# Ben Wallace 4yr / ~$80 million



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

> *Taking Ben to the max
> *Ben Wallace will be a free agent this summer and there has been a lot of speculation that a couple of teams (Atlanta, Chicago, Charlotte and Toronto) might be in a position to offer him a maximum contract. If so, they would have to pony up more than $100 million over six years.
> 
> The Pistons, were they to give Wallace a full maximum, could pay him as much as $132.5 million over six years. That would represent a starting salary of about $17.5 million (based on 35 percent of the league’s current salary cap of $50 million).
> ...


is that a reasonable contract to offer Wallace?


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

spongyfungy said:


> is that a reasonable contract to offer Wallace?


I like the years but not the dollars.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

I think their figures are off (though I'm not stating mine are compltely accurate).

Using Rosenbaum's '06-'07 cap prediction of 49.2 million to calculate the projected BRI per team (49.2/.51) and multiplying by .4804, the actual cap figure to calculate maximum salaries is $46,344,471. Thirty-five percent of that would be a starting salary of $16,220,565.

According to my calculations (once again, I'm not confirming any validity in them), the maximum Wallace can sign for is $72,668,130 (8% raises) over four years and $94,079,275 over five years.


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

No way is Ben Wallace worth that much.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Coatesvillain said:


> No way is Ben Wallace worth that much.


If one team is willing to pay that much, he is.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

We can't sign Wallace to a 6 year deal, only a 5 year deal at most.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

If anyone signs Ben Wallace to a five-year max deal, they deserve everything they get.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

The worst thing this franchise could do is throw a lot of money at Wallace. Although a great defender and rebounder he is still a compementary player. 

I was somewhat disheartened this morning to read that Gooden wants to stay in Cleveland and that Ferry wants to keep him. I still think the Bulls could get him if they became aggressive. IMO, he is the best FA out there for the Bulls front-line.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

That 20 million expiring contract in 4 years would be great for a trade. Ben Wallace plays the next 4 years in our title runs, and then year 5, at the trade deadline, we deal him for some more good players, and keep on with our championship runs.


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> If one team is willing to pay that much, he is.


No. That just means that one team is willing to pay that much, not that he deserves it. Big difference.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

sloth said:


> We can't sign Wallace to a 6 year deal, only a 5 year deal at most.


Right. My mistake.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Rawse said:


> If anyone signs Ben Wallace to a five-year max deal, they deserve everything they get.



:laugh: Tell me how you really feel.


FWIW sums up my feelings exactly. I don't think Pax is stupid enough to sign him for that much money without Jettisoning Chandler the friendly albatross in the process.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

If he's that old and expensive, I wouldn't want him. He's a horrible scorer, but a tremendous defender and rebounder. If he is that spendy I'd prefer to save the money and get younger guys and develop them, or get cheaper FAs.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

As long as Uncle Jerry promises to pay up when Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, and Noch are up for extensions, then personally I see no problem giving Ben Wallace whatever he asks for. Reinsdorf has shown that he'll pay if he's assured a good winning team. Obviously ownership has it's limits with luxury tax penalties so you can't go too much over the cap. But giving meaty contracts to 5-6 players seems feasable IMO. Maybe some don't think Ben Wallace will maintain his effectiveness for the next 4-5 years, but he's a proven workhorse and an immediate game changer. He's the type of guy who could really get us to the next level very very soon. If we land a scoring type in the draft, ala Bargnani, then I'm even more for it.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

yodurk said:


> As long as Uncle Jerry promises to pay up when Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, and Noch are up for extensions, then personally I see no problem giving Ben Wallace whatever he asks for. Reinsdorf has shown that he'll pay if he's assured a good winning team. Obviously ownership has it's limits with luxury tax penalties so you can't go too much over the cap. But giving meaty contracts to 5-6 players seems feasable IMO. Maybe some don't think Ben Wallace will maintain his effectiveness for the next 4-5 years, but he's a proven workhorse and an immediate game changer. He's the type of guy who could really get us to the next level very very soon. If we land a scoring type in the draft, ala Bargnani, then I'm even more for it.


He does make more sense if we get Bargnani in the draft I agree. A lot of my concern is he'll be 33-38 during that contract, so certainly not in his prime. What do you do if you have all your money stuck into an old guy if he really goes downhill?


----------



## Samael (Sep 1, 2005)

Damn, if you guys are willing to spend that cash on Big Ben, why not just go for KG with your picks. He's younger, a current rebounding champion, All Defensive team, proven scorer and a veteran leader which is something the Bulls really need.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> I think their figures are off (though I'm not stating mine are compltely accurate).
> 
> Using Rosenbaum's '06-'07 cap prediction of 49.2 million to calculate the projected BRI per team (49.2/.51) and multiplying by .4804, the actual cap figure to calculate maximum salaries is $46,344,471. Thirty-five percent of that would be a starting salary of $16,220,565.
> 
> According to my calculations (once again, I'm not confirming any validity in them), the maximum Wallace can sign for is $72,668,130 (8% raises) over four years and $94,079,275 over five years.


Rosenbaum's 06-07 cap prediction is quite strange, unless he believes the NBA is going to lose revenue this year.


> The league and Players Association agreed to use a figure of $49.5 million for the 2005-06 cap, rather than the calculated figure (which would have resulted in a salary cap of $50.9 million).


From the salary cap FAQ. 
Using that info and the assumption that the NBA projects the same BRI as last year, next years cap would be at roughly $52M.
Ben would be allowed a maximum starting salary of $18.2M, ouch.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

I hereby retract my earlier desire to see Pax's first move of free agency be a "full-boat" offer to Ben Wallace. I didn't think that Wallace would take the offer, but I felt it would send a good message to prospective free agents (and their agents) around the league.

Now I'm afraid Wallace would take the offer, and I have no desire to see him on the Bulls at anything near that sort of price. He would cripple our already-challenged offense, and there's only so much he could do to improve our team defense, especially as the emphasis in the league continues to trend toward offense.

I'm not a commitment-phobe, and heaven knows I've been clamoring for years for Reinsdorf to spend more money, but I'm not sure there's a free agent out there I'd like to see the Bulls land for more than three years and $20 million. Drew Gooden, maybe.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

No way Wallace stays with the Pistons. This has Steve Nash written all over it. Pistons lowball him, we offer him a good contract, but not outrageous (nothing over 100 million, and that crap). I think Sheed will demand a trade too, especially if Ben bolts in free agency.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

sloth said:


> No way Wallace stays with the Pistons. This has Steve Nash written all over it. Pistons lowball him, we offer him a good contract, but not outrageous (nothing over 100 million, and that crap). I think Sheed will demand a trade too, especially if Ben bolts in free agency.


sloth, have you been watching the playoffs? Detroit would be far better off starting McDyess and giving extra minutes to Dale Davis and limiting Ben to 10-15 minutes a game.

I have no desire to go through the next 5 seasons playing 4-on-5 on the offensive end, especially when it costs us at least $15 million per and probably means we'll lose a younger player or two for budget reasons. 

With the NBA headed toward a revival of the run-and-fun 80s, a guy like Ben Wallace will be an albatross. We already have a pretty damn good defense without him anyway.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

TripleDouble said:


> I like the years but not the dollars.


Are you Jerry Reinsdorf? I THINK I have the understanding that we'd be over the cap for the foreseeable future after this season if we got Wallace for 7 mill per. Once we're over the cap what does it matter what we pay out?


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> sloth, have you been watching the playoffs? Detroit would be far better off starting McDyess and giving extra minutes to Dale Davis and limiting Ben to 10-15 minutes a game.
> 
> I have no desire to go through the next 5 seasons playing 4-on-5 on the offensive end, especially when it costs us at least $15 million per and probably means we'll lose a younger player or two for budget reasons.
> 
> With the NBA headed toward a revival of the run-and-fun 80s, a guy like Ben Wallace will be an albatross. We already have a pretty damn good defense without him anyway.


Mr. May... Is it looking MORE AND MORE like we should just forego the free agent market this offseason unless we get a good price on a guy who will be content to be "one of the guys" like a Nazr Mohammed?? I just don't know that it's a great idea adding another guy who will demand big offense or in Wallace's case, at best, be a figure that is seen around the league as ABOVE the rest of our guys. I know that people want us to spend all this money, but sometimes adding as many guys as you can isn't the best thing. Sometimes it's too many chefs in the kitchen. I'm almost content to add NO ONE from free agency unless they are a good background guy.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

why go after Ben for that money when u could just draft Thomas? 3 BPG, 12 RPG...taller than Wallace, faster & more agile..

I like Benny though.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

step said:


> Rosenbaum's 06-07 cap prediction is quite strange, unless he believes the NBA is going to lose revenue this year.


http://danrosenbaum.blogspot.com/2005/07/what-will-salary-cap-luxury-tax.html


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Pippenatorade said:


> Mr. May... Is it looking MORE AND MORE like we should just forego the free agent market this offseason unless we get a good price on a guy who will be content to be "one of the guys" like a Nazr Mohammed?? I just don't know that it's a great idea adding another guy who will demand big offense or in Wallace's case, at best, be a figure that is seen around the league as ABOVE the rest of our guys. I know that people want us to spend all this money, but sometimes adding as many guys as you can isn't the best thing. Sometimes it's too many chefs in the kitchen. I'm almost content to add NO ONE from free agency unless they are a good background guy.


I've never been a big fan of free agency. You usually get guys that are overpriced, past their prime, have questionable at best character, etc. As someone said though, the main reason I am against adding an older guy considered a "star" is that you might pass on a younger guy that could develop into something special, and in a few years he's gone and you are the worse for it then.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I don't think big Ben will get a max deal considering his max starts at over 16mil per. I think he will get something in the neighborhood of 12 mil per and the Bulls should definitley offer him that and try to pry him from Detroit.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

It sure would be nice to get someone who could be counted on to defend the middle and sweep the boards on a nightly basis for the next few years. I don't care how much he costs, it's not my money.

The down side of getting Wallace is his abysmal free throw shooting. The Bulls are already not very good at this aspect of the game. It's very distracting to have someone incapable of making a freethrow on the floor in the fourth quarter. So I would offer him less than the max for that reason.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Ouch. That's a lot of money for a guy that can barely hit the side of a barn. Throw in the fact that we have Chandler that can't score if his life depends on it, we're really not looking much better than this past year. Wallace and Chandler would almost certainly be sharing the court - do we play 3 on 5 offense for 15 minutes a game?

I'd rather save our money for next year or a mid-season trade rather than spending it for the sake of spending it. Add Nazr for cheap and call it a day. Someone is bound to be available for trade this upcoming season. A big man rotation of Nocioni/Nazr/Tyson/Sweetney/Aldridge or Thomas isn't the worst thing in the world.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

It's been pointed out ad nausem that we can't "save our cap for next season" without some rarther drastic moves (like trading Hinrich), so people sort of need to get over that idea.

And Ben Wallace actually CAN play some offense and isn't a horrible free throw shooter. He has been in the playoffs but he is playing with a finger injury which can really affect your shot.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

sp00k said:


> A big man rotation of Nocioni/Nazr/Tyson/Sweetney/Aldridge or Thomas isn't the worst thing in the world.


No, and in fact, a big man rotation of Tyson/Sweetney/Malik Allen/Songaila contributed to a team defensive approach that did far better in terms of rebounding differential and opponents' field-goal percentage than the Pistons this season.

Look, I'm not doubting that Wallace would make the Bulls a better defensive team. But there's a limit to HOW much better he can make them, and he would severely hamper our offense in the balance. I think that the trade-off isn't worth it even if salary wasn't an issue.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> And Ben Wallace actually CAN play some offense and isn't a horrible free throw shooter.


Ace, Ben Wallace is a career 41.8 FT% shooter. I guess that IS impressive compared to the 13/58 he's put up in the playoffs, but it's about the worst percentage I can remember for a guy who's played a lot of years. Even Chris Dudley shot 46%!

As for his offense, he's golden if he's right around the basket and has someone set him up. We need guys who can locate their own shot, not have it served to them on a silver platter.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

ace20004u said:


> It's been pointed out ad nausem that we can't "save our cap for next season" without some rarther drastic moves (like trading Hinrich), so people sort of need to get over that idea.
> 
> And Ben Wallace actually CAN play some offense and isn't a horrible free throw shooter. He has been in the playoffs but he is playing with a finger injury which can really affect your shot.


 While I agree saving cap space for next year is a little far fetched, Scott May put together a nice post detailing what "drastic steps" need to be taken. All in all, it's not outside the realm of possibility. 

But moreover, many of us aren't taking into account that we have capspace until <i>next summer</i>. Every year some player hits the trade market and I don't expect this year to be any different. It might be nice to have a little cap space to absorb a higher salary.

BTW, Ben Wallace isn't a horrible free throw shooter. He's a piss poor free throw shooter. A .419 lifetime percentage is a pretty telling figure.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

If Flip is fired, I'd expect Dumars to back Big Ben.

Maybe McDyess?


----------



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

Dumars is not gonna fire Flip after ONE season


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

yodurk said:


> As long as Uncle Jerry promises to pay up when Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, and Noch are up for extensions, then personally I see no problem giving Ben Wallace whatever he asks for. Reinsdorf has shown that he'll pay if he's assured a good winning team. Obviously ownership has it's limits with luxury tax penalties so you can't go too much over the cap. But giving meaty contracts to 5-6 players seems feasable IMO. Maybe some don't think Ben Wallace will maintain his effectiveness for the next 4-5 years, but he's a proven workhorse and an immediate game changer. He's the type of guy who could really get us to the next level very very soon. If we land a scoring type in the draft, ala Bargnani, then I'm even more for it.



This is pretty much where I am. I think it's an absolute must though that if we go after Wallace that we also obtain a scoring post player. I'd give Wallace an offer starting at about 12 per and inch up a bit just to see if something could be done.

As far as redundancy with Chandler goes, at this point I'm not going to make any big plans for my ballclub around Tyson Chandler. He's got to prove that he's going to contribute and stay on the floor before I'm going to worry about him.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Ok so Ben Wallace is a pretty bad free throw shooter. He has been even worse in the playoffs because of that finger thingy and that was my point. Still, I am a little surprised, I had no idea that he was in the 40's! 

I think Wallace would generate some offense inside because I think our guards and unselfish passing would lead him to some easy buckets...which is a good thing. If we could do a sign & trade and get Wallace and Gooden (who would be our bonafide post threat) draft two good players too, we would be sitting pretty next season IMO.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

tone wone said:


> Dumars is not gonna fire Flip after ONE season


Maybe:



> Flip? He's flopped.
> 
> And unless Flip Saunders immediately regains control of the spiraling Detroit Pistons, he should be fired just one season into taking over what seemed to be the ultimate coaching job – in charge of the most selfless, self-motivated team in basketball.
> 
> ...


http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=ArGavGD0.29g.OYfLgcQkIE5nYcB?slug=dw-flip053006

Roster change or coach change?



> Saunders was handed a dream job last year, with a roster that was in place to compete for multiple championships. But, to do so, the players had to want to compete for their coach. They don't seem to now. It is one thing to lose; it is another to lose like this in a very un-Detroit way.
> 
> Only one thing changed from then and now: the coach. Barring another miraculous Pistons flip-the-switch-comeback, the coach is going to have to change again.


----------



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

GB said:


> Maybe:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 3 coaches fired in 4 years for team with no star player??? Their roster needs retooling....you can only go for so long with no bench support and your highest paid player being your least consitent and reliable player. McDyess looks 25 compared to the way Sheed and Ben are moving. They traded darko so they have no future outside of Prince.

It was a great run.....4 straight ECF apperances, 2 Finals appearances and 1 title but reguardless of what happens the rest of the way this team gonna look different next season and the change shouldn't be the coach.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

The ROY said:


> why go after Ben for that money when u could just draft Thomas? 3 BPG, 12 RPG...taller than Wallace, faster & more agile..
> 
> I like Benny though.


General rule #1: never compare college stats to NBA stats.

General rule #2: when evaluating Ben Wallace, "workout-type" athletic measures are meaningless. These were the measures used by NBA GMs when they decided that B. Wallace wasn't even worth a 2nd round pick.

I would love to see B. Wallace on the Bulls. He doesn't do everything well, but what he does well, he does unbelievably well. If you get him, the Bulls need to make their run in the next 3 years. I'm not sure you need Chandler if you have Wallace, but if you had them both, the paint would be a tough place to be.

Oh yeah, in a weak free agent group, he's the best big out there.

Do it.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Me wan Big Ben.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Me wan Big Ben.


Me too. I agree with the guys saying that so long as CTC to Ben doesn't cause Jerry to balk at signing our core a year or 2 from now, then there is no reason not to throw the green at him. Big time.

Especially if you can use the #2 pick to get a scoring big like Aldridge or Bargnani. The Bulls would be a legit contender for the Eastern Conference championship next season. 

Pay the man. And then pay everyone else too.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

BTW: Happy 2,500 to The Penguin


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Me too. I agree with the guys saying that so long as CTC to Ben doesn't cause Jerry to balk at signing our core a year or 2 from now, then there is no reason not to throw the green at him. Big time.
> 
> Especially if you can use the #2 pick to get a scoring big like Aldridge or Bargnani. The Bulls would be a legit contender for the Eastern Conference championship next season.
> 
> Pay the man. And then pay everyone else too.


I really don't like the idea of throwing money at Ben Wallace. He's going to get paid too much due to a weak FA class, he's a 32 year old big man, and if we plan on keeping Chandler around I don't see how he fits in. We don't have room for 2 bigs that are that offensively inept.

Wallace works in Detroit because McDyess and Rasheed Wallace are legit low post threats. Playing Chandler and Big Ben together would be offensive suicide.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

If we get the two Tellem guys (Aldridge and Big Ben) we are going to be pretty good. But I would still be reluctant to give Big Ben all that money and years. I guess I shouldnt care that much since Im not the one paying all those contracts. 
It is a move I would love short term.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

El Chapu said:


> If we get the two Tellem guys (Aldridge and Big Ben) we are going to be pretty good. But I would still be reluctant to give Big Ben all that money and years. I guess I shouldnt care that much since Im not the one paying all those contracts.
> It is a move I would love short term.


I just don't understand how commiting 25 million dollars a season to two offensively challenged bigs like Ben Wallace and Tyson Chandler makes sense. There's no way we'll be able to resign more than two of our core guys to big deals down the road if we do this...

Let's suppose that Wallace and Chandler average about 14 points a game combined next year - it's what they averaged this year in a combined 63 MPG. When's the last time a championship caliber team started two bigs who averaged less than 15 PPG? I'm tempted to say it's never happened, but it may've during the Rodman dynasty years with Rodman and Longley (and Luc was a better back to the basket player than either of these guys). That team got away with it because Jordan and Pippen were good for 50 a night. We don't have that kind of offensive fire power on this team. If you like our core, and see us keeping Chandler, signing Wallace is totally crazy.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

jbulls said:


> I just don't understand how commiting 25 million dollars a season to two offensively challenged bigs like Ben Wallace and Tyson Chandler makes sense. There's no way we'll be able to resign more than two of our core guys to big deals down the road if we do this...
> 
> Let's suppose that Wallace and Chandler average about 14 points a game combined next year - it's what they averaged this year in a combined 63 MPG. When's the last time a championship caliber team started two bigs who averaged less than 15 PPG? I'm tempted to say it's never happened, but it may've during the Rodman dynasty years with Rodman and Longley (and Luc was a better back to the basket player than either of these guys). That team got away with it because Jordan and Pippen were good for 50 a night. We don't have that kind of offensive fire power on this team. If you like our core, and see us keeping Chandler, signing Wallace is totally crazy.


Theres a reason I said its not MY MONEY. If Reinsdorf werent cheap, we could do it without a problem. And again, Chandler at some point could be a very interesting trading chip. Right now he is crap, but he has size and is young. Working with Ben Wallace cant hurt him.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

El Chapu said:


> Theres a reason I said its not MY MONEY. If Reinsdorf werent cheap, we could do it without a problem. And again, Chandler at some point could be a very interesting trading chip. Right now he is crap, but he has size and is young. Working with Ben Wallace cant hurt him.


I assume that Chandler and Wallace will essentially be getting starter's minutes next year, if we were to do this. My question stands: what team (other than the Rodman era Bulls) has won a championship with 2 starting bigs averaging less than 15 PPG combined?


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

jbulls said:


> I assume that Chandler and Wallace will essentially be getting starter's minutes next year, if we were to do this. My question stands: what team (other than the Rodman era Bulls) has won a championship with 2 starting bigs averaging less than 15 PPG combined?


You dont make lineups based on salaries. And its always a plus to have your squad with fresh legs, something the Pistons didnt do this season.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

jbulls said:


> I assume that Chandler and Wallace will essentially be getting starter's minutes next year, if we were to do this. My question stands: what team (other than the Rodman era Bulls) has won a championship with 2 starting bigs averaging less than 15 PPG combined?


I wouldn't assume Chandler gets starter's minutes. We had absolutely nobody else last year and he only averaged 27 mpg. The year before he averaged 27 with Curry and Davis. That's not quite starter's minutes. Suppose we pick up Bargnani and someone like Armstrong. We'll certainly be better in the short run and in the longer run we either trade Chandler or he loses minutes and that's that.

I do agree in principle... I'd be looking to trade Chandler, but the Reinsdorf is cheap excuse bugs me to no end. There's no reason, except for that, that I think it wouldn't work.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

El Chapu said:


> You dont make lineups based on salaries. And its always a plus to have your squad with fresh legs, something the Pistons didnt do this season.


If Wallace is signed, it would be best to use him more sparingly than the Pistons do; particularly since he is not getting any younger. So there will be plenty of time for Chandler (and plenty for him to learn from a Master at the game).

As far a money goes, I find the widespread concern for Rheinsdorf's profits touching, but he is a good businessman who knows that there is a time to take profits and a time to invest. The time to invest is now. Don't worry about the salary cap, luxury tax, etc. The Bulls have plenty of money -- probably more than New York. Time for them to act like it.

Otherwise, some of us are going to develope a much stronger interest in the Sky.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Suppose we pick up Bargnani and someone like Armstrong. We'll certainly be better in the short run and in the longer run we either trade Chandler or he loses minutes and that's that.


Third option, he gets better and retains his minutes or gets more.

I'd bet dollars to donuts that Chandler plays more minutes than Ben Wallace 4 years from now.


----------



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

johnston797 said:


> Third option, he gets better and retains his minutes or gets more.
> 
> I'd bet dollars to donuts that Chandler plays more minutes than Ben Wallace 4 years from now.


NBA minutes or NBDL minutes?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

jbulls said:


> I assume that Chandler and Wallace will essentially be getting starter's minutes next year, if we were to do this. My question stands: what team (other than the Rodman era Bulls) has won a championship with 2 starting bigs averaging less than 15 PPG combined?


In addition to an answer to your question, I'd like to see the pro-Wallace crowd here actually attempt to quantify why he'd be a good addition at $70-80 million. Or at least convince me I'm wrong about any of the following:

-- The Bulls are arguably the best defensive team in the league and inarguably one of the three-four best over the last two seasons, even as they doled out significant amounts of playing time to allegedly horrible individual defenders like Eddy Curry, Michael Sweetney, and Ben Gordon

-- The Bulls were a better defensive team than the Pistons last year as measured by FG% defense and rebounding differential. There is a limit to how much Wallace can help us in those areas, or in our negative FTA differential.

-- Signing Wallace to a big deal significantly increases the likelihood Reinsdorf will be unwilling to sign one of the five important rookie scale/below-market value contracts that will be eligible for extension during the duration of Wallace's contract (Hinrich, Nocioni, Deng, Gordon, #2 pick)

I see plenty of cons, and I don't see how adding Wallace will get us to that +4/+8 point differential typically shown by a conference-championship contending team. Given the quick pace that we need to play at to have our offense be effective, we're not going to be able to hold opponents to 90 ppg. 96-97 is about as good as it gets, and I don't see how Wallace would help us on the offensive side of the ball at all.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> In addition to an answer to your question, I'd like to see the pro-Wallace crowd here actually attempt to quantify why he'd be a good addition at $70-80 million. Or at least convince me I'm wrong about any of the following:
> 
> -- The Bulls are arguably the best defensive team in the league and inarguably one of the three-four best over the last two seasons, even as they doled out significant amounts of playing time to allegedly horrible individual defenders like Eddy Curry, Michael Sweetney, and Ben Gordon
> 
> ...


The championship era Bulls were a great defensive team before they added Rodman and Harper. They were unbeatable after those players were added, in spite of the fact that they added little offensively.

IMO you cant have too much defense.

Wallace is certainly not a great scorer, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't add to the Bulls offensive capabilities. His rebounding alone would free up Gordan, Duhon and Hinrich to fast break after a shot on the defensive end -- which is something they simply can't do presently since they must remain back to help with defensive rebounding. In the half-court, Wallace passes well, sets effective picks and gets offensive rebounds. Those skills are more palpable contributions to the Bulls offensive capabilities than the few low post baskets that some other centers offer as their primary reason for existance.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

McBulls said:


> The championship era Bulls were a great defensive team before they added Rodman and Harper. They were unbeatable after those players were added, in spite of the fact that they added little offensively.
> 
> IMO you cant have too much defense.
> 
> Wallace is certainly not a great scorer, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't add to the Bulls offensive capabilities. His rebounding alone would free up Gordan, Duhon and Hinrich to fast break after a shot on the defensive end -- which is something they simply can't do presently since they must remain back to help with defensive rebounding. In the half-court, Wallace passes well, sets effective picks and gets offensive rebounds. Those skills are more palpable contributions to the Bulls offensive capabilities than the few low post baskets that some other centers offer as their primary reason for existance.


I'm not sure which is more painful, seeing you gratuitously drag the Eddy Curry bogeyman into the discussion, or your comparing our current roster with the Jordan/Pippen Bulls. 

You've essentially conceded that Wallace won't do much to improve our scoring defense. Can you hazard a guess as to how many actual points per game Wallace's palpable contributions will add to our offense?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I love what Ben Wallace used to bring, but coupling his decline with the fact that the NBA is choosing to highlight great offense and not great defense (through officiating emphasis) is a sure sign that we need to say no to Ben Wallace.


----------



## Brian. (Jul 11, 2002)

My hope is if he does stay in Detroit that it isn't more then 4 years. Flip is the third straight coach he has had issues with. Once he loses his athletism he is done as an NBA player. The only reason he gets rebounds is because he outworks everybody else. He isn't taller then 6'7 regardless of what his listed size is, so once he is unable to run and jump around his opponents he is going to be a worse rebounder then Eddy Curry. Like others have mentioned when he is on floor you are essentially playing 4 vs 5 on the offensive end. I love the guy and is apperciative of what he has given us but if he demands a max contract or something more then 4 years I hope he gets it elsewhere.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I'm not sure which is more painful, seeing you gratuitously drag the Eddy Curry bogeyman into the discussion, or your comparing our current roster with the Jordan/Pippen Bulls.
> 
> You've essentially conceded that Wallace won't do much to improve our scoring defense. Can you hazard a guess as to how many actual points per game Wallace's palpable contributions will add to our offense?


That would leave more shots for Kirk, Ben, Luol, and Noc. The real question is could they keep their %'s or better with an increased number of shots.

And I'm not on the pro Wallace at a max deal train.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> In addition to an answer to your question, I'd like to see the pro-Wallace crowd here actually attempt to quantify why he'd be a good addition at $70-80 million. Or at least convince me I'm wrong about any of the following:
> 
> -- The Bulls are arguably the best defensive team in the league and inarguably one of the three-four best over the last two seasons, even as they doled out significant amounts of playing time to allegedly horrible individual defenders like Eddy Curry, Michael Sweetney, and Ben Gordon
> 
> ...



Point #1) Yes, the Bulls ARE a good defensive team, particularly in their backcourt. We have always had a weakness inside though, especially when Chandler is on the bench. If we added Wallace that weakness would become a strength and we would become an even better defensive team.

point 2.) We may have been a better defensive team on paper but who is playing in the ECF now? The worst area the Bulls have defensively is the paint. Imagine what a lockdown team we would be with a player like Wallace manning the paint and our other defense already in place.

point #3.) I don't think it significantly changes Reinsdorfs thinking at all. We have cap space to use this offseason or lose. We ARE gonna use it, at least most of it, why not use it on the best player available? And we will have to go over the cap to win a championship at some point..Reinsdorf knows this and has always said he will pay for a winner.

Wallace could definitley help us offensively too. He isn't an offensive player per say but he sure is better than Chandler at catching the ball in the post. He is better at getting the tip in dunks that we so often miss too.

All of that being said, I still think at most we are lookintg at a 4 year contract around 10-12 mil because of Wallaces age. Either he is agreeable or he isn't and we move on, simple as that. I think you also have to factor in the benefits having a workout warrior and mentor like Wallace on the team to show guys like Chandler and our picks this year how to play big. Thats really huge too and when he is an expiring contract in year 3 he can be dealt. 

The good thing is that even at his age he is still effective. His biggest asset is his bball IQ and his incredible strength and he should hold onto those for the next few years still.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Third option, he gets better and retains his minutes or gets more.
> 
> I'd bet dollars to donuts that Chandler plays more minutes than Ben Wallace 4 years from now.


I probably wouldn't disagree with that, but in four years Ben would theoretically be in the last year of his deal. So, being optimistic and imagining that Chandler will slowly "ramp up" and develop into a better player and that Wallace will ramp down and develop into a worse player, the difference would seem to balance out.

I'm not sold on the idea of Wallace, but I don't know that Chandler's the reason I'm not sold.

I also don't think his age is a huge issue for a long-term deal. He'd be 36 at the end of a 5 year deal. Contrary to what a lot of folks are saying, I don't see how his game is going to totally fall apart. Rodman was effective through that age So were guys like Antonio Davis and Charles Oakley. Even A.C. Green, although we surely can't expect Ben to keep his virginity that long. 

Obviously they're all somewhat different players than Wallace, but it hardly seems to me to be a foregone conclusion that he'll be completely useless as a player long before the end of his deal rolls around.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

ace20004u said:


> Point #1) Yes, the Bulls ARE a good defensive team, particularly in their backcourt. We have always had a weakness inside though, especially when Chandler is on the bench. If we added Wallace that weakness would become a strength and we would become an even better defensive team.
> 
> point 2.) We may have been a better defensive team on paper but who is playing in the ECF now? The worst area the Bulls have defensively is the paint. Imagine what a lockdown team we would be with a player like Wallace manning the paint and our other defense already in place.
> 
> ...



This is my thinking as well, Ace. If we've spent all this time accumulating this cap space, we need to take a shot at a player who will have a bigger impact than a Pryz or Nazr, etc.

Again, I would say due to his inconsistency, we can't worry about how adding a Ben Wallace would impact our team considering we have Tyson Chandler. Tyson has to be a secondary consideration at this point.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

ace20004u said:


> Point #1) Yes, the Bulls ARE a good defensive team, particularly in their backcourt. We have always had a weakness inside though, especially when Chandler is on the bench. If we added Wallace that weakness would become a strength and we would become an even better defensive team.
> 
> point 2.) We may have been a better defensive team on paper but who is playing in the ECF now? The worst area the Bulls have defensively is the paint. Imagine what a lockdown team we would be with a player like Wallace manning the paint and our other defense already in place.
> 
> ...


This is pretty much my point of view. 

The value of Wallace's playoff and championship experience should not be overlooked if the Bulls become contenders. Experience can be a difference maker deep in the playoffs.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Rhyder said:


> That would leave more shots for Kirk, Ben, Luol, and Noc. The real question is could they keep their %'s or better with an increased number of shots.
> 
> And I'm not on the pro Wallace at a max deal train.


And the answer is no, IMO. When you have an offensive non-factor on the court (and Wallace is one, despite what some around here seem to believe) the defense can double at will and the other players get way less space, leading to reduced shooting percentages. 

If you're going to build around a 6' 3'' backcourt it seems to me that it's imperative to provide a low post presence and get them a little space to get shots off. Same goes for Nocioni. He's 6'7'' but Noc is at his best when he has time to set his feet. His shooting motion is very deliberate, though he made strides as an off the dribble marksman late last season.

The idea that Chandler is now a secondary consideration (not that you've said this, but others have) and we should just stick him at the end of the bench is silly. Even if you hate Tyson it's obvious that doing this completely kills his trade value. Tyson Chandler is a poor man's Ben Wallace. That's the role he assumes on this team. The best thing to do, IMO, is not to add the real Ben Wallace but to get somebody who complements Chandler's game, fills a need for us, and maximize what we can get out of Tyson - who I believe can be a useful cog on this team.

As for the argument that we should do this, but Reinsdorf's cheap so it won't work. I am not the biggest Reinsdorf fan, but he does have to be fiscally sane. Gordon, Hinrich, Deng and possibly Noc are all on the verge of commanding 50 million dollar deals. We do have to take that into consideration when going after big money guys in free agency.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

jbulls said:


> The idea that Chandler is now a secondary consideration (not that you've said this, but others have) and we should just stick him at the end of the bench is silly. Even if you have Tyson it's obvious that doing this completely kills his trade value. Tyson Chandler is a poor man's Ben Wallace. That's the role he assumes on this team. The best thing to do, IMO, is not to add the real Ben Wallace but to get somebody who complements Chandler's game, fills a need for us, and maximize what we can get out of Tyson - who I believe can be a useful cog on this team.


This paragraph is so spot-on, I can hardly stand it. My only beef is that I would argue that the Chandler of 04-05 wasn't a poor man's Wallace, he was probably about as good.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> This paragraph is so spot-on, I can hardly stand it. My only beef is that I would argue that the Chandler of 04-05 wasn't a poor man's Wallace, he was probably about as good.


so do we try to get sheed then? :smilewink


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

I was just reading through a slightly old SI and I found an interesting quote from Chauncy Billups.

He said that there are guy*s* in the NBA that make the players around them better offensively, but that Ben Wallace is the only guy in the league that makes the players around him better defensively.

Interesting. He, Chandler and Thomas/Aldridge would make for an interesting combination. I still think we'd need a big guard who could come off the bench, score a few points and impart some veteran savvy.

I wonder if MJ would be up for some part-time work?


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

> Jim (Det): Chad, there was an article today in a detroit paper saying that because of the rule changes that have taken away the clutching and grabbing the value of Ben Wallace has been diminished and that Joe Dumars may look to do a sign and trade with Toronoto for Charlie V, in order to get a more offensive minded forward. Do you think this could happen? Are there any other sign and trade possibilities for the Pistons?
> 
> Chad Ford: I think Detroit is in a tough position. Joe D loves Ben Wallace and for good reason. He's the heart and soul of the team. However, his effectiveness has diminished a little this year. Signing him to a huge contract extension takes away any flexibility to add to the team in the future. Joe is between a rock and a hard place here. I know he wants to keep Ben, but a sign-and-trade may make some sense, especially if the Pistons stumble on Friday.


Would anyone here be opposed to a S&T Wallace for Chandler type situation?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

RoRo said:


> so do we try to get sheed then? :smilewink


Tim Thomas?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Let the bidding begin....oh wait, its not July yet.....Pistons out of the playoffs!

DEEEEEEEEEEEEEETROOOOOOOOOIT BAAAAAAAAASKETBAAAAAAAALLLL


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

at 32 when next season begins, i think he deserves 10 million... nothing more than that. how can you be worth 20 million when you are such an offensive liability?


----------



## Aesop (Jun 1, 2003)

31 minutes for Ben tonight. Did he even play in the 4th quarter? I don't see how he'd want to come back. The Pistons are just getting older. Their run with this group is in the decline. The only question left is: does Chandler give up #3?


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

Aesop said:


> 31 minutes for Ben tonight. Did he even play in the 4th quarter? I don't see how he'd want to come back. The Pistons are just getting older. Their run with this group is in the decline. The only question left is: does Chandler give up #3?


Yes.

Why?

Because the Bulls will trade Tyson in a few days.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

lol, they kept asking Ben Wallace if he was gonna stay in Detroit, he just kept saying "everyone knows where my heart is" and based on the look in these playoffs, its not in Detroit. Dumars probaly already told Wallace he isn't going to pay him too much, which probaly is what resulted in the lethargic play. Where is your heart Ben, with the money?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Wholesale changes? That is foolish. Most teams in basketball still would give their luxury box revenue for a starting five as solid -- and as signed -- as Detroit's. Only Ben Wallace is on the market this summer, and he's not looking around. The oldest starters are the Wallaces at 31. You don't rip that apart because a postseason didn't work out. No. More likely, Joe Dumars will do some major tinkering with his bench. And he will hope coach Flip Saunders, just like a player facing his first real baptism of fire, will grow next season and be better when it comes around again.
> 
> "You can make some changes, coaches, a player," Ben Wallace said, "but, you know, ultimately it will be on you as an individual to accept this loss and look in the mirror and see what you can do, come back ready."


http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006606030392



> Wallace did allow that he was upset at being benched the entire fourth quarter by coach Flip Saunders, and it seems safe to discern that the relationship between the center and the coach is far from bucolic. But will that be enough to drive Wallace from Detroit once July arrives and the teams with enough cap room to overpay him, Chicago and Toronto being the main possibilities, decide to come knocking at his door?
> 
> "When you say everyone knows where your heart is at, is that Detroit? Could you spell that out?" a reporter asked Wallace.
> 
> "I don't know," he replied before tossing out that line about his heart being in his chest.


Toronto could nab him the way Orlando took McGrady from us. Bosh, Charlie V and Big Ben? Nice...

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2006/columns/story?columnist=sheridan_chris&id=2468823


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Bosh, Charlie V and Big Ben? Nice...


Charlie V on the wing just makes me cringe.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

Detroit almost has to give Ben what he wants, otherwise the Darko trade would seem even more foolish. They gave away Darko in large part so they could retain Ben (and Chauncey). They also said Darko wasn't going to get any minutes with Ben / Rasheed there. 

If Ben leaves, who do they have left to fill the void? Dale Davis? Please. Had they kept Darko, it would have been easier to let Ben walk.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Detroit almost has to give Ben what he wants, otherwise the Darko trade would seem even more foolish.
> ...
> If Ben leaves, who do they have left to fill the void? Dale Davis? Please. Had they kept Darko, it would have been easier to let Ben walk.


Exactly.


----------



## l2owen (Apr 24, 2006)

ben wallace is going to become a black hole down the stretch and any team foolish to sign him to a max deal will be dearly regretting it being stuck in cap hell , while young prospects will be signed at a quarter of a price of what old ben will be getting putting up 5 n 5 .


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

A max deal. The only thing I will say is this. For the fans who want it to happen (in Chicago), I hope it does and then 3 months later you're complaining about how it was a bad decision and these threads start getting bumped.

Have you watched the shift in the NBA this season? Have you watched the playoffs?

Say no to Ben Wallace. Take a chance on a Nazr Mohammed (for 2-3 years) or trade for a Magloire in a contract year (he'll probably bring his A game for sure), then take on a 32 years old 6'7 C who relies on leaping ability.

How can people not see the red flags on Wallace? How could you play him and Chandler together? 3 on 5 on offense?


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Bulls should offer Ben Wallace 5 years $100M contract. If Pistons pay him more than this amount, they are done.

They will have big loss, then they will trade other starters.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I was thinking starting at 12.5 with max raises.

If he's not happy with 73 million over 5 years, I don't know what else we could give him.


----------



## laso (Jul 24, 2002)

I feel getting an end of career Ben Wallace here for a max deal could be like bringing Scottie Pippen here last year, or worse, bringing Charles Oakley three years ago! Let's stay away from him and for sure let's not break the bank for him.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

What I find so ironic is that 6 months ago when Wallace seemed untouchable in free agency, most folks would've paid anything for him. Now that he might finally be obtainable, nobody wants him.

Personally I'm a little torn on what to offer him, but I would LOVE to have Ben Wallace in a Bulls uniform provided we can afford to keep our young guys long-term. Who cares if he can't score, he has PROVEN to be very much a game-changing center.

Nene is an excellent plan B though, if he's as healthy as reports indicate. If we really want to play into the uptempo NBA game, Nene has both size and athleticism. And he's not too bad offensively either. He would also allow Chandler to play more PF minutes.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

I say pass on him. He is a great post presence, but his O sucks, and he's not worth giving up our ability to resign/sign our young guys. As someone else said, it'd be best case scenario playing 4 on 5 offense, with some others out there like Chandler like 3.5 on 5 at times. I still think Chandler will come around and play more up to his potential, last year being a down year. I can't wait for the draft, when is it again, the 28th? Maybe I'll get lucky and they'll draft Bargnani and it'll be like a birthday present beings my b-day is just a few days before the draft lol. Bargnani and Reddick (Paxson Jr. lol)


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Personally I'm a little torn on what to offer him, but I would LOVE to have Ben Wallace in a Bulls uniform provided we can afford to keep our young guys long-term.


I think this goes for everyone. As long as we're in the position to retain our young guys, I don't see it being much of an issue.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> As someone else said, it'd be best case scenario playing 4 on 5 offense, with some others out there like Chandler like 3.5 on 5 at times.


Here's me thinking outside the box:

I think Ben Wallace would actually IMPROVE the Bulls' offense.

Crazy, I know. Why do I say this? I think he does more offensively then people realize. Yeah, his scoring numbers have always been pathetic; particularly his free throw shooting (he's even worse than Shaq). Still, I could easily see him helping us on BOTH ends...

1. Offensive rebounding/second chances: We basically were dead-even with opponents on this stat last year; Big Ben is one of the best you'll see at tip-outs for 2nd chances.

2. Intangibles: Nobody ever talks about his basketball IQ, but Ben is a very smart basketball player and a good passer. Even though he doesn't shoot much, he still gets regular touches in their offense and barely turns the ball over. He also does the little things, such as setting good picks (which Chandler is still crappy at). Plus he obviously has respect from the refs which isn't a bad thing when it comes to getting calls.

3. Defense creates offense: Because of his superb help defense, Wallace allows his teammates to play more aggressive perimeter defense, which generally leads to more forced turnovers (i.e. fewer shot opportunites for one team, and more for us especially fast breaks). Also, I think he would take SO much pressure off guys like Hinrich, Deng, Nocioni, and Chandler, that all of those guys will have more energy and confidence to contribute offensively.

4. Post presence/good hands: He's not a "scorer" of any kind, but at the very least Wallace gives you someone who can actually CATCH the damn ball near the basket (unlike a certain 7-footer we have). And if he's open, he'll dunk it with authority; this is also something we lacked last year. So no, he won't create offense but he can still finish with the high-percentage dunk when we need it.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Here's me thinking outside the box:
> 
> I think Ben Wallace would actually IMPROVE the Bulls' offense.
> 
> ...


I think that overall, Wallace would benefit us only marginally in this area. For all of their other numerous faults, guys like Chandler, OFella, Malik Allen, Songaila, and "Sweets" are exemplary offensive rebounders. So I doubt Wallace would improve us much in that respect, if at all.



> 2. Intangibles: Nobody ever talks about his basketball IQ, but Ben is a very smart basketball player and a good passer. Even though he doesn't shoot much, he still gets regular touches in their offense and barely turns the ball over. He also does the little things, such as setting good picks (which Chandler is still crappy at). Plus he obviously has respect from the refs which isn't a bad thing when it comes to getting calls.


Again, I see this as being a very marginal potential benefit. Wallace plays now with four guys who are outstanding offensive players, especially in the half court. I think they make him look a lot better than he actually is. He's never called upon to play-make, to locate his own shot, or even to finish many pick-and-rolls.



> 3. Defense creates offense: Because of his superb help defense, Wallace allows his teammates to play more aggressive perimeter defense, which generally leads to more forced turnovers (i.e. fewer shot opportunites for one team, and more for us especially fast breaks). Also, I think he would take SO much pressure off guys like Hinrich, Deng, Nocioni, and Chandler, that all of those guys will have more energy and confidence to contribute offensively.


I agree with this point. You would expect Wallace's presence would allow the perimeter guys to relax a tad, foul less, and have more energy to expend on the offensive end. But in theory, at least, I don't know that we can be any better of an overall defensive team than we have been the last couple of years, and it's just impossible for me to meaningfully quantify what sort of impact "defense creates offense" would have on our point-differential bottom line. 



> 4. Post presence/good hands: He's not a "scorer" of any kind, but at the very least Wallace gives you someone who can actually CATCH the damn ball near the basket (unlike a certain 7-footer we have). And if he's open, he'll dunk it with authority; this is also something we lacked last year. So no, he won't create offense but he can still finish with the high-percentage dunk when we need it.


Well, this ought to give you pause. Chandler is a significantly better finisher on close, tip, and dunk shots. He scores his points on a much lower percentage of assisted baskets (i.e., if Wallace isn't handed the ball on a silver platter right at the rim -- a pretty infrequent occurrence in our offense, imo -- it's a funky adventure). Chandler draws fouls at a much higher rate and is (obviously) much more likely to make the opponent pay when he gets there. And Chandler is just about as good a defensive and offensive rebounder as Wallace.

http://www.82games.com/0506/05CHI17A.HTM
http://www.82games.com/0506/05DET16A.HTM

Basically, I don't think there's going to be that big a difference between Chandler and Wallace over the next four years, especially if Paxson can obtain a big who'll take scoring, rebounding, and psychological pressure off Tyson. If I felt there would be a big difference, I would agree that bringing in Wallace would be worth the money and subsequent increased likelihood that one of the young core will be lost for budget reasons.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

> Wallace might be a four-time Defensive Player of the Year, hailed as the anchor to the amazing run the Pistons have made in the past three seasons, but there is nothing certain about his re-signing in Detroit.
> 
> For a guy who never was drafted, signed for the minimum with the Washington Wizards, was traded to the Orlando Magic for Ike Austin and later found fame and fortune in Detroit, the world doesn't always turn smoothly.
> 
> ...





> "You have to listen to hear what opportunities are out there,'' Wallace said. "You have to weigh your options.
> 
> "And it's not always just about money. It's about having the opportunity to do what you're comfortable doing.''
> 
> Imagine what the centerless Bulls and Coach Scott Skiles could do if they signed Wallace, putting him in the midst of all their young, talented perimeter players. They might be playing next season in the NBA Finals.


http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/40784/20060604/big_bens_piston_time_may_be_up/


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

The ROY said:


> http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/40784/20060604/big_bens_piston_time_may_be_up/


From the same article...



> Anyone who doubted that Scott Skiles would become a successful NBA coach really didn't understand him as a player with the Magic. Skiles is in his second NBA head-coaching position in Chicago, and he is convincing some that he might become an elite coach soon. "I've played for a lot of coaches in my career,'' said guard Randy Livingston, who is retiring after playing for nine teams in his 10 seasons, the final one with the Bulls. "I'd put Scott in the top three among all the coaches right now. And there is nobody better now at drawing up the right play in a key situation.''



We should hire Livingston as an assistant coach. Ben needs someone to watch tape with. Livingston would also be a huge help with Tyrus Thomas.


----------

