0-10% to have health issues. All the signs point to him not playing. Though I wonder if he's stubborn enough (or needs cash badly enough) to play no matter what. And now this "scoop."

Of course we don't know if it's true yet.

It has to be discouraging that nobody will take a risk on him due to his medical issues. He wouldn't take that DNA test for Atlanta (which shows a lack of interest in playing). The Bulls aren't acting like they're in a hurry to encourage him to play for anything other than the minimum (which is the QO). And that QO can be seen as nothing more than Pax playing it as safe as possible - maybe an S&T could get this whole thing outta here. That the insurance companies won't insure him isn't a good sign - you'd think they did a physical on him first (I can speculate).

It also could be that the Bulls are privately telling Curry to retire for his own benefit.

This post on 7/15 in this thread (http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?p=2416708#post2416708)
:



DaBullz said:


> Looks like the obvious, regarding Curry.
> 
> I see three possibilities:
> 1) The bulls hope he's OK and want him to play for them for years
> ...


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

I am thinking now we should just sign him to the qualifiyng offer for one year only. If he has a great, healthy year and shows a marked improvement in intensity and defense, we still can offer him by far the most money. I doubt he would leave, and I doubt even if he has a solid year you will see other teams coming up with huge offers considering the heart issue.

If his health is an issue this year and the kid doesn't improve his intensity, defense, and basketball I.Q. we either let him go or do a sign and trade. Would free up loads more cap space. Ben Wallace is a free agent we could go after next year. Wouldn't be surprised if Pax isn't already planning to make a run at Wallace.

Long term deal for Curry doesn't look to make sense with what is happening. The kid will be upset, but he didn't deserve huge bucks even if he was completely healthy considering his lack of intensity on the defense.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Eddy can't get inssured. Its that simple. The moment he steps on the court with the consent of an NBA team and keels over and dies you'll have his entire family taking thr Bulls and the NBA to court. Unless Curry signs a deal absolving the particicipating team and the league from all wrongdoing, Eddy won't be playing anywhere.

Think of this also. A DNA Test would clear uo a lot of misgivings, right? My thought is that he did have the tests run and the reslults weren't favorable.

The Bulls will proceed with the 05/06 season filling Curry's spot by committee...Harrington, Malik Allen, maybe even an Uncle Cliffy (as Dore likes to call him). The goal will be to buiuld towards '06 when the Bulls may become a major free agent player. But the days of Eddy curry impacting an NBA game are over.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Kismet said:


> But the days of Eddy curry impacting an NBA game are over.


 :eek8: 

Those are ominous, ominous words, Kismet. Gosh, I hope you're wrong (even though I realize you usually know what you're talking about).


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

i for one believe it , because of the seriousness of the situation.

eddy's irregular heartbeat isn't like most players' irregular heartbeat its far more serious and will take surgery to fix at some point even with the most optimstic viewpoints.

there are 2 types of irregular heartbeats depending on where the source originates the kind players like terry cummings , aaron mckie and derrick coleman or the kind that reggie lewis and hank gathers has ....and eddy has the latter.

that being said i am not sure eddy retires just yet even if he decides he cant play with his heart the way it is , he may decide to take the QO, have surgery and take a wait and see approach.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Wow, scary stuff. I can speak for Tech's infomation too. The guy is usually right. Kismet's post certainly paints a grim picture as well. Just from what we have read in the media I had no idea that it was that serious. It sounded like an isolated incident that could not be recreated. Perhaps with the death of Herrion for the Forty Niners Curry's family has been encouraging him to reevaluate things. In any case, if we lose Curry or he is no longer going to be an impact player it will certainly be hard, if not impossible, to replace what he brings, particularly his post scoring presence.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> i for one believe it , because of the seriousness of the situation.
> 
> eddy's irregular heartbeat isn't like most players' irregular heartbeat its far more serious and will take surgery to fix at some point even with the most optimstic viewpoints.
> 
> ...


Where are you getting all of this from?

Grinch, don't take this too personally, but you are just wildly off the mark here (caveat: as long as what Mike McGraw, K.C. Johnson, and others have reported is correct).

Eddy has a syndrome called athlete's heart. It is a benign thickening of the heart muscle brought on by high-level conditioning. The arrythymia he experienced in Charlotte may well have been a fluke. Athlete's heart is a very manageable, normal condition, to the extent that even Dr. Barry Maron, the "dissenting" doctor who wanted Curry to take the not-at-all-conclusive DNA test, has written papers suggesting that the risk of sudden death from athlete's heart is next to zero, and that as many as 15-20% of competive athletes have this syndrome.

Cummings, McKie, Olajuwon, Coleman, et. al. suffered from various forms of electrical abnormalities, not necessarily structural ones. While also normally benign and very manageable with medication and monitoring, these arrythmias can actually be more serious than Curry's condition over time.

The Gathers and Lewis cases are obviously somewhat controversial, but in any case, neither had athlete's heart, but rather full-blown hypertrophic cardiomyopathy or cocaine-induced cardiomyopathy (especially Lewis). This is not a manageable condition, and neither guy should have been playing basketball. Curry does not have this condition.

K.C. Johnson presented the best summary of where things stand on June 23:



> Paxson, however, is said to be buoyed by Cannom's diagnosis [athlete's heart], which joins that of Estes in painting a positive picture of Curry's heart condition.
> 
> What remained unclear is what becomes of the signs that gave pause to Maron, the Minneapolis-based cardiologist.
> 
> It's possible, however, that with two prominent cardiologists reaching similar diagnoses, and *Maron only wanting to rule out cardiomyopathy definitively—not issuing that diagnosis*—that enough positive feedback is accumulating to alleviate concerns of liability.


I hate to seem like I'm breaking balls all the time on the medical angles, but the medical distinctions are obviously pretty central to what's happening here. Again, if the reporting is accurate, and there haven't been any further developments we haven't heard about yet, Curry has absolutely nothing to fear. 

It's pretty much inarguable at this point that the Bulls don't want Curry, heart problems or no heart problems. They were content to let Maron's desire to see a DNA test bring all the medical testing to a crashing halt, and things didn't get moving again until Curry hired Leon Rose. Then, again, once Trustmark (very predictably) declined to insure Curry's contract, the Bulls have kind of thrown up their hands and left the ball in Eddy's court. This is very consistent with Reinsdorf's "zero-sum" approach.

Whether or not the Bulls will better off for not having Curry around is a debate I don't care to have here -- we'll find out soon enough, anyway. But I don't think anyone can argue that losing yet another high draft pick for absolutely nothing is a huge, huge setback for the organization, and it's a situation that should have never happened if Pax knew all along that he didn't really want the guy.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

. . .


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Just to echo what some others have said, I read realgm all the time and Tech is 100% reliable. But all he is reporting is familial pressure, nothing more, which as bullsville points out is hardly a revelation.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Just to echo what some others have said, I read realgm all the time and Tech is 100% reliable. But all he is reporting is familial pressure, nothing more, which as bullsville points out is hardly a revelation.







..........Yeah, I'd agree with that up to a point, but that is the first open acknowledgement I have seen that says that Eddy himself is seriously weighing up that option. That, to me at least, constitues being newsworthy.








> Eddy will take a 6 year 40 million dollar contract, or whatever before he retires. 6 years for 40 million is the QO followed by maximum raised about, correct?. Eddy isn't set too good for money right now. He has a bit left from his Rookie Contract. Right now, he has the money from his Nike endorsment that he thinks he can live comfortable off of. Of course if he lived mine or your life, he'd be comfortable for the rest of his life, but if he wants to maintain his lifestyle he'll ned more than that. He has a nice house setup for him, his fiancee, and mom, so thats really not an issue. But the nice clothes, up to date technology, fancy cars, without a QO moneylike contract or the other stuff thats been talked about, he won't be able to maintain everything like that for his lifetime. Obviously his fiancee and mom have worries, but who wouldn't? Eddy isn't going to throw away his future legacy and all the hard work he's put in this summer.




You didn't answer my question.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ShamBulls said:


> You didn't answer my question.


Do you actually expect him to? He is the antithesis of Tech.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Do you actually expect him to? He is the antithesis of Tech.







No, I want him to squirm, and then look stupid. I think it's working.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Note to self: add Ron Cey and ShamBulls to guest list for upcoming goldfish-in-a-barrel shoot.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Whether or not the Bulls will better off for not having Curry around is a debate I don't care to have here -- we'll find out soon enough, anyway. But I don't think anyone can argue that losing yet another high draft pick for absolutely nothing is a huge, huge setback for the organization, and it's a situation that should have never happened if Pax knew all along that he didn't really want the guy.


Addition by subtraction.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

So ScottMay, you're saying that the Bulls shouldn't even be in this mess right now due to the fact that we should've traded Eddy Curry a long time ago, which is based on the inarguable fact that the Bulls never wanted Eddy Curry. Hence another reason why Pax should be fired on the spot and Reinsdorf should sell the team, right? I don't know man, that just sounds like a real stretch. If you want a reason to bash Pax and Reinsdorf, I think you're better off reverting back to the Rose and/or Crawford trades. Or maybe even the Corie Blount escapade.

Edit: But I do appreciate your clarification of Eddy's medical condition, which you've done numerous times before.


----------



## BULLS23 (Apr 13, 2003)

I gotta say that I hope EC isn't retiring, but I could understand his family wanting him to play it safe. However, from everything that has been reported it seems that he thinks it's a real option.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Shambulls said:


> Ron Cey said:
> 
> 
> > Do you actually expect him to? He is the antithesis of Tech.
> ...


This kind of stuff makes neither of you exactly look like a genius.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> This kind of stuff makes neither of you exactly look like a genius.


You do realize the irony of what you just posted, don't you?

[And yes, I realize the irony of what I'm posting right now as well. ]


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Eddy needs to be better set, as simple as that. That is why he's not retiring. He has some reserves of money at around 10 million right now. He isn't making as much money as you think aftr taxes and agent fees and dues to the players association. He not only gets more money from his contract, but he will pad his pension. Right now he'll only receive 14,704 dollars for his pension per a year. While if he extends his career 6 more years, he will be getting 36,760 which will allow him to live much more comfortable. Ideally, he wants to play until he is 38-40 in which case he will receive about 69,845-77,197. Like the one crazy guy said, Eddy may be considering retirement, but when all is said and done, Eddy will choose to remain a Bull. And for those who think the Bulls will be better off without Curry, just :dead:


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

yodurk said:


> So ScottMay, you're saying that the Bulls shouldn't even be in this mess right now due to the fact that we should've traded Eddy Curry a long time ago, which is based on the inarguable fact that the Bulls never wanted Eddy Curry. Hence another reason why Pax should be fired on the spot and Reinsdorf should sell the team, right? I don't know man, that just sounds like a real stretch. If you want a reason to bash Pax and Reinsdorf, I think you're better off reverting back to the Rose and/or Crawford trades. Or maybe even the Corie Blount escapade.


That's not precisely what I'm saying. I'm saying that we should not confuse the Bulls' pretty clear desire not to retain Eddy as being solely related to his heart issues. And I have little doubt at this point that the intention was to do with Curry what was done with Crawford -- a sign and trade for junk, with an outside shot at hoping Curry signed a mini offer sheet elsewhere that they'd match.

Why do I think this? I look at how the Bulls have acted since that fateful night in Charlotte, and I don't see many ACTIONS (as opposed to words) that show they feel Curry is a guy they want here for the long haul.

First, the Bulls basically suppressed the results of Eddy's very favorable late-April examination by Dr. Estes. I know, I know -- "suppressed" is cynical and inflammatory and all that, but I can't think of a better word to use, and I certainly don't buy the argument that the Bulls sat on the information out of respect for Eddy's best interests. After all, they couldn't wait to spread word of Dr. Maron's desire for Eddy to take a DNA test. 

Then the Bulls seemed to be content to let things end there -- they were insisting on Curry's taking a DNA test that his doctors, including Estes, were telling him were absolutely pointless given his test results and the very thorough family history they had access to vis a vis test results performed on his mother following her heart attack a couple years ago. It wasn't until Curry hired Leon Rose that things progressed on the medical front. 

Next, insurance. Trustmark's refusal to carry Eddy's contract really shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone. But if the Bulls really wanted Eddy, do you honestly think they'd have dumped the chore of finding an insurer entirely in his lap? 

I just think that the Bulls feelings about Eddy today probably aren't too far off the mark from how they felt about him before the heart stuff cropped up, or more importantly, before the trading deadline. I don't understand the dithering and the seeming refusal to sell high as opposed to rock bottom.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

sloth said:


> He has some reserves of money at around 10 million right now.


Ten million what, old Turkish lira?


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2005)

sloth said:


> Eddy needs to be better set, as simple as that. That is why he's not retiring. He has some reserves of money at around 10 million right now. He isn't making as much money as you think aftr taxes and agent fees and dues to the players association. He not only gets more money from his contract, but he will pad his pension. Right now he'll only receive 14,704 dollars for his pension per a year. While if he extends his career 6 more years, he will be getting 36,760 which will allow him to live much more comfortable. Ideally, he wants to play until he is 38-40 in which case he will receive about 69,845-77,197. Like the one crazy guy said, Eddy may be considering retirement, but when all is said and done, Eddy will choose to remain a Bull. And for those who think the Bulls will be better off without Curry, just :dead:


Jesus, you take so much speculation and pass it off as indisputable fact. 

You pull so much stuff out of your *** you have to make the "goatse" guy look like a virgin.

:dead:


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

sloth said:


> Eddy needs to be better set, as simple as that. That is why he's not retiring. He has some reserves of money at around 10 million right now. He isn't making as much money as you think aftr taxes and agent fees and dues to the players association. He not only gets more money from his contract, but he will pad his pension. Right now he'll only receive 14,704 dollars for his pension per a year. While if he extends his career 6 more years, he will be getting 36,760 which will allow him to live much more comfortable. Ideally, he wants to play until he is 38-40 in which case he will receive about 69,845-77,197. Like the one crazy guy said, Eddy may be considering retirement, but when all is said and done, Eddy will choose to remain a Bull. And for those who think the Bulls will be better off without Curry, just :dead:



you continue to walk a _very_ fine line, little man. be careful.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

yodurk said:


> You do realize the irony of what you just posted, don't you?
> 
> [And yes, I realize the irony of what I'm posting right now as well. ]


I don't pull out my blue admin badge much or hassle people about much, but those posts were over the line, and a third poster responded to it. Unfortunately, I tried to get it to stop there (and the two in question haven't posted about it since).

We (bbb.net) don't want our guests to be discouraged from registering and posting because they'll be targets of certain posters who think it's important to watch people "squirm."

So I'm an admin, what's _your_ excuse?


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

mizenkay said:


> you continue to walk a _very_ fine line, little man. be careful.


:laugh:
I just find it amusing that you called him little man. You sound like his mother or something.













_Hello, little man. Boy, I sure heard a bunch about you._


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> That's not precisely what I'm saying. I'm saying that we should not confuse the Bulls' pretty clear desire not to retain Eddy as being solely related to his heart issues. And I have little doubt at this point that the intention was to do with Curry what was done with Crawford -- a sign and trade for junk, with an outside shot at hoping Curry signed a mini offer sheet elsewhere that they'd match.
> 
> Why do I think this? I look at how the Bulls have acted since that fateful night in Charlotte, and I don't see many ACTIONS (as opposed to words) that show they feel Curry is a guy they want here for the long haul.
> 
> ...



I can see your reasoning. Kinda makes sense. I tend to think that the Bulls feelings towards Curry are somewhat similar to their feelings towards Crawford last season. I have no doubt that Pax wanted Crawford gone and was willing to sell Crawford to the highest bidder. Only problem was, there was only one bidder. Pax did what he had to and whether it was "junk" that was received is kinda water under the bridge. 

I think the Bulls feel better about Curry (or should I write felt - past tense). I really think Pax is/was on the bubble about Curry. All the way up to and past the trade deadline. There's no denying the talent. There quite a bit to deny about everything else. So, Pax held onto him. I think the rationale was something along the lines of - If he signs a monster deal with a bottom-feeder, let him walk. If there's a bidding war for his services, sell him to the highest bidder and hope to get more than "junk" back. If he signs a reasonable offer sheet - match it. Problem was, Eddy goes down with a mysterious heart issue two weeks prior to the end of the season. Eddy's market value took a huge hit at the exact same point.

Now Pax is stuck with damaged goods. Curry can't get insured. There were enough questions about his desire before all of the medical stuff and now you've got to throw that on top of everything.

What I don't quite get in your statement above is why the Bulls would have wanted to conceal or otherwise divert Estes findings? If the goal was to get rid of Eddy and they missed the boat at the trade deadline, wouldn't it have been in their best interest to get him OK'd by anybody ASAP so that they could try to alleviate concerns and drive up his market value? The motivations seem to conflict. If Pax and the Bulls wanted to dump Eddy - why drive down his value further? If they wanted to keep him and try to get him on the cheap - then driving down his value makes sense.

In the general sense - I agree with you. It seems to me the Bulls want to be done with Curry. If I had to hazzard a guess, I'd say Skiles was probably a driving force behind the decision. I could imagine a player like Curry would drive a coach like Skiles crazy. I just don't agree with the whole driving down his value scenario. Hindsight is 20-20 and I'd wager that Pax is kicking himself for not unloading Curry before the trade deadline because now he's stuck with a pretty terrible dilema.

Finally, as an aside, I wanted to say "kudos" for harping on the medical side of things with Da Grinch. I was waiting to see if you'd say anything. You've been pretty harsh with some here regarding all this medical stuff and adamint about the comparisons to Gathers and Lewis. Da Grinch has twice made that exact comparison in the last two or three days. The first time you made no comment. I'm SURE that if I had - you'd have been all over it. At least you were consistant about it and I respect that. Carry on! :cheers:


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

> This kind of stuff makes neither of you exactly look like a genius.




I know, I know, I'm an antagonist. I'll stop now.


The fact remains though, that it is pretty darn slanderous to wild speculation and/or guesses, and pass them off as fact. This is what is transpiring here.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ShamBulls said:


> I know, I know, I'm an antagonist. I'll stop now.
> 
> 
> The fact remains though, that it is pretty darn slanderous to wild speculation and/or guesses, and pass them off as fact. This is what is transpiring here.


That's fair.

EDIT:

At this point, someone might find it useful to try to find out what the pension plan really would do for Curry. It'd look really silly if Sloth's figures were right, and just as silly if they're out of left field.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> We (bbb.net) don't want our guests to be discouraged from registering and posting because they'll be targets of *certain posters who think it's important to watch people "squirm."*
> 
> So I'm an admin, what's _your_ excuse?


Hold on a second. I got your point and I dropped it. Don't start attributing a post or sentiment to me that I didn't write ("squirm"). Like you said, you are an admin. 

My sole point was that there should be some accountability and with Sloth there doesn't appear to be simply because of his age and consistent unreliability even though he claims things as fact. I was assume that you ("bbb.net") wouldn't really care for that either. But I suppose I'm wrong about that.

You want to take issue with something I post when it relates how this entire website expects participants to behave, do it in a PM. Otherwise, you aren't any different than what you are claiming to condemn.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Hold on a second. I got your point and I dropped it. Don't start attributing a post or sentiment to me that I didn't write ("squirm"). Like you said, you are an admin.
> 
> My sole point was that there should be some accountability and with Sloth there doesn't appear to be simply because of his age and consistent unreliability even though he claims things as fact. I was assume that you ("bbb.net") wouldn't really care for that either. But I suppose I'm wrong about that.
> 
> You want to take issue with something I post when it relates how this entire website expects participants to behave, do it in a PM. Otherwise, you aren't any different than what you are claiming to condemn.


As long as Sloth posts about Curry, it's not a problem. As long as someone posts about another POSTER, it is.

If you want a PM, you can have one.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> I can see your reasoning. Kinda makes sense. I tend to think that the Bulls feelings towards Curry are somewhat similar to their feelings towards Crawford last season. I have no doubt that Pax wanted Crawford gone and was willing to sell Crawford to the highest bidder. Only problem was, there was only one bidder. Pax did what he had to and whether it was "junk" that was received is kinda water under the bridge.
> 
> I think the Bulls feel better about Curry (or should I write felt - past tense). I really think Pax is/was on the bubble about Curry. All the way up to and past the trade deadline. There's no denying the talent. There quite a bit to deny about everything else. So, Pax held onto him. I think the rationale was something along the lines of - If he signs a monster deal with a bottom-feeder, let him walk. If there's a bidding war for his services, sell him to the highest bidder and hope to get more than "junk" back. If he signs a reasonable offer sheet - match it. Problem was, Eddy goes down with a mysterious heart issue two weeks prior to the end of the season. Eddy's market value took a huge hit at the exact same point.
> 
> ...


You actually did a better job of summing up the Bulls' schizophrenia over Curry than I did. I guess the bottom line is that even w/o the heart factor, this is a very risky way to attempt to have your cake and eat it too -- it's tricky if not impossible to drive down a player's worth while at the same time keeping open the options of a sign-and-trade. It seems to me the Bulls would have had a much better outcome had they just dealt Curry at a point in time where they didn't have their backs to the wall (and again, that's not factoring the heart into this).

What especially bothers me is that we got really, really lucky with the Crawford deal. Ignoring our respective opinions of what we got back in that deal, what you have to worry about with a restricted FA is liquidity -- how many teams will make you offers, if any do at all, and whether or not you'll be able to find a literal/logistical exchange with those who do. For Paxson to go through that again (remember how long the Crawford stuff dragged on?), and with a much more appealing asset (at least before the heart stuff), just strikes me as lunacy.

As for my medical "crusade," I have admittedly been frustrated with the general unwillingness of the board (and more so the journalists) to leave it all more or less unexamined. I assure you that had I seen it (I didn't), I would have responded to Grinch's first mention of Gathers/Lewis.

EDIT: I didn't address a good question of yours, why the Bulls would have withheld Estes's diagnosis. I think it's because the Hawks presented a real danger to the Bulls' plans -- they had room to offer Curry a deal for far more than the Bulls were willing to match, and they had no real pressing incentive or need to do a sign-and-trade (I am with Steve Belkin on this one -- it seems insane to me that they'd give the Suns draft picks for Johnson).


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> Hold on a second. I got your point and I dropped it. Don't start attributing a post or sentiment to me that I didn't write ("squirm"). Like you said, you are an admin.
> 
> My sole point was that there should be some accountability and with Sloth there doesn't appear to be simply because of his age and consistent unreliability even though he claims things as fact. I was assume that you ("bbb.net") wouldn't really care for that either. But I suppose I'm wrong about that.
> 
> You want to take issue with something I post when it relates how this entire website expects participants to behave, do it in a PM. Otherwise, you aren't any different than what you are claiming to condemn.


"unreliability"? Similiar responses were said after I said that Eddy was cleared to play shortly after the incident in Charlotte. Who was right??? Me or......everyone else. Is it really crazy to say that a man that loves playing basketball, who has been cleared to play by two of the nations top specialist, and wants some extra money to cover for his past money mismanagement? What about his future? His pension is small right now from the NBA. The NBA Pension plan, at least under the old CBA was 306.34 a month times the number of seasons the player has played in the NBA. Eddy has played 4, so he will be getting a little over 1,200 under the old CBA at least, it depends if they made increases under the new one or not. Odds are, all this talk is just either A. His Family Worrying over the football death this week or B. Some uneasiness over how long it is taking to get a new contract worked out. I'm not saying that it isn't a possibility that he retires, just a highly unlikely one.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

sloth said:


> "unreliability"? Similiar responses were said after I said that Eddy was cleared to play shortly after the incident in Charlotte. Who was right??? Me or......everyone else. Is it really crazy to say that a man that loves playing basketball, who has been cleared to play by two of the nations top specialist, and wants some extra money to cover for his past money mismanagement? What about his future? His pension is small right now from the NBA. The NBA Pension plan, at least under the old CBA was 306.34 a month times the number of seasons the player has played in the NBA. Eddy has played 4, so he will be getting a little over 1,200 under the old CBA at least, it depends if they made increases under the new one or not. Odds are, all this talk is just either A. His Family Worrying over the football death this week or B. Some uneasiness over how long it is taking to get a new contract worked out. I'm not saying that it isn't a possibility that he retires, just a highly unlikely one.


You may be right. You may be wrong.

Either way, now might be a good time to step back and think about why your posts tend to draw such hostile responses. Perhaps the noise generated by the "God of Message Boards" rhetoric and pretend "inside connections" drowns out the legitimate points you are capable of making.

:twocents:


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

> I'm not saying that it isn't a possibility that he retires, just a highly unlikely one.



A) No one has said otherwise.
B) That wasn't what you said - THIS is what you said.



> No, Eddy is not considering retirement.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

ShamBulls said:


> A) No one has said otherwise.
> B) That wasn't what you said - THIS is what you said.


Sorry, I guess I meant not seriously considering. He may act like he is to get his family off his back, but at the end of the day, he will be back on the court.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> As long as Sloth posts about Curry, it's not a problem. As long as someone posts about another POSTER, it is.



sloth has a consistent history of hyperbole and faux "insider" information that frankly is irresponsible. he has been warned by myself and spongy and tb#1 numerous times to provide links. it's one thing if it is his opinion, we are all allowed, and the different opinions are what make this message board run, however, he makes stuff up out of thin air and the fact that you seemingly are encouraging this type of post is discouraging to me. 

i just don't want anyone to think that what he reports about eddy is fact because it is not.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

this thread is getting alittle out of hand and off topic ...and yet i am curiously drawn in ....

da grinch wonders things like "why would curry want to play 6 more years to earn 22K more in pension when he is supposedly sitting on 10 mil." thats like bill gates working at the microsoft call center for some xtra cheddar , it doesn't make much sense (to me anyway) with a heart ailment.

thats the only sloth question i have at the moment.

and onto more serious and on topic 

scott may here is an article that is dealing mostly with curry and irregular heartbeats in athletes.

http://www.hughston.com/hha/a_16_4_4.htm



> Cardiac causes
> The most common causes of sudden death are congenital abnormalities of the heart and blood vessels, or those that are present at birth. These abnormalities usually produce no symptoms and are disproportionately prevalent in African-American athletes. The most common cause of sudden death is hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (Fig. 1), *an excessive thickening of the heart muscle that can lead to an irregular heart rhythm called ventricular fibrillation*. During ventricular fibrillation, numerous chaotic electrical discharges to the chambers of the heart (400+ per minute) result in no blood being pumped.



http://www.kcchronicle.com/SportsSection/pro/286126838362310.php



> Cummings, Hakeem Olajuwon and Aaron McKie all played with irregular heartbeats, but they had the more common condition of atrial fibrillation. *In the case of Lewis – and Curry – the irregularity is ventricular, meaning it affects the lower chambers of the heart and is considered more serious. *
> Smedira said Curry theoretically could play with a pacemaker or defibrillator if he has a cardiomyopathy-induced irregular heartbeat. He also could have a surgical procedure to reduce the thickness of his heart wall.


chicago sportswriters say its nothing basically and act as if curry is just a risk in name only , that isn't the case imo.

for one i find it extremely unlikely curry's condition would be such a big deal if it was nothing , players having irregular heartbeats, or athlete's hearts are nothing new, they generally are given a little rest and some medication and off they go, and they are insured no problem.

that hasn't happened with curry, so the question is why?

i take the enlarged heart as nothing and didn't even mention it because i believe it just doesn't matter one way or the other.

but the irregular heartbeat is what i think is the sticking point, not because of what it is , but where it is, where he has it isn't common and the 2 athletes associated with it have not had happy endings .

i give curry's management team enough credit to be able to find insurance if it was simply paxson trying to lower curry's value and delay his ability to market himself to other teams, i dont think it would have worked, Leon rose isn't a rookie agent he knows the game and he is more experienced at negotiating than paxson is.

in the end it makes little sense for all this to continue without some relevancy, the problem is deciding where and when the points get sticky, i in my opinion find the ventricular nature of his arrhythmia to be the smoking gun here.

somehow the bulls doctor's and the isurance company doctor's have decided curry is atypical, despite what mike mcgraw and company says, atypical enough for the bulls to most likely basically have curry for another season with no hold onto him afterwards ...atypical enough for that season curry to have to go uninsured....and atypical enough for tech9 to grace us with his presence and inform us that there is retirement talk within curry's inner circle.

and this is why i believe what i posted earlier.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> sloth has a consistent history of hyperbole and faux "insider" information that frankly is irresponsible. he has been warned by myself and spongy and tb#1 numerous times to provide links. it's one thing if it is his opinion, we are all allowed, and the different opinions are what make this message board run, however, he makes stuff up out of thin air and the fact that you seemingly are encouraging this type of post is discouraging to me.
> 
> i just don't want anyone to think that what he reports about eddy is fact because it is not.


If you don't like reading his posts, ignore them. Use the ignore feature in usercp ( hint: guests, this is a great benefit for signing up :biggrin: )

I'm not encouraging him to make up stuff. For all I know, there's people who like his stuff, and I don't judge it.

And maybe it is a good idea to air this stuff out in public...


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> If you don't like reading his posts, ignore them. Use the ignore feature in usercp ( hint: guests, this is a great benefit for signing up :biggrin: )
> 
> I'm not encouraging him to make up stuff. For all I know, there's people who like his stuff, and I don't judge it.
> 
> And maybe it is a good idea to air this stuff out in public...




Surely lying is breaking the site rules?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I just wanted to comment in my mod capacity and say that I think Sloth is entitled to share whatever he wants. It is up to us to take what he says as a reliable source or with a grain of salt. I am pretty sure most of us have decided that it should be the latter. Still, if he believes what he is saying, whether it be fact or not, who are we to tell him he shouldn't be allowed to share his insights (or lack thereof) with the community here?

I've never advocated censoring or banning someone because their "inside" information wasn't as "inside" as they claim it to be. I think we all need to take a step back here and take sloth's opinions and insights for what they are without piling on him.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

I'd rather read the somewhat off-the-wall posts from a creative youngster than arrogant, patronizing blather any day.

Let sloth post what he wants. As long as he’s not insulting other posters or being excessively inflammatory, there is not a problem. I happen to enjoy his posts.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> chicago sportswriters say its nothing basically and act as if curry is just a risk in name only , that isn't the case imo.
> 
> for one i find it extremely unlikely curry's condition would be such a big deal if it was nothing , players having irregular heartbeats, or athlete's hearts are nothing new, they generally are given a little rest and some medication and off they go, and they are insured no problem.
> 
> ...


This is spot on.

We can speculate until we are blue in the face (or arthritic in the typing fingers) about what we think are the % chances Eddy will experience heart problems, based on what we've read in the papers. Frankly, I think the medical info that has been released is sketchy and contradictory enough that we, as members of the public, can't state with any real certainty exactly what caused the arhythmia in the forst place, let alone place odds on whether the condition will resurface, or whether it is a sign that he could become seriously incapacitated, or whethr he could even drop dead on the court.

The fact is, the underwriters for the league's insurer had Eddy's medical info, and wouldn't assume the risk for 80% of his contract -- and apparently, it doesn't matter whether its a multi-year deal, or just the +/- $5.5M QO.

And neither would any other traditional insurer.

And it appears Metlife isn't jumping at the chance.

And even the epitomy of takers of unusual risks -- Lloyds of London, isn't in any hurry to cover Eddy either.

That speaks volumes. The professionals who examine risks for a living seem to have a healthy dose of concern about Eddy's ability to play without causing harm to himself. If they didn't, they would autorize writing a policy, in exchange for a big, fat premium. But apparently, the _entire_ insurance industry is in agreement that Eddy isn' a good risk.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I recommend that one of the mods prune this thread and move all the policy discussion to a new and dedicated thread.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> This is spot on.
> 
> We can speculate until we are blue in the face (or arthritic in the typing fingers) about what we think are the % chances Eddy will experience heart problems, based on what we've read in the papers. Frankly, I think the medical info that has been released is sketchy and contradictory enough that we, as members of the public, can't state with any real certainty exactly what caused the arhythmia in the forst place, let alone place odds on whether the condition will resurface, or whether it is a sign that he could become seriously incapacitated, or whethr he could even drop dead on the court.
> 
> ...


I don't know, guys. Outside of the essentially clueless Marlen Garcia, every journalist covering this story has written that Curry was diagnosed by three of the world's best heart doctors as having athlete's heart, an essentially benign syndrome that would probably turn up in hundreds of NBA players if their hearts were subjected to the same testing Curry's gone through. Two of the doctors cleared him outright; the other cleared him pending the results of a DNA test. 

And whether or not insurers are jumping at the chance to underwrite Eddy's contract has absolutely no bearing on his medical outcome. Insurers are wrong all the time. Whoever decided not to insure Zydrunas Ilgauskas's last max deal cost his or her company a small fortune in premiums. Same with Quentin Richardson and Alonzo Mourning and any of the other Trustmark-excluded contracts. Similarly, Trustmark took a bath on insuring Terrell Brandon, Allan Houston (probably), Luc Longley, and any of the other medically-retired contracts they decided NOT to exclude. 

I think the important thing to take away from this particular conversation is that Curry's not being able to find insurance is NOT tantamount to his not being able to play, period. Guys have taken the court without insurance before, and Curry can do the same if it comes down to that.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> I recommend that one of the mods prune this thread and move all the policy discussion to a new and dedicated thread.




i am not authorized to do this. i suggest that if you want it done, do it yourself.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> scott may here is an article that is dealing mostly with curry and irregular heartbeats in athletes.
> 
> http://www.hughston.com/hha/a_16_4_4.htm
> 
> ...


I read the links. The first one equates ventricular tach with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Curry doesn't have hypertrophic cardiomyopathy; he has athlete's heart. This is the diagnosis of three of the world's foremost heart doctors who've earned their stripes PRECISELY on the basis of being able to distinguish athlete's heart from HCP. The second link equates Reggie Lewis and Eddy Curry on the basis that both suffered from ventricular tach but ignores, once again, the structural basis of such an arrhythmia. HCP/cocaine-induced cardiomyopathy cause ventricular tach. Athlete's heart does not. That fact, a thorough examination of Eddy's heart and heart rhythm, and the failure of the arrythmia to reappear has led the experts and the Bulls' doctors to conclude that Eddy's irregular heartbeat was a fluke, perhaps caused by stress, caffeine, diet, or something else from the laundry list of possible reasons presented by Dr. Weber at the initial press conference.



> in the end it makes little sense for all this to continue without some relevancy, the problem is deciding where and when the points get sticky, i in my opinion find the ventricular nature of his arrhythmia to be the smoking gun here.


So you're going to take your own word over that of the world's foremost experts in this field. That's okay, I guess, but I have to say it reminds me a little bit of Carl Everett's disavowal of dinosaurs and Neil Armstrong.



> somehow the bulls doctor's and the isurance company doctor's have decided curry is atypical, despite what mike mcgraw and company says, atypical enough for the bulls to most likely basically have curry for another season with no hold onto him afterwards ...atypical enough for that season curry to have to go uninsured....and atypical enough for tech9 to grace us with his presence and inform us that there is retirement talk within curry's inner circle.
> 
> and this is why i believe what i posted earlier.


Point of clarification -- the Bulls' own doctors have cleared Curry. Everyone's cleared Curry with the qualified exception of Dr. Maron. And I've addressed the insurance angle in another response to TB. As for why there's talk of retirement in the Curry camp, if it exists at all, I'd say it's borne out of frustration and misplaced fear in relation to the recent sudden deaths of a few athletes who died from conditions that Curry doesn't have.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

ace20004u said:


> I just wanted to comment in my mod capacity and say that I think Sloth is entitled to share whatever he wants. It is up to us to take what he says as a reliable source or with a grain of salt. I am pretty sure most of us have decided that it should be the latter.


Exactly.

If you don't know not to believe him, you probably deserve to receive misinformation.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

I recommend that we sticky this sum***** and highlight all the bickering.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I read the links. The first one equates ventricular tach with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Curry doesn't have hypertrophic cardiomyopathy; he has athlete's heart. This is the diagnosis of three of the world's foremost heart doctors who've earned their stripes PRECISELY on the basis of being able to distinguish athlete's heart from HCP. The second link equates Reggie Lewis and Eddy Curry on the basis that both suffered from ventricular tach but ignores, once again, the structural basis of such an arrhythmia. HCP/cocaine-induced cardiomyopathy cause ventricular tach. Athlete's heart does not. That fact, a thorough examination of Eddy's heart and heart rhythm, and the failure of the arrythmia to reappear has led the experts and the Bulls' doctors to conclude that Eddy's irregular heartbeat was a fluke, perhaps caused by stress, caffeine, diet, or something else from the laundry list of possible reasons presented by Dr. Weber at the initial press conference.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


the funny thing is despite you apparently positive nothing is wrong , i still am not . Athlete's heart doesn't cause dizzy spells, which led to the doctors finding out about all this in the 1st place, so despite what you want to believe there is more to it.

and while i am casting aside some medical experts , you have chosen to do the same with the insurance industry who assess this kind of risk for a living.(so it may have premature to compare me to carl everett, seeing as you are guilty of the same crime)

the only difference is if i am so wrong and everyone should believe the medical minds that say there is nothing wrong with curry, then why has no one who matters done so , why has no one jumped at curry? 

he was before all of this supposed to make more than dalembert and chandler, but now his immediate prospects are the QO.

wouldn't the individual teams who also should respect these minds(apparently the best in the field) be chomping at the bit to take a player who is 22 years and the best center free agent prospect before all of this began?

especially at a discount. 

yet ...nothing.

i ask why.

and i never disputed the bulls doctors clearing him i do however raise a question as to why did it take so long if its nothing more than an irregular heartbeat?

aaron mckie sat out 2 games with an irregular heartbeat in dec. got some medication and was back out there curry on the other hand missed over 20 games counting playoffs and even if the bulls stayed in the playoffs untill the finals he wouldn't have played.

why was there a difference in treatment?

teams take players without insurance all the time , for parts of their body, Big Z cant get insured for his feet now and he is getting 36 mil. for 4 years , Q cant get insurance for his back and got 6 years 45 mil. last offseason.

yet curry gets apparently the QO , does that make sense to you if there is nothing to this?

i think you should allow for the possibility you may be off on this one.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

My take on the sloth situation:

Personally, I find it irritating to read posts that exist largely in a land of make-believe. I would use the ignore option if I didn't feel as a Mod I need to read posts by everyone. I don't have any problem with sloth's positions. He clearly is a passionate Bulls and Eddy Curry fan, and I admire that. What bothers me is the constant framing of his opinion as definitive fact. I have no problem with a poster saying "I think Eddy will come back because he needs the money." I find it unentertaining and unethical to post that you have intimate knowledge of Eddy's decision-making process when in fact that is not the case. 

Personally, I don't understand why sloth can't just post from a normal perspective and stop pretending to be Eddy's buddy. I'd imagine for the regulars on this board, most people just eventually ignore the speculation. However, for new users and guests on the board, I don't think having this false information presented as fact is a good thing. 

Aside from what should or should not be allowed, however, I just think it would be a great decision on sloth's part to post honestly. He clearly knows a thing or two about hoops and loves his team. However, I would imagine the majority of posters will dismiss his valid points due to his consistent lies and hyperbole. It's the boy who cried wolf.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

jnrjr79, great post from the "newbie" mod.

While I still say that anyone who believes sloth deserves to be misinformed, you are 100% dead on that new posters (or readers who aren't even signed up yet) can't be impressed when they know that he is "allowed" to just make stuff up. IMO, it doesn't look good on bbb.net for the new readers.

A lot of people read boards for information, and if fabrications are allowed to be posted as fact without reproach, those people will read other boards for their information. Which can't be good for bbb.net at all.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

A lot of people read the board for entertainment, too. 

FWIW, Sloth's most recent post about the ramifications of the NBA pension for Curry was about as good an analysis as ANYONE here posts:



> Is it really crazy to say that a man that loves playing basketball, who has been cleared to play by two of the nations top specialist, and wants some extra money to cover for his past money mismanagement? What about his future? His pension is small right now from the NBA. The NBA Pension plan, at least under the old CBA was 306.34 a month times the number of seasons the player has played in the NBA. Eddy has played 4, so he will be getting a little over 1,200 under the old CBA at least, it depends if they made increases under the new one or not. Odds are, all this talk is just either A. His Family Worrying over the football death this week or B. Some uneasiness over how long it is taking to get a new contract worked out. I'm not saying that it isn't a possibility that he retires, just a highly unlikely one.


There are clearly some people irritated by his style, but there are also some who don't seem to mind it at all:




ace20004u said:


> I just wanted to comment in my mod capacity and say that I think Sloth is entitled to share whatever he wants. It is up to us to take what he says as a reliable source or with a grain of salt. I am pretty sure most of us have decided that it should be the latter. Still, if he believes what he is saying, whether it be fact or not, who are we to tell him he shouldn't be allowed to share his insights (or lack thereof) with the community here?
> 
> I've never advocated censoring or banning someone because their "inside" information wasn't as "inside" as they claim it to be. I think we all need to take a step back here and take sloth's opinions and insights for what they are without piling on him.





kukoc4ever said:


> I'd rather read the somewhat off-the-wall posts from a creative youngster than arrogant, patronizing blather any day.
> 
> Let sloth post what he wants. As long as he’s not insulting other posters or being excessively inflammatory, there is not a problem. I happen to enjoy his posts.





bullsville said:


> Exactly.
> 
> If you don't know not to believe him, you probably deserve to receive misinformation.


FWIW, there's an old saying about the internet that should apply here, IMO:

"If you read it on the internet, it must be true."


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Well...points have been made, for better or worse.

I think Pile On Sloth Day can come to a close.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> A lot of people read the board for entertainment, too.


Outstanding point, I hadn't even considered that sloth could actually have "fans". But you are 100% correct, he does. 



> FWIW, there's an old saying about the internet that should apply here, IMO:
> 
> "If you read it on the internet, it must be true."


Wait, it's not? What are you saying? I don't have the right to believe everything I read?

You're a lawyer, right? You know this country has reached the point that someone could sue bbb.net for "supporting lies" (or whatever made-up crap the ambulance-chaser pulls) by one of their posters. You know, the old "I suffered mental anguish because sloth said Eddy was OK and bbb.net didn't stop him from saying it" plaintiff action?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

bullsville said:


> You're a lawyer, right? You know this country has reached the point that someone could sue bbb.net for "supporting lies" (or whatever made-up crap the ambulance-chaser pulls) by one of their posters. You know, the old "I suffered mental anguish because sloth said Eddy was OK and bbb.net didn't stop him from saying it" plaintiff action?


DaBullz has a respectable profession. I'm the scurvy dog with the legal license to steal hanging on the wall.

But I still tell my mother I play piano in a whorehouse.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

and no, bbb.net, inc. is not going to be legally liable for "supporting lies" or for any mental anguish from reading a post.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> DaBullz has a respectable profession. I'm the scurvy dog with the legal license to steal hanging on the wall.
> 
> But I still tell my mother I play piano in a whorehouse.


I knew you were a lawyer, but I thought you told your mom you were a homosexual prostitiute instead? My bad.

DaBullz said something once to make me think he was a lawyer (either that or I shouldn't have opened this last beer). 

I'm sorry, DaBullz, we disagree on many things Bulls but I would NEVER, NEVER EVER go so low as to call you a lawyer.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

bullsville said:


> I knew you were a lawyer, but I thought you told your mom you were a homosexual prostitiute instead? My bad.


That's what I tell her I do as a hobby, instead of helping run this ship of fools.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Piling it on lawyers is a LOT more fun than piling it on Sloth.

Lawyers are so low... they're lower than whale turds, and THEY sit on the bottom of the ocean.

They're so low... they can play handball against the curb.

How do you tell the difference between a dead snake in the road and a dead lawyer in the road? Skid marks in front of the snake.

Ad nauseum.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Piling it on lawyers is a LOT more fun than piling it on Sloth.
> 
> Lawyers are so low... they're lower than whale turds, and THEY sit on the bottom of the ocean.
> 
> ...



Can I delete this post as a person attack against posters?

:biggrin:


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Disclaimer: I've cut and pasted your post out of order to more efficiently address your points.



Da Grinch said:


> the funny thing is despite you apparently positive nothing is wrong , i still am not . Athlete's heart doesn't cause dizzy spells, which led to the doctors finding out about all this in the 1st place, so despite what you want to believe there is more to it.





Da Grinch said:


> and i never disputed the bulls doctors clearing him i do however raise a question as to why did it take so long if its nothing more than an irregular heartbeat?
> 
> aaron mckie sat out 2 games with an irregular heartbeat in dec. got some medication and was back out there curry on the other hand missed over 20 games counting playoffs and even if the bulls stayed in the playoffs untill the finals he wouldn't have played.
> 
> why was there a difference in treatment?


You're conflating the ventricular tachycardia and the athlete's heart when in Eddy's case (and most cases) one has nothing to do with the other. 

Eddy's arrythmia had been diagnosed and dismissed as nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, a benign condition that can be caused by stress, caffeine, prescription drugs, fatigue, etc. (it can also be caused by physical damage to the heart; more on that later.) Nonsustained ventricular tachycardia can cause palpitations and the sort of light-headedness Eddy complained about, but it usually resolves itself immediately and has no aftereffects. Eddy had never experienced this before the Charlotte game and he hasn't since, and after a thorough examination of his heart rhythms, all of the doctors are convinced this won't be a problem for Eddy. In fact, this was all figured out by the time the initial press conference was held.

A good laymen's write-up of ventricular arrythmias from the FDA 

Selected quotes from the Eddy press conference 

Now, on to why this took so long to figure out. Here's team doctor Brian Cole from the press conference:



> Unfortunately, these tests have come back favorably but yet inconclusive. As difficult as that may be to understand, this is a complicated issue when you're dealing with the heart. So in order to make sure that Eddy is safe to play, it's been determined by our cardiac experts that it will take an additional six weeks to have a conclusion to this where we can all feel comfortable that Eddy is safe to return to the court.


Eddy electrical rhythms turned out fine, but during the course of testing for that, they discovered his thickened left ventricle. Since some ventricular arrythmias can be brought on by cardiomyopathy or other structural problems, the doctors then focused on the thickened heart wall. Mark Estes was brought in to consult on the case, and he determined that Eddy had athlete's heart. Standard operating procedure to confirm that diagnosis is to stop the athlete from conditioning to see if the heart wall starts to return to a "normal" size. The normal timeframe is six weeks -- this is the six weeks referred to at the original press conference (Eddy's heart ended up taking longer than six weeks to de-condition).

Bottom line: comparing Eddy's procedure and treatment to people like Aaron McKie or Hank Gathers or others with completely different conditions is like comparing apples and oranges.



> and while i am casting aside some medical experts , you have chosen to do the same with the insurance industry who assess this kind of risk for a living.(so it may have premature to compare me to carl everett, seeing as you are guilty of the same crime)





> teams take players without insurance all the time , for parts of their body, Big Z cant get insured for his feet now and he is getting 36 mil. for 4 years , Q cant get insurance for his back and got 6 years 45 mil. last offseason.


I'm not guilty of the same thing in any way, shape, or form. Doctors, world-renowned or not, are professionally, ethically, and morally bound to do what's best for their patient. Even a minor lapse in judgment or a diagnosis that is less than crystal clear can be a career-destroying move for a doctor -- just ask Dr. Gilbert Mudge. Sure, there are bad doctors, and even the best doctors make mistakes, but I am going to hold the collective judgment of a group of the world's best doctors in pretty high esteem.

Insurers, on the other hand, do not necessarily have the best interests of the insured in mind. When you strip all the extraneous stuff aside, they are about profit, plain and simple. I don't see their desire for profit and desire to avoid risk as being meaningfully predictive of anything -- just look at the names I mentioned in an earlier post, some of whom you've named here. Players that Trustmark declined to insure have played out their deals without any problem; many more players that Trustmark did insure have had to retire for medical reasons. 



> the only difference is if i am so wrong and everyone should believe the medical minds that say there is nothing wrong with curry, then why has no one who matters done so , why has no one jumped at curry?





> wouldn't the individual teams who also should respect these minds(apparently the best in the field) be chomping at the bit to take a player who is 22 years and the best center free agent prospect before all of this began?


I won't deny that the heart stuff is a red flag, but I firmly believe that Curry's status as a RFA has as much to do with it as anything. I mean, you lived through Crawford's free agency; obviously, more teams than just the Knicks wanted the guy, but it's an artificially rigged market. Combine that with the health problems and Paxson's saying stuff like "'He's a restricted free agent. Everybody wants to make him an unrestricted free agent. He's a restricted free agent, and that puts the ball in our court. He's going to be back here", and is it really any surprise that Eddy's not awash in offer sheets?



> i think you should allow for the possibility you may be off on this one.


I always allow for that. All I really care about here is that you know the difference between Curry's condition and what happened to Gathers and Lewis.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Bottom line: comparing Eddy's procedure and treatment to people like Aaron McKie or Hank Gathers or others with completely different conditions is like comparing apples and oranges.


But they're both fruits! See, you're just ignoring it!
(Sorry, I was channeling Marlen Garcia there for a minute)



> I'm not guilty of the same thing in any way, shape, or form. Doctors, world-renowned or not, are professionally, ethically, and morally bound to do what's best for their patient. Even a minor lapse in judgment or a diagnosis that is less than crystal clear can be a career-destroying move for a doctor -- just ask Dr. Gilbert Mudge. Sure, there are bad doctors, and even the best doctors make mistakes, but I am going to hold the collective judgment of a group of the world's best doctors in pretty high esteem.
> 
> Insurers, on the other hand, do not necessarily have the best interests of the insured in mind. When you strip all the extraneous stuff aside, they are about profit, plain and simple. I don't see their desire for profit and desire to avoid risk as being meaningfully predictive of anything -- just look at the names I mentioned in an earlier post, some of whom you've named here. Players that Trustmark declined to insure have played out their deals without any problem; many more players that Trustmark did insure have had to retire for medical reasons.


Even more simply, Trustmark is makes decisions based on risk for known commodities. In their nitch, known commodities are things like knees blowing out, not hearts. It's not the same thing at all, and informing yourself about the risks of an entirely new and unusual form of risk is, itself, a costly activity. Why should an ensurer pay to do that when it's likely operating under a price capped, league standard policy?

That is, suppose the risk of a knee injury is 10%. Trustmark knows this because they deal with knees all the time. They don't have to spend huge amounts of money to, say, build an actuarial table.

The true risk of Curry's heart acting up could be 0.5%, but it might cost Trustmark several hundred thousand dollars of unreimbursable expense to do research and figure that out. Unlike knees, they don't deal with hearts, so they don't have much of a clue about what the risks are. And spending the money to find out might make it an unprofitable venture in the first place.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> My take on the sloth situation:
> 
> Personally, I find it irritating to read posts that exist largely in a land of make-believe. I would use the ignore option if I didn't feel as a Mod I need to read posts by everyone. I don't have any problem with sloth's positions. He clearly is a passionate Bulls and Eddy Curry fan, and I admire that. What bothers me is the constant framing of his opinion as definitive fact. I have no problem with a poster saying "I think Eddy will come back because he needs the money." I find it unentertaining and unethical to post that you have intimate knowledge of Eddy's decision-making process when in fact that is not the case.
> 
> ...


Amen. I don't really see the need to ban a 15 year old kid for this, but it's also not my cup of tea, either.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Mikedc said:


> Even more simply, Trustmark is makes decisions based on risk for known commodities. In their nitch, known commodities are things like knees blowing out, not hearts. It's not the same thing at all, and informing yourself about the risks of an entirely new and unusual form of risk is, itself, a costly activity. Why should an ensurer pay to do that when it's likely operating under a price capped, league standard policy?
> 
> That is, suppose the risk of a knee injury is 10%. Trustmark knows this because they deal with knees all the time. They don't have to spend huge amounts of money to, say, build an actuarial table.
> 
> The true risk of Curry's heart acting up could be 0.5%, but it might cost Trustmark several hundred thousand dollars of unreimbursable expense to do research and figure that out. Unlike knees, they don't deal with hearts, so they don't have much of a clue about what the risks are. And spending the money to find out might make it an unprofitable venture in the first place.


That's a great post, and it gives me one question for Scott May (being the Eddy's heart expert here).

Since 15-20% of basketball players have 'athletes heart' why have they chosen not to insure Eddy? I know they can exclude a certain amount of players, like Q and Z and Zo, but Eddy must be one of the few with 'athletes heart' not to be insured (from what we hear).

This goes back to MikeDC's post as well- he theorizes that Landmark doesn't have much experience with heart problems, but if 15-20% of NBA players have 'athletes heart', Landmark would have to have some experience in that, it seems to me. Yet I don't think 15-20% of the NBA is uninsurable, although it's certainly just a guess on my part.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> Disclaimer: I've cut and pasted your post out of order to more efficiently address your points.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Incorrect, he had some symptons long before that, it was just stronger that game. Durring the press conference, Eddy said that he had felt the funny beat before that game, and before but just that that day it was stronger so he thought it needed attention. 



> "It was just kind of a funny beat," he said. "That particular day, it was pretty strong. I felt like it deserved some attention."





> Curry said he hasn’t even considered the possibility of not playing again.


http://www.showmenews.com/2005/Apr/20050415Spor013.asp


The symptoms disappeared, how isn't that a good sign. Just had doctors a little baffled really.



> Weber said Curry isn't experiencing any arrhythmia now, and he isn't on any medication.


Bulls and the doctors wanted to eliminate any possibility of anything going wrong. Ever see the show HOUSE, kind of like that.



> "We are being cautious with this thing," Paxson said. "We have to do whatever we possibly can to eliminate any possible concern before we put him back on the floor."


He's had the condition for quite some time, and played with the condition multiple times, nothing happened to him.....just that day it was really strong.



> "It was just kind of a funny beat," Curry said. "I don't even know when it first happened. It was so subtle, it felt like it was always there. That particular day, it was pretty strong. I felt like it deserved some attention."


No supplements responsible, thats a good sign. Showed Eddy has the work ethic of a successful race horse. Got in shape fair and square.



> Though some causes have been ruled out -- Weber said no medications or supplements were responsible -- the Bulls want to know more before they clear Curry to play again.


Everything is positive, just wanted to answer some questions with additional tests.



> "Although everything has been positive, we still have some unanswered questions," Weber said. "Until we have that completely put to rest, we've opted to continue testing."


http://www.idsnews.com/story.php?id=29155



Like you said, insurers aren't looking out for people, just themselves, they want money, they are a bussiness, and I'm sure your all familiar with how those companies make money. No matter what State Farm or any of them say, they aren't there to help you like a neighbor. The doctors on the otherhand, they have to help their clients in the best interest, or A. Eddy takes his bussiness and high tab that the Bulls are paying for else where, or B. Eddy dies or is seriously injured, Eddy may have a lawsuit against the doctor, and the doctors career may be tarnished. Eddy should be fine and back on the court this season.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> That's a great post, and it gives me one question for Scott May (being the Eddy's heart expert here).
> 
> Since 15-20% of basketball players have 'athletes heart' why have they chosen not to insure Eddy? I know they can exclude a certain amount of players, like Q and Z and Zo, but Eddy must be one of the few with 'athletes heart' not to be insured (from what we hear).
> 
> This goes back to MikeDC's post as well- he theorizes that Landmark doesn't have much experience with heart problems, but if 15-20% of NBA players have 'athletes heart', Landmark would have to have some experience in that, it seems to me. Yet I don't think 15-20% of the NBA is uninsurable, although it's certainly just a guess on my part.


Trustmark could decline to insure Eddy for ANY reason, no questions asked. That's part of their deal with the NBA. So again, the correlation between Eddy's actual medical condition and his ability to get insurance is far from perfect.

Anyway, athletes with athlete's heart usually don't suffer any symptoms, and I'm guessing that the normal NBA physical includes a electrocardiogram but not an echocardiogram, which would detect athlete's heart. So most players who have it don't even know it, and all is well in the world, and there's no outward reason for their contract to be excluded from coverage. 

Curry, on the other hand, had the added complication of the ventricular arrythmia and, probably, the whole messy DNA stand-ff. These things might not have any bearing on his actual long-term health, but as Mike pointed out, they could be considered an inconvenience to an insurer, to put it charitably.

Note: I am hardly an "expert" on cardiology, insurance, or any of the other matters that have arisen in the Curry saga. Yes, my wife's a doctor, but all that's gotten me is a NEJM password and access to some cardiologists she works with who've indulged me in a couple discussions of the matter. Whatever I have to say about any of this shouldn't be considered authoritative.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

The guy has made what, at least 12 or 14 mil the last 4 years? Maybe by a successful pro athletes standards that isn't enormous, but by human standards the guy has more money than 99.99999999999999999999999 percent of the people in the world could ever dream of. Even if he has spent loads of money, he must have valuable assets worth at least as much as he has spent. What did he spend it on, 12,000,000 cheeseburgers? Might have bought friends and family things, but still must have loads of assets. 4 years ago the guy had nothing. Not like he has to live a lifestyle where he burns millions a year. Invest the millions you have wisely and you will make a lot more than most humans will make without ever having to tough the principle.

There are also opportunities for athletes outside of the game. His name will still get him endorsements, autograph sessions, possibly radio commentary. Or he could actually get a real job.

I feel bad that the kid may have to give up his dream, but I do not feel bad about his money situation. I hope he can play and he is effective and healthy.

He may end up taking the qualifying offer, play a bit, then say he has to retire. The 5+ mil is guaranteed, right? We all wish we had his money problems.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Salvaged Ship said:


> What did he spend it on, 12,000,000 cheeseburgers?


Chalupas!


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Salvaged Ship said:


> The guy has made what, at least 12 or 14 mil the last 4 years? Maybe by a successful pro athletes standards that isn't enormous, but by human standards the guy has more money than 99.99999999999999999999999 percent of the people in the world could ever dream of. Even if he has spent loads of money, he must have valuable assets worth at least as much as he has spent. What did he spend it on, 12,000,000 cheeseburgers? Might have bought friends and family things, but still must have loads of assets. 4 years ago the guy had nothing. Not like he has to live a lifestyle where he burns millions a year. Invest the millions you have wisely and you will make a lot more than most humans will make without ever having to tough the principle.
> 
> There are also opportunities for athletes outside of the game. His name will still get him endorsements, autograph sessions, possibly radio commentary. Or he could actually get a real job.
> 
> ...



Lets put it this way, Eddy was a ******* with his money the first 3 years. Flopping money around, the millions of freeloaders, buying tickets for tons of friends....er, if thats what you call them. But one thing he did was set a foundation for himself at least. He bought a house its fully furnished, bought quite a few cars, can sell those if he needs some extra cash and get a more cost friendly car. My estimates are that he has about 3 million left from his contract last year. He probaly has about 7 million left from his endorsment from Nike which was probaly around 10-12 million. He probaly would have 10 million in reserves along with his 1,200 a month pension.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> Trustmark could decline to insure Eddy for ANY reason, no questions asked. That's part of their deal with the NBA. So again, the correlation between Eddy's actual medical condition and his ability to get insurance is far from perfect.
> 
> Anyway, athletes with athlete's heart usually don't suffer any symptoms, and I'm guessing that the normal NBA physical includes a electrocardiogram but not an echocardiogram, which would detect athlete's heart. So most players who have it don't even know it, and all is well in the world, and there's no outward reason for their contract to be excluded from coverage.
> 
> ...


Thanks.

But if 15-20% of athletes have 'athletes heart', surely Landmark must know that. I think that you were saying is that Eddy's "complication of the ventricular arrythmia" is what caught Landmark's attention, so my question would be "is the vetricular arrythmia worse than normal, everyday athletes heart?".

I find it hard to believe that if it is well known that 15-20% of athletes have 'athletes heart', that the standard Landmark test wouldn't include an "echocardiogram, which would detect athlete's heart".

I can't believe that an echocardiogram would cost that much to make Landmark ignore the over 50 NBA players (15-20% of the league) that have 'athletes heart'.

And I know you are no expert, but you are way, way more well-read on the subject than me, which is why I trust your opinion.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Thanks.
> 
> But if 15-20% of athletes have 'athletes heart', surely Landmark must know that. I think that you were saying is that Eddy's "complication of the ventricular arrythmia" is what caught Landmark's attention, so my question would be "is the vetricular arrythmia worse than normal, everyday athletes heart?".
> 
> ...


Just the saga that Eddy went through last season may be enough to scare trustmark from insuring his heart. I would think trustmark would do a physical on Curry, and he'd have to provide his medical history. They're not going to look at the guy, say his heartbeat is fine for the 5 minutes the doc listens, and ignore that he missed the end of the season and playoffs, or that he's been seeing other doctors.

This would be regardless of whether other players have 'athletes heart'


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

bullsville said:


> Thanks.
> 
> But if 15-20% of athletes have 'athletes heart', surely Landmark must know that. I think that you were saying is that Eddy's "complication of the ventricular arrythmia" is what caught Landmark's attention, so my question would be "is the vetricular arrythmia worse than normal, everyday athletes heart?".
> 
> ...



No, I think Paxson making Curry sit out the last month of the season and playoffs is what caught landmark's attention. If Paxson knew the risk of Curry being unable to be insured, which would discredit the idea of Paxson triyng to drive down Curry's value, or it just proves Paxson's plan backfired, whichever you want to choose. I think it has more to do with how the problem was dealed with than the actual problem.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Thanks.
> 
> But if 15-20% of athletes have 'athletes heart', surely Landmark must know that. I think that you were saying is that Eddy's "complication of the ventricular arrythmia" is what caught Landmark's attention, so my question would be "is the vetricular arrythmia worse than normal, everyday athletes heart?".
> 
> ...


Athlete's heart doesn't have symptoms or any health risk, catastrophic or otherwise, commonly associated with it. In fact, some theories argue that it's a *good* thing; that an especially athletic heart will perform better than a heart with normal muscle thickness. Lance Armstrong, e.g., probably has an exceptionally oversized heart with supersized heart muscle. So just try to put out of your mind the notion that Trustmark would want to know which players have athletic heart syndrome and which don't. 

And the ventricular arrhythmia has absolutely nothing to do with athlete's heart. Some ventricular arrhythmias are serious; Eddy's was not.

As for why every NBA player doesn't get an echocardiogram (note: for all I know, they may), it's probably a variety of things. I think the main thing is that most serious heart problems that would be diagnosed by an echocardiogram are resolved before players reach NBA age.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

sloth said:


> No, I think Paxson making Curry sit out the last month of the season and playoffs is what caught landmark's attention. If Paxson knew the risk of Curry being unable to be insured, which would discredit the idea of Paxson triyng to drive down Curry's value, or it just proves Paxson's plan backfired, whichever you want to choose. I think it has more to do with how the problem was dealed with than the actual problem.


Paxson had absolutely nothing to do with Curry sitting down -- that was on the orders of Dr. Mark Estes, and it was/is the prudent, textbook course of action to take when diagnosing athlete's heart.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

sloth and DaBullz-

I'm sure Eddy's very public problems caught Landmark's attention right away.

That doesn't change the fact that 15-20% of the league has Eddy's condition (according to Scott May). 

Scott also said that one simple (?) test (the echocardiogram) can detect 'athletes heart'.

I can see where Eddy's situation would make Landmark take notice, but Scott May keeps assuring us that his condition is no worse than 15-20% of the players in the league.

And that makes me wonder why nobody seems interested in a sign and trade or an offer sheet for Eddy- if his condition is no worse than 15-20% of the rest of the league, I can believe some team wouldn't take a chance on him (considering the Bulls aren't being proactive with him. 

I mean where is the rest of the league- why aren't they coming after a guy who is a "dominant post scorer" since he is as healthy as the rest of the league?

And if everyone is scared off by Eddy's condition, isn't there something to it? Is the entire league that dumb that they think Eddy isn't healthy when Scott May keeps giving us evidence that he is damn near completely healthy?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> Athlete's heart doesn't have symptoms or any health risk, catastrophic or otherwise, commonly associated with it. In fact, some theories argue that it's a *good* thing; that an especially athletic heart will perform better than a heart with normal muscle thickness. Lance Armstrong, e.g., probably has an exceptionally oversized heart with supersized heart muscle. So just try to put out of your mind the notion that Trustmark would want to know which players have athletic heart syndrome and which don't.
> 
> *And the ventricular arrhythmia has absolutely nothing to do with athlete's heart. Some ventricular arrhythmias are serious; Eddy's was not.*
> 
> As for why every NBA player doesn't get an echocardiogram (note: for all I know, they may), it's probably a variety of things. I think the main thing is that most serious heart problems that would be diagnosed by an echocardiogram are resolved before players reach NBA age.


So why are some ventricular arrhythmias serious while some (like Eddy's) aren't?

As for the echocardiogram, I have a problem with the NBA's insurer not giving them to players when most players have been subject to an echocardiogram before they ever even reach NBA age. Is Landmark that cheap? Or that stupid?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

bullsville said:


> sloth and DaBullz-
> 
> I'm sure Eddy's very public problems caught Landmark's attention right away.
> 
> ...


Yeah, but 15-20% of the league doesn't have the arrythmia that Eddy had.

Some questions. How is the insurance being handled on Stromile Swift's and Juwan Howard's contracts?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> And that makes me wonder why nobody seems interested in a sign and trade or an offer sheet for Eddy- if his condition is no worse than 15-20% of the rest of the league, I can believe some team wouldn't take a chance on him (considering the Bulls aren't being proactive with him.
> 
> I mean where is the rest of the league- why aren't they coming after a guy who is a "dominant post scorer" since he is as healthy as the rest of the league?
> 
> And if everyone is scared off by Eddy's condition, isn't there something to it? Is the entire league that dumb that they think Eddy isn't healthy when Scott May keeps giving us evidence that he is damn near completely healthy?


Good question. The same could be asked about Chandler... and he does not the perceived health issues of Curry.

If Chandler is pretty much healthy and has not attracted any interest… I would not expect Curry to given the perception of his condition.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

sloth said:


> Yeah, but 15-20% of the league doesn't have the arrythmia that Eddy had.
> 
> Some questions. How is the insurance being handled on Stromile Swift's and Juwan Howard's contracts?


good question. I think Swift's tests showed he had a normal healthy heart. from hi echocardiogram 

btw : what's the dif between trustmark and landmark.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Good question. The same could be asked about Chandler... and he does not the perceived health issues of Curry.
> 
> If Chandler is pretty much healthy and has not attracted any interest… I would not expect Curry to given the perception of his condition.


Exactly right K4E, if a healthy Tyson gets no attention (from what has been reported), how can Eddy expect to get any?

The question I have is- if Tyson signs for 6 years and $64 million as is being reported, and Pax adds Songalia and Allen, what will the Pax-bashers have to complain about?

They won't be able to say that Tyson didn't get "market value", they won't be able to say that "not being proactive hurt the Bulls"...


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

spongyfungy said:


> good question. I think Swift's tests showed he had a normal healthy heart. from hi echocardiogram
> 
> btw : what's the dif between trustmark and landmark.


Trustmark is the company that insures NBA players' contracts, Landmark is a private insurance company that (so far, a month later) won't insure Eddy.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> sloth and DaBullz-
> 
> I'm sure Eddy's very public problems caught Landmark's attention right away.
> 
> ...


For whatever reason, Curry's situation is clearly not the same as 15-20% of the rest of the league. 15-20% of the rest of the league didn't sit out the end of last season and the playoffs. 15-20% of the rest of the league gets insured.

I'm aware of ScottMay's analysis of the situation, and it's one of a few possible scenarios that makes sense.

As you may be aware, I think Curry's career is over. I posted that about 6 weeks ago, and again today. I'm NOT a doctor, nor anywhere near as informed about the possible medical situations that Curry might actually be in. What I can see is a bunch of signs:

1) No insurance
2) No offers
3) He's not signed
4) Bulls aren't making him an offer too good to pass up
5) Bulls are only offering QO, which is only the most conservative thing Pax could possibly do 
6) Curry hasn't played since before the end of last season
7) It's getting close to the start of next pre-season
8) new information - pax seems to be looking at 2 PF types, a possible indication Chandler is moving to C and Curry's not being counted on (maybe going after Brian Grant so PRO-ACTIVELY is another similar clue)

I think everyone will have to admit ScottMay looks like a genius now if Curry signs some MLE-sized long-term deal and then plays the next 15 years and turns into a beast. The flip-side is that if Curry doesn't play another game, we all should join TB#1's "thoughts and prayers" club.

As cynical and skeptical as I have been and still remain, I posit the following. People seem to think the Bulls were generous to JWill. I think I've shown it was just business and nothing more. However, if Curry can't play anymore, it WOULD be an enormous and generous gesture if the Bulls hired him to some well-paid position that would assure his security (regardless of how much he's already earned).


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

1. Perhaps we haven't gotten the full story on Curry's health problems. Very possible.
2. Perhaps his family and he are some of the millions of people who don't understand, fear, and act irrationally when it comes to health issues.
3. There's evidence of both, i think.

As an aside, I always got the impression he had long coattails. Maybe his parents don't care about them as much as I thought. But then again, i'm pretty cynical.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Exactly right K4E, if a healthy Tyson gets no attention (from what has been reported), how can Eddy expect to get any?
> 
> The question I have is- if Tyson signs for 6 years and $64 million as is being reported, and Pax adds Songalia and Allen, what will the Pax-bashers have to complain about?
> 
> They won't be able to say that Tyson didn't get "market value", they won't be able to say that "not being proactive hurt the Bulls"...


I'll give you an answer. You surely won't like it. :biggrin:

Songalia and Allen aren't exactly Tim Duncan. They've never been good enough to start anywhere, and they may end up having to start for us. Is that what you call a success? really, the pro-management camp is thumping their collective chests as if we signed Garnett for the vet minimum or something.

Yes, it's nice that we filled some holes in our roster. 

It's CERTAINLY a great thing if Pax re-signs Chandler (what took so long?). Did anyone expect him NOT to re-sign Chandler? Haven't we been talking on these boards for the past 3 years about how Chandler (and Curry) were going to get MAX contracts when their time came?

The whole pro-active thing is about trading Eddie Jones for Antoine Walker, Jason Williams, and James Posey, and now has a real chance to sign Finley (who's basically the perfect replacement for Jones). All this with a team over the cap and just the MLE and LLE to use, like us. ALL-STAR TALENT.

The whole re-active thing is about ending up with your pick of all the players no other team wanted to sign. NOT ALL-STAR TALENT.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> For whatever reason, Curry's situation is clearly not the same as 15-20% of the rest of the league. 15-20% of the rest of the league didn't sit out the end of last season and the playoffs. 15-20% of the rest of the league gets insured.
> 
> I'm aware of ScottMay's analysis of the situation, and it's one of a few possible scenarios that makes sense.
> 
> ...


No doubt, I am right there with you. Eddy's situation is obviously not equal to the rest of the 15-20% of the league that has 'athletes heart', Eddy brought up his irregular heartbeat that caused him to miss so many games, I know for a fact that 15-20% of the league hasn't missed games due to an irregular heartbeat.

I agree that Scott May is the most informed and well-read on this board when it comes to Eddy's situation. 

And I agree that his scenario makes perfect sense.

But I also agree that your bullet points all point to Scott May being wrong about Eddy's heart being "absolutely fine" (direct quote).

Now maybe he is right and the Bulls' actions (withholding a positive diagnosis) are nothing but a ploy.

But if he is right, the ploy is pretty freaking effective, as it seems like nobody else in the league has any interest in Eddy.

I can't believe that the entire league would let the Bulls fool them about Eddy, the rest of the league has access to the exact same tests as the Bulls.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> I'll give you an answer. You surely won't like it. :biggrin:
> 
> Songalia and Allen aren't exactly Tim Duncan. They've never been good enough to start anywhere, and they may end up having to start for us. Is that what you call a success? really, the pro-management camp is thumping their collective chests as if we signed Garnett for the vet minimum or something.
> 
> ...



So you would have spent all of our cap space on 'Toine, White Chocolate and Posey? Assuming we could have traded AD for that bunch? 

First of all, there is no ALL-STAR TALENT in there, 'Toine used to be but I certainly don't want to see him on the Bulls. Why do you think the Celtics didn't want him back? All-Star talent, NBDL head (just like Jamal, which explains to me why you would want him).

And with Chandler/Curry (maybe)/Othella/Songaila/Allen plus Deng/Nocioni/Hinrich/Duhon/Gordon, what use do we have for 'Toine, JWill and Posey? 

I just thank the Good Lord that Pax is our GM and he isn't interested in guys like 'Toine and JayWill when we have guys like Deng and Hinrich and Gordon and Duhon and Nocioni and Chandler and...

Ah, screw it, I'm wasting my time. This argument can't be decided until the season is over, just like the Jamal trade. We traded him for junk and doubled our win total, let's just wait and see what the Heat do this season.

I do know that I thank God we don't have to deal with 'Toine or JayWill on our team.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> I can't believe that the entire league would let the Bulls fool them about Eddy, the rest of the league has access to the exact same tests as the Bulls.


My analysis differs only in this one point.

If Curry were 100% healthy and had never had his heart issues, the rest of the league might still not show interest in Curry. His QO is > MLE, so that eliminates all but a few teams who could make him an RFA offer.

Maybe Philly could have let Dalembert go and tried to sign curry. Or maybe they think Dalembert is better or a better fit. I'd be inclined to accept either.

Cleveland made a huge move to get Hughes, and was able to resign Z. To date, Z has been the superior player.

Atlanta might have made a move for Curry, but it looks more like Curry wasn't interested. Or maybe Atlanta wasn't interested. After all, if Cap Space is good for Pax, it's also good for Atlanta.

If some team wanted to trade for Curry, it's ugly because of BYC. And because Pax might demand too much in trade. And because Pax might simply match. Again, the benefit of Cap Space would mean even a MAX deal for Curry (and chandler, too) wouldn't hurt our ability to sign a MAX FA next summer.

All that is IF Curry is really able to play.

It's also possible that Curry might just sit out a year and become a FA. I think that's what would be the case. I'm just throwing this out there, maybe I'm wrong about him being able to be UFA.

If Curry can't play, it seems to me that Pax should try to trade him. He'd be an expiring contract if the NBA doctors say he can't play. He doesn't help the Bulls since they can just not sign him and gain the cap space that way. I'm throwing this out there, too. Maybe this isn't happening because: 1) Bulls will re-sign him and he will play or 2) he really can play after all, and the bulls could get nowhere near good value in a trade (BYC, etc.)

...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> So you would have spent all of our cap space on 'Toine, White Chocolate and Posey? Assuming we could have traded AD for that bunch?
> 
> First of all, there is no ALL-STAR TALENT in there, 'Toine used to be but I certainly don't want to see him on the Bulls. Why do you think the Celtics didn't want him back? All-Star talent, NBDL head (just like Jamal, which explains to me why you would want him).
> 
> ...


You missed the point, entirely.

Given just the MLE and LLE, like us, Miami was able to make those kinds of moves. Comapred to signing Allen and Songalia. If all Miami did was amnesty cut Jones and then sign Finley, we'd all be saying they stayed even. They effectively stayed even and got Walker, JayWill, and Posey for the MLE. They added Walker, White Chocolate, and Posey to Wade and Shaq and Moruning and Haslem (equally if not more impressive a bunch than our players you listed).

Perhaps a better example of pro-active is getting Zo as a backup for the playoff push instead of Funderburke.

Isn't it obvious that Allen and Songalia are players that wouldn't make most other teams? You can't get _further_ from all-star talent than that.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

^^^That all may well be true, I will just say that if Eddy were 100% healthy at least we would know what the league thought of him. Jamal could get no more than the MLE, but Isiah still gave us the veteran bench we needed plus ate JYD's contract for us in exchange for Jamal.

Unfortunately, that's Isiah, and it certainly isn't fair to judge the rest of the league based on what he has done.

But I agree that Eddy would have much higher value if not for the health questions. From what we have read, he doesn't even have any sign and trade value right now, which certainly wouldn't be the case if he were healthy.

I know that you know my opinion on Eddy, it's been well documented- before the summer, I thought that it was easily a case of Pax not wanting Eddy long-term and that he would take the best trade he could get for Eddy.

Unfortunately, his irregular heartbeat has thrown an wrench into everything, while I thought Eddy was worth much less (when healthy) than most here, he certainly isn't going to fetch much in his current condition.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> If Curry were 100% healthy and had never had his heart issues, the rest of the league might still not show interest in Curry. His QO is > MLE, so that eliminates all but a few teams who could make him an RFA offer.


I've been trying repeatedly to make this point. RFA is just as scary as a heart problem, it seems.

This is my last post on this thread, so I just wanted to sum up with the following: I am basing my assumptions on nothing more than a careful reading of the media articles about Curry, most importantly the names, reputations, and writings of the doctors who've examined him. Assuming that everything we've heard is true, and there are no other significant underlying factors, it seems that not only the insurers but Curry's camp itself doesn't truly grasp Eddy's condition and realize that it's very, very benign.

I went back to double-check Maron's 15-20% estimate -- I can't find it right now, but here's another article that cites him which provides not only a great description of the differential diagnosis between HCP and athlete's heart, but suggests that it wouldn't be surprising to find athlete's heart to some degree in EVERY NBA player. 

http://www.physsportsmed.com/issues/2002/07_02/puffer.htm



> In Brief: Patients who participate in regular vigorous or strenuous physical activities undergo significant changes in cardiac structure and function. Occasionally, these changes may be confused with those of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). Differentiating between athletic heart syndrome and HCM requires careful examination. ECG and echocardiograms may be helpful, but other techniques such as detraining can also be useful in resolving the issue. Detraining produces regression of cardiac features in patients with athletic heart syndrome, while enlarged cardiac features remain unchanged in those with HCM.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Here is my summary:

Athlete's heart may be typically benign, but there seems to be more going on here.

Either that, or the Trustmark underwriters are sadly misinformed. And the underwriters at every other potential insurer are misinformed. And Curry's people are misinformed. And the league, collectively, is misinformed.

As I recall, Eddy, a rare true center, was supposed to generate some noise in the FA market this year (yes, I know Pax announced he'd match any offer). The only team in the league that made any move for Eddy was Atlanta -- even once it became clear that the Bulls were spooked, and just may go back on that "match any offer" stance.

Since it seems that a team looking for a Center (and the bulk of the teams in this league could use the services of a rare, young, true center) had at least a decent chance of taking him off the Bulls' hands, as the Bulls were misinformed and thought there was a health risk that didn't exist, a heart savvy team had a pretty good shot at stealing him away -- perhaps at a good price.

So...the list of people who are supposedly grossly misinformed about the degree of risk involved in Eddy's heart condition -ie. no risk, because it is a very common, benign condition -- includes Eddy's people, the entire insurance industry, the Bulls, and the entire league, save for Atlanta.

Or perhaps, the athlete's heart, which we've known he has had, going back to April, when he had to decondition to allow the heart thickening to subside, is not the whole story. Either that, or Eddy is really getting a disservice from literally hundreds of insurance and sports management professionals, who's job it is, with the aid of the medical experts, to understand these things, and who presumably have more complete information than Lacy Banks or John Jackson have been able to pass along.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Kismet said:


> Eddy can't get inssured. Its that simple. The moment he steps on the court with the consent of an NBA team and keels over and dies you'll have his entire family taking thr Bulls and the NBA to court. Unless Curry signs a deal absolving the particicipating team and the league from all wrongdoing, Eddy won't be playing anywhere.
> 
> Think of this also. A DNA Test would clear uo a lot of misgivings, right? My thought is that he did have the tests run and the reslults weren't favorable.
> 
> The Bulls will proceed with the 05/06 season filling Curry's spot by committee...Harrington, Malik Allen, maybe even an Uncle Cliffy (as Dore likes to call him). The goal will be to buiuld towards '06 when the Bulls may become a major free agent player. But the days of Eddy curry impacting an NBA game are over.



Isnt the last sentence just a tad harsh mate?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Here is my summary:
> 
> Athlete's heart may be typically benign, but there seems to be more going on here.
> 
> ...


Maybe if Pax announced he wanted to sign and trade eddy, we would be talking about how Caron Butler fits in our rotation right now.

:whoknows:


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Outside of the sloth comments, this is really a great thread. Major props to ScottMay for his highly detailed analysis of Eddy's specific situation. I know I've learned alot, and I only wish SOMEBODY in the Chicago media could've put forth a better analysis than they have already.

Nonetheless, I wish I could share ScottMay's optimistic prediction for Eddy Curry's playing career. You make a great argument that he'll be able to resume a normal playing career for a long time, and you will look like a genius if that comes to happen. I just can't shake the feeling that all the people close to Eddy's situation still express doubt, in some form or another. I suppose it's only natural when a health issue like this comes up to be as cautious as possible, so maybe that's all that's happening with this retirement talk. But still, I'm a bit worried for Eddy's sake that the rigors of an NBA season, at some point, will bring back the same symptoms that made him sit out 3 months of basketball. 

Frankly, I don't think Eddy should retire just yet given the information ScottMay has given us. It sounds like the worst case scenario would be if Eddy experienced dizziness again, sits out for another extended period, goes through tests again, and then makes a decision to retire. The chances of him dying on the court don't sound any higher than anybody else in the NBA. That's why I think Eddy should take a 5-year deal where the first 2 years are guarenteed, and the last 3 kick in if his health remains ok. That just sounds like the best possible compromise for both Eddy and the Bulls. If nothing goes wrong, as the professionals (and ScottMay) have predicted, then Eddy reaps the benefits of a full 5-year contract. If something DOES go wrong (which is a very small chance), at least Eddy has the guarenteed money to fall back on.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ScottMay isn't a doctor. He plays one on TV and he stayed at Holiday Inn last night.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> ScottMay isn't a doctor. He plays one on TV and he stayed at Holiday Inn last night.


Didn't he also just save a bunch of money on his car insurance?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

What I'm reading lately:

http://www.westmarine.com/webapp/wc...01&langId=-1&catalogId=10001&productId=161265


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> What I'm reading lately:
> 
> http://www.westmarine.com/webapp/wc...01&langId=-1&catalogId=10001&productId=161265



Is that why you have a sailboat as your avatar?


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally Posted by* Kismet *
> Eddy can't get inssured. Its that simple. The moment he steps on the court with the consent of an NBA team and keels over and dies you'll have his entire family taking thr Bulls and the NBA to court. Unless Curry signs a deal absolving the particicipating team and the league from all wrongdoing, Eddy won't be playing anywhere.
> 
> Think of this also. A DNA Test would clear uo a lot of misgivings, right? My thought is that he did have the tests run and the reslults weren't favorable.
> ...


Thanks Kismet. I was getting the same feeling as time passed on. When I saw that Atlanta, with all of their cap money, never made an offer to Eddy, nothing at all, I became alarmed. As time goes by it looks more and more likely that either Eddy will play for the QO or he is done with. 

Damn shame. The kid could score and had a post up game that was one of the best in the league.

Also this could be the second player in a short period of time that the bulls have had that wasn't able to play. What are the odds of that? Reminds me a little of Boston, expect their players were not so close together and of course, Eddy is still alive and Jay Williams is too. I am referring to the fact the bulls may have lost two players with nothing back in return.


----------

