Posted by djsunyc:

Posted by Michael6835:

Talk to me in a few years when we can truly evaluate option a. All your basing on is a hunch. At least Curry has shown that he holds the ability to change the makeup of a team. You can rebuild through the draft all you want (see clippers) doesnt mean it will work.

this is true. all trades, especially involving young players and/or picks, will take years to really tell how the deal worked out for both parties.

currently, this is what we do know, the bulls are continuing to win at least on the same level as before. that doesn't mean losing curry doesn't hurt them from possibly winning more, but they did not go into a tailspin.

meanwhile, we've added eddy and have yet to reap any tangible benefits from it.

at this point, eddy is our version of zach randolph (and currently, not as good).

Good post

Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by Michael6835:

the bulls changed their makeup by paying wallace 15mil a year. then trading off curry. They were already decent with curry. The knicks were never any where close, when brown came in, on paper we looked good. Many "experts" picked us to win the ATL but we know how that turned out. The team we have now is more similar to where the Bulls were before they had Wallace. We have the pieces and we are young, we just need some time to play together and continue to add a piece here and there. Then when someone who can make a difference is available, we make a move.

Bulls made their move and it still wasnt good enough. Can compare the two is what im trying to say.

The major difference is the Bulls are adding to the team with high draft picks and cap space. We are adding to our team with late first rounders and MLE's.

Not only that but also the Bulls already have a 49 win team whereas we have a doodoo 30 win team

Posted by martin:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by Michael6835:

the bulls changed their makeup by paying wallace 15mil a year. then trading off curry. They were already decent with curry. The knicks were never any where close, when brown came in, on paper we looked good. Many "experts" picked us to win the ATL but we know how that turned out. The team we have now is more similar to where the Bulls were before they had Wallace. We have the pieces and we are young, we just need some time to play together and continue to add a piece here and there. Then when someone who can make a difference is available, we make a move.

Bulls made their move and it still wasnt good enough. Can compare the two is what im trying to say.

The major difference is the Bulls are adding to the team with high draft picks and cap space. We are adding to our team with late first rounders and MLE's.

Not only that but also the Bulls already have a 49 win team whereas we have a doodoo 30 win team

Bonn's good with the obvious.

unlike half of this discussion board

Looking at the players drafted at 9, I only see one player with the long range potential to be as good (or close to that good) as Nowitzki, Marion, or McGrady. That is Thaddeus Young. But the Bulls won't take him because he plays the same position as Deng. One possibility is that the Bulls trade this pick to get better now.

Posted by Ira:

Why is everyone assuming that this trade will end up being one-sided in either direction. T Thomas has some talent, but he has some weaknessed. Who they get at #9 is a big question, but this draft looks relatively flat after the second pick. They probably will get someone pretty good - maybe Noah or Thornton or Hawes, but not someone very good. The question is, would you rather have Curry or T Thomas + Noah (or whoever else is available)? At this point, I'd rather have Curry.

It is one sided; Brandon Roy is already a better two way player than Eddy.

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by Ira:

Why is everyone assuming that this trade will end up being one-sided in either direction. T Thomas has some talent, but he has some weaknessed. Who they get at #9 is a big question, but this draft looks relatively flat after the second pick. They probably will get someone pretty good - maybe Noah or Thornton or Hawes, but not someone very good. The question is, would you rather have Curry or T Thomas + Noah (or whoever else is available)? At this point, I'd rather have Curry.

It is one sided; Brandon Roy is already a better two way player than Eddy.

Let's not get carried away with Roy. I like him a lot, but if I have to choose between a good guard and a dominant Center i'm taking the center everytime. Curry is a lot closer to that then Roy is to being a team carrying Guard like Kobe or Wade. Curry already has the hardest part of the dominant equation, which is the scoring. This is proven by the fact that so few Centers do what he does inside. There are tons of guys who rebound and block shots a little. Curry has only to step up his effort level in order to be a more complete Player. As i've said many times, we're talkin 2-3 more rebs, 1 more assist and 1 block. Curry puts up 24/9/1.8 and 1.5 blocks and he's an All Star. He may not get all of those numbers, but I think he can get close.

I think this team is going to the playoffs next year and then we can really start to judge his game. It's imperative that this team get to that point so we can start to gain that needed experience.

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by Ira:

Why is everyone assuming that this trade will end up being one-sided in either direction. T Thomas has some talent, but he has some weaknessed. Who they get at #9 is a big question, but this draft looks relatively flat after the second pick. They probably will get someone pretty good - maybe Noah or Thornton or Hawes, but not someone very good. The question is, would you rather have Curry or T Thomas + Noah (or whoever else is available)? At this point, I'd rather have Curry.

It is one sided; Brandon Roy is already a better two way player than Eddy.

I think it was the 2000 draft in which the Nets took Kmart with the first pick. The next top player after that was Michael Redd - taken in the second round. Either every gm or almost every gm passed on Redd. Many years ago, the best player in a draft (it was around 1965) was Willis Reed. He was taken in the second round by the Knicks. He was passed up by every gm in the league that year including Red Auerbach. Hindsight is 20-20.

Curry already has the hardest part of the dominant equation, which is the scoring. This is proven by the fact that so few Centers do what he does inside.

No active player puts up 20 and 8 like Steph did either. That doesn't make it a necessary part of winning, especially not if all other aspects of the game are neglected as in Eddy's case.

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by Ira:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by Ira:

Why is everyone assuming that this trade will end up being one-sided in either direction. T Thomas has some talent, but he has some weaknessed. Who they get at #9 is a big question, but this draft looks relatively flat after the second pick. They probably will get someone pretty good - maybe Noah or Thornton or Hawes, but not someone very good. The question is, would you rather have Curry or T Thomas + Noah (or whoever else is available)? At this point, I'd rather have Curry.

It is one sided; Brandon Roy is already a better two way player than Eddy.

I think it was the 2000 draft in which the Nets took Kmart with the first pick. The next top player after that was Michael Redd - taken in the second round. Either every gm or almost every gm passed on Redd. Many years ago, the best player in a draft (it was around 1965) was Willis Reed. He was taken in the second round by the Knicks. He was passed up by every gm in the league that year including Red Auerbach. Hindsight is 20-20.

You don't need hindsight to know not to give up four draft picks for a lazy player or hindsight to know to protect draft picks.

You don't need hindsight either to know that two of those picks were second rounders, one produced the great Tim Thomas and the 2007 first rounder was a trade down in a relatively level draft.