Eddy Curry ~VS.~ Zach Randolph

#1KnicksFan · Post #1 » by **#1KnicksFan** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:56 am

Who would you rather have, and why?

shawngoat23 · Post #2 » by **shawngoat23** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 7:18 am

Curry, because he makes less money.

But looking at them overall: Randolph scores more on low percentages; Curry is much more efficient from the field. Ranidolph can hit his free throws; Curry cannot. Randolph is a bad passer; Curry is an abysmal passer. Randolph can get you about 10 rebounds; Curry is one of the worst rebounders for his size. Both turn it over at a ridiculous rate. Neither play defense worth speaking of; however, Curry is a much better shot blocker, by which I mean he gets 0.5 to Randolph's 0.2 bpg.

In terms of what they bring on the court, Randolph, but I'd rather have Curry because he's easier to buy out.

Duiz · Post #3 » by **Duiz** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 7:19 am

Curry by a Mile... Randolph got into a fight with his own teammate, I don't know of Curry doing that.

UDRIH14 · Post #4 » by **UDRIH14** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 9:44 am

neither, hamburger > these 2 clowns

Post #5 » by **dockingsched** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 2:56 pm

i'd rather have randolph. eddy curry has weaknesses that a team simply can not overcome. he doesn't rebound, doesn't defend, and doesn't pass well. when your center has so many holes in his game, you can not make up for it.

conleyorbust · Post #6 » by **conleyorbust** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 3:17 pm

shawngoat23 wrote:Curry, because he makes less money.

But looking at them overall: Randolph scores more on low percentages; Curry is much more efficient from the field. Ranidolph can hit his free throws; Curry cannot. Randolph is a bad passer; Curry is an abysmal passer. Randolph can get you about 10 rebounds; Curry is one of the worst rebounders for his size. Both turn it over at a ridiculous rate. Neither play defense worth speaking of; however, Curry is a much better shot blocker, by which I mean he gets 0.5 to Randolph's 0.2 bpg.

In terms of what they bring on the court, Randolph, but I'd rather have Curry because he's easier to buy out.

well said

#1KnicksFan · Post #7 » by **#1KnicksFan** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 5:55 pm

I should have added, disregard salary please...

Red Robot · Post #8 » by **Red Robot** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:07 pm

dcash4 wrote:i'd rather have randolph. eddy curry has weaknesses that a team simply can not overcome. he doesn't rebound, doesn't defend, and doesn't pass well. when your center has so many holes in his game, you can not make up for it.

I agree with this. Randolph's weaknesses are a pain; Curry's cripple the whole team.

#1KnicksFan · Post #9 » by **#1KnicksFan** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:18 pm

^ Well you're a Blaze fan right?

Do you honestly think if the Knicks drafted a stud like Mayo or Rose, and surrounded the two with defenders and shooters, that they could be successfull.

Personally I don't like PF's like Randolph b/c the game is becoming quicker and more versatile, but whats your thought....

Red Robot · Post #10 » by **Red Robot** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 7:20 pm

#1KnicksFan wrote:^ Well you're a Blaze fan right?

Yeah... does that mean I should like Randolph more or like him less?

I think that if the Knicks wanted to build their entire roster to bring out the best in Randolph or Curry, they might be able to make an above-average team. But I don't think either of them deserves to be built around. Put together a roster that's fine without them, and then bring in one of them as a complementary player. It's a hard to do that when they're already on your roster, so the GM and coach would have to get creative.

I think Randolph's actually a really talented player. He was a great reserve in his second year as an energy guy and rebounder who got a ton of garbage baskets, always seemed to come up with the ball, and played defense. The problem is there's not any way to get him to play that role again. That all changed when someone mistook him for a first option and decided to pay him $15 million per year (also contributing: microfracture surgery and aging). You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.

You could probably say the same thing about Curry. He's a great scorer. The problem is that his role is not in proportion to his talents.

As for Randolph vs. Curry, the plus/minus says it all to me. The Knicks are a little better when Randolph is in the game instead of on the bench (+1.4 pts/100 pos). They fall apart on both sides of the floor when Curry checks in (-10.1 pts/100 pos).

#1KnicksFan · Post #11 » by **#1KnicksFan** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:29 pm

Yea I agree.

I think with Curry, it's just........impossible. He's like Nene, if he got in great shape who knows what woudl happen.

But he's not motivated enough at this point.

Randolph I think could be on a playoff team. You just have to be very creative with the roster.

A Center who can play great defense and block shots is a must. As is a guard or forward who at the very least can nail down 3's. And an unselfish PG is a must here too.

Given that he's the biggest contract on the team, and that Walsh wants to be "competitive" next season, I'd say get rid of Curry, choose btw. Nate or Crawford, bring in a PG from the draft like Bayless, Rose, or Mayo (all 3 who I think can be unselfish), and work from there...

kandiking · Post #12 » by **kandiking** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 9:06 pm

randolph. he doesn't give up too many stupid, crippling offensive rebounds.

#1KnicksFan · Post #13 » by **#1KnicksFan** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 9:16 pm

3-3 tied...

kandiking · Post #14 » by **kandiking** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:56 pm

i don't understand how anybody can say curry if contracts are not a factor. when playing on the same team the one with better stats is better, unless it's a defensive specialist or "intangibles" player like robert horry.

randolph gets more points and rebounds and curry does not come close to making up for it with his amazing defensive prowess.

#1KnicksFan · Post #15 » by **#1KnicksFan** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:59 pm

^ Plus you could argue for their production they kinda have equally untradeable contracts.

Randolph has around 20 million more on his contract as of the moment, but then again...he probably EARNS that much more on the court compared to Curry.

I wouldn't keep a guy just for the sake of having the less BAD contract.

At this point, since Walsh says he wants to be competitive, you keep the guy who is straight up more productive...

And that's proven to be Randolph.

Just my $0.02.

shawngoat23 · Post #16 » by **shawngoat23** » Tue Apr 29, 2008 12:24 am

#1KnicksFan wrote:^ Plus you could argue for their production they kinda have equally untradeable contracts.

Sure, no one's going to trade for them, but you're not going to build a winner around either of them anyway. The only thing you can do is either buy them out, or try to assemble talent around them (and then make a big push after their contracts expire). Curry's contract is almost $8M more dollars to work with relative to Randolph's.