Eddy Curry

[Bricklayer]

He's a terrible rebounder though............... I would rather keep Thomas there...

He is a bad rebounder, in particular for his size, which is one of the reasons I have not been sold on him (others being defense, passing, work ethic, saavy). On the other hand he's about 7'0" 280lbs, is still only 22/23 with lots of room for his game to grow, and is an absiolutely prolific low post scorer. As Shaq continues to age, with the possible exception of Duncan, Curry might end up being the BEST low post scorer in the game. I'm not a huge fan at this point, but he's a more prolific scorer than any current King with the possible exception of Peja, and it doens't take him many shots either. 27pts/per 48 last year on 54% shooting. And with so few good centers out there, you are talking about maybe picking up a Top 10, maybe even Top 5, center at the very beginning of his career for a maxed out middleaged tweener forward who you just replaced with a big minute starter.

We would continue to have our defensive problems pending another move, but a Miller/Shareef/Curry trio with Skinner filling in around the edges is formidable, on one end of the court at least. Go very big with Curry and Brad at times. Mix in Skinner as a defensive roleplayer when needed. Also finally get a major young player again.

 

[TheRaven]

He is a bad rebounder, in particular for his size, which is one of the reasons I have not been sold on him (others being defense, passing, work ethic, saavy). On the other hand he's about 7'0" 280lbs, is still only 22/23 with lots of room for his game to grow, and is an absiolutely prolific low post scorer. As Shaq continues to age, with the possible exception of Duncan, Curry might end up being the BEST low post scorer in the game. I'm not a huge fan at this point, but he's a more prolific scorer than any current King with the possible exception of Peja, and it doens't take him many shots either. 27pts/per 48 last year on 54% shooting. And with so few good centers out there, you are talking about maybe picking up a Top 10, maybe even Top 5, center at the very beginning of his career for a maxed out middleaged tweener forward who you just replaced with a big minute starter.

We would continue to have our defensive problems pending another move, but a Miller/Shareef/Curry trio with Skinner filling in around the edges is formidable, on one end of the court at least. Go very big with Curry and Brad at times. Mix in Skinner as a defensive roleplayer when needed. Also finally get a major young player again.

I completely agree. He may not be the best defender or rebounder considering his size, but he could be a very important low post threat. He would not be the "classic" vlade-like kings center known for his passing as well, but we could adapt when he is on the floor. Could really help us establish an inside-out game that would allow more open looks from outside for our shooters.
Even though he isn't the greatest defender, I think at the very least he could keep the Jerome James' of the league in check.

An interesting lineup to throw at teams from time to time that would cause them matchup fits could be: Curry/Miller/Shareef/Wells/Bibby. Curry handles C, Miller slides to PF, 'Reef to SF, Wells at SG, Bibby at PG. Would be interesting to see what that lineup would do, since it would produce some offensive mismatches for us against most teams. Not sure how they would do defensively, but at leas that ain't no small ball lineup

 

[OptimusRhyme]

He is a bad rebounder, in particular for his size, which is one of the reasons I have not been sold on him (others being defense, passing, work ethic, saavy). On the other hand he's about 7'0" 280lbs, is still only 22/23 with lots of room for his game to grow, and is an absiolutely prolific low post scorer. As Shaq continues to age, with the possible exception of Duncan, Curry might end up being the BEST low post scorer in the game. I'm not a huge fan at this point, but he's a more prolific scorer than any current King with the possible exception of Peja, and it doens't take him many shots either. 27pts/per 48 last year on 54% shooting. And with so few good centers out there, you are talking about maybe picking up a Top 10, maybe even Top 5, center at the very beginning of his career for a maxed out middleaged tweener forward who you just replaced with a big minute starter.

We would continue to have our defensive problems pending another move, but a Miller/Shareef/Curry trio with Skinner filling in around the edges is formidable, on one end of the court at least. Go very big with Curry and Brad at times. Mix in Skinner as a defensive roleplayer when needed. Also finally get a major young player again.

You do make some nice points, I meen he does really have alot of potential still, and a change is most likely what he needs, it's just the health issues that worry me so much, I don't know if it would be a risk I'd be willing to take.. But I geuss since Thomas dosen't have as big of a role as last year, if the oppurtunity came up for a trade with Curry, I would probably look twice at it...(now that I think about it a little more) I meen, I would only want him here if we new we could improve his rebounding, & shot blocking, but as of right now at the level he is playing at with only about 5.3 boards a game I would not want him on the Kings. Improvements would have to be made.

 

[ONEZERO]

I say go for it. Our team is already pretty much full offense, so might as well get more offense. At least the offense will come from a low post presence; something we haven't had in a while. The heart thing is a big factor though. If most teams are concerned about his heart, then why is there talk about him making 10 mil a year? Someone with that kind of risk should not be making that kind of money. I think he should have a contracr worth about 6 mil a year. With that, I would not even hesitate doing this trade....

By the way, is that thing about the insurance covering his contract if he can't play for more than 2 years even true? Cause if it is, why not take the risk.

Songaila's pretty much gone and kennys gonna be coming off the bench makes this trade seem like it has a lot of sense backing it.

 

[OptimusRhyme]

I completely agree. He may not be the best defender or rebounder considering his size, but he could be a very important low post threat. He would not be the "classic" vlade-like kings center known for his passing as well, but we could adapt when he is on the floor. Could really help us establish an inside-out game that would allow more open looks from outside for our shooters.
Even though he isn't the greatest defender, I think at the very least he could keep the Jerome James' of the league in check.

An interesting lineup to throw at teams from time to time that would cause them matchup fits could be: Curry/Miller/Shareef/Wells/Bibby. Curry handles C, Miller slides to PF, 'Reef to SF, Wells at SG, Bibby at PG. Would be interesting to see what that lineup would do, since it would produce some offensive mismatches for us against most teams. Not sure how they would do defensively, but at leas that ain't no small ball lineup

No an interesting lineup would be

Curry
Miller
Reef
Peja
Bibby

:O

 

[BonziFan]

Although player wise this would be very good, this is not a good idea. Lets not forget that this is a heart condition. It is a heck of a lot more serious than a leg or knee problem. We could officially get stuck in a situation like the magic or the knicks. The league never allows the exception for permanately injured players. I like Curry a lot, but it is too risky.

 

[Yoda]

Although player wise this would be very good, this is not a good idea. Lets not forget that this is a heart condition. It is a heck of a lot more serious than a leg or knee problem. We could officially get stuck in a situation like the magic or the knicks. The league never allows the exception for permanately injured players. I like Curry a lot, but it is too risky.

Its not terribly risky if you give KT and make a 3 year contract for Curry. We are currently on the hook for 5 more years of KT. It shortens that nasty contract with a medium risk, decent reward senerio.

 

[AriesMar27]

thats true... id rather have curry signed for 3 years and only plays 1 and a half than have thomas playing for 5.....

 

[Padrino]

if the kings are looking to continue rebuilding on the fly, than some risks are worth taking, imo. petrie is trying to put the kings in a situation where the could contend for a ring soon...like within the next couple of years, while bibby, peja, and brad are still in their primes. eddy curry is a huge risk, definitely moreso than bonzi, but the potential for reward is very high. if adelman and co. could somehow convince him to pull down no less than 10 boards a game, than the kings would have themselves a helluva front court rotation. miller, curry, 'reef, and minimal amounts of skinner. i like that rotation a lot, however ya wanna mess with it. keep curry away from mcdonald's...make sure he's well-conditioned, run lotsa tests to make sure his ticker is operating properly, and if all is well, than the kings have a young big man--in the truest sense of the term--to work with. i'd pull the trigger on that trade in a heartbeat...no pun intended.

 

[PFFFT!!]

I would probably do a Songalia S&T, plus Corliss and a pick for him. Not KT. Like most people here said, we need rebounding. We have enough offense.

 

[Yoda]

I would probably do a Songalia S&T, plus Corliss and a pick for him. Not KT. Like most people here said, we need rebounding. We have enough offense.

KT is not a rebounding force. Corlis is in a contract year this year and KT is signed through the end of the decade.

 

[BaljitGill]

Heards from some people in LA that Curry has been traded (or very close) to the Lakers for Mihm. The radio there is saying this. Take this for whatever its worth (which could be nothing).

 

[BigSong]

Its not terribly risky if you give KT and make a 3 year contract for Curry. We are currently on the hook for 5 more years of KT. It shortens that nasty contract with a medium risk, decent reward senerio.

Chicago would never buy into that sort of trade. They might be willing to pick up Song for 2-3 mil, but I can't see them wanting anything to do with KT. Curry is probably waitin on teams to make offers, and 3 years sounds great compare to 1 but the Bulls would counter an offer like 3 years if it came about. The bulls have Allen, Harrington, Deng, they dont need KT. Given the choice over Curry or KT, they take Curry and the risk.

 

[PFFFT!!]

Its not terribly risky if you give KT and make a 3 year contract for Curry. We are currently on the hook for 5 more years of KT. It shortens that nasty contract with a medium risk, decent reward senerio.

Better than Corliss or Curry.

 

[Bricklayer]

Better than Corliss or Curry.

There is no need, nor room for Kenny if we were actually to trade for Curry. The frontcourt minutes are all gone with Miller/Curry/SAR/Skinner. Besides which, Chicago isn't just going to give the big guy away.

As an aside, as far as I know Corliss is NOT an ending contract this year. Still has 2 years (this and next) left on his wonderful deal. So does Skinner, but Brian also has an option year for a 3rd year -- forget whether it is Player or Team. And of course KT has 5 years to go.

 

[Kings113]

He is a bad rebounder, in particular for his size, which is one of the reasons I have not been sold on him (others being defense, passing, work ethic, saavy). On the other hand he's about 7'0" 280lbs, is still only 22/23 with lots of room for his game to grow, and is an absiolutely prolific low post scorer. As Shaq continues to age, with the possible exception of Duncan, Curry might end up being the BEST low post scorer in the game. I'm not a huge fan at this point, but he's a more prolific scorer than any current King with the possible exception of Peja, and it doens't take him many shots either. 27pts/per 48 last year on 54% shooting. And with so few good centers out there, you are talking about maybe picking up a Top 10, maybe even Top 5, center at the very beginning of his career for a maxed out middleaged tweener forward who you just replaced with a big minute starter.

We would continue to have our defensive problems pending another move, but a Miller/Shareef/Curry trio with Skinner filling in around the edges is formidable, on one end of the court at least. Go very big with Curry and Brad at times. Mix in Skinner as a defensive roleplayer when needed. Also finally get a major young player again.

Agreed with that.

 

[Kings113]

Heards from some people in LA that Curry has been traded (or very close) to the Lakers for Mihm. The radio there is saying this. Take this for whatever its worth (which could be nothing).

Lakers would certainly have their share of projects then.

 

[thedofd]

There are only a couple of ways to get a superstar:

1) You draft one and hold on tight.

2) You trade half your roster for an established star, which is rare.

3) You sign one as a free agent.

4) On the cheap, you acquire a young guy who has been a bit of a disappointment but suddenly realizes his potential.

The Kings have never done 1; in years past, they drafted poorly. Now, they simply draft too late.

The Kings could do No. 2, but there's no reason to think they'd be any better off than they are now.

No. 3 is out of the question. The Kings won't have the cap space in your children's lifetime.

Which leaves No. 4. Now, I'm not sold on Eddy Curry as the next Wilt. But he's young enough and gifted enough that, if his heart's OK literally and figuratively, he could be something special. At the very least, if healthy, he's the best backup center in the league.

To me, it's worth giving away the 25th pick in the draft (do the Kings really WANT another guaranteed contract?); Darius, who we're likely to lose anyway; and Kenny Thomas, who is underrated but a luxury at this point, to find out how good Curry is.

Give him a three-year salary for whatever KT was making and maybe some performance incentives. Yes, there's a risk, particularly the health risk. But at 3 years, 24 million (or whatever), it's relatively small if you're talking about a potential all-star big man who could put you over the top.

 

[ONEZERO]

There are only a couple of ways to get a superstar:

1) You draft one and hold on tight.

2) You trade half your roster for an established star, which is rare.

3) You sign one as a free agent.

4) On the cheap, you acquire a young guy who has been a bit of a disappointment but suddenly realizes his potential.

The Kings have never done 1; in years past, they drafted poorly. Now, they simply draft too late.

The Kings could do No. 2, but there's no reason to think they'd be any better off than they are now.

No. 3 is out of the question. The Kings won't have the cap space in your children's lifetime.

Which leaves No. 4. Now, I'm not sold on Eddy Curry as the next Wilt. But he's young enough and gifted enough that, if his heart's OK literally and figuratively, he could be something special. At the very least, if healthy, he's the best backup center in the league.

To me, it's worth giving away the 25th pick in the draft (do the Kings really WANT another guaranteed contract?); Darius, who we're likely to lose anyway; and Kenny Thomas, who is underrated but a luxury at this point, to find out how good Curry is.

Give him a three-year salary for whatever KT was making and maybe some performance incentives. Yes, there's a risk, particularly the health risk. But at 3 years, 24 million (or whatever), it's relatively small if you're talking about a potential all-star big man who could put you over the top.

very good points

 

[mr. moustache]

Minus the fact that Chicago will not take Kenny + Darius, + a late 1st rounder. Even with his baggage, Curry is a valuable commodity. KT, Darius, and our bad pick is not.

very good points

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

If Curry is, in fact, requesting a trade, there's no telling what they'd be willing to trade for him. It may come down to a case of do they trade him for less than he's worth, or do they risk letting him walk as a UFA.

 

[bozzwell]

Paxson was on local sports radio talk yesterday (here in Chicago). He sounded pretty convincing when saying that the only way that Curry can be traded is via sign and trade and that he (Paxsons)/Bulls will simply not do it. He sounded dissapointed that it has come to that and even when he was really pressured and baited he came up with sensible answers.

Basically, as it stands now, Curry is under qualifying offer of 5.2 mil for one year (after which he becomes free agent). There has been no common ground in contract talks regarding extenstion and according to Paxson extension talks are at the stalemate right now. The big bone of contention is not the insurance issue, it is that Paxson and the Bulls have requested Curry to undergo DNA testing for markers that indicate serious and chronic heart desease. Call me crazy, but just by the sound of Paxson's voice and his answers I believed him. Paxson, in my mind, is not trying to get Curry on the cheap or to knock his contract value down he is quite concerned that Curry has not been cleared to play by one of the specialist (the one in NE, one in CA cleared him). And he is definetly not looking to trade him for other GM's junk contracts.

Let's move on, Bulls will keep Curry by either matching offers or by signing him to a qualifying offer. Eddie'd health issues guarantee that he won't be offered joe Johnosn crazy money by Atlanta, so it is pretty much given that Bulls will match any probing offers. They just are not ready to give up on the kid and I don't blame them.

 

[mr. moustache]

If Curry is, in fact, requesting a trade, there's no telling what they'd be willing to trade for him. It may come down to a case of do they trade him for less than he's worth, or do they risk letting him walk as a UFA.

He'd have to play an entire year before walking

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I am aware of that. That's why it'd be in their best interests to trade him now, if he wants to leave; there's not likely to be many suitors mid-season, especially if Curry expresses his intent to leave wherever he's traded to at the end of the season.

 

[PFFFT!!]

I'd let Curry be someone else's problem, not ours. Next!

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Well, that's definitely the conservative point of view... at some point, a team in the position ours is in has to take a gamble on somebody, though; there are no "sure things" or "no brainers" available at the twenty-third pick.

 

[thedofd]

I'd let Curry be someone else's problem, not ours. Next!

The juxtaposition of this comment and your Bill Brasky heart-attack quote is downright eerie.


I didn't hear Paxson on the radio, so I don't know how sincere he is about not trading Curry. I'd assume he doesn't want to. But the Bulls are really between a rock and a hard place, and maybe it will come to that.

Sure, Curry could play great for them and re-sign with Chicago. He could also have health issues. He could also play great and, holding a grudge, take a walk at the end of the season. He could also just be the same old Eddy Curry. So 3 out of the 4 scenarios that come to mind are negative, from the Bulls' point of view.

Maybe an offer of Thomas (or Corliss), Songaila and a No. 1 doesnt' get it done, but it's not a total insult. Assuming the Bulls would start Chandler at center, they'd have a starting PF in Thomas, who's better suited for the Eastern Conference anyhow, and a good backup in Darius. Given the circumstances, the Bulls might not get a better offer, and if they want to play it conservatively, Thomas/Songaila is more of a sure thing than Curry.

Meanwhile, the Kings can afford the gamble because they'd still be covered at PF with some combo of SAR, Skinner and Williamson, plus there might be opportunities to play Curry and Miller together.

 

[sameolzeal]

Eddy sounds awsome, 7-footer with skill, um yea...ill have it. I go to church and Im spiritual, one more BIG would be a miracle. Smart went crazy, i trust the webbers to take care of our backup frontcourt. But like someone said earlier, you just dont pass up Eddie Curry. PAID

 

[Kings113]

Ha, the "Webbers". Nice.

 

[sameolzeal]

Thank you