# Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*Merged!!*



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

*Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

I seriously don't want to see him go. I'm happy and all that we got Ben Wallace, but at the expense of Chandler? I personally think these two should be playing together or backing up one another. I'm not a fan of Chandler for PJ Brown whatsoever, I think it would be Pax's worst move of all time. I mean seriously...PJ Brown? ugh.

I like this team where it's at. Tyson Chandler right now is Ben Wallace-lite, and playing alongside Ben Wallace for a few years, when Wallace is done, Chandler could become just as good if not better than Ben. He needs to stay!


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

Me too.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

Count me in on this. Chandler should stay atleast one more year.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

Count me in, if only because Machinehead says so.


----------



## Tim-may (May 24, 2006)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

Me too. Tyson for just PJ Brown... <barf>

NO would have to include a 1st round pick...


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

I think Tyson should be given one more year to prove himself. He has said that this offseason will be the hardest he will ever work. I want to see the fruits of his labor on our team, not some other.

He has done well at times coming off the bench and I think he can continue this role, as well as playing alongside Ben.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

It's just flat out poor business to trade low.


----------



## The Future7 (Feb 24, 2005)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

I want Chandler to stay because I think Wallace can have a positive effect on him


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*



TripleDouble said:


> It's just flat out poor business to trade low.


Its not even that. We get an almost 40 yr old player for hire for one year. Then we're left with no height what so ever. I don't like it..


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

Keep Tyson!


----------



## anorexorcist (Aug 3, 2005)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

We need offense, and while Chandler is great, I don't think he will ever average even 10 points a game. We are in desperate need of offense.

Shopping him for PJ Brown and then having all that cap space again for the next year is the single move that will put us as huge players yet AGAIN in the next offseason, and while it may not bring us the offense now, by next year it will definitely give us almost the same amount of bargaining power we had this year to try and net a more offensive minded big next year while drafting Oden as well.

Nevertheless, I think regardless of the move we are set either way. Just be prepared for people jumping back on the bandwagon, my friends


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

I think this may be a plausible deal come midseason. For now, I want to see what effect playing next to Wallace would do for Tyson and also see how Tyrus Thomas comes out his rookie season. Right now, I think Wallace guards the post player and Tyson slides back over to the helpside, which should help him tremendously.

If they mesh very well, we could play a lot of high triangle to complement our high screen and roll and run some offense thru both Wallace and Tyson at either elbow. Both are above average passers (not good, mind you), but that would allow more of our scorers to cut


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*



TripleDouble said:


> It's just flat out poor business to trade low.


Yep. Even if you want to trade for salary cap reasons long term, at least give him half a season here to improve his value, then get him off the books.
But I'd like to see him given the chance to prove himself.

He was the 15th best rebounder in the league and the 4th best off rebounder in the league
And we just paired him with Ben Wallace the 4th best rebounder and 1st best off rebounder in the league. Add Noc, Deng and TT to the list


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

I put this on another thread earlier. But my point is i don't think we'd have as much scoring problem as people would project as us having. 

I don't think we'd have as much trouble offensively with the Chandler/Wallace combo.

Just a very vauge scoring output of our team.

Hinrich: 15-20 per
Gordon:18-23 per
Deng:15-20 per
Noc:13-18 per
Wallace/Chandler:15-20 per (that would probably be on put back, offensive boarding, from penetration, drawing defending and passing it out to wallace or either chandler and lobs passes)
Bench:20-30 per (since we usually make the most of our bench)

Team: 96-131 per (which is purely a projection on certain peoples projections of scoring averages. Give and take that players such as Hinrich scoring average may go down and some may go down. etc)

But point being that i think we have enough scoring, and its not as bad as it seems. This team scoring wise because of all the jump shooters will fluctuate up and down, but the thing about our team like the past two years is we can count on our defense night in and night out. We'll find ways to score and grind it out. I just don't think you miss on an opportunity to try work it out with Chandler in the lineup..


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

There's no good reason to trade Chandler. Young, talented 7 footers are a bit hard to come by, as we all should have come to realize this summer.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

Brown for Chandler is going to happen whether we like it or not...


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*



HAWK23 said:


> Brown for Chandler is going to happen whether we like it or not...



Thank you Nostradamus!


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

getting ben allows chandler to get back to his strength: help defense. and teams will focus on keeping ben off the offensive boards so expect tyson and tyrus to get alot more putbacks etc.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*



TripleDouble said:


> Thank you Nostradamus!



Everyone is reporting it to happen, chad ford, ESPN, even sporting news radio... it's too OUT THERE to not happen


Having 2 inside players that know what they're doing is going to be a GOOD thing for this team... Tyrus Thomas should feel lucky as hell to be learning from Brown and Wallace

C-Wallace
PF-Brown/Thomas
SF-Deng/Nocioni
SG-Gordon/Sefelosha
PG-Hinrich/Duhon


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

yup.

the chandler ship is sailing people. he's being _seriously_ shopped. multiple media outlets are reporting it. i saw it on tv. it must be true. like hawk said, it's OUT THERE. 

i don't like it. but i have to accept it as fact. he would be the last krause player to be jettisoned. and that's what it is. or at least that's part of it.






i just think we can do better, and younger, than PJ Brown, no? (i mean what's the fascination there?)

and please don't say troy murphy. (ick)


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*



mizenkay said:


> yup.
> 
> the chandler ship is sailing people. he's being _seriously_ shopped. multiple media outlets are reporting it. i saw it on tv. it must be true. like hawk said, it's OUT THERE.
> 
> ...



Exactly, I don't neccisairly like it, but we have to accept that he will be gone... I would rather do Chandler for Al Harrington myself...


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

you know, the hornets board that broke the story said this deal, the chandler/brown deal was being speculated on draft night.

pj brown lousiana native.

tyrus thomas louisiana native.

pax saying "things were in place" (paraphrase) for a young player like tyrus to make the adjustment.

gumbo for thought.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

I'd rather ship him for Zach Randolph personally. We might hate Zach but Ben and SKiles would put him in his place.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

We should make a poll asking this question.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

I think this "Keep Chandler" feeling is motivated by the PJ Brown rumors, not because we all love Chandler himself. 

I, for one, would keep Tyson. Dont even bother trading him for PJ and JR. But if the right offer comes along, we should consider it.


----------



## FanOfAll8472 (Jun 28, 2003)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

I hope Chandler stays.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*



El Chapu said:


> I think this "Keep Chandler" feeling is motivated by the PJ Brown rumors, not because we all love Chandler himself.
> 
> I, for one, would keep Tyson. Dont even bother trading him for PJ and JR. But if the right offer comes along, we should consider it.


Yes, i agree. The Chandler for Brown is too finacially motivated. But id be more open to a better trade offer for Chandler with the exception that he is traded for a player that is 6'10 plus in return.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

Not me. 

Whether Chandler will ever be a Ben Wallace kind of player was a wishful thinking. Now that we have the real Ben Wallace, not the wannabe, it's time to move TC for cap space that will come in handy in a year.

The chance of Chandler's becoming a force in NBA in next 4 years and bite our behind is very slim. Very slim. (He was one of the most offensively challenged center I have ever seen in recent history.)This much he has shown to me in the past 5 years. I had big hope for Curry and Chandler as much as anybody on this board initially but woke up from that dream eventually.

So if we can get some offense on C position and/or possible cap space in the future, I am all for moving Chandler.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

I'm willing to move Chandler. Chandler for an expiring contract will get an instant YES from me.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*



lgtwins said:


> So if we can get some offense on C position and/or possible cap space in the future, I am all for moving Chandler.


How does trading Chandler for P.J. Brown gain us Cap Space? You mean in 2011? 

I'm all for trading Chandler for a great offensive player. Trading him for P.J. Brown offsets everything good that's been accomplished this season.


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

I DO!!!!

:woot:


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

I do too, at least until the trade deadline. Ben tutoring Tyrus doesn't make as much sense as Ben tutoring Tyson. They do the same things well. Also, the best big man combo the Bulls have had on the floor recently was probably Tyson and AD... and it's not like they were scoring a ton. It might work, you never know. Unless Uncle Jerry is demanding a move, you have to try it. Don't you? 

See if Tyson goes back to his old form. Plus, don't sell low - somebody will be jonesing for some height in February. There's no need to rush. Try Tyson+Ben. Have some patience. Perhaps there is only one cardinal sin, impatience.


----------



## Fizer Fanatic (Jun 20, 2002)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

Bring Tyson back would be my vote.

Unfortunately, I think this will be a budget move if it goes down. Adding Wallace and keeping Tyson will just make it too expensive to re-sign or extend everyone who is currently on their rookie deals and stay under the lux tax. Brown's deal would expire before any extensions to Kirk, Noc, Deng, Gordon, Tyrus, Thabo, etc. start to kick in serious enough to put us close to lux tax land. Tyson's deal together with Big Ben's deal just makes it too difficult to avoid lux tax land and keep our core. Hopefully I'm wrong about this, and we keep Tyson. If it's not to save money, then Tyson for PJ + JR makes absolutely no sense to me. Maybe they'd give us a first round pick in such a swap? I wish we weren't limiting ourselves to avoiding the lux tax (as a big market team, we could definitely afford it), but if this deal goes down, it sure looks like we are limiting our potential success for the sake of our budget.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

Tyson is gone...

Every media outlet is reporting him being shopped....


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

I'm hoping that there's something we don't know about-- maybe Paxson is really upset with Tyson's practice habits this summer?


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

Maybe I'm crazy, but I really believe that training and practicing with and against players like TT and Big Ben will help TC tremendously!!! :yes: He is an energy guy and now he has some teammates that can match him holler for holler!! :woot: I think they will help him develop effective offensive moves based on superior athleticism rather than typical textbook post moves. I think a lot of people are down on TC because he's not a classic back-to-the-basket type PF. He's a new-age PF and his scoring comes not from backing down an opponent in the post and out-muscling him to the rim. His scoring comes from spontaneous plays like put-backs, fast-breaks, alley-oops(what happened to those?) and back door plays. Isn't that how Wilcox became an asset to Seattle? Put TC on Seattle and he would look good too because they run more than the Bulls. Tyson is a gazelle, not a rhinoceros!!! People hate him because he's not a rhino!! 

If TC could just develop the ability to hit jumpers in the 10 - 15 foot range and improve his ball handling to the point that he can take 2-3 quick dribbles to get seperation from a defender it would be more than enough for TC to avg 15 ppg.

The spontaneous plays alone that I mentioned should get him 10 ppg. Not having to play center is gonna be HUGE for this kid. He should be rejuvenated and I full expect his rebounding total to go up this year too!


Does anyone remember that 21p/17r game or similiar ones he had season before last???? 

Well you can expect a return to exhibitions like that!!!!


:swammi:



:wait:




:bsmile:


----------



## nybullsfan (Aug 12, 2005)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

i for one would prefer to keep tyson but i dont think its possible to sign little ben hinrich deng nocioni with tyson still on board. but heres a good anology on it for those who miss tyson think of the possiblities of adding noah next year (if they knicks suck, and they should they hired thomas thats good enough) who is a very similar player to chandler. but iam behind whatever paxson and the bulls organization goes with


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

I doubt it..alot of that is wishful thinking, no offense...tyson will never average even 12 ppg

oh and, noah's a hell of alot better than chandler...


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

BTW, wouldn't it be prudent to allow TC a chance to play with the current squad and showcase his skills?


On a team that's loaded like this one, TC should look real good, like he did in his contract year! That would allow Pax to fleece some desparate team at the trade deadline and get much more than what's being offered now after what everyone seems to agree was a disappointing season for TC.

:whoknows:


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

The other thing is-- if we deal Chandler, the tallest player on our roster is "6'9" Ben Wallace. I think.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

It'd just be plain old dumb to get rid of Chandler. We would be SERIOUSLY undersized, and PJ isn't crap, nor is JR. IF we get a #1 pick out of the deal it would be acceptable to some extent, but still a dumb move overall. Excluding one year Tyson has played well and even that year he still was a good rebounder and shot blocker, which is hard to get. 7'1" with athleticism says it all.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

Chandler and Wallace would be a great defensive force, and as a bucks fan I am looking forward to some Wallace-Chandler vs. Bogut-Villenueva match ups i think they would be great matchups.
But you defenitely need someone other than Gordon to score otherwise you will be seeing alot of games in the 70's or low 80's. This may not be a bad thing but come playoff time you are going to want someone that will give 20+ every night. Maybe its Boozer, or Murphy or Harrington? with these you are going to be getting some hefty contracts in exchange. Overall getting Wallace is a good thing because his signing gives the bulls the flexibility to acquire some offense that just isnt available in free agency this year, but as a bucks fan i personally wouldnt mind you trading chandler for a washed up PJ brown


----------



## dogra (Nov 12, 2003)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*



ScottMay said:


> How does trading Chandler for P.J. Brown gain us Cap Space? You mean in 2011?
> 
> I'm all for trading Chandler for a great offensive player. Trading him for P.J. Brown offsets everything good that's been accomplished this season.



I couldn't agree more. This trade rumor sinks. I don't want Chandler moved to save Reinsdorf money. :curse:


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

Having 2 starter's in the front court that can't score is NOT going to help us.

It's wondeful to have Big Ben but we still need a consistent SCORER.

People just aren't fond of this rumor because it's P.J.

But there are also more rumors circulating, so we might get something better out of it.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*



ScottMay said:


> How does trading Chandler for P.J. Brown gain us Cap Space? You mean in 2011?
> 
> I'm all for trading Chandler for a great offensive player. Trading him for P.J. Brown offsets everything good that's been accomplished this season.


I thought PJ has only one year left in the current contract. No?


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*



Bulls4Life said:


> BTW, wouldn't it be prudent to allow TC a chance to play with the current squad and showcase his skills?
> 
> 
> On a team that's loaded like this one, TC should look real good, like he did in his contract year! That would allow Pax to fleece some desparate team at the trade deadline and get much more than what's being offered now after what everyone seems to agree was a disappointing season for TC.
> ...


I agree that he will be a lot better on a more loaded team next to Big Ben, and if he works out great, then he will help our team out. If nothing else he simply looks better and we get better value from trading him....be it during next season before the trade deadline, or next off season. Trading him now makes no sense, cause we won't get anyone better or more helpful than him this year, and we can always trade him next year if need be for cap reasons.


----------



## Banjoriddim (Aug 14, 2004)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*



rwj333 said:


> The other thing is-- if we deal Chandler, the tallest player on our roster is "6'9" Ben Wallace. I think.


I think Malik Allen might be taller :biggrin: and this wite kid who plays center but seriosly I understand the reasoning why Bulls should get rid of him but I'd really want him to stay and I belive they can move him next year too if he doesn't show serious improvement.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

Keep Chandler unless there's a really good deal. PJ Brown is not a really good deal. We've got other options for adding complementary offensive players. With a bit of manipulation, we are still under the cap and could still real in a guy like Harrington, Gooden, Boozer, or Murphy without dumping Chandler. And in the long run, (and as Wallace's backup now), Tyson still is a valuable piece.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*



roux2dope said:


> <b>Chandler and Wallace would be a great defensive force, </b>and as a bucks fan I am looking forward to some Wallace-Chandler vs. Bogut-Villenueva match ups i think they would be great matchups.
> But you defenitely need someone other than Gordon to score otherwise you will be seeing alot of games in the 70's or low 80's. This may not be a bad thing but come playoff time you are going to want someone that will give 20+ every night. Maybe its Boozer, or Murphy or Harrington? with these you are going to be getting some hefty contracts in exchange. Overall getting Wallace is a good thing because his signing gives the bulls the flexibility to acquire some offense that just isnt available in free agency this year, but as a bucks fan i personally wouldnt mind you trading chandler for a washed up PJ brown


Only problem is that we can't put them together on the court for long strech even if we keep Chandler, any way. If so, we would playing 3 on 5 offensively.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

It might be 3 on 5 on offense, but we'd get a TON of 2nd chance shots, and people would have a very hard time scoring on us. That's worth a heck of a lot right there.


----------



## sac23kings (Mar 31, 2005)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

send him our way... ya'll want brad back?


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*



sac23kings said:


> send him our way... ya'll want brad back?


Yes


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*



lgtwins said:


> Only problem is that we can't put them together on the court for long strech even if we keep Chandler, any way. If so, we would playing 3 on 5 offensively.


Thats why trading chandler makes sense, i know it can be frustrating trading two guys that were top 3 picks is tough, you better get something nice in return cause if you could turn back the clock i know you would want Brand back. Its sucks because you arent going to get someone of that caliber, but you might be able to talk I. Thomas into giving you a couple more first round picks for Chandler


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*



MikeDC said:


> Keep Chandler unless there's a really good deal. PJ Brown is not a really good deal. We've got other options for adding complementary offensive players. With a bit of manipulation, we are still under the cap and could still real in a guy like Harrington, Gooden, Boozer, or Murphy without dumping Chandler. And in the long run, (and as Wallace's backup now), Tyson still is a valuable piece.


The better Chandler trade rumors involve harrington and murphy.

This might not be popular, but...

If the bulls did a trade for Harrington, they could conceivably package Nocioni AND Deng in a consolidation move for a player of Harrington's quality or better.

The idea here is that you end up paying Harrington $10M per year (max) instead of Nocioni and Deng more than $15M combined (when they get new contracts). Chandler and whoever is gotten in the trade would be a wash.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*



sac23kings said:


> send him our way... ya'll want brad back?


Hell yes, I will take Brad over Tyson in a heartbeat.


----------



## Lets_Play_2 (Jan 22, 2004)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

Yes - Keep Tyke at PF, and we'll need him as backup at the 5 when we go head-to-head with Miami and maybe a couple of other teams.

Pax won't be rushed (he's shown that this off-season) and I doubt he'll move Tyke for anything less than what he considers to be a really great deal (certainly not for PJ Brown or anything like that).

I'd also work on the basis that JR is fairly impressed with what JP and the Bulls have done, and he's seeing them going for higher levels in the next few seasons. I'd personally be suprised if he's too worried about salary cap issues, particularly if they play well in the 2006-2007 season and into the playoffs.

If you do well, like Kenny Williams has (and is) doing for the White Sox, and John Paxson is doing for the Bulls, JR will go a long, long way for you. JR really, really, really likes having his teams win Championships.

Subtracting (trade) Tyke from the Bulls without getting an extrordinarily valuable piece back doesn't increase the odds of accomplishing those goals.

And from a strategic viewpoint, there's really no need to do any type of Chandler trade until the Bulls see what the final results will be from next year's 1st round draft pick swap with the Knicks. No need to do anything hasty.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*



lgtwins said:


> Not me.
> 
> Whether Chandler will ever be a Ben Wallace kind of player was a wishful thinking. Now that we have the real Ben Wallace, not the wannabe, it's time to move TC for cap space that will come in handy in a year.
> 
> ...


Me too. Its not going to be the end of the world if Pax doesn't move him, but if it were up to me he'd be gone before training camp for a 4 that can score a little and/or capspace for next summer (if that is even possible, which I'm not sure of ).


----------



## sac23kings (Mar 31, 2005)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*



lgtwins said:


> Hell yes, I will take Brad over Tyson in a heartbeat.




were not talking brad of 3-4 years ago, you need to remember that... hes not the same player, and its not like he was that great to begin with... even with wallace there it still might be a layup drill on miller lol maybe not but im just saying... guys a softie.. u can have him


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

FantasyLand: Chandler/Deng/Tyrus for Gasol/Alexander Johnson. Throw in a swap option next year.

Hinrich/Duhon
Gordon/Thabo
Noc/Khryapa
Gasol/Sweetney/M.Allen/Johnson
B.Wallace/Othella/Schenser


Memphis' roster is imbalanced but loaded with "freaks" which I know everyone loves. And about 10 SF's. 

Gay/Tyrus/Deng/Chandler


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

Marc Stein is reporting a deal is really close:

_NBA front-office sources told ESPN.com on Monday night that the Bulls were close to shipping Tyson Chandler to the Hornets for P.J. Brown and J.R. Smith.

....

The trade makes even more sense for the Bulls. They are unlikely to play two non-scorers together (Chandler and Wallace), and moving out Chandler's expensive contract for Brown's expiring deal will make it easier to absorb Wallace's four-year package, which is believed to be worth $60 million.

Brown, furthermore, is regarded as one of the best locker-room influences in the league and, along with Wallace, would provide legitimate size ... as well as the veteran know-how lacking in Chicago since the breakup of Michael Jordan's Bulls after their sixth and final championship in 1998. 

...


The teams can't officially consummate a trade before July 12 and, as of late Monday night, they had not verbally agreed to the exchange. But the sides, according to various sources, were closing in on the stage of verbal agreement.

_

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2508889


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*



El Chapu said:


> Marc Stein is reporting a deal is really close:
> 
> _NBA front-office sources told ESPN.com on Monday night that the Bulls were close to shipping Tyson Chandler to the Hornets for P.J. Brown and J.R. Smith.
> 
> ...


Way to follow up a great move with an idiotic one.


----------



## ballafromthenorth (May 27, 2003)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

I will be truly sad to see him go. He's been my favourite player for a while now along with Duhon.. but if a deal truly improves the financial situation of this team.. I guess we gotta do what makes the most sense from a business standpoint.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*



ballafromthenorth said:


> I will be truly sad to see him go. He's been my favourite player for a while now along with Duhon.. but if a deal truly improves the financial situation of this team.. I guess we gotta do what makes the most sense from a business standpoint.


But the Bulls arent in financial hell, and they have been making millons and millons while putting crappy team after crappy team for like 5 years. And tickets prices just went up again.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*



MikeDC said:


> Way to follow up a great move with an idiotic one.


I bet the first was predicated on the second.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

So J.R. Smith is about to be a Bull..

wow

like I said

J.R. Smith, Viktor Khyrapa, Michael Sweetney & Chris Duhon could be nice trade bait.


----------



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

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

I think Pax is trying to make up for all the far-sighted picks sans Jalen Rose that Krause made. This guy is proving to be really short-sighted. 

On the surface level, he does what a majority of fans want, but then his moves to boost the frontcourt haven't really panned out and at best what he's done up front is not conclusive. Paging Scottie Pippen Paging Scottie Pippen. Let's also not forget that signing Tyson was Pax's decision. The Curry deal is just straight screwing the Knicks but I'm not sure if it's making our team any better, especially with a fragile-looking Tyrus Thomas as our pick. But then again we haven't even seen Tyrus Thomas play. 

Most fans don't view those two above moves as Pax's own failures because he and Skiles are notorious for relentlessly blaming players, refusing to accept any hint of responsibility. 

Example 1: Everyone liked Pip and Pax signed him. When it came down to blaming Pax though, he could just say that he was new on the job, Pip was prone to injuries at such an old age AND that the important part was that Pip retired as a Bull. On example 2: Everyone also wanted to sign Chandler last year. But if you blame any part of Pax or Skiles for maintaing a poor working environment, the blame could easily be placed squarely on the very public Tyson Chandler because of his grand proclamations of his summer happenings, which made him an obvious and easy target for the Paxiles company line. 

He seems to want to keep starting over which is kind of antithetic to the idea of "building" a team. His only solution seems to be "start over" and into excessive cost-cutting (i.e. trading leading scorers for whatever), which is where my beef is with Pax. He hasn't had to do much tinkering because Ben Gordon's been very clutch and gotten us to the playoffs the past two years. But he started off his term by hiring Skiles and trading for Jalen for JYD the same damn weekend after that 4-12 start. We never really got a chance to pinpoint the cause of the slow performance: if it was the players or the coach, we just started completely over. And because of it we lost 7 more games. Now we seem to be doing the same thing with our frontcourt: we are adding all kinds of new pieces but not retaining anything of the old. We better hope to the gods that the Knicks stink a 2nd year in a row were really getting a Ben Gordon-type big man.

The idea of him making this Brown trade is really pissing me off because Tyson is still 23, he's 7 feet tall, he's athletic, and he's relatively durable. He was pretty damn valuable in the 4th quarter in 04 - 05. It's not like Brad Miller or Ben Wallace were making any impact themselves at Tyson's age. You don't build if you're always replacing your blocks.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

Chandler for PJ is such a bad deal. In a year, we'll have nothing to show for Chandler other than JR Smith, who'll likely be filling the Tim Thomas/Eddie Robinson doghouse role. 

Yeah, PJ would be a better on court pairing with Wallace, but probably only for a year at best. After that, we'd have to count on Tyrus being ready to step into the starting lineup, or that the pick swap nets someone who can, because the move *does not get the team under the cap for the 07 offseason*.

It would be a move to stay within whatever budget Reinsdorf has set for Pax, simply put.


----------



## dogra (Nov 12, 2003)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*



El Chapu said:


> But the Bulls arent in financial hell, and they have been making millons and millons while putting crappy team after crappy team for like 5 years. And tickets prices just went up again.


Exactly! 

Sorry, but I think this trade stinks.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

Just got to thinking... Chandler is the last remnant of the post-MJ Krause era. Hmmph

But I'm neutral on his long term future with the Bulls. With Wallace and now TyThomas I don't see what Tyson really offers this team.


----------



## Future (Jul 24, 2002)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

I imagine Paxson thinks Tyrus Thomas can step up and prove what Tyson Chandler does defensively.... and plus we have Ben Wallace.... so what use do we really have of Tyson Chandler (Wallace provides all of what Tyson can do and then some)?

I don't know our exact financial situation, but I'm wondering how we can extend Kirk, Noc, Ben, and Deng with two 60 million dollar contracts with no offensive upside counting against the cap.


----------



## grace (Mar 22, 2005)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

I wouldn't mind if he stayed, but I think he'd be better off going somewhere else.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*



Future said:


> I imagine Paxson thinks Tyrus Thomas can step up and prove what Tyson Chandler does defensively.... and plus we have Ben Wallace.... so what use do we really have of Tyson Chandler (Wallace provides all of what Tyson can do and then some)?
> 
> I don't know our exact financial situation, but I'm wondering how we can extend Kirk, Noc, Ben, and Deng with two 60 million dollar contracts with no offensive upside counting against the cap.


I think you're on to Paxson's thinking if the proposed deal were to go down.

Perhaps PJ is the stopgap veteran 4 for one season until Thomas is ready for the big show fulltime.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

What do you guys think about this deal:

Bulls Trade:

Tyson Chandler

Pistons Trade: 

Rasheed Wallace

Rasheed said if he doesn't get traded he's going to retire.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*



ScottMay said:


> I'm all for trading Chandler for a great offensive player. Trading him for P.J. Brown offsets everything good that's been accomplished this season.


Agreed. I say keep Chandler, but if you must move him make it for Odom or Marion or similar. I agree with ROY and I'd be willing to take on Zach Randolph too thinking our system and personnel would get him to fall in line. I'd have to talk to the guy before I traded for him though.

All this hogwash about trading Chandler for an expiring contract or room to sign our core is nonsense. Reinsdorf has netted ridiculous profits when this team was crap, but always maintained he would pay for a winner. That time is now. I don't care if we go to luxury cap hell for a few years. Thats the chairmans problem. 

It's time to win.


----------



## BeZerker2008 (Jun 29, 2006)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

I don't like the deal myself but if it's to keep the core of kirk, deng, gordon, noc. I'm all for it then. Tyson and his size will be missed but I don't think after 5 years that chandler will develop any higher than where he is already at. Rebound-wise he will get his eventual 10-16 for some games [which at 7-1 he should be doing that anyway] but never get to that allstar status of a player. Imo for chandler staying in chicago, I don't think he will ever escape the krause Brand for Chandler trade and he will always be compared to Brand at least here in Chicago. But this much is true, pax has had a hell of a summer thus far so if/when this trade happens I don't expect him to be done yet.


----------



## realbullsfaninLA (Jan 8, 2003)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

Did Rasheed really say that?


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*



sloth said:


> What do you guys think about this deal:
> 
> Bulls Trade:
> 
> ...


when did he say that?


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*



MikeDC said:


> Way to follow up a great move with an idiotic one.


Amen. If this happens, I might go 'Artest' on Paxson and Reinsdorf. Talk about letting the air out of the draft and the first real free agent signing since the championship years.

No sense jumping on them for mere speculation at this point. Paxson hasn't disappointed yet and hopefully that trend will continue.

I don't get everyone here who just buys into this luxury tax argument. This is a major market and Reinsdorf and company have profitted obscenely given the product they've delivered. Its time to give back. 

Reinsdorf has said he'd pay for a winner and its time for him to put his money where his mouth is. That statement didn't mean he'd simply use all of his cap space. That means he's willing to pay the luxury tax. 

So you don't just DUMP Chandler to hold payroll down. You either keep him or turn him into something even better. If Reinsdorf lives up to his word, paying Chandler doesn't affect Hinrich, Hinrich doesn't affect Gordon, Gordon won't affect Thomas and so on. If you want to consolidate as DaBullz pointed out (Deng + Nocioni + pick for a Marion?) then thats one thing.


----------



## draft tyrus (Jun 29, 2006)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

so Tyson has gone straight downhill in however many years, and everyone's always on his case during the season, he still sets illegal screens, isn't physical, does nothing but rebound (in a bad way), and has shown signs of deterioration instead of improvement, and now everyone wants to KEEP him?


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

I want to keep Chandler, but I won't be upset if he's gone for something of good value. Trading him for a 37 year old and possibly the 2nd coming of E-Rob isn't exactly good value.

I still remember the flashes Chandler has shown on offense. Although I haven't seen it since 2003, I still believe. Remember his game against the Knicks back in 02? And Portland? If Chandler could give us HALF of that, there would be no need to trade him. So I say let the experiment continue, and if it doesn't workout, trade him in midseason.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*



draft tyrus said:


> so Tyson has gone straight downhill in however many years, and everyone's always on his case during the season, he still sets illegal screens, isn't physical, does nothing but rebound (in a bad way), and has shown signs of deterioration instead of improvement, and now everyone wants to KEEP him?


I've never wanted to get rid of him. Add to that the fact that he is pretty good when playing alongside a QUALITY post player, and now we have a stud in Ben, he should be MUCH better. IMO it's just dumb to get rid of him for filler to relieve ourselves of cap space. A 1st round draft pick or some other big with star potential that is young is all I'd move him for.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

It's funny that Sloth should mention Rasheed. I was thinking to myself as soon as I heard about us getting Ben and the talk of trading Chandler that Rasheed would be an ideal fit for what we need. Problem is, would he want to come here, and add to that the fact that I'm not so sure he could co-exist here with Skiles. It would be awesome though. (he's been one of my favorites since back when he used to tear it up at UNC with Stack)


----------



## ballafromthenorth (May 27, 2003)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*



CiMa said:


> I want to keep Chandler, but I won't be upset if he's gone for something of good value. Trading him for a 37 year old and possibly the 2nd coming of E-Rob isn't exactly good value.
> 
> I still remember the flashes Chandler has shown on offense. Although I haven't seen it since 2003, I still believe. Remember his game against the Knicks back in 02? And Portland? If Chandler could give us HALF of that, there would be no need to trade him. So I say let the experiment continue, and if it doesn't workout, trade him in midseason.



Good call, that's what I think too. Give him til midseason at least Pax.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

I'm really trying hard to see this from Pax's perspective. And the one thing that keeps coming up is that the writing was on the wall as soon as we drafted Tyrus. No way in hell can we have two young, offensively inept PFs on the roster and after Nene, Wallace is the only noteworthy name out there. Well, bye bye Tyson and enter Ben.

Second, I suppose netting PJ and JR is better than letting Tyson walk last offseason. Afterall, apparently no one else was seeking his services and he didn't raise his stock at all last season. A young SG with "potential" and a solid vet to tutor Tyrus is better than nothing. Pax is just making the best of what's available.

Anyhow, I'm on record for being against the Wallace signing because I honestly don't see how this makes us much better than having Tyson. If Paxson doesn't get a draft pick for next year then this will make yet another trade in which he's been hosed. I was pretty upset about the Portland trade down and this doesn't remove the nasty taste from my mouth. John, *can we try to win one ****ing trade?*


----------



## all_aus (Aug 28, 2005)

*keep chandler*

this is a bad move, at least see him play with ben etc, only 24


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*Merged**

I'll merge these threads, since the topics are almost identical.


----------



## nanokooshball (Jan 22, 2005)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*Merged**

Pax just keep Tyson... PLEASE... give him a chance with ben for at least one year and let's see where we can go with that


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*Merged**

Maybe Tyson and Ben are going to suck on offense, but they are also going to play killer d, and their rebound totals could possibly be the best combo ever. Last year we had a huge problem giving up offensive boards, not any more. 

Tyrus is not going to suck on offense and whether or not we trade Chanlder I expect he will lead our bigs in scoring. His handle and shot might be OK for a 3, but he's playing the 4 whether he likes it or not. Of course his post game is ways away, but easy buckets, driving to the basket, and open shots will get him his.


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*Merged**

Of course it's a terrible trade, in every way but financially. Pax would readily admit this privately I'm sure, and may even allude to it publicly, if you read between the lines. This is the medicine he had to take to get Ben Wallace. :sigh: To get one, you have to give the other - quid pro quo Clarisse. I'm sure Pax is happy that the expiring contract happens to be ultra-jibby, and also to have a prospect thrown in, but the expiring contract is the prize. The rest are in-ci-DENT-ull, as Hannibal would say. I'm guessing the other trades on the table, particularly Al Harrington, were just Plan B in case we lost out on Ben. Does Skaxson prefer PJ Brown to Al Harrington? Of course not.

My main problem with this purely financial move, other than it being purely financial, is that this isn't really "to sign our core" - because, are we signing our core now? No. So why the urgency? We can wait for February to prepare for that. This is Uncle Jerry saying, OK, you can make a pitch for Ben, if that's what you want to do - and I'll even come up with the extra 4 million at the 11th hour to seal the deal - but then you've got to get rid of Tyson ASAP, son. It's his money, and I don't have to like it - but I don't. It's silly that we're doing it now, in what amounts to a fire sale. This should be a trade deadline deal, because things change fast. What if January rolls around, and Tyson is averaging 12 and 10+ and 2 blocks, Thabo Sefolosha is getting 25 minutes a game, and Ben Gordon is demanding a trade? Or, knocking on wood loudly, somebody gets a Kenyon Martin injury. Now suddenly we don't have to worry about resigning part of our core, and keeping Tyson looks a lot better. Why deny ourselves the flexibility to change our minds? What do we gain by doing this now? I guess we strike while the iron is hot, prevent New Orleans from finding another destination for the expiring contract, and protect against Tyson getting hurt. Is it worth it to lose our flexibility, and the chance that Tyson blows up? I don't think so, but I could be wrong.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*Merged**

I guess the only real justifications are this:

1. we don't get better in the trade next year, but its basically a wash, and we don't get worse (unless Tyson really and truly does blow up next year)

2. financial reasons, for this year, and the rest of the decade

3. PJ Brown's locker room leadership

4. Brown's strong Louisiana roots are intended to be part of Tyrus' support system.

5. We are likely targeting our Big Man of the Future next year anyway.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*Merged**



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> 5. We are likely targeting our Big Man of the Future next year anyway.


Great!!! 

And if Knicks are better than expected, we have no guy taller than 6'8" in a couple of years.

yea, this is a HORRIBLE deal. 

Just pay up Reinsddorf. Keep Chandler.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*Merged**

If this fire sale goes through we'll have George Shinn of all people to thank for making Reinsdorf look like Donald Sterling.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*



Mr. T said:


> Amen. If this happens, I might go 'Artest' on Paxson and Reinsdorf. Talk about letting the air out of the draft and the first real free agent signing since the championship years.
> 
> No sense jumping on them for mere speculation at this point. Paxson hasn't disappointed yet and hopefully that trend will continue.
> 
> ...


Amen to your amen. 

We're in a position to actually add another quality player and keep Chandler if we're smart. Or trade Chandler for something better than an over the hill player who will be worn out by the playoffs. If this move goes down, it will not only be a wash this year, it'll be a negative that holds us back if we make it deep in the playoffs. It'll certainly be a negative in a couple years. The only positive is to Jerry's pocket book.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*



MikeDC said:


> Amen to your amen.
> 
> We're in a position to actually add another quality player and keep Chandler if we're smart. Or trade Chandler for something better than an over the hill player who will be worn out by the playoffs. If this move goes down, it will not only be a wash this year, it'll be a negative that holds us back if we make it deep in the playoffs. It'll certainly be a negative in a couple years. The only positive is to Jerry's pocket book.


That pretty much sums it up. What a cheapskate move! The Bulls have been one of the lowest salaried teams in the league for many years. Even with Wallace's signing the team is still under the cap. Moreover they will not be near the luxury tax threshold even after resigning Nocioni and extending Hinrich's contract. There just is no need to dump salary in the immediate future.

If this BS trade goes through, ScottMay just got another member to his club.


----------



## RedBull80 (Jul 3, 2006)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

Without a doubt I think Chandler should stay, if he does indeed get traded it MUST be an "ingredient" to bring a superstar here, i.e. KG


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*



MikeDC said:


> Amen to your amen.
> 
> We're in a position to actually add another quality player and keep Chandler if we're smart. Or trade Chandler for something better than an over the hill player who will be worn out by the playoffs. If this move goes down, it will not only be a wash this year, it'll be a negative that holds us back if we make it deep in the playoffs. It'll certainly be a negative in a couple years. The only positive is to Jerry's pocket book.


If this board is any indication of where the fan base is at - and I'm sure it is, Reinsdorf is in great shape because most are buying into the financial aspect of dumping Chandler.

It has nothing to do with newfound love for Chandler's game and has everything to do with getting value for an asset.

*For the budgetary conscious, please explain what Reinsdorf meant when he said he'd pay for a winner?* 

Is there any other way to read that other than he's willing to pay luxury tax to contend for a title?

If this was Dolan or Cuban, do you think they'd be counting nickels or thinking trophy? And if you're thinking Cuban wouldn't pay Nash, well, that was the opposite scenario. He was trading age while we acquired age.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*



McBulls said:


> If this BS trade goes through, ScottMay just got another member to his club.


I'm not sure what club he's running these days, but I would probably sign on as well. I've been as big a supporter of the organization as anyone over the years, but this is our time. 

Show me a salary cap move when we could be on the cusp and I'll...have to sit here and take it since Reinsdorf can do whatever he'd like regardless.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*Merged**

This outpouring of love for Tyson and his game is really heartwarming. Its a stark contrast to the thousands of posts a few months ago condemning him as an overpaid, unreliable, bust whose signing was a terrible mistake by Paxson.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*Merged**

I just think his whole "I'm going to be an all-star" talk is funny.

It took signing Ben Wallace & drafting Tyrus for him to get a fire lit under him.

He hasn't gotten ANY better in the 5 years he's been here.

let him goooooo


----------



## Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! (Jun 10, 2003)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*Merged**



Ron Cey said:


> This outpouring of love for Tyson and his game is really heartwarming. Its a stark contrast to the thousands of posts a few months ago condemning him as an overpaid, unreliable, bust whose signing was a terrible mistake by Paxson.



Ok, Ron, what do you have to say to the following argument:

1. Reinsdork is a cheapskate and won't pay for a winner. This is a salary dump. What he gives with the right hand, he takes back with the left We are a major market team, who have among the best fans in the league, who have endured through lousy teams in the post Jordan era.

2. Right when the team is about to mean something, the possibility of going over the luxury tax becomes the over-riding concern.

3. Pax said that Chandler's contract is an asset that can be used--but do you use said asset for a 37 year old role player, whose only value is that his salary comes off the books in 1 year?

Ergo: salary dump by a cheapskate team. A move worthy of Donald Sterling.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*Merged**

Exactly as ROY said. He knows his time is up. He's just saying his excuses. This is like a little kid promising something, but having his fingers crossed behind is back. You know it means nothing.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*Merged**

"My thing is, regardless of what happens, I'm going to be an all-star next year."

LMAO at Chandler. This guy's self-image is so distorted. Someone needs to kick him in this nuts.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*Merged**



madox said:


> "My thing is, regardless of what happens, I'm going to be an all-star next year."
> 
> LMAO at Chandler. This guy's self-image is so distorted. Someone needs to kick him in this nuts.


He has none. If he did, do you think he would kick another player?


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*Merged**

We should pack Tyson with Du and Deng and go after O’N.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*Merged**



The ROY said:


> I just think his whole "I'm going to be an all-star" talk is funny.
> 
> It took signing Ben Wallace & drafting Tyrus for him to get a fire lit under him.
> 
> ...


Well, in all fairness, Chandler talks fiery all the time. This is par for the course for his offseason chatter. 

This shouldn't be about bashing Chandler. I like Chandler and I always have. On almost any team in the league that doesn't have Ben Wallace, he provides something unique. On a team with Wallace, he provides inferior, unreliable redundancy. 

The Bulls need to sign a consistent veteran to play with Wallace who can lead, defend and score with a little bit of consistency. Obviously I'm in an extreme minority here, but PJ Brown looks like a nice *short term * solution to that problem in my mind. 

Maybe I'm horribly, horribly wrong but I like this trade proposal. I really do. I don't love it. I'm not clamoring for it. But I do like it. So shoot me. :biggrin:


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*Merged**



madox said:


> "My thing is, regardless of what happens, I'm going to be an all-star next year."
> 
> LMAO at Chandler. This guy's self-image is so distorted. Someone needs to kick him in this nuts.


lmaoooo


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*Merged**



Bulls96 said:


> We should pack Tyson with Du and Deng and go after O’N.


I'd do that. I'd try to leave Deng out, and offer a future 1st or two instead. But I doubt Bird does it otherwise. Tyson and Deng should be enough.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*Merged**



madox said:


> "My thing is, regardless of what happens, I'm going to be an all-star next year."
> 
> LMAO at Chandler. This guy's self-image is so distorted. Someone needs to kick him in this nuts.


Would a punch do? Paging Eddy Curry.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*Merged**



Ron Cey said:


> On almost any team in the league that doesn't have Ben Wallace, he provides something unique.


Tyson provides something for a team like San Antonio, Dallas, or Phx. A team that needs nothing out of their big man, and where the latter two teams can put up 110 ppg regardless of what Tyson does. He would thrive in their systems. But not here. Plus he'd be an upgrade over Brian Grant, Diop, etc. 

What he offers, is not head and shoulders above what other guys offer. Sure he changes a game here and there. But that doesn't happen all that often. The guy can barely catch a ball on offense. The guy can barely manage to stay on the court. He is all bark, but no bite. We always pretended/hoped he would be like Big Ben. Well we got the real deal now.


----------



## RedBull80 (Jul 3, 2006)

*The Bulls SHOULD NOT trade Chandler for garbage*

However, if he were to be traded it should be with him as part of a package deal to get a superstar, like Kevin Garnett. If not, we should keep him, and let him dominate downlow with Ben...a 7'0+ guy helping an already dominant 6'9 C, just makes us better all around. Also, lets not forget that Tyson is still young and Wallace himself didnt come into his own until his 5th or 6th year.

Whatever we do, DO NOT trade Chandler for garbage or to 'clear' cap space. 

What is the benefit of freeing cap space UNLESS we plan on signing a Al Harrington or something? 

Bottom line is we shouldnt get rid of Tyson Chandler for nothing, then do nothing to add something in his place.



merged by mizenkay


----------



## Big_CKansas (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: The Bulls SHOULD NOT trade Chandler for garbage*

We have to clear cap space because we have to try and resign Hinrich, Gordon, Deng and/or Noc in the upcoming years.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*Merged**



Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! said:


> Ok, Ron, what do you have to say to the following argument:
> 
> 1. Reinsdork is a cheapskate and won't pay for a winner. This is a salary dump. What he gives with the right hand, he takes back with the left We are a major market team, who have among the best fans in the league, who have endured through lousy teams in the post Jordan era.
> 
> ...


After defending Reinsdorf and the organization for years and reminding everyone that he's been very clear in stating that he'll pay for a winner --- I hope he's not going to prove me wrong.

If people want to talk about what a great deal it would be personnel-wise to bring in Brown and Smith then thats one thing. But if the sole argument is Chandler has warts and you prefer a salary dump thats quite another.

For those who are now shredding Chandler and mocking those who feel he still has value to this team, do you REALLY BELIEVE this guy has ZERO value? A 24-yr old 7-footer who displayed game-changing play in '04-05 is worth an old geezer and a young problem child?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*Merged**



Ron Cey said:


> On a team with Wallace, he provides *inferior*, unreliable redundancy.


Not sure I agree there. Playing with Paul, I think it's 50/50 that TC is viewed as the superior player by 07-08. Absolutely by 08-09.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: The Bulls SHOULD NOT trade Chandler for garbage*



Big_CKansas said:


> We have to clear cap space because we have to try and resign Hinrich, Gordon, Deng and/or Noc in the upcoming years.


Don't call it cap space. Call it salary. B/c we ain't every going to have cap space again.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*Merged**



Mr. T said:


> For those who are now shredding Chandler and mocking those who feel he still has value to this team, do you REALLY BELIEVE this guy has ZERO value? A 24-yr old 7-footer who displayed game-changing play in '04-05 is worth an old geezer and a young problem child?


I personally think he will not improve, that is why I want him out. My reasoning for this is due to his lack of addressing his needs (offensive skills, strength, staying on the court) over the past few years. If he had shown more improvement in his game, I'd be an avid supporter. Is there potential still? Yes. Will he fulfill it? I think not. Others may think so, but I personally don't. If Chandler remains on the team, I hope he proves me wrong. But, I don't think that is likely to happen. At the same time, I don't think we will find better value for him. I think he will succeed at a different city. Where he will be a high paid role player. I don't know if it was in this thread, but I see him fitting well in a team that needs him to be Dampier like. 

With that, I think Pax is doing it for two reasons. If he believes Tyson has peaked, you might as well get rid of his hefty contract. I have always liked PJ, and think he will be a fine player here. Solid Vet, Good D, and possibly 10 ppg. Second, I think and *hope* Pax thinks Tyrus will be ready soon. Possibly under a year of guidance.

My question for the Tyson supporters, why do you still have hope for him? He has said each offseason that he has worked on his game, but shown no improvements. Do you think he will turn it around, or do you hope he will? I certainly don't think he willl here or anywhere. 

I would like to see Tyson learn under the guidance of Ben Wallace, since Tyson's lifetime role will be to rebound and defend. But, I don't see him being the hard worker to do so.

Edit: Regarding JR Smith, if he can get his head on straight, he can be an amazing player. But I doubt that happens. He is trade bait, that can land us a backup big.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*Merged**



theanimal23 said:


> My question for the Tyson supporters, why do you still have hope for him?


Yes. Hornets with their cheapscate owner are willing to bet big bucks.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

The thing that bother's me MOST about losing Tyson is..

The fact that you guys are gonna follow his every last MOVE next season with one HUGE thread....


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*Merged**



> 1. Reinsdork is a cheapskate and won't pay for a winner. This is a salary dump. What he gives with the right hand, he takes back with the left We are a major market team, who have among the best fans in the league, who have endured through lousy teams in the post Jordan era.


This remains to be seen in both the short and long term. What also remains to be seen is what Reinsdorf is willing to pay for the more critical parts of the core - Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Nocioni, Thomas. Thats a lot of cabbage. 

Obviously, I don't want the Bulls to be cheap. I expect them to spend in the upper portions of the league when they have a winner. 

But I understand that its a business and think its childish for fans to simply expect the "rich guys" to just spend their asses off. Every owner not named James Dolan shows fiscal responsibility. The measure of this team's willingness to spend will be based on what the team salary ends up being when all of the core players are resigned. It looks to me like its going to be damned expensive.

If they aren't resigned to the detriment of the team, then I'm with you. But I'm not going to cry about an owner that trades away an overpaid, underperforming, inconsistent and unreliable player right after he shells out $15 million per to the best defensive big man in basketball in a historic free agency coup while giving us a legitimate shot to contend for an NBA Finals appearance. Its hilarious to me. 



> 2. Right when the team is about to mean something, the possibility of going over the luxury tax becomes the over-riding concern.


Not really. It becomes a concern down the line. Again, fans have a tendency to believe that the owners of the teams they follow are obligated to just throw finances out the window. Its the same attitude a 9 year old has about how many toys his parents should buy for him. 

We might not like it, but its a business. And almost every team in the NBA fears the luxury tax. Even teams like the Clippers and Lakers who play in major markets like Chicago. My biggest concern is that the team recognize the right players to sacrifice on the luxury tax alter. Chandler qualifies. 



> 3. Pax said that Chandler's contract is an asset that can be used--but do you use said asset for a 37 year old role player, whose only value is that his salary comes off the books in 1 year?


I don't agree with this. I think he is a better option to team with Wallace than Chandler is. I think in the short term he makes our team better and improves our chances to with the East. I think he'll serve as a terrific mentor to Thomas, who is the future power forward for this team. I see plenty of value beyond a salary dump in acquiring Brown.

Also, I like the JR Smith aspect of this deal as well. He is very talented and cheap. If he buys in and learns to play, he could be a steal. If he becomes a problem, he can be easily discarded. 



> Ergo: salary dump by a cheapskate team. A move worthy of Donald Sterling.


Once Donald Sterling found quality, he paid for it and now owns one of the most promising teams in the NBA. I suspect the Bulls have decided that with Wallace, Chandler doesn't provide much quality relative to his cost. And if they are going to consider the luxury tax, then I'd rather lose Chandler than Noc, Deng, Gordon, Hinrich or Thomas. 

Plus, it is being reported that this move might open the door to another move. Another expenditure.

I expect my owner to pay for a winner. Frankly, I think that is what he's doing. His moves will need to be evaluated in whole as our players come up for extensions. Deciding $54 million more spent on Tyson Chandler isn't a wise investment doesn't really surprise me. 90% of the fans on this board were crying about what an overpaid bust he was all season. 

Now this is the part when I get accused of "rooting for the suits".


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*



Mr. T said:


> If this board is any indication of where the fan base is at - and I'm sure it is, Reinsdorf is in great shape because most are buying into the financial aspect of dumping Chandler.
> 
> It has nothing to do with newfound love for Chandler's game and has everything to do with getting value for an asset.


Amen. Listened to THE SCORE on the ride from MICH to CHI this morning... and the fan base is in love with the Wallace signing and are happy to see Tyson going.

People buying into the either/or argument frustrates me.

Pay the tax, Jerry.

Its a load of crap. Keep Tyson. He should look better playing with Ben on the team... freaky height that is one of the best rebounders in the league sells @ a premium. Land a legit scoring 4 for Tyson and change. March to the title. Get it done.

If the Warriors managed to trade for DWade, they should not give away JRICH.
If the Nets landed Marion, they should not give away RJeff.

Get something of value for Chandler that will lock us into the title hunt. Landing Big Ben is a great move, but its a short term move given his age and I would still like to see a very good offensive player plugged into the 4... and Tyson can be the bait that lands him.

If not, you have one of the 5 best rebounders in the game coming off the bench. And.... his height would be an asset on this Bulls team. Wallace is only 6'9".

I've always been a PJ Brown fan.. .but he's not the guy that you can plug into the 4 and march to the Finals with.... not at this age. We need a legit, above average, scoring 4... like Rasheed!!!... and we can win the NBA Championship. The window is now. Don't get cheap.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Tyson isn't needed with Wallace & Thomas....

I don't see what's so hard to understand about that....

get a SCORER


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

The ROY said:


> Tyson isn't needed with Wallace & Thomas....
> 
> I don't see what's so hard to understand about that....
> 
> get a SCORER



Ok, then let's get a scorer. However, PJ Brown hitting a couple jumpers a game isn't going to do it for me.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

The only reason why I see Tyson being better than PJ is in one aspect. That he is younger. PJ Brown plays solid defense, and can provide the offense Tyson never will. On top of that, he will come in and practice and fits our environment better than Tyson. Tyson may never pan out. I don't think he will, but none of us know if he will or not. 

With PJ, we get him to tutor Tyrus, who I think will start in year 2. If we are lucky, we can sign PJ to another deal after this (1-2 years), and he would be a solid guy off the bench. 

The difference in defense I think, is PJ contains his player, vs Tyson who just comes over for the weak side block. We now have Ben to do that anyway. 

I think Tyson only wins in age. Maybe in the next few years he will be a better player. But today, I think not. Secondly, the question remains if Tyson can beat out Tyrus in a few years. Who I have high hopes for.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

The ROY said:


> Tyson isn't needed with Wallace & Thomas....
> 
> I don't see what's so hard to understand about that....
> 
> get a SCORER


According to Sam Smith, Bulls are unwilling to pay the lux tax. Reinsdorf is CHEAP. If Smith is right and we could get CAMBY, I have no problems with that deal. Go for the championship now.

But a 37 yr old role player is really just a dump.

p.s. LOL at anyone that thinks that JR Smith is going to help the Bulls. He will never suit up for Paxskiles.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*Merged**



theanimal23 said:


> I personally think he will not improve, that is why I want him out. My reasoning for this is due to his lack of addressing his needs (offensive skills, strength, staying on the court) over the past few years. If he had shown more improvement in his game, I'd be an avid supporter. Is there potential still? Yes. Will he fulfill it? I think not. Others may think so, but I personally don't. If Chandler remains on the team, I hope he proves me wrong. But, I don't think that is likely to happen. At the same time, I don't think we will find better value for him. I think he will succeed at a different city. Where he will be a high paid role player. I don't know if it was in this thread, but I see him fitting well in a team that needs him to be Dampier like.
> 
> With that, I think Pax is doing it for two reasons. If he believes Tyson has peaked, you might as well get rid of his hefty contract. I have always liked PJ, and think he will be a fine player here. Solid Vet, Good D, and possibly 10 ppg. Second, I think and *hope* Pax thinks Tyrus will be ready soon. Possibly under a year of guidance.
> 
> ...


I haven't given up on Chandler yet. As a matter of fact, I see it as us dumping him when we finally got around to supporting him. Chandler was at his best when AD could play the opposing teams C. 

I understand the disenchantment with the guy. I just believe you either give the guy one year or he's only packaged for a Marion, Odom or other offensive talent.

I still go back to what Reinsdorf has always said. He will pay for a winner. There is no need to dump Chandler. If you believe Brown and Smith are a worthwhile swap, I may disagree, but have no qualms - unless its premised on the fact Chandler is essentially worthless. If its for the notion we need to save money, I vehemently reject it.


One guy I've never really seen discussed here is Mehmet Okur. What about a deal that involves Chandler and Okur? What about Harpring in there too as our new 'Pike' vet?


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Well... I'm going to go against the flow of most here and say that I won't be sad to see him go and that his depature will be the best for him and also the Bulls.

I'm trying to figure out how Chandler and Wallace are supposed to fit together. You simply can't play them together for extended lengths of time. It's 3 on 5 offensively. It may work for short stretches, but it won't for longer periods of time. That being the case, one of the two of Chandler or Wallace is going to have to come off the bench. I'll give you three guesses as to who that is and the first two don't count. Having a $11 mil/yr guy comming off the bench isn't going to work.

Then I've got the whole "don't trade him when his value is low" thing. Who's to say his value won't decline even more playing next to Wallace? Wallace is a premier rebounder and so I've got to wonder if Tysons rebounding numbers wouldn't, in fact, decline. Tyson's offense is completely up to him and in five years I've seen very little that would suggst that all-of-a-sudden he's going to turn into this offensive force. I'm also of the opinion that Pax and Skiles gave him this offseason to guage what his committment to working on his game - especially in Chicago - and they've come away less than impressed. He's supposedly not going to be in Chicago until August at the earliest - and that simply isn't going to fly with them.

My question is, what if his value actually goes down further because of pairing him with Wallace? Then all the Paxskiles bashers will have a field day blasting him for not moving Chandler over the summer when his value was better. In short, they can't win.

Finally, a move like this gives more time for Thomas. Quite frankly, I think the Bulls view Tyrus as a more than adequate replacement for Chandler and so moving Tyson now will give Tyrus playing time and also by getting a guy like PJ Brown to ease Tyrus' transition into the league, will give Tyrus the time and grooming he's going to need to be the player that Chandler simply isn't. 

View this as a salary dump? Maybe. I just don't think Chandler would fit in here and it's best to move him now rather than later when it's painfully apparent he's not working out. Then add in a guy like JR Smith (whom I hope is moved for the rights to Scola) and it's a win for the Bulls and also a win for Chandler - because he's just not going to reach whatever potential he might have left in him here. He's had over five years and he hasn't shown a whole helluva lot. His comment of being an all-star this comming season tells me he still doesn't get it. He's no closer to an eastern or western conference all-star than I am. Too much bravado and bluster for a guy who's had ample time to back up that bravado. For one person, it's falling on deaf ears now.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

And... its a ****ty shell game being played here.... making moves to build Cap Space.... only to dump an asset when Cap Space gets used. We won't have to pay the tax next season by keeping Chandler. Wait a year. See what other trades come up. Go after that scoring 4. Then, if your bottom line says you can't pay an exorbinant amount of tax and get the return you need while resigning all the guys, dump a couple.

Still though, I expect a good owner of a major market team that is one of the top teams in the league in attendance and just raised their ticket prices to pay some tax.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

fl_flash, you make very good points. I agree with you there.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> And... its a ****ty shell game being played here.... making moves to build Cap Space.... only to dump an asset when it gets used. We won't have to pay the tax next season by keeping Chandler. Wait a year. See what other trades come up. Go after that scoring 4. Then, if your bottom line says you can't pay an exorbinant amount of tax and get the return you need while resigning all the guys, dump a couple.


I agree about the scoring 4. I rather see Tyson moved for Boozer or Al Harrington. But that limits the amount of time they play if and when Tyrus is ready. If Tyrus becomes the better player, we are stuck with another high paid backup. But our bench would be killer.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

The ROY said:


> Tyson isn't needed with Wallace & Thomas....
> 
> I don't see what's so hard to understand about that....
> 
> get a SCORER



A young scorer, not a player who will be gone in a year. 

Tyrus Thomas must be very special for Paxson to be giving up a major asset to supply him with a role model. He must be remembering how well it worked out when Oakley was hired to mentor Curry and Chander. Sure did make a big difference in shaping their work ethic and dedication to the game.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

The ROY said:


> Tyson isn't needed with Wallace & Thomas....
> 
> I don't see what's so hard to understand about that....
> 
> get a SCORER


And PJ Brown fits that bill!?

I'm not arguing exclusively to keep Tyson. But I do want a package that nets Odom, Marion, etc. How about a deal for Okur?

PJ Brown? No thanks.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*Merged**



Ron Cey said:


> I like Chandler and I always have. On almost any team in the league that doesn't have Ben Wallace, he provides something unique.


Yeah, so lets not hesitate for even a moment, and trade him at the first opportunity for a guy who's 37!



> The Bulls need to sign a consistent veteran to play with Wallace who can lead, defend and score with a little bit of consistency. Obviously I'm in an extreme minority here, but PJ Brown looks like a nice *short term * solution to that problem in my mind.
> 
> Maybe I'm horribly, horribly wrong but I like this trade proposal. I really do. I don't love it. I'm not clamoring for it. But I do like it. So shoot me. :biggrin:


You are. 

Whether he's redundant* and inferior** to Wallace is not so much the issue. The issue is what the Bulls other options are, and/or whether they can get a better value for Chandler somewhere else. There is plenty of reason to think they can. I don't think anyone is wedded to Chandler in an absolute sense, but relative to throwing away a guy who, as you point out yourself, is only 22 and has unique skills that can help out most any team for a 37 year old (and to obviously line Reinsdorf's pocketbook), Chandler looks pretty decent.

If this deal goes down, it's the classic "one move too many". The Bulls have painstakingly built up a team that can both win now and win in the future. Saying "we're good enough now, let's save some money" is getting too cute.

* Redundant to us? It was strongly argued to me that Skiles could manage the end of games well enough that Wallace won't be a liability. If we're stopping play every time down the court, how good would it be to have a "closing" unit of Chandler and Ben up front for every defensive set?

Couple that with Ben's declining minutes, and the possibility that Chandler might grow a bit, it appears to me he'd still be able to get steady minutes here.

But it's really besides the point if he's redundant to us. If he's not redundant to 28 other teams, giving him away for the first offer that even sort of sounds ok is dumb.

** Inferior to Wallace? Sure. Now. In a year or two, that may be very different, given Wallace's steady decline and Chandler's upside, the change may be fairly quick. Take off the rose-colored glasses and take an objective look at Wallace's steady statistical decline, frequent off-court *****ing, and the (reported by multiple sources now) handprints of Jerry Reinsdorf all over this deal (paging Jalen Rose?). This isn't a risk free move, at all, and it'd be smart to hedge our bet.


----------



## Jello Biafra (Jan 6, 2006)

I can think of 3 games last year that Tyson won for the Bulls with stellar blocks at the end of the game. Who could forget him stoning a last second drive by Carmelo Anthony on national TV to seal a one point win. His help D is why the Bulls interior D was so good last year despite their so called lack of "length and athleticism". The guy changes games. That being said, I wouldn't mind seeing Tyson go, but not as a salary dump.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*Merged**



madox said:


> "My thing is, regardless of what happens, I'm going to be an all-star next year."
> 
> LMAO at Chandler. This guy's self-image is so distorted. Someone needs to kick him in this nuts.


Yeah, heaven forbid a guy have a goal for his offseason. Rather he say: "I'm going to work hard to go from a decent to solid ball player." Why aim high?


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*



kukoc4ever said:


> Amen. Listened to THE SCORE on the ride from MICH to CHI this morning... and the fan base is in love with the Wallace signing and are happy to see Tyson going.
> 
> People buying into the either/or argument frustrates me.
> 
> ...


Exactly! The time is now. 

This isn't about fans telling the owner to spend irresponsibly. This is about a guy with top 3 profits who has put out an obscenely low-grade product for the better part of the last decade. The same guy who said himself, "I will pay for a winner".

I'm simply asking Reinsdorf to now back it up.

And Ron, Chandler can be sacrificed later if necessary. There's no pressing need to unload him before the deadline IMO.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Jello Biafra said:


> I can think of 3 games last year that Tyson won for the Bulls with stellar blocks at the end of the game. Who could forget him stoning a last second drive by Carmelo Anthony on national TV to seal a one point win. His help D is why the Bulls interior D was so good last year despite their so called lack of "length and athleticism". The guy changes games. That being said, I wouldn't mind seeing Tyson go, but not as a salary dump.


I completely agree there. But there were also numerous games for the 1st half of the season where Tyson was MIA. I wish we knew what we would get with Tyson, since he is inconsistant. But the loss of Tyson's D is easy for me knowing we got Ben Wallace. I agree with the posters who said we should get more value back for Tyson, knowing there was interest by some team in a Boozer, Camby, Harrington type of deal for Tyson.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> Then I've got the whole "don't trade him when his value is low" thing. Who's to say his value won't decline even more playing next to Wallace?


This is the risk. 

He looked great playing alongside AD.

Something tells me he'll look great playing on Wallace's Bulls.... unless that fat contract has made him soft.

Great enough for a team in need of height and athleticism to cough up a difference making guy to plug in at the 4 that will be a nice fit.

I don't think the Bulls want to take this risk though... they would rather cut bait.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

theanimal23 said:


> With PJ, we get him to tutor Tyrus, who I think will start in year 2.


I've never liked those arguments. Coaches are much cheaper. Heck, hire AD who will be far cheaper.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*Merged**



Ron Cey said:


> This outpouring of love for Tyson and his game is really heartwarming. Its a stark contrast to the thousands of posts a few months ago condemning him as an overpaid, unreliable, bust whose signing was a terrible mistake by Paxson.


yup. i'm a tyson fan, but c'mon. clearing out his salary space to bring in a Ben Wallace... a player who does everything Tyson does but BETTER... that's called an upgrade.

we should be glad that we've found a team that doesnt realize how soft Tyson can get, and how helpless he is in certain stretches of the year. 


this gives us room to add a frontcourt scorer, too.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*Merged**



DengNabbit said:


> yup. i'm a tyson fan, but c'mon. clearing out his salary space to bring in a Ben Wallace... a player who does everything Tyson does but BETTER... that's called an upgrade.


Ben Wallace is a member of the Chicago Bulls.

So is Chandler.

Salary space, via a Chandler trade, didn't need to be cleared to bring in Wallace.

We made 3 years of talent dumps to have the salary space available to sign Wallace.

Chandler does not enter into it.

AAARRARGRGGHGGHHGGHHGHGHHHHHHHH!!!!


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

theanimal23 said:


> I completely agree there. But there were also numerous games for the 1st half of the season where Tyson was MIA. I wish we knew what we would get with Tyson, since he is inconsistant. But the loss of Tyson's D is easy for me knowing we got Ben Wallace. I agree with the posters who said we should get more value back for Tyson, knowing there was interest by some team in a Boozer, Camby, Harrington type of deal for Tyson.


Not only that, come the clutch time (the playoff) he was complete nonfactor. He was hopelessly clueless on the court.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

fl_flash said:


> Well... I'm going to go against the flow of most here and say that I won't be sad to see him go and that his depature will be the best for him and also the Bulls.
> 
> I'm trying to figure out how Chandler and Wallace are supposed to fit together. You simply can't play them together for extended lengths of time. It's 3 on 5 offensively. It may work for short stretches, but it won't for longer periods of time. That being the case, one of the two of Chandler or Wallace is going to have to come off the bench. I'll give you three guesses as to who that is and the first two don't count. Having a $11 mil/yr guy comming off the bench isn't going to work.


I think we played pretty good ball with AD and Chandler on the floor together. Our perimeter players are only better now. As for salary, how does Cuban afford Diop and Dampier? I'm not asking Reinsdorf to pay the luxury tax for the remainder of his ownership. But he has a surplus of money from our NBDL days that he should be willing to draw from. The window is open.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

Jello Biafra said:


> I can think of 3 games last year that Tyson won for the Bulls with stellar blocks at the end of the game. Who could forget him stoning a last second drive by Carmelo Anthony on national TV to seal a one point win. His help D is why the Bulls interior D was so good last year despite their so called lack of "length and athleticism". The guy changes games. That being said, I wouldn't mind seeing Tyson go, but not as a salary dump.



Tyson is a weakside defender who comes over and gets his blocks while Noc is doing all he can to complicate a guy's base on the blocks. 

Ben Wallace is going to be man-on against the premier bigs of the league. and again, I like Tyson... but essentially moving him for Ben, it makes sense. 

Getting Tyson's contract off the books is also key, in that we can now make another 4-yr deal.... and that will mean that fourth year will take several big contracts off the books, just as we're reupping the rest of the core.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> I think we played pretty good ball with AD and Chandler on the floor together. Our perimeter players are only better now. As for salary, how does Cuban afford Diop and Dampier? I'm not asking Reinsdorf to pay the luxury tax for the remainder of his ownership. But he has a surplus of money from our NBDL days that he should be willing to draw from. The window is open.


So true. We appear to have some other assets available (a pick, Duhon, Sweetney, cap space?) and Tyson would likely have some value to some other teams. No one is saying he absolutely can't be traded, but there are plenty of other options.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

If I want to win a championship next season, I'd rather have Wallace and PJ Brown at C and PF than Wallace and Chandler. Brown gives us better offense, smarter defense and loads of playoff experience.
I also have this fear of leading in important games and having both Chandler and Wallace on the floor down the stretch. Neither can shoot free throws worth a dang.

In 2007-08, Tyrus Thomas is going to be the starting PF and Chandler would be a pretty pricey backup.

Clearly, this proposed trade pales in significance when compared to the Wallace signing, but it makes us a little better next season and I'm fine with that. Let's win now.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

theanimal23 said:


> I completely agree there. But there were also numerous games for the 1st half of the season where Tyson was MIA. I wish we knew what we would get with Tyson, since he is inconsistant.


The same argument could be made about Ben Gordon. Should he be the next guy to go to save money? 

Is Ben the next luxury? Nice flashes, too inconsistant, doesn't really fit the system, heart really in NY. Hey, just playing devils advocate. After all, we can't pay everybody, right?


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*Merged**



TripleDouble said:


> Yeah, heaven forbid a guy have a goal for his offseason. Rather he say: "I'm going to work hard to go from a decent to solid ball player." Why aim high?


Just making a joke. 

But the truth is that if Chandler were a hard-worker this discussion wouldn't be taking place. I would have no problem giving Chandler until the trade deadline, one last chance to prove himself. But I can't fault Paxson for making this move either. 

I think it's very likely that Tyson would be behind Tyrus Thomas on Skiles' depth chart, even from the first game of the season. 

I also believe that Tyson has no confidence in himself. Everything he does is false bravado. And it probably all stems from those dainty little hands.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I hear ya Mr. T. But at the same time, who has done more for this team? Who was a presence in the playoffs? Devils advocate here too


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

transplant said:


> If I want to win a championship next season, I'd rather have Wallace and PJ Brown at C and PF than Wallace and Chandler. Brown gives us better offense, smarter defense and loads of playoff experience.


You may rather this... but do you think its good enough?

PJ brown 6 years ago? Sign me up. This guy is on his last legs right now. Solid player. Good role guy, IMO.




> I also have this fear of leading in important games and having both Chandler and Wallace on the floor down the stretch. Neither can shoot free throws worth a dang.


I think Chandler is perfect insurance to a Wallace injury, a great 20-25 min a game guy off the bench and spectacular trade bait in a consolidation trade to land a really good, young enough to make a difference 4. (or stud 2 if TT is the ****) I would not want Ben and Tyson on the floor down the stretch in most cases either. Heck, I probably don't want Ben on the floor down the stretch in some cases given his FT woes.




> In 2007-08, Tyrus Thomas is going to be the starting PF and Chandler would be a pretty pricey backup.


That could work... if TT pans out. I'd rather trade Chandler for a sure thing.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> So true. We appear to have some other assets available (a pick, Duhon, Sweetney, cap space?) and Tyson would likely have some value to some other teams. No one is saying he absolutely can't be traded, but there are plenty of other options.


Saying it over and over doesn't make it true. We don't know how much other teams are willing to offer for the opportunity to pay a recently regressing Chandler $54 million over the next 5 years. 

Maybe the Bulls can do different moves that make more sense. Maybe they can't. To compare this move to ficticious moves is a wasted exercise.

On its face, this move makes sense to me. For several reasons. Like I said, I don't love it. But I like and understand it. I've done plenty of preemptive complaining about what I thought some moves were going to be this offseason, but this isn't one of them. I support this.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

This team is built for the long haul. Why not keep a player around who can take over for Wallace when his game dictates him playing limited minutes?


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Maybe the Bulls can do different moves that make more sense. Maybe they can't. To compare this move to ficticious moves is a wasted exercise.


For all we know, this is a ficticious move.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Ben Wallace will still be a 30-35 min player for the next 4 years. It's ridiculous to have a $10M backup riding the bench for all but 15 minutes per night, especially one with as many flaws (both physical and mental) as Chandler. I don't think his value would go up at all next year, not if his minutes are limited.

And I do like the option of PJ Brown, probably more than signing Gooden or Wilcox in free agency. I was in favor of signing only one free agent to avoid the logjam at PF. This way, Noc and Tyrus can get their minutes at that spot.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Like I said, I don't love it. But I like and understand it. I've done plenty of preemptive complaining about what I thought some moves were going to be this offseason, but this isn't one of them. I support this.


Just curious, do you expect Uncle Jerry to pay some luxury tax for a contender or do you think its reasonable for him to remain under the tax threshold... assuming the $$$ isn't being spent horribly foolishly.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

transplant said:


> Clearly, this proposed trade pales in significance when compared to the Wallace signing, but it makes us a little better next season and I'm fine with that. Let's win now.


If this deal was Chandler for Wallace I was against it. As K4E pointed out, we positioned ourselves to have cap space to ADD talent not swap it.

I agree with a win now approach, but I don't think that means the title this year. It could, but it doesn't have to. I definitely see it by next year.

So when Brown is done after this year, we'll still be reduced to a MLE acquisition next year, right? That $5-6M next year is going to get us a legit front court player? Why not keep Tyson this year or to the deadline and then use his $10M to get us the guy we need?

We can't bank on anything for Chandler, but banking on Tyrus is a no-brainer? Why does Curtis Enis aka "brittle boy" keep popping into my head?


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

At the very least, it would make sense to get Hilton Armstrong from the Hornets, too. They just drafted 2 big men - Cedric Simmons, and Armstrong. Surely Paxson could get one of them... Right?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

How many games/minutes per game can we count on PJ Brown for this season?

Does he have 30+ a night and an extended playoff run in him anymore?

That's what we need.

He played 75 and 30+ last season. 

Not a terriblly effective player though. 

eFG of 46.1. PER of 12.8.


Chandler's was 17+ two seasons ago, and 12.3 in his crummy last season... but he did turn it on after his early season funk.


----------



## BIG and little Ben (Jul 4, 2006)

I'd really hate it if we moved Chandler and he does become an All-Star for someother team ...remember Elton Brand?


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*Merged**



madox said:


> Just making a joke.
> 
> But the truth is that if Chandler were a hard-worker this discussion wouldn't be taking place. I would have no problem giving Chandler until the trade deadline, one last chance to prove himself. But I can't fault Paxson for making this move either.
> 
> ...


He will slap the backboard though or throw his hands up to the crowd, which often confuses people into thinking Chandler is hard worker.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> So true. We appear to have some other assets available (a pick, Duhon, Sweetney, cap space?) and Tyson would likely have some value to some other teams. No one is saying he absolutely can't be traded, but there are plenty of other options.


My question to you (and others) is: What other options? When Tyson was a FA he had ZERO interest from other teams and, of course, the management and ownership was simply railed upon because they "overpaid" for him when he had no other competition for his services. Now he's openly on the market and what's being offered? Don't give me Odom or Marion or Okur or whatever. What's on the table right now? Pj Brown or Troy Murphy is all I've heard about. It's difficult to tango when you've got no one to dance with.

I think folks here are seriously over-valuing Tyson's abilities and how he's viewed around the league.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

BIG and little Ben said:


> I'd really hate it if we moved Chandler and he does become an All-Star for someother team ...remember Elton Brand?


Elton brand put up all star numbers BEFORE we traded him though


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> I think folks here are seriously over-valuing Tyson's abilities and how he's viewed around the league.


Well, at least one other team (Hornets) is willing to pay him the big $$$ as well.

7 foot + height and all NBA rebounding has value and is viewed favorably in the NBA.

Chandler is a difference maker.

We saw that in our 47 win season and we also saw it last season when he came out of his early season funk.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

theanimal23 said:


> I hear ya Mr. T. But at the same time, who has done more for this team? Who was a presence in the playoffs? Devils advocate here too


Tyson's play in the playoffs makes him the poster child for a salary dump. :biggrin: 

But lets be fair too, Shaq is out of Tyson's league. Reminds me of Hinrich when he had to guard McGrady. Did we hold that against Kirk?

I am not in love with Tyson's game and I do not advocate Reinsdorf turning into Dan Snyder. I simply view Brown for Chandler as a dump. Lets revisit Odom, Marion, etc.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

BIG and little Ben said:


> I'd really hate it if we moved Chandler and he does become an All-Star for someother team ...remember Elton Brand?


Brand hit the ground running. Almost 20/10 out of the gate. Chandler has yet to average double-digit points and he's five years into it. Chandler is never going to be a 20/10 guy or anything closely resembling it. If he hasn't done it yet - he ain't going to.

I'm pretty comfortable with thinking that Chandler is never going to be an all-star.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> How many games/minutes per game can we count on PJ Brown for this season?
> 
> Does he have 30+ a night and an extended playoff run in him anymore?
> 
> That's what we need.


I don't think we need 30+ at all. I would say somewhere in the vicinity of 20 to 25 minutes. Noc and Tyrus will play big minutes at the 4, imo.

PF - Brown 15 / Noc 20 / Tyrus 13
C - Wallace 35 / Sweets 8 / Brown 5


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Just curious, do you expect Uncle Jerry to pay some luxury tax for a contender or do you think its reasonable for him to remain under the tax threshold... assuming the $$$ isn't being spent horribly foolishly.


I really don't know. I certainly don't think its reasonable for him to refuse to go over the tax threshhold to sign players unique in value to a championship.

If he needs to spend it, I would expect him to within reason. So I guess the answer generically is "yes".


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

The ROY said:


> Elton brand put up all star numbers BEFORE we traded him though


And Tyson Chandler was an impact defensive player before we trade him.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

TripleDouble said:


> This team is built for the long haul. Why not keep a player around who can take over for Wallace when his game dictates him playing limited minutes?


And this team also lacks the 2-player star scenario. The Bulls are talented and deep. Until we can consolidate to a star, lets keep it that way.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Well, at least one other team (Hornets) is willing to pay him the big $$$ as well.
> 
> 7 foot + height and all NBA rebounding has value and is viewed favorably in the NBA.
> 
> ...


So one team constitutes "plenty" of other options?

I'd rather have a guy who never gets into a "funk" in the first place - espcially one that lasts 20 or 30 games... But that's just me.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

TripleDouble said:


> And Tyson Chandler was an impact defensive player before we trade him.


That's a little misleading given his season last year.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> I'd rather have a guy who never gets into a "funk" in the first place - espcially one that lasts 20 or 30 games... But that's just me.


I agree.

A consolidation trade can bring that guy in.

When you have a team of young players, oftentimes they are inconsistent. Heck, Hinrich went into a 10 game "funk" last season that cost us a lot of games. I'd rather have a player that didn't do that as well... but let's not dump him for Gary Payton.




> So one team constitutes "plenty" of other options?


According to that Hornets insider dude, there are other teams going after Chandler's services. Paxson is just enamored with PJ Brown. I'd like to know the other options. That guy has been a pretty reliable, and mysterious, source.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

fl_flash said:


> My question to you (and others) is: What other options? When Tyson was a FA he had ZERO interest from other teams and, of course, the management and ownership was simply railed upon because they "overpaid" for him when he had no other competition for his services. Now he's openly on the market and what's being offered? Don't give me Odom or Marion or Okur or whatever. What's on the table right now? Pj Brown or Troy Murphy is all I've heard about. It's difficult to tango when you've got no one to dance with.
> 
> I think folks here are seriously over-valuing Tyson's abilities and how he's viewed around the league.


The Bulls and Wolves were rumored to be putting a deal together for KG on draft morning and that didn't happen either. What makes Chandler for Brown any more valid than the past deals of Chandler for Marion, Chandler for Troy Murphy, etc.? Is this deal any more on the table than the KG deal was?

I'm more than happy to keep Tyson so if I over-value him I can live with it. IF we can consolidate him in a star trade, lets do it.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> And this team also lacks the 2-player star scenario. The Bulls are talented and deep. Until we can consolidate to a star, lets keep it that way.


Completely agree. If this team is going to win it is going to be through a Detroit/Portland formula. Like Detroit, the team will have great starting depth and defense, and like the Portland team that almost took LA out in 1999, the team will have guys on the bench who could start elsewhere.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> That's a little misleading given his season last year.


Is it really fair to expect a 23 year old not to be able to at least duplicate the season he had as a 21 year old?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> So one team constitutes "plenty" of other options?
> 
> I'd rather have a guy who never gets into a "funk" in the first place - espcially one that lasts 20 or 30 games... But that's just me.


Atlanta is interested, as is Golden State.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> I don't think we need 30+ at all. I would say somewhere in the vicinity of 20 to 25 minutes. Noc and Tyrus will play big minutes at the 4, imo.
> 
> PF - Brown 15 / Noc 20 / Tyrus 13
> C - Wallace 35 / Sweets 8 / Brown 5



Only 15 minutes at the PF?

Looks like we're going undersized and young again, if Noc and TT are getting the bulk.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

TripleDouble said:


> Is it really fair to expect a 23 year old not to be able to at least duplicate the season he had as a 21 year old?


Well, I think it's fair to expect a 22 year old to duplicate the season he had as a 21 year old. That didn't even come close to happening so at this point we probably shouldn't expect Tyson to duplicate that year. "Hope for" is more appropriate.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Only 15 minutes?
> 
> Looks like we're going undersized and young again, if Noc and TT are getting the bulk.


Yeah, I expect to play a good amount of small ball. But Wallace is far and away better than any player we had at that spot last year. So are Brown and Thomas for that matter.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Well, I think it's fair to expect a 22 year old to duplicate the season he had as a 21 year old. That didn't even come close to happening so at this point we probably shouldn't expect Tyson to duplicate that year. "Hope for" is more appropriate.


Considering that Tyson had the worst season of his career PER wise last year, I think the smart money is on him improving.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> My question to you (and others) is: What other options? When Tyson was a FA he had ZERO interest from other teams and, of course, the management and ownership was simply railed upon because they "overpaid" for him when he had no other competition for his services. Now he's openly on the market and what's being offered? Don't give me Odom or Marion or Okur or whatever. What's on the table right now? Pj Brown or Troy Murphy is all I've heard about. It's difficult to tango when you've got no one to dance with.
> 
> I think folks here are seriously over-valuing Tyson's abilities and how he's viewed around the league.




While it's true Tyson did not receive an offer last summer, I think some are reading way too much into that. He was a restricted free agent with a GM telling everyone he was going to be back. The market for Tyson last year was 60 million dollars. That's what Dalembert got. Troy Murphy was close enough the year before. You had guys like Bobby Simmons and Mike Dunleavy getting 9+ mill a year. Were they better players than what Tyson was then? I realize how easy it is for everyone now to say Tyson was overpaid, but coming off the season he had, it was market value. You could argue he was a overpaid a little but not ridiculously. Exactly what incentive would a team under the cap have to extend an offer sheet of fair market value value to him? So they can have their money tied up a week while other free agents pass them by? Unless you have a unique situation, you have to overpay when you extend offer sheets to players. (ie Donald Sterling as an owner, teams looking to sell their franchise, luxury tax concerns) At 64 mill, you can argue Tyson was somewhat overpaid at the time (even if though it was market value) but unless you wanted to severely overpay and give him 70-75 mill, there was absolutely no point for a team to waste their time. Would Atlanta have gotten Joe Johnson had they paid him 9 or 10 mill a season? They realized they had to overpay in order to scare Phoenix away. Who's going to really blame other teams for not handing Tyson over 70+ million because that was the only way they had a chance. 

Anyway, I don't think people are seriously over-valuing his abilities. I think people believe he can come back to the form he was at 2 years ago as bigtime defensive presense that helped in winning many games. I don't think the Tyson backers here are going to tell you he's going to suddenly get an offensive game. I won't spit out the "p" word or anything else with him. He is what he is on offense. But I believe he can easily come back to the form he was at in 04-05. 

Is that so off the wall and completely unrealistic to expect something from him that he has already done?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Yeah, I expect to play a good amount of small ball. But Wallace is far and away better than any player we had at that spot last year. So are Brown and Thomas for that matter.


I don't see any good reason to dump a young, 7 foot +, top NBA rebounder for a guy that's only playing 15-20 minutes a night and will likely hang them up after next season.

I'm pretty sure we don't even pay much if any luxury tax next season if we hold onto Chandler.


Keep Chandler and explore the consolidation trade. I'd rather have Chandler get those 20 minutes.

PJ does not bring much at this stage of his career. Ben Wallace is all the veteran big man leadership we need. PJ's skills in this are redundant as well.

I don't want to dump the #5 rebound rate player in the NBA just because we landed the #6.


I'd rather keep the height and production that Chandler brings while exploring more consolidation trades to give us a legit 35+ a night 4 that would fit better with our team.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Atlanta is interested, as is Golden State.


I gave you golden state (troy Murphy). Show me where Atlanta is interested. I'm assuming some sort of Sam Smith blurb about doing a S&T for Harrington - real reliable. Show me where there are actual talks going on with Atlanta. Until then, it's no different than the idle speculation that goes on with these boards. Nice try though.

I sure do read about a lot of suppsed interest in these boards and yet NOTHING in the various media outlets... Interesting.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

There have been rumors of a three way. I wonder if Milwaukee could be the other team. They could use a vet to tutor Bogut and Villenueva, and they also need some swingman depth. Could the Bulls possibly be getting Magloire back in the deal? I'd much prefer that over the aforementioned deal.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

TripleDouble said:


> Considering that Tyson had the worst season of his career PER wise last year, I think the smart money is on him improving.


His PER last year was as far from his career average as the PER from his best season.

Again, are you expecting major improvements from Tyson playing 15 min. per night behind Ben Wallace for the next 4 years? His value will keep going down once teams see him as nothing more than a $10 M backup.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Another point. From a consolidation trade perspective, I'd rather have Chandler as salary filler. At this point, some teams might prefer Brown, since he's on a one-year deal, but others might prefer Chandler, since he's a young big and has a future.

After this year, Chandler still has value as trade filler (especially as his contract nears its end), but PJ comes off the books and we can no longer make a consolidation trade without including a couple of our young players instead of just one of them + Tyson or PJ.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

And another point is that Ben Wallace is not getting any younger.

We expect him to log 35+ right now and next season... but it would also be nice to have Chandler to take minutes away from Ben as he inevitably ages and can't log those heavy minutes anymore.

Kinda would be nice to have a *27 year old* Tyson Chandler to take the mantle away from Big Ben when the bell tolls for the last time in the NBA in 4 years.

Also, as Ben ages, he'll likely get injured more. Chandler is perfect insurance.

This team needs to win now. If Ben has to sit for 15-20 games, those games could be the difference between having home court and not having home court in the playoffs. The future is now. Every game counts. Every transaction matters.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> I don't see any good reason to dump a young, 7 foot +, top NBA rebounder for a guy that's only playing 15-20 minutes a night and will likely hang them up after next season.


Well, Chandler is a backup for the next 3-4 years and horribly overpaid as a result. Chandler's contract might compromise our chances of resigning our core players. Plus his replacement is a better fit for next year's team. Those would qualify as good reasons.



> Keep Chandler and explore the consolidation trade. I'd rather have Chandler get those 20 minutes.


Chandler would not get 20 minutes. I would not play him for a minute with Ben Wallace on the court, and because Wallace will likely play 35 minutes, the most Chandler would get is around 15 minutues per night. That's not going to do much for his trade value.



> PJ does not bring much at this stage of his career. Ben Wallace is all the veteran big man leadership we need. PJ's skills in this are redundant as well.


I disagree here. PJ is a more rounded player than Chandler, meaning he's a better fit next to Wallace.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> His PER last year was as far from his career average as the PER from his best season.
> 
> Again, are you expecting major improvements from Tyson playing 15 min. per night behind Ben Wallace for the next 4 years? His value will keep going down once teams see him as nothing more than a $10 M backup.


First, his career PER average is 14.4. So last season was further from that than his best season. Second, don't you think it's more likely that a 23 year player would replicate his better seasons as opposed to his worst season? The guy is approaching his prime, not leaving it.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Well, Chandler is a backup for the next 3-4 years and horribly overpaid as a result. Chandler's contract might compromise our chances of resigning our core players. Plus his replacement is a better fit for next year's team. Those would qualify as good reasons.


We don't have to trade Chandler to get a player like PJ Brown. MLE one or play Malik. 

Malik can stick the outside shot, is a veteran w/ playoff exp and we won't have to give up a young, 7+ foot, top 5 rebound rate player.






> I disagree here. PJ is a more rounded player than Chandler, meaning he's a better fit next to Wallace.


He's more rounded, but not very effective.

Malik and Sweets (in two ways) are more rounded as well.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

There is little benefit ultimately to trading Chandler for Brown. If(and thats a bigger if than people wanna admit) Brown still has enough left in the tank to contribute this coming season, he *might* be a somewhat better fit with Wallace, but hell he only scored 9 points a game in 31 minutes. Its not like his presence would propel the team to a championship. The 3 on 5 scenario people envision with a pairing of Chandler and Wallace would also be a reality with Brown and Wallace, though perhaps not as severe. I think the team could survive ~10 odd minutes a game having Chandler and Wallace on court with each other, and fare much better than many of the piss poor combinations that they had to suffer with at the four and five spots in 05-06. Ultimately, with Brown, there's probably going to be way too much pressure put on Nocioni and Thomas to hold down the 4 spot, and no backup for Wallace at the 5.

I'm not the biggest Chandler fan, but he's too valuable to ultimately end up having dumped him to save money. The only way this trade is acceptable is if Pax turns around and trades Brown to some other team who is trying to rid themselves of an actual helpful player in a salary dump, or to a lesser extent if the Bulls get Armstrong or Simmons out of the trade.


----------



## beaniemac (May 4, 2006)

I think this is a great trade. who else would take tyson chandler's ridiculous contract??? you guys are nuts if you think we would be able to trade a player that averages 6ppg and has 5 years and over 50 million on a contract for a star caliber player. with that being said, the pj brown thing makes great sense since he is in the last year of a contract and this will allow us to have cap space again for next years free agents. now that tyson has been in the league for 5 seasons and hasn't improved his game at all since his rookie year, I don't understand the reasoning for having him stay here with the hope that he will miraculously hit an allstar form. I just don't see it happening personally.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> We don't have to trade Chandler to get a player like PJ Brown. MLE one or play Malik.
> 
> Malik can stick the outside shot, is a veteran w/ playoff exp and we won't have to give up a young, 7+ foot, top 5 rebound rate player.


Well, Paxson appearantly likes PJ Brown and not a player "like PJ Brown" (who would that even be in free agency?). I think Brown is better than Malik Allen.








> He's more rounded, but not very effective.


Chandler wasn't very effective last season, either. With Tyson, we're pretty much banking on potential and the flash of his contract year.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Chandler wasn't very effective last season, either. With Tyson, we're pretty much banking on potential and the flash of his contract year.


If Chandler joins the Hornets and PJ joins the Bulls, who has the higher PER next year?

Three years from now its not even worth talking about. Tyson will be 26 and PJ will be retired.


---------------------


Honestly though, PJ vs Tyson is silly talk, IMO. This is yet another salary dump. Nothing more. PJ is just like Pike and Othella in our other dump trades.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> If Chandler joins the Hornets and PJ joins the Bulls, who has the higher PER next year?
> 
> Three years from now its not even worth talking about. Tyson will be 26 and PJ will be retired.


Who will have the higher PER between Chandler and Tyrus Thomas?

I think Pax is banking on the fact that he just drafted Chandler's replacement and Brown is only a one year stopgap until Thomas takes over fulltime. Not saying I completely agree with the strategy but I do see where he is coming from.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

TripleDouble said:


> First, his career PER average is 14.4. So last season was further from that than his best season. Second, don't you think it's more likely that a 23 year player would replicate his better seasons as opposed to his worst season? The guy is approaching his prime, not leaving it.


Yes, there was 0.2 difference between the two season. That is nothing major.

I have no idea what is more likely with Tyson. He has not shown a steady path of improvement (his 2nd season was better than his 3rd, his 4th better than his 5th). For all we know, that might have been his free agent year contract push.

We're also not guaranteed any improvement. Curry and Kwame Brown didn't show improvement last year.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

Frankensteiner said:


> Well, Paxson appearantly likes PJ Brown and not a player "like PJ Brown" (who would that even be in free agency?). I think Brown is better than Malik Allen.


Why do you assume Brown is going to be able to contribute this year? He might turn out to be out of gas. 

And even if he can eke out one last useful year, how much does that benefit the team? Is the team going to win a championship this coming year with Brown and Wallace? And after this year, what do you we do? Hopefully Tyrus Thomas will be ready, but even assuming he'll be ready to step in and kick *** at the four in 07-08' the team will still need to add some quality depth in the frontcourt.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Curry and Kwame Brown didn't show improvement last year.


Curry and Brown did not play as poorly as they did during their worst season last season. Expecting Tyson to play as poorly as he did last season every season from now on is just not logical IMO.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

beaniemac said:


> I think this is a great trade. who else would take tyson chandler's ridiculous contract??? you guys are nuts if you think we would be able to trade a player that averages 6ppg and has 5 years and over 50 million on a contract for a star caliber player. with that being said, the pj brown thing makes great sense since he is in the last year of a contract and this will allow us to have cap space again for next years free agents. now that tyson has been in the league for 5 seasons and hasn't improved his game at all since his rookie year, I don't understand the reasoning for having him stay here with the hope that he will miraculously hit an allstar form. I just don't see it happening personally.


Welcome and thank you for the derogatory tone at post 14. Could you now take a moment to please enlighten me on how we will have cap space next year? Do you have any statistical evidence that Chandler hasn't improved since his rookie year that you'd like to share with the rest of us "nuts"?


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I wish tomorrow was July 4th, so this deal could have been done today.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

superdave said:


> Who will have the higher PER between Chandler and Tyrus Thomas?


Who cares? We have both. If we have 3 guys that can be 16+ PER next season at the 4/5, that's a good thing.

I have no idea how TT will play next year. I think its safe to assume he's going to start slow and look very raw.

My money is on Chandler having the higher PER. Assuming both players stay healthy of course. I should not have to care about such a thing though.



> I think Pax is banking on the fact that he just drafted Chandler's replacement and Brown is only a one year stopgap until Thomas takes over fulltime. Not saying I completely agree with the strategy but I do see where he is coming from.


Its not a strategy to build the best possible team, its a salary dump.

Having TT there should cushion the blow.... at least long term. 

But, since we hitched our wagon to Big Ben, its short term time.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

superdave said:


> Who will have the higher PER between Chandler and Tyrus Thomas?
> 
> I think Pax is banking on the fact that he just drafted Chandler's replacement and Brown is only a one year stopgap until Thomas takes over fulltime. Not saying I completely agree with the strategy but I do see where he is coming from.


The difference is theres no real need to move Chandler. Instead of dealing for Brown for this year, lets just use Chandler instead. Move Tyson at the deadline or next off season if Tyrus is ready to be the man.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

i'm not happy at all about losing chandler, but you guys are missing the big picture with regards to PJ Brown.

yes, he's a geezer. yes, he's an expiring contract (one year rental)

but i truly believe the _REASON_ pax wants him is as a homegrown veteran mentor for tyrus thomas. that's it. any significant production is gravy. this is, i believe, what pax meant when he said they would have "a support system" in place for tyrus.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Mr. T said:


> The difference is theres no real need to move Chandler. Instead of dealing for Brown for this year, lets just use Chandler instead. Move Tyson at the deadline or next off season if Tyrus is ready to be the man.


But if Tyrus gets major PT, and Chandler's role is reduced b/c of this, don't you think Chandler's value also drops? I know it is low now, but I wonder if it can get any lower.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Honestly though, PJ vs Tyson is silly talk, IMO. This is yet another salary dump. Nothing more. PJ is just like Pike and Othella in our other dump trades.


I think you're right about this move being a salary dump. Still, if the alternative to keeping Tyson is losing one of our other players when they come up for contract extensions, I don't have a problem with the move. And from a basketball standpoint, I still think Brown will have a better year than Chandler next season, and then we're developing Thomas. So really, it's Brown's next season v. Tyson next season, and then Tyrus' potential v. Tyson's potential down the line.

As far as Chandler taking over the reigns from Wallace in 4 years, I wouldn't even plan that far in advance. At that time, Chandler's going to be a year away from wanting another extension.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> i'm not happy at all about losing chandler, but you guys are missing the big picture with regards to PJ Brown.
> 
> yes, he's a geezer. yes, he's an expiring contract (one year rental)
> 
> but i truly believe the _REASON_ pax wants him is as a homegrown veteran mentor for tyrus thomas. that's it. any significant production is gravy. this is, i believe, what pax meant when he said they would have "a support system" in place for tyrus.


I'm really hoping Pax is right with his assessment on Tyrus. If he truly believes Tyrus will be special, then Tyson's PT was gonna diminish anyway. Might as well ship him out. If we go into the season with Tyson here, I wonder if, and how long it will take for Tyrus to get more minutes/start over Tyson.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> The difference is theres no real need to move Chandler. Instead of dealing for Brown for this year, lets just use Chandler instead. Move Tyson at the deadline or next off season if Tyrus is ready to be the man.


Why is Tyson ready to be the man? Because he said so?

Tyson is so far removed from being a complete NBA player (footwork, coordination, basic basketball smarts and IQ) that even the biggest optimist wouldn't see this magically come together in one offseason.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> *PJ is just like Pike and Othella in our other dump trades.*


Not at all. Pike and Othella resulted in capspace that has resulted in the addition of a valuable player. There is no cap room to be had after the 06-07 as a result of getting PJ. It serves only to save Reinsdorf money.

Its not the end of the world. Tyrus hopefully *would* be ready to step in sooner than later, and hey, we could be gettin' somethin serious from the pick swap as well, and there's always the MLE. 

The only thing is, you still have all those things if you keep Tyson, so I'd prefer to keep him, or at least get someone who would be useful beyond 06-07 for him.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

TripleDouble said:


> Curry and Brown did not play as poorly as they did during their worst season last season. Expecting Tyson to play as poorly as he did last season every season from now on is just not logical IMO.


I agree. But unless he's playing at the level of his career season, his contract is bloated and letting him go is nothing to get concerned about.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

For the people questioning the lux tax/salary dump motive: Would you be willing to pay $50 million for a guy + tax who is a role player at best? A guy who comes into games, and doesn't last long before picking up fouls? Who has shown minimal improvement? Just throwing it out there, from his point of view. The lux tax motive is not my reasoning for parting with Chandler. Just another idea...


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> I agree. But unless he's playing at the level of his career season, his contract is bloated and letting him go is nothing to get concerned about.


Fair enough. I'm not going to do it now but I am very curious to find out how many players had their best season at the age of 21.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Babble-On said:


> Not at all. Pike and Othella resulted in capspace that has resulted in the addition of a valuable player. There is no cap room to be had after the 06-07 as a result of getting PJ. It serves only to save Reinsdorf money.


Well, it turns out they were the same, if we dump Chandler for PJ Brown.

Cap Space was a shell game.

It enabled us to land Wallace, but only at the expense of losing a 23 year old 7 footer that is #5 in the NBA in rebound rate and is a NBA difference maker.

Hinrich 
Gordon
Deng
PJ Brown / RAW TT
Wallace / Malik / Sweets


Man, TT will have to be the nuts for us to make a run next year IMO.

Two years from now? Yah maybe.

Still though, cheap *** salary dumps piss me off. Especially when we don't even have to pay the tax next season and Chandler could be used in a consolidation trade.

If a team is willing to make this deal now, they will more than likely be willing to make this deal next off-season, when the tax issue is looming larger.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

More fictitious trades that can be openly discussed:



> Wallace’s arrival means Tyson Chandler is on his way out. The Bulls don’t want two defensive-minded centers as the team’s highest-paid players, so Chandler will likely leave soon in a trade.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

theanimal23 said:


> For the people questioning the lux tax/salary dump motive: Would you be willing to pay $50 million for a guy + tax who is a role player at best? A guy who comes into games, and doesn't last long before picking up fouls? Who has shown minimal improvement? Just throwing it out there, from his point of view. The lux tax motive is not my reasoning for parting with Chandler. Just another idea...


Didn't Dallas - a team that almost won a title this year, essentially do even worse when they acquired Dampier?


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Well, it turns out they were the same, if we dump Chandler for PJ Brown.
> 
> Cap Space was a shell game.


No it wasn't. It got you Ben Wallace.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Who cares? We have both. If we have 3 guys that can be 16+ PER next season at the 4/5, that's a good thing.
> 
> I have no idea how TT will play next year. I think its safe to assume he's going to start slow and look very raw.
> 
> ...


I think Paxson cares. Love him or hate him, he has shown in the past that he is willing to move a young player who he doesn't see fitting in with the team's long term plans. Prime example is Crawford in which we received Harrington, Frankie W, and spare parts. Here's a quote from the press conference and perhaps we'll just substitute JC for Chandler:

'It’s never easy to move a player with the ability of a Jamal Crawford [Tyson Chandler]. As evidenced by his time here, he has a world of talent and we wish him well,' said Paxson. 'However, there are realities of this business and this move is one of them. This trade accelerates our team’s flexibility and moves us in the right direction.'

Basketball is a business and while this trade is not set in stone I would be okay with it going down. Chandler is what he is (much like Eddy and Kwame) and his services to the team are replaceable.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*we got ben wallace???*


:smilewink

you'd think pax is about to trade away our leading scorer or something!


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> No it wasn't. It got you Ben Wallace.


It enabled us to land Wallace, but only at the expense of losing a 23 year old 7 footer that is #5 in the NBA in rebound rate and is a NBA difference maker.

We were supposed to ADD TALENT, not SWAP TALENT. Sure, net we're ahead next year. 3 years from now?

Hinrich / Duhon
Gordon / Swiss guy
Deng / Noc
PJ Brown / RAW TT
Wallace / Malik / Sweets


Man, TT will have to be the nuts for us to make a run next year IMO.

Two years from now? Yah maybe.

Still though, cheap *** salary dumps piss me off. Especially when we don't even have to pay the tax next season and Chandler could be used in a consolidation trade for a player that would make us a legit contender.

If a team is willing to make this deal now, we can find one that will more than likely be willing to make this deal next off-season, when the tax issue is looming larger.


Chandler was as effective two seasons ago as Wallace was last season for the Pistons. This is a mistake.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> i'm not happy at all about losing chandler, but you guys are missing the big picture with regards to PJ Brown.
> 
> yes, he's a geezer. yes, he's an expiring contract (one year rental)
> 
> but i truly believe the _REASON_ pax wants him is as a homegrown veteran mentor for tyrus thomas. that's it. any significant production is gravy. this is, i believe, what pax meant when he said they would have "a support system" in place for tyrus.


I agree.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> It enabled us to land Wallace, but only at the expense of losing a 23 year old 7 footer that is #5 in the NBA in rebound rate and is a NBA difference maker.


Would you rather have Tyson instead of Ben? 

Per 48 or rates, at least for me, mean nothing. No one can play at the same level for 48 min. Few players play near that many minutes. Iverson does. Chandler doesn't have the skillset or the ability to stay on the court to make him the best rebounder or live up to the per 48 stats. For me, it is one of the most overblown stats. 

The way I see it. Ben Wallace >>>>> Tyson Chandler. Tyson Chandler is a role/bench player who will not live up to his value. I think Pax realizes this and knows Tyrus will replace Tyson's role on D (weak side blocker) and provide any offense Tyson could never provide.


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

superdave said:


> Why is Tyson ready to be the man? Because he said so?
> 
> Tyson is so far removed from being a complete NBA player (footwork, coordination, basic basketball smarts and IQ) that even the biggest optimist wouldn't see this magically come together in one offseason.


Um, SD, he said *Tyrus*, actually.

Carry on...


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

mizenkay said:


> *we got ben wallace???*
> 
> 
> :smilewink
> ...


I guess some of us were hoping Chandler would be used as a big piece of a consolidation move. Brown is gone after this year. We use his services this year or we use him as an expiring contract in a trade. Unless Brown is part of a 3-way (in his dreams :clown: ), I'm guessing we're going to use his services. So when that consolidation does come and the Chandler slot is gone, which core player(s) will be sacrificed instead of Chandler?

I also thought Reinsdorf said he was willing to pay for a winner. Addition, followed by subtraction is not what I had in mind.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> Would you rather have Tyson instead of Ben?


Its not an either-or question. That's the point.

We currently have Ben and Tyson.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

mizenkay said:


> i'm not happy at all about losing chandler, but you guys are missing the big picture with regards to PJ Brown.
> 
> yes, he's a geezer. yes, he's an expiring contract (one year rental)
> 
> but i truly believe the _REASON_ pax wants him is as a homegrown veteran mentor for tyrus thomas. that's it. any significant production is gravy. this is, i believe, what pax meant when he said they would have "a support system" in place for tyrus.


Keep Livingston at the end of the bench. He's cheaper and doesn't cost you Chandler.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

PC Load Letter said:


> Um, SD, he said *Tyrus*, actually.
> 
> Carry on...


Whoops. Kramer made me post that.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Babble-On said:


> Why do you assume Brown is going to be able to contribute this year? He might turn out to be out of gas.


You might be right in so far as there's some risk with every 36 year old. However, Brown has been durable in his career and a solid player last season. I can't remember a single player who was still very close to his career averages at 36 and then completely conked out at 37.



> And even if he can eke out one last useful year, how much does that benefit the team? Is the team going to win a championship this coming year with Brown and Wallace? And after this year, what do you we do? Hopefully Tyrus Thomas will be ready, but even assuming he'll be ready to step in and kick *** at the four in 07-08' the team will still need to add some quality depth in the frontcourt.


Noc, Sweets, NYK pick, MLE... there's your quality depth. You don't need the $60M man to sit on your bench for the majority of the game for the next 4 years to have quality depth.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

I really don't get this love pouring out for Tyson.

On draft night when we got Tyrus I thought now Tyson is good to go and then we got Ben Freaking Wallace and people still think there is a room for Tyson in our roster?

I don't get it.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I just don't get the fascination with Tyson. Eddy never got this treatment. Neither was better than the other in terms of fixing the holes in their game. Yet, Tyson b/c he is still 23 can fulfill his potential? Numerous NBA players come in with potential, yet will never fullfill it. Those that become decent players show improvements each year, especially their early years. In addition, these players actually work hard in the offseason. Yeah, I'm gonna believe Tyson will be an all-star next year since he is working out in LA. That's any different than the past 4 years. We let it slide year 1 and/or 2 b/c he is a young kid coming from HS and needs to be near his family. How is this any different than college kids working/studying during the school year and summers? Sure, family is good. But in the early stages, work comes before play. If he was a Vet who we could trust that would work on his game on his own and can condition himself, it would be a different story. Gotta love Tyson working out each season. Maybe next year he can declare that he'll win DPOY and MVP. We all know, he won't sniff the All-Star game this year.


----------



## KwaZulu (Jul 7, 2003)

Hey K4E, have a little more lemon juice in your vinegar! The Bulls just hit a home run and you're just a sourpuss about it all. One gets the impression you would rather see the Bulls fail in this iteration of the team to justify your prejudices against Pax, Skiles, etc. They may not have built the team the way you wanted or with the players you wanted, but at least give them credit. You seem to have difficullty doing even that!


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> i'm not happy at all about losing chandler, but you guys are missing the big picture with regards to PJ Brown.
> 
> but i truly believe the _REASON_ pax wants him is as a homegrown veteran mentor for tyrus thomas. that's it. any significant production is gravy. this is, i believe, what pax meant when he said they would have "a support system" in place for tyrus.


This makes me very upset. Bringing in P.J. because he's from Louisiana? Because this will help Tyrus? 

Here's an idea. Hire Randy Livingston (LSU alumni) as an assistant coach. This move costs us what, maybe 300K? Who do you think Tyrus would be more comfortable with, PJ or Randy? I'll say Randy... after all, he did spend the last few months working out with Tyrus every day! 

But wait, PJ's a big man mentor, Randy's only a guard... HELLO... we did just sign Ben freaking Wallace! He already fills our AD role and then some. 

Just sign Livingston to support Tyrus. As an added bonus, Gordon can continue his "late night film sessions" with him as well. :cowboy:

This is not about PJ Brown mentoring Tyrus or the "veteran leadership" he will bring. I think that is how Paxson will spin things to the press. This is a salary dump, pure and simple.


----------



## ScottVdub (Jul 9, 2002)

i wouldn't mind if chanlder stayed. the team is deep enough now where he is going to have to be consistent or he isn't gonna be on the floor. So we should only see the good side of tyson assuming that they bench his *** as soon as he stinks it up. If having him on the roster prevents us from resigning Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, or Nocioni then Tyson has got to go. But if we would be able to keep what we got then i see nothing wrong with having the leading rebounder per 48 minutes in the entire nba be on this team. Tyson Chandler playing alongside the defensive player of the year doesn't sound too bad to me.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Hey guys, sorry I'm late to the party...been out of town for the holiday. In regards to the thread topic, I have this to say:

- I'm basically against trading Chandler for Brown/Smith, but I don't think we should overdramatize this the way some of you are. Chandler doesn't have a ton of room to grow anymore; we're not losing an all-star nor anything close to it. And if I were an owner, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to be paying him an average of $10M over the next 5 years. 

- Another thing being lost in this discussion is how good the Bulls will be _next season_ one way or the other. Are we better with Chandler/Wallace as our starting bigs, or with Brown/Wallace? Personally I think we make a bigger run into the playoffs with Brown/Wallace. PJ Brown is still good for excellent defense, solid rebounding, a money jumpshot from 15 feet in, and he's a terrific veteran leader. As mizenkay alluded to, PJ will be the perfect mentor for Tyrus Thomas; he's just like Antonio Davis in that regard.

- Also, JR Smith...if he's really included here you can't be too upset. Yes he's had a rocky start attitude-wise to his career. But this kid has LOADS of talent and might blow us away. Seriously, he has star potential. A fresh start in Chicago might be all he needs; he's one hell of a throw-in IMO.

- Finally, yes this is a salary dump trade first and foremost. But here's the bottom line...we have our starting C for the next 4 years. And our starting PF for the next 10-15 years might also be on board (that would be Ty Thomas). That makes Chandler a backup, and with all this good young talent somebody has to be let go. I do NOT want to lose Gordon, Deng, or Nocioni next summer when they're all up for extensions. 

So while I'd rather keep Tyson for a while longer, and I also think he can be better used in a different sort of trade (like maybe closer to the trade deadline?), this move is defendable. There is rationale behind it. And I've seen many many MANY transactions that are far worse than this. I'd get over this very quickly, especially after witnessing the positive results come next season.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

yodurk said:


> - Also, JR Smith...this kid has LOADS of talent .


*sham's head explodes* :biggrin: 

seriously, i like your points. and yeah, i don't like the pj brown trade, but no it isn't 
the worst thing that could happen. either way we're gonna rock next year.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

paxman said:


> *sham's head explodes* :biggrin:
> 
> seriously, i like your points. and yeah, i don't like the pj brown trade, but no it isn't
> the worst thing that could happen. either way we're gonna rock next year.


Getting one of my arms chopped off tomorrow wouldn't be the absolute worst thing that could happen either, but I'll continue to argue against having my arm chopped off.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

MikeDC said:


> Getting one of my arms chopped off tomorrow wouldn't be the absolute worst thing that could happen either, but I'll continue to argue against having my arm chopped off.




"you know what the punishment is, right? crusifixion.
- it could be worse
worse?! how could anything be worse than a slow and excruciating death?! you're weeeeird!"


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

paxman said:


> *sham's head explodes* :biggrin:
> 
> seriously, i like your points. and yeah, i don't like the pj brown trade, but no it isn't
> the worst thing that could happen. either way we're gonna rock next year.


Haha, I just played catch up on all these threads and noticed ShamBulls vast dislike for JR Smith. I guess I'll have to agree to disagree. JR Smith is an elite level athlete, and I see him as a skilled albeit misguided young player. As a player coming out of high school, the first couple years are typically the hardest. He's just finished his first 2 seasons...I think he's worth taking on for a year and seeing if it pays off.

Back to the Chandler talk though...yeah, personally I wouldn't do this trade but on a scale from 1 (horrible) to 10 (excellent), I'd give it a 4. It's a below-average transaction. We lose an athletic big man and get barely anything for the long term. But like I said, PJ Brown for 1 season is a really good fit IMO...and we can re-sign all our other guys more comfortably. We also transition Tyrus Thomas into our starting PF slowly but surely, who could be a great fit with Ben Wallace for the 4 years that he's here.

I equate this move to something of a "Steve Nash leaving Dallas" scenario. Dallas could've kept Nash if they chose to pay out his contract. But with so much depth and young talent on the roster, it was not a good salary move to keep him on the books. Essentially they dumped him...a different type of transaction mind you, but the same end result. Dallas was still a darn good team. And I think we'll be one hell of a team too. We have plenty of talented players to throw out there anyhow, thanks to shrewd drafting.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

yodurk said:


> I equate this move to something of a "Steve Nash leaving Dallas" scenario. Dallas could've kept Nash if they chose to pay out his contract. But with so much depth and young talent on the roster, it was not a good salary move to keep him on the books. Essentially they dumped him...a different type of transaction mind you, but the same end result. Dallas was still a darn good team. And I think we'll be one hell of a team too. We have plenty of talented players to throw out there anyhow, thanks to shrewd drafting.


That's an interesting take. After watching Dallas sort of came apart in the Finals, it seems to be an argument that they might have won had they had the back to back MVP. Yeah, they'd have had to pay the luxury tax for a couple years, but one would think a championship would be worth that.

Obviously Chandler isn't a back to back MVP winner, or even close. For that matter, I actually don't think Nash deserved to win the MVP. But I do think the Mavs had a significantly better chance of winning the title with him on the roster, and I think it's quite possible we would have a better chance at a title in 3 years with Chandler than with this trade.

(I know you're not in favor of the trade, I'm just going on about your example).









Snorky Speak!


----------



## draft tyrus (Jun 29, 2006)

so all of a sudden Tyson is Steve Nash? I thought he was a one-dimensional, weak bum who averages 5 min/game because of foul trouble with no offensive game and tiny hands who has regressed throughout his entire career being paid a monster contract. what have i missed?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

draft tyrus said:


> so all of a sudden Tyson is Steve Nash? I thought he was a one-dimensional, weak bum who averages 5 min/game because of foul trouble with no offensive game and tiny hands who has regressed throughout his entire career being paid a monster contract. what have i missed?


You're sort of missing the point. 

Dallas lost Steve Nash for nothing. Neither Cuban nor Nash wanted it to happen, but they had so much good young talent that they wanted to keep; paying Nash over $10M (??) per year for the next 6 years was just over the top financially. So they dumped him, essentially. Same thing with Chandler...by trading him for expiring contracts we're dumping him so that we have the ability to keep the rest of the guys. Point being, sometimes you lose players for nothing. It doesn't always mean the death of the team. Sometimes it proves to be the right move even. 

Mike, yeah maybe Dallas would've won something by now with Nash at the helm, but with how they lost the championship by a measly nose hair, it's hard to argue that they aren't a championship caliber team. The key for them was, despite losing Nash for nothing, that they still had plenty of talent to go around. I think it's clear that the Bulls do too. We're obviously stacked at the 1, 2, and 3. At the 5, it appears we have our starter for the next four years (and a backup shouldn't be terribly hard to find). At the 4, we have a stopgap for Tyrus until he finds his way; if he contributes after 1 season then great...if not, we have the MLE to spend next summer. We also have another possible lotto pick thanks to the Knicks in '07. Seriously, there are plenty of ways to replace a dumped contract.

As I said before though, the reason I'm _mildly_ against this trade: I think we should be trying to consolidate several of our young guys into a star-level scorer. And Chandler would be an ideal piece to throw in there, both for salary reasons and because a ton of teams need a defensive/rebounding presence like him. It feels a little better to actually get some long term value for him.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*



CiMa said:


> I seriously don't want to see him go. I'm happy and all that we got Ben Wallace, but at the expense of Chandler? I personally think these two should be playing together or backing up one another. I'm not a fan of Chandler for PJ Brown whatsoever, I think it would be Pax's worst move of all time. I mean seriously...PJ Brown? ugh.
> 
> I like this team where it's at. Tyson Chandler right now is Ben Wallace-lite, and playing alongside Ben Wallace for a few years, when Wallace is done, Chandler could become just as good if not better than Ben. He needs to stay!



I agree Pax should hold onto Chandler and let Wallace mentor him.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*



ace20004u said:


> I agree Pax should hold onto Chandler and let Wallace mentor him.


Tysons problem is not a lack of knowing the ropes...


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Tyson's been mentored by enough players and coaches...

now is the time to throw in the towel...

He couldn't even average 10 rebs & 2 blks after getting 60 million?

If you think the fans aren't happy, imagine how Reinsdorf & Paxson feel...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Does anyone else want Chandler to STAY?!*

I remember two seasons ago we would play and hang with the champion Pistons and the Wallaces and actually beat them... with the crap players Curry, Chandler and the one good player AD.

2 wins
http://www.databasebasketball.com/teams/boxscore.htm?yr=2004&b=20041222&tm=Det
http://www.databasebasketball.com/teams/boxscore.htm?yr=2004&b=20050122&tm=Det

2 losses
http://www.databasebasketball.com/teams/boxscore.htm?yr=2004&b=20050411&tm=Chi (OVERTIME)
http://www.databasebasketball.com/teams/boxscore.htm?yr=2004&b=20050103&tm=Chi


Man, that stiff Chandler sure played like crap in these games. Dump em.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

yodurk said:


> Dallas lost Steve Nash for nothing. Neither Cuban nor Nash wanted it to happen, but they had so much good young talent that they wanted to keep; paying Nash over $10M (??) per year for the next 6 years was just over the top financially. So they dumped him, essentially. Same thing with Chandler...by trading him for expiring contracts we're dumping him so that we have the ability to keep the rest of the guys. Point being, sometimes you lose players for nothing. It doesn't always mean the death of the team. Sometimes it proves to be the right move even.
> 
> 
> .



One big difference between the Dallas situation and this situation is that Dallas, when they let Nash go, brought in two not old players Terry and Harris to plug the hole, along with Darell Armstrong. The quivalent to what the Bulls are doing would be if Dallas had let Nash go, then penciled in Darell Armstrong as the team's starter. There doesn't seem to be any indication that the Bulls are going to make any additional moves to solidy the frontcourt after this trade. 

I'm just emotionally preparing myself for facing the realities of Sweetney coming in and being productive being a need rather than a bonus, and for Nocioni to have to try playing starters minutes at the 4, or for Tyrus not being ready but needing him to step up anyway, and for there to be no backup center, and thus playing Ben way too many minutes. :sigh:

That scenario seems far more likely than does the scenario that 37 year old PJ effectively making it through starting for the Bulls and then going the deepest he's gone into the postseason in 10 years.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Babble-On said:


> I'm just emotionally preparing myself for facing the realities of Sweetney coming in and being productive being a need rather than a bonus, and for Nocioni to have to try playing starters minutes at the 4, or for Tyrus not being ready but needing him to step up anyway, and for there to be no backup center, and thus playing Ben way too many minutes. :sigh:


If we are to be a contending team, most of those things need to happen regardless of whether or not Chandler is on the roster.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

Frankensteiner said:


> If we are to be a contending team, most of those things need to happen regardless of whether or not Chandler is on the roster.


I don't see how you can be comfortable with the idea of needing Sweetney to be productive, or Noch playing full time minutes at power forward. And Pax himself has said that Tyrus i almost like a guy right out of high school.

We're definitely going to be a lot better, because we'll have at least one really good big, but I was looking forward to having depth at the four and five positions this year, being at least 3 deep with players who are legit bigs and can play starter's minutes, and instead, we look to be still be pretty thin outside of Big Ben. Thats dissapointing. 

I'm happy with the Wallace signing and the draft, but I'm not happy with having another year with a patchwork frontline. 

I'm not happy with a one year rental/salary dump either. I've watched the Bulls entire team score 49 points in an entire game. I've watched the Bulls lose by moire than 50 points, all while we the fan base stood by the team. So **** a slary dump or any other move thats more for the bottom line than it is for furthering the goal of winning a title. I supported the Curry and Crawford moves because I could see how it gave the Bulls greater flexibilty towards improving the team. Best case scenario, Brown is good for one year of servicable play and being Tyrus' babysitter.


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

Keep him..Wallace will be a great mentor for championship hoops. Cartwright..too young. Oakley a Knick bum. AD brought out the best in C/C. Wallace will show the way for Chandler.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Babble-On said:


> One big difference between the Dallas situation and this situation is that Dallas, when they let Nash go, brought in two not old players Terry and Harris to plug the hole, along with Darell Armstrong.


Actually I think that's exactly what we're doing by getting PJ Brown for 1 season. He's not garbage. Still good for _at least_ 20 min/game, a money 15-foot jumper, vet leadership and saavy, strong defense and rebounding. Not sure if we could find a better offer for Chandler or not, but my own opinion is that Brown/Wallace will produce more wins in 06-07 than Chandler/Wallace.

Beyond the 06-07 season, we'll have the mid-level exception to sign a vet PF to replace Brown. Or just maybe, Tyrus Thomas will be ready to step in and start at the 4 by his second season. Wait and see on that one. Either way, we'll have the means to plug the hole.

And let's also not forget that we have that nifty Knicks pick swap for '07, which might land yet another young talented big man.


----------



## draft tyrus (Jun 29, 2006)

yodurk said:


> You're sort of missing the point.
> 
> Dallas lost Steve Nash for nothing. Neither Cuban nor Nash wanted it to happen, but they had so much good young talent that they wanted to keep; paying Nash over $10M (??) per year for the next 6 years was just over the top financially. So they dumped him, essentially. Same thing with Chandler...by trading him for expiring contracts we're dumping him so that we have the ability to keep the rest of the guys. Point being, sometimes you lose players for nothing. It doesn't always mean the death of the team. Sometimes it proves to be the right move even.
> 
> ...


I'm not missing the point. We're losing him for cap space, which means Kirk, Luol, Ben, Noce for a few more years than would have been possible before. That's better than bringing in new players.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

The Channel 9 news just reported...the deal isn't ok'd yet because he's still waiting to see if he can get a better trade by tomorrrow...


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

draft tyrus said:


> I'm not missing the point. We're losing him for cap space, which means Kirk, Luol, Ben, Noce for a few more years than would have been possible before. That's better than bringing in new players.


Maybe I need a sarcasm detector...I was having a hard time interpreting your stance, unless I your sig at least. :clown:


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

yodurk said:


> but my own opinion is that Brown/Wallace will produce more wins in 06-07 than Chandler/Wallace.
> 
> Beyond the 06-07 season, we'll have the mid-level exception to sign a vet PF to replace Brown. Or just maybe, Tyrus Thomas will be ready to step in and start at the 4 by his second season. Wait and see on that one. Either way, we'll have the means to plug the hole.



This is the logic John Paxson is using in this move, and it is good logic. Logic that keeps teams out of the red and with enough maneuvering room to keep pilfering the Knicks. annually.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

yodurk said:


> Actually I think that's exactly what we're doing by getting PJ Brown for 1 season.


How so? Dallas got two young guys in addition to a 37 year old. Tyrus is the Devin Harris of this scenario, and PJ is Darell Armstong. Where's our Jason Terry? If we get a guy in here who is <30 and can play servicably, then I'm cool with the move. As of right now, it looks like PJ is being penciled in as the starter, which I think will end badly.



yodurk said:


> Beyond the 06-07 season, we'll have the mid-level exception to sign a vet PF to replace Brown. Or just maybe, Tyrus Thomas will be ready to step in and start at the 4 by his second season. Wait and see on that one. Either way, we'll have the means to plug the hole.
> 
> And let's also not forget that we have that nifty Knicks pick swap for '07, which might land yet another young talented big man.


We'll also need a backup 5 as well. I hope that Tyrus is ready by his second season. And I do think another lotto pick is coming our way. I just wish we had a backup plan. We could be in a situation where we need both a servicable starting four and a backup five, with only the MLE to spend, and honestly I don't see anyone next summer worth getting in that price range. Most likely, we'd be able to more than make up the difference.

Losing Tyson isn't the end of the world. I don't think anyone should count on him being able to play fulltime starter's minutes, or be much of a scorer. But I think in a reserve role he's valuable. And I have a bad bad bad feeling about starting PJ Brown and not having good big man depth.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

also, i propose a new rule:

no griping about the Chandler trade when there isnt even serious talk of any other good deal that Paxson is passing up. like REAL talk.

why is it so hard to fathom that there are no other suitors for Chandler? no one but NO really wants him, wants to pay that salary. and in their moment of inexplicable spending, we should agree to their demands.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

DengNabbit said:


> also, i propose a new rule:
> 
> no griping about the Chandler trade when there isnt even serious talk of any other good deal that Paxson is passing up. like REAL talk.
> 
> why is it so hard to fathom that there are no other suitors for Chandler? no one but NO really wants him, wants to pay that salary. and in their moment of inexplicable spending, we should agree to their demands.


What if you think keeping him is better than alary dumping him? Is it ok to gripe then?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Babble-On said:


> How so? Dallas got two young guys in addition to a 37 year old. Tyrus is the Devin Harris of this scenario, and PJ is Darell Armstong. Where's our Jason Terry? If we get a guy in here who is <30 and can play servicably, then I'm cool with the move. As of right now, it looks like PJ is being penciled in as the starter, which I think will end badly.


Valid points. You're dead on with the Tyrus Thomas comparison...grooming him as the backup PF-of-the-future is exactly what Dallas did with Harris. Darrell Armstrong barely played though, whereas PJ Brown should give us around 20-25 minutes. Crazy as it sounds, I think Sweets and Malik Allen will grab the spare minutes left behind by Wallace, Brown, and Ty Thomas. And even crazier, I think they'll do a good job in those roles. Sweets looked like a real player in the playoffs (even lost some weight by season's end) and I see Ben Wallace as the ideal guy to make him look good. The dark horse fill-in here is Darius Songaila...it looks like he's out of our price range now but if his market value is low then he'll be a good backup to PJ Brown.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

yodurk said:


> Valid points. You're dead on with the Tyrus Thomas comparison...grooming him as the backup PF-of-the-future is exactly what Dallas did with Harris. Darrell Armstrong barely played though, whereas PJ Brown should give us around 20-25 minutes. Crazy as it sounds, I think Sweets and Malik Allen will grab the spare minutes left behind by Wallace, Brown, and Ty Thomas. And even crazier, I think they'll do a good job in those roles. Sweets looked like a real player in the playoffs (even lost some weight by season's end) and I see Ben Wallace as the ideal guy to make him look good. The dark horse fill-in here is Darius Songaila...it looks like he's out of our price range now but if his market value is low then he'll be a good backup to PJ Brown.


I hope you're right :cheers:


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

DengNabbit said:


> also, i propose a new rule:
> 
> no griping about the Chandler trade when there isnt even serious talk of any other good deal that Paxson is passing up. like REAL talk.
> 
> why is it so hard to fathom that there are no other suitors for Chandler? no one but NO really wants him, wants to pay that salary. and in their moment of inexplicable spending, we should agree to their demands.



I think the 'other good deal' would be to hang out to Chandler and see how things play out... so I vote no to your new rule.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Babble-On said:


> I don't see how you can be comfortable with the idea of needing Sweetney to be productive, or Noch playing full time minutes at power forward. And Pax himself has said that Tyrus i almost like a guy right out of high school.
> 
> We're definitely going to be a lot better, because we'll have at least one really good big, but I was looking forward to having depth at the four and five positions this year, being at least 3 deep with players who are legit bigs and can play starter's minutes, and instead, we look to be still be pretty thin outside of Big Ben. Thats dissapointing.


Personally, I think at worst Brown and Chandler are a wash for next season, although I fully expect Brown to be better contributor than Tyson. I'm curious to see your projected minute breakdown for the 4/5 with and without Tyson on the roster. Brown is capable of playing more minutes alongside Wallace, so if anything, Noc and Tyrus would have needed to play more "4" minutes with Tyson still on the team. But maybe you don't consider Wallace being a 35 minute player?


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

disregard


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

Frankensteiner said:


> Personally, I think at worst Brown and Chandler are a wash for next season, although I fully expect Brown to be better contributor than Tyson. I'm curious to see your projected minute breakdown for the 4/5 with and without Tyson on the roster. Brown is capable of playing more minutes alongside Wallace, so if anything, Noc and Tyrus would have needed to play more "4" minutes with Tyson still on the team. But maybe you don't consider Wallace being a 35 minute player?


I'd honestly like to cut Wallace's minutes a little bit. I think one of the flaws in what Detroit did in 05-06 was they ran their regulars a little bit into the ground. I'd like that maybe shave three of those minutes off, and have Ben at 32 minutes. So with Tyson:

Wallace 32/Chandler 16
Noch 10-15/Chandler 9/Tyrus maybe 20/ Misc 5-10 minutes
Deng 30ish/Noch 18-20/Thabo in there sometimes for a few
Gordon 30/Thabo 18
Hinrich 32/Duhon 16

with Brown:
Wallace as much 39/Misc 10
Brown 20-25 or DNP or injured list/Misc people as Skiles tries to find a consistent solution
Deng 30/Noch 18-20/Thabo in there sometimes
Gordon 30/Thabo 18
Hinrich 32/Duhon 16


----------

