# Eddy Curry vs. The #2 Pick



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Well, who would you take #2?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Uh oh.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

It's really close. If we pick right I think we'll come out on top in the deal. If we don't pick right, we won't. Curry, in the right situation, could still be very good.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The Curry of today vs any of these guys? 

Curry, no doubt.

We need a center. We know we can be a winning, better team than last year with Curry. He's still plenty young and can contribute NOW and play under Skiles. The health issue was a non-issue. I'd take Curry.

One of the other guys may end up being more valuable than Curry... but good centers are rare and I'll be damned if I could tell you with any certainty which one of the other big men will end up more valuable than Curry.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

I am still going with Bargnani, due to more upside and creating mismatches. From a best player perspective, gotta go with Gay as 2nd choice, then Morrison, then Thomas, Aldridge, then Roy. From a needs perspective, it'd be Aldridge, Thomas, Bargnani, Gay, Morrison, Roy. I'm not going to compare Curry to this, cause he's already played in the NBA while we have no idea how the rest of these guys will transition into the NBA. Curry isn't dominant, while I think that some of these guys could turn out to be real stars. At least you have the potential to get a superstar with these guys, where you already know Curry isn't one.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

:laugh:

This here thread is a piece of fat red meat being thrown to a bunch of lions that haven't eaten in two weeks. I'll bet anything it ends up being locked.

_(and...haven't we discussed this before?)_


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

jbulls said:


> It's really close. If we pick right I think we'll come out on top in the deal. If we don't pick right, we won't. Curry, in the right situation, could still be very good.


Thats what I was thinking, if we draft Roy or Thomas, I think we pretty much lose, but Gay and Morrison, well, both look like their going to be stars to me. Aldridge and Bargnani both have promising offensive traits, so it'd be close one could be better, but we know Curry can get you 17 and 7 with good defense, and his rebounding weakness is covered up by guys like Nocioni, Deng, Hinrich, Chandler who are all good rebounders.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

One more thing to think about if this is some sort of evaluation of that trade, is that we might get another high pick next year if we get lucky and NY sucks real bad again and we get another top pick. Definitely have to wait at least 3 more years before we see how that trade works out completely. Gotta factor in how Curry does in those years, plus both of the NY picks (if we do indeed get one from them again next year) and have to give both picks each at least 2 and probably 3-4 years to develop so we know what we got out of them. I personally think by the time it's all said and done, with a little luck we'll come out ahead in the trade....a lot of that depends on getting a high pick next year again though, unless we just strike it rich this year with the #2.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

jbulls said:


> It's really close. If we pick right I think we'll come out on top in the deal.


We made playoffs. We get number 2 pick. We have cap room. They got player they craved.

There is no 'bottom' or 'loser' in this deal.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

sloth said:


> Thats what I was thinking, if we draft Roy or Thomas, I think we pretty much lose, but Gay and Morrison, well, both look like their going to be stars to me. Aldridge and Bargnani both have promising offensive traits, so it'd be close one could be better, but we know Curry can get you 17 and 7 with good defense, and his rebounding weakness is covered up by guys like Nocioni, Deng, Hinrich, Chandler who are all good rebounders.


 Sloth, you voted for Rudy Gay! Eddy Curry's your boy, you can't turn your back on him now! Where's the loyalty?


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

Eddie Curry is a bad NBA basketball player. He might be big; he might have all kinds of post skills. But its been 5 years, and he still can't rebound, play defense, or even pass out of the double team (which is the entire point of having a post player (draw the defense and rotate for an open shot)). Take the #2 pick and be happy Chicago fans.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

SeaNet said:


> Eddie Curry is a bad NBA basketball player. He might be big; he might have all kinds of post skills. But its been 5 years, and he still can't rebound, play defense, or even pass out of the double team (which is the entire point of having a post player (draw the defense and rotate for an open shot)). Take the #2 pick and be happy Chicago fans.


That was kinda my point about why we should take the #2 and run, cause we might get a superstar, rather than a 1 dimensional player like Curry. Sure we were a better team with him, and he might be better than whoever we take, but at least we have a pretty good chance at getting someone better in the draft. I'm not saying Curry is bad by any means though, just that he isn't a stud. There's 2 points to having a post player, much more than drawing the defense as you said. Someone to prevent layups, dunks, close shots by the other teams, and also to draw in defenders opening it up for the guard/forwards.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Eddy Curry knowing what we know now, or what we knew of Eddy before the 2001 draft. In that case #1 easily (I thought Eddy should have went #1 in 2001).

Now, I can't be sure he's be better than Morrison, Gay, Aldridge or Bargnani. All have big upsides.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> Eddy Curry knowing what we know now, or what we knew of Eddy before the 2001 draft. In that case #1 easily (I thought Eddy should have went #1 in 2001).
> 
> Now, I can't be sure he's be better than Morrison, Gay, Aldridge or Bargnani. All have big upsides.


I agree with this. Picking blind, I might be tempted to go for Big Ed.

Knowing what I know now, I might take him with the #16.

Knowing what the league knows now, he might be available there.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

sloth said:


> ......but we know Curry can get you 17 and 7 *with good defense*.....


:laugh: :laugh:



> , and his rebounding weakness is covered up by guys like Nocioni, Deng, *Hinrich*, Chandler who are all good rebounders.


:laugh: :laugh:

Keep reaching. :laugh:


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I agree with this. Picking blind, I might be tempted to go for Big Ed.
> 
> Knowing what I know now, I might take him with the #16.
> 
> Knowing what the league knows now, he might be available there.


Rep issued.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Nope. Won't reach much beyond 4 or 5 pages.

Dead this thread is. Miz is sharpening her locking tool as we speak.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> The Curry of today vs any of these guys?
> 
> Curry, no doubt.
> 
> ...


I will be probably minority in this regard and remind you I am not that big of Alridge fan. But I think Aldridge today will have more impact on game's W/L than Curry today.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

you know what? i think this is a very valid topic.

won't get locked by me.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

So far, it looks like Aldridge is #1 in this poll because of our need for a big man, that is first off, also why Big Ed is #2 here. Eddy has a more polished offensive game, but can't pass out of the post, thats his biggest weakness, we all know he can boxout, and plays good post defense, but passing out of the post was what kept him from being a star. He could have been a 22 ppg guy easily if he could just pass out of the post. If Eddy could pass out of the post, he'd get assist numbers, and it would make the other team not be able to double and triple him (although he does score out of those good) but when he is being single covered he can score at ease. One of the nice luxuries of Eddy was that when he got the ball with position, no one short of Yao Ming could stop him from dunking it. That is one thing we don't get in Aldridge. But with Aldridge, we get a superior jumpshot, and also a nice array of post moves, and good size as well. Aldridge is a better defender than Eddy, and a better rebounder. But if the ship hasn't sunk on Eddy on fixing his passing out of the post, he'd be the easy pick, he isn't going to get the help he nees in New York, and his idiot trainer doesn't help him either (sadly, this is the best trainer too). If Eddy would have worked with Skiles in the Berto in the summer, and worked on this he could have improved, but I'm not all convinced that Skiles noticed it. We could definitely have used Bill Cartwright. Eddy and Tyson were both superior offensively under Cartwright, he'd be a good pickup to sit next to Skiles. Also, a good pickup for the Bulls would be BJ Armstrong. Not only would he be a good coach for Ben Gordon, but he'd be an excellent scout next to John Paxson leading up to the draft to be in there in the workouts. 

Rudy Gay is the guy I think will be the best player from this draft. But if I had to pick the best big man from this draft, it'd easily be Aldridge.


----------



## PowerWoofer (Jan 5, 2006)

Even after an entire year of not seeing him in a Bulls jersey, my vote still goes for Curry. The guy could dunk, and ferociously. No one except for maybe Deng when his game is on, and Tyson when he has no one on him can do what Curry did *at will*.

If we were to get Curry at #2, I'd say he could have been the steal of the draft, but let's be honest, Toronto would pick him #1 for sure, because they need a true center, and Curry would have been their man.

In all honesty, I hope Aldridge falls to us, and that Pax picks him, because we need a frontcourt. People say we need guards, but we have scoring at the guard spots. Although Hinrich needs a bigger guard to pair with, it's easier to find big guards than it is to find good post players.

So I say stop campaigning for Roy, and let's get Big Al (Aldridge). I want a post player. Hopefully Pax does too.


----------



## animalthugism (Aug 23, 2005)

Eddy would've been #1 in this years draft


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> I will be probably minority in this regard and remind you I am not that big of Alridge fan. But I think Aldridge today will have more impact on game's W/L than Curry today.


Given your low opinion of Curry expressed in the past, that's not saying much.




----



animalthugism said:


> Eddy would've been #1 in this years draft


I agree that Curry would be the likely #1 pick this season.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

I like Curry, but the "Curry would be #1 in this year's draft" argument is a little silly to me. No highly regarded 7 footers stay 4 years in college. And if ANY of them did, they'd probably go first. Tyson Chandler might've gone first in this year's draft if we're going to use that logic. Or Kwame Brown.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jbulls said:


> I like Curry, but the "Curry would be #1 in this year's draft" argument is a little silly to me. No highly regarded 7 footers stay 4 years in college. And if ANY of them did, they'd probably go first. Tyson Chandler might've gone first in this year's draft if we're going to use that logic. Or Kwame Brown.



So, you agree that he'd be the likely #1 pick in the draft? At least very much in the running?

Players like Curry get drafted young... no doubt about it. 

I don't think today's Tyson Chandler or Kwame Brown go #1.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> So, you agree that he'd be the likely #1 pick in the draft?
> 
> Players like Curry get drafted young... no doubt about it.
> 
> I don't think today's Tyson Chandler or Kwame Brown go #1.


You don't know how they would've developed in college, any of them. Curry went third out of the three when they came out of high school. If Dwight Howard had stayed in school a couple years he'd have gone number one this year. What's the point of this argument? Gerald Green might be as highly regarded as Rudy Gay if he'd gone to school for a year. I just don't get the point of this argument. Personally, as much as I like Curry - and I do - I really hope that one of these guys can do better than 13 and 6 in their 5th NBA season. If we draft right, we're going to get a better player than Curry IMO.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jbulls said:


> I really hope that one of these guys can do better than 13 and 6 in their 5th NBA season. If we draft right, we're going to get a better player than Curry IMO.


Given the head start in development that everyone in this draft has, college/international exp and age, yah, I hope so as well by the 5th season.

If we draft a guy that is our leading scorer and plays the 2nd most MPG on a team that has the 3rd best record in the east, I'll be happy... although we had to wait, wait, wait.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Given the head start in development that everyone in this draft has, college/international exp and age, yah, I hope so as well by the 5th season.
> 
> If we draft a guy that is our leading scorer and plays the 2nd most MPG on a team that has the 3rd best record in the east, I'll be happy... although we had to wait, wait, wait.


It bums me out to even have to have this argument, because I like Eddy Curry, but way to totally skew Curry's contributions. Leading scorer? Yes, 16.1 per game. Woo! Second most MPG? Yeah, 28.7 MPG. Wow! 

It's totally within the realm of possibility that Thomas, Aldridge or Bargnani or whoever else will be averaging over 16 points a game and 28 minutes a game in a pretty short amount of time. Thomas and Aldridge are sure bets to be better on the defensive end and on the glass.

It also totally galls me to hear you repeatedly bring up the 3rd best record in the east garbage given how dismissive you were of "Grizzlies East" during that season and off-season. If you're going to knock it then, you can't pine for it now.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jbulls said:


> It bums me out to even have to have this argument, because I like Eddy Curry, but way to totally skew Curry's contributions. Leading scorer? Yes, 16.1 per game. Woo! Second most MPG? Yeah, 28.7 MPG. Wow!


And I think you try to skew the argument by using 13 and 6... clearly we used Curry better than the inept Knicks organization.





> It also totally galls me to hear you repeatedly bring up the 3rd best record in the east garbage given how dismissive you were of "Grizzlies East" during that season and off-season. If you're going to knock it then, you can't pine for it now.


Fair enough.... although, at this point, I do pine for 47 wins and home court in the 1st round. I thought that we would have defeated the Wiz if healthy.... and that we were one trade away from contending. At the end of that season, I was pretty excited about the following season... expecting growth... not regression... that was all pre blow up though. Here's hoping we can get back there.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> And I think you try to skew the argument by using 13 and 6... clearly we used Curry better than the inept Knicks organization.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If 47 wins and home court is what's going to make you happy, I think you'll find that you are by the end of next season. A year's more experience from our core, a really, really high lottery pick, and cap space should get us 6 more wins next year. I'd be really surprised if it didn't.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

jbulls said:


> If 47 wins and home court is what's going to make you happy, I think you'll find that you are by the end of next season. A year's more experience from our core, a really, really high lottery pick, and cap space should get us 6 more wins next year. I'd be really surprised if it didn't.


I'd be surprised if we didn't get at least 47 wins next year too. ASSUMING that we don't trade away any of our starters, we draft a good player (which is pretty likely at #2) and pick up guys we can reasonably expect to through free agency. So that's basically just saying if we have a good offseason, nothing great, but not one where we lose a lot. All in all, by the time this whole trade scenario is said and done, especially if we get another high pick from NY next year, we'll come out ahead, though it might've set us back temporarily to move further ahead in the long run.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> I'd be surprised if we didn't get at least 47 wins next year too. ASSUMING that we don't trade away any of our starters, we draft a good player (which is pretty likely at #2) and pick up guys we can reasonably expect to through free agency. So that's basically just saying if we have a good offseason, nothing great, but not one where we lose a lot. All in all, by the time this whole trade scenario is said and done, especially if we get another high pick from NY next year, we'll come out ahead, though it might've set us back temporarily to move further ahead in the long run.


Yup, assuming we don't draft Roy at #2, we should improve.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Sloth. A topic that is doomed to generate some heated discussion should be saved for a more boring time. We have other things to discuss that are less contentious and more topical.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

sloth said:


> Yup, assuming we don't draft Roy at #2, we should improve.


LOL, we agree there. He'd be my 6th choice at best for our #2 pick. 3 of them are real close in my eyes, but they're all forwards, which is a position of strength. Bargnani, and then Gay and Morrison are pretty much tied for 2nd with me. Aldridge fills a bigger need, but idk if he's as good as the other 3, and Thomas would be good, but at 6'8" that's pretty small for a PF, plus he's really raw. I guess time will tell....at least the draft is less than 2 weeks away now.


----------



## Mark_R (May 1, 2006)

From another perspective, I highly doubt Eddy Curry's numbers in NY make Chicago miss him.. He will never put up numbers for the amount of money he's making. (also with those who pine for Eddy to have stayed in Chicago, I am curious as to how the payroll and such would be structured. Being a newbie, I'm unsure of what people's plans were.) There's not enough ball in NY to go around with the chuckable SG's (another reason I wouldn't mind a Frye for Gordo swap...) for Eddy to hurt the Bulls.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I would take any of the top 6 prospects in the draft over Curry. So I didn't vote. There wasn't an option for "all".

My opinion is like TomB's with some clarification - if Curry were a rookie being paid a rookie wage and knowing what I know about him now (as opposed to what I wouldn't know about him on a real draft day), I'd absolutely take him with that 16th pick. Shoot, I'd probably take him with the 7th or 8th pick so long as he's on the rookie deal for 4 years. Bring him off the bench for some post scoring spurts. I'd like him in that role. 

But if it were at the salary he's making now, I wouldn't even draft him in the second round.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I'd like to clarify and expand upon my opinion somewhat.

I think given the hypothetical that Eddy is coming out this year in the draft, you take him for the same reason we took him at #4. He would be a big, wide body with lots of p...p...p...potential, and we wouldn't yet know any better.


If the question is would I rather have the #2 pick or the Eddy we know on his new contract, I think the only way anyone other than Eddy's mother says Eddy is the short term fact that come November, 2006, Eddy has NBA experience and is the player more ready to go right out of the gates...if by "go" you mean an impressive scoring burst in the 1st quarter, quick foul trouble and 3 quarters of wandering up and down the court looking lost, while everything he did right early gets negated by mistakes. 

I think we've seen Eddy's best. At this point, I'd rather look at the p...p...p..otential of Roy, or any of the 3 bigs under consideration. I think any of them has at least a fair chance of being a truly impressive player capable of making their team better and helping their team win night in and night out. And all of them, save perhaps Thomas, seem to have a better hoops IQ now than Eddy has as a journeyman. Thomas' drive and alleged work ethic probably mean that he will be able to make up that learning curve and will develop more savvy than Big Ed in a relatively short period of time, so I don't sweat it as much as I could.

I look at it from the other side as well. I'd bet dollars to donuts that in private the Knicks organization would rather have that #2 pick right now. I have no doubt in my mind about that.

And that prospect of a pick swap next year on top of that must give Dolan a bleediing ulcer every time he thinks of it.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I look at it from the other side as well. I'd bet dollars to donuts that in private the Knicks organization would rather have that #2 pick right now. I have no doubt in my mind about that.
> 
> And that prospect of a pick swap next year must give Dolan a bleediing ulcer every time he thinks of it.



Do you still expect 2nd round of the playoffs and 47+ wins if the main additions are Przybilla and Roy?


16 ppg and getting the 2nd most minutes on a winning team is called p..p..p...p...roduction, BTW.

And I don't really care what the Knicks are thinking... I'm glad they were so unexpectedly bad last season though... its our only hope.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Do you still expect 2nd round of the playoffs and 47+ wins if the main additions are Przybilla and Roy?
> 
> 
> 16 ppg and getting the 2nd most minutes on a winning team is called p..p..p...p...roduction, BTW.
> ...


Great. He had one year of p...p...p...roduction in his NBA career. Sure you can blame the orgs to some extent, but I still think his production is often negated by his mistakes. And the fact of the matter is that Tyson's half season vacation from production PLUS Eddy's absence only cost us 6 wins last season. It seems fair to think if Chandler came to play right out of the blocks we would have at least come close to equaling the season before, and if we had added _any_ decent sized big man with a pulse last year, we would have been 47+. We were simply undermanned and undersized all year up front. Add to that that the addition of Eddy didn't help the Bickerknockers one bit, and it is pretty easy to conclude that the man is a 7 foot non-difference maker.

And yes, I think we have as good a chance or better to make Round 2 and 47+ wins with Roy and Gray and Pryz, or Barg and Collins and Nene or whatever combination we come up with this offseason than we would if we still had Nice Guy Eddy, for the same reasons cited above. Heck, Aldridge, Collins and Ben Wallace and we might win a second round series next year. I don't know that a team anchored by Eddy Curry will ever win a playoff series.

Hey, I know we have polar oppositve views on the value of Eddy Curry. That's just the way it is, I guess.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> I'm glad they were so unexpectedly bad last season though... its our only hope.



This is the opposite of truth. Certainly the Knicks being awful (with you know who on the team) has a directly helpful benefit to us, but it's not true that the Knicks being bad is our only hope for improvement. Not by a longshot.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> This is the opposite of truth. Certainly the Knicks being awful (with you know who on the team) has a directly helpful benefit to us, but it's not true that the Knicks being bad is our only hope for improvement. Not by a longshot.



This would be a vastly different off-season if all we had to look forward to for next season is Joel Przybilla.

The lotto pick is hope.

I wish we could go back to being a winning team, like when you know who was our leading scorer.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> This would be a vastly different off-season if all we had to look forward to for next season is Joel Przybilla.
> 
> The lotto pick is hope.
> 
> I wish we could go back to being a winning team, like when you know who was our leading scorer.


Leave Michael out of this.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> This would be a vastly different off-season if all we had to look forward to for next season is Joel Przybilla.
> 
> The lotto pick is hope.
> 
> I wish we could go back to being a winning team, like when you know who was our leading scorer.



Your comment incorrectly presupposes that all we would have next year without the number 2 pick is a shot at Joel Pryzbilla. Untrue.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Your comment incorrectly presupposes that all we would have next year without the number 2 pick is a shot at Joel Pryzbilla. Untrue.



I'm sorry, we also have a chance at Chris Wilcox... maybe.... and Drew Gooden... maybe.

I also forgot Nazr Mohammed. My bad. Difference makers.

That, and of course, the wheeling, dealing John Paxson can take advantage of Cap Space via trade. Paxson loves to deal for things other than flexibility, as we know. That, and he has a knack for falling into "found money."


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Do you still expect 2nd round of the playoffs and 47+ wins if the main additions are Przybilla and Roy?
> 
> 16 ppg and getting the 2nd most minutes on a winning team is called p..p..p...p...roduction, BTW.
> 
> And I don't really care what the Knicks are thinking... I'm glad they were so unexpectedly bad last season though... its our only hope.


it's damn tough being a bull fan......the glass is almost always half-empty! i mean the team traded/lost/gave away/banished the only big man anybody's who's a bulls fan ever loved and *yet * the team still managed to over-achieve and do as well as they did last season *without him.*; what a loss......insurmountable......

AND, there's no one on the roster any other team could possibly want (all the core guys have going for them is "jib", lol), yet there's still major sentiment that rationalizes moving the leading scorer for a 3rd straight year for kleenex, laffy taffy and some condoms. there's a big with potential at the #2 pick, but god forbid he's gonna suck azz, so let's get the safe pick, a "big" guard that's also gonna push the leading scorer out the door due to jealousy, money or conflicts with the bulls ego-maniacal, jib driven-"don't want coach any stars" coach.......

this team *will* win more games that last season, they *will* replace curry's production (production being a generous term for his game) and get 2 productive players in the draft. they'll get at least one productive FA who'll help on the inside as well.

further i do believe that if roy (not my choice) and pryzbilla are the *least * of what is obtained in the offseason, the team can win 47 games again; basically we're talking about two guys who should be capable of putting up 8 ppg each. not that difficult, and if you factor in their defensive input the team who's already leading the league in FG% against might just be more than a 47 game winner; NEXT SEASON.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> it's damn tough being a bull fan......the glass is almost always half-empty! i mean the team traded/lost/gave away/banished the only big man anybody's who's a bulls fan ever loved and *yet * the team still managed to over-achieve and do as well as they did last season *without him.*; what a loss......insurmountable......
> 
> AND, there's no one on the roster any other team could possibly want (all the core guys have going for them is "jib", lol), yet there's still major sentiment that rationalizes moving the leading scorer for a 3rd straight year for kleenex, laffy taffy and some condoms. there's a big with potential at the #2 pick, but god forbid he's gonna suck azz, so let's get the safe pick, a "big" guard that's also gonna push the leading scorer out the door due to jealousy, money or conflicts with the bulls ego-maniacal, jib driven-"don't want coach any stars" coach.......
> 
> ...


Other than my not agreeing about your opinion of Roy as a pick, that is a great post. Actually it is a great post regardless. I just happen to disagree with that one point.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ah...the Eddy Curry trade.

If we have home court in the playoffs next year and get to the 2nd round, I'll be a happy camper.

Given where we were what will be (whoa) 2 seasons ago, I think that's a reasonable goal.

I do agree with Bullhitter that the Bulls overachieved last season.

Well, not overachieved as much as outworked a lot of opponents in the regular season. That’s this team’s MO though. If you bust your tail in today's NBA and have a reasonable level of talent, you won't suck. But, as we saw during our team's losing streak last year, when Hinrich disappeared, that our squad needed to give that 110% effort every night to win.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> If we have home court in the playoffs next year and get to the 2nd round, I'll be a happy camper..


You never know what a season will bring, with injuries, other team's improvements, and so on, but I believe we have a great shot at the second round, without even knowing who we end up with yet.

I don't know enough yet to predict any homecourt advantage, but I think that despite yourself, you may end up reasonably happy with our team next year.

At least I hope so. Really, I do.


----------



## dkg1 (May 31, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> You never know what a season will bring, with injuries, other team's improvements, and so on, but I believe we have a great shot at the second round, without even knowing who we end up with yet.
> 
> I don't know enough yet to predict any homecourt advantage, but I think that despite yourself, you may end up reasonably happy with our team next year.
> 
> At least I hope so. Really, I do.


After seeing the Heat's run to the Finals (and tying the Mavs up at 2 games each), I'm a little more encouraged by the Bulls performance at the end of the year. Based on what we have coming back next year, we'll win at least 5 more games on our core improving alone. I'm hoping Deng can take his game to the next level next season, that alone would be huge. I'm really curious to see what Pax is able to get done with the cap space flexibility this summer. We've been hearing about the flexibility we're going to have, he better do something with it. We bit the bullet for one season because we traded two of our post presence, we need to come out of this offseason with at least two solid post players, IMO.

Back to the topic. I chose Aldridge because I think he will give us most of the things Eddy did, plus a jump shot. In hindsight, I'm not sure playing in his hometown was very good for Eddy. He doesn't seem like the kind of player that has the mental toughness to thrive in a high pressure market (which is why I don't see things working out for him in NY either). Given the nice contract he has, I don't see Big Ed ever having the incentive to put in the work to improve. 

During the winter, I was really intrigued by Rudy Gay. He seems to be picking up steam in these individual workouts. Do you guys think he can play the 2 on a consistent basis in the NBA? I have some reservations but of all the guys in the draft, he seems to have the skills to ultimately be a superstar at the next level.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

dkg1 said:


> During the winter, I was really intrigued by Rudy Gay. He seems to be picking up steam in these individual workouts. Do you guys think he can play the 2 on a consistent basis in the NBA? I have some reservations but of all the guys in the draft, he seems to have the skills to ultimately be a superstar at the next level.


I'd have to agree with you there about Gay being the most likely to be a superstar, but think Bargnani is right up there with him, and Morrison maybe too. I don't think that Aldridge, Roy have much chance at all of being a superstar (if any chance). Thomas has pretty impressive skills, but with his size if he stays at PF he won't be a superstar either...if he can move to SF though he has a shot.


----------



## dkg1 (May 31, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> I'd have to agree with you there about Gay being the most likely to be a superstar, but think Bargnani is right up there with him, and Morrison maybe too. I don't think that Aldridge, Roy have much chance at all of being a superstar (if any chance). Thomas has pretty impressive skills, but with his size if he stays at PF he won't be a superstar either...if he can move to SF though he has a shot.



I should have prefaced my comments by saying I've never seen Bargnani play so I really don't have an opinion on him one way or the other.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

dkg1 said:


> I should have prefaced my comments by saying I've never seen Bargnani play so I really don't have an opinion on him one way or the other.


I've seen limited amounts of him as well, but I think when he has the fundamentals, size, and athleticism that I saw on those clips he has pretty good potential to be a star. A legit 7' that can shoot, and is fairly athletic could be quite a superstar IF he develops well, while the "if he develops well" is relevant to every draft prospect.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

I don't see an option for Brandon Roy, Joel Pryzbilla, Drew Gooden, and Kevin Durant.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> I'm sorry, we also have a chance at Chris Wilcox... maybe.... and Drew Gooden... maybe.
> 
> I also forgot Nazr Mohammed. My bad. Difference makers.
> 
> That, and of course, the wheeling, dealing John Paxson can take advantage of Cap Space via trade. Paxson loves to deal for things other than flexibility, as we know. That, and he has a knack for falling into "found money."


Is Eddy Curry a difference maker? He's along the same lines as all those guys.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

Why oh why must we do this to ourselves over and over again?!


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)




----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

T.Shock said:


> Is Eddy Curry a difference maker? He's along the same lines as all those guys.


Nope, Joel Pryzbilla and Nazr Mohammad are no where close to what Eddy brings. Nene and Gooden are close, but both are restricted free agents, and we'd have to pay a ton for them, which would make it not worth it. There is one big man that sways a game more than Eddy in this free agency, Ben Wallace. 

I remember at the lottery, when the reporter asked if Paxson would give back the #2 for Curry, and Paxson said something along the lines of touching Eddy with a stick.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

sloth said:


> Nope, Joel Pryzbilla and Nazr Mohammad are no where close to what Eddy brings.


If you mean how Eddy brings acid reflux, I wholeheartedly agree. I still take the Little Purple Pill every day.

Come to think about it, perhaps being so close to Eddy every day is what wore out Tyson's esophogus.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> If you mean how Eddy brings acid reflux, I wholeheartedly agree. I still take the Little Purple Pill every day.
> 
> Come to think about it, perhaps being so close to Eddy every day is what wore out Tyson's esophogus.


No, what happened was Eddy passed the TUMS to Tyson but Tyson can't catch, and Eddy can't pass so it was a recipe for disaster.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

sloth said:


> No, what happened was Eddy passed the TUMS to Tyson but Tyson can't catch, and Eddy can't pass so it was a recipe for disaster.


LOL. I can live with that.

:cheers:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> LOL. I can live with that.
> 
> :cheers:


BTW: that is me drinking beer and you drinking lemonade. Cheers.


----------

