# Tyson just officially bottomed out



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

5 fouls in 4 minutes against the Pacers,with 1 turnover. Completely ineffective at everything. Only effective at being ineffective.

It doesn't get much worse than that. Except maybe Pargo's 5 turnovers in 6 minutes speciality. But at least he scored 4 points in that time.




I've been a Tyson excuser and defender all season. I still am. Although right now there's no excuses, just reasons.



Tyson hasn't lost his ability to play basketball. He's just forgotten how to tap into it. With such an emotional young sproggit, with such a confidence player, the arse will inevitably fall out sometimes. It happened before after his back thing. I'm not sure that's something that will ever leave Tyson, that's just who he is as a human being. 


Nevertheless, we know what he can do. And he knew what he can do. He just can't do it right now. At all. Even slightly.


I ask you all to not be complete sods about it. Exasperated, miffed, angry, fine, whatever. Christ knows no one is happy about it, except maybe the most sadistic Paxson hater. You know the type, the ones who get off on failure. We're just stuck with it right now, and so is he.


No amount of shouting at him will help. Seemingly, no amount of playing time will help. It's hard to know exactly what will help. The only thing I can think of is a break. And there isn't one of those coming until the offseason. He can't just start flat riding the bench right now, because when he does, this happens. In limited minutes, he tries too hard, thinks too hard, and sucks too hard. And so, I fear, we're stuck with this glaring inconsistency, with alarming low points, throughout the season. Which would be a pain in the bum. But hey. if that's what it tales for him to mend himself, then that's what it takes.



And in the words of that bird from M People, "The only way is up.........baaaaaaay-baaayyyy........."


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Pax should have asked to test his DNA for sucking. One of these days he'll play so poorly on the floor, he'll probably die of embarrassment.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Actually, I've never heard Tyson being accused of working too hard by anyone.

Maybe instead of sitting around watching tapes of the good old days and feeling sorry for himself he should actually do some work.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

I'm volunteering Monday and helping to paint the children's reading room at our local branch of the library. Maybe I'll scratch that and take Tyson to the zoo and Water Tower Place instead.

No one likes Tyson more than me, and I would have gone ape**** if Pax hadn't re-upped it. But in the words of Frank Vitchard, this is getting to be ri-god-damn-diculous.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Wow I was one of the main "we need to resign him because the Bulls never resign anyone" crowd and now I feel like a complete fool because we shouldve waited .

I dont understand it of course you dont have to play full court to work on your game during the summer there is the weight room and individual instruction but he chose to chill out and relax and watch heartgate unfold  Wow.... I mean just..... Wow


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Anyone still seriously think he's a 5?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Chander is so bad he does not even get a number.

He should be on the inactive list. He's awful right now.

Paxson resigned the wrong guy. Maybe he'd be better with other big men around him. Now we're stuck with him.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

no , he is a tall 4 untill he packs on the pounds and he is out of position...he needs big bodies around his slender frame until he bulks up....but that had nothing to do with tonite anyway its not like jeff foster is a widebody...they are probably within 5 pounds of each other....he just stunk, sometimes players do that for no other reason than it not his night .

but for consistent contributions he needs to be in a position to succeed and the bulls aren't really built for that right now.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

Several years ago Jerry Krause drafted a 7 footer out of Ohio State named Brad Sellers. Some of you may recall that Michael Jordan wanted Krause to draft Johnny Dawkins from Duke, who MJ played against. Of course, Dawkins had a nice career and Sellers was a bust. Krause also drafted Will Perdue out of Vanderbilt. Perdue was a walking advertisement for mediocrity (and I am being kind). The best thing you can say about Will is that he was trade bait for Dennis Rodman (fyi, Jim Stack thought up that trade, not Krause).

Why do I bring this up? I have been a Bulls fan since the inception of the franchise. Before that I was Packers/Zephyrs fan as a kid. I never thought I could hate a player as much as I hated Sellers. He was the softest 7 footer you have ever seen. He was pitiful. I couldn't bring myself to hate Perdue as much for some reason. Perhaps it was his goofy smile. However, I think Tyson Chandler is starting to get to me like Sellers did. Tonight was indeed one of the most pathetic performances I have ever seen from a professional basketball player. Can we take five and a half more years of this? 

I predict that before long Chandler will need to have a couple of security guards protecting him from the fans at the United Center. After about a year of that Reinsdorf and Paxson will make the strategic decision to eat the remainder of his contract and release him. Perhaps there will be a buy-out a la Eddie Robinson. Sorry, but I have to leave now, I think I heard my wife downstairs calling the hospital for them to pick me up.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

ShamBulls said:


> I ask you all to not be complete sods about it. Exasperated, miffed, angry, fine, whatever. Christ knows no one is happy about it, except maybe the most sadistic Paxson hater. You know the type, the ones who get off on failure. We're just stuck with it right now, and so is he.


Why not? Shouldn't everyone get their day in the sun. I mean, this is, after all, just my opinion. One of the greatest lessons I've learned in life is that all the things I think are just that, thoughts, and opinions. Just because the circumstances look an awful lot like I thought they did doesn't make me right. The second greatest lesson to be learned is how to simply say the words "I'm wrong" which you seem reluctant to do. I mostly read you on Realgm and don't think you post the same way here, because it's a different crowd, but all I've read over there are some pretty reasonable people pointing out what's only now become glaringly obvious to even you, while you continued to ridicule them and tell them that if they couldn't see the obvious, that Tyson would be back, they were just blind. You, Duck, Frink, etc. And now you are asking people not to do the exact same thing many Tyson/Paxson-ites did with Eddy Curry. Enjoyed his failure, personally ridiculed him, mocked his game and ridiculed those who couldn't see the obvious. There was no acceptance of counterargument, because after all, Paxson's way was "the right way." Tyson was a legit full-time center, the Bulls would be better without Eddy Curry because 82-games.com says so, and there "really is no value in Eddy's post game cause even if he draws a double, he can't pass out of it." 

Now I'm all for moving on and recognizing that these are my Chicago Bulls even if I disagree with a lot about the organization. But why not just step back and say, "you know this isn't about end results, but presumptions, which can always swing back and forth, and right now the overwhelming presumption is that several claims I made about Tyson and other things, are wrong"? What's so bad about that? 

I'll do it now. List of things I've been wrong about regarding the Chicago Bulls. The following are things I've claimed about the Bulls only to be *wrong*:

1. We wouldn't skip a beat when B.J. Armstrong took over for Paxson and Armstrong would retire in Chicago.
2. The 1994 Bulls would struggle to win 45 games without Michael Jordan
3. Horace Grant would *never* leave the Bulls
4. Bill Cartwright can play until at least 1997
5. Toni Kukoc could have a role on the Bulls as a starter
6. Rodman switching onto O'neal will be a bad thing for the Bulls when we play Orlando in the Conference Finals
7. It's 1998, Jordan can't dunk on multiple defenders anymore (see dunk over 3 Pacers in the ECF)
8. Based on their play against the Bulls, the Jazz will win a ring in the first season after Jordan leaves the Bulls
9. Marcus Fizer and Elton Brand can play together
10. Jamal Crawford will be a good player by his 3rd year in the league
11. Jay Williams will be rookie of the year
12. Pippen coming back will be great for the Bulls. The 2003-04 Bulls will win 50 games.
13. Jerry Krause hasn't gone crazy, he's still the GM that traded for Pippen and Rodman. He'll make the move that puts him back on course soon
14. Trenton Hassell will be the SG for the Bulls for a long time
15. Antonio Davis won't make it a whole season as the starter at the 4

So there you have it, and that's just off the top of my head. I don't enjoy Tyson Chandler failing as it's bad for the team I've loved since Ennis Whatley was on the team. I did however see it coming clear as day. In fact, you can't say I didn't, because I can pull up evidence after evidence that shows me screaming all this stuff. No great achievement as it wasn't hard to see.

Post offense is important. Eddy and Tyson both depended on Antonio Davis and Tyson needs two players in the frontcourt as good collectively as Eddy and Antonio AND he needs to come off the bench behind these two players to be as good as he was next year. *At no point, EVEN LAST YEAR, has Tyson Chandler ever demonstrated himself to be even a competent NBA basketball player when he is locked in a fully-engaged position battle with even an average big. When he has to put his body on someone both in terms of rebounding or defense, he becomes 1/5 of the player he was when he had Antonio and Eddy to do that for him.* Tyson is like Gordon. His game will always be dependent on others. Eddy is too, but to less of a degree. For example Luol Deng's game is dependent on no one. He does the things he does well regardless of who he is out there with. Eddy needs a player like Antonio; a tough, grizzled, butt-kicking veteran who excels at defense and rebounding. Tyson needs two quality frontcourt players. 

*So why? Why point this out? Because I must enjoy Paxson's failures right? Wrong. I can also appreciate the very good moves Paxson has made. Tyson and Eddy were just both handled terribly poorly this summer. And, with the right moves/ability to restrain from the wrong moves, we can still bring players in here who will allow Tyson to play his game, instead of players who foster only his weaknesses or even worse, make him redundant (Pryzbilla). With just the right mix of players in the frontcourt Tyson can be as good as he was last year again.

But part of that is his fans (and to a much larger degree Paxson) recognizing who he is and what he is and is not. He didn't make Antonio and Eddy last year. They made him (Antonio made both of them, but Tyson more than Eddy). People also need to recognize that Tyson wasn't THAT good last year. He was asked to do two things: rebound while others do the body-up work and play great help defense. AND he was asked to do that off the bench after Eddy and Antonio, one of the most formidable frontcourt duos in the league when you paired their skills together, had already done the dirty work. His typical night included coming of the bench somewhere between 8-12 minutes into the game, usually by then the Bulls had a lead and then play mostly the second and fourth quarters against backups or guys who'd been out there a lot longer than he. That was it! It's so much easier to be successful at two things off the bench than it is to be asked to achieve a greater role (like establishing the teams offense as a go to guy against MEN at the 5 position) as a starter. 

Oh, and Tyson is not a 5 or a starter in this league.*


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

*Posted by MGB8 on Realgm.com*:



> Come on. You don't forget to play basketball over the summer.
> 
> Moreover, you don't develop such terrible asthma that it will destroy your game over a summer, too. It might hurt you in terms of extended time, but that's now what's wrong with Tyson, and even that can be treated.
> 
> ...


Ding, ding, ding, ding! And even Sham can tell you guys that me and that guy are not the same guy. But from reading I can tell you that he was saying all this stuff last summer and being dismissed at every corner.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

They would have been better off letting Tyson walk and signing Diop in his place. Which is sad.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> No one likes Tyson more than me, and I would have gone ape**** if Pax hadn't re-upped it. But in the words of Frank Vitchard, this is getting to be ri-god-damn-diculous.





time for another classic from the "art archives" (i think by shabadoo)


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

I didnt think it was humanly possible for any GM in the league to top The Dampier signing,The Tin man Foyle signing or Zekes panic move of signing the Dunkin Donut Jerome James...

But low and behold,Tyson Chandler has singlehandedly proved that Pax has unlimited range when it comes to making horrific signings and trades...


----------



## Tersk (Apr 9, 2004)

Would the Bulls consider a Erick Dampier for Tyson Chandler...something along the lines like that


----------



## Shabadoo (Feb 12, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> time for another classic from the "art archives" (i think by shabadoo)


I remember when I first posted that, you laughed, but didn't agree with the picture's intent.

Well, after Chandler's descent into a subterranean Hades of niggling injuries, his astronomical dollars spent per foul committed ratios and his litany of comical post moves, do you agree now? :wink:

I never liked him at all, and I thought that it was a horrible mistake to sign him to his ridiculous contract. However, it would be pretty inconsiderate of me to pull an “I told you so”. This is a really depressing situation for any Bulls fan- particularly for all the die hards here, who have the displeasure of actually being able to watch him on TV. The reality is that this could well be a terrible economic and “talent” set back, that save for Chandler recovering respectability could be another crushing blow for our embattled, post-Jordan franchise.

Hopefully this is just a post contract/ marriage/ Curry lull, and not a premonition of things to come. Admittedly, it would be somewhat satisfying if my opinion of Chandler ended up being correct. However, it would be leagues worse for me as a fan if the Bulls ended up suffering as a result of this apparent mistake.


----------



## randyripoff (Nov 9, 2004)

I don't think there's anything wrong with Chandler that college couldn't have fixed...or exposed.

Really, if NBA teams are going to draft players directly out of high school (and yes, I know they won't anymore, but still) they need to provide coaching specifically tailored to improving those player's skills. Bring in someone who's sole task is to take a raw athlete like a Chandler and develop some basketball skills.

He's still pretty close to the same player he was at 18, which is ridiculous considering the investment the Bulls have put into him. He still has no offensive moves, he's still soft around the rim, and he still can't block a shot without putting it ten rows into the stands instead of directing it to a teammate.

Is he worthless? Dunno. Someone said they haven't heard of Tyson working too hard, but at the same time I don't recall any reports of him not working hard enough either. Maybe it's the wrong type of work. I dunno. That's up to his coach and GM to decide. Maybe someday he'll improve enough. Or maybe he needs to play some international ball somewhere.

All I know is that he has the raw athletic ability; we've seen that the last five years. He needs some bulk, he needs some post moves so he isn't worthless on offense, and he needs someone to kick him in the butt everytime he doesn't dunk the ball when he can, or everytime he makes a bonehead play. Right now, I'm only seeing one of those things happen.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. Unless the Bulls can find a real big man, a 5 who can score 10 a game and board 8, they're toast for this season.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

It would be, in the words of ScottMay, ri-god-damn-diculous to trade Chandler right now. Maybe an extended sit down, get things together, but no trade.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Maybe we can package a pick and Chandler for Artest, then we got our 2 guard. Then we are left with the same # of good big man as we had before....zero. Thanks Paxson for trading Eddy Curry, he was at such a risk after practicing since July, and since mid-August playing FULL COURT games. I don't even have the medical records (which were favorable for Eddy) and the DNA was just a schrade to get rid of Eddy, Paxson didn't want Eddy, a remnant of the Krause dynasty. He only kept Chandler to schrade that, and he made a big mistake, since like I've been saying since last year, Eddy and AD were doing all the boxing out, they are better rebounders than Tyson.....and low and behold. Who couldn't tell that this would self implode. The Curry trade was a massively bad idea 1. We didn't get good talent in return, 2. Got average draft picks in return, 3. Traded away the anchor of our defense, 4. Made the 60 million dollar man inneffective by taking away players that allowed him to play to his strengths, 5. Split the lockerroom between Coach/Players, 6. Lost us all our leadership. Paxson really screwed the cow on this one.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

randyripoff said:


> I don't think there's anything wrong with Chandler that college couldn't have fixed...or exposed.
> 
> Really, if NBA teams are going to draft players directly out of high school (and yes, I know they won't anymore, but still) they need to provide coaching specifically tailored to improving those player's skills. Bring in someone who's sole task is to take a raw athlete like a Chandler and develop some basketball skills.
> 
> ...


chandler had some offense once upon a time .....but then they fired cartwright after he became head coach.

as i remember it Tyson was quite the player back then while cartwright was a member of the bulls , and he had an offensive game however unrefined.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Bill did wonders for all our bigs at the time.


If only he could coach guards and had any idea of how to call a game, plus dealing with the press, he could be a head coach in this league.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Tyson is playing out of position. He needs to play opposite a real center. A legit 7 footer who can take the load under the basket. People dont get that. They talk about Shelden Williams as though he is the answer. For this team, Williams doesnt help Chandler. Curry helped Chandler. Curry could score on just about anyone in the league and allowed Chandler to hit the boards from the weakside. The Bulls need a big guy to allow Chandler to move over back to his natural 4. That would solve one end of the court. To get his offense going would require a legit center who can score with the ball, either from the post or the perimeter. Either way, Tyson needs a center, not another undersized 4. Thats why I think trading the second of 2 first rounders for Johan Petro makes some sense. Atleast Tyson can guard 4s again in that situation. Though Petro needs some work on his post game.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

I wonder if they've burnt that bridge otherwise he'd be a great assistant, again. 
I'm also curious to see what sort of impact hiring Scottie as an assistant would have on Deng and Noc, I'm sure he could only make them better.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

ShamBulls said:


> Bill did wonders for all our bigs at the time.
> 
> 
> If only he could coach guards and had any idea of how to call a game, plus dealing with the press, he could be a head coach in this league.


i actually thought he did a pretty good job calling games , he wasn't really in a position to try and win every game, he had to have an objective to develop talent, more than to win to the point he had to start an inferior pg in jay will, and tried to start eddy and tyson even though they clearly weren't ready.

with guards i agree he wasn't the best coach...at all , but its the opposite now with skiles, who is great with guards and sucks with big men.

the team was supposed to be built around curry and chandler i never thought he got the credit he deserved with their progress ...also fizer was good under him , only to bottom out without him , he even got corie blount to play reasonably well.

when he was supposed to win 30 he won that much , and had to start the next season with his star having a broken hand , of course they stumbled , pax panicked imo and the bulls season now is a direct result of *tyson's* lack of progress, i doubt with cartwright's history of back woes he would have rushed chandler back possibly salvaging that season towards the end at least for chandler.

all skiles has to do now is win and right now they aren't...if he were hired at a later point it could made a big difference , its not like GM's were beating down his door.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

step said:


> I wonder if they've burnt that bridge otherwise he'd be a great assistant, again.
> I'm also curious to see what sort of impact hiring Scottie as an assistant would have on Deng and Noc, I'm sure he could only make them better.


I think Cartwright is asst. coach for the Nets.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Shabadoo said:


> I remember when I first posted that, you laughed, but didn't agree with the picture's intent.
> 
> Well, after Chandler's descent into a subterranean Hades of niggling injuries, his astronomical dollars spent per foul committed ratios and his litany of comical post moves, *do you agree now? * :wink:
> 
> ...



yup. but _i still like chandler_ and, like scottmay, would have been furious had he not been re-signed.

the loss of eddy and AD has exposed him big time, sure. playing out of position, not helping.

but my biggest complaint is the lack of off season work. 

he got married.

so freakin' what.

doesn't mean you're not in the gym everyday working on the FT shot. working on a skill here and there. hitting the weight room. then you meet the bride to be and go to the mall to pick out bad china. after you have your work in. that was just inexcusable to me. and we are seeing the lack of work right now. it's pathetic. he knew he was in line for a big contract and he just blew basketball off for a whole summer. and yet, i like him cause i think i know what he is capable of. 

the articles today where tyson tries the ol' well they're not calling fouls in practice and the harsh rebuttal by skiles tells me tyson's head just is nowhere to be found.

and thanks for _not saying_ i told you so!


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> Tyson is playing out of position. He needs to play opposite a real center. A legit 7 footer who can take the load under the basket. People dont get that. They talk about Shelden Williams as though he is the answer. For this team, Williams doesnt help Chandler. Curry helped Chandler. Curry could score on just about anyone in the league and allowed Chandler to hit the boards from the weakside. The Bulls need a big guy to allow Chandler to move over back to his natural 4. That would solve one end of the court. To get his offense going would require a legit center who can score with the ball, either from the post or the perimeter. Either way, Tyson needs a center, not another undersized 4. Thats why I think trading the second of 2 first rounders for Johan Petro makes some sense. Atleast Tyson can guard 4s again in that situation. Though Petro needs some work on his post game.


that reminds me everytime i see a knicks game, kenny smith always talks about curry's effect on the knicks. to paraphrase: it's not that curry is as great as shaq, but he allows everyone else to play their natural position. then everyone is in their comfort zone and can succeed in their role.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> yup. but _i still like chandler_ and, like scottmay, would have been furious had he not been re-signed.
> 
> the loss of eddy and AD has exposed him big time, sure. playing out of position, not helping.
> 
> ...



no player in their right mind will risk injury with so much money on the line(willie greene anyone?) so i cant really fault him for that , its a common practice and one the bulls were full aware of when they signed him.

the real mystery is how did he develop an exercise induce aesthma condition when he didn't work out all summer?

methinks instead of hittin' a gym he spent a great amount of time hittin' something else.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> Tyson is playing out of position. He needs to play opposite a real center. A legit 7 footer who can take the load under the basket. People dont get that. They talk about Shelden Williams as though he is the answer. For this team, Williams doesnt help Chandler. Curry helped Chandler. Curry could score on just about anyone in the league and allowed Chandler to hit the boards from the weakside. The Bulls need a big guy to allow Chandler to move over back to his natural 4. That would solve one end of the court. To get his offense going would require a legit center who can score with the ball, either from the post or the perimeter. Either way, Tyson needs a center, not another undersized 4. Thats why I think trading the second of 2 first rounders for Johan Petro makes some sense. Atleast Tyson can guard 4s again in that situation. Though Petro needs some work on his post game.


That is EXACTLY the way I view Chandler. He needs a real center in here. IMO, though he does not have to be spectacular, just good enough to allow Tyson to hit the boards and play weakside defense. 

I think getting a center is much more important for this team than getting another pf/sf. 

I like AH as much as the rest of you, but he does not fill a need. Tyson needs to be moved back to pf and sub at center for limited minutes. If AH was here, Tyson would be strictly a center. We have enough pf/tweeners the way it is. So why get AH?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> no player in their right mind will risk injury with so much money on the line(willie greene anyone?) so i cant really fault him for that , its a common practice and one the bulls were full aware of when they signed him.
> 
> the real mystery is how did he develop an exercise induce aesthma condition when he didn't work out all summer?
> 
> methinks instead of hittin' a gym he spent a great amount of time hittin' something else.



i know that he wasn't supposed to play contact ball. i think willie green got hurt in a pick-up game. i'm talking about skill work and FT shooting. how can he injure himself doing a few hundred FT's a day? or a modicum of supervised weight work? he is a professional athlete, supposedly. he also had a month from the time the contract was signed until camp.

he was lazy.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

I think weight work is the one thing he did do.

And his free throws have not fallen apart through lack of practice, but overtinkering.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> i know that he wasn't supposed to play contact ball. i think willie green got hurt in a pick-up game. i'm talking about skill work and FT shooting. how can he injure himself doing a few hundred FT's a day? or a modicum of supervised weight work? he is a professional athlete, supposedly. he also had a month from the time the contract was signed until camp.
> 
> he was lazy.


i agree with much of this, that professionals should work on their craft.


working of Ft's, sure he should do that, thats all about mechanics and mindset and he has it in him to be a good shooter from there , as far as working on post moves and such but if hasn't gotten it in 4-5 years with expert coaching more or less with legit big men to go up against, he wasn't going to suddenly have a light go on a month by himself in cali.

i cant say that he didn't hit the weights in that time because its small time frame and he did come in bigger for the season an accomplishment for a guy who has to work to keep his current weight.

out of him and curry the wrap has generally been tyson is the one who works hard on his game,while curry didn't, he just doesn't have those kind of gifts, i still say his biggest need is a coach who knows how to coach a big man like him, with some other big men who can ease his burdens.

he is 23 ,and its january he has been playing for months at this point even with no work over the summer his skills shouldn't be in reggression , to me thats says there are other problems.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

I'm at my wits end with Tyson. I was at the game last night, and the few minutes he was on the court, he looked utterly lost. It's clear what's going on is between his ears. He just seems to be such a mentally fragile player. 

I don't have any answers. I'm just exasperated with the kid.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> I'm at my wits end with Tyson. I was at the game last night, and the few minutes he was on the court, he looked utterly lost. It's clear what's going on is between his ears. He just seems to be such a mentally fragile player.
> 
> I don't have any answers. I'm just exasperated with the kid.


not to change the subject....











but can i have your KH jack in the box?


:laugh:


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Hahaha. We were running late and didn't get any. What a raw deal! 

I'm sure those will be going for thousands on eBay in no time.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> Hahaha. We were running late and didn't get any. What a raw deal!
> 
> I'm sure those will be going for thousands on eBay in no time.


lol. bummer. but thousands? (i got the pic off e-bay, somebody had theirs listed already)



but back to tyson...you know, last season when edward was unable to play and they started othella at center, tyson wasn't the disappearing act he is now.

this stuff going on with him is so mental. yes, the lack of off season work is glaring. but, there is something going on in his head. i mean how does a guy regress THAT MUCH???


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

mizenkay said:


> lol. bummer. but thousands? (i got the pic off e-bay, somebody had theirs listed already)



What, you think millions?


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

jnrjr79 said:


> I'm at my wits end with Tyson. I was at the game last night, and the few minutes he was on the court, he looked utterly lost. It's clear what's going on is between his ears. He just seems to be such a mentally fragile player.
> 
> I don't have any answers. I'm just exasperated with the kid.


I feel the exact same way, I'm beginning to wonder how much it'll take for him to turn it around. His confidence must be at an all-time low right now.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The weight room, working on the O, that's all secondary.

This guy, based on his athleticism alone, should be able to go out a grab 10 rebounds a night. He used to be able to, and he's apparently healthy and more physically mature now.

Its inexcusable. He's able to do it.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> lol. bummer. but thousands? (i got the pic off e-bay, somebody had theirs listed already)
> 
> 
> 
> but back to tyson...you know, last season when edward was unable to play and they started othella at center, tyson wasn't the disappearing act he is now.


Kinda makes you think they should be playing Othella more and Sweetney less, doesn't it?


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

Thank goodness we've finally come around - TYSON CHANDLER OFFICIALLY SUCKS.

This is the worst trade ever made - And don't me the Curry was the reason crap. 

I don't hate JK the way some here do, but this was a collosal blunder.

It also goes to re-inforce, it's not just hometown kids who struggle.


Tyson is a lazy SOB who should call Eddy Curry and thank him every day for taking the notice away from him.

Chandler has not improved his game one bit and has actually regressed. If you can regress from being a 7 ft stiff who does nothing but jumping jacks.

I was rooting for him. I met him a few times here in So. Cal. For now, I just wish he wasn't part of our history.

Sometimes, the best trades you make are the one's you don't make ---- if only that applied here.



PS - Congrats Chandler - You are this years "Golden Boy to Whipping Boy Award Winner"


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

You WERE rooting for him? So you don't now?


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

Tyson's problem definitely seems like a confidence issue, and you always have to wonder if a guy can recover from having his confidence go out the door. I'm not buying the not having a big center net to him excuse either, because besides the fact that through his career he has played best without such a player next to him, he also had some degree of success earlier this season. What is clear is that Tyson isn't a guy who is gonna singlehandedly carry a team's frontcourt.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Tyson will go to another team, probably in the west, play with a legit big man, and thrive. But he isnt good enough to transcend a team. We picked the wrong guy to get rid of I am afraid


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Phil used to bring in a psychologist to work with the team - although I never did read an article on how this worked with the players - and has done that in LA. Maybe that's what Tyson needs?


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> Tyson will go to another team, probably in the west, play with a legit big man, and thrive. But he isnt good enough to transcend a team. We picked the wrong guy to get rid of I am afraid




Leave that Curry **** at the door. This is about Chandler.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

ShamBulls said:


> Leave that Curry **** at the door. This is about Chandler.


No, unfortunately your wrong. Chandlers problems stem from not having Curry around. Anybody who knows basketball can see that. Curry was good enough to succeed with or without Chandler, but not the other way around. Chandler is a 4, trying to be a 5, and failing. And now the Bulls are stuck with a colossal contract whose value keeps detiorating. You want to fix the problem? Get yourself a legit 7 foot center who can guard 5s and maybe has a little offensive game. No more undersized 4s please. It doesnt work.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

All said and done, I don't think Curry and Chandler actually played that much on the court at the same time.

It was more of a 2-headed kind of center position, where they played tag-team.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> All said and done, I don't think Curry and Chandler actually played that much on the court at the same time.
> 
> It was more of a 2-headed kind of center position, where they played tag-team.



Chandler rarely guarded a 5. If he wasnt on the court with Curry, it was AD or Miller. But rarely has he been given the task of being a 5. lets remember that his first position coming into the NBA was thought to be a 3.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> Chandler rarely guarded a 5. If he wasnt on the court with Curry, it was AD or Miller. But rarely has he been given the task of being a 5. lets remember that his first position coming into the NBA was thought to be a 3.


Chandler started 51 games at the 5 in the 30 win season. Curry averaged maybe 12 minutes a game for that period. At PF was Yell or Fizer. Blount played 16 minutes/game, and Bagaric played just 10 games.

Why I think Chandler is a 5 is because that's what he played in HS, and it's the only position (on offense) that he looks half-way comfortable playing.

The lightbulb clearly needs to go on with him... to the point he simply stays in game without being in foul trouble. Good things will happen if he just gets to that point.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Exactly. Tyson needs AD, and to be honest I think a Mark Blount type would suffice as well. Tyson and Eddy really didn't play together all that often so I'm not buying that.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

ShamBulls said:


> You WERE rooting for him? So you don't now?



I ROOT for eveyone guy in a Bulls Uniforma, except Starks - just couldn't do it.

Still, I am very disgusted with him. He has not done anything. The irony is guys here bash Pryz and and Mihm, but they produce more than CHandler. Chandler needs to step it up, more than he's shown he's capable of. 

I'm not worried though, he'll probably hurt himself with a papercut cashing his automatic deposti check (yes, I know the irony)....


Go Bulls!


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> No, unfortunately your wrong. Chandlers problems stem from not having Curry around.



No, they aren't. Chandler subbed in for Curry for most of last year; they ended up playing only 700 minutes together. Statistically, he was Curry's least effective pairing. 





> Anybody who knows basketball can see that.



I'll rise above that. Try and be cordial, won't you.





> Curry was good enough to succeed with or without Chandler, but not the other way around.



So how come Chandler without Curry last year put up better numbers than the Chandler with Curry? 


Chandler without Curry, regular season:

9.6 ppg
11.6 rpg
0.7 apg
0.7 spg
2.1 bpg
53% (56/106)



Chandler without Curry, playoffs:

11.7ppg
9.7 rpg
1.3 spg
0.2 apg
2.2 bpg
50% 





Chandler with Curry:

7.5 ppg
9;1 rpg
0.9 apg
0.9 spg
1.7 bpg
48% FG








OK, I'm a hypocrit. I'm talking about Curry.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

chifaninca said:


> I ROOT for eveyone guy in a Bulls Uniforma, except Starks - just couldn't do it.
> 
> Still, I am very disgusted with him.




Fairy nuff. I think so is everybody. Just checking you weren't hoping he'd fail.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

ShamBulls said:


> Leave that Curry **** at the door. This is about Chandler.


Why the constant need to set guidelines for the conversation. You'd think Curry was slang for bleep or bleep or even double bleep. If you don't want to talk about him, don't talk about him, he's a Chicago kid (you've never been here so you wouldn't know about SICA unity), and he has a lot of fans here, even if he doesn't play the "right" way.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> All said and done, I don't think Curry and Chandler actually played that much on the court at the same time.
> 
> It was more of a 2-headed kind of center position, where they played tag-team.


But remember, it wasn't just Curry in the deal. It was *Antonio Davis* too! In what is turning into a vicious flogging (lol) Paxson gave away the guy who made Eddy better and then combined with Eddy to reduce what was expected of Tyson to make Tyson better. Forget when Eddy and Tyson played together, just the fact that Eddy was able to get us out to leads, and that Antonio was there to play with Tyson, is what made us a deadly frontcourt. Pretty much we were in a position where Eddy and AD were a good frontcourt by themselves, so anything we got from Tyson was just gravy. Eddy allowed Tyson to be a BENCH player (most important part to come) that we didn't really have to rely on. This year he's been a starter and then when he doesn't start, with Sweetney and Songaila not even being a poor excuse as replacements for Eddy and Antonio, we do have to rely on him. 

It's remarkable the rationalizations that are still popping up as to why we don't miss Eddy Curry. I always thought that the proof was in the pudding. And it's not a Curry thing, I'd have been just as PO'd if we got bent over in a trade the way we did for Hinrich, Deng or anyone else on that team. Keep Eddy on the Q.O. and then AT LEAST even if you make him sit the season we still have ANTONIO DAVIS, which is a lot better than Pillsbury Sweetney.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Chandler started 51 games at the 5 in the 30 win season. Curry averaged maybe 12 minutes a game for that period. At PF was Yell or Fizer. Blount played 16 minutes/game, and Bagaric played just 10 games.
> 
> Why I think Chandler is a 5 is because that's what he played in HS, and it's the only position (on offense) that he looks half-way comfortable playing.
> 
> The lightbulb clearly needs to go on with him... to the point he simply stays in game without being in foul trouble. Good things will happen if he just gets to that point.


Tyson Chandler is NOT a center. He can't put a body on anyone whether it be rebounding, defense or posting people up. If he has to engage in continuous contact it's over. Everything about this season shows that. The rationales that have clearly been PROVEN erroneous need to go out the window.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Curry is a Chicago guy. Big fan of Curry. Many at the UC, the fans who actually cart their *** out to the UC every night and pay thousands of dollars to see the games liked him a lot too. I know 40+ year old men who have been supporting the team almost their whole lives and that have been season ticket holders for 10+ years that are ready to give up being Bulls fans because of the Curry trade. These guys are the most diehard fans I've ever known. Bulls jackets, bulls jerseys, kids going to the game wearing bulls apparel. Several times this season I've heard fans blurt out of nowhere that it was a mistake to trade Curry. 

It was a punch to the gut for many diehard fans, believe me.

I was basically prepared for it... so it did not shock me much. Especially when the career devastating heart issues crippled Curry and his chances to succeed in the NBA.

We’re not jumping all over Chandler if Paxson just resigns Curry and keeps AD. Bottom line, IMO. Its part of the discussion. Chandler is not dealing with being the man big man well at all. Like someone said, I think he’s pretty fragile mentally…. Seems like he’s content now to live in his cocoon and collect his paychecks. Let’s hope something shocks him out of it. Personal pride would hopefully be the answer.

Its one thing being a smarmy or belligerent internet message board personality, with a .com and all... its another to put your money where your mouth is. Curry and AD helped us win games. As a fan that drops coin to watch this team, I'm once again disappointed. I don't have the time or unlimited resources to waste on seasons where we're not succeeding or developing players that will lead us deep into the playoffs.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

sp00k said:


> Exactly. Tyson needs AD, and to be honest I think a Mark Blount type would suffice as well. Tyson and Eddy really didn't play together all that often so I'm not buying that.


But Eddy still allowed Tyson to be the 3rd post player and not the 1st like this team needs him to be now. Awfully more easy for Tyson to succeed when he comes into the game 8-12 minutes in, with the Bulls leading (usually) and facing off against either backups or starters who have been out there while he was sitting fresh on the bench. If you're still not buying that Eddy helped this team tremendously then you probably never will, so I'll just agree to let separate opinions be what they are. But boy I hope for Paxsonites sake that Eddy doesn't go off on Wednesday.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

ShamBulls said:


> No, they aren't. Chandler subbed in for Curry for most of last year; they ended up playing only 700 minutes together. Statistically, he was Curry's least effective pairing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I guess 82-games.com can supplant what a good basketball fan can see actually WATCHING the games. Which is better, Chandler last year without Curry in the game, or Chandler this year without Curry at all? Why don't you do that statistical comparison? Oh, but first, be sure to do it based on "stats per 48 minutes" lol. 

Curry made it possible for Chandler to be a 7th man, and never to be needed as more than that. So honestly, what Chandler did without Curry in the game speaks just as much as what he did with him, since, by then, Curry had already done his job. We had a 47-22 stretch last year. We're sinking into the outhouse this year. I bet you we don't win 37 games. And I also bet if we don't, you'll still concede nothing.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Curry is a Chicago guy. Big fan of Curry. Many at the UC, the fans who actually cart their *** out to the UC every night and pay thousands of dollars to see the games liked him a lot too. I know 40+ year old men who have been supporting the team almost their whole lives and that have been season ticket holders for 10+ years that are ready to give up being Bulls fans because of the Curry trade. These guys are the most diehard fans I've ever known. Bulls jackets, bulls jerseys, kids going to the game wearing bulls apparel. Several times this season I've heard fans blurt out of nowhere that it was a mistake to trade Curry.
> 
> It was a punch to the gut for many diehard fans, believe me.
> 
> ...


Exactly, it's so funny. When I was at the UC 3 years ago, when Bulls nation supposedly "hated" Eddy Curry, he'd come out and sign autographs and everyone would go running moreso than for any player. One time I saw a mentally retarded kid actually ask him to dunk like Shaq. It brought a tear to my eye. He was only 18 and not very good at anything at the time. But sure enough, he got a rim ripping dunk off and I was sitting near that kid, Eddy pointed right at him. I've always been in such an uproar over the whole issue on message boards because you could bring that 82-games.com crap to the UC and start yelling it and you wouldn't get out of the stadium alive. In fact, there's a whole 1/3 of the greater Chicago area where all the people know is that Eddy is "our guy." Most of us southeat of Oakbrook have seen him play at countless tournaments, against our little brothers, nephews, cousins, etc. And he was never like "King James" in high school. He'd sign autographs and chat with the locals forever. He was "one of us." I first met Eddy at the 1998 Christmas tournament at Rich South High School in Richton Park. Between the games he was happy to come up to all the tournament volunteers, joke around, talk seriously, talk about basketball. It just gives you further feeling that John Paxson, Scott Skiles and Jerry Reinsdorf are out of touch with who WE are. And like Louie Armstrong said when he said that "if you don't know what that thing is, you never will," if you lock your doors when you drive through 95th and State Street, you wouldn't have the foggiest clue what I'm talking about. 

I'm sorry, but I agree with you and furthermore, I'm ticked, and everyone in my hometown of Chicago Heights is ticked too. I know hundreds of Bulls fans who keep repeating that "I'm not gonna drop a hometown kid to root for 11 guys from out of town."

But I believe the proof is in what we're about to be for the next 2.5 years. After that, there will be no doubt. I'll have my #2 jersey out on Wednesday and honestly except for 23, 33, 52, 24, 91, 9 and 7, it's the only one I would ever wear at this point.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:
 

> Why the constant need to set guidelines for the conversation.



It would be nice to have a discussion without Curry wouldn't you say?






> I guess 82-games.com can supplant what a good basketball fan can see actually WATCHING the games. Which is better, Chandler last year without Curry in the game, or Chandler this year without Curry at all? Why don't you do that statistical comparison? Oh, but first, be sure to do it based on "stats per 48 minutes" lol.



Although I'm convinced you're someone I know, I don't know who. Nevertheless, if you knew me, you wouldn't start down that "actually watching the games" tack.

I gave you the statistics, which you've refuted with the good old "statistics don't show everything" lark. Except of course the ones that suit your argument.





> Curry made it possible for Chandler to be a 7th man, and never to be needed as more than that. So honestly, what Chandler did without Curry in the game speaks just as much as what he did with him, since, by then, Curry had already done his job. We had a 47-22 stretch last year. We're sinking into the outhouse this year. I bet you we don't win 37 games. And I also bet if we don't, you'll still concede nothing.




What are you wanting me to concede exactly?


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

ShamBulls said:


> It would be nice to have a discussion without Curry wouldn't you say?


I mean kinda not really lol. To me you can't logically have the discussion without bridging that topic. It's like trying to get from point A to point B with this huge obvious dragon in between the two points and having half the people on the voyage wanting to summarily dismiss said object.



> Although I'm convinced you're someone I know, I don't know who. Nevertheless, if you knew me, you wouldn't start down that "actually watching the games" tack.
> 
> I gave you the statistics, which you've refuted with the good old "statistics don't show everything" lark. Except of course the ones that suit your argument.


No my argument is that the proof is in the pudding. I'm arguing that IF you do want to look at statistics, why not look at all of them, but that I certainly would rather focus on what I see. I am who you think I am. Winterpeg's not here, so we can all talk like adults lol. 

Are you going to tell me that Eddy didn't make things greatly easier on Tyson and then back that contention with anything not in 82-games.com or on a stat tracker. I can. I not only gave you a stat I'd like to see (your way), but I also have done things my way by stating a clear and convincing argument:

1. The Eddy deal included AD. AD made Eddy a far better player. Because of this, Tyson's skills were not needed. He was a luxury bench item. IF he performed, then the Bulls could put the rout on, and if he played mediocre basketball, we still had a pretty good chance to win too.
2. Eddy tired opposing bigs down and created more foul problems, therefore matching Tyson up against backups or tired starters. 
3. Eddy ate up so many minutes that Tyson could spend a lot more time with Antonio than Othella. Either way, Antonio and Eddy were both better at putting a body on opposing bigs than anyone we have now, thus multiplying Tyson's ability to freelance defensively and in the rebounding game. 
4. Eddy was 2 coaches votes away from being the backup center on the All Star team. In a league starved of good centers, having someone who gets even consideration as an All Star center is going to help everyone in the frontcourt and on the team.

Those are my arguments as to why Tyson was better with Eddy ON the team, whether in the game or not. 



> What are you wanting me to concede exactly?


The whole Paxsonite "right way" agenda. You're more laidback here, but if you really want an answer it would be:

1. Almost everything you've ever posted on the other board
2. I've learned not to ask for things when I don't have time to ask for that much lol


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

> The whole Paxsonite "right way" agenda. You're more laidback here, but if you really want an answer it would be:
> 
> 1. Almost everything you've ever posted on the other board
> 2. I've learned not to ask for things when I don't have time to ask for that much lol



And which part of my opinions do you object to? Or is it that I'm a Paxson supporter?





> I am who you think I am.



Sock it to me. I won't tell anyone. Pinky promise.





> Are you going to tell me that Eddy didn't make things greatly easier on Tyson



Yes. In theory, they were a great pairing. In reality, they didn't work together. Tyson's offensive ineptitude left defenders to clog the lane around Eddy, and Eddy's complete inefficiency on the boards left Tyson to cover both sides, as well as the offensive backtaps. I would like to have Eddy here still, but I won't pretend that they worked well together. They just flat out didn't.






> 1. The Eddy deal included AD. AD made Eddy a far better player. Because of this, Tyson's skills were not needed. He was a luxury bench item. IF he performed, then the Bulls could put the rout on, and if he played mediocre basketball, we still had a pretty good chance to win too.



What's that got to do with Tyson being better without Eddy? 



> 2. Eddy tired opposing bigs down and created more foul problems, therefore matching Tyson up against backups or tired starters.



Neglible if you ask me, but OK.




> 3. Eddy ate up so many minutes that Tyson could spend a lot more time with Antonio than Othella. Either way, Antonio and Eddy were both better at putting a body on opposing bigs than anyone we have now, thus multiplying Tyson's ability to freelance defensively and in the rebounding game.


AD yes, Curry I doubt that very much. Harrington and Sweetney ar ejust as effective (or rather, ineffective) at bodying their man. 






> 4. Eddy was 2 coaches votes away from being the backup center on the All Star team. In a league starved of good centers, having someone who gets even consideration as an All Star center is going to help everyone in the frontcourt and on the team.



Hearsay. If Eddy was so great for frontcourts, why did Fizer get worse when Eddy got major minutes? For example. Now in theory the above could be a valid argument. But in practice, it seems negligible.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

ShamBulls said:


> And which part of my opinions do you object to? Or is it that I'm a Paxson supporter?


It's that I feel you blindly support him regardless of his moves. I am of the opinion that you start with the feeling "I like Pax, because I just do" and form logic from there. Really no different than some of Krause's biggest supporters. I just want a quality GM and am willing to honestly evaluate the moves of anyone who is GM regardless of my likes or dislikes. I have complaints and praise for both Paxson and Krause, and a long list of things I've been wrong about. However, I feel that the more you are proven wrong, the farther into denial you go. Or you try to tell people what the topic is and isn't about, because heavens your past predictions that were stated as facts ever be called into question. 

That's my honest opinion. I am more than willing to talk about the failures and successes of both GMs, and believe I do a good job of analyzing both in an honest fashion. 



> Sock it to me. I won't tell anyone. Pinky promise.


Everyone knows. I'm not here to break any rules and if any rule violations are brought to my attention, I intend to cease and desist rather quickly.



> Yes. In theory, they were a great pairing. *In reality, they didn't work together.* Tyson's offensive ineptitude left defenders to clog the lane around Eddy, and Eddy's complete inefficiency on the boards left Tyson to cover both sides, as well as the offensive backtaps. I would like to have Eddy here still, but I won't pretend that they worked well together. They just flat out didn't.


There go the assertions stated as facts. Did you read the whole argument? Tyson was not better when paired with Eddy so much as he was with Eddy on the team. Eddy's presence meant that we could play Tyson mostly with AD and Othella, which we did. So I'm concerned with what Eddy's game meant to Tyson both when they played together (small amount of time) and when they didn't (which is what my whole argument stated).

We won 47 games last year. At least so far, it is pretty obvious that we suck compared to last year. And forget tomorrow. Tomorrow hasn't happened yet. If Paxson drafts people and signs people and they work out for a better tomorrow than we had with Curry and Antonio Davis last year, I will be the FIRST to admit that I was wrong, and that in reality, the reality that has *actually happened*, we were better off trading Curry. I'm always up for someone proving me wrong. 

So right now here is how actual reality that has actually taken place stands. Last year, we posted the third best record in the league, with one of the youngest teams in the league, and with Eddy Curry. This year we're what, 15-21? And we're not getting better, we're getting much much worse. We're what, 3-11 in our last 14 games? That is the current reality. Paxson fans love taking credit when his company's stock is up, why can't they accept equal discredit when it is down?

*Like Jordan said, "if I can accept the good, I can certainly deal with the bad, and move right on."*



> What's that got to do with Tyson being better without Eddy?


Everything. It's pretty much right there. I'll explain it again. Antonio Davis neutralized Eddy Curry's weaknesses, because of this Curry played at a near all star level (3rd in coaches votes in the conference to Z and Shaq). Getting to come off the bench following a near all star center and Antonio Davis often against backups or tired starters who've played more minutes than you isn't going to make you better than either having to start or come in behind Sweetney and Harrington? Not to mention that without the trade, since we had AD, Tyson got to play with AD, which also made Tyson much better. How much more clearly can I explain it. No Eddy trade (what I'm arguing we didn't mean) means a frontcourt THIS YEAR of Eddy, Tyson, Davis and Harrington IF Paxson and Reinsdorf are willing to do what NYK management has done and MAKE IT WORK. So an Eddy trade means no AD. Both players benefitted from AD and Tyson benefitted from Eddy benefitting from AD. But again, I point to the results of each scenario. 47-35 or 15-21? Hmmm. 



> Neglible if you ask me, but OK.


Of course. A very convenient stance for you to take. Of course anything I say that can't be backed up by 82-games.com is negligible at best to you. You're holding on for dear life in desperate support of Paxson. But again, I point to the records. It's not negligible if you ask me, but OK. 



> AD yes, Curry I doubt that very much. Harrington and Sweetney ar ejust as effective (or rather, ineffective) at bodying their man.


Ok man, whatever floats it. Eddy is better at boxing out. Just like Tyson is not good at it and is better at grabbing the ball. Even half of his biggest haters last year admitted that Eddy knew how to put a body on someone. I didn't know that was ever in dispute. And I can't wait till Wednesday when Eddy punks your boy Sweetney and then talks about it all night long. Othella I have never questioned. But again, I'd rather have Othella as our FOURTH best frontcourt player, than our best one. 

And look at the first two words. "AD yes." AD was *part of the trade*. Somehow I feel that you haven't realized that yet. 



> Hearsay. If Eddy was so great for frontcourts, why did Fizer get worse when Eddy got major minutes? For example. Now in theory the above could be a valid argument. But in practice, it seems negligible.


LOL now you're going back to when Eddy was 20? Are you serious? Everything is negligible. You give two sentences in the whole post as to why your multiple negligible claims are valid, but hey who is counting. Keep holding on for dear life and god bless bra. Eddy's not responsible for making Fizer's fat worthless bleep better. Eddy made anyone better by his mere presence if they brought their sorry butt to play themselves. He was 22 last year? Bulls won 47 games. Don't talk to me about what he did at 20 or 21. I'm not asking for 2002-03 Curry and Corie Blount back. I want last year's Eddy and AD back. Eddy was great for the team, as much when he was in the game as when he was out of it. For those who've never been to Chicago and don't know that he is one of us to anyone actually plugged into the chicago high school and college basketball scene (go ask Chicago high school coaches [whose opinions on basketball are much greater than mine] what they thought of Curry), I wouldn't expect much understanding.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> It's that I feel you blindly support him regardless of his moves. I am of the opinion that you start with the feeling "I like Pax, because I just do" and form logic from there. Really no different than some of Krause's biggest supporters. I just want a quality GM and am willing to honestly evaluate the moves of anyone who is GM regardless of my likes or dislikes. I have complaints and praise for both Paxson and Krause, and a long list of things I've been wrong about. However, I feel that the more you are proven wrong, the farther into denial you go. Or you try to tell people what the topic is and isn't about, because heavens your past predictions that were stated as facts ever be called into question.
> 
> That's my honest opinion. I am more than willing to talk about the failures and successes of both GMs, and believe I do a good job of analyzing both in an honest fashion.



If that's your honest opinion of my honest opinions, then my honest opinion is that you are ignorant.

I judged each case on it's merits. I can and will justify my believes, and if anyone doesn't agree with them, then tough wholesome titties. They don't have to. But don't ever question my legitimacy. Cos that would make you a twat. And you wouldn't want to be one of those.





> Everyone knows. I'm not here to break any rules and if any rule violations are brought to my attention, I intend to cease and desist rather quickly.


That would explain a lot.






> There go the assertions stated as facts. Did you read the whole argument? Tyson was not better when paired with Eddy so much as he was with Eddy on the team. Eddy's presence meant that we could play Tyson mostly with AD and Othella, which we did. So I'm concerned with what Eddy's game meant to Tyson both when they played together (small amount of time) and when they didn't (which is what my whole argument stated).



We still could play Tyson with Othella. There is no necessitation required with such an amalgom of a front court that is being put out right now.

I'm also impressed that your Curry made Tyson better argument is based primarily around the fact that Tyson was better when Eddy wasn't there, BECAUSE Eddy wasn't there.






> We won 47 games last year. At least so far, it is pretty obvious that we suck compared to last year. And forget tomorrow. Tomorrow hasn't happened yet. If Paxson drafts people and signs people and they work out for a better tomorrow than we had with Curry and Antonio Davis last year, I will be the FIRST to admit that I was wrong, and that in reality, the reality that has *actually happened*, we were better off trading Curry. I'm always up for someone proving me wrong.
> 
> So right now here is how actual reality that has actually taken place stands. Last year, we posted the third best record in the league, with one of the youngest teams in the league, and with Eddy Curry. This year we're what, 15-21? And we're not getting better, we're getting much much worse. We're what, 3-11 in our last 14 games? That is the current reality. Paxson fans love taking credit when his company's stock is up, why can't they accept equal discredit when it is down?
> 
> *Like Jordan said, "if I can accept the good, I can certainly deal with the bad, and move right on."*



I do not dispute in any way that the team of last year is better than this one. I think that goes without saying.

And I'd still like to have Eddy here. I like him.

But I wouldn't undo the trade.

And they can bloody keep Jamal. I threw that in for the hell of it.







> Everything. It's pretty much right there. I'll explain it again. Antonio Davis neutralized Eddy Curry's weaknesses, because of this Curry played at a near all star level (3rd in coaches votes in the conference to Z and Shaq).



I agree with that. Well, largely. I don't think Eddy playing to an all star level is right. He just nearly made it. I don't think he was deserving, or nearly deserving. But I was hopeful.





> Getting to come off the bench following a near all star center and Antonio Davis often against backups or tired starters who've played more minutes than you isn't going to make you better than either having to start or come in behind Sweetney and Harrington?



As I showed you earlier, Tyson's stats increased when he was coming off the bench behind Harrington and not Curry.





> Not to mention that without the trade, since we had AD, Tyson got to play with AD, which also made Tyson much better.



Which is irrelevant to the debate of how much better Curry made Chandler. If you want to talk about just the one (Curry), then there's no point in saying stuff like this. And if you don't want to talk about just the one, then you're arguing with the wrong person, since I haven't disputed Davis made Chandler better.





> How much more clearly can I explain it. No Eddy trade (what I'm arguing we didn't mean) means a frontcourt THIS YEAR of Eddy, Tyson, Davis and Harrington IF Paxson and Reinsdorf are willing to do what NYK management has done and MAKE IT WORK. So an Eddy trade means no AD. Both players benefitted from AD and *Tyson benefitted from Eddy benefitting from AD. *



Errmm....yeah. That's a bit of a reach to your Eddy-made-Tyson-better standpoint.





> But again, I point to the results of each scenario. 47-35 or 15-21? Hmmm.


Our current team is not as good as the one from last year. Very nice. You can stop saying that now, cos I know.




> Of course. A very convenient stance for you to take. Of course anything I say that can't be backed up by 82-games.com is negligible at best to you. You're holding on for dear life in desperate support of Paxson. But again, I point to the records. It's not negligible if you ask me, but OK.



I wish you'd stop picking at my integrity. It's naughty and mean.





> And I can't wait till Wednesday when *Eddy punks your boy Sweetney * and then talks about it all night long.



I like Eddy more than I like Sweetney. Although, naturally, I want Sweetney to outperform Curry quite drastically. That's because I support the Bulls. You would appear not to.






> But again, I'd rather have Othella as our FOURTH best frontcourt player, than our best one.




Well no s*** Sherlock.





> And look at the first two words. "AD yes." AD was *part of the trade*. Somehow I feel that you haven't realized that yet.




Third and final time:

*I AM NOT DEBATING THE IMPACT DAVIS HAD ON THIS TEAM, CHANDLER ESPECIALLY.

SO STOP GOING ON ABOUT IT.*

A-thank yaw.






> For those who've never been to Chicago and don't know that he is one of us to anyone actually plugged into the chicago high school and college basketball scene (go ask Chicago high school coaches [whose opinions on basketball are much greater than mine] what they thought of Curry), I wouldn't expect much understanding.




You could also drop the hometown pride thing. I don't care.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

From the Trib tonight:



> $60 million player, 4.8 points a game
> Bulls' Chandler vows to put in extra work, raise his meager stats
> 
> By Marlen Garcia
> ...



More at the site.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...5bulls,1,7810526.story?coll=cs-home-headlines


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

> He and forward Michael Sweetney were the last players to leave the Berto Center on Sunday. They stayed late to run through conditioning drills and shoot extra free throws.


That's good.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

ShamBulls said:


> If that's your honest opinion of my honest opinions, then my honest opinion is that you are ignorant.
> 
> I judged each case on it's merits. I can and will justify my believes, and if anyone doesn't agree with them, then tough wholesome titties. They don't have to. But don't ever question my legitimacy. Cos that would make you a twat. And you wouldn't want to be one of those.


All of this stuff is stuff you can PM me about. I counted two "attacks" but I don't really go that rout. If you want to expound on what you think about me as a person (and not my posts), by all means, PM me and go to town. I want to talk basketball, and honestly evaluating your opinions about basketball issues (Paxson) is all I offer. For all I know you could be St. John the Baptist apart from your Paxson Youth Group agenda.



> That would explain a lot.


More stuff that you can take to PM. If it helps you deflect attention away from the player that you absolutely knew would do this this and that, then so be it. 



> We still could play Tyson with Othella. There is no necessitation required with such an amalgom of a front court that is being put out right now.
> 
> I'm also impressed that your Curry made Tyson better argument is based primarily around the fact that Tyson was better when Eddy wasn't there, BECAUSE Eddy wasn't there.


Eddy wasn't on the team? My argument has nothing to do with how purely better Tyson was apart from Curry, because I'm not interested in analyzing players in a vacuum. If Eddy plays 28 minutes in a game and scores 18 points on 6-9 FG and 6-9 FT, and draws 4 fouls in his limited time on the other teams best player, and Tyson can come into the game with a bench player out there or a tired starter and play confidently because we have a lead, then is Eddy making him better or not? Eddy was on last year's team, his impact on last year's team could be seen as clear as day by anyone who was watching. My basic argument is this:

*Tyson Chandler is going to do better in any given situation when he follows Eddy Curry than when he follows Michael Sweetney. He and he within the team, will be better for it. Thus 47-35 v. 15-21. Also, anything that benefits Tyson due to AD being in the game is fair game for this discussion because AD was a part of the trade. And while you may be having the argument in the sense of "what was Tyson's game like WITH EDDY in the game with him" I am evaluating it from the standpoint of "what were the Chicago Bulls like without this trade, and thus with Eddy and AD on the team v. What are they like now?"*

So you can isolate whatever stats you want. My argument was never meant to be "Eddy Curry makes Tyson Chandler better specifically when he is in the game with him than Tyson is when Eddy is not in the game with him." That's the argument you are having with yourself. My argument is that Eddy and Antonio on this team made Tyson better than he is now, without either of them.

*But then, where are the stats that show Tyson this year without Eddy AT ALL v. Tyson last year playing with Eddy in the game with him? Again, I'd love to see those. Those have everything to do with Eddy being "there."*



> I do not dispute in any way that the team of last year is better than this one. I think that goes without saying.
> 
> And I'd still like to have Eddy here. I like him.
> 
> ...


I like the Jamal trade.

As far as you not undoing the trade, what do you really have to base that statement on other than "the future." Eddy's not dead yet, they got it to work there as far as getting him on the court, despite today's loss they are headed upward, and even separate of them this team is showing no signs of life. Right now all we have is Sweetney, a lotto pick that HASN'T BEEN USED YET, a pick swap (that we may not even want to use) and some second rounders for *ANTONIO DAVIS (who I might not trade individually for those "assets"* AND Eddy Curry.



> I agree with that. Well, largely. I don't think Eddy playing to an all star level is right. He just nearly made it. I don't think he was deserving, or nearly deserving. But I was hopeful.


Well I'm sorry but I'll go with the opinions of coaches over yours any day of the week. Eddy is certainly better than any frontcourt player we have now. 



> As I showed you earlier, Tyson's stats increased when he was coming off the bench behind Harrington and not Curry.


Harrington was generally considered our fourth frontcourt player! Did he even play as many minutes as Tyson? You're concerned with that 82-games.com junk of "I'm going to isolate stats when this player follows that player or plays with that player" and blah blah blah. Eddy played the prime frontcourt minutes on this team. Tyson followed that work. Eddy was the one out there to start the game and the third quarter with the Shaqs, Yaos and Ben Wallaces of the world, not Tyson. Eddy and AD were our starting frontcourt players. They played the prime minutes against prime players who were just as fresh as they were. Tyson's role is significantly easier to man. Bulls without that trade = 47-35, Bulls this year = 15-21. My argument is that Tyson was better before the trade than after. IN FACT, I even stated (and pay special attention) *that had we put Eddy on the Q.O. and sat him all year, Tyson would STILL be better as a result of playing with AD*.

Why don't you compare stats of Tyson's from last year with whoever you want in the game to THIS YEAR. Then talk to me about stats. But I think you know that is a losing argument. 



> Which is irrelevant to the debate of how much better Curry made Chandler. If you want to talk about just the one (Curry), then there's no point in saying stuff like this. And if you don't want to talk about just the one, then you're arguing with the wrong person, since I haven't disputed Davis made Chandler better.


They both made this team better. That's what I'm saying. Davis did, but even if we just had Davis and not Curry, while we'd be better, do you think we'd be as good as last year? Come on. Let's see to what degree you think it was Davis and what degree Curry? Would this team win 47 games with Davis and Sweetney?



> Errmm....yeah. That's a bit of a reach to your Eddy-made-Tyson-better standpoint.


Not really. A better Eddy means a better team and bigger leads and less of a need for Tyson to produce. When you have the combined contribution from AD and Eddy that you had last year, do you need as much as this team needs from Tyson to be successful now? NO. And that's another big issue. My biggest fear is that Tyson has the very realistic feeling that he has to do too much. 



> Our current team is not as good as the one from last year. Very nice. You can stop saying that now, cos I know.


It's not even that we're worse. It's that we're as much worse as we are, you had things your way (as you STILL won't back off the Curry trade) and now, after your way is providing no dividend at all compared to the way of people who didn't want him traded, you're still trying to tell people what's what, what is relevant, what is open for discussion and so on. You DON'T know. Because I think if you really did know you'd be far more admitting and less advisory. There's a word for people who keep talking as if they know when their way is producing lower and lower returns. Unemployed. 



> I wish you'd stop picking at my integrity. It's naughty and mean.


I'm not picking at anything. If anything is to pick at it's not the integrity, but the victim's complex. 



> I like Eddy more than I like Sweetney. Although, naturally, I want Sweetney to outperform Curry quite drastically. That's because I support the Bulls. You would appear not to.


Let's ignore the self-contradicting statement for a second. I would appear not to? Let's forget for a second that you've never been to Chicago. Want to talk Bulls history going back to 1984 when I began watching the team? I can remember watching Jordan lose to the Bucks in the playoffs. Eddy is a Bull and always will be to me. Are there not many Bulls who still to this day have undying support for Elton Brand? If Kirk Hinrich were traded tomorrow are you telling me that nobody on this board would root hard for him still, and dog his replacement? I can love the Bulls and not have to like how things are being done. Michael Sweetney to me is not a long term answer to anything. Next! Thanks for coming, wish you'd never came, don't let it hit ya.



> Well no s*** Sherlock.


Actually you should have said "a lot of s*** sherlock, because you are still in favor of the trade that MADE him exactly that! Our best frontcourt player. See how that works?



> Third and final time:
> 
> *I AM NOT DEBATING THE IMPACT DAVIS HAD ON THIS TEAM, CHANDLER ESPECIALLY.
> 
> ...


Stop trying to define the discussion. You talk about what you want to and so will I. Davis was a part of the trade. The trade is what I'm against. Did you miss the part where Eddy got on a plane to go to New York after he was traded and there was ANTONIO DAVIS, who is now a Knick? 



> You could also drop the hometown pride thing. I don't care.


I do. Other Chicagoans do. If you went to the United Center and started asking around you'd find out in a hurry how much they do. That's who WE are. You don't have to care.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

You are both crossing the line with each other. Please take a step back and be civil.

Matrix, I'd refrain from arguing the hometown point if I were you. It's irrelevant. Location does not make one fan better than another.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

jnrjr79 said:


> You are both crossing the line with each other. Please take a step back and be civil.
> 
> Matrix, I'd refrain from arguing the hometown point if I were you. It's irrelevant. Location does not make one fan better than another.


If that's your honest opinion of my honest opinions, then my honest opinion is that *you are ignorant.*

I judged each case on it's merits. I can and will justify my believes, and if anyone doesn't agree with them, then tough wholesome titties. They don't have to. *But don't ever question my legitimacy. Cos that would make you a twat.* And you wouldn't want to be one of those. 

*Well no s*** Sherlock.* 

And the hometown point was all you could pull out of that? Dude questioned whether I would "appear not to support the Bulls." IMO someone whose never been to Chicago going the "real Bulls fan" route is borderline hilarious, but if you want me to drop it, and the whole thing, I will. I think that to any unbiased reader, the point is rather clear at this point. Maybe it is better not to beat the DEAD horse anymore.


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

I don't think work ethic is the issue here (although he admitted to not working on his game during the summer), the two main reasons he struggles are his complete lack of basketball skills and some serious confidence problems.

Tyson isn't really a basketball player. He's more of one of those 7'1 car salesmans or janitors you see walking around. To me, if you've been playing basketball all your life (even if you're a center), your jump shot shouldn't look painful. You should have a sense of timing when it comes to blocks and you shouldn't fall down trying to drive in the paint. Everything Tyson does on offense is wide and slow. He always brings the ball down on offensive rebounds or passes received in the paint.

Tyson's athleticism to me is overrated. He can run and jump, but players with similar bodies (Garnett, Dalembert) have much more fluidity to their motions. I'm shocked scouts couldn't identify that with Tyson. 


With that all said, Tyson's height and energy alone can make him a good basketball player. We saw it last season and I really hope to see it again soon. I don't think Eddy Curry or playing center has anything to do with it. He played some of his best basketball when Eddy was injured late last season and played majority of his reserve minutes as center.

It'll be curious to see who receives the harshest boos on Wednesday- Curry or Chandler. Together again.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

If you read what I wrote, I said you were both crossing the line. I just pointed out the hometown thing because it's the last thing I read. It's late. I'm tired. The Bears lost and I'm upset. The last thing I need is two posters attacking each other and breaking rules. You *both* are. It's not just you for certain. Please, both of you, take it up a notch to a more civil tone.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

jnrjr79 said:


> If you read what I wrote, I said you were both crossing the line. I just pointed out the hometown thing because it's the last thing I read. It's late. I'm tired. The Bears lost and I'm upset. The last thing I need is two posters attacking each other and breaking rules. You *both* are. It's not just you for certain. Please, both of you, take it up a notch to a more civil tone.


I agree. I'm also really upset with not only the Bears loss but also just the way they played after they ran their mouth all week. This whole week was a complete regression to the week of the BROWNS game! 

As far as me being more civil, point taken and you're right. I made my point and I think it was a good solid debate between two good people, but "all the water has been wrung out." So it may be time to cash in for the evening.

Man the Bears blew today.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Pippenatorade said:


> I agree. I'm also really upset with not only the Bears loss but also just the way they played after they ran their mouth all week. This whole week was a complete regression to the week of the BROWNS game!
> 
> As far as me being more civil, point taken and you're right. I made my point and I think it was a good solid debate between two good people, but "all the water has been wrung out." So it may be time to cash in for the evening.
> 
> Man the Bears blew today.



Thanks. Much appreciated.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Chandler started 51 games at the 5 in the 30 win season. Curry averaged maybe 12 minutes a game for that period. At PF was Yell or Fizer. Blount played 16 minutes/game, and Bagaric played just 10 games.
> 
> Why I think Chandler is a 5 is because that's what he played in HS, and it's the only position (on offense) that he looks half-way comfortable playing.
> 
> The lightbulb clearly needs to go on with him... to the point he simply stays in game without being in foul trouble. Good things will happen if he just gets to that point.


I agree DaBullz. I think Chandler has a future at the 5 position. Put him at the 4 against any decent scoring PF and he's going to get outscored by 15 points a night on average. If he can return to his ways of playing scrappy defense against bigs and pulling down boards, I think he and we could be OK. Sure, Tyson has spent most of his career guarding the 4, but while he was starting at center under Cartwright, I remember being impressed by how well he guarded O'Neal one time. He's definitely got it in him, and once Mr. O'Neal starts to fade (soon), I think in general centers will start being shorter and shorter, much like the Bulls. People will just put their best two bigs on the floor without O'Neal shaping the big man culture in the league. 

It's strange, even though his breathing problems are supposedly over, Tyson still doesn't jump the way he did last year. Not even right when he comes in the game. It's so confusing. I wonder what the hell is wrong with him. Could something significant be wrong in his personal life? 

Maybe it's just that Chandler is the least emotionally stable of the Bulls. Not crazy Noch, not inconsistent Ben. When Tyson's mind and body are in the game, he's still not coordinated at all, but he does produce in his 7 foot praying mantis way. 

Do you folks remember when Cartwright used to make a point of feeding Chandler for a few shots at the beginning of each game when Ty was starting? I always wondered why that would be a good way to start a game. Maybe Bill understood that if Tyson had the chance to do something positive at the beginning of the game, he might stay mentally involved and motivated for the rest of the game.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Chandler also put up some awesome numbers in games at the 5. Numbers like 27 points and 19 boards.

At some point, feeding Chandler early in games to get scoring opportunities won't be effective. He'll be so stuck in his ways that it won't help.

What is he, 23? Like a 2nd year player or even a rookie still? I'd say there's about 2 seasons left before you can say "he is the player that you see and he'll never be anything more."


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> Dude questioned whether I would "appear not to support the Bulls."



Well since you said you "can't wait" for a player from an opposing team to outperform our own player, just to seemingly satisfy an agenda......then yes, that's a valid question. Your priorities seem to lie elsewhere.





> IMO someone whose never been to Chicago going the "real Bulls fan" route is borderline hilarious, but if you want me to drop it, and the whole thing, I will. I think that to any unbiased reader, the point is rather clear at this point. Maybe it is better not to beat the DEAD horse anymore.


The fact that I have never been to Chicago has no bearing on my depth of support for the team. I run a website dedicated to the Bulls and the NBA. I spend hours upon hours every day talking about them. I regularly stay up until 5 am to follow their progress night in and night out. I pay money I don't have on the ridiculous shipping and customs charges for their merchandise. I pay money I don't have to have every game taped and shipped out to me.

And all this is negated cos I don't live in the States?







> If you want to expound on what you think about me as a person



I know nothing about you as a person, and vice versa. Don't call me ignorant, however, and we'll get on fine.







> If Eddy plays 28 minutes in a game and scores 18 points on 6-9 FG and 6-9 FT, and draws 4 fouls in his limited time on the other teams best player, and Tyson can come into the game with a bench player out there or a tired starter and play confidently because we have a lead, then is Eddy making him better or not?



In theory. And sometimes in practice.

Coming in behind Eddy theoretically made Tyson better, although statistically it didn't help at all.

Playing alongside him did not make Tyson better.






> Also, anything that benefits Tyson due to AD being in the game is fair game for this discussion because AD was a part of the trade.



That, once again, is not the original point of contention. Which si where this all stemmed from.








> So you can isolate whatever stats you want. My argument was never meant to be "Eddy Curry makes Tyson Chandler better specifically when he is in the game with him than Tyson is when Eddy is not in the game with him." That's the argument you are having with yourself.



The origins of this debate lie in rlucas's quote, and I quote, "Chandlers problems stem from not having Curry around. Anybody who knows basketball can see that. Curry was good enough to succeed with or without Chandler, but not the other way around.".


That's what I disputed. I never factored AD into it. You did. Which is fine, but stop trying to get me to concede a point that Ia lready agree with.






> But then, where are the stats that show Tyson this year without Eddy AT ALL v. Tyson last year playing with Eddy in the game with him?


You don't need to be told that the second beats the first in every way.

But you also know that the third category (Tyson with Eddy at all LAST year) beats the second category (Tyson with Eddy last year) hands down.

So it's swings and roundabouts. It's, effectively, a statistical based game of rock paper scissors.

My point, as it has been from the start, is that there a number of factors behind the rather drastic decline of Chandler right now. I don't think Curry is one. Or if he is, it's minor. 







> I like the Jamal trade.


 :banana: 




> As far as you not undoing the trade, what do you really have to base that statement on other than "the future." Eddy's not dead yet, they got it to work there as far as getting him on the court, despite today's loss they are headed upward, and even separate of them this team is showing no signs of life. Right now all we have is Sweetney, a lotto pick that HASN'T BEEN USED YET, a pick swap (that we may not even want to use) and some second rounders for ANTONIO DAVIS (who I might not trade individually for those "assets" AND Eddy Curry.


I don't think the heart thing will ever be a factor for Eddy again, with the exception of insurance, afactor that might never come into play. I didn't want him to go, but wow did Paxson get value.

As for "all we have is Sweetney".......well, he's good. Not as good, but good. And with a lot of room for growth. OK, maybe not the best choice of words.

As fot the picks - well, when your GM's best attribute is his draftign skills, and he picks up three picks to work with, plus the swap (something that I personally consider to be much underrated. Even if they pick 12th or something, and we pick 21st, is that not a massive bonus?), plus a further $9.5 million in cap room......

The loss of Davis wasn't fun, and I don't suppose for a minute Paxson wanted to do it. But since he's seemingly retiring after this season anyway, I can live without one year of Davis. Especially since his on court benefits would have declined further as his minutes would have.







> Well I'm sorry but I'll go with the opinions of coaches over yours any day of the week.


Rather than "go with", try making your own.







> It's not even that we're worse. It's that we're as much worse as we are, you had things your way (as you STILL won't back off the Curry trade) and now, after your way is providing no dividend at all compared to the way of people who didn't want him traded, you're still trying to tell people what's what, what is relevant, what is open for discussion and so on. You DON'T know. Because I think if you really did know you'd be far more admitting and less advisory.



It's not a case of knowing, it's a case of opinion. My opinion, like I've stated before, is that the Curry trade set us back for one year. The key being, for one year. Something I will accept for the, anticipated, greater overall good.





> There's a word for people who keep talking as if they know when their way is producing lower and lower returns. Unemployed.
















> Eddy was the one out there to start the game and the third quarter with the Shaqs, Yaos and Ben Wallaces of the world, not Tyson. Eddy and AD were our starting frontcourt players. They played the prime minutes against prime players who were just as fresh as they were.



Which brings me back to this:

Why, when Eddy wasn't around, was Tyson better?





> My argument is that Tyson was better before the trade than after.



Obviously, he is worse right now. Anyone can see that. But it's not because of the trade. Oh wait, we've covered this.










> You talk about what you want to and so will I. Davis was a part of the trade. The trade is what I'm against.



You're preaching that to the wrong person, sir.










> Let's ignore the self-contradicting statement for a second.



It's self contradictory for me to want my team to be victorious over a player I happen to like? 

:whoknows:






> Let's forget for a second that you've never been to Chicago.


Actually, let's forget that for more than a second, since it's irrelevant.





> Want to talk Bulls history going back to 1984 when I began watching the team?



Nah, not really.






> Eddy is a Bull and always will be to me. Are there not many Bulls who still to this day have undying support for Elton Brand? If Kirk Hinrich were traded tomorrow are you telling me that nobody on this board would root hard for him still, and dog his replacement?



I root for Elton, for Eddy, for every ex Bull I can think fo except Jamal, because I'm finding it difficult to get over a certain grudge.

But I would never root for them over my team.





> I can love the Bulls and not have to like how things are being done.



Of course you don't have to. But that's not what you said. You openly enjoyed, or rather predicted enjoyment over, Curry beating Sweetney. That's rooting against your team's success is it not?





> Michael Sweetney to me is not a long term answer to anything. Next! Thanks for coming, wish you'd never came, don't let it hit ya.




Well now you're just being silly........


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> And all this is negated cos I don't live in the States?


Of course 

Oh btw, ease up on the enter key.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

> Oh btw, ease up on the enter key.



Stop dictating the discussion :curse:


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Stop dictating the discussion


Sorry there pops, I've yet to learn to respect thy elders


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

:raised_ey


I have no idea what you're getting at, but at least you didn't call me a kid. That grows old.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> I have no idea what you're getting at, but at least you didn't call me a kid. That grows old.


You're older than me!


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

How can you tell?


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> How can you tell?


I remember you're birthday thread, or someone mentioning it, either way when you check my profile you can easily tell.

Time to be a good boy and keep this post relating to the topic.
I'm starting to get over the amount of Tyson threads, he's hopeless, he still will be until we get him some help. The End.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

anybody remember that first preseason game - against the Pistons? Chandler was a friggin' beast. He almost had a double-double at the end of the first quarter. Energy. Aggressive. He was just short of phenomenal. Now we get five fouls, no rebounds, no blocks and no points and 30-something percent shooting from the line.

I don't think his problems are physical in nature. Maybe they haven't truly licked his breathing problems and so he's still suffering effects from not getting enough oxygen into his lungs or something. He looked very good to decent during pre-season. Now he's pathetic. Somethings had to have changed. Marriage. Fatherhood. Living up to a huge contract. Something. I really think its mental with him right now. This team has invested a great deal of time and money into him and I truly hope he figures it out sooner rather than later. He just isn't even approaching the effort he exhibited in prior years. He's a key to this teams success this season and beyond.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

ShamBulls said:


> Well since you said you "can't wait" for a player from an opposing team to outperform our own player, just to seemingly satisfy an agenda......then yes, that's a valid question. Your priorities seem to lie elsewhere.


He'll always be a Bull to me. Like I said, who hasn't rooted for Brand? How many people on here have rooted for Brand against the Bulls even? In 28 years I've never seen a franchise run quite into the ground in Chicago like this one. Well I have, but never seemingly to satisfy a set of values. 



> The fact that I have never been to Chicago has no bearing on my depth of support for the team. I run a website dedicated to the Bulls and the NBA. I spend hours upon hours every day talking about them. I regularly stay up until 5 am to follow their progress night in and night out. I pay money I don't have on the ridiculous shipping and customs charges for their merchandise. I pay money I don't have to have every game taped and shipped out to me.
> 
> And all this is negated cos I don't live in the States?


I didn't say that. I just said that you shouldn't question whether I am a fan or not. I never said you weren't one lol.

But, just to see how well you know the BULLS (and not just the post dynasty years) what was "unleashing the dobermans?" Who unleashed them? What did they do? When did it usually take place? What were the 3 main proponents of the doberman defense?



> I know nothing about you as a person, and vice versa. Don't call me ignorant, however, and we'll get on fine.


I called you ignorant?



> In theory. And sometimes in practice.
> 
> Coming in behind Eddy theoretically made Tyson better, although statistically it didn't help at all.
> 
> Playing alongside him did not make Tyson better.


Was Tyson better alongside him than with him not on the team at all? And it was in theory and in practice. 47-35 v. 15-21. Until further notice, that's IN PRACTICE as well. And I said from the beginning that you are talking about stats, I am not. I am talking about what I actually see in the games and our win loss record. HOWEVER, IF you want to talk about stats, why not compare any of Tyson's stats last year, with his stats without EDDY ON THE TEAM AT ALL, this year? Then talk to me about stats.



> That, once again, is not the original point of contention. Which si where this all stemmed from.


Fair enough, but you said you still like the trade. He was part of it. Do you want me to pull the quote up where you said "I still like the trade" or something like "I'd still do the trade." If you ratify it, you ratify all of it's parts. 



> The origins of this debate lie in rlucas's quote, and I quote, "Chandlers problems stem from not having Curry around. Anybody who knows basketball can see that. Curry was good enough to succeed with or without Chandler, but not the other way around.".
> 
> That's what I disputed. I never factored AD into it. You did. Which is fine, but stop trying to get me to concede a point that Ia lready agree with.


Well even this is true. Eddy can put a body on someone better than anyone on the current Bulls. Therefore the team played better with him on both ends. If that shows up in Tyson's individual stats or not, I don't really care. BUT I bet Tyson's stats last year were better than his stats this year, and that to me is more relevant than anything. 

Curry is definitely doing much better than Chandler since the trade, don't you think so (before you answer PPG is a stat too). 








> You don't need to be told that the second beats the first in every way.
> 
> But you also know that the third category (Tyson with Eddy at all LAST year) beats the second category (Tyson with Eddy last year) hands down.
> 
> ...


You don't think Curry is A FACTOR. Well how valid is your opinion really? Someone on realgm even challenged you that you've been wrong about this year's team, Curry and Chandler. Your opinions have been proven more wrong by actual reality this year than any Bulls fan I know of (well not one, but he doesn't post much since Tyson's decline). So you go ahead and think whatever you want. After "paper, rocks, scissors" (which is why I recomment watching the game and relying on the records), 45-35 > 15-21. Curry is a factor. A huge one. 



> I don't think the heart thing will ever be a factor for Eddy again, with the exception of insurance, afactor that might never come into play. I didn't want him to go, but wow did Paxson get value.
> 
> As for "all we have is Sweetney".......well, he's good. Not as good, but good. And with a lot of room for growth. OK, maybe not the best choice of words.
> 
> ...


Paxson didn't get value. He got bent over. 

Tim Thomas = gone
Michael Sweetney = fatter version of Marcus Fizer with less athleticism

Michael Sweetney is not good. He's not close to as good as Eddy Curry. One is a borderline all star, almost made it last year MIGHT make it this year with a surge. If not he'll be at the top of the coaching votes. The other is a short fat (fatter than Eddy EVER was) bench player that on last year's team MIGHT have given Othella a run for 4th post man. Then again, probably not. The only thing Sweetney has on Othella is fat and youth. 

Paxson's best attribute is his drafting skills? Who wouldn't have picked Hinrich at 7? Who wouldn't have picked Deng at 7? It's one thing to compare Paxson's drafting to Krause. It's another to compare him to the drafting of any of the top 10 GMs in the league. Anyone can draft players like Luol Deng and Kirk Hinrich and have them succeed. They are ready-made, college seasoned players. Getting players like that to succeed is the EASY part. It's having the balls to draft an Iguodala or J.R. Smith or Samuel Dalembert and have THEM work out for you. Paxson's best attribute may be his drafting skills, but the only brilliant pick he made was Duhon. 

Also, the draft quality has been going down for years. Sure there have been years when it's peaked up. 2003 was a great year. But even Chad Ford is ripping this year's draft class. When ESPN is saying "listen, the guys we have at the top of our list, they are only there by default" you know the draft is going to be weak. Paxson traded for two picks in the first draft WITHOUT HIGH SCHOOLERS in years!! Think about that! Even if you don't want a high schooler, maybe someone before you picks one and moves your guy down to your pick. Not this year!

Also, like I said *talk to me about the future when it happens. If Paxson takes that pick and turns it into gold, talk to me about it, AFTER he does it. Until then, even implicit presumptions that he's already done it, or it's just a matter of time, aren't valid. I'm talking about reality that has actually happened. Sweetney isn't as close to as good as either player and we have a pick that is dropping slots every day.*



> Rather than "go with", try making your own.


I've made my own. You want me to cut and paste the huge post I threw down upon arrival that you said you'd reply to in whole but never did? I've made plenty of my own. In fact I think I've thrown down some nice opinions and backed them up with logic and facts (47-35 v. 15-21). You on the other hand blurt out "statistical paper rock scissors!" 



> It's not a case of knowing, it's a case of opinion. My opinion, like I've stated before, is that the Curry trade set us back for one year. The key being, for one year. Something I will accept for the, anticipated, greater overall good.


But that good hasn't happened and there is no indication that it will. Your stance is a convenient one to take. But what happens when we aren't much better next year? Will you say "I was wrong about everything." No, you won't. You'll open a thread up saying "shucks guys things haven't gone as I planned, but don't talk about this because this just means that you get off on the failures of others" and then you'll proceed to attempt to dictate what others can and can't talk about.

Other poster: "Sham, I thought you based all of your logic on us being better this year."
Sham: "Don't talk about that, this thread isn't about what I said last year."

No, you have to pay the piper. This team SUCKS. There is no sign that we are a player away from contending. We are two very good players away from contending. And with Tyson's contract, we'll be hamstrung for years. 



> Which brings me back to this:
> 
> Why, when Eddy wasn't around, was Tyson better?


Eddy isn't around this year. Is Tyson better this year than the minutes he spent without Curry IN THE GAME WITH HIM, last year? 



> Obviously, he is worse right now. Anyone can see that. But it's not because of the trade. Oh wait, we've covered this.


You don't think so, I do. Before the trade he was far better and now he's far worse. Was there some other kind of major change in the team, besides the trade, that I haven't been made aware of? It is because of the trade. We've now covered this AGAIN, and it is. 



> You're preaching that to the wrong person, sir.


No I'm not. I just said "the trade is what I'm against." You are clearly for it. So I'm not preaching to the wrong person. What I'm doing is cracking your foundation and you don't like it. 



> Actually, let's forget that for more than a second, since it's irrelevant.


You can, I won't.



> Nah, not really.


I don't think you can.



> I root for Elton, for Eddy, for every ex Bull I can think fo except Jamal, because I'm finding it difficult to get over a certain grudge.
> 
> But I would never root for them over my team.


That's your prerogative. I don't consider Paxson (as a GM) and many of the current cast to be permanent residents. At this point I consider Reinsdorf leasing what will eventually be Jordan's rightfully held spot, with his own GM, and very few of our players. This team has no chance to win a championship in the next 3 years, so I'd rather see max assets carried over to a GM that isn't going to screw the pooch. 



> Of course you don't have to. But that's not what you said. You openly enjoyed, or rather predicted enjoyment over, Curry beating Sweetney. That's rooting against your team's success is it not?


Not really. Curry will always be a Bull to me. Sweetney will not be a Bull for as long as Curry was. He's fat and he can't play. Also, what if Curry beats Sweetney up badly, but the Bulls win? I'd be ok with that. What if the same happened and they lost? Uhh I'd be ok with that because this team isn't going anywhere this year. Once you establish that you clearly aren't any kind of contender for anything, losing only gets you a better draft position.



> Well now you're just being silly........


Not really, but thanks for your 9th personal shot at me. Keep going.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

fl_flash said:


> anybody remember that first preseason game - against the Pistons? Chandler was a friggin' beast. He almost had a double-double at the end of the first quarter. Energy. Aggressive. He was just short of phenomenal. Now we get five fouls, no rebounds, no blocks and no points and 30-something percent shooting from the line.
> 
> I don't think his problems are physical in nature. Maybe they haven't truly licked his breathing problems and so he's still suffering effects from not getting enough oxygen into his lungs or something. He looked very good to decent during pre-season. Now he's pathetic. Somethings had to have changed. Marriage. Fatherhood. Living up to a huge contract. Something. I really think its mental with him right now. This team has invested a great deal of time and money into him and I truly hope he figures it out sooner rather than later. He just isn't even approaching the effort he exhibited in prior years. He's a key to this teams success this season and beyond.


Why was the approach with Curry always to go off and yell about him and complain and talk about how he's not a "Pax-type player" and want him out of here for a sack of chips, but when Tyson commits an even worse offense (not working out when you actually GET the money) it's "let's be understanding, he'll figure it out, oh god he must be dealing with so much on his plate right now, I mean the poor guy and his beautiful wife."

It's now officially been established that Curry was held to a different standard (that of scapegoat) than Chandler, Fizer or Sweetney ever were and ever will be. 

Chandler's making the bucks. If it's wrong to come into camp fat (Eddy 2003) then its wrong to come into camp without working out period (Tyson this year, Sweetney this year, Fizer in 2003)!


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> It's now officially been established that Curry was held to a different standard (that of scapegoat) than Chandler, Fizer or Sweetney ever were and ever will be.
> 
> Chandler's making the bucks. If it's wrong to come into camp fat (Eddy 2003) then its wrong to come into camp without working out period (Tyson this year, Sweetney this year, Fizer in 2003)!


I think you are mischaracterizing. The fan base around here has been on both Eddy AND Tyson every offseason, and has been either pleased or outraged at the results accordingly.

Tyson lost 2/3 of a season to a back injury, and got a near equal split of sympathy for the back injury and criticism for not having a stronger back.

He does get some slack for this past offseason only under the theory that his agent most likely told him to lay off the strenuous activity (honeymoon not included :groucho: ) until a deal was in place. To the extent that there was no deal in place until fairly late in the summer, that is pretty much between Tyson's agent and the Bulls, not directly Tyson's fault.

In my dream world, Tyson would have ignored the advice of his agent and come into camp a (not overly) lean, (but particularly) mean, fighting machine.

But it was not to be, and I can't fault him too much for that.

I have to admit I do have more sympathy overall for Tyson's various in and offseason's plights than I did for Eddy's :chee: :chee: :chee: problems. I don't necessarily consider that a double standard. That's just me. We'll just have to disagree about that one.




Pippenatorade said:


> Why was the approach with Curry always to go off and yell about him and complain and talk about how he's not a "Pax-type player" and want him out of here for a sack of chips,


Because he blew the deal by EATING the ****ing sack of chips, that's why!


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> Why was the approach with Curry always to go off and yell about him and complain and talk about how he's not a "Pax-type player" and want him out of here for a sack of chips, but when Tyson commits an even worse offense (not working out when you actually GET the money) it's "let's be understanding, he'll figure it out, oh god he must be dealing with so much on his plate right now, I mean the poor guy and his beautiful wife."
> 
> It's now officially been established that Curry was held to a different standard (that of scapegoat) than Chandler, Fizer or Sweetney ever were and ever will be.
> 
> Chandler's making the bucks. If it's wrong to come into camp fat (Eddy 2003) then its wrong to come into camp without working out period (Tyson this year, Sweetney this year, Fizer in 2003)!


You extrapolated all that from my rather simple response? I never mentioned Curry. I simply pointed out that Chandler looked pretty good during the preseason and has since REALLY regressed to the point that he's not doing much. I don't think it's physical. I have no idea what his wife looks like or what he has on his plate. Only that _something_ must be up and it's more than likely mental. I hope he gets his act together and soon because he's a member or a team that I've supported and rooted for many years (and yes, even before 1985).

I suppose I'm glad that you can pronounce some "official" edict that there is a double-standard. Keep on truckin'.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> Keep on truckin'.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I think you are mischaracterizing. The fan base around here has been on both Eddy AND Tyson every offseason, and has been either pleased or outraged at the results accordingly.


I think that this is partially true. They've been outraged with Tyson in the past, but from what I've seen, as he's been signed by Paxson and therefore become a Paxson guy, the reaction to his blatant offense of not working out has been one of "understanding" and "Tyson will turn it around."



> Tyson lost 2/3 of a season to a back injury, and got a near equal split of sympathy for the back injury and criticism for not having a stronger back.


To me the sympathy was well warranted, had that been the only isolated case. But then when he comes out and is like "yeah, basically I have this bag of loot right, and I didn't work out at all this summer for it," then it turns into "fool me twice" (I know what you're thinking, I know, lol!). But I agree. I'll probably never stop being prone to overreacting when it comes to sports lol. I exaggerate, speak in hyperbole, and stand on the soapbox. I know. 



> He does get some slack for this past offseason only under the theory that his agent most likely told him to lay off the strenuous activity (honeymoon not included :groucho: ) until a deal was in place. To the extent that there was no deal in place until fairly late in the summer, that is pretty much between Tyson's agent and the Bulls, not directly Tyson's fault.


I agree here too, I just feel like if it were the other guy it would be "that's no excuse" and "who the heck HIRED the agent!" 



> In my dream world, Tyson would have ignored the advice of his agent and come into camp a (not overly) lean, (but particularly) mean, fighting machine.


 :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: 



> But it was not to be, and I can't fault him too much for that.


And you aren't unreasonable. You were never one to harp too much on the other guy if I remember correctly. But I CAN lol. 



> I have to admit I do have more sympathy overall for Tyson's various in and offseason's plights than I did for Eddy's :chee: :chee: :chee: problems. I don't necessarily consider that a double standard. That's just me. We'll just have to disagree about that one.


Like I said, no double standard, because you weren't ever one of the people reminding me of "the fan" when it came to Curry. Therefore anything you think about Tyson is completely reasonable. It's more reading the opinions en banc and constantly seeing "give him time" and "poor guy, he's got a lot on his plate" when en banc there wasn't 1/10 of the sympathy, or forget sympathy, mere willingness to allot time and be supportive of a guy on your team, for the other guy. 




> Because he blew the deal by EATING the ****ing sack of chips, that's why!


LOL! Eddy loves Jays! Yumm.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Thank you for the genteel response. We'll make you into a successful pettifogger yet.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

fl_flash said:


> You extrapolated all that from my rather simple response? I never mentioned Curry. I simply pointed out that Chandler looked pretty good during the preseason and has since REALLY regressed to the point that he's not doing much. I don't think it's physical. I have no idea what his wife looks like or what he has on his plate. Only that _something_ must be up and it's more than likely mental. I hope he gets his act together and soon because he's a member or a team that I've supported and rooted for many years (and yes, even before 1985).
> 
> I suppose I'm glad that you can pronounce some "official" edict that there is a double-standard. Keep on truckin'.


You are right. You didn't say anything about Eddy. And your post individually has nothing I could ever find wrong with it whatsoever. I was wrong not to state a disclaimer in there. Apologies.

Your post would more than likely fit as a small (and unnoticeable in and of itself) particle of the outpouring of support and understanding for Tyson, when he did the same thing another guy did, and I don't remember 1/10 of posts sounding like yours.

But, you don't have an agenda, you're simply being a good fan. If I sounded as if I was faulting you for anything you said, I most humbly retract. And I am worthy of pronouncing no such edict. My opinion is just that, opinion. It's no better than anyone else's and again, if I make it out to be, I apologize. I am a guest in your house, and therefore should come across accordingly.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> You are right. You didn't say anything about Eddy. And your post individually has nothing I could ever find wrong with it whatsoever. I was wrong not to state a disclaimer in there. Apologies.
> 
> Your post would more than likely fit as a small (and unnoticeable in and of itself) particle of the outpouring of support and understanding for Tyson, when he did the same thing another guy did, and I don't remember 1/10 of posts sounding like yours.
> 
> But, you don't have an agenda, you're simply being a good fan. If I sounded as if I was faulting you for anything you said, I most humbly retract. And I am worthy of pronouncing no such edict. My opinion is just that, opinion. It's no better than anyone else's and again, if I make it out to be, I apologize. I am a guest in your house, and therefore should come across accordingly.


:laugh:

I know you are trying like heck to adjust your style, but the role of fawning sycophant doesn't suit you!

We'll get your chakras aligned, balance your ying and yang and get you in harmony with the oneness of the universe. Then you'll be just fine.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> We'll get your chakras alligned, balance your ying and yang and get you in harmony with the oneness of the universe. Then you'll be just fine.


We'll also rotate your tires, but that'll cost you an extra 5 bucks.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> :laugh:
> 
> I know you are trying like heck to adjust your style, but the role of fawning sycophant doesn't suit you!
> 
> We'll get your chakras alligned, balance your ying and yang and get you in harmony with the oneness of the universe. Then you'll be just fine.


 :curse: ->  -> :angel: -> :cheers: -> :banana: ??


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

:meditate: :scatter: :meditate:

All we are is dust in the wind...Dude.

-- Ted "Theodore" Logan (speaking to Socrates in The Forum)


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> :meditate: :scatter: :meditate:
> 
> All we are is dust in the wind...Dude.
> 
> -- Ted "Theodore" Logan (speaking to Socrates in The Forum)


Great movie. All you have to do is tell me that George Carlin (sp?) is playing a guy named "Rufus" and I'll watch. Also it was Keanu Reeves before he became a terrible actor, kind of like Affleck in "Phantoms" or Damon in "Good Will Hunting."

Well I'd love to talk about movies all day Scott, but Charles Tillman just fell down again and somebody has to pick him up.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> He'll always be a Bull to me. Like I said, who hasn't rooted for Brand? How many people on here have rooted for Brand against the Bulls even? In 28 years I've never seen a franchise run quite into the ground in Chicago like this one. Well I have, but never seemingly to satisfy a set of values.



Answer the question. Do you want Eddy to dominate vs the Bulls more than you want the Bulls to succeed? You openly championed his dominance, knowing it would be to the detriment of our team. So yes, I have very valid reasons to question your loyalty.





> I didn't say that. I just said that you shouldn't question whether I am a fan or not. I never said you weren't one lol.
> 
> But, just to see how well you know the BULLS (and not just the post dynasty years) what was "unleashing the dobermans?" Who unleashed them? What did they do? When did it usually take place? What were the 3 main proponents of the doberman defense?



Don't know, don't care. I started following the Bulls in 1999, and have no interest in what happened prior to that. Titles included.

As I know I'm going to have to tell you more than once in this post, the depth of my support for this franchise is in not measured in how long I've been supporting them. And nor should it.





> I called you ignorant?


You have this awkward habit of telling ME where I get my opinions from. I can formulate my own.





> Fair enough, but you said you still like the trade. He was part of it. Do you want me to pull the quote up where you said "I still like the trade" or something like "I'd still do the trade." * If you ratify it, you ratify all of it's parts.*



a) I sure did say that. I say it quite often.
b) Um, no. See, now you're just dictating the meanings of what I say.

I would do the trade again. That doesn't mean I wanted AD gone, or enjoyed that part. That doesn't mean I wanted Eddy gone (I didn't), or enjoyed seeing him gone.

But I will live with it due to my expectations for the return.






> Well even this is true. Eddy can put a body on someone better than anyone on the current Bulls. Therefore the team played better with him on both ends. If that shows up in Tyson's individual stats or not, I don't really care. BUT I bet Tyson's stats last year were better than his stats this year, and that to me is more relevant than anything.


And you don't see mitigating factors in that?





> Curry is definitely doing much better than Chandler since the trade, don't you think so (before you answer PPG is a stat too).


He is. His team isn't, though. I thought Eddy was great for team's records?





> You don't think Curry is A FACTOR. Well how valid is your opinion really?



Not this again, please....





> Someone on realgm even challenged you that you've been wrong about this year's team, Curry and Chandler.



Did they really? Where? If it was that addicted guy, he's on ignore, so I wouldn't have seen it.





> Your opinions have been proven more wrong by actual reality this year than any Bulls fan I know of (well not one, but he doesn't post much since Tyson's decline). So you go ahead and think whatever you want. After "paper, rocks, scissors" (which is why I recomment watching the game and relying on the records), 45-35 > 15-21. Curry is a factor. A huge one.



There's the opinions as fact thing again. 







> Michael Sweetney is not good. He's not close to as good as Eddy Curry. One is a borderline all star, almost made it last year MIGHT make it this year with a surge. If not he'll be at the top of the coaching votes. The other is a short fat (fatter than Eddy EVER was) bench player that on last year's team MIGHT have given Othella a run for 4th post man. Then again, probably not. The only thing Sweetney has on Othella is fat and youth.


If Sweetney can lose his arse, I value his potential. I'm sensing you don't?





> Paxson's best attribute is his drafting skills? Who wouldn't have picked Hinrich at 7?



Well, based on the reaction it got, a helluva lot of people.





> Who wouldn't have picked Deng at 7?



Iguodala fans. Incidentally, Paxson acquired that pick for future considerations, which transpired to be Nate Robinson, and Jackson Vroman. I guess there's some value in looking ahead.






> Paxson's best attribute may be his drafting skills, but the only brilliant pick he made was Duhon.



So if you do the correct thing, it's not brilliant? Or just not foresightful enough for you?






> Also, the draft quality has been going down for years. Sure there have been years when it's peaked up. 2003 was a great year. But even Chad Ford is ripping this year's draft class. When ESPN is saying "listen, the guys we have at the top of our list, they are only there by default" you know the draft is going to be weak. Paxson traded for two picks in the first draft WITHOUT HIGH SCHOOLERS in years!! Think about that! Even if you don't want a high schooler, maybe someone before you picks one and moves your guy down to your pick. Not this year!


OK! Cool! Damn I hate it when GM's play to their strengths. :banghead:






> Also, like I said talk to me about the future when it happens. If Paxson takes that pick and turns it into gold, talk to me about it, AFTER he does it. Until then, even implicit presumptions that he's already done it, or it's just a matter of time, aren't valid. I'm talking about reality that has actually happened.




I think herein lies the point.

I VALUE this franchise's future possibilities.

It could go massively tits up.

Or, it might now.

Either way, I'm doing that looking-beyond-the-right-now thing you appear to hate. Which is why we stand differently on that trade.

Oh well.




> Sweetney isn't as close to as good as either player and we have a pick that is dropping slots every day.


Except today.





> I've made my own. You want me to cut and paste the huge post I threw down upon arrival that you said you'd reply to in whole but never did?


Whereas my opinions are merely based on conveience, right?




> But that good hasn't happened and there is no indication that it will. Your stance is a convenient one to take.



Ah, y'see, there you go, telling me how and why I form my opinions. This time, "convenience".

Or maybe, I just believe that.





> But what happens when we aren't much better next year?



Change 'when' to 'if', and stop passing your opinions as fact.

If that happened, I wouldn't be chuffed.




> Will you say "I was wrong about everything." No, you won't. You'll open a thread up saying "shucks guys things haven't gone as I planned, but don't talk about this because this just means that you get off on the failures of others" and then you'll proceed to attempt to dictate what others can and can't talk about.
> 
> Other poster: "Sham, I thought you based all of your logic on us being better this year."
> Sham: "Don't talk about that, this thread isn't about what I said last year."



There's the opinions as facts thing again. Naughty naughty.





> No, you have to pay the piper. This team SUCKS. There is no sign that we are a player away from contending. We are two very good players away from contending. And with Tyson's contract, we'll be hamstrung for years.


An opinion, in part, that I agree with. I feel we're bonding now.





> Eddy isn't around this year. Is Tyson better this year than the minutes he spent without Curry IN THE GAME WITH HIM, last year?


You didn't answer my question, you naughty naughty man.

But because I'm that nice, I'll answer yours.

Tyson is worse this year, a year without Eddy, than he was last year, a year with Eddy.

I do not believe Eddy is the factor for this.



Well bugger me if we haven't just come full circle. :banana: 





> Was there some other kind of major change in the team, besides the trade, that I haven't been made aware of?


Team, no, individual, yes. Something that I covered, in depth, in this topic's opening post.





> No I'm not. I just said "the trade is what I'm against." You are clearly for it. So I'm not preaching to the wrong person. What I'm doing is cracking your foundation and you don't like it.


When I stated in big bolded letters, that, FOR THE LAST TIME, I have no issues concering AD's impact on Tyson, I was hoping that would be the last time.

Sadly it appears it wasn't.

Setting out to convince me about something I already believed and then telling me it formed a part of my now-crumbling foundation is kinda......hmmmm.

I admire your persistence, however, in turning this into a for-or-against trade discussion. You've really gone at that hammer and tongs. :clap: 





> You can, I won't.


I figured. See below.





> I don't think you can.


I could if

a) I looked it up on my allegedly beloved 82games.com (Assuming they've got it. I rarely go there, you know)
b) I gave a toss.

As I mentioned above, it has no bearing on my depth of support when it started. Why the hell should it? Are really old men instantly viewed as more legitimate (for want of a better word) supporters of ateam, even if they do so in a merely passive role, than someone who is a relative newcomer to them who tracks them day in and day out? Why is time elapsed such an automatic qualifier for you? Or location?

And more importantly, why am I continually having to defend myself over how much of a fan I am? And why is my defense not getting through?





> That's your prerogative. I don't consider Paxson (as a GM) and many of the current cast to be permanent residents. At this point I consider Reinsdorf leasing what will eventually be Jordan's rightfully held spot, with his own GM, and very few of our players. This team has no chance to win a championship in the next 3 years, so I'd rather see max assets carried over to a GM that isn't going to screw the pooch.



That wasn't related to what I said about rooting for others over my team, but OK. Nice to know.





> Also, what if Curry beats Sweetney up badly, but the Bulls win? I'd be ok with that.


Oh good, you answered it.

Just OK? Not happy at any point? Doesn't seem very enthusiastic to me. Tell me, are you down on this year's Bulls team?






> Not really, but thanks for your 9th personal shot at me. Keep going.


:makeout:




I am now going away for an indefinite period of time to a land far far away. Or two. This means you get to have the last word, unless I get near a PC next week. Use it wisely. :greatjob:


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

this thread has become very tedious with all this bickering. sorry had to say it. 


:snooooze:


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Sham, I think at this point, we've both answered each other's questions. I've been asked to cool it down with you in a pre-emptive fashion. I'm going to do so. We come from vastly different worldviews and neither one of us is changing our minds. I think it's now best we just shake hands, and move right on. Tyson bottomed out, you have your opinions, I have mine, and that's all they are. Peace fellow Bulls fan. 

CASE CLOSED


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

Kudos Pip for handling it this way.

We all ahve opinions. We are all Bulls fans. We are all very passionate.

Move on - Nothing to see here.

:cheers:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

chifaninca said:


> Move on - Nothing to see here.


Except after Miz fell asleep, someone put a mustache on her with a sharpie.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Except after Miz fell asleep, someone put a mustache on her with a sharpie.


LOL!


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Kumbyah !

Shalom too


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

And btw Tyson is a big talking under delivering mental pygmy no talent boob that is so bottomed out a new nickname of "Pancakes" would not do justice to how flat he is 

Pancakes or Flatliner .

Either or.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> And btw Tyson is a big talking under delivering mental pygmy no talent boob that is so bottomed out a new nickname of "Pancakes" would not do justice to how flat he is
> 
> Pancakes or Flatliner .
> 
> Either or.


He's so low...

he could play handball against the curb.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I noticed in here that we were discussing Tyson's effectiveness last season without Curry around. Yes, he was effective but I would point out that we also had a big body pf in Davis that was capable of playing center and letting Chandler do his thing, this year we don't have one player on our roster that qualifies as a big body center. Sweetney is the closest thing but Davis is MUCH more effective. The bottom line here for me is that Chandler is a much more effective player when he plays his natural position at pf.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

ace20004u said:


> I noticed in here that we were discussing Tyson's effectiveness last season without Curry around. Yes, he was effective but I would point out that we also had a big body pf in Davis that was capable of playing center and letting Chandler do his thing, this year we don't have one player on our roster that qualifies as a big body center. Sweetney is the closest thing but Davis is MUCH more effective. The bottom line here for me is that Chandler is a much more effective player when he plays his natural position at pf.


Actually Chandler was matched off more with Othella Harrington in the 2nd unit .

Davis could not have played more than 20mpg - probably less and the majority of that time he was matched off with Curry to compensate for Ed's subpar rebounding and defense .

About the only minutes that Tyson and AD saw together was occasionally down the stretch in the 4th and that was not a set rotation to close out as occasionally Harrington subbed AD and even on the odd occasion Curry....and then some of the unorthodox line ups of Pike and Griffin sharing O and D at the 3 spot with Deng or Noc at 4 and Gordon / Duhon alternating at the other guard spot with Kirk.

Fact is Tyson and AD hardly played together as a combination at all.

I am not a big subscriber to the big body theory with Chandler as I think it's a (no masked cursing!) excuse given that Tyson played the majority of his minutes with Harrington in the regular game rotation

So what's changed ?

Othella is still here - but granted Tyson has not played big minutes with him as a partner upfront this season

To me its a combination of things

1. Tyson not being prepared for the season 

2. The Bulls using him in the wrong role and in a different combination of players with which he hasn't got the basketball wherewithall to adjust 

3. The requirement for a bigger role and the responsibility that goes with that and his lack of mental toughness /application to respond to that as required

You can talk about lack of big bodies to protect the delicate Tyson until the cows come home..at the end of the door he has to look at himself in the mirror and know he alone is the primary cause - maybe with some misguided management by this organisation as a contributory cause


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Actually Chandler was matched off more with Othella Harrington in the 2nd unit .
> 
> Davis could not have played more than 20mpg - probably less and the majority of that time he was matched off with Curry to compensate for Ed's subpar rebounding and defense .
> 
> ...


Well just like Tyson, when Othella could come off the bench fresh after AD and Eddy had played a whole quarter, and at that come in against either tired out starters or other bench players, Othella, just like Tyson, was probably more effective due to coming in off the bench rather than us needing him to either be a starter, or a major contributor off the bench.

So AD and Eddy also made Othella better last year. AD basically made all three of them better, because once he made Eddy better, we required less of a contribution from the other two. And thus less pressure to perform.

But I think Tyson played with AD a LITTLE more than you say. Just the option is powerful enough. 

Plus 82games.com shows that in our top 20 5-man units:

*Antonio Davis played 365 minutes with Tyson Chandler last year
Othella Harrington played 174 minutes with Tyson Chandler last year*

So actually, *Tyson played a lot more with Davis than Othella*, unless our more obscure units show otherwise. 

My biggest conclusion from last season is this: Only god knows how good Tyson and Eddy would have been last year had we foregone Eddie Robinson and Charles Oakley in 2001 and signed Antonio Davis BACK THEN, and had he played with them from day one. He clearly is the one player that could neutralize both of their weaknesses. Antonio Davis officially became one of my top ten favorite players of all time last year.

My top fifteen:

1. Scottie Pippen
2. Michael Jordan
3. Eddy Curry
4. Horace Grant
5. Dennis Rodman
6. Antonio Davis
7. Ron Harper
8. Shaquille O'neal
9. Dave Debusschere
10. B.J. Armstrong
11. Jon Havlicek
12. Cliff Levingston
13. Jo Jo White
14. Manu Ginobili
15. Sam Jones

Honorable mention: Haywoode Workman lol


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> Well just like Tyson, when Othella could come off the bench fresh after AD and Eddy had played a whole quarter, and at that come in against either tired out starters or other bench players, Othella, just like Tyson, was probably more effective due to coming in off the bench rather than us needing him to either be a starter, or a major contributor off the bench.


Agree they are both bench players 



> So AD and Eddy also made Othella better last year. AD basically made all three of them better, because once he made Eddy better, we required less of a contribution from the other two. And thus less pressure to perform.


Too long of a bow to draw for me 



> But I think Tyson played with AD a LITTLE more than you say.
> 
> Plus 82games.com shows that in our top 20 5-man units:
> 
> ...


Actually it doesn't show that at all 

http://www.82games.com/04CHI13B.HTM

That's Tyson's breakdown as to who he played all his minutes with 

That's 237 for AD and 174 for Harrington - a whole extra 65 minutes on the season and less than 1 minute per game 

Neither here nor there although he played marginally more minutes with AD which would have been driven by the minutes both played down the stretch 

The point was was that in the flow of any game from last season before it got down to crunch time was that it was Tyson paired with Othella for the main part bar the 4th quarter 

Tyson hasn't been a factor in any quarter let alone the 4th where he was paired with "AD"

He and all his apologists are just full of pissweak excuses 

EDIT :

Checked the top 20 combinations and yeah some more minutes turned up at 365 - still that's an extra 3 minutes a game that Tyson played with AD more than Othella - or around 12% of his playing time where " the difference maker" AD made such an indelible impression on his game 

Still a load of bollocks IMO


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Machinehead said:


> Agree they are both bench players


 :banana: 



> Too long of a bow to draw for me


Basically AD made everyone better and:

Curry/Davis/Chandler/Harrington >>>>> Harrington/Songaila/Sweetney/Chandler

Harrington sucks worse as the lead post guy than the 4th post guy, and Chandler sucks way worse following those three, than he was last year following Curry and Davis. And heaven forbid Tyson has to start, get John Wooden away from the TV so he doesn't roll over in his uhhh recliner chair watching that pathetic display :biggrin: 



> He and all his apologists are just full of pissweak excuses


Pretty much. Is it any coincidence that now that Eddy Curry is gone, and Tyson Chandler has become "a Paxson guy" by being signed by Paxson, the former mantra of this board "NO EXCUSES" has completely disappeared. It's been replaced with:

*NO EXC... Come on guys, this guy has a lot on his plate. Sure he basically is guilty of the same thing Curry was chased to the ends of the earth for, but we need patience, understanding, and empathy. Tyson needs lots of hugs and love, so let's all be good care bears. I mean, I won't REALLY panic unless he is still playing like this NEXT season. Wait a minute, did I just say that taking WHOLE SEASONS off is ok when you're making more than 10 million a year? I think I did.* 

What's actually even funnier is that Eddy Curry got roasted for not working out 15 months before he proclaimed that he WANTED big money. That was his sin on any message board about the Bulls. Tyson didn't work out LAST SUMMER and is actually GETTING the money. I find it rather hilarious that the slate brought down from on high by the Prophet Skiles has been adjusted as far as what is acceptable. Just my opinion :angel: 



> EDIT :
> 
> Checked the top 20 combinations and yeah some more minutes turned up at 365 - still that's an extra 3 minutes a game that Tyson played with AD more than Othella - or around 12% of his playing time where " the difference maker" AD made such an indelible impression on his game
> 
> Still a load of bollocks IMO


To me all that matters is that he did in fact play more with AD than Othella. The following statement:



> I am not a big subscriber to the big body theory with Chandler as I think it's a pu55y excuse given that Tyson played the majority of his minutes with Harrington in the regular game rotation


Just isn't true. Tyson does need a big body. Or he needs a body like AD's but with the heart of a guy like Antonio Davis who combined NBA Power Forward size with the agility and toughness of an NFL Strong Safety. Shelden Williams comes to mind. Even if we got no one else, and we just had Williams, Harrington and Sweetney playing with Chandler, we'd be a whole hell of a lot better off than we are now. *Pryzbilla can NOT play with Chandler.* That pairing would be so weak offensively that our other 3 players would be playing 3 v. 4.5 on offense. I mean we could sign Pryzbilla if we never wanted to win more than 44 games, but, I want championships.

Good solid post :cheers:


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

I'm so sick of the "Tyson isn't playing well because he doesn't have Eddy next to him" excuse. 

Chandler-Curry were never an effective pairing. 

http://82games.com/0405CHI2.HTM

Those +/- stats are sometimes misleading, but it's the best evidence I could find to support my point (other than my own personal recollection of last year's team).


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Frankensteiner said:


> I'm so sick of the "Tyson isn't playing well because he doesn't have Eddy next to him" excuse.
> 
> Chandler-Curry were never an effective pairing.
> 
> ...


*Why not compare Tyson's stats with EDDY in the game to Tyson's stats THIS YEAR, without Eddy on the TEAM AT ALL*. Those stats ARE very misleading. 

I'd prefer to compare Tyson without Eddy on the team AT ALL, to him with Eddy in the game last year, or even moreso Tyson last year period v. Tyson this year. My theory is that *EVEN when Eddy wasn't in the game WITH Tyson, the work that Eddy did to build leads for us, draw fouls, and tire out opposing big men* meant that Tyson was more likely to be facing bench players and/or tired players and also players with more fouls on them at that point in the game. 

It's not an excuse for Tyson. Because Tyson can't use it as an excuse *because he didn't complete the first half of the equation which was to work hard his darn self*. But it is reality. 

*There are two reasons Tyson is abysmal this year compared to last year.* One is that he didn't do anything all summer (which voids all excuses). But also, he is missing two quality NBA centers, and is now play with 0 centers.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Pippenatorade said:


> My theory is that *EVEN when Eddy wasn't in the game WITH Tyson, the work that Eddy did to build leads for us, draw fouls, and tire out opposing big men* meant that Tyson was more likely to be facing bench players and/or tired players and also players with more fouls on them at that point in the game.


Well, Tyson has been coming off the bench recently so he should be facing bench players and/or tired players. I don't see how playing Eddy Curry as opposed to any other PF/C would tire out your average NBA big man... we're not talking about having to guard Shaq here. As far as the building leads part, rebounding and providing a solid defensive presence should have little to do with the game's score. Those are based on effort and intensity, and it's ridiculous to attribute such a precipitous drop in Chandler's play on outside factors.

I'm guessing the underlying agenda for people citing the loss of AD/Curry as a reason for Chandler's decline is to somehow turn this around on Paxson and blame him for Tyson's ineffectiveness. I don't buy it; it's up to Chandler to play well again.

EDIT: When Curry was injured last year, was there a drop-off in Chandler's play? No, and he actually had his best month in April. So there goes that theory.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Frankensteiner said:


> Well, Tyson has been coming off the bench recently so he should be facing bench players and/or tired players. I don't see how playing Eddy Curry as opposed to any other PF/C would tire out your average NBA big man... we're not talking about having to guard Shaq here.


You don't think that guarding Othella Harrington is a lot easier than Curry? Curry may not be as good as Shaq, but there isn't any 7' as big as Eddy who reminds you more of Shaq than Curry. Having to hold a guy off of you who is 30 lbs. bigger than you are while he constantly tries to back you down takes it's toll big time. It's WAY easier than guarding Othella Harrington. 



> As far as the building leads part, rebounding and providing a solid defensive presence should have little to do with the game's score. Those are based on effort and intensity, and it's ridiculous to attribute such a precipitous drop in Chandler's play on outside factors.


First, I already stated that Tyson didn't complete the first half of the puzzle by working hard this summer. Second, it absolutely does. When you come in off the bench for Eddy Curry with a 10 point lead, and stand next to Antonio Davis, you are going to be a hell of a lot looser and more confident than following Othella Harrington into a tied ball game playing next to Darius Songaila. 



> I'm guessing the underlying agenda for people citing the loss of AD/Curry as a reason for Chandler's decline is to somehow turn this around on Paxson and blame him for Tyson's ineffectiveness. I don't buy it; it's up to Chandler to play well again.


No, first of all, I'm EXPLICITLY blaming Pax for that stupid bleep trade as far as being naive enough to think that you could replace Curry and Davis with Sweetney and Songaila and expect the players around them not to be effected. 

Secondly, it's Tyson's fault WAY more than Paxson's because even if AD and Curry were here, you are right, Tyson didn't work out. 



> EDIT: When Curry was injured last year, was there a drop-off in Chandler's play? No, and he actually had his best month in April. So there goes that theory.


No there doesn't go that theory. Tyson was so well rested cruising through the season with AD and Curry playing the prime front court minutes that he was able to keep a sprint up for April. 

*Then came the WASHINGTON SERIES, where you may not remember him being abused by NBA legends such as Michael Ruffin, Etan Thomas and Brendan Haywood. So THERE goes THAT theory. Eddy wasn't there, and the Washington series was when AD's age finally caught up with him. So then, just like now, the frontcourt onus was on Tyson to be the catalyst, and he failed miserably.*


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

*Tyson Chandler just had 0 points and 2 rebounds in 6 minutes tonight. The slide continues. This is absolutely pathetic.*

It's SO bad, that Eddie Robinson is outraged that a player would take this much money and return such a low amount of production. Todd MacCullough thinks Tyson Chandler is robbing the Bulls. Grant Hill says he never felt obligated to just retire even though he was out for like 22.5 seasons during his contract, but that if he was playing as bad as Chandler, he would retire.


----------



## Jesus Shuttlesworth (Aug 3, 2005)

He played only 6 minutes because he jammed one of his fingers. Or something like that...


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Jesus Shuttlesworth said:


> He played only 6 minutes because he jammed one of his fingers. Or something like that...


A jammed finger? Wow.


----------



## Jesus Shuttlesworth (Aug 3, 2005)

If he managed to "bottom out" with all of his 10 fingers fully operational, I guess it was a wise choice to let him rest.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

He played 6 good ones, before catching a bad break.

Like the saying goes, when it rains, it pours.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I was playing basketball in a schoolyard near DePaul with a bunch of students. There was a 2 on 1 fast break against my team and I was the last man on defense. I made a move toward the guy with the ball and he tried to pass to the man behind me. I stuck out my hand and hear a "ping" sound, like a tire running over a pebble. 

I looked down at my hand and it looked like my finger was gone from the knuckle up. I turned my hand over, and there it was... my finger was just hanging there; I had dislocated it. So I turned to the fellow next to me and told him to un-dislocate it. Another guy came running up and said he was a pre-med student and he did it. 

I played another 3-4 hours and went home. Then to the doctor, had X-rays, and they put a splint on it. THe splint was on my palm, so I asked the doc if he could put it on the other side of my hand, and he did.

I was playing the next day in practice and didn't miss any time at all.

And I wasn't getting paid $60M to play.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Can you box out?


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> I was playing basketball in a schoolyard near DePaul with a bunch of students. There was a 2 on 1 fast break against my team and I was the last man on defense. I made a move toward the guy with the ball and he tried to pass to the man behind me. I stuck out my hand and hear a "ping" sound, like a tire running over a pebble.
> 
> I looked down at my hand and it looked like my finger was gone from the knuckle up. I turned my hand over, and there it was... my finger was just hanging there; I had dislocated it. So I turned to the fellow next to me and told him to un-dislocate it. Another guy came running up and said he was a pre-med student and he did it.
> 
> ...


That's it. Tyson is cut. Would you be willing to play 6 years form 6 Million? :clap:


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> I was playing basketball in a schoolyard near DePaul with a bunch of students. There was a 2 on 1 fast break against my team and I was the last man on defense. I made a move toward the guy with the ball and he tried to pass to the man behind me. I stuck out my hand and hear a "ping" sound, like a tire running over a pebble.
> 
> I looked down at my hand and it looked like my finger was gone from the knuckle up. I turned my hand over, and there it was... my finger was just hanging there; I had dislocated it. So I turned to the fellow next to me and told him to un-dislocate it. Another guy came running up and said he was a pre-med student and he did it.
> 
> ...


I smell potential..
How big are said hands, when the finger is pointing in the right direction?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Same thing happened to me about a year ago playing ball, except it was my pinky and it bent into a strange "Z" shape.

I tried yanking the thing back into place, and so did one of my teammates, but we could not figure it out. 

So I had to go to the hospital. Anyway, I was playing 4 days later with some tape wrapping it to the other finger. 

Oh, yah, I was not getting paid 60 mil either.

Chandler should tape the thing up and get back out there. But, given the way he's playing, he should probably take his time. Maybe Krause will take over for Elgin Baylor and then trade us Brand back in the meantime.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

This just in - Tyson woke up and strained his back getting out of bed. Of course, he was in bed cause he caught typhoid fever from breaking a sweat open a box of cereal. It was also learned he dislocated three fingers working the remote on his $200K entertainment system...


Good genes - Worth a $1 Million

Being 7ft tall and dominating your fellow high school players and having the right jib and no heart condition - Worth $60 Million.


How many here would Eddy Curry over Tyson Chandler right now? I would.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

chifaninca said:


> This just in - Tyson woke up and strained his back getting out of bed. Of course, he was in bed cause he caught typhoid fever from breaking a sweat open a box of cereal. It was also learned he dislocated three fingers working the remote on his $200K entertainment system...
> 
> 
> Good genes - Worth a $1 Million
> ...


 :clap: Good post

Want to be in my club??


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

chifaninca said:


> How many here would Eddy Curry over Tyson Chandler right now? I would.




Right now, yes. Ask me again in two months time.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

ShamBulls said:


> Right now, yes. Ask me again in two months time.


OK.

Of course, Eddy will probably have dropped dead by then. He’d still be better than Chandler though.


The guy has heart issues. You don’t mess around with the heart.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Heh.

I hope Tyson takes a DNA test before playing tonight. You don't mess with the fingers.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Heh.

The moral to my story is...

Dislocated finger isn't a season-ending injury.

If you have a $60M contract, the team might want to be sure you don't really hurt the hand to the point where you need surgery.

Tyson's back playing tonight.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

The finger injury may be just what the doctor ordered.
Great game against Indiana tonight!
Maybe the pain woke him up.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

McBulls said:


> The finger injury may be just what the doctor ordered.
> Great game against Indiana tonight!
> Maybe the pain woke him up.


For what he's making, games like that should be FAR from an aberration. I'd hardly call it great either. More along the lines of VERY GOOD.


----------



## nanokooshball (Jan 22, 2005)

Pippenatorade said:


> For what he's making, games like that should be FAR from an aberration. I'd hardly call it great either. More along the lines of VERY GOOD.


I would call it a great game

byfar his best game of the season


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

nanokooshball said:


> I would call it a great game
> 
> byfar his best game of the season


Yes, relative to Tyson and the fact that he's stunk it up all season, it was a great game. Do you want me to factor tonight's game into his season averages and then throw those beauties up here so that we can all view the *entire body of work*?


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Pippenatorade said:


> For what he's making, games like that should be FAR from an aberration. I'd hardly call it great either. More along the lines of VERY GOOD.


I think limiting Germain O'Neil to 13 points and outscoring him is a pretty good, and relatively speaking, great, defensive and offensive effort. Certainly a decisive effort.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

McBulls said:


> I think limiting Germain O'Neil to 13 points and outscoring him is a pretty good, and relatively speaking, great, defensive and offensive effort. Certainly a decisive effort.


*AFTER tonight's game* here are Tyson Chandler's season averages:

4.77 PPG
7.55 RPG
0.916 APG
0.527 SPG
1.11 BPG

*Any way you cut it, that sucks. So I really don't care what he did tonight. Those are the numbers right there. They kinda look like, Eddy Curry, oh, if you took his SCORING ability away*

His free throw shooting did skyrocket up to 36.9% for the season though. BARF.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

Pippenatorade said:


> *AFTER tonight's game* here are Tyson Chandler's season averages:
> 
> 4.77 PPG
> 7.55 RPG
> ...


I think that although he had one good game, it shows you he has the ability to do that. Last year he was relatively consistent. It also shows that when Tyson is playing well, we are a very, very good team. It's only a matter of time before he figures it out. 10 ppg and 10 rpg and 2 blocks would be devastating. That is also lightyears ahead of Curry no matter how many points he scores.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

lougehrig said:


> I think that although he had one good game, it shows you he has the ability to do that. Last year he was relatively consistent. It also shows that when Tyson is playing well, we are a very, very good team. It's only a matter of time before he figures it out. 10 ppg and 10 rpg and 2 blocks would be devastating. That is also lightyears ahead of Curry no matter how many points he scores.


LOL so you are now making up stats that don't exist for Chandler and saying he's far better than Curry based on that? Curry's close in RPG and only averaging like 10 more PPG than Chandler. POINTS DO MATTER. WHOEVER HAS THE MOST POINTS WINS THE GAME. It's so funny how some went away for a month. I cringe when I think of Chandler having his FOURTH good game of the season the next time the Bulls play, the "Chandler is better than Curry" talk might not only take over bbb.net, but also the entire net period.

Eddy Curry = 14.8 PPG, 6.6 RPG
Tyson Chandler = 4.7 PPG, 7.5 RPG

Yeah you're right. It's only a matter of time before Tyson Chandler is "lightyears" better than Eddy Curry. Oh don't forget this:

Free Throw %
Eddy Curry 63.3%
Tyson Chandler *36.9%*

At least when Chandler does get to the line (almost never) he capitalizes. Or not.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Geez. Did we really have to turn Tyson having a good game tonight into an Eddy/Tyson debate? Ugh.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

*Tyson Chandler v. Eddy Curry career statistics*:

PPG
Eddy Curry 12.1 PPG
Tyson Chandler 7.2 PPG

So here we see Eddy Curry having a 4.9 per game lead in a stat that only contributes to who WINS THE GAME. 4.9 more of the things that win the game (POINTS). Not bad.

RPG
Eddy Curry 6.6
Tyson Chandler 7.3

WOW. In the one thing Tyson Chandler is asked to do besides play help defense, he's got a whole career 0.7 per game advantage. 

APG 
Eddy Curry 0.5
Tyson Chandler 0.9

Another thing that people harp on Curry for. Guess what? A measly 0.4 per game advantage. Great, maybe Tyson can go be a crappy PG.

BPG
Eddy Curry 0.8
Tyson Chandler 1.4

Here's another thing Tyson supposedly does so much better than Eddy Curry. Mr. Superdefender, whose only ever been asked to defend and rebound, only leads by 0.6 BPG. You'd think Tyson averaged at least 2 BPG since it's only a matter of time before he does in the future, game in and game out.

SPG
Eddy Curry 0.29
Tyson Chandler 0.57

Again, unimpressed. Admittedly, another stat, like APG, that I look at more with PGs than centers.

FG%
Eddy Curry 53.4%
Tyson Chandler 50.5%

Has Tyson Chandler ever been double teamed? I think watching him try to back down a single team is one of the ugliest things I've ever watched.

FT%
Eddy Curry 66.5%
Tyson Chandler 62.0%

Again, I can see why you're so confident.

Career games:
Eddy Curry 318
Tyson Chandler 296

Common myth, that Eddy is the only guy who misses games, and yet, he's played 22 more than Tyson. So he also leads in the showing up department.

Career starts:
Eddy Curry 228
Tyson Chandler 138

*That's right. Eddy Curry has started a FULL NBA SEASONS worth of games more than Chandler, with 8 more games to spare. Eddy Curry isn't coming off the bench for Michael Sweetney and Othella Harrington.*

Eddy Curry was, is and always will be better than Tyson Chandler.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

jnrjr79 said:


> Geez. Did we really have to turn Tyson having a good game tonight into an Eddy/Tyson debate? Ugh.





> I think that although he had one good game, it shows you he has the ability to do that. Last year he was relatively consistent. It also shows that when Tyson is playing well, we are a very, very good team. It's only a matter of time before he figures it out. 10 ppg and 10 rpg and 2 blocks would be devastating. *That is also lightyears ahead of Curry no matter how many points he scores.*


Looks a lot like last year to me. People who should just be honest and be like "I don't care how good or bad Eddy Curry is, I just don't like him. Because that sure is better than any actual argument they or 82games.com have about Curry. 

BUT J, you know I respect you, so just say the word, and if you think it best, I will erase my last two posts.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

It's not directed just at your Pippen. I just feel like Tyson's success (or frequent lack thereof) can be assessed independently of Eddy. Tyson's play this year would have sucked regardless of whether or not Eddy was on the team. 

I am somewhat excited about tonight's performance. It was good to see. It is correct though that a double double performance should be standard for Tyson. Hopefully we won't be so excited about it in the future.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

jnrjr79 said:


> It's not directed just at your Pippen. I just feel like Tyson's success (or frequent lack thereof) can be assessed independently of Eddy. Tyson's play this year would have sucked regardless of whether or not Eddy was on the team.
> 
> I am somewhat excited about tonight's performance. It was good to see. It is correct though that a double double performance should be standard for Tyson. Hopefully we won't be so excited about it in the future.


Still, I could do well to take your advice and be a choir boy poster. So just say the word and I'll go back and nicify those posts :biggrin:


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

It's cool. I don't see anything wrong with the posts. I was just trying to keep the thread on topic.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

Interesting number from the latest ESPN Power Rankings blurb:



> One big reason for Bulls' struggles: Before Saturday's 15 points and 14 boards in a victory at Indy, Chandler had 10 points ... for the entire month.


----------

