# Phil Jackson points to Chandler as premier rebounder in the league.



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Tyson Chandler a role model? Lakers center Andrew Bynum said coach Phil Jackson told him to "watch how Tyson Chandler plays." Said Bynum, who grabbed a career-high 15 rebounds after watching the Chandler tapes: "He watches the ball and never stops moving. Sometimes I'm standing there and a guy will be leaning on me and get by me. So I tried to watch the ball and keep moving and hawk the ball."


http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/44448/19691231/jackson_tells_bynum_to_study_chandler/


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

sometimes you dont know what you have until its gone...for 7 mil. less than his replacement.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Chandler's not on Ben's level...be serious now


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Tyson Chandler 7.2 ppg 11.2 rpg 1.8 BPG

Ben Wallace 6.5 PPG 10.1 RPG 2.1 BPG

Its just stupid that we don't have both, they were only on the roster together for like a day.

Eddy Curry 19.5 PPG 7.0 RPG

It sucks. Krause had a very good vision for the future. Paxson's desire to only have the players he brought in screwed this team over. 

Whats hurts more, is that we realistically could have signed Ben Wallace to a max level contract, and have both these guys.

Call me crazy, but a young athletic 7 footer who rebounds and blocks, along with a strong 7 footer, that gives you 20 pts a night....add that together with a 22 pg guard, a point guard that needs to accept his role to set up the offense, a guy that hits every midrange shot, and another 3 pt threat in Nocioni....ah, there is a reason why that team won 47 games....it was actually a good team, and the players worked well together.

Paxson messed up big time, one of the biggest GM blunders recently. Krause should get plenty of credit, both guys he drafted panned out well.

Paxson has brought in good talent, but his xenophobia definitely hurt this team.


----------



## SpartanBull (Oct 12, 2003)

Mebarak said:


> Tyson Chandler 7.2 ppg 11.2 rpg 1.8 BPG
> 
> Ben Wallace 6.5 PPG 10.1 RPG 2.1 BPG
> 
> ...



What? Chandler and Curry from another country???


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

SpartanBull said:


> What? Chandler and Curry from another country???



Outer space...............


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

Mebarak said:


> Tyson Chandler 7.2 ppg 11.2 rpg 1.8 BPG
> 
> Ben Wallace 6.5 PPG 10.1 RPG 2.1 BPG
> 
> ...


Not once, but twice. Three times if you think Ben Wallace will be in full decline mode before his contract is up.

Pax may have picked up Gordon and Nocioni out of nowhere, but he built an organization that didn't understand the importance of big guys. Skiles also did a ****ty job getting the best out of them, and Tyrus is probably just going to look worse than he already is.

Tyson and Eddy not be the biggest stars, but damn could we use either one right now.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Mebarak said:


> Whats hurts more, is that we realistically could have signed Ben Wallace to a max level contract, and have both these guys.
> 
> Call me crazy, but a young athletic 7 footer who rebounds and blocks, along with a strong 7 footer, that gives you 20 pts a night....add that together with a 22 pg guard, a point guard that needs to accept his role to set up the offense, a guy that hits every midrange shot, and another 3 pt threat in Nocioni....ah, there is a reason why that team won 47 games....it was actually a good team, and the players worked well together.
> 
> ...


You have to understand that very few people agree with you.

First of all, I don't think it's at all realistic to think Paxson could have had Curry, Chandler, and Wallace on the roster. It's become pretty clear that every move Pax makes is made with the luxury tax in mind. That's why he frontloaded Wallace's and Kirk's deals and probably the main reason he traded Chandler. Additionally, if Curry's extension is on the books instead of Tim Thomas' expiring contract I don't see how there's cap room to sign Wallace. Finally, I'm pretty confident that the heart condition was the main factor in Curry's departure. I've heard more than one analyst suggest that Curry's large, uninsured contract is untradeable. In other words, the Knicks, a team with unlimited finances and no cap room in sight, would accept such a contract.

I think even Krause would disagree with you that his vision was realized. As high school players everyone realized that both players were raw and would take a while to develop but I imagine Krause hoped they would be big time players in two or three years not four or more. I'm about as big a Tyson Chandler fan as you'll find but his offense was supposed to be above average, not putrid. With Curry, I suspect that Krause realized he'd never be a great defender but believed he would rebound well (he's 6'11 285) and play some defense.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Pax may have picked up Gordon and Nocioni out of nowhere, but he built an organization that didn't understand the importance of big guys. Skiles also did a ****ty job getting the best out of them, and Tyrus is probably just going to look worse than he already is.
> 
> Tyson and Eddy not be the biggest stars, but damn could we use either one right now.


Pax drafted a PF in the last draft, signed a big man to a max contract, and has been saying for sometime that the Bulls need a scoring big man so I don't think it's fair to say he doesn't value big guys. Curry and Chandler aren't playing too much better than their last couple seasons with the Bulls, they're just playing more minutes so there's not that much evidence that they underperformed with Skiles. Granted they were younger, but both played better under Skiles than Cartwright of Floyd.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I'm about as big a Tyson Chandler fan as you'll find but his offense was supposed to be above average, not putrid.


Memo to biggest fan. You might want to check out what your guy has been doing this past month.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Mebarak said:


> Tyson Chandler 7.2 ppg 11.2 rpg 1.8 BPG
> 
> Ben Wallace 6.5 PPG 10.1 RPG 2.1 BPG
> 
> ...


Will it be stupid if this deal for Pau Gasol goes through? Tell me that you honestly would want a Chandler/Curry frontcourt more than a Gasol/Wallace.



> Whats hurts more, is that we realistically could have signed Ben Wallace to a max level contract, and have both these guys.
> 
> Call me crazy, but a young athletic 7 footer who rebounds and blocks, along with a strong 7 footer, that gives you 20 pts a night....add that together with a 22 pg guard, a point guard that needs to accept his role to set up the offense, a guy that hits every midrange shot, and another 3 pt threat in Nocioni....ah, there is a reason why that team won 47 games....it was actually a good team, and the players worked well together.
> 
> ...



You honestly wish we would have spent $33million this season on Chandler/Curry/Wallace frontcourt. Say goodbye to one of Kirk, Ben, or Luol given the luxury tax as a constraint. Our team would have looked like

Curry/Chandler
Wallace/Allen
Deng/Nocioni
Gordon
Hinrich/Duhon

If our team was so good, we surely would have improved on our 47 win season, so no Thabo. That's 9 guys + 1 draft pick in the 20s, so we can sign five more NBA minimum guys.

Lose Kirk next season or one of Gordon or Deng next season. I don't see how we win a championship...

Oh wait! Curry scores 19 ppg, so our offense would naturally increase to 118ppg. Chandler and Curry add 18 boards, so we'd naturally average 61 rpg as a team. We're #2 in FG%, but Chandler is a good defender, so we'd naturally hold our opponents to 35% FG%.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> sometimes you dont know what you have until its gone...for 7 mil. less than his replacement.


I also don't understand how Paxson frontloading Ben and Kirk's contracts to make it easier to re-sign the rest of the team is an argument as to how overpaid each player is. In the final year of Wallace's deal, he's only making about $1.5 million more than Chandler.

The Kirk part is not directed at you but obviously relates. Kirk's surely overpaid, despite the fact he's not making his $11 million/season yet. Never mind the fact that Paxson wanted a reverse scaling contract to make it easier to sign Ben and Luol to larger deals. Paxson screwed up! Logic be gone


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> Will it be stupid if this deal for Pau Gasol goes through? Tell me that you honestly would want a Chandler/Curry frontcourt more than a Gasol/Wallace.


It depends who we have to give up for Gasol. We're likely going to have to lose Deng or Gordon to land Gasol.

Gasol/Wallace would likely be a better 'win now' frontcourt. The overall team could be worse off though.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> It depends who we have to give up for Gasol. We're likely going to have to lose Deng or Gordon to land Gasol.
> 
> Gasol/Wallace would likely be a better 'win now' frontcourt. The overall team could be worse off though.


Does this mean you oppose a Gasol trade if either Deng or Gordon are involved?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Does this mean you oppose a Gasol trade if either Deng or Gordon are involved?


I don't oppose a trade for Gasol.

I'd be very reluctant to part with Gordon though.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> Memo to biggest fan. You might want to check out what your guy has been doing this past month.


Oh I'm aware. 10 points in 35 minutes is about what Tyrus does though and listen to the way people talk about him around here.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Chandler was always clearly going to be a premier rebounder and shot blocker someday. That day apparently has arrived. Too bad he's not a Bull.

I agree with Mebarak. The Chandler for PJ and Smith trade will go down as one of the worst trades Bulls management has ever made. The only difference I have with him is that I blame Reinsdorf, not Paxson. 

BTW, the argument that the Bulls could not have resigned Deng, Nocioni and Gordon if they had retained Chandler or traded him for a younger player (e.g., Gooden) is wrong. The Bulls have plenty of room under the luxury tax threshold for the next few years. Besides, what's so terrible about the leagues most profitable team, which incidentally has extraordinary fan loyalty, spending a few bucks above the luxury tax threshold? The fact that the luxury tax is such an issue only demonstrates that the owner's are more interested in maximizing profits than winning.

Of course I will change my opinion if Reinsdorf uses PJ Brown and Sweetney's expiring contracts and the pick swap to expedite a trade for Gasol and Cardinal. If that were to occur the Chandler and Curry trades would look very good indeed -- even if another rotation player (e.g. Nocioni or Tyrus Thomas) has to be included to complete the deal.

Gasol + Cardinal > Curry + Chandler (=TT + Sweetney + PJ + pick swap + (+ 4 2nd round picks))


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I don't oppose a trade for Gasol.
> 
> I'd be very reluctant to part with Gordon though.


Obvously, a Gasol deal involving NEITHER Deng NOR Gordon would be ideal. But The Logo may not bite.

So if Deng went in a deal for Gasol, you'd be ok with it, if Gordon went instead, you'd be more hesitent, but supportive and if NO deal goes down and we keep Gordon AND Deng, you think that is all around ok for the long term health of the team?


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

Mebarak said:


> http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/44448/19691231/jackson_tells_bynum_to_study_chandler/


Chandler was always near the top in the league in rebounds per 48 minutes. He is a good rebounder no doubt.

However, he struggles as a shot blocker / changer, as a defender, as a passer, steals, assists, etc...etc...that's why he's not here.

Ben provides all of these things. It would be redundant and overlapping to have both. Besides if we had Tyson, we couldn't trade for Gasol or Garnett.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Obvously, a Gasol deal involving NEITHER Deng NOR Gordon would be ideal. But The Logo may not bite.
> 
> So if Deng went in a deal for Gasol, you'd be ok with it, if Gordon went instead, you'd be more hesitent, but supportive and if NO deal goes down and we keep Gordon AND Deng, you think that is all around ok for the long term health of the team?


Any trade he does with anyone but the bulls won't include Gordon and/or Deng.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

McBulls said:


> Chandler was always clearly going to be a premier rebounder and shot blocker someday. That day apparently has arrived. Too bad he's not a Bull.
> 
> I agree with Mebarak. The Chandler for PJ and Smith trade will go down as one of the worst trades Bulls management has ever made. The only difference I have with him is that I blame Reinsdorf, not Paxson.


There was no place for Tyson and JR on this team. 

JR would be behind Thabo in our rotation. If Duhon can't get minutes, no way JR Smith gets minutes.

Sorry to disappoint you all. Tyson hasn't arrived. He is playing the same level as he has in the past, which is a very good rebounding big man. He certainly hasn't improved. He is playing more minutes and is a focal point at the center position in New Orleans, a team that has nobody else to rebound. He is an ideal center for the Western Conference. I would be scared to death to have him as our center going into the Eastern Conference playoffs.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Any trade he does with anyone but the bulls won't include Gordon and/or Deng.



Ahhh, the wagons are circling, just along the positions I thought they would.

1. If either Deng or Gordon are traded for Gasol, Pax traded away a key piece of his precious rebuilding...therefore failure. Double failure if the season ends in anything less than NBA championship. If only we'd stood pat with (Deng or Gordon) instead of jumping on the Spaniard bandwagon, we surely would have won the championship. 

2. If Pax keeps the core together and refuses to include either Deng OR Gordon and Jerry West either a) fails to trade Gasol before the deadline or b) trades him to someone more willing to give back "value", Pax is a failure as a GM and it is his fault for scuttling a sure championship by not throwing Deng and/or Gordon at Memphis to get the job done (cue dusty phone image). Pau was the key to a championship, for sure.

3. If NEITHER Deng or Gordon are traded, but Pax manages to get Gasol anyway (I think it is highly unlikely), he will be hailed as a genious for exactly ONE minute. But if the Bulls don't win a championship THIS YEAR, he is a failure and his rebuilding efforts were nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Fire Pax. Even the core PLUS Gasol didn't get us an instant championship. What a failure he is.

In short, Pax must either trade for Gasol and win a championship this year or not trade for Gasol and win a championship this year or he Suck's as.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mebarak said:


> http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/44448/19691231/jackson_tells_bynum_to_study_chandler/


Tyson Chandler is an excellent rebounder.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Ahhh, the wagons are circling, just along the positions I thought they would.
> 
> 1. If either Deng or Gordon are traded for Gasol, Pax traded away a key piece of his precious rebuilding...therefore failure. Double failure if the season ends in anything less than NBA championship. If only we'd stood pat with (Deng or Gordon) instead of jumping on the Spaniard bandwagon, we surely would have won the championship.
> 
> ...


Well, duuhhhhh. :biggrin:


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

It is very difficult to be a positive Bulls fan on this board. Why do much about the past?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Tyson Chandler is an excellent rebounder.



He's also an excellent driver. Dad lets him drive slow on the driveway every Saturday. A 1949 Buick Roadmaster. Straight 8. Fireball 8. Only 8,985 production models. Dad lets him drive slow on the driveway. But not on Monday, definitely not on Monday.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

McBulls said:


> Chandler was always clearly going to be a premier rebounder and shot blocker someday. That day apparently has arrived. Too bad he's not a Bull.


Chandler has not been an elite shot blocker in recent years.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> So if Deng went in a deal for Gasol, you'd be ok with it, if Gordon went instead, you'd be more hesitent, but supportive and if NO deal goes down and we keep Gordon AND Deng, you think that is all around ok for the long term health of the team?


I have a hard time seeing the Bulls winning this season swapping Gasol for Gordon unless another deal is made or if we get a guy like Mike Miller in return.

That being said, once Wallace ages even further, we're going to likely be strapped at the 4 and the 5. We need Gasol.

Given our lack of young, productive bigs, Paxson is in a real bind unless he's content with small ball going forward or is willing to break up the core 4. 

I can see Gasol at the 4 and Nocioni at the 3 being good enough to make a legit title run this year and next. The concern I have is that Nocioni looks pretty banged up to me the last couple of weeks. 

The toughest call is projecting Deng out 2-3 years into the future. 

It would be a ballsy move on Paxson’s part to make a Gasol deal involving Deng or Gordon. As of right now, I’ve heard they are “untouchable.”


----------


What do you think Paxson should do and why?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> What do you think Paxson should do and why?


I'm curious as to what your specific answer to that question is.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> It depends who we have to give up for Gasol. We're likely going to have to lose Deng or Gordon to land Gasol.
> 
> Gasol/Wallace would likely be a better 'win now' frontcourt. The overall team could be worse off though.


I definately agree.

The argument I was trying to present is sloth wishes Chandler and Curry were still a part of the team. If that pairing turns into Gasol/Wallace through moves Paxson has made, would he view that as a better frontcourt. If "Paxson's desire to only have the players he brought in screwed this team over," how could we end up with a better team? If Paxson has made so many detrimental moves, how can the success be discounted? Basically, I don't understand how Paxson's vision can not be appreciated if it works out.

It's sort of like a hate him until he redeems himself mentality. I don't think the moves (or trades) are so linear.

I didn't like the Chandler for Brown trade at the time it was made either. I was against all the "trade Chandler" sentiment when he was playing poorly, and thought he could be dealt for financial reasons by the trade deadline this season if the pairing did not work out. If the PJ trade lands us Gasol without giving up much, I would certainly reverse my feelings.



kukoc4ever said:


> I don't oppose a trade for Gasol.
> 
> I'd be very reluctant to part with Gordon though.


I wouldn't trade Gordon in any deal for Gasol outside of maybe a Gordon + filler for Gasol, and even then I would want a backup plan for another guard either in another trade or FA this offseason at the very latest. 

I would be extremely reluctant to trade Deng for him too, but the market seems to suggest that it won't cost that much (assuming Gasol has privately asked out as is what seems to me to be the case).


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> I'm curious as to what your specific answer to that question is.


Paxson knew going into the season that the team was shorter and laccked the scoring inside that he wanted. I doubt he is without plan.

I eagerly await the outworking of the plan, as his others have shown good success. Because I cannot outguess him though, I do not see that as reason to worry, insult or be upset.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Ahhh, the wagons are circling, just along the positions I thought they would.
> 
> 1. If either Deng or Gordon are traded for Gasol, Pax traded away a key piece of his precious rebuilding...therefore failure. Double failure if the season ends in anything less than NBA championship. If only we'd stood pat with (Deng or Gordon) instead of jumping on the Spaniard bandwagon, we surely would have won the championship.
> 
> ...


Good post. I guess you don't understand what I wrote.

If West takes any deal not with the bulls, he's not getting Deng and/or Gordon. Thus, if he's willing to trade with anyone else, then he's willing to trade for (not Deng and/or Gordon).

I think #3 is the most likely if we get Gasol, otherwise #2.

And I think Paxson may be handling this superbly. If he did what you want, he might trade Deng and/or Gordon, when that may be giving up way more than he's ultimately going to.
:sexy:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I
> What do you think Paxson should do and why?


I would like to see a move for Gasol. My first choice would be to get him for a peanut butter sandwich and a 2008 pick.

Failing that, my next move would be along the lines of Peter Vescey's suggestion the other day:

PJ + Ben Gordon + Nocioni + 2008 (or PJ + Ben + 2007 protected + filler)

next preference down:

PJ + Deng + 2008 (or PJ + Deng + 2007 protected + filler)

If we don't trade the 2007 pick, I still see us getting a quality center to play behind Ben for a year or 2 to develop (even if not Oden or Durant, there are still plenty of quality bigs this year).

If we had a logjam at 4/5 of Ben Wallace, Pau Gasol, Tyrus Thomas and, say, Noah, finding minutes for all would be a pleasant problem to have.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Good post. I guess you don't understand what I wrote.
> 
> If West takes any deal not with the bulls, he's not getting Deng and/or Gordon. Thus, if he's willing to trade with anyone else, then he's willing to trade for (not Deng and/or Gordon).
> 
> ...


The flaw in your logic is that you are assuming Gordon and/or Deng are the best players West could get for Gasol.

Being willing to trade for not Deng and/or Gordon doesn't automatically mean that West would be trading for lesser talent. Unless of course you believe certain posters on this forum, in which case there would only be a small handful of players that are better than Deng and/or Gordon.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Chandler was one of my favorite Bulls and I stood by him even last season when he was playing [edit]. I prefered a Chandler and Gooden frontcourt instead of signing Wallace and after signing Wallace I thought the Bulls should keep Chandler. The Bulls would definately be better right now with Chandler instead of PJ Brown. In fact, because this was the first move Paxson made which strongly disagreed with, I thought/pretended that it must have been based on a salary cutting directive from JR.

If Paxson can use PJ plus in a deal to get a real good player like Gasol, than trading Chandler had some merit. If not, it was, and is a bad move.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> He's also an excellent driver. Dad lets him drive slow on the driveway every Saturday. A 1949 Buick Roadmaster. Straight 8. Fireball 8. Only 8,985 production models. Dad lets him drive slow on the driveway. But not on Monday, definitely not on Monday.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Ahhh, the wagons are circling, just along the positions I thought they would.
> 
> 1. If either Deng or Gordon are traded for Gasol, Pax traded away a key piece of his precious rebuilding...therefore failure. Double failure if the season ends in anything less than NBA championship. If only we'd stood pat with (Deng or Gordon) instead of jumping on the Spaniard bandwagon, we surely would have won the championship.
> 
> ...


End of thread. End of forum.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Good post. I guess you don't understand what I wrote.
> 
> If West takes any deal not with the bulls, he's not getting Deng and/or Gordon. Thus, if he's willing to trade with anyone else, then he's willing to trade for (not Deng and/or Gordon).


I completely understand what you wrote. I just see what you wrote as an inevitable prelude to: 

"Pax was too stubborn to budge, so proactive Team X ended up with the Golden Pony, and not the Bulls.

Ergo, Pax's Sucks' as."


I'm not necessarily against Pax keeping Gordon and Deng completely off the table and seeing what can be worked out. I'm all for getting Gasol on the cheap and maintaining 100% of the core. The danger is, if you play lowball, you may lose out to someone else willing to give up more. Or a team that is willing to stand pat.

If West sees a deal he likes elsewhere, he just might not come back to the Bulls and ask for one more final best this team you have to mean it offer.

and then we're left with moaning about the deal that could have been but never was.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

McBulls said:


> Chandler was always clearly going to be a premier rebounder and shot blocker someday. That day apparently has arrived. Too bad he's not a Bull.
> 
> I agree with Mebarak. The Chandler for PJ and Smith trade will go down as one of the worst trades Bulls management has ever made. The only difference I have with him is that I blame Reinsdorf, not Paxson.


On a pure talent for talent basis, I agree.



> BTW, the argument that the Bulls could not have resigned Deng, Nocioni and Gordon if they had retained Chandler or traded him for a younger player (e.g., Gooden) is wrong. The Bulls have plenty of room under the luxury tax threshold for the next few years. Besides, what's so terrible about the leagues most profitable team, which incidentally has extraordinary fan loyalty, spending a few bucks above the luxury tax threshold? The fact that the luxury tax is such an issue only demonstrates that the owner's are more interested in maximizing profits than winning.
> 
> Of course I will change my opinion if Reinsdorf uses PJ Brown and Sweetney's expiring contracts and the pick swap to expedite a trade for Gasol and Cardinal. If that were to occur the Chandler and Curry trades would look very good indeed -- even if another rotation player (e.g. Nocioni or Tyrus Thomas) has to be included to complete the deal.
> 
> Gasol + Cardinal > Curry + Chandler (=TT + Sweetney + PJ + pick swap + (+ 4 2nd round picks))


I'm not a Reinsdorf fan by any means, but I don't fault the man for running the organization as a business. People get into businesses for all sorts of reason. Do I wish we had someone like Cuban as a fan? Of couse.

However, that's not likely to change now or any time soon. Therefore, I operate under what I perceive to be the given constraints. I don't see how making $20 million or whatever the figure was in profit is downright horrible given all the expenses due to facilities and payroll. Especially when that number is expected to go down as we re-sign our players.

Assuming we still had Chandler, the $11 million he'd be making in 08/09, we'd have $35.5 million committed between Wallace, Chandler, and Hinrich. Assuming it would cost about $20 million/year between the two to sign Deng and Gordon, we'd have $55.5 million commited between five players, not even counting the $4.75 million Tyrus is making or the $2.75 million Thabo is making. That's $63 million between 7 players.

Not counting Duhon or Nocioni as well. If we weren't contending for the title as soon as next season, I think it's entirely reasonable that we would expect to lose one of Gordon or Deng.

Is keeping Chandler on the payroll worth all this risk. That's why I understand the move. I didn't like it at the time, but Gordon and Deng's progression as well as the opportunity to land Gasol makes it more and more attractive in retrospect.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> and then we're left with moaning about the deal that could have been but never was.


Can we trade Carmelo and Dwyane for Gasol?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Mebarak said:


> Paxson has brought in good talent, but his xenophobia definitely hurt this team.



Umm, I think you need to look up the word xenophobia before using it in a sentence again.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Umm, I think you need to look up the word xenophobia before using it in a sentence again.


If anything, I'd guess Paxson is xenophilic.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> I have a hard time seeing the Bulls winning this season swapping Gasol for Gordon unless another deal is made or if we get a guy like Mike Miller in return.
> 
> That being said, once Wallace ages even further, we're going to likely be strapped at the 4 and the 5. We need Gasol.
> 
> Given our lack of young, productive bigs, Paxson is in a real bind unless he's content with small ball going forward or is willing to break up the core 4.


I think TB hit the nail on the head when he said that with a certain segment of the fan base, Pax will be ridiculed for doing just about anything short of winning a championship this season which is pretty absurd considering that this team is built to win in the future moreso than the present.

However, as far as the rest of the fan base, ownership, and the national media, I think that standing pat is pretty risk free for him. The worst that could happen is a string of playoff failures. As it stands though this team has a strong shot at reaching the conference finals. There's a good chance Hinrich, Gordon, and/or Deng continue to improve considering their youth. As far as the future of the front court, Pax has two solid shots to develop an impact player between Tyrus and the NY pick. It's hard to see anyone but some fans calling for his head if the team makes a series of deep but not tremendous playoff runs for the next few seasons.

There's probably a lot more room for second guessing if Deng or Gordon is traded for Gasol and either something happens to Gasol (serious injury, unforeseeable dropoff in production) or Deng/Gordon becomes a superstar in Memphis. Basically it's easier to critisize someone for making a move that backfires than failing to make a move that would've greatly benefited the team.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> If anything, I'd guess Paxson is xenophilic.


Haven't we all always suspected that Paxson is Xena: Warrior Princess?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

and yes, my photoshop skills (actually a crappy version of PC Paint) are indeed the worst of all time.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> I have a hard time seeing the Bulls winning this season swapping Gasol for Gordon unless another deal is made or if we get a guy like Mike Miller in return.
> 
> That being said, once Wallace ages even further, we're going to likely be strapped at the 4 and the 5. We need Gasol.
> 
> ...



I like the way that this post ties you down to no position, ensuring that you will be free to criticize any transaction made in the future if it doesn't pan out, yet asks someone else to define what they think Pax should do.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Chandler was always near the top in the league in rebounds per 48 minutes. He is a good rebounder no doubt.
> 
> However, *he struggles as a shot blocker / changer, as a defender, * as a passer, steals, assists, etc...etc...that's why he's not here.
> 
> Ben provides all of these things.


Chandler is 15th in the NBA in blocked shots and climbing. He gets votes for the All-Defense team every year.

Chandler's finally worked out the hitch on his FT shooting. Upto 50% for the year. 70% in Jan.

Plus he fronts the post.

Let's face it. Today's Ben Wallace is not any more effective on D than 04-05 Chandler or 06-07 Chandler. Overall, Jan 2007 Chandler was better than Jan 2007 Ben Wallace. Not that it had to be a choice.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

cpawfan said:


> The flaw in your logic is that you are assuming Gordon and/or Deng are the best players West could get for Gasol.
> 
> Being willing to trade for not Deng and/or Gordon doesn't automatically mean that West would be trading for lesser talent. Unless of course you believe certain posters on this forum, in which case there would only be a small handful of players that are better than Deng and/or Gordon.


That's a subjective thing. The trade rumors with Boston and Portland are indeed for players of lesser talent, and that's my subjective opinion. That is, in my book, Deng is better than Al Jefferson (for example).

The only definitive thing is that if West trades with anyone else, he's willing to trade for some package that doesn't include Deng and/or Gordon.

There's 3 possibilities:
1) West doesn't trade Gasol at all
2) West trades him to some other team
3) West trades him to the Bulls

I'm looking at #2 and considering the possibility that whatever some other team offers, we may be able to offer a better deal without Deng and/or Gordon. Not only is this my sense of what's going on, but that Paxson is looking at the best offers West can get and figuring he won't even have to give up Deng, Gordon, and likely even Hinrich.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> That's a subjective thing. The trade rumors with Boston and Portland are indeed for players of lesser talent, and that's my subjective opinion. That is, in my book, Deng is better than Al Jefferson (for example).
> 
> The only definitive thing is that if West trades with anyone else, he's willing to trade for some package that doesn't include Deng and/or Gordon.
> 
> ...


Yep, I'm in the Bulls forum. Thankfully, the last couple years of dealing with irrational fans has me well prepared for this.

Of course, nothing tops the expectation that Paxson is being smart and calculating.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I like the way that this post ties you down to no position, ensuring that you will be free to criticize any transaction made in the future if it doesn't pan out, yet asks someone else to define what they think Pax should do.


You have to give k4e credit, he's good.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Electric Slim said:


> You have to give k4e credit, he's good.


For someone who likes to take shots at "lawyer types" he couldn't be more like a lawyer or politician if he tried.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> that this team is built to win in the future moreso than the present.


Then why overpay for Ben Wallace?

4th year on the job and we're still dreaming of the future. OK, fine. Might be the best course of action given where we are at.



> I think that standing pat is pretty risk free for him.


Bingo. Hence, the good players are "untouchable."



> It's hard to see anyone but some fans calling for his head if the team makes a series of deep but not tremendous playoff runs for the next few seasons.


Job preservation mode = play it safe at this point, I agree. The UC sells out either way pretty much.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I'm curious as to what your specific answer to that question is.


Its a tough call. 

I usually have very strong opinions on these things (chandler for pj brown is a bad trade, curry for smoke will set the team back a few years best case, don’t dump crawford) but I can see both sides of the argument on this one.

If Wallace was the stud we remember from a couple years back, I think the "win now" decision would be a lot easier. Deng for Gasol would be a layup. If Gordon was in the deal, I think you would have to get some type of very startable guard in another trade or Mike Miller from the Griz and play him at 2. But, Wallace isn’t this stud anymore.

Assuming that Gasol is healthy, then Deng for Gasol should be done. We have a capable backup in Nocioni and Gasol is the more valuable player and needed player. Its a risk since Deng still has so much p.p.p.p.potential to improve and I'd hate to see him go, but for both today and going forward Gasol would make the team better off.

I feel pretty much the same way about Gordon for Gasol, from the going forward perspective, but its essential that we land a startable scoring guard in a 2nd trade in order to "win now." 

If not, the Bulls probably would be better off with Gasol over Gordon.... but for whatever reason I'm reluctant to part with Gordon unless I'm really confident about "win now." I still think Gasol is the more valuable player, but Gordon has impressed me the last month. 

Part of me would like to see this core plus the Knicks pick grow into the champion. But, knowing how the Bulls operate, wait n’ see isn’t the best course of action from the fans perspective. That’s a big factor in saying grab Gasol for Deng right now and making a run.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Its a tough call.
> 
> I usually have very strong opinions on these things (chandler for pj brown is a bad trade, curry for smoke will set the team back a few years best case, don’t dump crawford) but I can see both sides of the argument on this one.
> 
> ...


Excluding the last two sentences, I'm pretty much in complete agreement with that post.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Then why overpay for Ben Wallace?


To have your cake and eat it too. The cap space would've evaporated if Pax just let it sit because of the extensions to Hinrich and then Gordon and Deng. The only young frontcourt players available were Gooden and Przbilla. Personally I like Pryzbilla but he's more of a role player than anything else. I also like Gooden a lot but despite the way people talk about signing him now I never got the impression he was considered a serious option due to his RFA status. Pax thought he could sign Wallace without disrupting the team's chances of long term success and that would add a missing ingredient to substantially improve the team's short term success. Now if you want to argue that signing Wallace necessitated moving Chandler which lessened the team's long term chances some at the expense of winning now considering the two players' ages, I think that's a pretty good argument. We should be realistic though. While I've always thought the gap between Chandler and Wallace wasn't huge, most people disagreed.



kukoc4ever said:


> 4th year on the job and we're still dreaming of the future. OK, fine. Might be the best course of action given where we are at.


The Bulls are tied for the second best record in the East, Hollinger's power ratings rank them as the fifth best team in the NBA, and they have a legitimate chance of reaching the finals. I'm excited about the future but after many years of losing I am loving the present. This team has went from 23 wins to 47 wins, to 41 wins, to pace for 47 wins so I think it's crazy to imply we're where we were four years ago. You can argue we haven't made any progress since 04-05 but that strikes me as revisionist history. That was a very young team that surprised a lot of people. No one talked about them as a perennial title contender during the season or afterwards and I suspect many would've predicted regression the next season even if the roster remained unchanged.



kukoc4ever said:


> Bingo. Hence, the good players are "untouchable."
> 
> Job preservation mode = play it safe at this point, I agree. The UC sells out either way pretty much.


Sure, but not to the detriment of the team in the fashion of much job preservation. It's not comparable to trading your veterans for young prospects to buy yourself more time. This team probably gets 50 wins once or twice in the next few seasons and with the current state of the East probably also reaches the finals.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Jeremy, though I've been posting here for a while, I didn't know how to add "rep points." I've come close to making myself figure it out. Your post pushed me over the edge. Excellent post. +1


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

transplant said:


> Jeremy, though I've been posting here for a while, I didn't know how to add "rep points." I've come close to making myself figure it out. Your post pushed me over the edge. Excellent post. +1


It's the little icon to the right of the basketball. It looks like the scales of justice if you look at your monitor very closely.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> I also don't understand how Paxson frontloading Ben and Kirk's contracts to make it easier to re-sign the rest of the team is an argument as to how overpaid each player is. In the final year of Wallace's deal, he's only making about $1.5 million more than Chandler.
> 
> The Kirk part is not directed at you but obviously relates. Kirk's surely overpaid, despite the fact he's not making his $11 million/season yet. Never mind the fact that Paxson wanted a reverse scaling contract to make it easier to sign Ben and Luol to larger deals. Paxson screwed up! Logic be gone


at no point over the term of wallace's contract is tyson making more , its the other way around, so to me its far from a cost cutting scheme, its bad basketball management, the bulls are the most profitable team in the nba , i dont root for bean counters.

i want a good team and since its well within the bulls ability to have chandler and resign every bull on the roser worth signing i dont see the problem...in truth it was very possible to have both wallace and chandler ...and resign every1...and still make a profit.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> at no point over the term of wallace's contract is tyson making more , its the other way around, so to me its far from a cost cutting scheme, its bad basketball management, the bulls are the most profitable team in the nba , i dont root for bean counters.
> 
> i want a good team and since its well within the bulls ability to have chandler and resign every bull on the roser worth signing i dont see the problem...in truth it was very possible to have both wallace and chandler ...and resign every1...and still make a profit.


Signing Ben was not a cost cutting scheme. Trading away Chandler was. As I posted earlier in the thread:



> I'm not a Reinsdorf fan by any means, but I don't fault the man for running the organization as a business. People get into businesses for all sorts of reason. Do I wish we had someone like Cuban as a fan? Of couse.
> 
> However, that's not likely to change now or any time soon. Therefore, I operate under what I perceive to be the given constraints. I don't see how making $20 million or whatever the figure was in profit is downright horrible given all the expenses due to facilities and payroll. Especially when that number is expected to go down as we re-sign our players.
> 
> ...


Part of the reason the Bulls are so profitable is because we have 9 guys still on their rookie contracts. Is that because of our rebuilding efforts or because our owner is trying to cut costs at every opportunity. I'm sure there can and will be varying opinions on the subject.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> Is keeping Chandler on the payroll worth all this risk. That's why I understand the move. I didn't like it at the time, but Gordon and Deng's progression as well as the opportunity to land Gasol makes it *more and more attractive in retrospect.*


I don't understanding this thinking at all. Chandler was pretty bad last year after being very good. Players can have a bad year. He is back to being very good. If we still had Chandler and Memphis needed ending contracts, it would be simple to swap Chandler out for ending contracts.

Hornets have won this trade big time. Pax is still searching for some players above 6'9". He is still going to need 2 quality bigs in a year or two as Wallace's decline continues. He had one. Now he is at zero.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

The opportunity to land Gasol doesn't seem all that tied to trading Chandler to me. There are plenty of trades that could be envisioned bringing in Gasol that don't include Brown.

Noc, TT, and Sweetney for Gasol, for example, works just fine. 

The biggest reason I see to include Brown is as a post-hoc justification for the Chandler trade.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> I don't understanding this thinking at all. Chandler was pretty bad last year after being very good. Players can have a bad year. He is back to being very good. If we still had Chandler and Memphis needed ending contracts, it would be simple to swap Chandler out for ending contracts.
> 
> Hornets have won this trade big time. Pax is still searching for some players above 6'9". He is still going to need 2 quality bigs in a year or two as Wallace's decline continues. He had one. Now he is at zero.


When the Chandler for Brown trade was made, I wanted Paxson to keep Chandler around until at least this season's trade deadline. If Wallace and Chandler didn't complement each other as I suspected, I'm sure you could still have moved Chandler somewhere for an expiring big.

As I posted, I understand the financial argument. I know it's cool to hate on the money grubbing JR, I choose to follow the "it is what it is" sort of thinking regarding our owner.

In retrospect, if moving Chandler for a stop gap expiring contract better compliments Wallace with the intent on upgrading even further (i.e. nets us Gasol), then I think it was a brilliant move. I really didn't expect Paxson would make a push for a consolidation trade this season, nor did I expect the Ben Wallace signing. Memphis would not have taken Chandler on, but wants expiring contracts.

As MikeDC argues, Noc + Sweetney + TT works and that point is perfectly valid. However, what if Memphis requires us to take back an overpriced contract in return for not giving full value on a talent basis. We wouldn't have enough to give up without sending back a number of players.

Many people argue in the possibilities for a Garnett trade, that you can trade 5 for 1. However, most of our guys are on rookie scale contract and cannot be cut. This makes it difficult to send a lot of player to one side with few players returning.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> In retrospect, if moving Chandler for a stop gap expiring contract better compliments Wallace *with the intent on upgrading even further (i.e. nets us Gasol)*, then I think it was a brilliant move.


How the heck can the intent alone be a brilliant move? Doesn't Paxson have to execute the move? In less that one month, the value of PJ's expiring contract goes to near nil.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> How the heck can the intent alone be a brilliant move? Doesn't Paxson have to execute the move? In less that one month, the value of PJ's expiring contract goes to near nil.


I'd go further and argue that trading away a productive young guy just to be "ready" in case that happened (and in case the receiving team wanted an expiring deal with an old player rather than a young player with a reasonable, though expensive contract) is a move of extraordinary foolishness.

I mean, how often do those sorts of trades happen? Not that often.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> I mean, how often do those sorts of trades happen? Not that often.


And to pile on -- not only do those trades not happen that frequently, they probably almost never fetch a wartless player without any jib violations.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> How the heck can the intent alone be a brilliant move? Doesn't Paxson have to execute the move? In less that one month, the value of PJ's expiring contract goes to near nil.


Agreed entirely. If PJ nets us Gasol or KG, then that is mitigation of a crappy trade. However, it's not like PJ will be traded straight up for either of them, so you'll have to look at the other pieces being traded away.

Chandler had a big contract, but if he was ripping down a bunch of rebounds for us right now, he may have a higher market value than PJ's expiring deal. That, and we'd have a player who isn't terrible (isn't great either, but better than PJ to be sure).


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

jnrjr79 said:


> Agreed entirely. If PJ nets us Gasol or KG, then that is mitigation of a crappy trade. However, it's not like PJ will be traded straight up for either of them, so you'll have to look at the other pieces being traded away.
> 
> *Chandler had a big contract, but if he was ripping down a bunch of rebounds for us right now, he may have a higher market value than PJ's expiring deal.* That, and we'd have a player who isn't terrible (isn't great either, but better than PJ to be sure).


Not for Gasol, he wouldn't. Not if Rod Thorn is to be believed. He said that West wants only young players on small contracts, expiring contracts, and picks. That is why New Jersey had to bow out of discussions. 

But I agree with you as a general matter. Chandler is having a very solid season. Its possible that if he were playing that way for us, that he'd have more value in trade to some teams than PJ's contract holds.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> Not for Gasol, he wouldn't. Not if Rod Thorn is to be believed. He said that West wants only young players on small contracts, expiring contracts, and picks. That is why New Jersey had to bow out of discussions.
> 
> But I agree with you as a general matter. Chandler is having a very solid season. Its possible that if he were playing that way for us, that he'd have more value in trade to some teams than PJ's contract holds.


\

That's true. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. For the Grizz, that seems to be cap relief right now. For other teams, it might be a player more productive than PJ.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> How the heck can the intent alone be a brilliant move? Doesn't Paxson have to execute the move? In less that one month, the value of PJ's expiring contract goes to near nil.


Yes, he has to execute the trade for it to be so. I wasn't expecting a consolidation trade this season.

As I stated, I thought Paxson jumped the gun trading Chandler for PJ. However, if the end result nets us Gasol (which I feel most likely wouldn't happen if we didn't have PJ on the books), then I find it hard to find fault with the trade.

That's all I'm saying. He had the foresight of wanting a large expiring contract on the books to easier facilitate a trade (if it happens). I was only looking at the financial argument, which made sense but thought the move was made too early.

In Chandler's defense, I was one of the few people defending him last season when most posters were calling for his head.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Not for Gasol, he wouldn't. Not if Rod Thorn is to be believed. He said that West wants only young players on small contracts, expiring contracts, and picks. That is why New Jersey had to bow out of discussions.
> 
> But I agree with you as a general matter. Chandler is having a very solid season. Its possible that if he were playing that way for us, that he'd have more value in trade to some teams than PJ's contract holds.


you can always include a team with an ending deal on its hands, heck if the need presents itself you can still trade chandler in a deal, who is worth more on the open market, getting PJ when they did was a bad move ...the bobcats have a standing offer on use of their space 3 mil. and usually a 2nd rounder.

trading chandler was a bad idea from just about every angle.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> Yes, he has to execute the trade for it to be so. I wasn't expecting a consolidation trade this season.
> 
> As I stated, I thought Paxson jumped the gun trading Chandler for PJ. However, if the end result nets us Gasol (which I feel most likely wouldn't happen if we didn't have PJ on the books), then I find it hard to find fault with the trade.
> 
> That's all I'm saying. He had the foresight of wanting a large expiring contract on the books to easier facilitate a trade (if it happens). I was only looking at the financial argument, which made sense but thought the move was made too early.


The deal shows zero foresight. Chandler could be flipped for a expiring deal (or better) right now. And we could have had the better player for the last several months.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> The deal shows zero foresight. Chandler could be flipped for a expiring deal (or better) right now. And we could have had the better player for the last several months.


Just curious. What would Chandler's numbers would look like if he had stayed in Chicago as Wallace's backup? The same as he's put up with the Hornets? How would this affect his trade value?

JUst wonderin'.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

transplant said:


> Just curious. What would Chandler's numbers would look like if he had stayed in Chicago as Wallace's backup? The same as he's put up with the Hornets? How would this affect his trade value?
> 
> JUst wonderin'.


Well, Wallace has averaged 34 minutes in 42 of 46 games. 

Assuming Chander picked up 35 or so minutes in the four games Wallace missed, 14 minutes backing up Wallace and about 10 minutes or so of time playing with Wallace in 42 games that means he would have 1144 minutes so far this season, for an average of about 25 minutes per game. That's 8 or 9 minutes less than he's getting with New Orleans. Prorated, that would mean he'd be getting 5 ppg and 8 or 9 rebounds per game for the Bulls.

My guess is that his trade value would be at least as high as it was last summer; particularly since the Bulls would have won a few more games.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

There's also the possibility that, with a viable backup option, the Bulls would have simply sat Wallace more when he's pouted and/or just plain not played all that well.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> The deal shows zero foresight. Chandler could be flipped for a expiring deal (or better) right now. And we could have had the better player for the last several months.


I suppose, or Chandler could have played just as poorly as he did for part of last season and no team would want the contract. Then keeping Chandler might mean no consolidation trade if you didn't want $37.5 million committed to your three frontcourt guys.

The probability of this scenario was probably pretty low, but still feasible.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> I suppose, or Chandler could have played just as poorly as he did for part of last season and no team would want the contract. Then keeping Chandler might mean no consolidation trade if you didn't want $37.5 million committed to your three frontcourt guys.


You are not describing foresight which you earlier claimed for Paxson. You are now describing risk-adverse behavior. Going the safe route. Fiscal conservatism. Which I whole-heartedly believe was the primary strategy used in this whole Wallace/Chandler/Brown gambit. Unfortunately.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> You are not describing foresight which you earlier claimed for Paxson. You are now describing risk-adverse behavior. Going the safe route. Fiscal conservatism. Which I whole-heartedly believe was the primary strategy used in this whole Wallace/Chandler/Brown gambit. Unfortunately.


If planning on having financial flexibility isn't foresight if you are planning on trying to make a consolidation trade during the season, then I guess we'll have to disagree.

I do understand your rationale. I also agree that it was risk-adverse and fiscally conservative. I guess it's unfortunate that large, expiring contracts have value around the league. That's what you end up with by having guaranteed contracts.

You are looking at the loss of talent aspect. I'm looking at the financials. Again, I think it's a good move if we make the deal. If we don't, then I agree we traded away Chandler too soon.

I don't think our reasoning is that far off from each other.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

Chandler tonight (against KG)

16 points (8-9 shooting), 18 rebounds, 4 blocks. 

Hornets win.


----------



## ballafromthenorth (May 27, 2003)

I miss Tyson. Always been a huge fan... It's great to see him do well in NO/OKC.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> If planning on having financial flexibility isn't foresight if you are planning on trying to make a consolidation trade during the season, then I guess we'll have to disagree.


Does Pax have the balls to make a consolidation trade? His top 3 assets are off the table for Gasol.

I'm done on this thread. We can check in less than 30 days and see how Paxson's "foresight" is looking. I suspect it will be a heckva a lot more clear to all.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Does Pax have the balls to make a consolidation trade? His top 3 assets are off the table for Gasol.


It's negotiation. You don't expect Paxson to immediately reveal that he's willing to trade players that he should only trade if he has to, do you?


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

SALO said:


> Chandler tonight (against KG)
> 
> 16 points (8-9 shooting), 18 rebounds, 4 blocks.
> 
> Hornets win.



I saw that game last night. Chandler was awesome. He is not the same player he was with the Bulls. He is playing within himself and with a lot of confidence.

Some of you will recall that Chandler normally would pick up a couple of quick fouls early in the game. He didn't have one foul in the first half! He was a rebounding machine out there and the key to the game was him keeping Garnett from playing his normally dominating game.

What a shame. If Chandler was still with the Bulls and playing at this level the Bulls would be the best team in the East hands down for the next 5-7 years. He is probably (IMO) the leading candidate for most improved player in the league. 

One thing more, he did not fumble passes made to him. On one play he even picked up a loose ball at his feet and quickly elevated and dunked it. With the Bulls he would have kicked that ball into the third row. And to think, this time last year I would have needed a restraining order on him.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

charlietyra said:


> What a shame. If Chandler was still with the Bulls and playing at this level the Bulls would be the best team in the East hands down for the next 5-7 years. He is probably (IMO) the leading candidate for most improved player in the league.
> 
> One thing more, he did not fumble passes made to him. On one play he even picked up a loose ball at his feet and quickly elevated and dunked it. With the Bulls he would have kicked that ball into the third row. And to think, this time last year I would have needed a restraining order on him.


LOL man would u please stop over-exxagerating.

Yeah, he's the leading candidate but NOBODY has even talked about him being anywhere near the most iimproved all season, SURE BUDDY!

And don't act as if Tyson would be some dominant force in Chicago, he's still as dumb as he was wearing a bulls jersey. Don't let one game fool you.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

....

EDIT: Forgot I was done.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

The ROY said:


> LOL man would u please stop over-exxagerating.
> 
> Yeah, he's the leading candidate but NOBODY has even talked about him being anywhere near the most iimproved all season, SURE BUDDY!
> 
> And don't act as if Tyson would be some dominant force in Chicago, he's still as dumb as he was wearing a bulls jersey. Don't let one game fool you.



Let me tell you something pal, I was a very harsh critic of Tyson's game and his basketball IQ as anybody on this board. Have you been following him this year? If so, you would know that I am not letting one game fooling me. He has been consistently solid all season. Yesterday's game put in perspective for me what the stats have been showing all year. 

I want you to remember what you said about Chandler. You will regret saying this.


----------



## laso (Jul 24, 2002)

Well so far it seems that the Chandler move by Pax was absolutely bonehead. Chandler is playing great and is more intimidating inside than Big Ben.

On the other hand, if having PJ gets us Gasol, it may have been worth it. Would you have done Deng and Chandler for Gasol this summer? I think I would have... Especially if we assume Tyrus is going to develop as hoped.


----------

