# I wish we had kept Chandler..



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

I know he's expensive, but he's averaging 12rebs a game, plus he is 7-1.Ben has the strenght, Chandler has the height. Those 2 guys together, who's going to get a reb against us, or come into the land and try to score? had we kept Chandler, we would really be a championship contender.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

I wish we kept Brand.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Hustle said:


> I wish we kept Brand.


Work ethic issues?

http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/43142/20061107/scouts_brand_lacking_spark_of_last_season/


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Not really my point but I'd still wish we'd kept Brand if he stayed as sluggish as he was here in Chicago.


----------



## MacDanny 6 (Jun 7, 2002)

Hustle said:


> Not really my point but I'd still wish we'd kept Brand if he stayed as sluggish as he was here in Chicago.


 sluggish? he averaged 20 and 10 for like 3 seasons


----------



## Geaux Tigers (Apr 26, 2004)

You can't directly say that Chandler's success in N.O. would have translated to success in Chicago. I troll these Chicago boards a lot and it seems that people on this board seem to focus on every player that the Bulls used to have more than the ones they do have. 

Chandler is in a different situation now. He's in some new surroundings without the negative press that he got in Chicago labeling him a bust. He's got a new system to run in and a new PG. He's not the same player he was in Chicago and if you put him back on the team he wouldnt be the same.

You'll be better off with Tyrus anyway trust me...


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

Which brings us to another question..
does tyrus thomas have the ability to grab 10+rebs a game during his prime? I know he can average 2-3blks a game, what about Rebs?


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

MacDanny 6 said:


> sluggish? he averaged 20 and 10 for like 3 seasons


I wouldn't use the word sluggish for him, the realgm link said it about him this season when he's averaging 25, 10, and 2.5. He did lose a decent amount of fat after leaving here.


----------



## Geaux Tigers (Apr 26, 2004)

Sith said:


> Which brings us to another question..
> does tyrus thomas have the ability to grab 10+rebs a game during his prime? I know he can average 2-3blks a game, what about Rebs?


Defenitly...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Geaux Tigers said:


> Defenitly...



What about averaging that *this* season?


----------



## Geaux Tigers (Apr 26, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> What about averaging that *this* season?


Well that depends on the minutes he gets...Im not a fortune teller but I'd venture to say that if Tyrus gets starters minutes he's got 10 rpg.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Sith said:


> I know he's expensive, but he's averaging 12rebs a game, plus he is 7-1.Ben has the strenght, Chandler has the height. Those 2 guys together, who's going to get a reb against us, or come into the land and try to score? had we kept Chandler, we would really be a championship contender.


I thought that when the rumors were going around, I thought it after the trade, and still do....always will. Absolutely retarded and cheap as hell to trade him for PJ FREAKING BROWN! What a damn joke! Maybe, just maybe, Big Ben would've rubbed off on him and he would've started playing better. He looked worse due to playing C, and he's not a C, he's a PF. With Ben Wallace muscling people around he'd be much better at the 4. Problem with that is Nocioni, Thomas, Kryahpa are all 4s as well, though they could probably play some 3. Having too much young talent is a nice problem to have though.


----------



## hammer (Oct 29, 2005)

A few games doesn't mean a damn thing.

People should have known that this guy was a terrific defensive prospect before he switched teams. Flip-flopping shall not be tolerated. :biggrin: 

Heh, and now he's a darkhorse candidate to lead the league in rebounding. Ain't that a riot. I'm not saying that he's gonna do it, what with Kevin Garnett and Dwight Howard kicking *** on a nightly basis, but he certainly has a shot.

I will stand by a prediction that I made before the season started: Tyson will lead the NBA in offensive rebounding. He has 21 through four games, which ain't too shabby.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Geaux Tigers said:


> Well that depends on the minutes he gets...Im not a fortune teller but I'd venture to say that if Tyrus gets starters minutes he's got 10 rpg.


That would be nice.

I wonder if he could stay on the floor long enough (fouls) to get those kind of minutes.

I hope he can do that the last 1/3 of the season and in the playoffs. Given no other difference making option at the 4, I think that's what is going to be required to make a run. Unless Paxson makes a trade.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Geaux Tigers said:


> You can't directly say that Chandler's success in N.O. would have translated to success in Chicago. I troll these Chicago boards a lot and it seems that people on this board seem to focus on every player that the Bulls used to have more than the ones they do have.
> 
> Chandler is in a different situation now. He's in some new surroundings without the negative press that he got in Chicago labeling him a bust. He's got a new system to run in and a new PG. He's not the same player he was in Chicago and if you put him back on the team he wouldnt be the same.
> 
> You'll be better off with Tyrus anyway trust me...


LMAO

please, I've watched NO on leauge pass and Tyson Chandler is the SAME EXACT player he was in chicago...

But you're right, the people on these boards focus TOOOOOOOOOO much on former bulls, it's disgusting


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> What about averaging that *this* season?


Does he need to average that THIS season?! no


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

i've been a chandler supporter ever since he was drafted. i still look upon his career and want him to do well. when the rumours were swirling around about the trade with NO i was throwing up in my mouth, thinking how the bulls management could be so cheap.

but if you take the emotions out of the equation, i would rather have Wallace over Chandler, from a pure basketball stand point. Wallace has the experience, a ring, defensive player of the year awards, he naturally commands respect. Where as Chandler is still trying to make a solid impact on the league. So then you put Chandler and Wallace on the same court, with Deng, Gordon and Hinrich. Who will be the scorers? Deng, Gordon and Hinrich. We would blog down on offense because teams wouldn't have to guard Wallace or Chandler for large portions on defense. Chandler would more often then not shy away from shooting, where as Wallace though he tries, he just doesn't have the offensive moves to put the ball in the basket at a consistent basis to command defensive attention. So teams would play 5 on 3 on the defensive end.. and that would kill us offensively. Sure, our defense would still be great, but when its all said and done, you still need to score more points than the opposition. Why do you think people want to use Noc at the 4? Because we need points scored. Brown has offensive moves, and a decent jump shot, but at time his old age seems to have caught up with him and he just looks stiff. 

The only way it would have worked was to bring Chandler off the bench, and OCCASIONALLY use them together when they want to make stoppages. But i can't possibly imagine any coach wanting to use them both on the court at the same time for large periods of the game. Two big men, whom both don't have any offensive moves and both poor free throw shooters. So who wants to pay Chandler the money he is owed to come off the bench??

I love Chandler, as i love any player that the bulls draft or has been a part of the bulls and i always follow their progress. But it just wouldn't have worked with Both Chandler and Wallace...


----------



## Geaux Tigers (Apr 26, 2004)

The ROY said:


> LMAO
> 
> please, I've watched NO on leauge pass and Tyson Chandler is the SAME EXACT player he was in chicago...
> 
> But you're right, the people on these boards focus TOOOOOOOOOO much on former bulls, it's disgusting


Im not necessarily saying HE is different...I just mean that his present surrouding are making him seem more appealing especially to his former team. I suppose when I said he is not the same player it would have been better to say he isn't playing quite the same. Chris Paul does that to you.

He still cant catch...


----------



## anorexorcist (Aug 3, 2005)

not to mention that we would have probably not gotten kirk's extension done if TC was still here, and more than likely we would not have been able to afford to keep both ben and deng at the same time, with nocioni a lock to leave. this is assuming we signed wallace as well.


----------



## synergy825 (Apr 28, 2005)

DaBabyBullz said:


> I thought that when the rumors were going around, I thought it after the trade, and still do....always will. Absolutely retarded and cheap as hell to trade him for PJ FREAKING BROWN! What a damn joke! Maybe, just maybe, Big Ben would've rubbed off on him and he would've started playing better. He looked worse due to playing C, and he's not a C, he's a PF. With Ben Wallace muscling people around he'd be much better at the 4. Problem with that is Nocioni, Thomas, Kryahpa are all 4s as well, though they could probably play some 3. Having too much young talent is a nice problem to have though.


If Chandler was here, Wallace won't be here because we won't be able to afford both of them. The truth of the matter is that Paxson didn't let Chandler go because he's not a good player. The main reason is he wanted financial flexibility. Hence, it is the reason why he traded for PJ Brown and JR Smith. If we had kept Chandler with his current contract, we would have a hard time signing all of the "core". This is why Paxson had Ben Wallace's contract structured financially with the mindset that he wanted to have room to sign the rest of the "core". Hinrich's contract is the same way. So it was either keep Chandler and let one of Hinrich, Gordon, Nocioni, or Deng go, or just let go of Chandler. Paxson chose the latter which I agree with. I wish Chandler the best and I hope him being traded to a different team wakes him up, he has alot of potential.


----------



## r1terrell23 (Feb 11, 2006)

TC is grabbing 12 rebs a game because no one else on the team is gonna grab them. Here Noc, Deng, and even Hinrich were good/solid rebounders for their size and took them away from TC. The bottom line is Ben Wallace is much better because he is a game changer on D. Tyrus Thomas will make us forget about Chandler anyway. He is what Chandler should have been.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

r1terrell23 said:


> TC is grabbing 12 rebs a game because no one else on the team is gonna grab them.


David West averaged 7.5 rebounds a game last season.




> Here Noc, Deng, and even Hinrich were good/solid rebounders for their size and took them away from TC.


Chandler let the team in rebounding and was near the top in the league in rebound rate both of the seasons since Noc and Deng joined the team. You are wrong on this one.





> The bottom line is Ben Wallace is much better because he is a game changer on D. Tyrus Thomas will make us forget about Chandler anyway. He is what Chandler should have been.


Tyrus Thomas will never play center in the NBA. Tyrus Thomas will never be 7-2.

Also, there is no reason that Chandler and Tyrus should not be on the same team.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

i know chandler won't average 12rebs a game if he was with the bulls, but this is not the point.the point is he's a great rebounder, he and wallace would just terrorize the glass if they played together. both are also capable of getting 2-3blks a game. really,theres not a single team in this league can put up a fighting chance in reb vs wallace/chandler tandem.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

caught tonights game and NO seems to have a good mix of players. david west and chandler pair up nicely. west can face up and get to work from 15 feet. that allows chandler to focus on the paint. chandler is really cleaning house on the defensive boards. he's not quite as persistent on the offensive boards, nor is he great at being the defensive anchor (annoucners mentioned no block shots before the game). but when it comes to leaving the opponents to one shot and done, he's doing a great job. peja seems to have the perfect drive and kick partner in CP. Paul can get anywhere on the floor and Peja was getting a ton of space for his jumper.


----------



## Sleep520 (Nov 6, 2006)

kukoc4ever said:


> Work ethic issues?
> 
> http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/43142/20061107/scouts_brand_lacking_spark_of_last_season/


A lazy Brand would still be 10 times the player tyson will ever be...


----------



## Sleep520 (Nov 6, 2006)

kukoc4ever said:


> Tyrus Thomas will never play center in the NBA. Tyrus Thomas will never be 7-2.
> 
> Also, there is no reason that Chandler and Tyrus should not be on the same team.


chandler isn't a true center anyways; he's just not strong enough. Still a one-trick pony with some of the most overrated defense ever...

And does anyone realize how horrible our offense would be with chandler still on our team in a lineup with Big Ben??


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

how many blocks for tyson so far? 


anyway, i propose 2 trades.

ben wallace for chandler
pj brown + sweetney + ny pick for curry


hinrich/duhon
gordon/sea-flush
deng/noc
chandler/tyrus
curry/malik

sweet.


----------



## r1terrell23 (Feb 11, 2006)

kukoc4ever said:


> David West averaged 7.5 rebounds a game last season.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There is a reason why TC and Tyrus can't play on this team. Who would you rather have, Chandler or Wallace? Because that essentially is what it boils down to. The Bulls wanted Wallace and got rid of Chandler's contract to accomodate him and will rid themselves of Brown next year. Tyrus doesn't need to be 7-2 or a Center but if he gives us 15 and 8 like I think he can down the line with stellar D, he would negate the loss of TC by himself and then some. There is a no reason Brand still shouldn't be here if you want to go that route.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Hey! You're forgetting about those two 2nd round draft choices the Bulls got for JR Smith. One of them may make you forget all about Chandler... :none:


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

Screw Chandler, I miss Brand. If we're going to pine for ex Bulls I am admitting my heartbreak at losing Brand and his production for a kid who still hasn't proven anything. 

Brand and Wallace along with the current cast would be lifting a trophy in June.


----------



## synergy825 (Apr 28, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> David West averaged 7.5 rebounds a game last season.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So if you wanted Chandler here, which 2 of the core would you like to see go?


----------



## synergy825 (Apr 28, 2005)

Sith said:


> i know chandler won't average 12rebs a game if he was with the bulls, but this is not the point.the point is he's a great rebounder, he and wallace would just terrorize the glass if they played together. both are also capable of getting 2-3blks a game. really,theres not a single team in this league can put up a fighting chance in reb vs wallace/chandler tandem.


read my post.....Wallace and Chandler will never have happened. Reinsdorf won't pay both and keep all 4 of the "core"


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> David West averaged 7.5 rebounds a game last season.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So size matters when it comes to rebounding now?

You're man-crush is getting out of control.

There's PLENTY of reasons Tyrus & Tyson shouldn't be on the same time, you just haven't seemed to try to accept the reasons.

no offense


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

synergy825 said:


> So if you wanted Chandler here, which 2 of the core would you like to see go?




There is no good reason the Bulls should not be in the top quarter of NBA teams in terms of spending.

I don't think two members of the "core" would have to be dumped, if the Bulls are willing to simply be in the top quarter, which is quite reasonable considering how much money they pull in relative to the other teams.

And, there is also no good reason we could not have kept Chandler on this team for this season, and dumped him next offseason, if the Bulls really are that cheap.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The ROY said:


> So size matters when it comes to rebounding now?


Uh, yeah. It does. That's why teams tend to start taller players at the PF and C position. A team of 5 6-1 players would lose on the boards in the NBA, don't you think?


----------



## Cager (Jun 13, 2002)

Let's not go overboard on the Chandler love. We saw both Tyson and Eddy play very well for stretches of time. Tyson played very well two years ago on defense but regressed last year. A major problem with Tyson is that you can't trust him to be there when you need it. Ben is a man and Tyson is still struggling with consistency. I woiuldn't bet that Tyson will ever reach Ben's current offensive game. The man has no hands and is severely offensively challenged. He has started well for NOK and hopefully he can continue to play well for them. But he had no place on this roster after getting Ben. Ben is much superior to Chandler now and at least for the next year or so. We need to win now and we need to be able to keep our core together. Good luck Tyson but Pax made a great move upgrading our team with Ben over Tyson.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Uh, yeah. It does. That's why teams tend to start taller players at the PF and C position. A team of 5 6-1 players would lose on the boards in the NBA, don't you think?


Not if they all rebound like Jason Kidd & Chris Paul...

Tyson is a very GOOD rebounder, but even inconsistent at that...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The ROY said:



> Not if they all rebound like Jason Kidd & Chris Paul...


Really, you think a team of 5 strong rebounding point guards would beat the opposing team in rebounding most nights in the NBA?

Interesting. I disagree.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/stats/b...,FC,C&conference=NBA&year=season_2006&sort=26

Look at all those tall people at the top of the list!

And thus, the great "do tall people tend to rebound better than short people" debate begins on bb.net.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/stats/b...,FC,C&conference=NBA&year=season_2006&sort=26

Hey, look, Drew Gooden is near the top of the list as well.

I wonder how he would look starting at the 4 for the Bulls?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Chandler had a nice night last night.

Good for him.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> And thus, the great "do tall people tend to rebound better than short people" debate begins on bb.net.


Tend to? Obviously yes.

Specific cases? Not necessarily.

For instance, l'il ol' Jason Kidd regularly has more boards per game than a beasty beast Knick big guy with the initials EC.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Tend to? Obviously yes.


Good, we agree.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> There is no good reason the Bulls should not be in the top quarter of NBA teams in terms of spending.
> 
> I don't think two members of the "core" would have to be dumped, if the Bulls are willing to simply be in the top quarter, which is quite reasonable considering how much money they pull in relative to the other teams.
> 
> And, there is also no good reason we could not have kept Chandler on this team for this season, and dumped him next offseason, if the Bulls really are that cheap.



it's not a matter of just being cheap. being responsible fiscally means more flexibility in the future... in a league where the type of team you have -- in the context of a changing league -- is looking different year to year. even if you have the same guys locked up for 8 billion yrs.

why are you in such a hurry to become the Knicks?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Cager said:


> Tyson played very well two years ago on defense but regressed last year. A major problem with Tyson is that you can't trust him to be there when you need it.


Tyson was very consistent and very good in 04-05. Looks like he is right back at this level. 

Bulls fans get to pray that Knicks stink and Pax once again makes a nice draft pick and new fluke injuries don't happen because big guys like Tyson don't grow on trees.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> it's not a matter of just being cheap. being responsible fiscally means more flexibility in the future... in a league where the type of team you have -- in the context of a changing league -- is looking different year to year.


And as we saw last season, dumping Chandler is not that much of a problem.

If a team is looking to get rid of a 23 year old, 7 foot plus, all-NBA rebounder and are asking little in return, there are teams that will take him off their hands.



> why are you in such a hurry to become the Knicks?


Not the Knicks. Just in the top quarter.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Not the Knicks. Just in the top quarter.



but what about the 'badness' part. the 'total, suffocating complacency amongst players' part that can be achieved with less ridiculous $$ numbers than NY.

we've seen it on so many teams. my thing is - lock up the guys you want to go forward with. we knew Tyson was done here after last year, so why prolong it? why risk having his whining be contagious to young guys here?



regarding your other point: do you really think Chandler and Wallace could play together? i know youve said a hundred times that TC would be coming off your bench. but if you played him and Wallace together even for 10 minutes it would be awkward as all get out for our offense. how overburdened would our slashing guards be during those 10 minutes? 

of course they could always dish off to Tyson, but i've seen enough of those dropped passes for years now and am glad it's done with.

the guy playing alongside Wallace has to have passing skills and some semblance of a jumper. or at least he has to be able to catch the ball. a PJ, a Malik.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> but what about the 'badness' part. the 'total, suffocating complacency amongst players' part that can be achieved with less ridiculous $$ numbers than NY.


8.5 mil for Curry this year.
7 mil for Crawford this year.
Chandler is pulling down 9 million for the undefeated Hornets.

These are not ridiculous numbers by NBA standards.

PJ Brown for 8 million this season. Where is the outrage over that?


As for the Knicks, the salaries that make their payroll so crazy are the 20.8 million for Houston, 17.2 million for STARbury, 16.9 million for Jalen (bought out), 15 million for Steve Francis.



> we've seen it on so many teams. my thing is - lock up the guys you want to go forward with. we knew Tyson was done here after last year, so why prolong it? why risk having his whining be contagious to young guys here?


The undefeated Hornets seem to have a different view of Chandler to this point. It is a long season though.






> regarding your other point: do you really think Chandler and Wallace could play together? i know youve said a hundred times that TC would be coming off your bench. but if you played him and Wallace together even for 10 minutes it would be awkward as all get out for our offense. how overburdened would our slashing guards be during those 10 minutes?


I'd have concerns about that as well.

1.) Play Chandler 20-25 minutes a game while seeking a better trade.
2.) Chandler would be great insurance to a Wallace injury.
3.) Skiles, a great game coach, would find ways to use both, if it helped the team win.
4.) If the Bulls are really as cheap as they seem (unwilling to be in the top quarter of NBA teams), then we can dump Chandler next season.






> of course they could always dish off to Tyson, but i've seen enough of those dropped passes for years now and am glad it's done with.
> 
> the guy playing alongside Wallace has to have passing skills and some semblance of a jumper. or at least he has to be able to catch the ball. a PJ, a Malik.


Fine. Use Malik in that role. We're only playing PJ 19 minutes a night to this point anyway. Malik can give you 19 minutes of similar production to PJ Brown. Or, keep a guy like Othella, or some other average veteran PF that can give you 15 minutes, if you really think its that important.

If the Bulls are going to do anything this season, in terms of winning a NBA title, I think that Tyrus is going to have to step up and take over that PF spot.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> 8.5 mil for Curry this year.
> 7 mil for Crawford this year.
> Chandler is pulling down 9 million for the undefeated Hornets.
> 
> ...


Yeah, and how much for PJ next season? And the season after that.




I wish we still had Dickey Simpkins.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

PJ's defense > Malik's defense. same with rebounding. which you never mention in your dismissals of PJ.



PJ's contract: one year. no outrage because it maintains our flexibility next offseason. which is important for a team that has not won a playoff series. 

getting future flexibility and an experienced big man -- who can turn 6 fouls into 12 -- that makes the PJ trade a good one, and a good fit for this team.



not good fits, for reasons both financial and regarding roster cohesiveness: Murphy and Pietrus.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Yeah, and how much for PJ next season? And the season after that.


What's your point?

Yes, PJ has an expiring contract. Everyone knows this. Its the reason he's on the team.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> PJ's contract: one year. no outrage because it maintains our flexibility next offseason. which is important for a team that has not won a playoff series.


Flexibility to do what? There is no good reason the Bulls should not be in the top quarter in the NBA in payroll.




> getting future flexibility and an experienced big man -- who can turn 6 fouls into 12 -- that makes the PJ trade a good one, and a good fit for this team.


I guess if we're not a "win now" team.




> not good fits, for reasons both financial and regarding roster cohesiveness: Murphy and Pietrus.


I agree about the financial, if the Bulls are unwilling to enter the top quarter in NBA payroll.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

K4E, do we have to live with your daily posts on Chandler all through this year much like you did with Curry last year? Why are you always so obsessed with players not on our current roster? JC for one year? Curry for another? Now with Chandler? 

I don't get it. Especially with your obsession over Chandler. He was and is worst of three C.

Obviously Hornet is better fit for him. Good for him. As for Bulls, I think we are better off without him. If your whole argument is that we can still keep him for one year and dump him later, does that really make such a difference? Even this year? 

Chandler obviously has some value as a basketball player for his rebounding and block. I won't deny that (even though I don't rate him as specially gifted defensive player as some do). But with Wallace on our roster, we just don't need him that bad. As much you dislike PJ's performance so far, I still think that PJ is far better fit for current roster.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Flexibility to do what? There is no good reason the Bulls should not be in the top quarter in the NBA in payroll.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




what is wrong with financial flexibility in the coming offseason...while being 'win now' ? as it is right now we have too many solid players who will not see floor time. they could see floor time on other teams. 


face it, bow to Pax, for he has assembled a deep roster with a very solid starting 5. the only blemish is he has committed the atrocity of having some cap space next offseason. egads!


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> I guess if we're not a "win now" team.


How in the world "still having Chandler on the roster" makes Bulls "win now" team if you think "Bulls with PJ instead of Chandler" is not a "win now" team? How? Especially since you yourself mentioned that we can use him as off-the bench player for about 20 mpg after Big Ben! 

Does this one individual player who would come off the bench to soley play on the defenseive end to play about 20 mpg make that much of difference so we become all of sudden "win now team" ?

For me, current Bulls with PJ instead of Chandler is also a "win now team" too. Actually more so than your version IMO.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> He was and is worst of three C.


Wow. I disagree wholeheartedly.

Chandler is by far a more valuable player to an NBA team than Jamal Crawford.





> As for Bulls, I think we are better off without him.


Better off without him? Why?





> If your whole argument is that we can still keep him for one year and dump him later, does that really make such a difference? Even this year?


Its foolish to knowingly lose on trades, IMO. If you have a surplus, you don't give that surplus away. Especially when you have a rare commodity like a 7 footer that can actually play basketball.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> it's not a matter of just being cheap. being responsible fiscally means more flexibility in the future... in a league where the type of team you have -- in the context of a changing league -- is looking different year to year. even if you have the same guys locked up for 8 billion yrs.
> 
> why are you in such a hurry to become the Knicks?


As I wrote in another thread, the notion that keeping Chandler would have meant pushing us into luxury tax land is not correct. It appears likely to me we could have kept Chandler, signed Wallace, and also resigned our major core players and still sneaked under the tax threshold.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> How in the world "still having Chandler on the roster" makes Bulls "win now" team if you think "Bulls with PJ instead of Chandler" is not a "win now" team? How?


The Bulls would be a better team this season with Tyson Chandler on the roster versus PJ Brown. 

Making moves for "future flexibility".... especially when you are middle of the pack in payroll while being near the top in revenue and dumping all-NBA rebounding 7 footers for little in return... is not "win now" decision making.

I don't think its unreasonable of me to expect the Bulls to be in the top quarter of NBA teams in terms of payroll.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> what is wrong with financial flexibility in the coming offseason...while being 'win now' ?


Flexibility to do what?







> face it, bow to Pax, for he has assembled a deep roster with a very solid starting 5.


1, 3 and 5 are solid. 2 is solid 1 out of 2 nights. (i hope this improves) 4 is solid 1 out of 4 nights.




> the only blemish is he has committed the atrocity of having some cap space next offseason. egads!


Cap Space? To do what?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> What's your point?
> 
> Yes, PJ has an expiring contract. Everyone knows this. Its the reason he's on the team.




My point is that you seem to always analyze these things in a vaccuum, as though you can isolate one single factor and then make it an indictment of the way the team is run. You wanted to keep Crawford. You wanted to keep Eddy. You wanted to keep Tyson. (I can't remember your stance on E-Rob for certain, but I seem to recollect you thinking we were dumping a useful player.) You can't keep ALL of these guys, plus keep the core together, plus acquire Ben Wallace, plus acquire the two encouraging rookies from this year.

I agree with you that the Bulls should be one of the higher spenders in the NBA because they are one of the higher earners. I also know that they have a track record in the past several years that would make you not trust them to spend the dough. However, I don't think they should be spending big money just to prove they can. It's got to be spent on the right guys. When the team starts letting the core (Hinrich, Nocioni, Deng, Gordon) walk, then I think it will be time for all the vitriol. However, cutting loose the guys we have cut loose doesn't irk me too much. For the record, I was against the Chandler-Brown trade if it did not enhance the team's ability to keep the core together. If it did, I'm for it.

The fact of the matter is Tyson was a player who brought some positive attributes to the game, but never lived up to his billing as a top draft pick and big money earner. I would say that I don't really give a damn about his rebounding _rate_ at all. I could go in for ten seconds, grab a board, and then grab some pine and my rebounding rate would be spectacular. Due to his usual conditioning problems and his proclivity to get himself in foul trouble, Tyson couldn't stay on the floor. He also didn't strike me as a guy who would be content playing 15-20 minutes a night in a rotation with our other forwards, which would have been his rightful role this year. Tyson viewed himself as a leader and a winner, which I always respected. I don't believe, however, that that role was available to him on this team. And with what I perceive as his mental weakness, that would be a problem. He was someone who would just utterly disappear for long stretches of time. For a player with no discernable offensive skill set (even significantly below Wallace, IMO), coupled with his big money contract, I just don't think it makes much sense to keep him around. A sometimes very good rebounder and shot blocker, who is a reserve, who also has non-existant contributions for half the season, seems like quite a luxury to keep around at that salary.

I was sad to see Tyson go. He seems like a nice kid. I hope he does well in New Orleans. I think a fresh start without all of the baggage he acquired here could be good for him mentally, which could translate to improved play. I'm not going to engage in any self-flatulation, however, if he succeeds there. Que sera, sera. I wish him all the best.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> As I wrote in another thread, the notion that keeping Chandler would have meant pushing us into luxury tax land is not correct. It appears likely to me we could have kept Chandler, signed Wallace, and also resigned our major core players and still sneaked under the tax threshold.


my point was not with respect to the one move, but rather k4e's general notion that having a team into the tax is, itself, the equivalent of a NBA Championship "1a"

isnt it more important that the team win? were Deng Gordon Hinrich older already, we'd be in the tax and it'd be a nonissue.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> As I wrote in another thread, the notion that keeping Chandler would have meant pushing us into luxury tax land is not correct. It appears likely to me we could have kept Chandler, signed Wallace, and also resigned our major core players and still sneaked under the tax threshold.


Then do you think that having Chandler and Wallace on the floor at the same time for long stretch is competitive option for winning basketball team? Playing 5 on 3 on offensive end? (although I do think Wallace is much better offensive player than Chandler even though the stat doesn't say so)

To me, it is matter of having Wallace on our team. The moment we landed Wallace, Chandler's day as a Bull is simply numbered. With Wallace, Chandler is simply not a good fit for current Bulls team. He has to go eventually. Some are not happy with the return of this year's trade. Some (me included) are happy with the return of financial flexibilty and its possible implication down the road. I don't think this two sides will ever agree on this trade.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Flexibility to do what?
> 
> 1, 3 and 5 are solid. 2 is solid 1 out of 2 nights. (i hope this improves) 4 is solid 1 out of 4 nights.
> 
> Cap Space? To do what?



deal with a surprise injury

use on our own guys

help with a package, including our upcoming draft pick, which brings us our offensive finisher.



the truth is: i dont know. and that is not a bad thing. in the NBA you never know what will happen to your team. Utah was looking good and set for years, then they looked really bad. now they're back somewhat.


if you are in the tax, then you continue 'not knowing' and your job as GM is easy because you can do little about it. if you have some breathing room, you can deal with issues that come up.



is that breathing room better than a guy who would back up Wallace and do the same things as him? better than a guy who was worse offensively than Wallace? who could not catch a pass?

even for 'win now' : yes.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> (I can't remember your stance on E-Rob for certain, but I seem to recollect you thinking we were dumping a useful player.)


I was happy to see EROB go. Good riddance.



> You can't keep ALL of these guys, plus keep the core together, plus acquire Ben Wallace, plus acquire the two encouraging rookies from this year.


I agree.

Thank goodness we were lucky enough to have the Pistons not pay Ben Wallace what we did and for the "found money."






> However, I don't think they should be spending big money just to prove they can. It's got to be spent on the right guys.


Of course. 




> When the team starts letting the core (Hinrich, Nocioni, Deng, Gordon) walk, then I think it will be time for all the vitriol.


Chandler is just as valuable a NBA player as these guys, IMO.





> For the record, I was against the Chandler-Brown trade if it did not enhance the team's ability to keep the core together. If it did, I'm for it.


There is no good reason that the core could not have been kept together.




> I would say that I don't really give a damn about his rebounding _rate_ at all. I could go in for ten seconds, grab a board, and then grab some pine and my rebounding rate would be spectacular. Due to his usual conditioning problems and his proclivity to get himself in foul trouble, Tyson couldn't stay on the floor.


No doubt. But when he did, we won. Difference maker.

I don't think you could have a high rebound rate in the NBA, BTW, even if you only played 10 seconds every game.





> A sometimes very good rebounder and shot blocker, who is a reserve, who also has non-existant contributions for half the season, seems like quite a luxury to keep around at that salary.


But its A-OK to spend the same amount of money on old PJ. Yes, I know PJ has an expiring contract.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> But its A-OK to spend the same amount of money on old PJ.



old PJ will be tougher to push around down there than Tyson wouldve been. yes, for that same 15-18 minutes a game.

Tyson, better rebounding with way more likelihood of fouling. PJ, better offense, better man-on defense, rebounding totals still competitive, respect from refs.


----------



## synergy825 (Apr 28, 2005)

Why don't you write Jerry Reinsdorf then? Tell him to pay for Chandler, Wallace, and resign all the "core". Reinsdorf isn't going to commit that much money on a team that hasn't gotten out of the first round. And the notion that you could afford all that anyways is absurd. This is the reason why Wallace's contract was structured financially different. Paxson did the same with Hinrich's contract, with the goal of keeping everyone together. Perhaps Paxson is planning to do some kind of consolidation trade for a superstar. Maybe Paxson is planning to offer a large contract to a FA down the line. no one knows. Perhaps there are other reasons why Chandler was let go. He did have conflicts with Skiles throughout last season. He played very bad last year. Maybe him switching to New Orleans woke him up. Good for him. If you are upset with the current state of the Bulls, by all means go root for Chandler and the Hornets. No one is stopping you.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> I was happy to see EROB go. Good riddance.


I stand corrected.



kukoc4ever said:


> Thank goodness we were lucky enough to have the Pistons not pay Ben Wallace what we did and for the "found money."


Ok.






kukoc4ever said:


> Chandler is just as valuable a NBA player as these guys, IMO.


Then this would be the heart of our disagreement. I believe he is significantly less valuable.





kukoc4ever said:


> There is no good reason that the core could not have been kept together.


Perhaps. What about Tyrus and Thabo down the line? I tend to wonder whether good complementary pieces would have been easy to keep in place.




kukoc4ever said:


> No doubt. But when he did, we won. Difference maker.


Yes. He won us games. He lost us games. A difference in both directions. Now we've acquired a player who brings everything Chandler did, plus more, and with consistency.



kukoc4ever said:


> I don't think you could have a high rebound rate in the NBA, BTW, even if you only played 10 seconds every game.


Har har. Way to evade the point by sticking in a jab. (The point being, who cares about rebound rate when the guy can't stay on the floor?)




kukoc4ever said:


> But its A-OK to spend the same amount of money on old PJ. Yes, I know PJ has an expiring contract.


Right. Which means, of course, *it's not the same amount of money.*


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Chandler is just as valuable a NBA player as these guys, IMO.


I strongly disagree. Maybe this is why your view on this trade is so much different from mine.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> better offense


Same with Malik, Sweetney and Othella



> better man-on defense


I have not seen any exemplary play from PJ on this front. Perhaps as the season progresses.



> rebounding totals still competitive


Not last season.


At the end of the day, until I see PJ rack up the double-doubles more consistently, I’m not going to like this trade. 

It was not adequate return for a young big man who will be one of the better 7 footers in the league for the foreseeable future, barring injury or severe attitude change.

Long term, as PJ is sent out to pasture next season and Wallace ages, we’re going to need a big man. Perhaps the “found money” will fix this. Tyrus is no 7 footer.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Right. Which means, of course, *it's not the same amount of money.*


This season it is.

"win now"

And, the Chandler contract does not seem like its that difficult to dump. The Hornets appear happy with it to this point.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Yes. He won us games. He lost us games. A difference in both directions. Now we've acquired a player who brings everything Chandler did, plus more, and with consistency.


Do you think this will be true the last two years of Wallace's contract?




jnrjr79 said:


> Har har. Way to evade the point by sticking in a jab. (The point being, who cares about rebound rate when the guy can't stay on the floor?)


Seems like this is a general critique of any of the per minute stats. I was not evading anything... I think rebound rate has considerable value. If you disagree, then fine.

That being said, there is no chance in hell you would have a high rebound rate in the NBA, even if its a per-minute stat.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

I'm with K4E on this issue. Maybe PJ is a better complement to Wallace on the frontline this year, but certainly not next year, the year after that or the year after that.

K4E's point, which seems to be often missed is that Chandler could have been traded for another power forward with better scoring ability who could have helped the Bulls this season AND in future years -- e.g. Gooden or (egads!) Garnett.

As far as the issue of cap flexibility goes, the Bulls don't have it -- Chandler or no Chandler, PJ or no PJ. MikeDC's sticky nicely illustrates that the Bulls are basically stuck between the salary cap and the luxury tax in most rational scenarios, even if Chandler or his salary equivalent were retained for the next four years.

So there was no real benefit salary-cap wise or luxury-tax wise to trading Chandler for a useful aging player with an expiring contract. But there was a real benefit to the owners of the Bulls franchise. That is what get's K4E's goat -- particularly when one could see the Crawford, Curry, Brand and Miller trades as very similarly motivated. 

The cheapskate adjective is deserved until Reinsdorf proves that he will not continue to dump good players in trades that are primarily motivated to save the franchise money. Chapu is the next test.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

The Chandler trade was a mistake because:

He was the leading rebounder on the "3rd best team in the East."

He was the leading rebounder on a "47 win team."

He was the leading rebounder on the Bulls "only winning team since Jordan."

"Win now".

Tyrus is "found money".

PJ Brown is "allegedly wise".

PJ Brown = Malik Allen

We are praying for lottery success yet again. Sigh.

Tyrus Thomas is not 7 feet tall. 

Talking points. Reading this board can be like watching Fox News. And Fox News sucks.


----------



## Sleep520 (Nov 6, 2006)

McBulls said:


> I'm with K4E on this issue. Maybe PJ is a better complement to Wallace on the frontline this year, but certainly not next year, the year after that or the year after that.


That's because he won't be here. But if you're assuming that tyson would be that better complement in the future, then you must also believe that a higher power will come down and suddenly bless him with the ability to have an offense...



McBulls said:


> K4E's point, which seems to be often missed is that Chandler could have been traded for another power forward with better scoring ability who could have helped the Bulls this season AND in future years -- e.g. Gooden or (egads!) Garnett.


And you honesty think that such trades weren't explored?? Do you think Pax's first offer was to the hornets? Rumors about the Bulls being interested in KG weren't exactly hard to come by...

I, too, would have liked to have gotten more for tyson, and in the subsequent jr smith trade, but maybe that's the best we could do.



McBulls said:


> So there was no real benefit salary-cap wise or luxury-tax wise to trading Chandler for a useful aging player with an expiring contract. But there was a real benefit to the owners of the Bulls franchise. That is what get's K4E's goat -- particularly when one could see the Crawford, Curry, Brand and Miller trades as very similarly motivated.


The benefit of losing tyson was to MAKE THE TEAM BETTER. And that seems to be the crux of the argument. Some people continue to serious overvalue what little he brings to a team while completely ignoring what he takes away. The offense is not as stagnant, we have a big man who has hands, can hit a jump shot, not get pushed around one-on-one, and doesn't commit the most ridiculous fouls ever, and the overall team mentality has improved...

Losing tyson makes us better THIS YEAR and beyond.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> It was not adequate return for a young big man who will be one of the better 7 footers in the league for the foreseeable future, barring injury or severe attitude change.


at the time of Tyson's extension, one GM referred to the contract as 'too much for a Mikki Moore type.' is that high regard around the league? people around the league have referred to Dalembert and Chandler as classic overpays. if that's the way they're regarded around the league, i cant see where this overflow of offers wouldve come from next year. next year when people are trying to trade into the lottery, not pick up big contracts.

even if such comments from GMs arent indicative of everyone, you have to agree that PJ will be able to stay in games longer than Tyson, as he will avoid foul trouble better.

as he's doing so, i feel he'll be able to muscle people around better down there than Tyson could. thats just me.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Sleep520 said:


> That's because he won't be here. But if you're assuming that tyson would be that better complement in the future, then you must also believe that a higher power will come down and suddenly bless him with the ability to have an offense...
> 
> Losing tyson makes us better THIS YEAR and beyond.


Maybe this year, but certainly not in years beyond. 

Even if all Chandler did was back Wallace up for the next four years he would be a valuable asset. Players that can rebound and play defense are valuable -- not only to the Bulls but to potential trading partners; not only in the summer of 2006 but at other times as well. There was no need to give the guy up for a fire sale price unless saving money was the primary motivation.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

1. I get a huge kick out of how a 37 year old with a career average of 9.4 PPG who has been horrific offensively in three out of four games is suddenly an offensive force in the post. It's not like we're even talking about a player like Sweetney who is lacking in other areas but is known for his post game and has a high scoring average on a per minute basis. Chandler's offensive ineptitude is perhaps the most frequently cited reason for moving him but there is scant evidence that Brown brings anything to the table on offense that Tyson and Tyrus cannot provide.

2. People are casually claiming that the Bulls can't afford Tyson and Big Ben or to keep Tyson and bring back the entire core without providing any support whatsoever for this argument. As far as I know, no one has seen the Bulls books and therefore none of us know what the team's profit margin looks like. If the team is making $100 million a season and Tyson will cost $25 million after crossing the luxury tax threshold, Reinsdorf absolutely _could_ afford retaining the contract.

3. Someone suggested that keeping Tyson would have meant having too many players signed to lucrative extensions would hinder roster flexibility in the long run and dig the club into a Knicks-sized hole. That is completely false. Resigning the Deng, Gordon, and/or Noc while keeping Ben and Kirk under contract will keep the Bulls over the salary cap and prevent them from offering more than the midlevel at least until Ben's deal expires four seasons from now. Chandler's deal only runs four more years so the bottom line as far as cap room is identical with or without him for the duration of his contract. I'd love to hear a scenario (other than salary cap considerations relating entirely to ownerships willingness to spend money) where ditching Tyson's contract allows us to sign a player we wouldn't otherwise have been able to sign over the course of the next for seasons for which his contract runs.

4. I don't think it's right to compare letting Curry and Crawford leave to letting Chandler leave. While I may be relying on hindsight some here, letting those guys go provided the cap space to sign Wallace which seems to be a net gain. As I discussed above the same can't be argued for Chandler. With the Curry trade it also appears we got more value back than we gave away which almost certainly won't be the case with this trade.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> The Chandler trade was a mistake because:
> 
> He was the leading rebounder on the "3rd best team in the East."
> 
> ...



"Tyson and Wallace could not play together"

"9 million for a reserve center?"

"Tyson can't catch a pass."

"PJ Brown is a stout defender that can knock down the open jumper."

"In Pax We Trust"

"If you don't like the trade, go root for the Knicks/Hornets!"

"Tyson can't stay on the floor."

"Tyson won't accept a reserve role."

"The Bulls will now be financially flexible."

"Trading Chandler will allow us to resign the core."


Funny which "talking points" you decide to criticize.

I also feel the board sucks when posters decide to savagely and pompously insult the intelligence of other posters.

To each their own. There is an ignore feature and if there is another Bulls topic that people want to talk about, feel free.

I’m not the one starting these threads… just responding to opinions that I disagree with.


----------



## Sleep520 (Nov 6, 2006)

McBulls said:


> Maybe this year, but certainly not in years beyond.
> 
> Even if all Chandler did was back Wallace up for the next four years he would be a valuable asset. Players that can rebound and play defense are valuable -- not only to the Bulls but to potential trading partners; not only in the summer of 2006 but at other times as well. There was no need to give the guy up for a fire sale price unless saving money was the primary motivation.


Ah, yes..a 9 million dollar malcontent back-up...5 futile seasons of frustration is what sent tyson packing...This team was patient with him and gave him every opportunity to succeed. When it became clear that he did not fit the team, was not an asset, and nowhere near worth his salary, it was time to cut ties for the better of the team.

Putting together a winning team is the primary motivation. After the successes of Pax's turnaround efforts, I find it silly to argue otherwise...


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

McBulls said:


> Maybe this year, but certainly not in years beyond.
> 
> Even if all Chandler did was back Wallace up for the next four years he would be a valuable asset. Players that can rebound and play defense are valuable -- not only to the Bulls but to potential trading partners; not only in the summer of 2006 but at other times as well. There was no need to give the guy up for a fire sale price unless saving money was the primary motivation.


I disagree with this. I think two very damaging things would've happened had we put Chandler in that situation :

a) His value to other teams in the league would've been severely compromised by the numbers he'd put up in 20 MPG. A 25 year old Tyson Chandler coming off a 3 and 6 season is not that sexy an acquisition, and is tough to sell to fans.

and

b) I think he'd actually get worse as a player. It's been well documented by Tyson Chandler and others, that he's succeptible to self-doubt and a lack of confidence. I don't think he would've grown or improved at all sitting on the bench as the 8th or 9th man for the Chicago Bulls. We have to remember that these players are people, not commodities and while I'm not inside Chandler's head I think there's reason to believe that he has to be handled with kid gloves.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Funny which "talking points" you decide to criticize.


I took all mine from one source. It was easy. Repetition is the key to memory.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Sleep520 said:


> After the successes of Pax's turnaround efforts, I find it silly to argue otherwise...


Speaking of talking points, this one -- "how dare you question Pax? -- is one of my personal faves.

Has Pax presided over multiple NBA titles that I'm not aware of?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

jbulls said:


> I disagree with this. I think two very damaging things would've happened had we put Chandler in that situation :
> 
> a) His value to other teams in the league would've been severely compromised by the numbers he'd put up in 20 MPG. A 25 year old Tyson Chandler coming off a 3 and 6 season is not that sexy an acquisition, and is tough to sell to fans.
> 
> ...


jbulls, I think you're seriously underestimating how much PT Chandler would have gotten.

A dreadfully ineffective PJ Brown is getting 20 minutes a game, after all. Since Sweetney (shockingly!) decided to mail it in this season, there are a lot of minutes available at the 4 and 5. Chandler probably wouldn't have been far off his minutes from last year. Maybe not 27-28, but something in the range of 23-24 mpg sounds right. I don't see him amassing "untradeable" numbers in that much PT.


----------



## Sleep520 (Nov 6, 2006)

ScottMay said:


> Speaking of talking points, this one -- "how dare you question Pax? -- is one of my personal faves.
> 
> Has Pax presided over multiple NBA titles that I'm not aware of?


Question him all you want. I also questioned if we got enough for tyson, and then for j.r. smith.

I've questioned getting Tyrus...I've questioned signing griffin again...I've questioned many basketball-related moves, but I don't question Pax's intent to improve the team.

My response was clearly towards the assumption that getting rid of tyson was to "save money." And my argument was that the move was to better the team.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> jbulls, I think you're seriously underestimating how much PT Chandler would have gotten.
> 
> A dreadfully ineffective PJ Brown is getting 20 minutes a game, after all. Since Sweetney (shockingly!) decided to mail it in this season, there are a lot of minutes available at the 4 and 5. Chandler probably wouldn't have been far off his minutes from last year. Maybe not 27-28, but something in the range of 23-24 mpg sounds right. I don't see him amassing "untradeable" numbers in that much PT.


Tyson Chandler is a better player than PJ Brown and Michael Sweetney. I'm certainly not disputing that, but I do think that it's virtually impossible to play him with Ben Wallace at all, and given that Wallace will probably get 35 MPG or so I don't see how Chandler would even approach a number like 25 MPG (after all, he only averaged 26.8 sans Wallace last season). That would have he and Wallace together on the court for a minimum of a quarter a game which is downright scary.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> even if such comments from GMs arent indicative of everyone, you have to agree that PJ will be able to stay in games longer than Tyson, as he will avoid foul trouble better.


I agree. We are very lucky that PJ can no longer jump and can hardle move side to side. Hence he is very unlikely to be in foul trouble.

p.s. We are not really trying to evaluate bball decisions based upon snarky, unattributed GM quotes used by the media, are we? Might as well let Sam Smith or Pete Vesecy be your GM.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> I agree. We are very lucky that PJ can no longer jump and can hardle move side to side. Hence he is very unlikely to be in foul trouble.
> 
> p.s. We are not really trying to evaluate bball decisions based upon snarky, unattributed GM quotes used by the media, are we? Might as well let Sam Smith or Pete Vesecy be your GM.



no we arent. if you read my post, the point was that such quotes show that the league doesnt think much of Tyson.

not enough for there to be many great offers next year, just as there werent many great offers this year.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

jbulls said:


> Tyson Chandler is a better player than PJ Brown and Michael Sweetney. I'm certainly not disputing that, but I do think that it's virtually impossible to play him with Ben Wallace at all, and given that Wallace will probably get 35 MPG or so I don't see how Chandler would even approach a number like 25 MPG (after all, he only averaged 26.8 sans Wallace last season). That would have he and Wallace together on the court for a minimum of a quarter a game which is downright scary.


The same way we're giving Brown 20 MPG while he averages 4.8 PPG on 32% shooting.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> no we arent. if you read my post, the point was that such quotes show that the league doesnt think much of Tyson.
> 
> not enough for there to be many great offers next year, just as there werent many great offers this year.


Pointing out one quote from an unnamed source is hardly proof of any league-wide concenses.

We got a good offer this year for Chandler after Chandler came off a very down year. Looks like he has already put that year behind him. Why wouldn't the offers be even better now? Or at least as good?


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> We got a good offer this year for Chandler after Chandler came off a very down year. Looks like he has already put that year behind him. Why wouldn't the offers be even better now? Or at least as good?



how is last year behind Tyson already? last i checked NO has some more games to play.

once the decision was made that Tyson wasnt needed, it makes sense to get rid of him this offseason. what if we kept every player we dont want because we think 'oh next year we can get more'?

there are only 15 spots, 12 play. this year we already have enough of a logjam on the bench. but in Tyson's case, we got a guy that does everything he does, but with slightly better offense and better man-on defense. Ben Wallace.


had Tyson stayed here, i feel he even would have eventually fallen behind Tyrus on the depth chart...thus reducing his trade value more. Tyrus gives you something on offense, can catch a pass, and does the same come-over-from-weakside-and-block that Tyson does.




johnston797 said:


> Pointing out one quote from an unnamed source is hardly proof of any league-wide concenses.


what do GMs probably say to themselves when asked what they think of Tyson Chandler? 'unfulfilled potential' is my guess.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Pointing out one quote from an unnamed source is hardly proof of any league-wide concenses.
> 
> We got a good offer this year for Chandler after Chandler came off a very down year. Looks like he has already put that year behind him. Why wouldn't the offers be even better now? Or at least as good?


Come on, johnston. You know the drill.

"We had to make the deal for P.J. Brown! There were no other offers!

"WHERE WERE THE OFFERS!"


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> even if such comments from GMs arent indicative of everyone, you have to agree that PJ will be able to stay in games longer than Tyson, as he will avoid foul trouble better.


Perhaps. So far this season, Chandler is getting more minutes than PJ Brown. And its not like we're deep at PF so far, especially with the TT and Sweetney injuries.




> as he's doing so, i feel he'll be able to muscle people around better down there than Tyson could. thats just me.


So could Danny Fortson. Chandler is better. If all we want is an average jump shooter, average rebounder and muscleman, that can be had without giving up a young, productive 7 footer.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

jbulls said:


> Tyson Chandler is a better player than PJ Brown and Michael Sweetney. I'm certainly not disputing that, but I do think that it's virtually impossible to play him with Ben Wallace at all, and given that Wallace will probably get 35 MPG or so I don't see how Chandler would even approach a number like 25 MPG (after all, he only averaged 26.8 sans Wallace last season). That would have he and Wallace together on the court for a minimum of a quarter a game which is downright scary.


The big men don't play a large role in the offense, though. Also, a lineup with both Wallace and Chandler would not only work but would be devastating in the 4th quarter, since that is when Gordon and Hinrich take over the offensive possessions.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> If all we want is an average jump shooter, average rebounder and muscleman, that can be had without giving up a young, productive 7 footer.


I'm going to go there, K4E:

What about jib? Specifically leadership. I don't know this for a fact, but I'm guessing PJ quickly took the reigns as the locker room leader of this team, unless Griffin has taken it back. When I read of Ben Wallace and Kirk Hinrich that they "lead by example," that means to me that they are quality players who don't want to be team leaders. The team lacked this last year, but maybe having a guy who has experience and ability (or at least had ability) will make a difference over the long haul this season. And from what I've read, I think that guy should be PJ.

It would be better if it were a member of our core. Looking at Deng, Hinrich, Nocioni, Thabo, and Gordon I don't see that guy. I think Tyrus has the charisma, the energy and the mouth to be that guy someday, but until then we need another vocal leader, and I'm not sure any of us are aware of the impact of the leadership skills of PJ Brown.

Next time we get to ask Mike McGraw or K.C. Johnson, I'd like to verify who the team leader really is behind the scenes.

edit: I should add that despite our inconsistency, I project from four games that we will: 1) win 50 games and 2) win at least one playoff series. This team will be substantially better than last year's version.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> What about jib? Specifically leadership. I don't know this for a fact, but I'm guessing PJ quickly took the reigns as the locker room leader of this team, unless Griffin has taken it back. When I read of Ben Wallace and Kirk Hinrich that they "lead by example," that means to me that they are quality players who don't want to be team leaders. The team lacked this last year, but maybe having a guy who has experience and ability (or at least had ability) will make a difference over the long haul this season. And from what I've read, I think that guy should be PJ.


That is worth something, I agree.

Still to steep a price to pay for it though.

Hire AD as an assisstant coach and keep Othella around. There are many other options than having to dump Tyson, IMO.

PJ seems like a great guy and is an asset to the team. I don't think he's a heavy minutes PF of a champion though, which was what I thought the Bulls were trying to build this season with the Ben Wallace aquisition.

Skiles.
Hinrich.
Wallace.
HAWK.

I think that would be enough leadership. If not, hire an assistant coach that is close to the players and pick up some veteran big man to mentor from the locker room without dumping Chandler.





> edit: I should add that despite our inconsistency, I project from four games that we will: 1) win 50 games and 2) win at least one playoff series. This team will be substantially better than last year's version.


I think we'll be an above .500 team this year. As for the playoffs... it depends on the matchup. Our team is good, and will be fun to watch. I’m not convinced that we can beat the Pistons, Heat or Cavs in a 7 game series… so we’ll need to finish 5th or 4th, assuming they will be the top 3.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

I don't know why everyone seems to be annointing the Cavs so easily. Lebron, yeah, I know. I think the Cavs are vastly overrated so far.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I don't know why everyone seems to be annointing the Cavs so easily. Lebron, yeah, I know. I think the Cavs are vastly overrated so far.


The loss to the Hawks last night was a surprise.

Their lineup looks really solid though, even though PG is kind of weak.

Hughes appears to be back. Gooden is playing well. Z is still a decent center. Marshall, varejao, jones, wesley... seems like a solid bench.

We'll see how it goes. On paper it looks really solid to me... but its a long season. 

I'm not ready to crown their ***.

I'm looking forward to the game tomorrow to see how we stack up.

The East seems pretty open this year for a good team to get to the finals, which we are. 

All the more reason to make the team as good as possible.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> I'm not ready to crown their ***.
> 
> I'm looking forward to the game tomorrow to see how we stack up.



Haha. Seriously, Denny Green has made my month with that quote.

I am looking forward to the challenge too. Don't get me wrong, I think they're a good team on the rise, but I just think back to the MJ days and how long it took him to finally win a championship, so I don't think its a fait accompli that Lebron will have one in the next couple of seasons. Time will tell.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

oh yes. the bbb i know is finally back. sweet.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

rwj333 said:


> The big men don't play a large role in the offense, though. Also, a lineup with both Wallace and Chandler would not only work but would be devastating in the 4th quarter, since that is when Gordon and Hinrich take over the offensive possessions.



Good point. people always complain about how chandler/wallace would never work because they both suck in offense. look at the old bulls team, we had rodman/longley, granted we don't have jordan on our team, but offense can come from somewhere, getting PJ isn't exactly going to solve our inside scoring position. but having chandler/wallace together would absolutely terrorizes any teams in the paint. think about this, chandler has the height, wallace has the strength, both are easily 10+rebs a game with stellar def, both are very quick too for big men. really who's going to grab a reb against us? now we can def the league best inside post players, if someone is strong, put wallace on him, someones tall and quick, put chandler on him. 

bottom line, we could have gotten more than just PJ brown for chandler. i think Paxson rushed on this one, and he made a mistake.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

And the really scary thing is that the Chandler trade was supposedly agreed upon before the Ben Wallace acquisition.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> And the really scary thing is that the Chandler trade was supposedly agreed upon before the Ben Wallace acquisition.


I'm assuming that agreed upon Chandler for Brown swap was contigent on the signing of Wallace. Else, why wait so long to announce the deal?


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> And the really scary thing is that the Chandler trade was supposedly agreed upon before the Ben Wallace acquisition.


really? damn, what if paxson couldn't get wallace? now what? we are left with sweetney/PJ brown and the rookie tyrus thmoas to patrol our paint? I thought everyone was crying how we lacked the size in the paint, and paxson wanted to ship out chandler even before wallace acquisition became official?


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> The loss to the Hawks last night was a surprise.
> 
> Their lineup looks really solid though, even though PG is kind of weak.
> 
> ...


BYW, it's not a vehiment reaction, because I really grew to resent just how far Tyson regressed last year, but I also wish we could have gotten more for Chandler than we did.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> I'm assuming that agreed upon Chandler for Brown swap was contigent on the signing of Wallace. Else, why wait so long to announce the deal?


I originally thought the same thing.

Then people on this board corrected me.... saying that the Hornets Insider dude was saying the deal was done regardless of the Chandler deal.

Perhaps Ron Cey can clarify...he was one of the people that brought it up.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Still to steep a price to pay for it though.



The steepest price to pay though:

Tyson gets hurt. We can't trade him next year. We end up stuck with his albatross, and it costs us the ability to resign all of the core.



again, if you've decided youre replacing someone, which we did the moment we signed Ben... then really replace them.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> Tyson gets hurt. We can't trade him next year. We end up stuck with his albatross, and it costs us the ability to resign all of the core.


What if he doesn't get hurt?

It's a very cautious move. Now we have 4 natural SFs and one big man that's 32 and another that's 38. I think we are going to lose one or two of these natural SFs anyway in a year or two. And the two bigs are that more older.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> What if he doesn't get hurt?
> 
> It's a very cautious move. Now we have 4 natural SFs and one big man that's 32 and another that's 38. I think we are going to lose one or two of these natural SFs anyway in a year or two. And the two bigs are that more older.



if he doesnt get hurt, he backs up Wallace, rarely plays alongside him.

all the recent posts about how we could play Wallace and Chandler together in 4th quarters: no way. you wouldnt see it. opposing teams could gang up on our slashers all they'd want. 

right now our PFs can do SOMETHING offensively. it keeps defenses honest. i feel it will make us less turnover prone as the season progresses.

also i like Wallace's ability to dish to the other big. i wouldnt care about it much if the big he was dishing to was TC.



am i the only one who likes never having to see anymore passes going off Tyson's palms? dude's hands are actually all palm - a medical miracle.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> Tyson gets hurt. We can't trade him next year. We end up stuck with his albatross, and it costs us the ability to resign all of the core.


The Bulls can resign their core while keeping Chandler.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> The Bulls can resign their core while keeping Chandler.


could have


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> if he doesnt get hurt, he backs up Wallace, rarely plays alongside him.
> 
> all the recent posts about how we could play Wallace and Chandler together in 4th quarters: no way. you wouldnt see it. opposing teams could gang up on our slashers all they'd want.
> 
> ...


You're basing all of these remarks on the play of P.J. Brown *this* season? He's the big that Wallace is supposedly "dishing to"? The guy with the great hands? 

On my TV I've seen a guy who's had one okay game, and in three others looked like he had absolutely no place being in the NBA. And that'd be on a terrible team, much less one that's supposed to be a title contender.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> I originally thought the same thing.
> 
> Then people on this board corrected me.... saying that the Hornets Insider dude was saying the deal was done regardless of the Chandler deal.
> 
> Perhaps Ron Cey can clarify...he was one of the people that brought it up.


Thats exactly what my understanding is. Chandler was gone no matter what. The team was ready to cut ties with him and dump his salary. It was over - Big Ben or no Big Ben. 

I recall it being "rumored" during the NBA draft broadcast and then subsequently reported by a Hornets insider that broke all of the Hornets offseason moves early.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I recall it being "rumored" during the NBA draft broadcast and then subsequently reported by a Hornets insider that broke all of the Hornets offseason moves early.


I give that a bit more credence than the "mikey moore" comment earlier in the thread, but that's not exactly a "take it to the bank" confirmation.

Pax was obliviously shopping TC but not clear the other team would even know what all the pre-requisites were.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

johnston797 said:


> I give that a bit more credence than the "mikey moore" comment earlier in the thread, but that's not exactly a "take it to the bank" confirmation.
> 
> Pax was obliviously shopping TC but not clear the other team would even know what all the pre-requisites were.


It is what it is. I don't care if its true or not. Either Chandler was gone no matter what, or he was gone contingent on the signing of Ben Wallace. 

I like our team right now. I'm not as down on PJ Brown as some are after only 4 games. But what can I say, I'm an "intangibles" type of fan. I see value there - missed put backs, no hops and all.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Thats exactly what my understanding is. Chandler was gone no matter what. The team was ready to cut ties with him and dump his salary. It was over - Big Ben or no Big Ben.
> 
> I recall it being "rumored" during the NBA draft broadcast and then subsequently reported by a Hornets insider that broke all of the Hornets offseason moves early.


At the time, people speculated that Chandler was being dumped because he refused, after a horrendous season, to come to the Berto Center until August. Paxson obviously believes that hard work during the summer is essential to improving one's game, and so he likely concluded that Chandler was a lost cause.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

rwj333 said:


> At the time, people speculated that Chandler was being dumped because he refused, after a horrendous season, to come to the Berto Center until August. Paxson obviously believes that hard work during the summer is essential to improving one's game, and so he likely concluded that Chandler was a lost cause.


Evidently this is done on a case by case basis. Ben Gordon spent much of the summer in NYC and the team had no problem with it. 

Must be a trust thing.


----------



## Waukee (Jul 14, 2006)

I think your much better off with Ben Wallace. He's more intimidating (look at what he did to Andrew Bogut) and he's a much better man defender. Tyson Chandler can stack his rebounds but with man defense he was inconsistant.


----------



## Bulldozer (Jul 11, 2006)

I too would have loved to keep Chandler, but I believe the Bulls thought PJ's offense + expiring contract was the best way to go for not just this year, but beyond giving the Bulls more financial flexibility. 

On the selfish side it would have been great to have Chandler and Ben dominating in the paint, which would make sense since the Bulls are a perimeter team, but that would have made the Bulls (I guess?) pretty much one-dimensional. It's hard to make sense out of this, but uh, they must really like Tyrus Thomas, so I'll just leave it at that.


----------



## Xantos (Jan 8, 2003)

We are better off with Big Ben...We've got a PROVEN Defensive player, rebounder and Shot blocker. A Center that holds his ground w/o fouling out. He's in the game when we need him. He will average 10 rebs this season, AND PJ will avg close to 8 rebs...that's 18. Tyson is bound to become a solid Rebounder/Defensive player....It just wasn't and WANT happen in Chicago. Move on......Ben, PJ, Noch, TT, and Deng...We will get our share of rebounds. 

Don't get to caught up in Tyson...Before it's said and done, he will NEVER be the player Krause thought him to be. I look at Eddy and Jamal and just Laugh. Eddy hasn't physically played in a playoff game, and this is year 5. Jamal, Year 6, hasn't even sniffed the playoffs. From a basketball stand point, they are Loosers...sorry. Just the way I see it.


----------



## Waukee (Jul 14, 2006)

Bulldozer said:


> I too would have loved to keep Chandler, but I believe the Bulls thought PJ's offense + expiring contract was the best way to go for not just this year, but beyond giving the Bulls more financial flexibility.
> 
> On the selfish side it would have been great to have Chandler and Ben dominating in the paint, which would make sense since the Bulls are a perimeter team, but that would have made the Bulls (I guess?) pretty much one-dimensional. It's hard to make sense out of this, but uh, they must really like Tyrus Thomas, so I'll just leave it at that.


 The thing is, you had to trade Tyson Chandler because of the salaries. There's no way you can have two $60 million dollar bigmen and be able to sign Kirk Hinrich, Ben Gordon and Luol Deng. No way could Chicago keep both.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Hmm....I still have nightmares of Tyson Chandler trying to man up against shaq last year. As well as we played against the heat the first game of the season, Shaq might actually have dominated that game if Tyson was there instead of Ben.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Evidently this is done on a case by case basis. Ben Gordon spent much of the summer in NYC and the team had no problem with it.
> 
> Must be a trust thing.


How do you know the team had no problem with it?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> How do you know the team had no problem with it?


I think it is a reasonable supposition. When management has been concerned with a player's ability to come into camp in shape or to practice skills in the offseason, they have done little to keep that concern secret -- See Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler.

1. I can not recall any direct comment or even a hint that Bulls management wanted Ben at Berto any more than he was.

2. I don't think there has ever been any question about Ben's ability to work out, stay in condition and work on skills. Granted, he does still have flaws in his game, but again, he doesn't strike me as a a guy who needs babysitting, as some others do/have,. 

In short, I have never sensed that the Bulls org believes Ben (or Kirk, or many other players) necessarily needs babysitting and direct supervision in the offseason. Those who they believe need a firmer hand to get them in NBA shape and work on flaws are told so, and it seems to get out to the public fairly easily. 

So, I think Ron made a perfectly reasonable statement.

Do you have any reason to believe the Bulls did, in fact, have a problem with Ben's offseason?

Or do you think that if Bulls management wants to keep a close eye on the Mike Sweetney's of the world, the scrutiny should apply equally to all players, regardless of where they fall on the jib-o-meter?

Or were you just posting something contrary to Ron, just to be contrary to Ron?

Inquiring minds want to know. :clown:


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I think it is a reasonable supposition. When management has been concerned with a player's ability to come into camp in shape or to practice skills in the offseason, they have done little to keep that concern secret -- See Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler.


Ben wasn't completely absent from the Berto Center this summer. There's an NBA TV video of him working out there so I think Skiles and Pax knew he was in great shape. And he's always, always in great shape. 

Skiles mentioned in an interview this summer about Luol, Kirk and Ben being at the Center working out.
So I'd say they knew exactly what little Ben was doing all summer, at least as far as workouts. :biggrin:


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I said when we traded Chandler that my preference was to keep him and Wallace both...since Chandler is the 5th leading rebounder in the NBA and his team is undefeated...my opinion certainly hasn't changed.

ACE


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

I wanted to give Tyson at least one more year. We never even gave him a chance to see what he could do with Wallace. Most people kept thinking of the negative consequences of having Wallace and Chandler on the same team, but I focused on the potentially great things the two could accomplish together, especially defensively and on the glass. 

With or without Chandler, we're still a perimeter oriented team. We still don't have a go-to guy in the low post. Offensively, I don't see the huge disadvantage of having him on the court versus having PJ Brown. PJ only plays around 18 minutes anyway.

But we could've been DOMINANT defensively & on the boards. NOK is leading the league in opponents FG%. I certainly don't think you can attribute that to the addition of Peja :clown:. Losing PJ and all his intangibles doesn't seem to be hurting them much either. If we wanted leadership and someone with Louisiana ties to babysit Tyrus, we should've just hired Randy Livingston.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

SALO said:


> With or without Chandler, we're still a perimeter oriented team. We still don't have a go-to guy in the low post. Offensively, I don't see the huge disadvantage of having him on the court versus having PJ Brown. PJ only plays around 18 minutes anyway.



ok, but when our perimeter guys drive to the hoop .... wouldnt you think that they'd far prefer what they see down low -- now, as opposed to last year?

the way we have it now, there's always someone who can catch it and keep our offense going. Malik, Tyrus, PJ, Viktor, Sweetney, Wallace.

with Tyson, we had a lot of opportunities go down the drain when we'd give him a chance to 1) kick it away 2) take a bad shot. enough of those experiences, and our slashing perimeter guys stopped looking for him.

having Tyson in the game also meant defenders could leave him alone, double-team said perimeter guys.... defenders had no problem getting back to Tyson in time to poke the ball out of his hands (were they actually to pass it to him).

we are a perimeter team: so why not move a player that burdened them even more?



we have a chance at moving the ball around a lot better with the frontcourt guys we have now. the moves we made improved this capability, and kept defense the same if not better.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

SALO said:


> I wanted to give Tyson at least one more year. We never even gave him a chance to see what he could do with Wallace. Most people kept thinking of the negative consequences of having Wallace and Chandler on the same team, but I focused on the potentially great things the two could accomplish together, especially defensively and on the glass.
> 
> With or without Chandler, we're still a perimeter oriented team. We still don't have a go-to guy in the low post. Offensively, I don't see the huge disadvantage of having him on the court versus having PJ Brown. PJ only plays around 18 minutes anyway.
> 
> But we could've been DOMINANT defensively & on the boards. NOK is leading the league in opponents FG%. I certainly don't think you can attribute that to the addition of Peja :clown:. Losing PJ and all his intangibles doesn't seem to be hurting them much either. If we wanted leadership and someone with Louisiana ties to babysit Tyrus, we should've just hired Randy Livingston.


I agree completely, that was My thinking as well. I can't imagine many frontcourts would be scoring or outrebounding a Wallace/Chandler/Noc frontcourt. Chandler is somewhat of a liability on offense but when he can get you that many rebounds and intimidate shots I think the positives far outweigh the negatives.

ACE


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

DengNabbit said:


> ok, but when our perimeter guys drive to the hoop .... wouldnt you think that they'd far prefer what they see down low -- now, as opposed to last year?
> 
> the way we have it now, there's always someone who can catch it and keep our offense going. Malik, Tyrus, PJ, Viktor, Sweetney, Wallace.
> 
> ...



this is the reason why i wanted to keep chandler. we have to give wallace/chandler a try, because the defensive/reb potential is just too great to not give it a shot.


----------

