Sham wrote:Curry and Chandler were an ineffective pairing. There's a reason that they spent all of 2005 (and most of 2003) subbing in for each other - they couldn't play together. It's because you can leave Chandler to defend Curry, negatign any offensive strength, and Eddy's man defense is so bad that Tyson had to do it, taking Tyson away from his strengths of free roaming the glass and help defense.
It's amazing how many BULLS fans, let alone other teams' fans, don't remember or otherwise grasp this basic fact.
On a separate note, here's a blurb from the game recap of the Knicks' loss to Toronto, in which Zach Randolph scored 0 points in 10 minutes:
Starting forward Zach Randolph was benched the final 31-plus minutes after appearing to have a dispute with Knicks coach Isiah Thomas. Randolph was yanked 20 seconds after committing an offensive foul with 7:35 remaining in the first half.
Not that the Knicks were doing much with Randolph in there, anyway. They trailed the final 45 1/2 minutes and lost for the ninth time in 10 games, falling to 0-2 on a four-game homestand that Thomas said before the game was important for his last-place team.
Oh yeah, Zach would have worked out reeeeeaaaal well with our coaching staff.
Thomas' offseason acquisition of Randolph has sometimes seemed confusing -- including to Randolph -- because he and center Eddy Curry have rarely looked comfortable with the pairing. That wasn't a problem Friday, because the only place they spent much time together was on the bench.
But one or two of our posters continue to maintain that Zach would have been worth Nocioni and (in effect) Gordon, since we could not have re-signed Gordon and still stayed out of luxury tax territory had we taken on Zach's salary.
Right.
