There be some Fine Hoes on Hunts point. I remember back in the day one Morning I was at Church early and went to the store. Then some Fine PR chick walked with her whole ass sticking out some blue stockings. I was like ......she brought some newports and left all nature, like every inch of her ass wasn't in every bodies face.............

Posted by tkf:

Posted by Bonn1997:

We took Chicago's cancerous players off their roster for them and we even gave them lottery picks and cap space in return!

And what did that have to do with this series... and you are ill informed about the cap space.. someone on realgm broke the whole thing down, a bulls fan, and as usual, you could not be further from the truth...

He broke it down nicely but he still was a little off tkf.


Curry's agent said if they were to get a deal done Curry would sign a 6yr/$60mil. The same deal Tyson Chandler got from the Bulls/Hornets S&T. That's one of the reasons the Hawks turned him away, besides him being out of shape in that they were seeking a $60-65mil contract. The same as Sam Dalembert received from the Sixers. All the Bulls wanted was a DNA test and done deal. Instead they worked a S&T trade refusing testing and he signed here 6yr/$56mil. Sham was using his contract he signed here instead of using the figure that was reportedly on the table at the time of negotiations if DNA testing would have taken place. Using that figure, (Tyson Chandler's salary) Curry would have made $9mil first yr and 2nd yr $10mil. If you add Curry's $10mil to their salary cap that off-season it would have looked like this as he pointed out except Curry's salary wouldn't be $8.2mil it would have been $10mil





Well if you add the difference which is approx $1.8mil to $40.6mil it's $42.5. The cap this yr was set at $53.5mil. Now the actual difference between Curry's 2nd yr salary to that of Sweetney, Kryhapa, and Tyrus' goes as follows....=$3.5mil



$2.7mil
$2.7mil
$1.1mil
________
$6.5mil


Well Ben signed with the Bulls for 4yr/$60mil. They frontloaded the deal to beat the Pistons offer so they wouldn't match, their deal was for 4yrs/$50-52mil. Ben's first yr salary without the frontload would have been $13.5mil or thereabouts. If you add $13.5mil to $42.5mil you get $56mil. There is no way with Curry on the books they sign Wallace for the deal he received. Now if Ben was dead set on leaving then maybe a first yr starting salary of $11-12mil would have been enough but who knows.

[Edited by - TrueBlue on 04-29-2007 7:38 PM]

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by tkf:

Posted by Bonn1997:

We took Chicago's cancerous players off their roster for them and we even gave them lottery picks and cap space in return!

And what did that have to do with this series... and you are ill informed about the cap space.. someone on realgm broke the whole thing down, a bulls fan, and as usual, you could not be further from the truth...

He broke it down nicely but he still was a little off tkf.


Curry's agent said if they were to get a deal done Curry would sign a 6yr/$60mil. The same deal Tyson Chandler got from the Bulls/Hornets S&T. That's one of the reasons the Hawks turned him away, besides him being out of shape in that they were seeking a $60-65mil contract. The same as Sam Dalembert received from the Sixers. All the Bulls wanted was a DNA test and done deal. Instead they worked a S&T trade refusing testing and he signed here 6yr/$56mil. Sham was using his contract he signed here instead of using the figure that was reportedly on the table at the time of negotiations if DNA testing would have taken place. Using that figure, (Tyson Chandler's salary) Curry would have made $9mil first yr and 2nd yr $10mil. If you add Curry's $10mil to their salary cap that off-season it would have looked like this as he pointed out except Curry's salary wouldn't be $8.2mil it would have been $10mil





Well if you add the difference which is approx $1.8mil to $40.6mil it's $42.5. The cap this yr was set at $53.5mil. Now the actual difference between Curry's 2nd yr salary to that of Sweetney, Kryhapa, and Tyrus' goes as follows....=$3.5mil



$2.7mil
$2.7mil
$1.1mil
________
$6.5mil


Well Ben signed with the Bulls for 4yr/$60mil. They frontloaded the deal to beat the Pistons offer so they wouldn't match, their deal was for 4yrs/$50-52mil. Ben's first yr salary without the frontload would have been $13.5mil or thereabouts. If you add $13.5mil to $42.5mil you get $56mil. There is no way with Curry on the books they sign Wallace for the deal he received. Now if Ben was dead set on leaving then maybe a first yr starting salary of $11-12mil would have been enough but who knows.

[Edited by - TrueBlue on 04-29-2007 7:38 PM]

That is a lot to digest, but I think the bottom line was and you touched on it. Ben was dead set on leaving.....

Posted by JrZyHuStLa:

They're haters.

Ben Wallace is more of a post presence than Curry will ever be.

Post presence is more defensive related than offensively.

Bingo!!!!!! But still, obviously the bulls were able to get past them because of the ailing Wade and an obviously old Shaq. It's over Miami. Time to rebuild. Now the bulls will have to play a REAL team. Come back to reality chicago.

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by TrueBlue:

How were they able to do this with no post presence?

Why were Curry fans telling so many other fans the Bulls overspent for Ben Wallace?

Notice how much more important defense is than offense from your PF/Cs if they give only one of the two. (Obviously good offense and defense is nice.) NONE of the playoff teams have starting PFs and Cs who both are great on offense and awful on defense but plenty have PF/Cs who are mediocre on offense and very good on defense. Isiah's got this reversed. He's focusing on the wrong things at each position.

Bonn this post should be inshrined in the ultimateknicks hall of fame when it comes to dissecting NY's chemistry woes. ^5 you go my canadian neighbor

Posted by Masterplan:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by TrueBlue:

How were they able to do this with no post presence?

Why were Curry fans telling so many other fans the Bulls overspent for Ben Wallace?

Notice how much more important defense is than offense from your PF/Cs if they give only one of the two. (Obviously good offense and defense is nice.) NONE of the playoff teams have starting PFs and Cs who both are great on offense and awful on defense but plenty have PF/Cs who are mediocre on offense and very good on defense. Isiah's got this reversed. He's focusing on the wrong things at each position.

chris webber?

Chris Webber is not great on offense he's just above average and he's an above average help/man defender in the paint. And if that's the best you can do then point proven.

Ignore the moves?

Francis, Crawford, Nate, Curry, Morris, Frye, Rose, Tim Thomas and Marbury until this year played zero defense. He overpays for the worst starter in the nba and someone that doesn't play good defense in jefferies and finaly brought in a couple of guys in the draft that are defensive minded. But didn't play them in favor of guys who are all flash.

It has nothing to do with being objective. Isiah has no plan. And I think it was clear when he made the Nazar deal. His rational was signing Nazy was going to be expensive, however he gave up a pick and took on close to 15 million a year between MO and Malik. Big deal he got two picks we moved up 4 slots on each pick for two guys that clog of roster spots.

Frye? Did you ever think he is limited and not all that good, he can't move and doesn't shoot well when he has to move, I think you seeing what he really is. He will make a few jumpers here and there but nothing special......

Why would he bother to get through to steph? Give me a ****ing break? Eddy and Jamal are two of the worst defenders in the league and until last year so was Steph. I think a lot had to do with Marbury's career being in the toilet and being booed and trashed by the entire city. He had to do something to regain any sort of fan base.....

Isiah is a joke and his moves have been pathetic. He gave up the house for crawford who is an awful player, he did the same for eddy, steph anyone he brings in the deal is laughable. Getting fleeeced within your conference and putting teams in the playoffs while ****ting the bed and giving your picks away is nothing to be fair about. We are lucky, and i mean lucky if we make the playoffs next year.

To me I'm kind of with Nixluva and TKF on this one. I think it's ridiculous to say getting rid of Curry and Crawford turned them around. I think what turned Chicago around was the overall committment to winning and self-motivated players from winning college programs. They stopped focusing on the potential of guys like Curry and Chandler and Craw and some of the others and instead focused on guys that were actaully giving results. This is something I wished we would do.

Now if you add Craw or Curry to that roster and it doesn't hurt that team. The Bulls are still good and young. The Knicks aren't bad because of Curry and Craw. We are bad because we've spent the last three years targeting 1 dimensional players and building around "flawed stars" with little or no leadership ability. Until we decide to start targeting players that have actually achieved winning results and not players that make excuses for not achieving we will always be a mediocre bunch.

Individually I have no problem with Craw, Curry, Marbs etc. It's the collective that has hurt us. So many acquistions that just didn't have to be made. Time wasters to fill seats. My only problem with Curry is that because he lacks the motivation to grab a rebound or block a shot or play defense he may force us to deal David Lee.

Posted by MS:

I think it would hurt them a great deal, a lot of their success is predicated on moving the ball around and being unselfish. Crawford in their system would be useless. They have duhon off the bench which is perfect for their backcourt combo. Eddy would be effecitive in the post but he really doesn't give you anything outside of that.

They got rid of their entitled players. Eddy's reaction to isiah maybe not coming back, skiles's comments and him not making the allstar team are very telling to what kind of player he is.

You don't earn the right to come out and say you won't play for another coach if your 6'11 and have averaged 5rbs for your career and never played a playoff game. Your not even on of the top 40 players in the league so you didn't get snubbed. You didn't really improve your game that much this season.

PLAY BALL

Should be the motto for this team, not worrying about injustices, fans, and big macs

Dude of course you think Craw would hurt them. We know you hate the guy. NO need to re-iterate this over and over.

You could find a role for Curry on that team easily. It may not be the role he thinks he deserves but you can find a role for him. Same with Craw. The problem is when you build teams around players like them, which is what we are doing

I think they made some good decisions. Paxson clearly has a solid idea now on what he wants his team to be and they simply solidified that. This is what we're in the process of doing as well. Now that we've established what we think this team is, now we have to go even further in that direction and solidify that style of play. We're going to be a punishing interior team and if we can get our perimeter game in shape, this team will be tough to deal with. Cuz despite all of the flaws people love to toss at Curry there is one TRUTH, teams can't handle him in the paint. Even with double and triple teams he STILL averaged nearly 20 a game and that's with him only shooting 61% from the line.

It's not hard to imagine Curry adding a face up game and making better decisions passing the ball. He may always be a weak rebounder and shotblocker, but in time I believe he can be a really dominant inside force for us. As a team we will likely refine this style of play to be more efficient. It's simply not all doom and gloom when it comes to this team.