I've spent most of my day posting comments on the internet defending Eddy Curry. With the Knicks playing the Bulls tonight, the Eddy Curry trade is in the upfront in Knicks news. As it will be a for a long time. The Eddy Curry trade has already had a huge impact on both franchises. The question of who got the better of the trade will not be answered for a while, but that hasn't stop the know-it-alls from chiming in, mostly to pile on Isiah and the Knicks.
Let's start with the our man Jack Cobra from 3manlift. He had a post today that had the usual litany of criticisms of Curry, this time from the perspective of a Bulls fan. The complaints are the same ones you've seen in the comments here: that Curry is fat (no doubt), out of shape (somewhat, but he gets the job done), that his "defense is atrocious" (yes, unfortunately), that "not only is your defense atrocious, your defensive presence is pathetic" (um, a little redundant, no? And not only is that redundant, it's repetitive). There's the usual argument about his passing (look, only 1 assist a game!).
And we gave the usual responses: Curry isn't the point guard, and why should he be passing? He's number one in the league in points in the paint! He shoots 57.8% from the field, good for #5 in the NBA right now. Two of those players - Tyson Chandler and Andris Biedrins - are not options in their team's offense. So Curry trails only Dwight Howard and Amare Stoudemire, both franchise players, in FG%.
Frank Isola of the Daily News had a post on Curry today in his blog. It's a typical NY beat writer piece. Check out his opening paragraph:
"As the accolades roll in about the great season Curry is having and how the trade with Chicago last year was the steal of the century, I have to keep looking at the standings to make sure I’m reading it right."
Yeah, "the steal of the century". SML has been probably the most Curry-friendly writer in the Knicks universe, and even we wouldn't call the deal the steal of the century! Who has? Has any ever said anything nice about the deal?
One guy did. He's put it in prospective: Tim Thomas and Mike Sweetney are worthless, "the 2006 draft was one of the worst in recent memory" (Tyrus Thomas may become a decent player, but we doubt he'll pass Curry anytime soon), and the 2007 pick could have been another top 2 pick, but will now likely be more like 7-10. "This deal still could look like a great move for the Bulls but it isn't nearly the horrific mistake that people made it out to be."
"Shouldn’t Eddy Curry have to appear in his first-ever playoff game before he is talked about as the second coming of Shaq?"
No one talks about Curry as the second coming of Shaq, Frank.
"But the way people are writing about him you would think the Mt. Rushmore of centers goes something like this: Russell, Chamberlain, Jabbar, Shaq and Curry."
Who has every suggested Curry as being in the same class as Russell, Chamberlain, et al?
"We’ll all know when Curry has arrived as an elite center. That will be the day when he leads to the Knicks to a 50-plus win season and still gets knocked for not doing enough."
The main point of his post was that Eddy Curry is no Patrick Ewing. Funny, because when Patrick Ewing was young, he was no Willis Reed. I remember reading that crap everyday, too. Now those same lame ass beat writers are quick to defend Patrick Ewing, when they were the same ones that roasted him every freaking day.
A commentator named "Bernard King": "Was Patrick winning 55 games at age 24 (Curry's age)? Or did he win 24 games at age 24?" He also pointed out that Curry's last season in Chicago (2004), at age 22, the Bulls were 37-26 when he played (10-9 when he was out). If Curry hadn't gotten "injured", that team would have won 50 games; they did make the playoffs, but Curry was unable to play. So talk about "appearing in a playoff game" is a convenient cover for Isola.
"Anti-NYSportsNews" writes "...the constant double and triple teams he receives. That's respect." Good point. He also mentions that centers take a long time to mature, and cites Jermaine O'Neal (7 years before he became a dominant player). Great point. Andrew Bynum in LA? He's gonna be a great one, but not until three to four years from now, at the earliest. Centers are different from other players. Look at how long it has taken Yao to take over the league, and he is two years older than Curry. People were more patient with him. Kwame Brown, who has yet to show one-fifth the polish that Curry has, is still considered a viable asset in the NBA. People will roll the dice with him.
PaulNoize brought out the best comments, though: He drew the connection between Curry's personal big man coach this past year (Mark Aguirre), and Mark's career. "Aguirre was always a pudgy, soft player with extremely polished post moves which spoke of endless hours of shooting drills in the gym, coupled with virtually no defensive skills, conditioning work or nutritional guidance." Yep, that sounds like our boy Curry. You know what? If he turns out like a big man version of 6'6 Aguirre, a three-time All-Star who averaged 20 ppg in his career, including 25 over his 5-year prime (peaking at 29.5 in 83-84), then I think Knicks fans would be happy with that.
What's really noticeable about the comments on the blog is that people are tired of getting the same crap everywhere. They are tired of the same stories in the newspapers every day. There is never any new news. So what are we doing in the off-season? How is Randolph Morris progressing? What the plan to make Curry better? What's the rotation going to look like next season? Who is Isiah going after?
Anyway, the point is this: One, Curry is fine. I can't think of too many teams that wouldn't want him on their team. Think Cleveland would be better off with Curry instead of Ilgaukas? Philly with Curry instead of Dalembert? Boston can't use a center like Curry? The Wizards (Curry, Jamison, Butler, Arenas)?
Two, the Curry trade - we won't know who got the better of it for a while. Initially it looked really good for the Bulls, especially after last season. Now it's a toss up. Honestly, given Isiah's draft record and Paxson's recent talent evaluation stumbles, it might not matter that they switch picks. Isiah may in fact end up with the better player anyway. He keeps finding ways (Balkman will end up better than half the guys that went ahead of him, same as Lee) to find talent. I'll admit the trade is in favor of the Bulls right now, but it is not over yet. Curry is currently the best player in the deal still, and who knows... he might end up the best when all is said and done.
Leave a comment
|
6 Comments
Comments
Oh, and Sammy led the Sixers to a win tonight, they passed the Knicks in the standings. You're gonna owe me a six-pack if you keep taking the Knicks in these bets.
Those lost rebounds turn into second chance hoops for the other team.
The other problem I have with all the criticism Curry receives is that it is often from people who haven't even seen him play, maybe a game here or there. Case in point. This comment makes no sense, if you've ever seen Curry play. All those "lost rebounds"? The Knicks have outrebounded ever team this season; they are among the league leaders in rebounds, even without David Lee. Either you believe Q-Rich and the guards are superb rebounds, or you should recognize that those double and triple teams Curry draws leads to easy rebounds for his wide open teammates.
The Bulls basically got nothing meaningful back for Curry, in the short-term, yet they've improved since he left. Does that tell you something?
The Bulls were 37-26 with Curry in '04 (.577). They are 47-32 (.595). That's your improvement, huh? That "improvement" is quickly negated by the fact that the Eastern Conference is worse now than it was two years ago (two years ago the Eastern Conference finished a combine 584-646, .475 winning %; this season they are at .472 and slipping).
Curry isn't great or even very good (yet), but he is a solid piece. If the Knicks had one decent spot-up shooter they would be a legit playoff team. Crawford and Richardson are the closest, but neither is really good at spot-up shooting - Crawford shoots off the dribble mostly. The only game I saw him shoot mostly off of picks or spotting up was the 50 point game against the Heat - why doesn't he do that more?
If the Knicks could obtain a Rashard Lewis, Rasheed Wallace or even Peja, they would be a very tough team to guard.
Like I said, the Knicks have to cover for Curry from the other positions. Double and triple teaming Curry doesn't effect his lack of production on the defensive glass, does it?
So the Bulls only improved a little bit by subtracting Curry. It's shocking to me that they didn't have a huge drop off after losing such an immense talent.
Ironically, had the Bulls kept Curry and Chandler together, they would easily be the best team in the Eastern Conference. Chandler is the perfect compliment to Curry's game. He rebounds, blocks shots and doesn't need the ball to score.
The Knicks move to acquire Curry was a very bad move. Not a catastrophic move, but a very bad move. His reasonable contract makes it slightly more palatable. Right now, the Knicks are poised to give up LaMarcus Aldridge (Who looks like an absolute stud) and what will be the 7 or 8th pick in one of the most loaded NBA drafts in recent memory. The move is particularly bad when you consider that the Knicks probably could have had Curry without having to give up this kind of talent. As I mentioned before, there's no reason to believe that the Bulls thought the knicks would be markedly worse after acquiring Curry. Zeke did the inexcusable and failed to prepare for the worst. There's a reason why teams give up picks but protect themselves from surrendering a top 3 or top 5 pick. Through negligence or sheer stupidity, Zeke declined to do this. The same goes for this year's draft. The Knicks giving up a top 8 pick should not even be a possibility. Do I have to remind you that there were absolutely zero other takers for Curry? The Knicks were bidding against themselves and lost.
I have no idea how Curry will ultimately pan out but I seriously doubt that he will ever be a franchise player to build around. He lacks too many things that should come instinctively to a great player. You can teach a guy to score but its much harder to teach shot-blocking and rebounding. You can do it, or you can't. Curry can't. And as Brian mentioned, his offensive prowess is all but offset by his inability to pass out of the double team. Curry may ultimately figure out how to do this but he's made 0 progress over the course of the year.
The Jermaine O'Neal analogy doesn't really work because as soon as O'Neal was given 30 plus minutes per game, he began averaging close to 10 boards per contest. O'Neal's slow development was as much a product of limited playing time as it was anything else. Curry, on the other hand, is in his 6th year as a professional basketball player. He has never averaged more than 7 rebounds or 1.1 blocks per game. In fact, his .5 blocks per game is a career low and among the league worst for centers/power forwards playing more than 30 minutes a game.
If I had a reset button, I'd take an athletic, 6-11 power forward who can score and defend and Corey Brewer/Jeff Green/the point guard from Ohio State whose name I can't remember/whomever + some more cap space. I think the choice is fairly obvious.
I agree with you that Isiah should have protected the pick. Well, the 2007 pick. The 2006 pick, no. We all knew it was going to be the sh*ttiest draft in years, thanks to the new age limit. Do you want that pick to keep rolling forward to future years, to a future year when there is more talent?
I would rather have the 8th pick this year than the 2nd pick last year. That's the thinking behind not protecting the 2006 pick. After all, protecting the pick (for a year) doesn't eliminate the debt. It just rolls it forward to the next season. Ask the Grizzlies how that works out sometimes (that's how Darko ended up on the Pistons; by the way, that choice illustrates that sometimes, even in loaded drafts, GMs don't make the right call - it's not a given that having a #2 or a #8 overall automatically equals drafting a stud).
The 2007 #1 pick? Agree, there was no need to include that in the deal. I don't subscribe to that "the Knicks were bidding against themselve" argument... how do we know? You think some team is going to be like "yeah, we offered Michael Redd and our #1 pick for Curry, but the Knicks outbid us"? Nah.
But it was too much for a player whose career was considered endangered. And Isiah should have protected the 2007 pick (this year's pick), knowing it was a deep draft. On the other hand, if the Knicks suck even more next season and end up with OJ Mayo, would you be happy they didn't protect this year's 8th pick (at the expense of the 2008 #1 or #2 overall pick)?
Point is, let's wait until everything is said and done to decide if Curry was worth it. It took years to find out that trading Hershel Walker was a good move, or landing Nolan Ryan. Trades involving lots of players with potential are best evaluated years later.
Wouldn't it be funny if four years from now people really will be saying that "Curry was a steal of a deal"? I don't see that ever happening, but if you or I could accurately forecast the future neither of us would be discussing this...
I can't speak for the rest of the teams, but as a Sixers' fan I can say that I wouldn't want Curry anywhere near my team.
Not only does he not get assists, but he turns the ball over 3.6 times per game. His 0.23 assist-to-turnover radio is #420 in the league. I know you say you don't want him to pass, but what happens when teams double and triple team him? He has to pass, and he can't.
His horrible rebounding. This is nothing new. He averages less rebounds per 48 minutes than Stephen Hunter, probably the worst rebounding big on the Sixers. Those lost rebounds turn into second chance hoops for the other team.
His affect on an offense. For Curry to have any value, you have to feed him the ball. As I mentioned above, once he gets the ball, the offense stops. If you aren't feeding him the ball, why the fuck is he on the court?
Having Curry on the floor means you have a low-post scorer, but you need to find extra rebounds somewhere else, you have to cover for him on defense, you have to make up for his turnovers, and you have to pretty much discount the rest of your offense if you're going to utilize the only thing he does well.
The sum total of Eddy Curry on the floor is a negative.
So, if Isiah picked up the phone tomorrow and asked for Sam Dalembert straight up for Curry, and I'm Billy King, there's no way in hell I do it.
Dalembert is an average center on the offensive side of the ball. 11 ppg is fine. On defense he's so far superior to Curry it isn't even funny. Dalembert runs the floor. Dalembert crashes the boards. Dalembert is a team player, and having him on the floor doesn't mean someone else in the lineup needs to pick up slack for him anywhere.
If you don't have one of the elite centers in the game (Shaq, Yao, Duncan, Howard) then a double-double, 2 blocks per game center is what you want from the position.
Is Curry getting better? That's debatable. His rebounds per 48 minutes are lower than they were last year, his scoring per 48 is up 1 pt., his turnovers per 48 are pretty much the same. Seems to me like he's the same player, just more of him.
Curry's one year younger than Dalembert, but do you really think Curry is going to last in the league longer than Sammy?
You can say there's more to Eddy than the numbers, but he hasn't exactly translated any of this into wins, has he? The Bulls basically got nothing meaningful back for Curry, in the short-term, yet they've improved since he left. Does that tell you something?
You aren't going to contend with a one-trick pony as the centerpiece of your team unless every other player on the team is meant to fill a void created by that centerpiece. (See the 2000-2001 Sixers, and Iverson was/is a much better all around player than Curry is or ever will be)
Curry is an albatross, one of many on the Knicks. The Sixers got rid of both of theirs earlier this season, and I wouldn't want to see them bring a new one in. I'm fine w/ Sammy, thanks.