# OT: Brand...(yah i know there is a topic, but this is a different point)



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

Okay, okay...there is a topic on Brand already...but I have a big point to make about this guy. Yah his numbers right now are insanely good. They are what you would expect from the number one pick in the draft. Let me ask you this question. Why in his sixth season is he starting to put up such huge numbers versus his pretty good numbers before? Simple. He lost a ton of weight and is playing to his maximum potential.

So here is the question to ask yourself. Why didn't he do that when he was a Bull? Would management have traded him for Chandler if he had that dedication back then? I doubt it. That's why Krause and the management didn't see him as a leader. He was probably telling himself that he was by far the best player on a terrible team putting up excellent numbers, why should he push himself to improve? To become that franchise leader the number one pick is suppose to be? I think anyone who is a fan nowadays, should really evaluate this and be happy he landed in Clipperland with his huge contract.

So what were we suppose to do? Wait for six years of good (not great) power forward play. Win a few games and be saddled with a huge contract? Would that help us become a better team than we are today? Then all of a sudden our franchise player would have gotten serious in year seven, lost a ton of weight and become a top player in the league? Who wants that type of player? Just because he's a nice guy and quiet and doesn't cause any trouble, don't forget these facts. Look at players like Lebon, Kobe, Wade working hard over the summer building muscle, becoming lean to become a true franchise player.

Let's look at his TRUE impact:

First two years with Bulls, 17-65 & 15-67. Brutal.

First year with Clippers 39-43.
Second year 27-55.
Third year 28-54.
Fourth year 37-45.

Totals: 163 wins, 329 losses (0.331 winning percentage).

That's brutal. He has a MAX contract and is making $15 Million a season. When will people stop saying he has bad players on his team. He is a number one overall draft pick with a MAX contract. He is suppose to be the franchise. Please let's stop all this MVP talk now. Look at Karl Malone. He had Stockton and nobody else his whole career and they were winners. He is more Shareef-Abdur Rahim (20ppg career average) than Karl Malone. Karl Malone is an MVP type player. Elton Brand simply is not. Good move by the Bulls.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Watch him make one of the all-nba defensive teams, too.

What you call "good" stats have always been pretty amazing to me. Elite. The guy has averaged over 2 BPG for the past 4 seasons and is almost 3 BPG this season. 20/10 for half his career, and real close to that the rest. 20/10 is so good... This season, only Duncan, Jamison,J O'Neal, Brand, Garnett, and Bosh are doing it. Last season, only Shaq and Garnett did it. 

He's 6'8" 270 lb (according to his player profile), but I think he lost 15 lbs (or more) and that's made him a bit more agile.

Isn't Sweetney 6'8" 270 lb too?

But you make an interesting point. A lot of guys doing efficiency type stat computations put a huge value on 20/10 type of guys, but Brand's teams' performance might indicate there's less value in that kind of player without solid teammates to surround him with.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

I would agree his numbers are good to elite. There's no doubt numbers wise he is one of the best in the league. I'm glad you mentioned Jamison. Brand and Jamison seem to have the same impact on team success, which is their teams will be the same with or without them. Wizards win because of Arenas. Clippers are winning because of Cassell. Garnett, O'Neal, Duncan will make their teams win, whether they have good players or not. Look at San Antonio a few years ago when they won championships. They always had decent players surrounding Duncan, but no stars (he has some very good players now). Same with Garnett. No way a team with KG, or O'Neal or Duncan finishes with less than 45 wins no matter how many bad players they have. Brand's high in victories is 39. Even our Bull team last year with all young players and role players had 47 wins.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

Lougehrig, I just got home and I am too tired to rebut your points in detail. However, your post was clearly one of the most unbelievable, if not ignorant, arguments I have ever read on this board. How in the world can you say that it was a good move to unload Brand? Just incredible. I don't mean to be rude but I can't put this any other way.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

Hey no problem. We can agree to disagree. I think my main point is not that Brand is a bad player, but he wasn't the right player for us at that time. It was hard to determine the reasoning why Krause traded him at the time (for example he had already peeked, wasn't a leader) and to a large extent this has been true. If Brand turned into a superstar player, I would be more bothered. Actually trading Artest away hurts alot more than Brand. All I'm saying is that we are set for the long term more now than had we kept Brand. If you are a young struggling team with no good players (ie. Bulls in 1999), what good is having one very good player who is making maximum money when you need a good system, coaching and players who buy into that. People are giving Brand too much credit as a superstar, which he is not. I guess it's the same reasoning that we can trade away Crawford and Curry and end up being a better team. Doesn't make sense on paper, but makes sense on the floor.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/5038130

Scroll down and read the section about Brand. Others feel he is overrated on the defensive end despite his stats.


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Hey no problem. We can agree to disagree. I think my main point is not that Brand is a bad player, but he wasn't the right player for us at that time. It was hard to determine the reasoning why Krause traded him at the time (for example he had already peeked, wasn't a leader) and to a large extent this has been true. If Brand turned into a superstar player, I would be more bothered. Actually trading Artest away hurts alot more than Brand. All I'm saying is that we are set for the long term more now than had we kept Brand. If you are a young struggling team with no good players (ie. Bulls in 1999), what good is having one very good player who is making maximum money when you need a good system, coaching and players who buy into that. People are giving Brand too much credit as a superstar, which he is not. I guess it's the same reasoning that we can trade away Crawford and Curry and end up being a better team. Doesn't make sense on paper, but makes sense on the floor.




Are you aware that Tyson Chandler averages less rebounds, blocks, points, steals, assists, and FTM than Elton Brand?

Do you honestly believe Tyson Chanlder is that much better of a leader?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

You must be joking. And to quote Mr. futuristxen, if you think Elton Brand isn't a top 3 candidate right now, you're simply in denial. Bottom line. 

Elton Brand is better than Tyson Chandler at everything basketball related. Tyson Chandler is...taller. And younger I guess makes up the huge difference between a top 5 player and arguably a top 75 player? Brand is stronger, much better hands, better touch, better shooter, passer, rebounder, shotblocker, ballhandler, etc. 

But yeah...good trade.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

If memory serves me correctly, one of the main reasons Krause wanted to trade Brand was that he just out and out hated Brand's agent (Falk, I believe) and didn't want to give him the satisfaction of meeting his salary demands. Krause was frantically looking for a trade partner on draft night and was even willing to trade down to get Randy White (again, if memory serves me correctly.) 

Even though Elgin Baylor was considered one of the worst GMs in the league at the time he knew that Krause had painted himself into a corner (unfortunately, a trait Paxson has also picked up). As a result, he offered a draft pick for a proven "double-double" guy. Krause wanted more but couldn't get it because he was committed to dumping Brand. A story was even floated to the media that Krause had to trade Brand because Elton didn't want to stay in Chicago under any terms. Both Brand and Falk emphatically denied this, however.

I am old enough to remember one of the worst baseball trades in history- Lou Brock for Ernie Broglio. Krause made two of the worst trades in NBA history in back to back years. Brand for Chandler and Artest and Miller for Rose and Best. 

Some of you may remember the rookie/sophomore game during All-Star weekend where Brand dominated the game as a rookie with 20 rebounds. In the same game a couple of years later Chandler had no points and two rebounds. However, he was great waving a towel on the bench cheering his teammates on. I always thought that was an omen of the future for the Bulls. Krause traded a future hall of famer for an underachieving, poorly skilled, high school athlete.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Okay, okay...there is a topic on Brand already...but I have a big point to make about this guy. Yah his numbers right now are insanely good. They are what you would expect from the number one pick in the draft. Let me ask you this question. Why in his sixth season is he starting to put up such huge numbers versus his pretty good numbers before? Simple. He lost a ton of weight and is playing to his maximum potential.


He took the weight off a few years ago. This isn't new.



> So here is the question to ask yourself. Why didn't he do that when he was a Bull? Would management have traded him for Chandler if he had that dedication back then? I doubt it.


Who says he wasn't dedicated as a Bull?



> That's why Krause and the management didn't see him as a leader. He was probably telling himself that he was by far the best player on a terrible team putting up excellent numbers, why should he push himself to improve? To become that franchise leader the number one pick is suppose to be? I think anyone who is a fan nowadays, should really evaluate this and be happy he landed in Clipperland with his huge contract.


Is any of this supported by facts?




> That's brutal. He has a MAX contract and is making $15 Million a season. When will people stop saying he has bad players on his team. He is a number one overall draft pick with a MAX contract. He is suppose to be the franchise. Please let's stop all this MVP talk now. Look at Karl Malone. He had Stockton and nobody else his whole career and they were winners. He is more Shareef-Abdur Rahim (20ppg career average) than Karl Malone. Karl Malone is an MVP type player. Elton Brand simply is not. Good move by the Bulls.


I don't even know where to begin. Your argument is so insanely flawed I don't even know where to approach a response.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Clippers are winning because of Cassell.



:laugh:

Just like the Wolves were winning because of Cassell last year...wait...


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

charlietyra said:


> If memory serves me correctly, one of the main reasons Krause wanted to trade Brand was that he just out and out hated Brand's agent (Falk, I believe) and didn't want to give him the satisfaction of meeting his salary demands. Krause was frantically looking for a trade partner on draft night and was even willing to trade down to get Randy White (again, if memory serves me correctly.)


Something does not sit right with me with this statement. If Krause painted himself into a corner because of personal issues with Falk, Reinsdorf should have fired him that instant for letting personal issues get ahead of trying to improve the team.

From what I remember, Falk basically said that Brand would play for the QO the next season unless he got a max extension the offseason after his third year. Since the Bulls were not willing to pay, my take was Krause did not want to put himself in the situation where we would lose Brand for nothing, as he did not look like a franchise player, but certainly a solid #2 guy on a championship team.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> Something does not sit right with me with this statement. If Krause painted himself into a corner because of personal issues with Falk, Reinsdorf should have fired him that instant for letting personal issues get ahead of trying to improve the team.
> 
> From what I remember, Falk basically said that Brand would play for the QO the next season unless he got a max extension the offseason after his third year. Since the Bulls were not willing to pay, my take was Krause did not want to put himself in the situation where we would lose Brand for nothing, as he did not look like a franchise player, but certainly a solid #2 guy on a championship team.



Rhyder, I understand that Krause did not want to lose Brand for nothing in return. The reason I say that he "painted himself into a corner" is that every GM in the league knew that the Bulls (by this I mean both Krause and Reinsdorf) did not want to pay Brand big bucks. Therefore, Krause's bargaining position was weakened considerably and the Bulls had to settle for less than equal value in return. I believe Krause's ego and emotions regarding Falk got in the way. Krause compunded this mistake by assuming that a high school run/jump athlete with no discernible basketball skills would be a franchise type player. Similarly, Paxson's blind insistence that Curry take a DNA test (a test which was not recommended by the great majority of cardiologists) weakened his bargaining position in dealing with other teams. 

Curry got 24 points, 11 rebounds and 3 blocked shots last night. Brand got 24 points, 11 rebounds and 6 blocked shots last night. Chandler couldn't even play five minutes last night because of some mysterious ailment and Sweetney wasn't much of a factor. Yes, this was just one night, but Brand has been playing at a high level since about the 10th game of his NBA career. Chandler has had mysterious back, esophagus and lung ailments since being in the league and has been a disappointmnent compared to other HS studs who had a much higher skill level (Amare, Howard, LeBron) Yet Chandler still got a big contract but Curry gets shipped out of town. 

The key point of this post is that I believe Krause was an unmitigated disaster and Paxson's performance has been uneven at best.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

charlietyra said:


> Rhyder, I understand that Krause did not want to lose Brand for nothing in return. The reason I say that he "painted himself into a corner" is that every GM in the league knew that the Bulls (by this I mean both Krause and Reinsdorf) did not want to pay Brand big bucks. Therefore, Krause's bargaining position was weakened considerably and the Bulls had to settle for less than equal value in return. I believe Krause's ego and emotions regarding Falk got in the way. Krause compunded this mistake by assuming that a high school run/jump athlete with no discernible basketball skills would be a franchise type player. Similarly, Paxson's blind insistence that Curry take a DNA test (a test which was not recommended by the great majority of cardiologists) weakened his bargaining position in dealing with other teams.
> 
> Curry got 24 points, 11 rebounds and 3 blocked shots last night. Brand got 24 points, 11 rebounds and 6 blocked shots last night. Chandler couldn't even play five minutes last night because of some mysterious ailment and Sweetney wasn't much of a factor. Yes, this was just one night, but Brand has been playing at a high level since about the 10th game of his NBA career. Chandler has had mysterious back, esophagus and lung ailments since being in the league and has been a disappointmnent compared to other HS studs who had a much higher skill level (Amare, Howard, LeBron) Yet Chandler still got a big contract but Curry gets shipped out of town.
> 
> The key point of this post is that I believe Krause was an unmitigated disaster and Paxson's performance has been uneven at best.


Terrific post, as usual.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

Also, let's not forget that Brand was very young when he came into this league (and still is for that matter). No, he didn't come straight out of high school, but he only spent two seasons in college (and an incredibly productive 2 seasons, I might add). My biggest argument against the Brand for Chandler trade in response to the "Chandler is younger and has more potential argument" was that Brand was still very young, and it was ridiculous to assume that he was finished developing.

It looks like we're seeing that in a major way now.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

This thread isn't about Chandler versus Brand. I think people get too caught up in that. It's about how Brand isn't the MVP of the NBA. We didn't need Brand when we traded him. Plain and simple. He wasn't putting up 25ppg and 11boards at the time, otherwise we don't trade him. He put up 20 and 10 two seasons in a row, without improvement. Krause was planning for the future. Essentially he was saying being forced to pay Brand a max contract wasn't worth it in order to build a winner. Simple as that.

Other random thoughts. The guy had never played in a playoff game. He has never had a winning record while being the team leader. MVP? Karl Malone put up 9 straight seasons equivalent or better than Brand before he won his MVPs. By everybody's estimation, Malone should have won 12 MVPs. Give me a break.

24 points, 11 board, 6 blocks. I watched lasts night Knick v. Clipper game. He had 20 points and 9 boards and 5 blocks going into the fourth quarter last night. His team was losing by 6 points. He had very little impact in the fourth quarter (he got dunked on by Curry, he fouled Nate Robinson on a fast break in a poor block attempt, got stripped by Robinson on a rebound, passed off with 5 seconds on the shot clock only to be bailed out by Kaman). The fourth quarter of last nights game was won by Quinton Ross, Cuttino Mobley and Sam Cassell. But hey, his stat line looked good right?

If someone can prove his is something more than a better version of Shareef Adbur-Rahim, then I will start to listen to the MVP talk. A player can't go through his entire career is not be responsible for the win total of his team. Especially when that player is the team leader, possible MVP candidate working on a max contract.

Right now I have many players ahead of Brand on the MVP list. Duncan, Nash, J. O'Neal, Iverson, Kobe Bryant, Garnett, Wade, Arenas, Lebron. The best he can hope for is third team All-NBA.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

Wespect to lougehrig, awesome post.


> Right now I have many players ahead of Brand on the MVP list. Duncan, Nash, J. O'Neal, Iverson, Kobe Bryant, Garnett, Wade, Arenas, Lebron.


As for that list, I wouldn't put Wade in there. I just feel he's not up to his standard of last season, let alone improved. There is the Shaq factor, but the purpose for the trade was to overload on talent to cover it, the plan hasn't brought any fruit yet. One thing suprising though is how well Mourning is playing.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> This thread isn't about Chandler versus Brand. I think people get too caught up in that.


Yes it is. You said the Brand for Chandler trade was a good trade. It _is_ about Brand vs. Chandler. 



> It's about how Brand isn't the MVP of the NBA. We didn't need Brand when we traded him. Plain and simple.


_Nothing_ is "plain and simple." How did we not need Brand? He was the best player on our team, the only good player on the team, and HE WAS STILL YOUNG.



> He wasn't putting up 25ppg and 11boards at the time, otherwise we don't trade him. He put up 20 and 10 two seasons in a row, without improvement.


2 freaking seasons. He was 22 and putting up 20 and 10 in the NBA. How ridiculous is it to assume that he was finished developing?



> Krause was planning for the future. Essentially he was saying being forced to pay Brand a max contract wasn't worth it in order to build a winner. Simple as that.


The same Krause who offered a max (near max?) contract to Tim Thomas? The same Krause who offered a near max contract to Antonio Davis? Brand would have been a much better investment at the max than many of the max players in the league.



> Other random thoughts. The guy had never played in a playoff game. He has never had a winning record while being the team leader.


He's never had any support. He was on one of the worst teams in the history of the league with the Bulls, and on one of the worst franchises in sports history with the Clippers. But of course your simplistic logic can't take that stuff into account.



> MVP? Karl Malone put up 9 straight seasons equivalent or better than Brand before he won his MVPs. By everybody's estimation, Malone should have won 12 MVPs. Give me a break.


This is one of the dumbest things you have written yet, which is saying a lot. Firstly, the people voting for the MVP don't look at a single player in a vacuum, you also have to consider the seasons of other players in the league at that time. Malone was playing in an era with Jordan, Olajuwon, Barkely, etc. If Brand was putting up his current season statistics while Jordan was doing his thing with the Bulls, there wouldn't be a single person on here arguing that Brand should be the MVP. All we are saying is that Brand should be _considered_ amongst the leaders for the MVP *at this point in the season*. 



> 24 points, 11 board, 6 blocks. I watched lasts night Knick v. Clipper game. He had 20 points and 9 boards and 5 blocks going into the fourth quarter last night. His team was losing by 6 points. He had very little impact in the fourth quarter (he got dunked on by Curry, he fouled Nate Robinson on a fast break in a poor block attempt, got stripped by Robinson on a rebound, passed off with 5 seconds on the shot clock only to be bailed out by Kaman). The fourth quarter of last nights game was won by Quinton Ross, Cuttino Mobley and Sam Cassell. But hey, his stat line looked good right?


Wow, so you're sample from the population of the season to this point is a subjective analysis of *ONE* game! Why didn't you mention when he led the Clips in a win vs. Miami a few nights ago with 37 points (on 16-23 shooting), 12 boards, and 6 blocks?



> If someone can prove his is something more than a better version of Shareef Adbur-Rahim, then I will start to listen to the MVP talk.


05-06

Elton Brand: 24.8 ppg, 10.7 rpg, 2.94 bgp, 56% shooting, 74% ft
Shareef Abdur-Rahim: 15.4 ppg, 6.8 rpg, .8 bpg, 53% shooting, 77% ft

Hey, you're the one that made the comparison.



> A player can't go through his entire career is not be responsible for the win total of his team. Especially when that player is the team leader, possible MVP candidate working on a max contract.


Ridiculous. Elton Brand is 26 years old. He hasn't gone through his entire career.

I can't believe I wasted so much time with a response.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

I think we have supporters for this discussion on both sides. Some people think Brand is a franchise type of player, some don't. When Brand plays like a franchise player and his teams have success because of his play, I will be the first one to praise him and say how big of mistake the bulls have made. Until that happens, I will say the trade was good.

Final Point: We developed into a 47 win team last year. If we had kept Brand we would have had more 30 win seasons and less 20 win seasons, but we would have never had a 47 win season.

Brand / Clippers have yet to win over 40 despite having a roster of decent players over the years. When you talk about bad organizations always playing badly, then isn't that what true MVP/franchise players are suppose to overcome? If Brand is such a cornerstone, shouldn't he be able to turn a terrible franchise into a great one (a la Lemieux in Pittsburgh, Jordan in Chicago, Robinson in San Antonio, etc. etc.). That's what true MVP players do. That's what true franchise players do. It's not about numbers. It's about leading and winning. Brand is a numbers players who contributes alot to a team. He isn't a leader nor an MVP.

Clippers 2001-2002 (39-43, he had Q, Jeff Mcinnis, Odom, Maggette, Kandi (sorta good), etc.) 
Clippers 2002-2003 (27-55, he had Magette, Odom, Kandi, Andre Miller!)
Clippers 2003-2004 (28-54, he had Magette, Q, Simmons, Jaric, Kaman)
Clippers 2004-2005 (37-45, he had Magette, Simmons, Jaric, Wilcox, Kaman, Livingston)

You can say all you want those are brutally weak rosters. Those seem pretty decent rosters fully capable of winning at least 45 games and making the playoffs. 27-55 in 2002-2003 with Andre Miller, Odom, Magette and Kandi w/ Brand? Final point.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

I don't have the numbers but I don't think it is too outlandish to speculate that Brand has averaged 24 10 and 3 over an 18 game stretch in the past.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> I think we have supporters for this discussion on both sides. Some people think Brand is a franchise type of player, some don't. When Brand plays like a franchise player and his teams have success because of his play, I will be the first one to praise him and say how big of mistake the bulls have made. Until that happens, I will say the trade was good.


The trade was Elton Brand for Tyson Chandler. Do you need me to post their statistics. It was a terrible trade.



> Final Point: We developed into a 47 win team last year. If we had kept Brand we would have had more 30 win seasons and less 20 win seasons, but we would have never had a 47 win season.


Prove it. You are making arguments that are in NO WAY based upon fact.



> Brand / Clippers have yet to win over 40 despite having a roster of decent players over the years.


They've had rosters of mediocre veterans and developing young players in the ridiculously loaded West. Had they played in the East, the Clippers very well could have won 40 games. Do you really think the Clippers had more talent over the past 4 years than the Lakers, Spurs, Mavs, Wolves, Blazers, Kings, etc.? 




> When you talk about bad organizations always playing badly, then isn't that what true MVP/franchise players are suppose to overcome? If Brand is such a cornerstone, shouldn't he be able to turn a terrible franchise into a great one (a la Lemieux in Pittsburgh, Jordan in Chicago, Robinson in San Antonio, etc. etc.).


Please tell me who's comparing Brand to Lemiuex, Jordan, or David Robinson. ALL I AM SAYING IS THAT HE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AN MVP CANDIDATE AT THIS POINT IN THE SEASON!



> That's what true MVP players do. That's what true franchise players do. It's not about numbers. It's about leading and winning. Brand is a numbers players who contributes alot to a team. He isn't a leader nor an MVP.


Please provide statistical information that supports your silly supposition that Brand is a "numbers" player.

Does he score points at the sacrifice of the team? No, his fg% indicates that he doesn't take bad shots.

Does he turn the ball over a lot? Not more than most other players at his position.

Is he lazy on defense? NO.

So how exactly is Elton Brand simply a "numbers" player?

KG was on a bad team last year and what appears to be an average team this year. He's put up good numbers. Does that mean he's become a "numbers" player?




> Clippers 2001-2002 (39-43, he had Q, Jeff Mcinnis, Odom, Maggette, Kandi (sorta good), etc.)


McInnis isn't a starter in this league, Odom was decent, Maggette was very young, Kandi was bad. Please, compare this roster to the rosters of the other teams that made the playoffs in the Western Conference that year, and tell me which team the Clippers had more talent than.



> Clippers 2002-2003 (27-55, he had Magette, Odom, Kandi, Andre Miller!)


Compare them to the rest of the West.



> Clippers 2003-2004 (28-54, he had Magette, Q, Simmons, Jaric, Kaman)
> Clippers 2004-2005 (37-45, he had Magette, Simmons, Jaric, Wilcox, Kaman, Livingston)


Compare them to the rest of the West.



> You can say all you want those are brutally weak rosters. Those seem pretty decent rosters fully capable of winning at least 45 games and making the playoffs. 27-55 in 2002-2003 with Andre Miller, Odom, Magette and Kandi w/ Brand? Final point.


You are getting pretty foolish here. When did I say that Brand deserved the MVP in 2002-2003? Seriously, look at the rest of the teams in the West those years. The Clips were young in a conference loaded with big time vets. 

Here are my arguments (since you love misrepresenting them):

Brand should be considered an MVP candidate at this point in the 05-06 season.
Elton Brand for Tyson Chandler was a terrible trade.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

Tyson for Brand was a probably terrible trade at that time at best.

4 years from that, anybody who don't think it was one of the worst trade of all time is dreaming. Tyson will get better, I hope, I hope. But he won't ever be as good as Brand, period.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Tyson was very effective for the Bulls last season.

Right now he's suffering from some kind of strange shortness of breath issue, along with playing on a team that has not been constructed to suit his skillset.

Brand of course is better at this point.... but if healthy.... I still don't see why Chandler can't be Camby.

If Chandler continues to be completely ineffective due to his health issues, than yah, it was a horrible trade. But, health is a tricky thing to game. If he comes back to full health, he’ll be a very good player in the league for many years… and it won’t be “the worst trade ever made” by any stretch. 

Camby playing at about the same level of effectiveness as Brand, but in a different role. And, I still think Chandler can play like Camby. What was Camby doing in the league when he was Chandler’s age? About the same as Tyson when healthy.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

Brand for Chandler was not a trade assuming Chandler is going to be a better player than Brand. I am not assuming nor saying that in the least. I am saying the trade was about more than just player for player. It freed up alot of things for us. It allowed us to build a balanced team, to have flexibility in the free agent market and cap space. We have a team built around depth and versatility and defensive intensity. 

Don't get me wrong, having Brand on our team would have made us better during this time. But he wouldn't have had the impact people are saying. We wouldn't have been a championship calibur team. That's the decision the management has to make at the time. Do I think this is a player we can build a team around to win a championship? If the answer is no, then you are best starting over and getting as much value as you can without committing to huge contracts. This happens all the time in sports. Look at the Baron Davis trade (New Orleans didn't think they could build around him because he was often injured, Golden States feels they can build around him). So I agree that Brand was not a franchise player to lead us to the championship, so therefore good trade.

Brand is a second tier player. First tier players are few and far between. They are players who will make their teams successful regardless of their teammates (Shaq, Duncan, Karl Malone, Hakeem, Robinson, Lemieux, Gretzky to name a few). Brand is not one of those players. There are alot of trades in history that are more about finance, than player for player. Look at the Florida Marlins (They had a fire sale after their first world series win, got alot of prospects and won another world series, now they are donig it all again). Look at the Suns trading Luol Deng away to be able to sign free agents. Sometimes those trades work out for the player value, sometimes they work out for other values. In our case, it allowed us to grow into a well rounded TEAM, not built around the talents of one player. That is the key to our success. Sometimes the rule is addition by subtraction.

If you doubt this approach, please read this article about the Suns trading away Marbury for very little in return. Colangelo is talking about "that group being limited" and take two steps back to that one huge leap forward. 

http://www.insidehoops.com/colangelo-suns-010604.shtml


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Tyson was very effective for the Bulls last season.
> 
> Right now he's suffering from some kind of strange shortness of breath issue, along with playing on a team that has not been constructed to suit his skillset.
> 
> ...



First of all, I don't agree that Camby is doing the same thing in the league as Brand. However, let's disregard that. If you're going to take age into account, you also have to consider the age difference between Brand and Camby. Brand is 5 years younger. What was Camby doing in the league when he was Brand's age? Nothing close to what Elton is right now.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

By the way, I think we're a bit quick to dismiss 20/10 guys. Brand was doing it in what was supposed to be his junior and senior year in college.

I don't know if I can search and find the number of guys that did that at the ages of 21 and 22, but here's a list of guys that are 20/10 guys right now.

Jermaine O'Neal (22.1, 10.6)
Chris Bosh (21.7, 10.0)
Antawn Jamison (21.1, 11.5)
Shawn Marion (19.9, 11.8)
Yao Ming (19.4, 8.9)
Chris Webber (19.3, 10.1)
Pau Gasol (19.2, 9.2)

That being said, I think Brand could get SOME MVP talk (just because he's so valuable to his own team; they've really started to focus on him more, rather than try to make him a very important #2 piece to other guys. why does everyone think that Brand is a peripheral player? watch him play one game and tell me that he doesn't do the things that SUPERSTARS do for their teams.)

And you look at a guy like Pau Gasol, who saw that team through terrible times and then through better ones. You look at a guy like Antawn Jamison, who also suffered through terrible times but is now getting into the thick of things. Shawn Marion's team had a terrible spell for a while. Webber's had a tough career as well. Brand fits in with those guys.

I think that the clear runaway MVP candidate is still Tim Duncan. The Spurs are still SO good, in a class of their own, and Brand's performance this year, as pumped up as it is, doesn't draw near to TD and the Spurs. I think Duncan is more to his team than even Shaq was to any of his Laker teams; I'd put the Spurs emphasis on Duncan on a level near the Bulls emphasis on MJ, seriously.

But all the other guys on the list... Brand is right there with them, in my opinion. Nash, Kobe, even LeBron... I think Brand does as much for his team or more. His strong play generates wins. His play got stronger, and his team got more wins. Makes sense to me.

A dark horse candidate for MVP is Baron Davis. He's leading his team and making it better, having big scoring nights when necessary but getting it done with 16.4, 9.3 apg, 4.5 rpg, 1.8 spg. His shooting %'s are horrible right now, but they will definitely get way better. Golden State is 12 and 7, and they are looking like a serious team in the Pacific division, hanging tough with good teams like the Clips and the Suns. 

But in my mind, no one really comes close to what Duncan does for his team, so even if Brand can be in the conversation, the talk will always end on TD.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Brand for Chandler was not a trade assuming Chandler is going to be a better player than Brand. I am not assuming nor saying that in the least. I am saying the trade was about more than just player for player. It freed up alot of things for us. It allowed us to build a balanced team, to have flexibility in the free agent market and cap space. We have a team built around depth and versatility and defensive intensity.


So please tell me, what did the Bulls do with all the money they saved by trading Brand? They signed Eddie Robinson. They tried to sign Tim Thomas and Antonio Davis. They missed out on Tracy McGrady. This is absolutely absurd. What contributor on today's team did the Bulls land because of the salary freed up by the Brand trade?

Stop making silly generalizations and BACK UP your statements.



> Don't get me wrong, having Brand on our team would have made us better during this time. But he wouldn't have had the impact people are saying.


What impact are people saying? HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS? I AM ARGUING SIMPLY THAT ELTON IS AN MVP CANDIDATE AT THIS POINT IN THIS SEASON. I AM SAYING IT WAS A BAD TRADE AT THE TIME, AND A BAD TRADE NOW!.



> We wouldn't have been a championship calibur team.


We're not a championship calibur team now, either!!!!!!



> That's the decision the management has to make at the time. Do I think this is a player we can build a team around to win a championship? If the answer is no, then you are best starting over and getting as much value as you can without committing to huge contracts.


So they started over, and where are we now, 4 seasons later? A decent team. What big-time free agents did the Bulls sign as a result of the money they saved by not signing Brand? NONE.




> So I agree that Brand was not a franchise player to lead us to the championship, so therefore good trade.


In a trade you give up something to get something in return. In order to assess a trade, you assess what you give up, and what you get in return. The Bulls gave up Elton Brand and received Tyson Chandler and saved money (in the short term). So what contributing players did the Bulls sign as a result of the money saved? And now that Chandler has signed a huge contract, where is all that cap space value in the trade that you're talking about? 



> Brand is a second tier player. First tier players are few and far between.


Completely subjective and arbitrary.



> They are players who will make their teams successful regardless of their teammates (Shaq, Duncan, Karl Malone, Hakeem, Robinson, Lemieux, Gretzky to name a few). Brand is not one of those players.


Who ever said Brand was in that class? You don't have to be one of the all time greats to get a max contract. 



> There are alot of trades in history that are more about finance, than player for player. Look at the Florida Marlins (They had a fire sale after their first world series win, got alot of prospects and won another world series, now they are donig it all again). Look at the Suns trading Luol Deng away to be able to sign free agents. Sometimes those trades work out for the player value, sometimes they work out for other values. In our case, it allowed us to grow into a well rounded TEAM, not built around the talents of one player. That is the key to our success. Sometimes the rule is addition by subtraction.


I'm still waiting to find out what the Bulls have done with all that important money they saved by trading Brand for Chandler.



> If you doubt this approach, please read this article about the Suns trading away Marbury for very little in return. Colangelo is talking about "that group being limited" and take two steps back to that one huge leap forward.


that is an entirely different situation and is not relevant in any way. 

I agree that you can't just look at the players involved in the trade. However, realizing now that Chandler has a huge contract as well, please show me how this is a good trade. You can't just say they traded Brand and got cap room. What did they do with the cap room?


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

Wouldn't it be unbelievable if Tyson fulfilled his potential and averaged 20,10, and 3 blocks.


Oh, wait.... :brokenhea


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Tyson Chandler is 23 years old.

Last year he averaged 8 points, 10 rebounds and 2 blocks in 27 minutes a game. That's solid.

He's currently suffering from some type of condition where he can't breathe. 

Now, Paxson seemingly investing a large sum of money in a young player with a serious medical condition, which is really, really sad and comical given what went down this summer, but lets give Tyson a break until he's healthy again.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Tyson Chandler is 23 years old.
> 
> Last year he averaged 8 points, 10 rebounds and 2 blocks in 27 minutes a game. That's solid.
> 
> ...


What did Brand average when he was 23? 

But of course he had already recognized his potential....right...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The Truth said:


> What did Brand average when he was 23?
> 
> But of course he had already recognized his potential....right...


Brand -- 23 (3rd season)
19.5 points, 11.9 rebounds and 2.2 blocks per 40 minutes.

Chandler -- (last season)
11.9 points, 14.8 rebounds and 3 blocks per 40 minutes.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

The Truth said:


> What did Brand average when he was 23?
> 
> But of course he had already recognized his potential....right...



The Truth, you seem to very pro-Brand, which I can understand. He is a good player and it was hard for us to let him go. Let me ask you this. If we had kept Brand, how do you think our team would have played out? Where we would be right now and what potential would we have in the future?

Right now we are a 47 win team who is playing slightly above .500 basketball. We have all of our bad contracts coming off the books in the summer and alot of room under the cap for free agents and trades. We have two first round draft picks in 2006 and another high one in 2007 (from the Knicks). Our team is built around good solid young players who are still growing (especially Deng and Gordon). Our outlook seems very positive right now. Where would be? Maybe if I can see what you see in regards to a different outcome, then I might be convinced trading Brand was a bad thing for us in the long run.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Brand -- 23 (3rd season)
> 19.5 points, 11.9 rebounds and 2.2 blocks per 40 minutes.
> 
> Chandler -- (last season)
> 11.9 points, 14.8 rebounds and 3 blocks per 40 minutes.


the difference being brand actually played 36 mpg, chandler 27. in this case the per 40mins is a bit misleading i think. we assume chandler can stay on the floor for that much time (*cough* pump fake *cough*) and we assume he could maintain that production. brand on the other hand did it.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

How is Brand not an MVP candidate? Who is a better candidate than him outside of LeBron and Duncan (who aren't better candidates imo, but I can see the arguments)? 

Ranks #9 in the NBA in Points Per Game(24.8) 
Ranks #7 in the NBA in Rebounds Per Game(10.7) 
Ranks #2 in the NBA in Field-Goal Percentage(0.562) 
Ranks #3 in the NBA in Blocks Per Game(2.94)
Ranks #1 in the NBA in Efficiency Ranking(29.89) 

Hard to argue with, but I'll keep going. 

Net Production by Position
Position PER* 
PG -1.3 
SG -1.5 
SF +0.8 
PF +12.9 
C -2.4 

The power forward position is *by far* the most productive for the Clippers. Every other position is negative or barely positive. Check it out for yourself in detail.  

*Elton Brand*: (link here)
Offense: Pts per 100 Poss. 
(ONCOURT) - 109.8 
(OFFCOURT) - 95.0 
Defense: Pts allowed per 100 Poss. 
(ONCOURT)- 101.2 
(OFFCOURT) - 106.5

If that isn't enough, Brand is #2 in the league in Roland Ratings. There is really no argument against this guy. He has top notch stats, top notch impact, and he has shouldered a Clippers team that has the 3rd best record in the entire league right now. 

I can understand stats being taken in context, but I haven't seen anything, not one stat to suggest Brand is a statstuffer or is overrated or anything like that. All the 82games.com stats that try to measure impact have Brand on top, all the "glory" stats have Brand on top. Clippers are proven to be a much much better team with Brand on the court rather than when he is off the court this season. 

How long can you stay in denial?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2006/jh_ALL_PER.htm

#2 behind only Allen Iverson.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

RoRo said:


> the difference being brand actually played 36 mpg, chandler 27. in this case the per 40mins is a bit misleading i think. we assume chandler can stay on the floor for that much time (*cough* pump fake *cough*) and we assume he could maintain that production. brand on the other hand did it.



Brand was also on a very bad team, where minutes for a star type like that are plentiful. Chandler was sharing time with Curry and AD on a team trying to make the playoffs.

I agree that the per-40 minute stats can be misleading, especially when a player is not logging heavy minutes, but Chandler did play 27 minutes a game. And those 27 minutes a game were in a competitive environment... not so with Brand in LA during the time we're looking at.

Chandler's fouls per 40 were 5 and Brand's were 3.4 per 40... so your point is valid. Brand certainly gets in less foul trouble than Chandler.


EDIT:
I'm not saying that Chandler is better than Brand or that it was a good idea to trade Chandler for Brand. I do feel that if you are looking at the trades that were made over the last 5+ years, this is not the one to be outraged at, since Chandler was a very productive player for us last season and was younger when we acquired him. Also, the circumstances can't be ignored. If you have Brad Miller and Curry is your center of the future, Chandler seems like a nice player to match up with a guy like Curry. Now, if you are going to eventually dump Curry for an average player... well.... then hanging on to Brand would have been a smart move.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> How is Brand not an MVP candidate? Who is a better candidate than him outside of LeBron and Duncan (who aren't better candidates imo, but I can see the arguments)?
> 
> Ranks #9 in the NBA in Points Per Game(24.8)
> Ranks #7 in the NBA in Rebounds Per Game(10.7)
> ...


No doubt his numbers are top notch. No doubting that. MVP? I don't see it. He doesn't quite shoulder the load nor lead his team. Again I bring up Karl Malone (or even Barkley in Phoenix). I remember watching their teams play and they were the number one option. When they won it was mainly because of them, when they lost it was mainly because of them. I don't see Brand doing that this year. His numbers are up and he is playing great, but the main reason the Clips are winning this year over last is the additions they have made in the off season (Cassell, Mobley). MVP seasons are truly great seasons. For Brand he is have a truly great season for himself. 

An MVP player averages 25ppg and 10 bpg in a normal season and 30 ppg and 12 bpg in a truly great season. Right now I would put Nash (winning w/o Amare), Lebron (does it all), Duncan (TD is always MVP candidate), KG (look at his team, they have noone), Iverson (leading scoring, 7th assists). Those are 5 players a step above Brand. On the next tier, I would include Brand, Artest, Tony Parker, Arenas, Pierce, J O'Neal, Baron Davis, DWade.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Brand was also on a very bad team, where minutes for a star type like that are plentiful. Chandler was sharing time with Curry and AD on a team trying to make the playoffs.
> 
> I agree that the per-40 minute stats can be misleading, especially when a player is not logging heavy minutes, but Chandler did play 27 minutes a game. And those 27 minutes a game were in a competitive environment... not so with Brand in LA during the time we're looking at.
> 
> ...


i think we're on the same page tho. at the time i was totally on board with the trade. i thought krause made a bold move in pairing the two bigs. at the time i think the conservative route was to keep brand and get battier or richardson. didn't seem like a good idea at the time. at least not as exciting. 

fwiw, too bad the bulls made brand such a fattie. the slimmed down brand of today's clips is so much livlier and can cover more ground, that brand might've been a good pairing w/ curry. oh well


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

lougehrig said:


> No doubt his numbers are top notch. No doubting that. MVP? I don't see it. He doesn't quite shoulder the load nor lead his team. Again I bring up Karl Malone (or even Barkley in Phoenix). I remember watching their teams play and they were the number one option. When they won it was mainly because of them, when they lost it was mainly because of them. I don't see Brand doing that this year. His numbers are up and he is playing great, but the main reason the Clips are winning this year over last is the additions they have made in the off season (Cassell, Mobley). MVP seasons are truly great seasons. For Brand he is have a truly great season for himself.


It's not just his numbers, it's his impact, as I pointed out already. I watch every Clippers game, and they're not good at all without him on the floor. He is the foundation of the team. Brand's season right now is comparable to Garnett's season in 2003-2004. Cassell and Sprewell joined up with Garnett who had never had team success, and they went all the way to the WCF. Garnett won MVP that year by the largest margin of all time. Cassell (and Mobley) are doing the same things this season. They are putting the Clippers *over the top*, but Brand is the Garnett in the equation. It's easy to see that by watching the games. 



lougehrig said:


> An MVP player averages 25ppg and 10 bpg in a normal season and 30 ppg and 12 bpg in a truly great season. Right now I would put Nash (winning w/o Amare), Lebron (does it all), Duncan (TD is always MVP candidate), KG (look at his team, they have noone), Iverson (leading scoring, 7th assists). Those are 5 players a step above Brand. On the next tier, I would include Brand, Artest, Tony Parker, Arenas, Pierce, J O'Neal, Baron Davis, DWade.


I can tell you haven't seen Elton Brand playing recently, let's be honest. You are severely underrating the guy, I suggest you watch some Clippers games when you can this year. You're missing out if you don't. Only Duncan and LeBron have arguments for being as good as Brand this year.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Brand was also on a very bad team, where minutes for a star type like that are plentiful. Chandler was sharing time with Curry and AD on a team trying to make the playoffs.
> 
> I agree that the per-40 minute stats can be misleading, especially when a player is not logging heavy minutes, but Chandler did play 27 minutes a game. And those 27 minutes a game were in a competitive environment... not so with Brand in LA during the time we're looking at.
> 
> ...


Thank you. Some sanity at last. The Brand trade was not "the worst of all time" nor "terrible" nor one to be outraged at. Overall it work out for the Bulls. That is/was my point all along


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> It's not just his numbers, it's his impact, as I pointed out already. I watch every Clippers game, and they're not good at all without him on the floor. He is the foundation of the team. Brand's season right now is comparable to Garnett's season in 2003-2004. Cassell and Sprewell joined up with Garnett who had never had team success, and they went all the way to the WCF. Garnett won MVP that year by the largest margin of all time. Cassell (and Mobley) are doing the same things this season. They are putting the Clippers *over the top*, but Brand is the Garnett in the equation. It's easy to see that by watching the games.
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you haven't seen Elton Brand playing recently, let's be honest. You are severely underrating the guy, I suggest you watch some Clippers games when you can this year. You're missing out if you don't. Only Duncan and LeBron have arguments for being as good as Brand this year.


I have league pass and I have seen 6-7 Clipper games so far. I will try to evaluate fairly. So far he is a notch below KG in 2003-2004 (I mean he was average 14 boards per night!!!). But that's just a matter of opinion at this point!


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

lougehrig said:


> Thank you. Some sanity at last. The Brand trade was not "the worst of all time" nor "terrible" nor one to be outraged at. Overall it work out for the Bulls. That is/was my point all along


How did it work out for the Bulls? What did not having Brand clear the way for? Your main argument seems to have been that since he isn't a franchise player, we shouldn't have kept him, but why? What reason do you see that would've made the Bulls worse if they kept him?


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> The Truth, you seem to very pro-Brand, which I can understand. He is a good player and it was hard for us to let him go. Let me ask you this. If we had kept Brand, how do you think our team would have played out? Where we would be right now and what potential would we have in the future?
> 
> Right now we are a 47 win team who is playing slightly above .500 basketball. We have all of our bad contracts coming off the books in the summer and alot of room under the cap for free agents and trades. We have two first round draft picks in 2006 and another high one in 2007 (from the Knicks). Our team is built around good solid young players who are still growing (especially Deng and Gordon). Our outlook seems very positive right now. Where would be? Maybe if I can see what you see in regards to a different outcome, then I might be convinced trading Brand was a bad thing for us in the long run.


But this is 4+ years after the Brand trade. You can hardly attribute the Bulls cap space at this season's end to the Brand trade.

You have yet to show me how the Bulls benefited from the Brand trade. This is how I see it:

The Clippers received:
Elton Brand

The Bulls received:
Tyson Chandler
cap space, with which they wooed and missed on Tracy McGrady, Tim Thomas, and Antonio Davis. With which they used to sign Eddie Robinson.

Please show me differently.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> How is Brand not an MVP candidate? Who is a better candidate than him outside of LeBron and Duncan (who aren't better candidates imo, but I can see the arguments)?
> 
> Ranks #9 in the NBA in Points Per Game(24.8)
> Ranks #7 in the NBA in Rebounds Per Game(10.7)
> ...



But as lougehrig tells us (but of course doesn't back up), Elton is just a "numbers" guy.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

Babble-On said:


> How did it work out for the Bulls? What did not having Brand clear the way for? Your main argument seems to have been that since he isn't a franchise player, we shouldn't have kept him, but why? What reason do you see that would've made the Bulls worse if they kept him?



Exactly....He keeps telling us that we got more than just Chandler in the trade, but he has yet to tell us what that was.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

If Curry is still here and Chandler is healthy, we're not having this discussion, IMO.

At least the lack of Brand on the Bulls would not seem as painful.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> If Curry is still here and Chandler is healthy, we're not having this discussion, IMO.
> 
> At least the lack of Brand on the Bulls would not seem as painful.



But at the same time, it could have been Curry and Brand as well.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Who are you watching play basketball right now, that is so great that watching Elton Brand you can dismiss him as not even a candidate for MVP?

Did Jesus put on some Nikes for the Pistons the other night?

Elton Brand was a good player before this season. But he has definitely taken his game to another level. Offensively he is like the Lebron James of powerforwards. Defensively he's some mash of Tim Duncan and Ben Wallace. He combines the athleticism of Wallace with the composure of Duncan. I'm as big a Lebron James fan as anybody, but after watching him destroy the entire cleveland frontline twice in the same week, I would have no problem if he or Duncan were given the MVP so far.

Also getting Cassell was a stroke of genius for this season while they get Livingston in order. They have to be very careful next year though about it. Cassell has a part in getting Brand to this next level. He's not all of the reason. But he's really the perfect guard to pair with that Clippers team.

Cassell is an interesting player, because he's pretty much been a winner everywhere he's gone. But I have little doubt that he would be in Skiles doghouse and Pax would have him on the block Tim Thomas style, with the quickness.

Man, if we had just kept that rebuilding project going...having Artest, Miller, and Brand together...that's like the meanest frontline in the last 10 years if you build with it. Oh what could of been...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> Man, if we had just kept that rebuilding project going...having Artest, Miller, and Brand together...that's like the meanest frontline in the last 10 years if you build with it. Oh what could of been...


Yah, I hate thinking about that as well.

I also hate thinking about what this team would look like on the floor.

G: Hinrich, Crawford
SF: Artest, Marshall
PF/C: Curry, Chandler, Miller

Brand is playing like a MVP this year. I'm not willing to give up on Chandler enough though to call it the worst trade ever... although I'm getting concerned about Tyson.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

The Truth said:


> But this is 4+ years after the Brand trade. You can hardly attribute the Bulls cap space at this season's end to the Brand trade.
> 
> You have yet to show me how the Bulls benefited from the Brand trade. This is how I see it:
> 
> ...


All I'm saying is describe our roster had we kept Brand. Let's say we had Brand and Curry. We would have won 40 games a year and never gotten Gordon or Hinrich or Duhon (high second rounder). What would our team look like as a comparison to our current squad? Would we have McGrady or Arenas or any other free agents? A team with Curry and Brand would be a top team? Brand had similar help and players in the past 5 years with little to show for it (28-39 wins). Or are you saying having Brand would somehow mean we had another top notch player to make us better than we are now? So we could have signed some mid level free agents. Let say this:

G Crawford
G Raja Bell
SF Nocioni
PF Brand
C Curry

Let say we drafted Reece Gaines (15th overall) in 2003 instead of Hinrich (7th overall) and Kris Humprhies (14th overall) in 2004 instead of Gordon. We wouldn't get Deng because we would be a 40 win team and Phoenix wouldn't take the risk since they assumed we would decent.

So a bench of:
Antonio Davis
Reece Gaines
Kris Humprhies
Songaila
Rashad McCants
Othella (free agent)
Donyell (resigned free agent)

So that's a decent team with alot of decent players. Brand is still the best player. When Brand is the best player on a team the team has a 0.331 winning percentage. I would take what we have now in a heartbeat. That's how the NBA works. Teams who are consistently average always draft late lottery and never get impact players (NY Knicks). Teams who go for broke and try to win it all or lose it all get the top players in the draft after having a few terrible seasons (San Antonio, Miami).


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

if we're throwing around hypotheticals how about:
keep brand, get artest some medication, and of course keep bmiller. with the front court settled let's get some guards.

draft jason richardson instead of curry with #4. i don't think it's that much of a shocker. if the bulls wanted to try out 1 more year with the frontcourt then richardson would be a solid addition. 

draft arenas with #31.

i don't know who our bench would be and we don't have a pure point guard. richardson and arenas still need to learn the ropes. so for arguments sake let's say we finish in the middle of the pack.
the most compelling draft pick in that range would be tayshaun prince.

arenas/crawford
jrich
artest/prince
brand
miller

it's a start eh?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Yah, I hate thinking about that as well.
> 
> I also hate thinking about what this team would look like on the floor.
> 
> ...


Even if you don't believe it's the worst trade ever, which I don't remember saying, because as bad as the Brand trade was, there have been some just as bad trades if not worse at other times...But even if you don't think it's the worst, you can't possibly be on the side at this point, that the Bulls somehow came out ahead? Considering how good Brand was at Tyson's age. How good KG was at Tyson's age. How good Tim Duncan was at Tyson's age. How good Dwight Howard is already...Hell, considering how good Marcus Camby was at Tyson's age...I'm not so sure that Tyson is going to ever get to where Brand is now as a player. That would be a remarkable turnaround to a so-far disapointing career.

Remember when we got Tyson we weren't thinking future skinny man's version of Mutombo...we were thinking KG. We thought Tyson was baby-KG, Eddy was Baby Shaq, and Crawford...I forget what Crawford was supposed to be. But so far the only guys who have accomplished anything close to becoming truly good to sometimes great players, are the guys Krause got the first time. Stupid Jerry got it right the first time. He had Ron Ron. He found Brad Miller. He had Elton. If the dumb **** had just not signed Eddie Robinson. If he had bothered to scout some overseas and found Tony Parker or Manu Ginobilli.... You just needed that one piece, to bring those guys together. And Krause went crazy looking for it. Eventually cost him his whole ship. He wanted to prove so badly that he could draft a Michael Jordan. He wasn't content with being able to find Scottie Pippen, Ron Artest, Elton Brand...I hated the man for dismantling the dynasty for no real good reason. And I believe now more than ever that Reinsdorf is the real dark wizard behind the scenes...but damn if Krause wasn't a mess. Tragic really. A man undone by his own psychotic twisted version of hubris. He was right when he said organizations win championships. But the corrollary is that they also destroy championship hopes. The Bulls are a bad organization. And until there is new ownership brought in, mistakes like the Brand mistake are just going to keep getting repeated. It's only a matter of time before either Ben Gordon, or Kirk Hinrich are traded. Not in the sense of this year, but eventually guys will want to be paid, and the man upstairs won't want to pay the bills for a team with no rings already on the fingers...so it's off to the glue factory for another Bulls team.

Jerry Reinsdorf owes it to Bulls fans all over the world to renounce his ownership of the team.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

According to the latest available data, the Elton Brand for Tyson Chandler was a very bad one for our team. 

Krause mangled his reputation by the way he treated the coaches and players of the championship seasons. He absolutely anhilated it with his activities in the post-dynasty years. I mean, what person with his record or anything approaching has never ever been offered a second chance in the NBA? He's not in baseball by choice. He *knows* theres no road back. He has a better chance to make it back as a referee than as a GM.

We've had a couple of very good bigs come through here, and we've kept the one with the least _solo_ value to the team: Chandler. Granted, I do think he'll have a curve up in performance like Ben Wallace did, but given a choice we could absolutely use Brand again. Brad again. Curry again. All instead of Chandler.

All I can hope is that we get one more shot a all-star big man.

Curry should not have been traded for less than Channing Frye AND either Trevor Ariza or the pick...not Michael Sweetney and the pick. 

We got robbed...and sadly it's been the tradition, not the exception. The positive: Pax knows basketball talent...and has a pulse for what will work in Skiles schemes.

That pick will turn into something valuable where-ever it lands. Still...when it comes to big men and trades, we're the victims, not the bullies, in the schoolyard that is the NBA.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

GOSH. If you want a justification to the Brand trade, you won't find it in basketball talent. Tyson Chandler was NOT anywhere near as good as Elton Brand, and it was only the common conception among fans and media (ironically, still being echoed years later in this thread) that said that Elton Brand was nearing his ceiling potential.

What I believe to be a much truer justification to the Bulls trading Brand in what looked like a firesale is simply timing. The Artest/Miller trading also fits into this theory.

*1. Normal basketball factors*
Yes, Brand was a terrific player for a terrible team. Yes, maybe something risky had to happen. Yes, they were saying that Tyson Chandler might be the next KG and we didn't have a great handle on how the mainstream of HS players really looked in the pros yet. And finally, yes, that draft class wasn't particularly strong to begin with.

It was a huge risk, and the basketball justifications have been going on in this thread, so I'll avoid them for now.

*2. Pressure from recent history.*
Let's face it, the Bulls were used to winning a lot of games. They had the best basketball team of this generation's memory, with the best basketball player possibly in history. It wasn't easy for the Jerrys to watch a team build slowly; they wanted to live or die by a high-risk, fast-paced phenom. 

Also, by investing into high schoolers, they could buy more time in the court of public opinion, because they could blame many of the inadequacies of their players on their youth. And in fact, this is exactly what they did.

*3. Pressure financially.*
This was a much bigger deal. The Bulls somehow did not believe that they were going to improve dramatically over the next few years. They did not have the confidence in their guys to do that (although Artest and Miller were looking like very good players, the wins weren't forthcoming). What loomed over the horizon was the contract negotiating.

It was scary for JR and JK to think about committing big bucks to players who DID deserve it and under this new CBA, could be matched to any offer sheet they signed (meaning that the external market, who was very keen to Brand's development, would set the price). They couldn't spend lots of money on very good players who would deserve huge contracts because in their minds, it would be committing to losing players and not winners.

The rookie contract, in many ways, is a window for the team to improve at a discount before paying out the big bucks for their good players. They managed to snag a terrific player in Brand but the team wasn't improving, so they had to re-extend their window by getting newer players and giving themselves more time. 

This is why Brand got traded. They couldn't afford to have two more terrible losing seasons and be in a position where they are forced to pay big bucks to maintain the same losing roster by re-signing a guy who, admittedly, is an excellent player, but just isn't getting it done for Chicago.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

Showtyme said:


> GOSH. If you want a justification to the Brand trade, you won't find it in basketball talent. Tyson Chandler was NOT anywhere near as good as Elton Brand, and it was only the common conception among fans and media (ironically, still being echoed years later in this thread) that said that Elton Brand was nearing his ceiling potential.
> 
> What I believe to be a much truer justification to the Bulls trading Brand in what looked like a firesale is simply timing. The Artest/Miller trading also fits into this theory.
> 
> ...



Exactly. Great post. It was the wrong time for Brand, who just wasn't good enough to build a team around by himself. Therefore the trade was good for the Bulls in the long run (which is now).


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

futuristxen said:


> Not in the sense of this year, but eventually guys will want to be paid, and the man upstairs won't want to pay the bills for a team with no rings already on the fingers.


I think this angle is overblown. I agree that we got taken in the Brand trade badly, and the Artest trade badly, but this summer we just paid Tyson Chandler pretty heavily and it looks like a mistake so far. I think overpaying average players is worse than being stingy. So far, the Bulls have been careful with their money because they have options next offseason. A couple of picks, a lot of cap room, and a lot of good but not great young talent. There is no reason to open the pockets to average players and slam the door on those options.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> All I'm saying is describe our roster had we kept Brand. Let's say we had Brand and Curry. We would have won 40 games a year and never gotten Gordon or Hinrich or Duhon (high second rounder). What would our team look like as a comparison to our current squad? Would we have McGrady or Arenas or any other free agents? A team with Curry and Brand would be a top team? Brand had similar help and players in the past 5 years with little to show for it (28-39 wins). Or are you saying having Brand would somehow mean we had another top notch player to make us better than we are now? So we could have signed some mid level free agents. Let say this:
> 
> G Crawford
> G Raja Bell
> ...



This is all silly conjecture. How can you tell us what the team would look like? The Bulls were terrible in Brand's last season in Chicago, so how was gettting Curry going to change that in the short term (remember how limited his pt was in his rookie season) and take them out of the lottery? And how can you tell me which free agents would have and wouldn't have signed had the Bulls situation been different. 

I, on the other hand, have provided hard facts about the trade and the direct result of the trade.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

RoRo said:


> if we're throwing around hypotheticals how about:
> keep brand, get artest some medication, and of course keep bmiller. with the front court settled let's get some guards.
> 
> draft jason richardson instead of curry with #4. i don't think it's that much of a shocker. if the bulls wanted to try out 1 more year with the frontcourt then richardson would be a solid addition.
> ...


Exactly....you can dream up any scenario you like to support an argument.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> Remember when we got Tyson we weren't thinking future skinny man's version of Mutombo...we were thinking KG. We thought Tyson was baby-KG, Eddy was Baby Shaq, and Crawford...I forget what Crawford was supposed to be.


Crawford had a body like Jordan's (similar height and build).


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The Truth said:


> This is all silly conjecture. How can you tell us what the team would look like? The Bulls were terrible in Brand's last season in Chicago, so how was gettting Curry going to change that in the short term (remember how limited his pt was in his rookie season) and take them out of the lottery? And how can you tell me which free agents would have and wouldn't have signed had the Bulls situation been different.
> 
> I, on the other hand, have provided hard facts about the trade and the direct result of the trade.


Brand, Artest, Miller, Mercer, Fizer... that team won 15. 15 wins with those guys gets you the exact same kind (even better) of lotto picks you get with Linton Johnson, Paul Shirley, Ronald Dupree, and 
Kendall Gill.

I think I'd be fine with the former bunch of guys and lotto picks to build on than the latter.

But I'm sure that's just my way of thinking...


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Exactly. Great post. It was the wrong time for Brand, who just wasn't good enough to build a team around by himself. Therefore the trade was good for the Bulls in the long run (which is now).


Yeah... the thing I'd tweak about that statement is that Brand was just in an unfortunate circumstance. He actually WAS a good enough player to build a team around, it's just that JK and JR didn't BELIEVE that he was good enough because he wasn't getting instant results. Actually, I think Krause was really second-guessing his own eye for talent: getting Artest in that draft might have been one of his best picks ever, and somehow convincing Brad Miller to come to Chicago on a pretty mild contract was another big success. He just got nervous and traded them, because he was noticing how ridiculous it was to trade Brand and he sort of just let himself go, then resigned.

Brand WAS good enough to build around, but management refused to believe it, or act like they believed it. That, with all the other pressures and timing that was coming around, was why they felt they had to trade Brand.

Mikedc has noted that they had TWO MORE SEASONS with which they could try and do something with Brand before they had to trade him. For some reason, they felt that Chandler was someone that they had to jump on. I think that's just a hit-and-miss. They had to know that Yao Ming was coming in the next year... Brand + Chicago's pick would have easily gotten them the Yao pick.

Short-sightedness in management at a very frantic and sad time was what triggered all of this.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Krause didn't want to trade Artest and Miller.

Krause didn't seem to mind signing guys to max contracts either.... such as TT, AD and Jones.

All this non committing $$$$$ to the young players on a losing team.... it reeks of Uncle Jerry.

Krause loved his young players. He didn't want to let them go.

Krause also had a plan. It may have been flawed... but if we're building Cap Space, I'd rather be doing it to go after Tim Duncan or TMAC than the Vanilla Gorilla and Chris Wilcox.

(as for brand, artest, miller, etc.... the same argument being made about curry and crawford being on a losing team can be applied to brand, miller and artest back in the day.... except we have proof that curry can be a main guy on a winning team)


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Brand recognition doesn't go unnoticed
> 
> Veteran NBA writer Sam Smith of the Chicago Tribune reports that there is only one player who memorizes the names of writers from all over the country so he can call them by their first name.
> 
> ...


http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/sports/13365194.htm


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Plus the Brand years would have been better if we had better coaching. Tim Floyd sucked. He was so bad that Bill Cartwright was an improvement.

Imagine instead if we had hired a young Rick Carlisle-type?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> Plus the Brand years would have been better if we had better coaching. Tim Floyd sucked. He was so bad that Bill Cartwright was an improvement.
> 
> Imagine instead if we had hired a young Rick Carlisle-type?


IMO, this is the true fatal flaw of Krause.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

GB said:


> http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/sports/13365194.htm


I believe it. The guy is "right way" from start to finish.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

The Truth said:


> This is all silly conjecture. How can you tell us what the team would look like? The Bulls were terrible in Brand's last season in Chicago, so how was gettting Curry going to change that in the short term (remember how limited his pt was in his rookie season) and take them out of the lottery? And how can you tell me which free agents would have and wouldn't have signed had the Bulls situation been different.
> 
> I, on the other hand, have provided hard facts about the trade and the direct result of the trade.


Hard facts? I haven't seen any. The hard fact is the Bulls won 47 games last year without Brand. Brand has a career 0.331 winning percentage and has only 28-39 wins with teams that have had decent players. Those are the hard facts.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> IMO, this is the true fatal flaw of Krause.


Poor coaching choices was one of the many fatal flaws. Another was trying to develop 10 guys at once.

Why were Khalid El-Amen and Guyton on the roster as rookies when you are trying to develop Crawford. And with Bryce Drew as the only other PG on the roster. Wouldn't one vetern retread at the PG spot given the GM a bit of insight into what he had on the roster with Brand, Artest and Miller.

Lack of any vet leadership\talent during the early rebuilding years was the biggest of many problems IMHO.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Lack of any vet leadership\talent during the early rebuilding years was the biggest of many problems IMHO.


It was lack of a will to win. The Bulls simply were not interested in winning that season.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Hard facts? I haven't seen any. The hard fact is the Bulls won 47 games last year without Brand. Brand has a career 0.331 winning percentage and has only 28-39 wins with teams that have had decent players. Those are the hard facts.



That is absolutely and utterly absurd. 


I was talking about breaking down the trade with "hard facts," which you refuse to do. I will post the following again:

Clippers received:
Elton Brand

Bulls received:
Tyson Chandler
did not devote the max to Brand, thus received financial flexibility, missed on Tracy McGrady, Tim Thomas, Antonio Davis. Signed Eddie Robinson.


Please tell me differently.

You keep saying that the Bulls were right to trade Brand because they needed the financial flexibility. But what have they done with that financial flexibility that they couldn't have done while paying Brand the max?

edit: BTW, to clear up confusion, I was not the poster who called the trade "one of the worst in NBA history." I'm am simply asserting that it was a bad trade then, and it's a bad trade now. I think the poster who made that statement dropped out of the conversation a while ago.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

The Truth said:


> That is absolutely and utterly absurd.
> 
> 
> I was talking about breaking down the trade with "hard facts," which you refuse to do. I will post the following again:
> ...


Those are facts. But are those all of the facts? I keep saying the Bulls were right to trade Brand at the time for many reasons, one of which was not making a commitment to a player who they felt was not a franchise player. I understand your point of view. You say bad trade (not the worst ever) and I say good trade (not the best ever). All I'm saying now is I am happy with how the Bulls turned out in 2005 and their future from here and to me a big part of this success was the Brand trade.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Those are facts. But are those all of the facts? I keep saying the Bulls were right to trade Brand at the time for many reasons, one of which was not making a commitment to a player who they felt was not a franchise player. I understand your point of view. You say bad trade (not the worst ever) and I say good trade (not the best ever). All I'm saying now is I am happy with how the Bulls turned out in 2005 and their future from here and to me a big part of this success was the Brand trade.



It's noted that you still haven't provided any tangible evidence as to how it was a good trade for the Bulls.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

The Truth said:


> It's noted that you still haven't provided any tangible evidence as to how it was a good trade for the Bulls.


It doesn't make sense, really. To try to paint an example with different teams and players, let's do this. 

The Magic draft Dwight Howard, he is in his 2nd season, having another fantastic season, but in both years the team has been bad. So it's okay for them to trade him for a project big man, and as long as they're a good team within 5 years of the trade, it's a good trade? Regardless of how good Dwight Howard turns out to be? That's a bit silly. 

And now that I'm talking about the Magic, they traded Tracy McGrady for what is now Steve Francis alone pretty much. However, they were a better team the very next season after that trade, not three seasons later, the next season (although they were still bad), does that mean the trade was good? The Magic actually improved right away after trading away McGrady for Francis, but I still think it's a terrible terrible trade. 

So when you talk about how trading away Elton Brand, a perennial top 10-15 player, being a good move because the Bulls won 47 games three years later is kind of foolish.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> So when you talk about how trading away Elton Brand, a perennial top 10-15 player, being a good move because the Bulls won 47 games three years later is kind of foolish.


Oh, I think the ideal has merit. Brand did lead us to 15 and 17 win seasons. We won more games the first year without him with basically the same crew. In fact, if it had been Chandler that had stepped up this year rather than Brand, everyone would be calling the trade a push or better for the Bulls. But Brand's elevation in play does change the equation.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> Oh, I think the ideal has merit. Brand did lead us to 15 and 17 win seasons. We won more games the first year without him with basically the same crew. In fact, if it had been Chandler that had stepped up this year rather than Brand, everyone would be calling the trade a push or better for the Bulls. But Brand's elevation in play does change the equation.


I just can't get behind a trade being beneficial when the player we trade away is a better scorer, rebounder, passer, shotblocker, defender, shooter, ball handler and everything else. Brand is a much smarter and much more talented player, who has infinite more positive impact on games. I can't say it's even close to a push even when it's so lobsided between the players involved.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I just can't get behind a trade being beneficial when the player we trade away is a better scorer, rebounder, passer, shotblocker, defender, shooter, ball handler and everything else. .


That wasn't the evaluation at the end of last year. For example, Chandler out rebounded Brand in much fewer minutes. Chandler got votes for the All-Densive team; Brand didn't.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

The Truth said:


> Clippers received:
> Elton Brand
> 
> Bulls received:
> ...


That scenario isn't even true. The year the Bulls had cap space and whiffed, They still had Brand. They wouldn't have had to resign Brand for another two years, in the summer of 03', a summer where all we had to spend was the MLE on Scottie, which we would've been free to do regardless. I guess you could say that the money spent on Donyell Marshall and ERob was what we saved from not keeping Brand. Looking at it today, basically, for the money being spent on the Chandler sonagaila Allen combo, we could've had Brand.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> So when you talk about how trading away Elton Brand, a perennial top 10-15 player, being a good move because the Bulls won 47 games three years later is kind of foolish.


Not that foolish consider having Brand, a top 10-15 player, doesn't mean you will win more games. If he truly is a top 10-15 player, don't you think his teams should win at least 47 games or 50 or 55 games one in awhile. I mean we have no stars, no one close to being an all-star and we won 47 games. Brand is a perreniel loser. To me that's not a top 15 player.

Here is who I think of as top 10-15:
Iverson (been the finals, 56 win season, playoffs)
Nash (60+ wins, plus Dallas 50-60 wins)
Nowitzki (Dallas 50-60 wins, playoffs)
Duncan (60+ wins, NBA titles, playoffs)
Shaq (60+ wins, NBA titles, playoffs)
Garnett (58 wins in 2004, 50+ wins seasons, playoffs)
Kobe (60+ wins, NBA titles)
J. O'Neal (61 wins, 50+ win seasons, playoffs)
McGrady (51 win, 40+ win seasons, playoffs)
Pierce (49 wins, 40+ win seasons, playoffs)
Lebron (42 wins in season 2)
Amare (60+ wins, mostly because of nash, playoffs)
Carter (47 wins in Toronto, 40+ win seasons, playoffs)
Wade (59 wins, alot of help from Shaq, playoffs)
Baron Davis (47 wins, 40+ win seasons, playoffs)
Ray Allen (52 wins twice, 40 win seasons, playoffs)
Ben Wallace (NBA title, 50+ win seasons, playoffs)
Arenas (42 win season, playoffs)
Brand (39 wins, 15-39 wins, no playoffs)

But I guess the NBA (and player rankings) is about numbers and not winning or making it to the playoffs.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> It doesn't make sense, really. To try to paint an example with different teams and players, let's do this.
> 
> The Magic draft Dwight Howard, he is in his 2nd season, having another fantastic season, but in both years the team has been bad. So it's okay for them to trade him for a project big man, and as long as they're a good team within 5 years of the trade, it's a good trade? Regardless of how good Dwight Howard turns out to be? That's a bit silly.
> 
> ...


Yeah, and I was thinking of Bosh too. Using lougehrig's logic, the Raptors should trade him and avoid paying him the max. He's about the same age as Brand was in his last year in Chicago. He's averaging very similar stats to what Brand averaged that season. And the Raptors are absolutely horrendous. That means Bosh must be just a "numbers guy" and he isn't a winner, right?


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Oh, I think the ideal has merit. Brand did lead us to 15 and 17 win seasons. We won more games the first year without him with basically the same crew. In fact, if it had been Chandler that had stepped up this year rather than Brand, everyone would be calling the trade a push or better for the Bulls. But Brand's elevation in play does change the equation.



The Raptors are absolutely terrible this season. So if you were the gm of the Raptors, would you want to trade Bosh to avoid paying him the max?


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Not that foolish consider having Brand, a top 10-15 player, doesn't mean you will win more games. If he truly is a top 10-15 player, don't you think his teams should win at least 47 games or 50 or 55 games one in awhile. I mean we have no stars, no one close to being an all-star and we won 47 games. Brand is a perreniel loser. To me that's not a top 15 player.
> 
> Here is who I think of as top 10-15:
> Iverson (been the finals, 56 win season, playoffs)
> ...


Right now, AT THIS POINT IN THE SEASON, Brand is easily in the top 5 on that list.

You still haven't addressed the fact that these bad Clippers teams that Brand has been on were in the insanely loaded West. If last year's Bulls had been in the West, they wouldn't have made the playoffs either.


----------

