Thats not my point. The Bulls traded Curry to gain caproom, and with that flexibility, signed Ben Wallace. Noone can argue that having that caproom was not a good thing, because it obviously was. What I am argueing is the generally held notion that the Bulls trade to the Knicks involving Curry was the move that turned them into a championship contender. This is not about the coach, GM, mascot or assorted other oddbods. Its simple. Did the trade with the Knicks make the Bulls a team capable of winning a championship?

I say no. Why? Because the trade they did with us REMOVED a vital piece neccessary to winning the ring. Yes, Ben Wallace is a vital piece, and they needed him too to win. But my point is, so is Curry, especially on a team with so many perimeter threats. So the trade was one where they picked up a vital piece towards a championship, but also lost a vital one. Equillibrium.

Forget the picks for the moment because they are not a part of this conversation. By the time Tyrus Thomas is ready to contribute (if he is ever ready to really be a star, of which I have my doubts), Ben Wallace will be in real decline, simply because of his age. So, they traded Curry=caproom=Ben Wallace. Curry for Wallace. Anyone would do that trade, at the moment. But did it help them towards a ring? I say no. They would have been in a much better position trading oh, Hinrich or Nocioni for caproom and then signing Wallace to play up front with Curry. If you wanted to go a step further one could argue that they would have actually been in a better long-term position sticking with Curry and Chandler, considering Tysons performance this past season.

So did the Knicks help the Bulls towards a ring? No. Regardless of whether you think the Bulls or Knicks got the better deal (talent-Knicks, flexibility-Bulls), the Knicks removed a vital piece to the championship puzzle while providing them the ability to obtain another vital piece. As I said, equillibrium.

I have no interest in going back through old threads to see what people said. I have a life. Not much of one, granted, but I feel like I have to maintain the illusion at least. But you cant pretend that all the "Isiah has won the championship for the Bulls" rhetoric never happened. And you agree that people said that the Bulls were on the right path, and would get over the hump with the help of a few more moves. Im saying that in fact, trading(figuratively) Curry for Wallace was the WRONG move, and will NOT benefit them in the long run. So, yeah, MAN UP!

The upshot of this from a Knicks perspective is to also show that we are one defensive power-forward away from being a real threat in the Playoffs. Crawford plays the Gordon role, Marbury/Mardy(with a jumper) play the hinrich role, Lee-Nocioni, Q-Deng, plus we have Balkman, Malik, Nate and possibly Frye if he grows a pair. A healthy K-Mart could do the trick. Sadly there isnt a healthy K-Mart in the League, but there are a few other possibilities. Dalembert, Foster heck maybe even Stromile Swift. Nice to know we might have a future.

Posted by alexs:

The Bulls would have lost to Miami if they had Curry in there taking up space and being his usual sieve on defense. Even a gimpy Wade would have gone to the basket at will against him and Curry wouldn't have had a talent or size advantage over Shaq

Can't stop yourself, can you? Man take a break, live has a lot to offer if you dare trying it out, have a look outside maybe the sun is shining, it's not all about Knicks you see.

Since you can reply to every single post with that response, I'm surprised you picked just this one. Its a fan forum. This is the wrong place to tell someone to stop talking Knicks.

[Edited by - silverfuel on 05-11-2007 05:55 AM]

Posted by firefly:

Thats not my point. The Bulls traded Curry to gain caproom, and with that flexibility, signed Ben Wallace. Noone can argue that having that caproom was not a good thing, because it obviously was. What I am argueing is the generally held notion that the Bulls trade to the Knicks involving Curry was the move that turned them into a championship contender. This is not about the coach, GM, mascot or assorted other oddbods. Its simple. Did the trade with the Knicks make the Bulls a team capable of winning a championship?

I say no. Why? Because the trade they did with us REMOVED a vital piece neccessary to winning the ring. Yes, Ben Wallace is a vital piece, and they needed him too to win. But my point is, so is Curry, especially on a team with so many perimeter threats. So the trade was one where they picked up a vital piece towards a championship, but also lost a vital one. Equillibrium.

Forget the picks for the moment because they are not a part of this conversation. By the time Tyrus Thomas is ready to contribute (if he is ever ready to really be a star, of which I have my doubts), Ben Wallace will be in real decline, simply because of his age. So, they traded Curry=caproom=Ben Wallace. Curry for Wallace. Anyone would do that trade, at the moment. But did it help them towards a ring? I say no. They would have been in a much better position trading oh, Hinrich or Nocioni for caproom and then signing Wallace to play up front with Curry. If you wanted to go a step further one could argue that they would have actually been in a better long-term position sticking with Curry and Chandler, considering Tysons performance this past season.

So did the Knicks help the Bulls towards a ring? No. Regardless of whether you think the Bulls or Knicks got the better deal (talent-Knicks, flexibility-Bulls), the Knicks removed a vital piece to the championship puzzle while providing them the ability to obtain another vital piece. As I said, equillibrium.

I have no interest in going back through old threads to see what people said. I have a life. Not much of one, granted, but I feel like I have to maintain the illusion at least. But you cant pretend that all the "Isiah has won the championship for the Bulls" rhetoric never happened. And you agree that people said that the Bulls were on the right path, and would get over the hump with the help of a few more moves. Im saying that in fact, trading(figuratively) Curry for Wallace was the WRONG move, and will NOT benefit them in the long run. So, yeah, MAN UP!

The upshot of this from a Knicks perspective is to also show that we are one defensive power-forward away from being a real threat in the Playoffs. Crawford plays the Gordon role, Marbury/Mardy(with a jumper) play the hinrich role, Lee-Nocioni, Q-Deng, plus we have Balkman, Malik, Nate and possibly Frye if he grows a pair. A healthy K-Mart could do the trick. Sadly there isnt a healthy K-Mart in the League, but there are a few other possibilities. Dalembert, Foster heck maybe even Stromile Swift. Nice to know we might have a future.

That's pretty damn hysterical that in one breath you discredit the Bulls as capable of being a championship contender and then in your next breath you say that the Knicks are one defensive PF away while comparing them to the Bulls. So would K-Mart be filling the Wallace role or Thomas role?

Again, nobody said the Bulls were a championship contender at this moment. But the Curry trade isn't even completed yet and we don't know whether or not the Bulls will use components of it to finish their still unfinished championship puzzle.

You're like Don Quixote fighting windmills. You're imagining that people said things and then crowing about how you think those people are wrong.

Bulls are making progress every year since they have gone to rebuilding.

They are a work in progress and have a very bright future.

Pistons are the class of the east for now and perhaps another year.

Knicks are no where close to the bulls regarding the present and the upside.

Ty Thomas is a 20 year old with massive upside. Immature and still raw.

The Bulls have one need (a low post scorer) and a lottery pick and cap room to address that need. We have dozens of needs and a very limited ability to address them. I can't imagine any serious person who was not a Knick fan choosing our situation over the Bulls'.

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 05-11-2007 09:28 AM]

I'm not a Bulls fan, but I think that franchise is headed in the right direction. I think in general they've made smarter moves than the Knicks have.

They are definitely getting exposed by the Pistons, but they are still on an upward path, I think, and in a very good position to make moves going forward.

So, yeah, I think I'd rather see the Knicks in that type of situation.

The Detroit Pistons are a veteran team with skillz and athletic ability and heart.

Chicago is everything above except "Being a Veteran Team".

All NBA players get the jitters and even more so, a young team in the playoffs feeling the (we got to win)at home pressure.

Only one other team has what detroit has and that's the San Antonio Spurs and these two will meet in the 2007 NBA FINALS

Posted by islesfan:

Nobody said that the Bulls as presently constructed are a championship team. I dare you to find anybody on this board that said that.

People said they thought that the Bulls were on the right path and close to getting over that hump with the help of a few more moves. There is nothing to suggest that that isn't the case.

The Pistons ARE a championship team right now and they're playing like they're on that mission. Teams at the top usually beat teams still climbing to get there. Like the Pistons teams that had to get past the Celtics, like the Bulls teams that had to get past the Pistons and like the Knicks teams that had to get past the Bul...oh wait, nevermind.

The Bulls would have lost to Miami if they had Curry in there taking up space and being his usual sieve on defense. Even a gimpy Wade would have gone to the basket at will against him and Curry wouldn't have had a talent or size advantage over Shaq. On offense the Bulls would have been standing around while they waited for Curry to make a move and not pass out to their shooters.

Thats Bull! Curry is the missing piece for this perimeter oriented team with the hole in the middle. Gordon, Hnrich and Deng are terrific perimeter defenders who would be able to protect Curry on the other side of the ball. Not to mention Chandler is the ideal PF to pair next to Curry. Help defense, shotblocking, rebounds, hutles plays etc. The Bulls beat the aging Heat with or without Curry.

Posted by Solace:

Wrong, bigbeast. Curry's pathetic excuse for defense = losses. Case in point, the New York Knicks.

Curry's Lee's pathetic excuse for defense = losses. Case in point, the New York Knicks. Is this accurate too?

[Edited by - bigbeast on 05-11-2007 10:15 AM]

[Edited by - bigbeast on 05-11-2007 10:15 AM]