Strange Chicago rumor

frosgrim · February 12, 2008

In terms of trading Lue/Z/Sheldon for Curry, I think that is a good deal for the Hawks. Curry could start against the bigger centers and then Horford comes off the bench. Essentially, with Curry, the Hawks can have a 3 man rotation at center.

In terms of re-signing Childress. I would like to see him stay on the team, but if an SnT appears that brings back a guy that can create his own shot, then I am all for it.

mrhonline · February 12, 2008

You want to trade BOTH Zaza and Shelden for Curry?

Did none of you read mf's description of how detrimental he can be to a team? Key word - detrimental.

I'm not sure I've seen a big man more overrated on here since Martynas Andriuskevicius.

TheNorthCydeRises · February 12, 2008

Quote:

In terms of trading Lue/Z/Sheldon for Curry, I think that is a good deal for the Hawks. Curry could start against the bigger centers and then Horford comes off the bench. Essentially, with Curry, the Hawks can have a 3 man rotation at center.

In terms of re-signing Childress. I would like to see him stay on the team, but if an SnT appears that brings back a guy that can create his own shot, then I am all for it.

Two good points. I can't disagree at all. Interesting point on the Chill SnT idea. That's a scenario that few have talked about. And you're right about starting Curry against big centers. That may be the best option in that type of situation.

DrReality · February 12, 2008

Exec: Knicks Trying To Deal Curry, Randolph

February 12, 2008 - 5:33 am

New York Daily News -

Several league executives who have spoken to the Knicks in recent days have confirmed to the New York Daily News that Eddy Curry and Zach Randolph are definitely up for trade.

According to columnist Mitch Lawrence, it is unclear what Isiah Thomas is asking for in return.

"The problem is that Zach still is seen as the Zach Randolph from Portland - he's got baggage - and people wonder if this is it for Eddy," said one executive. "And, they've got some rough contracts."

Curry has struggled for much of the season.

"The question is whether he's regressed or, is this it, he's not getting any better?" said the executive. "You have to remember, when Eddy came out of Chicago, he was regarded as someone who did not like to work and who did not like basketball. So do you blame Zach's presence, or do you say, Eddy doesn't have the upside the Knicks thought he had? In either case, the experiment with Zach has not worked."

The Knicks are hoping to hold onto David Lee, Nate Robinson and Jamal Crawford in any trade. [READ]

http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/508...curry_randolph/

TheNorthCydeRises · February 12, 2008

Quote:

You want to trade BOTH Zaza and Shelden for Curry?

Did none of you read mf's description of how detrimental he can be to a team? Key word - detrimental.

I'm not sure I've seen a big man more overrated on here since Martynas Andriuskevicius.

Curry does one thing well, and that is score in the post. You don't ask him to be the main option or be some defensive stopper in the middle. He'd basically be our version of Big Z, with a low post game, that we don't have here.

Or a better comparison would be to compare him to a one-dimensional player like Wally Szczerbiak. Wally is a shooter, but not much more than that. On the right team, surrounded by the right players, Wally could thrive as that extra scoring threat, without having the pressure of trying to be "the man", or even the 2nd or 3rd option.

Centers are grossly overpaid in this league. I'd rather have Curry, and get some type of production at that position, than to keep Zaza amd Shelden, and get nothing.

mrhonline · February 12, 2008

North, there's absolutely NO indication that Curry would be both willing to play a limited role on a team like the Hawks and capable of being successful at it.

He has had one successful season as a good post scorer, and that only happened because he was the #1 option on an awful team. And even then he was a HUGE defensive liability and killed the ball movement on offense.

And, again, adding a post scorer who doesn't pass out of double teams to a team with one primary shooter is a recipe for disaster. And, again, Curry made a mockery of the Hawks when he was a free agent. And, again, the Hawks' biggest need on offense isn't a post scorer, it's a perimeter shooter.

It's not going to happen.

mudderfudder77 · February 12, 2008

Quote:

Mudder thanks for the insights on the Bulls. As I said from the outside it looks like some very poor management over the past couple of years. In terms of signing Ben, I can't reemember who else was available, but the results have been poor.

No doubt. Its been like "the perfect 'shite' storm" this season. The Ben W signing is going to set the Bulls back at least a season if it doesn't get taken care of. The positive for the Bulls is that there are only 2 more years left on his deal - so even if they have to put up with him for one more season he then becomes an expiring. Not ideal, but its better than nothing.

Quote:

In terms of poor coaching, I think Mike Woodson and the guy you have are neck and neck on stupid coaching moves.

I don't know, our coach is still playing Ben W 30 minutes a game while Noah rides the bench. Thats pretty [censored] stupid.

DrReality · February 12, 2008

I agree that Curry would not accept the role of coming off the bench. Then he'd be a malcontent that causes problems and cost a lot of money.

If you remember his trip here when he was a FA was not exactly what I'd call a 'perfect match.'

mudderfudder77 · February 12, 2008

I just wanted to add one more thing about Curry - courtesy of another poster on the Bulls board.

Quote:

No team, no organization, no collection of players, no coach, has ever had a season with Eddy Curry where the team scored more points per 100 possessions with him on the court than with him off of it. Offensively, the one constant in every single season of Eddy Curry's career is that his teams perform better offensively with him on the bench.

And notice I haven't even touched on defense yet. But I will just real quick - it plays out the same as the offense. Every team he's played on gives up less points with him on the bench than with him on the court.

In sum, over the course of his entire career he's been a net negative for his team on both ends of the court. That is the very definition of being a bad basketball player.

exodus · February 12, 2008

Quote:

I just wanted to add one more thing about Curry - courtesy of another poster on the Bulls board.

Quote:

No team, no organization, no collection of players, no coach, has ever had a season with Eddy Curry where the team scored more points per 100 possessions with him on the court than with him off of it. Offensively, the one constant in every single season of Eddy Curry's career is that his teams perform better offensively with him on the bench.

And notice I haven't even touched on defense yet. But I will just real quick - it plays out the same as the offense. Every team he's played on gives up less points with him on the bench than with him on the court.

In sum, over the course of his entire career he's been a net negative for his team on both ends of the court. That is the very definition of being a bad basketball player.

LOL wow that is a pretty serious indictment of Curry game, or lack thereof.

February 12, 2008

Quote:

I just wanted to add one more thing about Curry - courtesy of another poster on the Bulls board.

Quote:

No team, no organization, no collection of players, no coach, has ever had a season with Eddy Curry where the team scored more points per 100 possessions with him on the court than with him off of it. Offensively, the one constant in every single season of Eddy Curry's career is that his teams perform better offensively with him on the bench.

And notice I haven't even touched on defense yet. But I will just real quick - it plays out the same as the offense. Every team he's played on gives up less points with him on the bench than with him on the court.

In sum, over the course of his entire career he's been a net negative for his team on both ends of the court. That is the very definition of being a bad basketball player.

LOL wow that is a pretty serious indictment of Curry game, or lack thereof.

Pervasive stats like that I cannot argue with. There are others on the big man list more worthy. We need someone bad but not someone bad for the team. If Curry can't even make our offense better. No taker here.

W

Johnnybravo4 · February 12, 2008

We said the same thing about Diaw and JT and we'd die to have both back in some capacity (maybe not Diaw)

The truth is that the Bulls haven't developed a decent big man in 20 years. They squandered half of Tyson Chandlers career, they have made Wallace into a stiff, and Ty Thomas has not developed whatsoever. So I take their opinion with a grain of salt.

mudderfudder77 · February 12, 2008

Quote:

We said the same thing about Diaw and JT and we'd die to have both back in some capacity (maybe not Diaw)

The truth is that the Bulls haven't developed a decent big man in 20 years. They squandered half of Tyson Chandlers career, they have made Wallace into a stiff, and Ty Thomas has not developed whatsoever.

So I take their opinion with a grain of salt.

What opinion? Those are facts son. Eddy Curry, in every year of his professional career, has been a net negative - offense and defense. Look it up - www.82games.com

And for the record - Elton Brand and Brad Miller both progressed nicely in Chicago. Thanks again Jerry Krause.

Packfill · February 12, 2008

Quote:

Yeah, I heard about that last night. Paxson really messed up that team. Imagine if they still had Chandler how good they would be right now.

Yeah - taking them to the playoffs three straight years (after 6 years of embarrassing play) and having them picked as Eastern Conference contenders at the beginning of this year - what was he thinking?

Well, if Chandler had played anything like he played his last year in Chicago - probably not very good. Chandler had given up on Chicago - he wasn't going to go to the next level there.

Oh, and lets not forget that Chris Paul isn't playing in Chicago - I think he might have a little something to do with Tysons offensive improvements.

But you can't ignore the really bad choice in signing Ben and then the subsequent poor play this year. I will defer to your insights on why the Bulls are playing so poorly this year, but from the outside it looks like Paxson made some very bad moves over the past couple of years.

This isn't to say Paxson is in the BK realm of goofy moves by any means, by the by.

In hindsight the Big Ben signing was terrible, but at the time it was the best option. Chandler had just come off the worst season of his career and had played historically bad in the playoffs - all of this after being rewarded with a new contract.

The Bulls had the caproom, and couldn't roll it over to the next offseason because of the Hinrich extension and Nocioni RFA. They went and signed the best FA on the market at a position of need. The Bulls frontcourt was absolutely atrocious, and it was thought that Ben could stabilize it.

Because of The owners edict on salary, Paxson was forced to trade Chandler after signing Ben. Chandler had been given 5 years in Chicago and aside from one good season had been a pretty big disappointment. I actually like Chandler, he seems like a good kid, but he was done in Chicago. Whehther it was the pressure of being traded for Brand or the new contract - who knows. The trade did light a fire under him though and he did things he never did in Chicago (like hire a trainer and a nutritionist)

In retrospect the Big Ben signing was obviously a mistake, but to Pax's credit he only signed him to a 4 year deal that also declines each year. Big Ben's contract expires the same season that Lebron, Wade, and the rest of the big FA's become available. Its doubtful we sign them, but it is possible that Bens contract becomes a valuable expiring - like Kwame was this season.

Why are the Bulls playing so bad this season? There are a multitude of reasons, some of which include injuries (to Deng, Gordon, and Hinrich) Big Bens suckitude, coaching, and two players response to not signing a new contract (Deng and Gordon).

Skiles had given up on the team, and in his place Pax hired an assistant as the interim. This assistant has shown himself to be quite possibly the stupidest coach in the history of the NBA. His substitutions are maddening and predictable. He plays the veterans until their legs fall off - even when the younger players behind them have proven themselves to be better.

Deng and Gordon have been out for extended periods, and Hinrich has been missing games of late. These three guys account for almost 55 points a game.

Big Ben sucks, and even though Noah has proven to be a better player Ben is still playing 35+ minutes a game.

In general it seems like everything that could go wrong has gone wrong.

So what your saying is the new interim coach is exactly like Woodson!

We know your pain!

mudderfudder77 · February 12, 2008