# "OT": Former Bulls Chandler, Curry on verge of stardom



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Well, the Bulls are close to making it back into the NBA's elite, but they have done it without either Chandler or Curry. That doesn't mean that Chandler and Curry failed. Instead, what it demonstrates is how rarely NBA teams stick with young players long enough to capitalize on their talents. Indeed, Chandler and Curry, who are both only 24, stand today on the precipice of greatness, the very greatness forecast for them by Krause six years ago.
> 
> Chandler, who is the better rebounder and defensive player of the pair, is the starting center for the New Orleans/Oklahoma City Hornets, and he is battling All-Stars Kevin Garnett and Dwight Howard for the NBA's rebounding title. Through Sunday, Chandler was second in the league in rebounding with 12.4 per game, trailing only Garnett's 12.8 and ahead of Howard's 12.1.
> 
> ...


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/chris_ekstrand/02/26/curry.chandler.notes/1.html

I think this is the first article of this nature that I've ever encountered. Sadly, it's probably the first of many.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Here's a link to Ekstrand's SI archives for those who want to conscientiously learn more about him and check up on his bona fides.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/writers/chris_ekstrand/archive/index.html

Prior to writing for SI, he was a consultant to the NBA and edited their draft media guide for many years.

Carry on.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

The Bulls did not pull up a year or two too soon on both players. That they had NBA talent was plain for all to see.

It is doubtful that they would ever have arrived where they are now without a change in organization.

We love spilled milk.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

I agree, except for the part about it being understandable for Paxson to dump these two clear, young, 7 foot tall difference makers.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Soulful Sides said:


> It is doubtful that they would ever have arrived where they are now without a change in organization.


A disturbing indictment of the Bulls organization.

We're getting ready for multiple NBA Championship runs if Paxson just held on to these guys or altered his organization, if needed, to use them effectively.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

Yep, losing Chandler and Curry hurts. In some ways at least, they're rounding into the type of players that Krause envisioned.

I think it's interesting that, we've gotten far enough into the era when players are being drafted who are under 20 years old, that we're achieving enough distance from its beginnings to finally set realistic expectations about what you're actually getting into when you draft these types of players.

ie, if you're drafting a total project, it probably won't be until their next contract before you see them really come into their own, especially if they're big guys.

It's happening with Curry and Tyson, Andris Biedrins has shown positive signs, but still looks like he's 2-3 years before he'll begin to hit his stride, and it took Jermaine O'neal about 5 years before he started really producing. 

In hindsight, it looks like dealing Tyson was a shortsighted move. I know we had Ben Wallace, and their were luxury tax concerns, but their play this year has been about equal, and as others have noted, we could've kept Tyson Chandler going into this year, and still weathered the salary cap storm, most likely.

I'm more lenient on the Curry move, since I think Pax intended to resign him, but given some of the _perceived_ risks he felt he would have been taking, no matter how remote, and the fact that he couldn't get the contract insured, probably forced his hand.

The thing I do wonder, is if the success of Eddy and Tyson have mellowed Pax's stance on approach to the game. There are a lot of reasons why they both got traded, but it has to hurt on some level knowing that you traded away two productive, 23 year old 7 footers, who'd cure a lot of what's ailing your team right now.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I agree, except for the part about it being understandable for Paxson to dump these two clear, young, 7 foot tall difference makers.


Do you think Paxson is a bad GM? Or do you think he made a mistake in clearing these two big men out of his organization?


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> A disturbing indictment of the Bulls organization.
> 
> We're getting ready for multiple NBA Championship runs if Paxson just held on to these guys or altered his organization, if needed, to use them effectively.


You don't believe a change of scenery can reinvigorate a player?

These players had multiple changes within the city and organization...Krause, Floyd, Cartwright, Skiles, Paxson. When would it have ended?


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Pretty even-handed article. The way he glowed about the Towers, you'd think the Bulls were back to losing 65 games a season without them, but he gave Paxson a fair hearing as well. He did skip over the fact that Tyson was so bad most of last season (which must have made it easier for Pax to jettison him), but there were reasons for that too. 

I think "greatness" might be a bit too strong a word to apply to either guy, but they're both darn fine players. I'd hesitate to say that Krause has been completely exonerated, however. It's been a long, painful, bumpy ride getting these guys to this point. I don't think Krause had in mind when he drafted these guys in 2001 that we'd be waiting until 06/7 to get these kinds of results. Of course, the deck was stacked against them, coming onto a 20-win team with a laughingstock for a coach.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

rosenthall said:


> There are a lot of reasons why they both got traded, but it has to hurt on some level knowing that you traded away two productive, 23 year old 7 footers, who'd cure a lot of what's ailing your team right now.


Agreed. It would be great to re-acquire them with what they had to leave the organization to learn.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I agree, except for the part about it being understandable for Paxson to dump these two clear, young, 7 foot tall difference makers.


Given the failure to use P.J. Brown's contract to acquire a difference-maker, the diminishing likelihood of the Knicks' pick becoming a difference-maker, and my personal lack of faith in TT's becoming a difference-maker, I would also argue Ekstrand's premise that the Bulls are well-positioned for the future.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

i haven't read the article, and i don't really need too, cause as previously stated it's spilled milk.

however, i'll offer this as a comparison: while the nba is an exclusive independent contractor kind of employment, what employer would give an employee 5 years of underachieving without letting him go?

also, as previously stated it's not as if both guys didn't have numerous other "supervisors" that coddled and cajoled them into becoming first rate "employees", their immaturity led to breakdowns of a variety of sorts, leading to fan and organizational frustration.

as such, i don't buy the indictment of the organization, because as again previously stated the bull wouldn't be the first team to give up on guys who don't show the kind of improvement/consistency after 5 years on the job; and i'll be the first to say that after 5 years of perceived "underachieving" gordon, deng and hinrich, paxson will likely be ready to give up on those guys too, rightly or wrongly.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

BULLHITTER said:


> what employer would give an employee 5 years of underachieving without letting him go?





> it's not as if both guys didn't have numerous other "supervisors"





> after 5 years of perceived "underachieving" gordon, deng and hinrich, paxson will likely be ready to give up on those guys too, rightly or wrongly.


Thumbs up!


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

I understand that Curry and Chandler are good players now but Curry had 4 YEARS to prove what he is now and Chandler had 5 YEARS in Chicago respectively. We gave them time, but they didn't produce like this until now so I don't blame Pax. I blame these two players for not working harder (Chandler saying during the summer he got the unworthy contract-that he admitted that he did NOTHING in the summer to work on his game, Curry's constant weight issues). 

So I don't regret losing both of these players.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Soulful Sides said:


> You don't believe a change of scenery can reinvigorate a player?...


I definitely believe in that phenomenon. We see it each and every NBA season.

But by the same token, don't you believe that some teams are better at developing players than others?

Can you honestly claim that the org did all it could to develop TC and EC? Was there a good reason they didn't hire "personal" assistant coaches to work on their weak points. Is it reasonable to expect two immensely gifted 18-year-olds to be self-starters with the same work ethic as collegians from great programs?

Paxson traded EC and TC, and that's fine. But I'll have no truck with the claim that the Bulls had absolutely done everything in their power to get the most out of the two, and that their solid play is due to a change in scenery.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> however, i'll offer this as a comparison: while the nba is an exclusive independent contractor kind of employment, what employer would give an employee 5 years of underachieving without letting him go?


Great analogy -- you mean like a Wal*Mart cashier who oversleeps and misses her shifts and has a bunch of voids and whose dollar total never matches the register, right? 

Please. NBA players are investments, not employees. 



> i'll be the first to say that after 5 years of perceived "underachieving" gordon, deng and hinrich, paxson will likely be ready to give up on those guys too, rightly or wrongly.


No, he won't. They're hard workers. That's what he cares about most.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> Can you honestly claim that the org did all it could to develop TC and EC?


There is a difference between all it could and all it was willing to do.

I believe the same approach that ha allowed other players to blossom here was used with these two (three if you include Jamal) and for whatever reason it did not work.

After multiple years, and multiple approaches with multiple coaches and GM's...at some point the organization has to say -- "Our approach isn't working for these two. For their sake and ours, it is time to make a change."

I do not think NY or NO would be having this success with the two if this were their 2nd or 3rd season in the league instead of 5,6, etc. A lot of the success they are experiencing is based on work they put in in Chicago.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> They're hard workers. That's what he cares about most.


Thats not true (and it's also pretty close to baiting).

I don't know where this jib and right way thing got started but it was only a tool used by Paxson to root out some undergrowth leftover from the Krause regime.

Jordan and Rodman and some of the other players that the Bulls won with were as far from 'jibby' as you can get. Paxson isn't trying to build a team around this supposed theory and people throw that out when they have nothing else to use against the man. Its thread-crapping and discussion killing.

Edit:

Are the Spurs 'jibby' and 'right way'?


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I definitely believe in that phenomenon. We see it each and every NBA season.
> 
> But by the same token, don't you believe that some teams are better at developing players than others?
> 
> Can you honestly claim that the org did all it could to develop TC and EC? Was there a good reason they didn't hire "personal" assistant coaches to work on their weak points. Is it reasonable to expect two immensely gifted 18-year-olds to be self-starters with the same work ethic as collegians from great programs?


I agree with that phenomenon as well. I think we sometimes forget that being traded was the first whiff of rejection either of them had experienced in their entire lives. Up until that point, they had been coddled, supported, praised, rewarded etc. to the point where neither felt any need to actually work to improve. Then, suddenly, they're told for the first time that they are no longer wanted. How can that not have an effect?

But Scott, it seems that you are using a bit of revisionist history here. I seem to recall Bulls coaches being on call at the Berto Center for any players who chose to engage them. Neither Curry nor Chandler were ever around to do so. What good would it have done to have hired "personal" assistant coaches for them? I firmly believe the Bulls as an organization did in fact to everything reasonably possible to develop these two guys. Really, with the money at stake in today's game, why on earth would they have not done so?


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

I find discussions of the decision to trade Curry tedious to the point of tears. The decision was made for non-basketball reasons, and discussions of those reasons are largely irrelevant to the future prospects of the Bulls. Paxson didn't trade Curry because he hated big men who had a great inside game. He, and everyone in the Bulls organization recognized at the time that trading Curry was almost certainly a longterm loss for the franchise. 

The only difference between what happened with Jason Williams and Curry is that the Bulls got absolutely nothing in compensation for the loss of Williams, while they at least got Sweetney and a few draft picks for Curry. In both cases a valuable player was lost for heath reasons. Some of the cardiac specialists at this site apparently disagree with the decision Bulls management made upon consideration of confidential medical information, and I applaud them for their superior insight. But the decision, for better or worse, was made and we have to move on.

The only thing that has changed in the two years since the medical event that triggered the trade is that Curry is not dead or prematurely retired. I suppose the observation is interesting to some, but would anyone really be happy to learn in the news tomorrow that Paxson's concerns were valid?

As far as I'm concerned the only relevance Curry has to the Bulls fortunes at this point in time are his performances when the Bulls play the Knicks and the impact he has on the record of a team that owes us the opportunity to swap draft picks. I root against his success for those reasons, and those reasons alone. Otherwise I wish the young man a long, productive career and a healthy life thereafter.


Looking back at the "wisdom" of the Chandler trade is another matter altogether. It was also made for non-basketball reasons. The difference is that I find the ownership greed motive more corruptive to my fanatic interest in this sports franchise than motives related to possibly inaccurate medical concerns.

On balance, I guess I'd be willing to give up my temptation to gripe about the Chandler trade if others would agree to give up their temptation to gripe about the Curry trade, which is getting to be a bit like the reading equivalent of listening to fingernails dragged across a blackboard.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

I thought it was interesting that the national media is capable of looking at Curry and Chandler's success without blasting Pax or suggesting he should be fired. Perhaps covering the Billy Kings and Billy Knights of the world give you a glimpse of what an unsuccessful GM looks like. 

Also, I got a kick out of the claim that Krause was "right" after all. He'd probably be the first one to tell you that the plan was not "Draft Curry and Chandler then wait five years."


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Can you honestly claim that the org did all it could to develop TC and EC? Was there a good reason they didn't hire "personal" assistant coaches to work on their weak points. Is it reasonable to expect two immensely gifted 18-year-olds to be self-starters with the same work ethic as collegians from great programs?


I do find this amazing. Seriously what would it cost to hire two mentors, $100,000 each, to manage your 6-9 million dollar 3 year investment and try and get the most out of it.

I'd do it myself if I was a lottery pick, hire a personal trainer, a cook and a basketball skills coach.

Scott can you expand on a point you made in your previous post? What are your thoughts on TT?


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Soulful Sides said:


> Thats not true (and it's also pretty close to baiting).
> 
> I don't know where this jib and right way thing got started but it was only a tool used by Paxson to root out some undergrowth leftover from the Krause regime.
> 
> ...


I don't think Scott's comment was baiting - it's pretty well-established that one of his knocks on Pax is that he values hard work over talent to a fault. That's where he was coming from, but I don't think he was going out of his way to provoke in the negative sense.

As far as Jordan and Rodman go, it sort of depends on what you mean when you say "jib"...I agree with you that I think Paxson went on a "right way" purge in his first year on the job - and the purge included both the on-court slouches and the off-court problems. However, I think his philosophy is less concerned about everyone being a "nice guy" now than it was then. Wallace isn't really viewed as a gentleman. Pax was interested in finding a way to bring Kobe here (though it was a pipedream). I think Pax wants guys who are willing to fight to the death to win games. To some extent, our current squad embodies it. They play really hard, though I think it's becoming clear they don't have the killer instinct. But Jordan and Rodman may have been unsavory characters off the court, but they played their tails off every single game, and Kobe does (when he's not trying to make some weird statement to PJax or Shaq, at least). I think Pax is willing to put up with unsavory characters if they bring it balls out on the court. I think that's why he made the boneheaded Pippen signing, hoping he'd show the team the way. It probably explains why Rose didn't last long under Pax, too.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Kneepad said:


> But Scott, it seems that you are using a bit of revisionist history here.


No revision on my part -- for years I clamored for the Bulls to go out and get honest-to-goodness big-man coaches. Someone who played in the NBA or had a successful track record of coaching big men. Someone like Jack Sikma, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, or even Mark Aguirre, who in a span of months has done wonders with Curry's footwork and ability to seal players off. 



> I seem to recall Bulls coaches being on call at the Berto Center for any players who chose to engage them. Neither Curry nor Chandler were ever around to do so. What good would it have done to have hired "personal" assistant coaches for them?


This sort of proves my point -- since they didn't have full-steam-ahead, never-take-a-day-off work ethics, it wasn't worth the extra expense and inconvenience of giving them some extra attention to coax them? Maybe if you're running a Division III wrestling program, but sort of a short-sighted approach at the pro level. I can think of a lot of Hall of Famers and future Hall of Famers who wouldn't live up that standard.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

ViciousFlogging said:


> it's pretty well-established that one of his knocks on Pax is that he values hard work over talent to a fault.


Not true. But I'd welcome your attempts to establish it now.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

ViciousFlogging said:


> Jordan and Rodman may have been unsavory characters off the court, but they played their tails off every single game, and Kobe does (when he's not trying to make some weird statement to PJax or Shaq, at least).


Those guys were some of the most talented men on earth in their occupations of choice. How can you call that hard work over talent?

I'd absolutely posit that Paxson wants hard workers. But talent is nothing without hard work.

Example: Some posters here work hard at posting but have no talent. So we get repetitive and un-original threads. But some are immensely talented and hard workers too...and thats the cream of the crop.

Paxson is absolutely right to demand that his talent have a strong work ethic. Thats what Rodman and MJ had...and they were the cream of the crop.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

Soulful Sides said:


> Do you think Paxson is a bad GM? Or do you think he made a mistake in clearing these two big men out of his organization?



That is a great question. I have bashed Paxson more than a few times. However, I don't think he's a bad GM, I just think he's mad some bad decisions. In an irony, Paxson has created a vision and is now doing the same thing that Krause got run out of town for.

Krause saw a twin towers type of team, with two 7 footers dominating and pieces filled in around. 

My belief is that Pax's vision is a perimiter oriented squad that doesn't rely on post offense (though he admits every team needs it). I say this because his moves have been consistently non-frontcourt moves. He got rid of the C's and PF's we had and replaced them with old, on the decline guys. Wallace is that, albeit a good player. 

Krause loved drafting frontcourt guys (seemed like we drafted a PF every year - Brand, Fizer, Chander, etc..). Pax drafts a guard every year (Hinrich, Gordon, Duhon, Thabo).

Again, it's not wether those are good players for the Bulls, it's that to me, the result is the same - A very unbalanced roster that can beat mid-level teams, but won't beat elite level teams till they find balance.

Here's to hoping that we find that Frontcourt stud we (and every other team) need.


PS - I for one am happy for Curry and Chandler. Did they put out more effort than when they were with the Bulls, I think so. They should, a trade either makes you work harder or breaks you. Good for these two that it's made them work harder.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Soulful Sides said:


> Not true. But I'd welcome your attempts to establish it now.


It's not true that ScottMay the poster thinks that John Paxson the GM values hard work over talent to a fault? OK...?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I'm not a fan of this article, and not because it has an anti-Bulls/anti-Pax agenda to it. More so because it doesn't present both sides of the equations. I'm not sure I'd call either of these guys a "rising star". 

Chandler (who I still really like) has stone hands which will never change, he still fouls alot, and makes poor decisions. He plays great alongside David West and Chris Paul because he rarely touches the ball in the offense, and doesn't need to. (Did anyone else notice Chandler's struggles while West was hurt?). It's too bad we couldn't find a David West type of player for him in Chicago. A Brand/Chandler combo could've been sweet.

Curry (who I really don't like much) is still a subpar rebounder for someone his size and needs to be spoon-fed far too many of his points. Whenever he tries to create for himself the way other superstar big men do, he usually turns the ball over. He can be a formidable weapon when he's finding his spots (which has happened quite frequently this year); but once the league stops underestimating both him and the Knicks in general, I expect his production to level off. And before anyone calls him a star player, we should ask ourselves, does any other player in the league have a negative statistical formula named after them? (I refer to the "Eddy Curry stat" from ESPN, which is the ratio of assists+blocks+steals / turnovers; Curry has been the worst in this category basically since he entered the league.)

I'm more upset about losing Chandler because we didn't get a good package back (the best we can hope for is re-signing our current players). I'm pretty happy with the Curry package. I think Thomas is on his way to being a great player, and our swap this year should still be reasonably good.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> Someone who played in the NBA


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Soulful Sides said:


> Those guys were some of the most talented men on earth in their occupations of choice. How can you call that hard work over talent?


I'm not calling it that. I never said they didn't have talent. I didn't even mention that in that paragraph. What made MJ the GOAT was his combination of superhuman talent and a desire to win and be the best that very, very few human beings on this planet have. What made Rodman one of the best rebounders and defenders of all time was a similar combination of uncanny talent and hard work. He didn't learn to position himself for rebounds, bat them to himself, or defend anyone from a SG to C just through chance. My point was that neither guy was an angel off the court (or even on it, in some ways).



> I'd absolutely posit that Paxson wants hard workers. But talent is nothing without hard work.
> 
> Example: Some posters here work hard at posting but have no talent. So we get repetitive and un-original threads. But some are immensely talented and hard workers too...and thats the cream of the crop.
> 
> Paxson is absolutely right to demand that his talent have a strong work ethic. Thats what Rodman and MJ had.


Yes, he wants both. My previous post was making an admittedly somewhat tangential reference to the common complaint against Paxson that he only wants boy scouts (on and off the court). I don't think that's the case, though it may have been when he first got here.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

darlets said:


> Scott can you expand on a point you made in your previous post? What are your thoughts on TT?


In a nutshell, I think he's a considerable longshot to become the sort of player who is the linchpin of a championship-winning team.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

ViciousFlogging said:


> It's not true that ScottMay the poster thinks that John Paxson the GM values hard work over talent to a fault? OK...?


I misread that sentence in your post.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> In a nutshell, I think he's a considerable longshot to become the sort of player who is the linchpin of a championship-winning team.


Does he need to be for this team to become successful?


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Soulful Sides said:


> I misread that sentence in your post.


gotcha. It could have been worded better. :cheers:


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Soulful Sides said:


>


A. Except for the first 37 games of Tyson and Eddy's career, Cartwright was the head coach, meaning he likely had literally zero time for personalized instruction.

B. No insult to Cartwright, who I think has a great understanding of the game, but I wouldn't hire him to teach post offense to a dog I didn't like.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> I wouldn't hire him to teach post offense to a dog I didn't like.


How about an argument against his coaching instead of an insult?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

There may come a day when some slight tinge of regret creeps into my subconscious regarding the Curry trade. But I suspect that day is a long, long way away. Actually, I suspect that day will never come. 

But with the failure to move PJ Brown's contract, I don't think there is much doubt that the Chandler trade was a horrible, horrible error.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Soulful Sides said:


> Does he need to be for this team to become successful?


I believe so, yes. Even if you subscribe to the belief that the Bulls can win a title without a superstar (the so-called "Pistons Model"), TT would have to be a key contributor during the same timeframe that Wallace is a key contributor. IMO.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> There may come a day when some slight tinge of regret creeps into my subconscious regarding the Curry trade. But I suspect that day is a long, long way away. Actually, I suspect that day will never come.
> 
> But with the failure to move PJ Brown's contract, I don't think there is much doubt that the Chandler trade was a horrible, horrible error.


I've never been quite as unimpressed with Curry as you've been, but I'm similar in that I defintely have more doubt about it than I thought I would. I think Curry would bring solid balance to the current roster.

That said, I see flashes of real promise in TT, and this is a deep draft even if we aren't getting one of the Chosen Ones in it. We'll see how it turns out long-term, though we are taking a bath right now IMO.

Considering the circumstances that led to the Curry trade (I'm in the camp that I think Pax's decision to move him was first and foremost about health) and the fact that Paxson had backed himself into a corner, I continue to be glad that we got what we did for him. In the grand scheme of things, we may still be able to argue that we "won" the trade, but as of now, ehhhhhhhhh no.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> I believe so, yes. Even if you subscribe to the belief that the Bulls can win a title without a superstar (the so-called "Pistons Model"), TT would have to be a key contributor during the same timeframe that Wallace is a key contributor. IMO.


And it is correct to say that you see no way for him to become a 'key' contributor on an elite team?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Soulful Sides said:


> And it is correct to say that you see no way for him to become a 'key' contributor on an elite team?


I wouldn't say "no way," no. It certainly won't be easy when you consider that right now, on any given game night he has no idea when he'll be playing or for how long.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

yodurk said:


> (Did anyone else notice Chandler's struggles while West was hurt?)


You love breaking out this old chestnut. Yes, Chandler did not perform as well when West and Paul were out and he was anchoring a team of Devin Brown, Rasual Butler, Linton Johnson III, and other similar players. Shocking.

Weirdly, however, the Hornets are saying Chandler sort of kept the whole operation moving forward during those trials and tribulations, and they would not be in their current position (8th in the West, probably the equivalent to a 3 seed in the East) without his contributions.



> Once the league stops underestimating . . [Curry], I expect his production to level off.


Underestimating Curry? You mean like this?



PatGarrity said:


> He's one of the few guys in this league where you have to change what you do to deal with him. He's just so strong and has such good moves that you can't play him straight up and be successful too much.


:laugh:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

darlets said:


> I do find this amazing. Seriously what would it cost to hire two mentors, $100,000 each, to manage your 6-9 million dollar 3 year investment and try and get the most out of it.
> 
> I'd do it myself if I was a lottery pick, hire a personal trainer, a cook and a basketball skills coach.
> 
> Scott can you expand on a point you made in your previous post? What are your thoughts on TT?


I can't remember the guy's name, but Cartwright brought in a big man coach from the Knicks to work with Curry and Chandler.

I absolutely do not believe the Bulls did everything they could to develop the two. The roster was schizo, consisting of vets like Rose and Yell and Blount and ERob and Hoiberg which says "play the vets and try to win" as well as young guys that all needed to develop at the same time - Curry, Chandler, Crawford, Fizer, Hassell, and Baxter. There was no way to focus on developing any of those guys, though Hassell is a pretty good case for playing the heck out of a guy and he turns out pretty good.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I can't remember the guy's name, but Cartwright brought in a big man coach from the Knicks to work with Curry and Chandler.
> 
> I absolutely do not believe the Bulls did everything they could to develop the two. The roster was schizo, consisting of vets like Rose and Yell and Blount and ERob and Hoiberg which says "play the vets and try to win" as well as young guys that all needed to develop at the same time - Curry, Chandler, Crawford, Fizer, Hassell, and Baxter. There was no way to focus on developing any of those guys, though Hassell is a pretty good case for playing the heck out of a guy and he turns out pretty good.


i agree, in retrospect we should've had more capable and experienced players, especially at the point guard spot, and especially with the coaching staff. 

overall we had too much inexperience from the top to the bottom. 
except krause, who should've known better, but wth hindsight is 20/20.

i do want to add if it takes curry and chandler 6 years to supposedly get to this level why not have a *little* bit of patience with deng and tyrus


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

RoRo said:


> i do want to add if it takes curry and chandler 6 years to supposedly get to this level why not have a *little* bit of patience with deng and tyrus


Well... I think the trick to being a dynasty is winning the championship the first time and staying there. So win now is my belief - not 6 years from now. And then there's the fact that in 6 years, Hinrich will be 32. If we're not an elite team by then, I don't see Thomas and Deng putting us over the top.

But Thomas could well be a pretty good player by then.

Deng didn't need 6 years, nor really even 1.
:cheers:


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

RoRo said:


> i do want to add if it takes curry and chandler 6 years to supposedly get to this level why not have a *little* bit of patience with deng and tyrus


But, you can see the talent with Tyson and Eddy. The same with Tyrus. Those guys came out of HS, and Tyrus does not have much experience. Deng is several years more mature for his age than the other 3. Big men take longer to develop.

I think Deng will be very good, but the ceiling of Tyson and Eddy was incredibly high. I do blame them, but they have shown signs of improvement while here and now at their new homes. Our development via coaching is an issue I think we need to look at. With proper encouragement and having more Vets around (not Oakley), we could have gotten more out of the Towers and be building upon our 47 win season with that core.

For now, I hope the Bulls learned their mistakes and prevent it with Tyrus and NYK.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

The funny thing isn't that Curry is that great, but that he's so rare. Folks make a big deal out of getting a couple assets for him, but you also have to figure on the assets it takes to replace him. As it turned out, Michael Sweetney didn't adequately replace him. :|

Work in the cost of replacement (whatever it ends up being... assuming some day we end up with a capable replacement) and things look worse. I mean, let's just assume for a second we had traded Deng, Brown and the pick for Gasol.

Hypothetical, I know, but the point is that we'd finally have a replacement. But what'd it cost to get him?

Well, we get Gasol, Tyrus Thomas, Tim Thomas and Michael Sweetney
To get that, we give up Curry, Deng (to get Gasol to replace Curry), Tyson Chandler (to get Brown to trade for Gasol to replace Curry), Antonio Davis and our 2007 pick.

I'll freely admit that Gasol is a much better player than Curry, but we've ended up giving up much more to replace him.

Of course, we haven't actually given up Deng... that's just an example. Because if we are going to get a scoring big we'll eventually have to give up something to do it. And in any fair accounting, that needs to be added to the ledger.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The funny things are...

We had the big defensive PF/C type and the post guy AND we could have drafted Gasol instead of Curry. At this point, we were down to going after gasol via trade, and it would have cost us significantly.


----------



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

DaBullz said:


> The funny things are...
> 
> We had the big defensive PF/C type and the post guy AND we could have drafted Gasol instead of Curry. At this point, we were down to going after gasol via trade, and it would have cost us significantly.


I wasn't mad that Pax didn't make a trade because I think ultimately Deng and Gasol would be push, but for the way he has created a glaring, obvious need for Gasol. 

Far as I'm concerned the PaxSkiles regime has proven this much:

-they are terrible at developing big men 
-they play favorites and undervalue the non-favorites' contributions
-they are prone to throwing players under the bus and woe is me statements
-they don't adapt well to anyone who hasn't been indoctrinated to the "culture"

I don't believe were in any position to ever do anything great with these clowns at the helm, unless one of Ben Gordon or Luol Deng becomes an off-the-charts player and/or we manage to land one of the star prospects of this draft.

The only positive thing they have done has been the Summer of 2004 when they drafted Ben and Deng, and signed Nocioni --- so maybe they know their way with the smalls, but that still leaves us with an unbalanced, monolithic roster.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

I am laughing so hard that I had to post.

Aren't many of the people who are now clamoring for the success Tyson is having the same people who said that he wasn't, isn't, and never will be an NBA *center*? He is having all of this success playing *center*, which he wouldn't be doing in a frontline of Curry and Chandler where Curry is playing 35 minutes per game.

I thought Tyson was too skinny and weak to be a full-time NBA *center*, and he should be traded for expiring contracts (if the Bulls can even dump him for expiring contracts)???

As for the Bulls not putting any coaches with Tyson and Eddy, I guess these guys would have made a difference:

Byron Scott (College - Arizona State) 
Darrell Walker (College - Arkansas) 
Kenny Gattison (College - Old Dominion) 
David Miller (College - Springfield College (MA)) 
Jack Manson (College - Howard) 
Terry Kofler (College - Xavier)
Isiah Thomas (College - Indiana) 
Mark Aguirre (College - DePaul) 
Phil Ford (College - North Carolina) 
George Glymph (College - Benedict) 
Dave Hanners (College - North Carolina) 
Herb Williams (College - Ohio State) 
Brendan Suhr (College - Montclair State) 
Greg Brittenham (College - Nebraska-Kearney) 
Roger Hinds (College - Brooklyn College) 
Anthony Goenaga (From - Long Island University) 

These are the coaches and trainers on the current Hornets and Knicks staffs. I guess we should have hired some of these guys to show Eddy and Tyson how to be NBA players?? :lol:

It's just so hilarious, one year ago so many people were praying that we could get rid of Tyson's contract, now those same people are here ripping on Paxson for trading Tyson for an expiring contract.

I sure don't remember any "the expiring contract must be turned into Pau Gasol" caveats at this time in 2006 being mentioned.

Ya gotta love that 20/10 hindsight, eh?

Agendas, anyone?


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Well... I think the trick to being a dynasty is winning the championship the first time and staying there. So win now is my belief - not 6 years from now. And then there's the fact that in 6 years, Hinrich will be 32. If we're not an elite team by then, I don't see Thomas and Deng putting us over the top.
> 
> But Thomas could well be a pretty good player by then.
> 
> ...


well i was joking a bit. my main point is a little patience is in order. like maybe one season.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> The funny things are...
> 
> We had the big defensive PF/C type and the post guy *AND we could have drafted Gasol instead of Curry*. At this point, we were down to going after gasol via trade, and it would have cost us significantly.


Gasol was drafted #3 overall, we took Curry at #4 overall.

Facts, schmacts.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Gasol was drafted #3 overall, we took Curry at #4 overall.
> 
> Facts, schmacts.


We had the #2 pick (Chandler)


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

And to finalize things, the exact same people who don't see Tyrus Thomas as having much of an NBA future are the exact same people who LAST YEAR didn't see Tyson Chandler as being a dominant NBA center.

If hindsight is 20/20, and I have 20/10 vision in my right eye and 20/13 in my left, does that make my hindsight 20/-3?


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

McBulls said:


> I find discussions of the decision to trade Curry tedious to the point of tears. The decision was made for non-basketball reasons, and discussions of those reasons are largely irrelevant to the future prospects of the Bulls. Paxson didn't trade Curry because he hated big men who had a great inside game. He, and everyone in the Bulls organization recognized at the time that trading Curry was almost certainly a longterm loss for the franchise.
> 
> The only difference between what happened with Jason Williams and Curry is that the Bulls got absolutely nothing in compensation for the loss of Williams, while they at least got Sweetney and a few draft picks for Curry. In both cases a valuable player was lost for heath reasons. Some of the cardiac specialists at this site apparently disagree with the decision Bulls management made upon consideration of confidential medical information, and I applaud them for their superior insight. But the decision, for better or worse, was made and we have to move on.
> 
> ...


This is quite possibly the best post I've read on this board. I've wondered for a long time why I have absolutely no desire to debate Paxson's handling of Curry's health situation with the anti-Pax camp. The answer is pretty clear but somehow escaped me completely until now: my fascination is with basketball decisions and the Curry situation was not a basketball decision. Even if it was the biggest blunder in the history of the franchise it's not likely to be repeated until the next time we have a player with a player with a heart condition. I supposed I'd be more upset with fate or scrutinize Pax's non-basksetball decision making more if we didn't have a #2 pick and (likely) another lottery pick to replace a former 4th pick.

I've long held your exact same stance as far as the Chandler trade. My position has changed slightly in the last few weeks though. While I've long pointed out that the deal was motivated mostly by luxury tax concerns, Pax was ultimately faced with the basketbal decision of choosing between Chandler and Wallace or perhaps other free agents. I can't critisize the decision to go with Wallace over Chandler too heavily since most execitives, analysts, and 90% of fans - presumably including most in the anti-Pax camp - heavily favored Wallace over Chandler. As one of the most vehement critics of the Chandler trade, I argued that in three years and perhaps much sooner Chandler would be better than Wallace but IIRC still stopped short of advocating keeping Chandler and letting some or all of the cap space evaporate.

The luxury tax concerns faded into the background for most of a season but in the last few days before the trade deadline the issue reared its ugly head again. Sam Smith reported that a member of the core would have to be included in any deal for Gasol due to luxury tax implications. Ultimately it seems that a deal for SAR or the like which would have improved the team did not go down because Pax was faced to weighed moderate gains this season versus jeopoardizing the team's ability to retain players down the line without crossing the luxury tax threshold. While I find ownership's unwillingness to use liberal spending as a competitive advantage to be both disheartening and disgusting, it's a reality Pax has to work within nonetheless and that means that in the future he has to think long and hard about the longterm implications of paying anyone $15 million.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> We had the #2 pick (Chandler)


No we didn't, we had the #4 pick.

We traded Brand for the #2 pick.

So 100% NO, we couldn't have- in your own words- *had the big defensive PF/C type and the post guy AND we could have drafted Gasol instead of Curry*.

Whether the *big defensive PF/C type and the post guy* you are referring to is Tyson or Brand, we couldn't have had one of them AND drafted Gasol instead of Curry.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> No we didn't, we had the #4 pick.
> 
> We traded Brand for the #2 pick.
> 
> ...


I didn't say we could have all three.

I said we had Chandler and Curry and that we could have drafted Gasol. We did trade Brand, but I'm pretty sure Krause told the Clippers who to take with #2.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> You love breaking out this old chestnut. Yes, Chandler did not perform as well when West and Paul were out and he was anchoring a team of Devin Brown, Rasual Butler, Linton Johnson III, and other similar players. Shocking.


Yeah you know, I've said that like all of once before. 

In any case, I used that to support the very popular assertion that Chandler would be best served playing next to another big man you can run an offense around. I regret that we were unable to provide that player. Now that he is, he's doing what he does best: rebounding and defending the basket. He still is very piss-poor on the offensive side.



> Underestimating Curry? You mean like this?
> 
> :laugh:


I meant underestimating the Knicks in general. I don't see the league taking them seriously yet and it's worked to their, and Curry's, advantage. 

Bottom line, these guys aren't rising stars. They're serviceable at what they do. This article was exaggerating, IMO.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> I didn't say we could have all three.
> 
> I said we had Chandler and Curry and that we could have drafted Gasol. We did trade Brand, but I'm pretty sure Krause told the Clippers who to take with #2.


You crack me up, dude. Seriously.

Intelligent people can read and comprehend what they've read... maybe you administrators only want unintelligent people posting/reading this board?

I'll give you an "A" for effort, though. :lol:


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

bullsville said:


> I am laughing so hard that I had to post.
> 
> Aren't many of the people who are now clamoring for the success Tyson is having the same people who said that he wasn't, isn't, and never will be an NBA *center*? He is having all of this success playing *center*, which he wouldn't be doing in a frontline of Curry and Chandler where Curry is playing 35 minutes per game.
> 
> I thought Tyson was too skinny and weak to be a full-time NBA *center*, and he should be traded for expiring contracts (if the Bulls can even dump him for expiring contracts)???


As far as I know, everyone in this thread has been consistent with their positions. 

Though I do find it strange that a person whose love for Tyson Chandler was so great that he named his son Tyson had no problem with the Tyson Chandler trade.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I thought the Chandler trade was good, as he came off a low-point, and I did not know if he can ever produce like he has again. Especially in Chicago. I liked the tandom of Eddy and Tyson. If I had to pick one or another to keep at this moment to pair with Big Ben, I'd obviously pick Curry. But, I would choose Eddy and Tyson over any othre duo we can have or potentially have outside of what could have been: Wallace and Gasol, or Wallace and Oden. You know what I mean.

I have always said that the two kids were good on our team, since we could hide their weaknesses. They fit very well in Chicago.

But all that is done and over with. We gotta look to the future and hope we can fill the void of Curry. I think we got Chandler's role covered with Ben and hopefully Tyrus.


----------



## Greg Ostertag! (May 1, 2003)

They both needed a change of environment to succeed, they got one. No massive need for bloodletting.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

McBulls said:


> I find discussions of the decision to trade Curry tedious to the point of tears. The decision was made for non-basketball reasons, and discussions of those reasons are largely irrelevant to the future prospects of the Bulls. Paxson didn't trade Curry because he hated big men who had a great inside game. He, and everyone in the Bulls organization recognized at the time that trading Curry was almost certainly a longterm loss for the franchise.
> 
> The only difference between what happened with Jason Williams and Curry is that the Bulls got absolutely nothing in compensation for the loss of Williams, while they at least got Sweetney and a few draft picks for Curry. In both cases a valuable player was lost for heath reasons. Some of the cardiac specialists at this site apparently disagree with the decision Bulls management made upon consideration of confidential medical information, and I applaud them for their superior insight. But the decision, for better or worse, was made and we have to move on.
> 
> ...


This post is a pretty good synopsis of how I feel about the two as well. 

From a basketball standpoint, both of the trades weren't very good to varying degrees, but the Curry trade is much more defensible, since there were a variety of non-basketball related issues involved (specifically, I think people tend to overlook the fact that Curry's contract couldn't be insured, not even by a more "alternative" means, such as a Lloyds of London policy, which I'm guessing really solidified the type of risk they'd be taking with Eddy Curry and the financial implications cemented the fact that he couldn't sign a contract and play for the Bulls), and Paxson at least got what looks to be decent value considering the position he was in, although it needs to be discounted for the time it takes the draft picks to round into form.

In a similar vein, I think using this anecdote should be important when making predictions about Tyrus Thomas. Realistically, how long will it take him to summit his curve of development? 

I'm hoping it's sooner rather than later, but an article and topic like the one we're talking about should be a sober reminder of a potential (time) risk that we're taking with him.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> It's just so hilarious, one year ago so many people were praying that we could get rid of Tyson's contract, now those same people are here ripping on Paxson for trading Tyson for an expiring contract.



Not I.

The Chandler "trade" was of course horrible.

The Curry trade was a joke as well. Less so than the Chandler trade though. 

With Chandler, we really did give away one of the best centers in the game for nothing.

Foolish moves. Stuck in mediocrity. Come on lotto balls! (?)


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Greg Ostertag! said:


> They both needed a change of environment to succeed, they got one. No massive need for bloodletting.


How can you be so sure? 

How do you know that the Bulls' environment isn't to blame? Maybe Skiles doesn't know how to develop big men. I don't think there's conclusive evidence for either stance. 



> Looking back at the "wisdom" of the Chandler trade is another matter altogether. *It was also made for non-basketball reasons.* The difference is that I find the ownership greed motive more corruptive to my fanatic interest in this sports franchise than motives related to possibly inaccurate medical concerns.


I disagree. Reportedly, Paxson was willing to give Chandler a final chance following the 05-06 season. However, Chandler refused to work out at the Berto Center until August, and that sealed his fate. Obviously there are other factors, but I believe Tyson's work ethic was the determining factor. 

Paxson believes that hard work is essential for success. Tyson did not want to work hard. Paxson decided that Tyson, despite his natural talent and height, was not going to be worth his contract. Paxson decided to dump him in favor of a better, much older player whose prime years do not overlap with the rest of the core's prime years. 

Hard work over talent and size.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The "change of scenery" argument is bunk, especially with Curry.

He's been showing steady improvement every year for the last four seasons. Jeez.

Chandler is playing around how he played for the Bulls 2 seasons ago, just this time its with more minutes. If he could have done it under Skiles 2 years ago, there is no reason he could not do it now, unless Skiles did manage to piss off yet another good NBA player.

These are two young big guys coming into their own.

Krause was right. Paxson was wrong. Come on lotto balls!


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

rwj333 said:


> I disagree. Reportedly, Paxson was willing to give Chandler a final chance following the 05-06 season. However, Chandler refused to work out at the Berto Center until August, and that sealed his fate. Obviously there are other factors, but I believe Tyson's work ethic was the determining factor.
> 
> Paxson believes that hard work is essential for success. Tyson did not want to work hard. Paxson decided that Tyson, despite his natural talent and height, was not going to be worth his contract. Paxson decided to dump him in favor of a better, much older player whose prime years do not overlap with the rest of the core's prime years.
> 
> Hard work over talent and size.


I never know how seriously to take reports like this since as far as I know, they weren't reported in any Chicago papers. In any event, to whatever extent Pax's decision was a basketball decision - and the basketball side of things undeniably played some role - as opposed to a financial decision, I take some consolation in the fact that he is accountable. A part of him recklessly believed that Ty's talent was not enough justification to keep him around in light of his sour relationship with Skiles, inconsistency, slow development, and perceived poor work ethic. As a fan and I suspect also as a GM, nothing hurts worse on an emotional level than giving up on a player and then watching him blossom with another team. I'm confident that Pax is a sharp guy and that he wants to win badly so I know trading Chandler must keep him up at night and made him a bit more cautious moving forwards. Whether for better or for worse, I wouldn't be surprised if Tyson has had something to do with his reluctance to move Deng. He must have asked himself "if the guy whose work ethic, production, and consistency I questioned improved this much in his mid 20s, what might the 21 year old I adore look like a few years from now."


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Krause was right. Paxson was wrong. Come on lotto balls!


You're entitled to your opinion and everything, but is this really necessary?


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Krause was right. Paxson was wrong. Come on lotto balls!


That's at least partially tounge in cheek, right?


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> That's at least partially tounge in cheek, right?


Yeah, Tyson and Eddy are both having their best seasons, but I don't think portraying the situation as something along the lines of 'Krause being right' and 'Paxson being wrong' is really all that accurate. 

For one, I think it's pretty arguable that Krause was undeniably right. Even in their best seasons, neither of the towers have lived up to their hype coming into the league, and it took them five and a half years to get to this point. The length of time it took them to get here has to be accounted for when judging the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of Krause's moves.

Furthermore, I'm not sure that using Tyson and Eddy as a way to compare Pax and Krause is very accurate, since the circumstances under which they made their biggest decisions with Tyson and Eddy are pretty insulated from one another as far as I'm concerned. And just because Krause drafted them and Pax traded them doesn't preclude either guy from the fact that they were both using arguably unsound judgement when they made their most important decisions concerning each players' future with the Bulls.

Krause thought he was bringing two franchise changing big men who would define the face of the team (he was wrong). Paxson (particularly in the case of Tyson, Eddy I'm not so sure about) figured, for basketball related reasons, his time on the Bulls had set and could capably find his replacement through a trade (he was wrong).


----------



## SpartanBull (Oct 12, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> Given the failure to use P.J. Brown's contract to acquire a difference-maker, the diminishing likelihood of the Knicks' pick becoming a difference-maker, and *my personal lack of faith in TT's becoming a difference-maker*, I would also argue Ekstrand's premise that the Bulls are well-positioned for the future.


You say this now, but I somehow think that you will be starting a similar thread 3-4 years from now lamenting the loss of Tyrus Thomas from this team while he flourishes elsewhere.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

SpartanBull said:


> You say this now, but I somehow think that you will be starting a similar thread 3-4 years from now lamenting the loss of Tyrus Thomas from this team while he flourishes elsewhere.


If TT is a good player and we don't trade him for fair value, there's no reason not to lament his loss, even if you think he's a scrub now.

of course, I consider fair value to be pretty subjective.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

rosenthall said:


> Krause thought he was bringing two franchise changing big men who would define the face of the team (he was wrong). Paxson (particularly in the case of Tyson, Eddy I'm not so sure about) figured, for basketball related reasons, his time on the Bulls had set and could capably find his replacement through a trade (he was wrong).


Very well put. There's probably a good argument to be made that at times Pax's philosophy is an overcorrection of the Krause regime's mistakes.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Not I.
> 
> The Chandler "trade" was of course horrible.
> 
> ...


lol.....

when the bull reaches* this* kind of consistency, they'll contend for an nba championship.....:whistling:


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

SpartanBull said:


> You say this now, but I somehow think that you will be starting a similar thread 3-4 years from now lamenting the loss of Tyrus Thomas from this team while he flourishes elsewhere.


Hey, if Tyrus is given away for a bag of rice and fishing hooks like Chandler, then you're damn right that I'll start that thread. It's not that Curry and Chandler were untradeable in any sense -- it's just that when you start giving away 7-footers willy nilly, you damn better make sure you have a replacement in the offing. Not Mike Sweetney, a high pick in a lousy draft, and Cap Space you have absolutely no intention of using.

But fundamentally, the main reason I'd be more willing to part with Thomas, all other things being equal, is that he's 6-8, not 7 feet.


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

Regarding Chandler's blossoming once he got the Chicago out of him:

He's averaging 8.5 points a game in 34.5 minutes. He had 8.0 points a game in 27.4 minutes for us in 04-05. He's shooting an outrageous 61% in his sixth year in the league. However, he shot 53% and scored 9.2 PPG in roughly 2/3 the minutes in his sophomore season. He also shot 56.5% two years ago. The fact that he has scored more points per minute in the past, but his percentage has gone up this year, seems to be due to some combination of the following things: His offense is better (not much imho), his shot selection is better, and there is little offense run through him this year and the few shots he gets tend to be gimmes. I go for the last two. Oh, and he has Chris Paul as his point guard, for what that's worth.

In 04/05 Tyson got 9.7 RPG in 27.4 minutes (that's .354 rebounds per minute). He's getting 12.4 in 34.5 minutes this year for 0.359 RPM. He's also getting the same blocks per game this year he got then but is taking many more minutes to get them.

My point being, the idea that Tyson has somehow blossomed in a new circumstance with new coaching, a blossoming that couldn't have happened here, seems incorrect to me. It did happen here. It happened in 2004-2005. 

Now if you want to say there was a falling out, the nest got fouled and he had to leave after last year's hard feelings, then that's arguable. But it seems to me this isn't a new Tyson, it's the old Tyson, except he can't shoot free throws any more.

Also, FWIW, I've always thought Tyson was a center, so maybe I got at least one right.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Philomath said:


> Regarding Chandler's blossoming once he got the Chicago out of him:
> 
> He's averaging 8.5 points a game in 34.5 minutes. He had 8.0 points a game in 27.4 minutes for us in 04-05. He's shooting an outrageous 61% in his sixth year in the league. However, he shot 53% and scored 9.2 PPG in roughly 2/3 the minutes in his sophomore season. He also shot 56.5% two years ago. The fact that he has scored more points per minute in the past, but his percentage has gone up this year, seems to be due to some combination of the following things: His offense is better (not much imho), his shot selection is better, and there is little offense run through him this year and the few shots he gets tend to be gimmes. I go for the last two. Oh, and he has Chris Paul as his point guard, for what that's worth.
> 
> ...


He's had one game under 10 points in February, and that was a 9 point game. All this while New Orleans is fighting for a playoff spot in the tough West. This may be more what the writer is addressing than his season averages...


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> A disturbing indictment of the Bulls organization.
> 
> We're getting ready for multiple NBA Championship runs if Paxson just held on to these guys or altered his organization, if needed, to use them effectively.




Please tell me that second sentence was sarcastic.... I mean, yeah... these guys are putting up decent numbers on relatively bad teams... but NOTHING has shown me that these guys have what it takes (and I'm a huge Chandler fan) to be part of a championship team.... let alone "multiple NBA championship runs"... 

Yikes. Talk about an overstatement.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

They are both Standing on the Verge of Getting it On.

Rock on, Ed.

Rock on, Tyson.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> The "change of scenery" argument is bunk, especially with Curry.


So you don't think that Chandler is more comfortable playing in his current, smaller market, type of atmosphere? Out of the big-city, live-up-to-his-big-money-and-draft-pick expectations? He is obviously a player who MUST have it together mentally. We talked all of last year about getting Chandler a personal sports psychologist, for goodness sake. He played soft and fragile for a good year and half after his back injury in his sophomore season. So the change of scenery is pretty legit for Chandler, if you ask me. Plenty folks agree from what I've seen.



> He's been showing steady improvement every year for the last four seasons. Jeez.


Yeah, stellar campaign last season in particular.



> Chandler is playing around how he played for the Bulls 2 seasons ago, just this time its with more minutes. If he could have done it under Skiles 2 years ago, there is no reason he could not do it now, unless Skiles did manage to piss off yet another good NBA player.


More minutes, because he's avoiding foul trouble. I was under the impression that Chandler still fouls alot, but looking at the stat sheet I was wrong. He's averaging less fouls than last year, despite playing about 8 more minutes per game. That's been the real key to his staying on the floor.



> These are two young big guys coming into their own.


One-dimensionally, which is why so many Bulls fans got sick of watching them on their weaker side of the floor. Common sense tells us that they would've "complemented" each other, but that really never happened (not surprising when you consider that neither can shoot outside 5-feet, nor have anything close to a positive assist/turnover ratio). 

And I think a hilarious thing lost in all of this is that they're not even that young anymore. It took them 6 seasons to reach where they're at. In another 5-6 seasons, we might be talking about them decling. Do they really have much ceiling left after so many tutoring and NBA exposure?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

yodurk said:


> And I think a hilarious thing lost in all of this is that they're not even that young anymore. It took them 6 seasons to reach where they're at. In another 5-6 seasons, we might be talking about them decling. Do they really have much ceiling left after so many tutoring and NBA exposure?


And I think a hilarious thing lost in all of this is while people go to great pains to nitpick Chandler and Curry and come up with lame excuses why they wouldn't have worked here and how their new teams aren't contenders and how they're not the second coming of Wilt Chamberlain and Kareem and how they're old (24!) is the fact that our team is absolutely desperate -- not too strong of a word, if the goal is to *contend* -- for a go-to post scorer and big-man defensive support for Ben Wallace, and neither is on the horizon.


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> They are both Standing on the Verge of Getting it On.
> 
> Rock on, Ed.
> 
> Rock on, Tyson.


You seem awfully funky for a big old goofy looking white guy. Rock on, Tom.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

Dornado said:


> Please tell me that second sentence was sarcastic.... I mean, yeah... these guys are putting up decent numbers on relatively bad teams... but NOTHING has shown me that these guys have what it takes (and I'm a huge Chandler fan) to be part of a championship team.... let alone "multiple NBA championship runs"...
> 
> Yikes. Talk about an overstatement.


I don't think it's a slam dunk that Tyson or Eddy would be the panacea to our current problems (although I do feel strongly that they'd help a great deal....but the grass is always greener.....) 

But I don't think stating that neither of them has shown anything to make them worthy of being a part of a championship team is pretty misguided.

At the very least, they've both proven to be very useful at certain aspects of the game, and where there is a relative scarcity of other people in the NBA who can perform their skills at their level of efficacy.

Just to prove a point, the following players were playing the finals last year:

Erick Dampier
Keith Van Horn
Antoine Walker
Jason Williams
Jason Kapono

The first 4 have had a reputation for having lackadasaical, selfish basketball attitudes that were detrimental to winning, and the last is about as one dimensional as you can get.

Neither Tyson or Eddy could be the alpha dog, but I have little doubt that either of them could be valuable contributors on a championship level basketball team.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> And I think a hilarious thing lost in all of this is while people go to great pains to nitpick Chandler and Curry and come up with lame excuses why they wouldn't have worked here and how their new teams aren't contenders and how they're not the second coming of Wilt Chamberlain and Kareem and how they're old (24!) is the fact that our team is absolutely desperate -- not too strong of a word, if the goal is to *contend* -- for a go-to post scorer and big-man defensive support for Ben Wallace, and neither is on the horizon.


Great job quoting me word-for-word on the "old" statement. Really nailed it. :greatjob:

Year #6, and we're still talking about their potential. It gets old hearing about after a while.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Philomath said:


> You seem awfully funky for a big old goofy looking white guy. Rock on, Tom.


Message to Mark Madsen:










If you fake the funk, your nose will grow.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

rosenthall said:


> I don't think it's a slam dunk that Tyson or Eddy would be the panacea to our current problems (although I do feel strongly that they'd help a great deal....but the grass is always greener.....)
> 
> But I don't think stating that neither of them has shown anything to make them worthy of being a part of a championship team is pretty misguided.
> 
> ...


Well said, sir. I have made an addition to your cache of "reputation" by voting approval of your post.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

McBulls said:


> <b>I find discussions of the decision to trade Curry tedious to the point of tears. The decision was made for non-basketball reasons, and discussions of those reasons are largely irrelevant to the future prospects of the Bulls.</b> Paxson didn't trade Curry because he hated big men who had a great inside game. He, and everyone in the Bulls organization recognized at the time that trading Curry was almost certainly a longterm loss for the franchise.
> 
> The only difference between what happened with Jason Williams and Curry is that the Bulls got absolutely nothing in compensation for the loss of Williams, while they at least got Sweetney and a few draft picks for Curry. In both cases a valuable player was lost for heath reasons. <b>Some of the cardiac specialists at this site apparently disagree with the decision Bulls management made upon consideration of confidential medical information, and I applaud them for their superior insight. But the decision, for better or worse, was made and we have to move on.</b>
> 
> ...


Bravo. :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

rosenthall said:


> I don't think it's a slam dunk that Tyson or Eddy would be the panacea to our current problems (although I do feel strongly that they'd help a great deal....but the grass is always greener.....)
> 
> But I don't think stating that neither of them has shown anything to make them worthy of being a part of a championship team is pretty misguided.
> 
> ...



And Randy Brown has some rings... he was pretty one dimensional... I see what you're saying.

But that's not really the point... the original post said that having Chandler and Curry would mean we were positioned to make "multiple championship runs" and that particular overstatement was the target of my post. Yes, championship teams need roleplayers... this is understood... but to say that having Curry and Chandler (meaning no Wallace, Tyrus, Sweets, etc...)would all the sudden turn us in to the Showtime Lakers or something is absurd.

I really like Chandler, I think he's a terrific defender and probably the best rebounder in the league at this point (I was against dealing him)... Curry has a good post game and great agility for his size... great hands too... let's just not get ahead of ourselves here...


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/chris_ekstrand/02/26/curry.chandler.notes/1.html
> 
> I think this is the first article of this nature that I've ever encountered. Sadly, it's probably the first of many.


[edit - no need to be provocative -vf]

In what sense? Deng and Gordon have already surpassed both these guys on the Stardom charts. Hinrich might have already. Curry + Chandler = star. Curry = one-dimensional offensive player. Chandler = one-dimensional rebounder.

If these guys are stars, then Deng is the greatest player who ever lived.


----------



## Orange Julius Irving (Jun 28, 2004)

This is funny.

When these guys were on the team, the majority of posts were bashing Krause for drafting the two slugs who kept the team from having a winning record because of their lack of development and lack of desire and obvious flaws.

I CLEARLY remember MANY articles and posts that said it takes 4-5 years to realize the potential of HS Draft Picks, especially big men. But that never stopped the constant bashing...

Now that we trade them, they're all-stars and we should never have traded them despite the fact that, since they left, the team has had 1 winning season, 1 .500 season and should have a winning season this year, and a 3rd season of playoffs.

Artest, Brand and Miller leaving were big mistakes since the team failed to improve after the Rose trade and they demonstrably made their teams better - at least Miller and Artest did initially. But I don't see how you can say Curry is a star when he's got supposedly superior talent on the Knicks and still they are likely a lottery team.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

A new article about Chandler very much worth reading. Why is it that the Bulls' beat writers don't provide this kind of detail? Specifically, that Chandler avoided Skiles when Chicago played in OKC earlier in the season. 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/paul_forrester/02/28/chandler.hornets.notes/index.html
(fixed link)



> There may be no more difficult property to manage in sports than youth. The physical gifts a player demonstrates may take years to develop into a focused and consistently productive force. That is, if he develops. But that time can cost millions -- even before the player pays off on the court.
> 
> And for the Bulls, the millions they had paid Tyson Chandler over his first five seasons had not added up to a player they hoped the former No. 3 overall draft choice would be. So last July, Chandler and the remaining $54 million on his contract were sent to the Hornets one day after Chicago officially signed free agent Ben Wallace to a four-year $60 million deal. On paper, the exchange of an often disappointing player who had averaged 7.1 points and 7.7 rebounds through last season for a four-time Defensive Player of the Year with a championship ring made perfect sense; in reality, it may have been a mistake the Bulls regret for years.
> 
> ...





> Said Chandler: "I'm just getting to the point where I'm not playing to punish someone for [the Bulls'] decisions."


Also, can someone explain why SI can offer tons of free, interesting basketball analysis while ESPN can only offer a rarely interesting Daily Dime? There's no reason to visit the NBA page on ESPN.com if you don't have insider.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

rwj333 said:


> A new article about Chandler very much worth reading. Why is it that the Bulls' beat writers don't provide this kind of detail?


I don't know that article provided anything more than what we already knew. [edit - slippery slope -vf]

It was actually a pretty interesting day too. :sadbanana:


Edit:

It is a good article. His new perspective (not included in the previous posters post) is a good one for him, and I hope he has continued success.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Actually, I enjoyed the article. It was interesting to hear Chandler's thoughts on his time here.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Soulful Sides said:


> Thats 1. I predict 10 before midnight.


Hey, I thought it was an interesting, detailed article. I didn't know how Scott rehabilitated Chandler's offense. I didn't know that he used to throw it out of the post 7/10 times, and now it's only 3/10 times. I knew Chandler disliked Skiles, but I didn't know he avoided him completely (because he is reportedly still on good terms with John Paxson and had a friendly conversation with him in the first NOKC game). 

[edit - trying to avoid the slippery slope. -vf]


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

I'm going to go ahead and be preemptive here and issue a polite warning not to drag this into the bickering about agendas and old arguments. There's a reason we're discussing Tyson and it's because he's having a very good season. Let's stick to discussing that, and not the tangential stuff. 

thanks. as always, let me or any other mod know if you have questions or concerns.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> I'm going to go ahead and be preemptive here and issue a polite warning not to drag this into the bickering about agendas and old arguments. There's a reason we're discussing Tyson and it's because he's having a very good season. Let's stick to discussing that, and not the tangential stuff.
> 
> thanks. as always, let me or any other mod know if you have questions or concerns.



the article(the last one ) itself mentioned hard feelings between Chandler and skiles, amons other things ...i think it pulls people into that terriory , which has been treaded on numerous times already in this thread.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> the article(the last one ) itself mentioned hard feelings between Chandler and skiles, amons other things ...i think it pulls people into that terriory , which has been treaded on numerous times already in this thread.


True. It's a touchy subject. On one hand, it shouldn't be off-limits since we all are keeping an eye on our old Towers. On the other, I think it's reasonable that we can discuss the issue on the merits without rubbing each other's nerves raw. If that's not possible, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it, but I don't think we're there _yet_.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> True. It's a touchy subject. On one hand, it shouldn't be off-limits since we all are keeping an eye on our old Towers. On the other, I think it's reasonable that we can discuss the issue on the merits without rubbing each other's nerves raw. If that's not possible, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it, but I don't think we're there _yet_.



thats the thing though the whole thread is a touchy subject , its 2 players of the old regime whom many think should have been kept (of which i am one) who are claimed to be on the "verge of stardom" in the thread title.

on this board the subject is just going to be filled with that stuff anyway.

I would find it different if the thread was called Kirk is pretty good and went in that direction.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> on this board the subject is just going to be filled with that stuff anyway.


We're trying to weed out some of that "stuff" when it gets away from topics and veers into bait and agendas and venom. There's been too much lately, and I, personally, bear the brunt of the responsibility for letting things slide. 

That said, I think it'll be possible to discuss the controversial stuff in a more cordial manner. We've done it in the past, thought it doesn't always last. That's what we're going for, anyway. It's worth trying, right?


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

ViciousFlogging said:


> We're trying to weed out some of that "stuff" when it gets away from topics and veers into bait and agendas and venom. There's been too much lately, and I, personally, bear the brunt of the responsibility for letting things slide.
> 
> That said, I think it'll be possible to discuss the controversial stuff in a more cordial manner. We've done it in the past, thought it doesn't always last. That's what we're going for, anyway. It's worth trying, right?



And the content of this thread since shows that it is working. Good job! 

Please, please keep it up.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

Two new articles:



> Pete Myers, the Bulls assistant coach who spent considerable time working with Chandler, has kept in touch with him. Myers is happy to see that Chandler is now the league's No. 2 rebounder with a career-high 12.4 per game, including an NBA-best 4.3 offensive boards.
> 
> ''I still talk to him on the phone periodically,'' Myers said. ''He was one of my favorites. Last year was a tough year for him. Signing the [six-year, $63 million deal before the season], the expectations grew on him. His marriage and new baby. He had a lot going on for a young guy. Money makes things convenient for you, but it doesn't necessarily bring forth the happiness everybody thinks it does.
> 
> ''But I'm proud of him. You look at him now, and it looks like he's enjoying it. It's not a situation that's stressful for him. He's an emotional guy. You can see it through his play.''


 http://www.suntimes.com/sports/basketball/bulls/279927,CST-SPT-bull02.article



> Although Chandler admits he feels as if the Bulls gave up on him, he insists he no longer has animosity toward the organization for trading him.
> 
> The tail end of his recollections, however, often tells a different story about his former coach.
> 
> ...


 http://newsok.com/article/3020453/

use edited for the registration if you need it. Not appropriate -- DaBullz


----------

