# Im sold, Emeka Okafor is officially on the rlucas radar



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Ok, the last thing we need is another 4. But this kid is going to be damn good. After chatting with some of you last night, I caught up on some tape of this kid. He is special. He hits the glass hard, his explosion is off the charts and his offense (which used to be mechanical) is now really good. He has an effective post game, but more importanly, he is making the 15-17 foot J and even driving off the dribble alot. Some on the draft board think he is a 5. I would doubt that. UConn lists him at 6-10. I would say he is 6-8/6-9. But it wont matter. He is a star in the making. if we get the rights to this kid, then we have plenty of stuff we can do. Unfortunately, it means Tyson is probably the bait. 

Trade Tyson for Tim Thomas as the principles in the deal, include salaries to match. We need a 3 like Thomas who can also set up out guards, he can knock down the 3 and would be a great addition

Trade Tyson for Rashard Lewis as the principles. Same as above. And like Milwaukee, needs an inside presence. I prefer this deal cause i wouldnt want to play Tyson 5 times a year

Trade Tyson in one of 2 deals with GS. 

Tyson for Jrich in a deal. Muss hates Jrich, but i love this guys game. Sure he is small for the 3 for us, but we can play small. This guy has the type of game we need, offensively.

Tyson and player for Mike Dunleavy and Michael Pietrus. GS is probably less likely to do this deal then the one above but we need help on the wings desperately. Adding both Dunleavy and Pietrus gives the Bulls depth, defense, outside shooting and secondary handing. Pietrus can back up MDJ and JC, possibly Kirk in a pinch. He has been good when there have been minutes, which are zero right now for him. Dunleavy is hot and cold. But he seems like a Pax type to me. Plus GS was hot for Chandler on draft night a couple of years back. They maybe interested if they know they can get a 3 in the draft

The point is, Okafor is a stud. He is a smaller Drob. When you take into account that this kid is on a rookie deal for a couple of years, then its imperative that you keep him. I would say he would have, at a minimum, a Dwayne Wade like impact on his spot. Maybe better. Draft him, dont resign Fizer, trade Chandler and Davis, bring back Austin and let Okafor, JYD and Austin man the 4 spot. We need the balance. Drafting him creates more work for Pax I understand. But its well worth it. I had only one guy I really wanted. That was Luol Deng. Now I have 2


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

I can see the Tyson for Tim Thomas trade, but do you really expect Seattle to part with Rashard Lewis? They are too enamored with the guy for him to be going anywhere.


The other deals sound fine, but I am more impressed with Tyson Chandler than Eddy Curry.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

While I agree Okafor will be good, I don't think there is much point talking about it now. We may not be in a position to draft him. Also, if we are, I could be Curry who is dealt, not Chandler. Imagine Chandler and Okafor defensively, that could be awesome.

Maybe I wrong, but I think you undervalue Chandler rlucas. His back at the moment is a problem. The way I see it is many teams would see Chandler as a center. I think he can put on the weight. He was averaging 13 pts and 10 rebs in 28 mins. If that is increased to 36 mins that's 16 pts and 13 rebs. How many centers in the league can do that? Not many. Plus he still 21 and has a lot of learning he go. He has not peaked by any means. We found out with Miller that we had a top 5 center in the league.

Basically I'm not going to think about getting Okafor at the moment. But he is a stud.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

Maybe this should be in the draft thread. Oh well.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Benny the Bull</b>!
> While I agree Okafor will be good, I don't think there is much point talking about it now. We may not be in a position to draft him. Also, if we are, I could be Curry who is dealt, not Chandler. Imagine Chandler and Okafor defensively, that could be awesome.
> 
> Maybe I wrong, but I think you undervalue Chandler rlucas. His back at the moment is a problem. The way I see it is many teams would see Chandler as a center. I think he can put on the weight. He was averaging 13 pts and 10 rebs in 28 mins. If that is increased to 36 mins that's 16 pts and 13 rebs. How many centers in the league can do that? Not many. Plus he still 21 and has a lot of learning he go. He has not peaked by any means. We found out with Miller that we had a top 5 center in the league.
> ...


The thing is, chandler hasnt put on on one ounce since he has been with the Bulls. In fact, he started out at 225 and at one point this summer, he was 219. He has slim shoulders and not a good base to build from. He is a long time 4 in my book. If he had to play long term minutes at the 5, his back wont be able to handle it. Also, lets realize his stats came early in the year and over 10ish games. There is no guarantee he would be able to continue those stats over a year. My point is, its a lot easier to get an atheletic 4 then it is to get a young stud 5. I think chandler will be good. But he seems to be itching for the west coast and combine that with his lack of offense and back issues, and Id rather go with Curry. plus Curry at this best has been better then Chandler at his, in my opinion. 

Okafor might be better then both. He is that good. And since I see him as a 4, then Chandler would be the guy I would part with. Like i said, if you really want an athletic 4, its not hard to get one. Memphis has been trying to deal Stromile for a long time for next to nothing. Looking at the box scores (which is overrated but I havent caught many Memphis games this year, but their highlights), Swift is doing things recently that chandler did and doing it against western conference competition. Why do people think chandler is going to be better then this guy? when given a chance to play, he has been good. And you could have him, in a disaster situation, for next to nothing. 

Chandler, in this scenario, would be my guy to go. Sure I love the kid. but he would be excess goods. im just not sure he is better then Emeka now. Throw in the fact that Emeka is going to be underpaid for 4 years, and it becomes wiser to turn Chandler into a 3 via trade and keep Emeka. Like i said, I dont think chandler has a chance to play the 5. In fact, I doubt this kid ever gets to 240lbs, which is the absolute minimum for that spot in the NBA. And even that weight spread out over 7-1 may not work. I read somewhere he is in the low 220s recently.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> The thing is, chandler hasnt put on on one ounce since he has been with the Bulls. In fact, he started out at 225 and at one point this summer, he was 219. He has slim shoulders and not a good base to build from. He is a long time 4 in my book. If he had to play long term minutes at the 5, his back wont be able to handle it. Also, lets realize his stats came early in the year and over 10ish games. There is no guarantee he would be able to continue those stats over a year. My point is, its a lot easier to get an atheletic 4 then it is to get a young stud 5. I think chandler will be good. But he seems to be itching for the west coast and combine that with his lack of offense and back issues, and Id rather go with Curry. plus Curry at this best has been better then Chandler at his, in my opinion.
> ...


I could be wrong, but when Chandler was drafted, he was 225. By his second season, he was 235. I'm sure much of the problem of putting on weight would have to do with the throat problem he had (can't remember the exact name). So I still think he could be a center. He has played his best ball at center.

I don't think Chandler will just end up being an athletic PF. We basically have two centers on the floor. Thats the way I see it. So while finding athletic PF is easy, could we find a guy who is good defensively as Chandler? As good a rebounder? Okafor may be the only guy who is better.

If Chandler was traded for a 3, it would have to be a very good SF. Not Tim Thomas. Not JRich. Lewis would be the only guy I trade Chandler for from your original post. Asssuming we got Okafor.

I wouldn't be trading one of the two C's unless we got Okafor.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Chandler put on 20 pounds this summer.

It's not his fault most of that went to recouperating what he lost with his throat problem. Once hsi back problem goes away and he keeps working like that, we won't have a problem.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

We need veterans, not more rookies...


Unless the next LeBron is in the draft...


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ShamBulls</b>!
> Chandler put on 20 pounds this summer.
> 
> It's not his fault most of that went to recouperating what he lost with his throat problem. Once hsi back problem goes away and he keeps working like that, we won't have a problem.


he was 215 this summer. he is 10lbs below what he came into the league. he doesnt have the shoulders to maintain alot of weight. he can play the 5 for stretches, but the mings, shaqs and millers of the world would snap him like a twig. even magloiorre would move him around easily. id trade him before curry


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> he was 215 this summer. he is 10lbs below what he came into the league. he doesnt have the shoulders to maintain alot of weight. he can play the 5 for stretches, but the mings, shaqs and millers of the world would snap him like a twig. even magloiorre would move him around easily. id trade him before curry


If the issue did arise of who to trade between Chandler and Curry (if we could get Okafor), it could be determining what is easier to change.

Chandler's weight so he could play the 5 or Curry attitude?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Benny the Bull</b>!
> 
> 
> If the issue did arise of who to trade between Chandler and Curry (if we could get Okafor), it could be determining what is easier to change.
> ...


I stick by my comment, that Curry at this best (late last year) was better then Chandler at his best (early this year). Chandler is far easier to duplicate in the NBA then Curry. How many legit 5s get drafted with Currys upside? 2 in the last 3 years with Curry being one of them. How many big athletic 4s get drafted every year? atleast 2, possibly 3 per draft. Even in this crop, there is Howard, Okafor and others who do kind of what Chandler does. And it is entirely possible that Okafor is better then Chandler now.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> I stick by my comment, that Curry at this best (late last year) was better then Chandler at his best (early this year). Chandler is far easier to duplicate in the NBA then Curry. How many legit 5s get drafted with Currys upside? 2 in the last 3 years with Curry being one of them. How many big athletic 4s get drafted every year? atleast 2, possibly 3 per draft. Even in this crop, there is Howard, Okafor and others who do kind of what Chandler does. And it is entirely possible that Okafor is better then Chandler now.


Okafor might be better than Chandler now, but then that would also mean that he is better than Curry because Okafor plays both sides of the court and he finishes with authority unlike *****willow Curry. 

I don't know why people think he will become some dominating low post presence when his personality seems to dictate otherwise, especially on the defensive end.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> I stick by my comment, that Curry at this best (late last year) was better then Chandler at his best (early this year). Chandler is far easier to duplicate in the NBA then Curry. How many legit 5s get drafted with Currys upside? 2 in the last 3 years with Curry being one of them. How many big athletic 4s get drafted every year? atleast 2, possibly 3 per draft. Even in this crop, there is Howard, Okafor and others who do kind of what Chandler does. And it is entirely possible that Okafor is better then Chandler now.


Some may argue Chandler has more upside. Curry's offense is for more polished. Chandler takes a back seat on offense playing with Curry. He would get more looks playing without Curry. Chandler however, will impact more defensively, rebounding and blocking shots. As I said, I see Chandler as a 5, so if the Bulls were in a position to trade him, they would have to consider that centers are very valuable.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> Okafor might be better than Chandler now, but then that would also mean that he is better than Curry because Okafor plays both sides of the court and he finishes with authority unlike *****willow Curry.
> ...


Offensively, Curry seems to be so ahead of the curve. But defensively, I agree. He seems disinterested in rebounding and defense. Considereing that he himself would say he doesnt love the game (he was a gymnast and had to be forced to play basketball in HS), its not surprising. But he can score 20 a night in the NBA no problem on a high %. And hopefully we are seeing signs of his defense coming around. Last night he took a charge that atleast showed he is getting it.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Benny the Bull</b>!
> 
> 
> Some may argue Chandler has more upside. Curry's offense is for more polished. Chandler takes a back seat on offense playing with Curry. He would get more looks playing without Curry. Chandler however, will impact more defensively, rebounding and blocking shots. As I said, I see Chandler as a 5, so if the Bulls were in a position to trade him, they would have to consider that centers are very valuable.


well we disagree on who would need to go. But we do agree that Chandler is valuable. I have no problem with Chandlers game, I just think he is far easier to duplicate then Curry is.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> well we disagree on who would need to go. But we do agree that Chandler is valuable. I have no problem with Chandlers game, I just think he is far easier to duplicate then Curry is.


My thinking is if Chandler can play the 5, Okafor and Chandler defensively would be a nightmare. Still have a low post presence in Okafor. Defense wins.

Curry's attitude is a problem. How many players have had a major attitude change, so they go from being known as 'soft' to being tough? That's just my concern with Curry. Chandler's attitude is better at the moment.

But I agree rlucas, a center that can give you 20 - 25 pts a night valuable and there aren't many of them.


----------



## lou4gehrig (Aug 1, 2003)

We have Chandler, Davis, JYD at 4. This is a non issue. Or move this thread to draft board.


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> well we disagree on who would need to go. But we do agree that Chandler is valuable. I have no problem with Chandlers game, I just think he is far easier to duplicate then Curry is.


Hello, rlucas.

Now I am beggining to understand why we share so little in terms of judging player's skill and value. Looking at players that you prefer (Jamal and Curry) over some of my kind of player (Kirk and Chandler,etc..), I think that you prefer flash than overall basketball skill.

Both Jamal and Curry have better offensive game than the other two. I can give you that. But in all other aspect of game (defense, court vision (in case of Kirk), willingness to play hard and full,..) , Kirk and Chandler are a little higher than Jamal and Curry IMHO.

The way Jamal improves other part of games in the last few games, it sure looks like we are going to keep him. But I'd rather trade Curry than Chandler if it come to trade. You only saw what Curry can bring to the table in points, but he is nonfactor in almost every other aspect of game. So while he is on the floor, often time he becomes a liablity even to the point where his minus outdo his plus. Unless he become the player that people visoin him to be, Curry today could be as good as he gets and I don't particulary like what I am seeing. Like I said, I'd rather have Chnadler as a potential next Ben Wallace on my team. 

Curry's points alone can't match what Chandler can bring to the game.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jsong</b>!
> 
> Hello, rlucas.
> 
> ...


What is it with posters with word "song" in their name. If this meant to be an insult, then please quote me right'

Where have I ever said that I didnt like Chandler, or Kirk or that that they are not better players then say Crawford or Curry? Where have I said that we ought to deal Hinrich? What I said is that Chandler is far more replacable then Curry. That is simply a fact my friend. Here is another. Curry and Crawford, flash and no substance, led the Bulls to a 9-11 record last year over the last 20 games. That is by far the best 20 game stretch in the post dynasty Bulls. While I agree that Curry doesnt bring much else to the game, his offense alone made everyones esles game that much better. Why was Jwill able to shoot 50+% from 3 pt land over that stretch? Cause Curry was demanding a double team. To win the NBA, you need at a minimum, one of those. Chandler WILL NEVER be that guy. I agree, Chandler does everything else better, but guess what? Okafor, based on the little i have seen, is better then Chandler, and does the lunch bucket things better as well. he is stronger and doesnt bite for every pump fake. Plus, he can actually shoot and score around the rim. Chandler can score only at the rim. Okafor can step out and make a 17 footer. 

The point is that landing Okafor allows the Bulls to move a big for something they really need, a top flight 3. This club has zero balance. and probably one 3 isnt enough. They might need 2 3s and a backup 2 just to bring it together. And whether you like Curry or not, the fact is, Curry has proven that at his best, he can lead the Bulls to wins. So far, Curry at his best, as been better then Chandler at his. This isnt to say Chandler isnt a special player, it just says its far easier to get a kid at the 4 spot in the NBA that does what he can do. And its far harder to get a 5 who can demand double and triple teams and score 20 a night on a limited amount of possesions. Sure, i love chandlers attitude more. i am far more oldschool then you think. But I also realize to win at the highest level, you need a guy that the defense has to collapse on. If you think Chandler is that guy, then please pass the koolaid


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

I've always thought that Curry was a more valuable prospect than Tyson, so I agree witih you on who is more easily replacable. However, the one thing that is totally unique about Tyson is that he's the only athletic seven footer that has the motor of a small man. Tyson's got a ton of energy, and if he can ever match that energy with added skill (I saw signs of that in the Dallas game this year - more post moves and touch than I had seen before), he'll be scary good, heath concerns aside. 

Jeff Foster and Jake Voskuil have this kind of energy, but nowhere near the athleticism or potential. Jeff's actually not a bad athlete. Maybe Chris Anderson is the closest guy in terms of "seven feet of energy."

Back to the point of the thread though, I think Emeka will get drafted before Luol. He might go #1 actually, and Deng will not unless he has a Melo-esque tournament. We have a better shot of drafting Luol.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

DMD,

Would i be nuts if i said that Okafor is the best american big man to come out since Tim Duncan (well he isnt truly American but from an American college)? I have seen him 5 times this year and he is blowing me away. 

Your right on chandler, everything you said is correct. great effort etc. But even though Okafor is 2 inches shorter, he seems more complete then Chandler does. And far stronger. 

For those of you who love Tyson Chandler, of which I am a proud member of, then you are going to be blown away by Okafor. Im really impressed. The only shocking thing is that this guy is not the consensus number one pick already. Howard is getting most of the pub right now. I have a tape of Howard that I plan on watching tonight or during my flight tomorrow. I am pretty psyched to see what the buzz is like on this kid. But the fact that 2 of the top 3 prospects are 4s should alone prove that Chandler is more replacable. In fact, unless youve got KG or Dirk, or Malone in his prime, Id never pay a 4 a max contract. There are just too many good 4s out there who can come far cheaper


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> DMD,
> 
> Would i be nuts if i said that Okafor is the best american big man to come out since Tim Duncan (well he isnt truly American but from an American college)? I have seen him 5 times this year and he is blowing me away.
> ...


Okafor may be a better player than Brand, KMart, and Drew Gooden, so I don't have a problem with him being the best college big man since Duncan. Curry, Chandler, Kwame, and even Amare are not there yet either. However, Brand's defensive ability, esp blocked shots, has picked up big time since college, and that's Emeka's forte. Okafor has got a ways to go to become the post player Elton is.

I'm not sure if he's a center or not, but if Ben Wallace can play center at 6'9", maybe Emeka is right of that mold with better offense.

I haven't had a chance to play UCONN play this year, but they have some unbelievable talent with Okafor, Gordon, and Villanueva. I'll be looking to catch the pasting someone on ESPN soon.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> Okafor may be a better player than Brand, KMart, and Drew Gooden, so I don't have a problem with him being the best big man since Duncan. However, Brand's defensive ability, esp blocked shots, has picked up big time since college, and that's Emeka's forte. He's got a ways to go to become the post player Elton is.
> ...


i would say okafor is a better player then brand, or atleast at the same age. The wallace comparison is valid, but alot of people have used the name Bill Russell. but his offense keeps getting better and better. A valid comparison might be KG. And that isnt kidding. He has that 17 footer and that same kind of shot. He is strong. He cant hit the 3 or the top of the key jumper, but you can easily see his improvement and project that within a year or 2 he will be able to knock those shots down as well. And this kid, you can tell, really works hard. Great kid


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

I think guys get too enamored with rookies...

Outside of this year with the crop that came out, name the last rookie who actually came in and made an impact for a winning team?

We don't need to draft a 4 when we already have 5 million of them and NO 3's...

I wouldn't even be mad if we traded the pick providing that it brought in a proven talented player.


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> What is it with posters with word "song" in their name. If this meant to be an insult, then please quote me right'


Why did you take anything I siad as insult when I am the last to call anybody name? Where did I put you down?

If you interpret anything I posted that way, It was way off the mark. I never intend to insult anyone when I've been insulted far too many by someone in this forum. I just don't see the point that as soon as someone contract other, someone tend to start insulting rather build up productive discussion. (Not that you are doing just that in any way.).

Maybe I shoudn't have said your name in the teext. Simply guoting would have been enough. Put one's name in the main text is sure way to get response like this.

So back to the discussion, I can't tell about Okafor since I never saw him playing. But with no gurantee wahtsover drafting him, trading Chandler to make a room for Okafor is rather nonsense. Even if everything you said was true, and Curry/Okafor frontcourt will that great, still what's the point of this discussion. 

How can we know whom we are going to pick? So I am saying what I am saying strictly on current roster. With that, if we trade one of our twin tower, I am keeping Chandler is all I am saying.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

I'm hating these let's trade blah blah, no let's trade blah blah threads..

Before Chandler got hurt who here wasn't saying he was the best player on team?

Chandler changes games, I honestly believe with him in the lineup, we'd be at least 3 games better. He's a guy that can get 15-17 pts without having 1 single play ran for him and it's his defense and rebounding and intensity that's really needed.

Earlier in the season when we were playing like a NBDL team, he was the only leader we had.

Let's know what talent we have and give Skiles a chance to nurture that talent instead of every week saying let's trade Jamal, no let's trade Eddy, no let's trade Tyson...

We all know what this team needs, and it's not necessarily a Rashard Lewis.

If we got a 3 man that could play decent D and shoot outside to spread the floor, scoring 10-12 ppg, we'd be a good team, we'd be set.

We don't need to make a trade to open up room for possible rookies, and we don't need to make a trade that just creates another hole.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jsong</b>!
> 
> 
> Why did you take anything I siad as insult when I am the last to call anybody name? Where did I put you down?
> ...


Your quote was that I liked players of flash, where you liked actual basketball players. If that wasnt meant to be a dig, I dont know what is. I never bash Chandler, or Kirk. I stated an opinion. And your response was to say that id rather have a thug. Maybe its miscommunication, but thats what I read. 

Secondly, the point of the thread was that if your in a spot to draft Okafor, you have to take him. No where in this thread does it say to trade Chandler today so we can make a spot for a kid we might not get. This is for down the line. But considering we are near the bottom of the league, and with the emergence of Howard, its not a long shot that we will be in a spot to take him. 

And while we are at it (Jsong, this isnt directed at you at all), where we all bash Curry for his lack of effort. Where was Chandler this summer? If he is such a workhorse, he needed to be doing some weight training. Ok, so he had an esophagus problem, but he still felt well enough to hire a shooting coach in LA. And the fact that he was in LA, no one knows exactly how much he did. Curry was hurt this summer as well. Why say Curry is fat and lazy when Chandler might be described as light and lazy? The point is, neiter did enough this summer. But atleast Curry has shown to not be a walking injury. that might be a sign of some effort. just a thought

if the Bulls are in a position to take Okafor, you take him. He is everything that his board has always said it wanted. People talk about Chandlers motor (during games he has it). Well okafor has it. People talk about currys offense, well okafor has it. This kid is a smart kid who has worked hard and keeps getting better and better. I see him as a pure 4 and having a Dwayne Wade like impact on the NBA next year, athough as a 4. That means, he will be better then Amare was last year. if the Bulls have the issue of taking him, they ought to. And then deal Chandler for a 3. Chandler will be a superstar somehwere someday (maybe here, maybe not), but so will Curry. And i just think Chandler is far more replacable then Curry. As good as Chandler can become, i doubt he ever gets good enough on offense to demand a double team


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

Let me add to the fact that if after these past 3 games we should trade Eddy Curry, I don't know, you're just lost.

This guy is going to be the best center in the East for years to come and now that we have a real coach in here, all of our young players are going to reach their potential.


----------



## robg (Jul 19, 2002)

Hey, I do agree Rlucas that okakor looks really good and probably IMHO will be the #1 pick in the draft but I also believe the bulls tading tyson is a little premature. The only way I see the bulls trading tyson is if he becomes a injury prone player. 

BTW, i don't think we'll be in the lottery this year anyway, :grinning:


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> As good as Chandler can become, i doubt he ever gets good enough on offense to demand a double team


We don't need for him to be an incredible offensive player, we have that.

We need his D, his rebounding, intensity and leadership.

He can score 12-15 pts without us calling an ISO play for him.

As I said, I think you're too enamored with this Okafor kid, and while I do think he's a good player, let's be realistic, we're not going to get rid of potential for more potential.

If you're going to put your franchise in the hands of rookies year after year, you're going to lose.

This past draft was the best draft in YEARS...we will not see another one like it soon.

Anyway, my point is, we all know what this Bulls team needs and it's not Okafor.

(I hope we trade the damn pick)


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

One thing we all learn from the past 6 years (well at least for Bulls) you can't build championship team through draft in this current NBA culture unless you hit the jackpot like Duncan, JAmes etc. And it only happens once every decade or so.

I just don't like the idea to draft another "potential". If Okafor is one can contribute right awat, good for him. I am just weary about putting my hope on another draft. I think it's time to build a franchise by bring in proven player. Not by draft. By FA, or mega-trade.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robg</b>!
> Hey, I do agree Rlucas that okakor looks really good and probably IMHO will be the #1 pick in the draft but I also believe the bulls tading tyson is a little premature. The only way I see the bulls trading tyson is if he becomes a injury prone player.
> 
> BTW, i don't think we'll be in the lottery this year anyway, :grinning:


 hey robg

I hope we can dig ourselves out of the heap we are in and make an appearance in the post season. But part of me wants to be in the lottery as well. The reason being is that damn Bryce Drew trade. Its clear we still need more players and not having a pick this year would hurt. 

In the east, anything can happen this year though. Lets see what happens. this whole post is about what ifs. but interesting ones nevertheless.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jsong</b>!
> One thing we all learn from the past 6 years (well at least for Bulls) you can't build championship team through draft in this current NBA culture unless you hit the jackpot like Duncan, JAmes etc. And it only happens once every decade or so.
> 
> I just don't like the idea to draft another "potential". If Okafor is one can contribute right awat, good for him. I am just weary about putting my hope on another draft. I think it's time to build a franchise by bring in proven player. Not by draft. By FA, or mega-trade.


i would agree with this to an extent. But based on what I have seen, Emeka is the real deal. He is doing things in college that Carmello was doing last year. Its not inconceivable to think he can, at a mimimum, have an elton-like impact on the Bulls. I also think he is far more of a finished product then either Curry or Chandler


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> i would agree with this to an extent. But based on what I have seen, Emeka is the real deal. He is doing things in college that Carmello was doing last year.



When Emeka wins the championship without the other future NBAers around him, call me...


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jsong</b>!
> One thing we all learn from the past 6 years (well at least for Bulls) you can't build championship team through draft in this current NBA culture unless you hit the jackpot like Duncan, JAmes etc. And it only happens once every decade or so.


You and I are on the same page...

In fact I said this somewhere in this thread.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> When Emeka wins the championship without the other future NBAers around him, call me...


will do Arenas

Hmmm last time i checked, Hakim Warrick is going to be a relatively high pick.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Rlucas, I agree with you about Okafer. People talk about drafting another 4, or how you cant build through the draft. Thats a terrible mindstate because it wont hold true in 100% of situations. 

To me, if we know we can get Okafer, then I think we should do whatever we can to deal either Tyson or Eddy for a SF as you stated. That would be the smartest move since there is not one SF in the draft as good as Okafer. 

PG - Jamal Crawford
SG - Kirk Hinrich
SF - Tim Thomas
PF - Okafer
C - Curry/Chandler

With JYD, AD, etc off the bench.

To me that looks a whole lot better than a Chandler/Curry 4/5 with a huge gap still at the 3. Especially when Okafer has a very good chance at being better than both Curry and Tyson. 

If Tyson can get his back healthy, I think that Curry is the one to go. Tyson tries harder, hustles more, does more of the dirty work. I wouldnt risk trading Chandler when Curry has never even been in NBA condition in his life. Until he proves he can get in NBA shape, and be atleast decent on the boards and on defense, then hes the one to go.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> will do Arenas
> ...


Let's not even compare UCONN's team to last year's Syracuse team.

Okafor is playing with 2 lotto picks.

He's a great player, but I'll go on record to say he won't have an impact as you think his rookie year, and 2, we won't draft him.

As far as your other "superstar", Luol Deng, 1 I don't see him leaving Duke after his freshman year, 2, he's nowhere near to Carmelo Anthony.

Deng is fortunate that he is playing in a system that builds good college players.

He's surrounded by Ewing, Duhon, Reddick, Williams, etc. He will become just like one of them, and while he'll be a better pro prospect, he sure as hell hasn't shown me anything that says wow this guy is someone's savior next year or even later on down the road.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> Rlucas, I agree with you about Okafer. People talk about drafting another 4, or how you cant build through the draft. Thats a terrible mindstate because it wont hold true in 100% of situations.
> 
> To me, if we know we can get Okafer, then I think we should do whatever we can to deal either Tyson or Eddy for a SF as you stated. That would be the smartest move since there is not one SF in the draft as good as Okafer.
> ...


we agree on everything up to who should go. But that is apples and oranges. everyone has a favorite. Great post john. you articulate your point very well. The interesting thing is, there is a 80% certainty that Okafor is better then Chandler and Curry right now and will be in a few years as well. But fans get so attached. They call okafor "potential". Then what the heck is Chandler and Curry? Okafor is a far more finished product then either. Id like Okafor and Curry as a front line for the next 15 years. But i wouldnt cry if if were Okafor and Chandler. But that all depends on if Okafors offense keeps developing at the pace that it has. Then he will be the guy who might demand a double team.


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

It's just that this whole thing is rather pointless. Talking about next draft. It can only bring up tons of "what if" and I don't see the need of "what if" talk.

Who knows who's coming out early?

Who knows what Bulls draft order will be (1st, 2nd, ....7. 8th)?

Of course when you see a talent in college, we can dream up the picture of him in Bull's uniform. It's only natural and I did my share of that too (For my share, I did just that for Wade whole last year only to watch Miami snatch him before my eye. He was my favorite eve before the March madness and after it no question. I still put him in front of Anthony right below James in my list.).

But we can all talk about draft when the time comes with more clear ideas on this whole thing. It's not time for this speculation is my tow cents.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jsong</b>!
> It's just that this whole thing is rather pointless. Talking about next draft. It can only bring up tons of "what if" and I don't see the need of "what if" talk.
> 
> Who knows who's coming out early?
> ...


then dont post in this thread. why waste your time?


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> we agree on everything up to who should go. But that is apples and oranges. everyone has a favorite. Great post john. you articulate your point very well. The interesting thing is, there is a 80% certainty that Okafor is better then Chandler and Curry right now and will be in a few years as well. But fans get so attached. They call okafor "potential". Then what the heck is Chandler and Curry? Okafor is a far more finished product then either. Id like Okafor and Curry as a front line for the next 15 years. But i wouldnt cry if if were Okafor and Chandler. But that all depends on if Okafors offense keeps developing at the pace that it has. Then he will be the guy who might demand a double team.


Agree 100%

The main thing is we'd be atleast matching, or even upgrading our 4 spot with Okafer, AND filling the 3 spot with a solid starting SF. 

You're 100% correct that fans get so attached. They want the players to succeed, and not the team as a whole. I think trading one of the bigs will not only balance our starting 5, but it will mix up the players and it will be easier to start winning. Its harder to start a winning tradition after losing with the same group of players for years.


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> then dont post in this thread. why waste your time?


Ah.... neverstopping personal comment. 

Cause you start rather stupid thread is why.

You start a thread, people will come.

Whether you like it or not.

Whether you agree what they are saying or not.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> Agree 100%
> ...


This is 100% perfect. If i could give you an excellent rating i would. Your comment about replacing a player with a losing mentality or experience (Chandler or Curry) with a SF (and the balance issue) is spot on.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jsong</b>!
> 
> Ah.... neverstopping personal comment.
> 
> ...


ahhh songcycle lives i see.

The point is this, obviously you and Arenas think its a stupid thread. everyone else seems to be getting something out of it. So its clearly not stupid. if its so stupid, why post in it? Its not a personal comment, its a question. Why waste your time if its so dumb? its a legit question that some intelligent fans want to talk about. if you dont, find another thread to say something in.


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> ahhh songcycle lives i see.
> ...


Because you are all over place with your nonsense. It is really hard to find any thread where your name doesn't come up. So either way we are bound to meet some where. Right?

Beside it is stilt fun to read what you are saying although most of time you and I are on different boat. And ususal my favortie posters aren't around today. (CB, VV, even DaBulls on occasion)


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

RLucas


Another 5 star thread from you. 

I think it's hard for some people to give up on this season and the frustration over talking about the draft so soon is easy to understand. It kills me, but getting any and all insights about the draft is great. Also, our own caoch said, this year it isn't about winning, it's about changing mentalities and habits for the future.

What I don't think people get is that those of us who have read your posts for a while are looking for your insights on this stuff. 

Also, alot of people are way too sensitive on this board. 

So, everyone keep posting their thoughts and reasons and this board will continue to be the best. 

Now toughen up, post concise thoughts and if not, you'll be riding the pine next to E-Rob and in the TBF Doghouse. 

TBF you are the coach of this board right? :grinning: 

Go Bulls!


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jsong</b>!
> 
> 
> Because you are all over place with your nonsense. It is really hard to find any thread where your name doesn't come up. So either way we are bound to meet some where. Right?
> ...


hmm nonsense? Seems to me that most people have liked what I say. Again, I ask, if you dont like a thread, why bother posting in it? i am sure there is something in your life you could be doing right now other then wasting your time. 

i dont mind being on a different boat. i rarely agree with 2 of my favorite posters, Shambulls and Johnston. But they dont come on a thread, call it stupid, continue to post on it, make something up about nonsense and then say that I only like flash and not substance. i respect different opinions. But be prepared to back them up. To just say a thread is stupid and then put in 10 more posts isnt going to endear yourself to anyone.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>chifaninca</b>!
> RLucas
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you Chifanica. Its much appreciated


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

I could not let this thread slide without muscling in on it.








I'm done now.


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> hmm nonsense? Seems to me that most people have liked what I say. Again, I ask, if you dont like a thread, why bother posting in it? i am sure there is something in your life you could be doing right now other then wasting your time.
> ...


You know what I just realize it myself. Yes, I have better thing in my life than reading your stupid comment. 

Anybody agree with you is great post in your world.

Anybody disagree with you is moron in your word.

Enogh of this s***. 

Sayonara.


----------



## Like A Breath (Jun 16, 2003)

I have a feeling that a lot of people who don't want Okafor have never seen him play. I have watched maybe 15-20 of his games and he is an impact player. The argument that he plays with other NBA prospects is a joke because he blocks his own shots, grabs his own boards, and creates his own offense. He is still consistently double teamed and yet people say he is just another Theo Ratliff. This guy is as NBA ready a player as there will ever be and people in this thread are acting like he's a long term project like Curry and Chandler.

His work ethic is off the charts. He's going to graduate in 3 years and still has time to improve his game every year. He's not the same player he was as a freshman. As a freshman he had some problems finishing and couldn't hit anything outside of 5 feet. Now he has an overwhelming post game and a good face-up jumpshot. He blocks the ball using his head and rarely even needs to leave his feet because he is so good at anticipating and controlling his own blocked shots.

How would he not be an upgrade for the Bulls? He would give them instant defensive stability, a dominant post presence, and they could always use another scorer. "We don't need another scorer" is a joke because all of the Bulls are incredibly inconsistent, something that Emeka has never been. If you guys have the chance to draft him, you'd be crazy to trade him for veteran role players. He can be the next great center in the mold of Hakeem and Alonzo and already has a better work ethic than Chandler, Curry, and Crawford combined.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Please forgive Song's hypocrisy and elitism. The hypocrisy of hating on this board soooooooo much and yet still coming back to it, and the fact he considers himself above certain thread but insists on telling you that. These aren't things he seems to be able to control.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jsong</b>!
> 
> You know what I just realize it myself. Yes, I have better thing in my life than reading your stupid comment.
> 
> ...


where did I call you a moron? i have respectful adult debates all the time. If you dont like a thread and the contents of it, then dont waste your time with it. Dont be a child about it


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ShamBulls</b>!
> Please forgive Song's hypocrisy and elitism. The hypocrisy of hating on this board soooooooo much yet still coming back to it, and the fact he considers himself above certain thread bit insists on telling you that. These aren't things he seems to be able to control.


I wonder if Jsong is our old friend from realgm? I dont know, but its an interesting speculation.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> I wonder if Jsong is our old friend from realgm? I dont know, but its an interesting speculation.





I'd bet a kidney on it.




Anyway, almost every single thread I post on gets locked so I'll shut up now. Or should that shut up FOR now. :grinning:


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Like A Breath</b>!
> I have a feeling that a lot of people who don't want Okafor have never seen him play. I have watched maybe 15-20 of his games and he is an impact player. The argument that he plays with other NBA prospects is a joke because he blocks his own shots, grabs his own boards, and creates his own offense. He is still consistently double teamed and yet people say he is just another Theo Ratliff. This guy is as NBA ready a player as there will ever be and people in this thread are acting like he's a long term project like Curry and Chandler.
> 
> His work ethic is off the charts. He's going to graduate in 3 years and still has time to improve his game every year. He's not the same player he was as a freshman. As a freshman he had some problems finishing and couldn't hit anything outside of 5 feet. Now he has an overwhelming post game and a good face-up jumpshot. He blocks the ball using his head and rarely even needs to leave his feet because he is so good at anticipating and controlling his own blocked shots.
> ...


Do you think he is a 5? I watched him last night thinking he might be able to play limited minutes there but would be a far better 4. I know Uconn has him at 6-10, but somehow he looks smaller then that to me. I have seen 5 games this year. and your right, you can see the improvement from game to game. and he does it with a certain air that you just know he is going to be special. There have been Hakeem and Alonzo calls about in the past. I will watch some more, but he might turn out ot be a KG type himself. Albeit a few inches shorter.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ShamBulls</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i actually think its just a coincidence. The real Songcycle would just target every thread that i write. This kid has been around for awhile and this is the first run in with him. Clearly Songcycle would have put up a better fight. he might have even called us on bbb.net a bunch of nazis. which has to go down as the greatest lack of bashing ever


----------



## Like A Breath (Jun 16, 2003)

He is pegged as a 4, and he may very well play it, but I think it'll really depend on the team's need. I think his style of play would be the same either way if he's a 4 or 5. A lot depends on his height. If he's 6'9" without shoes I think he can play center in the NBA because he's strong, athletic, and explosive. His height isn't a big part of his game, it's mostly his smarts and ability to maintain his vertical on the second and third consecutive jumps. I don't think he will ever be the versatile player that KG is, I see a low-post player witht he occasional jumpshot.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>chifaninca</b>!
> RLucas
> 
> 
> ...


Coach? lol. Not me. 

As for the direction this thread is taking? Why not talk about what ifs? We talk about the past trades, though I consider it pointless to talk about what if we didn't do this, but hey, some posters want and do talk that way, so who am I to dictate what they are to say and not say. As for rlucas and the draft. Why not? Sure some do disagree but that does not mean they need to berate anyone in the process. I mean we are 10-22. .500 the rest of the way? 34-45. Miss the playoffs and who is to say we say exactly .500??? 

Songcycle? Eww that was cold rlucas. But then he was calling you thread stupid, which is different than calling you stupid. 

Suggestion: If draft threads upset you, stay out of them. It is not a have to thing to read a draft thread. I mean the topic should have been a dead give-away! And if people cannot help themselves and stay out of them, at least try and be respectful to the other poster. If not? There is always ignore. We do have that feature.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

That's true, this version of Song did give you a post quality rating, and that doesn't strike me as being something THE Song would do. But what do I know, I'm an idiot.







Having said that, with this post......




> Because you are all over place with your nonsense. It is really hard to find any thread where your name doesn't come up. So either way we are bound to meet some where. Right?
> 
> Beside it is stilt fun to read what you are saying although most of time you and I are on different boat. And ususal my favortie posters aren't around today. (CB, VV, even DaBulls on occasion)





.......it's just gotta be, right? :uhoh:


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Like A Breath</b>!
> He is pegged as a 4, and he may very well play it, but I think it'll really depend on the team's need. I think his style of play would be the same either way if he's a 4 or 5. A lot depends on his height. If he's 6'9" without shoes I think he can play center in the NBA because he's strong, athletic, and explosive. His height isn't a big part of his game, it's mostly his smarts and ability to maintain his vertical on the second and third consecutive jumps. I don't think he will ever be the versatile player that KG is, I see a low-post player witht he occasional jumpshot.


interesting

I think your right. He probably guards the post no matter where he goes. his timing on the blocks is just impeccable. But interesting, i have seen him step out and guard the perimeter. and he does a job at that as well. The reason for the KG comparison is that he has gone from 5 feet in range 3 years to go to being a pretty good 17 J now. I think you can project that it will go out to 20 feet. He has nice form on it. but clearly he is best playing closer to the basket. Either way, I think this kid is an immediate impact player in the NBA on day one. I came into th year thinking he was just another Kenyon Martin (who is a pretty good player). But now I am far closer to everyone else on projections. He has won me over. and your right, he is a great kid


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ShamBulls</b>!
> That's true, this version of Song did give you a post quality rating, and that doesn't strike me as being something THE Song would do. But what do I know, I'm an idiot.
> 
> 
> ...


I thought maybe it was. But dabullz, songcycles favorite poster? He hates everything about bbb.net. Could he actually like a moderator here. i dont know. But either way, I think Songcycle would have put up a better fight. But the use of the word nonsense did perk my up attention some, besides the term "song" in his name. I dont think that it is. But if it is, our friend was banned from here for a reason and that name should be removed as well. but i dont think that it is. If it isnt, i am sure jsong and I will chat again. And there will be no hard feelings, atleast on my end


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Boooooo.

This half of the thread ended way too boringly for my liking. :upset: 


So come on then, who wants a fight? 

:sfight: 
:starwars: 
:rocket: 



Come on, I'm out for blood here.



[scrappy doo]

LEMME A'IM UNCLE SCOOB!!!!! :soapbox: 

[/scrappy doo]





Pleeeeeeease?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> The point is this, obviously you and Arenas think its a stupid thread.


Please don't put words in my mouth, I'm capable of speaking for myself.

Not ONCE did I say the thread was stupid.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Please don't put words in my mouth, I'm capable of speaking for myself.
> ...



sorry

In your case, you disagree with me. Which is fine.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Like A Breath</b>!
> How would he not be an upgrade for the Bulls? He would give them instant defensive stability, a dominant post presence, and they could always use another scorer. "We don't need another scorer" is a joke because all of the Bulls are incredibly inconsistent, something that Emeka has never been. If you guys have the chance to draft him, you'd be crazy to trade him for veteran role players. He can be the next great center in the mold of Hakeem and Alonzo and already has a better work ethic than Chandler, Curry, and Crawford combined.


Look, first off there are plenty of guys that would be UPGRADES for the Bulls, so what the hell is your point?

Also, I said we don't need Tyson to be an offensive force, that doesn't mean I don't want his offensive production, it just means we don't need him to do what we need Jamal and Eddy to do and that is score. 

Newsflash, not everyone on a roster is there to score points. Guys have roles, guys bring different things to the table. TC brings to the table all the things I've listed time and time again, plus he scores without needing something ran for him and it's within the flow of the offense.

I've NEVER said we don't need another scorer, we do, a SMALL FORWARD that can SCORE. 

READ THAT AS A SMALL FORWARD, NOT AN UNDERSIZED POWER FOWARD THAT CAN PLAY CENTER IN COLLEGE.

The last part of your post is ridiculous. Kid hasn't played a game in the NBA yet and you're comparing him to Hakeem, Zo?

Let's keep in mind something Emeka does have over TC, EC, JC...

He's had good coaching.

FINALLY, TC, EC, JC have a good coach in town that can teach them, and show them how to reach their potential as opposed to being like well its there FIND it.

Hell, that's what coaches are for.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes I disagree with you, doesn't change my opinion that you're a great poster.

I just honestly don't feel the need to get enamored with rookies, especially when you're saying dump them for guys who could very well end up being superstars.

If you don't think Tyson can be a Ben Wallace type player, well I just don't know what to say.

It shocks me because BEFORE he got hurt many people here were saying he was the best player on the team.

We need to identify our core, and build around that core, or add to that core.

The only reason I see to subtract from that core is if we are adding a proven star talent, in which our core would change.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes I disagree with you, doesn't change my opinion that you're a great poster.
> ...


Arenas, thanks for the kind words. The feeling is mutual. I think I have read everyone of your posts. While i dont agree with you often, I would say that you articulate your points better then most do. and just cause we dont agree doesnt mean your wrong. i have been wrong more times that I can remember ( i actually predicted that Mason would beat our Hinrich this year. Whoops)

Anyway, your right. chandler is my favorite bull. Ask anyone. Shambulls will tell you how much i like this guy. I predicted he would make the ALLSTAR TEAM LAST YEAR (whoops again). In fact, Angmarkram on ESPN still quotes me on that on his web page. I think he is going to be good. But I just think he is more replacable then Curry is. I also think he hasnt worked as hard as everyone make him out to be. he brings it every night when he is on the court, but i was expecting a 250 4 by now. It hasnt happened. 

My suggesting of trading away Chandler isnt so much about Chandler, but how good i think Emeka can be. Again, its an if are in a position to draft him. i just see the Bulls better off paying Emeka, who i think is probably better then Chandler right now (or curry for that matter) a rookie deal rather then giving Chandler a near max deal next year. Plus add in Chandlers injury problems and we might want to reconsider where he stands with us. I think Emekas ability to step out and actually shoot the J benefits the Bulls more, curry in particular, then chandlers offense. I just dont see him becoming a great offensive player here, as the bulls are configuered now. perhaps if the Bulls dealt Curry, i would change that opinion. 

Anyway, I do some work for the draft. So yes, I am guilty of liking rookies. But in this case, Emeka isnt some project coming into the NBA. I think to say that he would have at a minimum a Dwayne Wade like impact might be an understatement. It might be closer to Carmello. This kid is that good. 

Anyway, I again apologize for sticking words in your mouth. It happens to me all the time and I hate it. So its not fair that it happens to you. Again, i do read your posts, and am looking forward to your review of the game in Miami this week. And its good to have disagreements and debates. its what makes a board good. Some people can do it like adults, some others obviously cant. Your one who handles the debates well.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

rlucas, I have a hard time seeing a post player like Okafor having a 'Dwayne Wade' type of effect his rookie season. Think about Caron and Amare last season, or Lebron, Carmelo and Wade this year. All of these players can explode to the hoop and finish when their medium range or outside games aren't hitting.

Amare has quite possibly the most freakish run/jump combination from someone his size as I've seen since KG. Throw in Chris Bosh this season who really reminds me of a poor man's KG.

How would you rate Okafor's athleticism against Amare and Bosh? They've both made a splash their respective rookie seasons. We haven't seen a 6'8" or 6'9" post player do the same since Elton, and he was completely unstoppable in the post during his two years in college. Can the same be said for Okafor? Just asking.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> rlucas, I have a hard time seeing a post player like Okafor having a 'Dwayne Wade' type of effect his rookie season. Think about Caron and Amare last season, or Lebron, Carmelo and Wade this year. All of these players can explode to the hoop and finish when their medium range or outside games aren't hitting.
> 
> Amare has quite possibly the most freakish run/jump combination from someone his size as I've seen since KG. Throw in Chris Bosh this season who really reminds me of a poor man's KG.
> ...


i think you can safely say that Okafor is as atheltic as bosh and amare. Maybe more so. In terms of jumping, maybe not Amare, but more then bosh. He is also far more stronger then either. I would say he is a world better then each. and both have turned out to be good. 

I really think he is 6-9, though UConn lists him at almsot 6-11. Maybe some of our boston area fans can comment on that, i dont know (isnt curry52 from Boston?). My guess is that this kid hits the NBA in stride. He really is the best college post guy since Duncan. Better then Brand in my book at the same stage. The interesting thing about him is that not only does he have all the athletic and muscular tools, but he is also a cerebral type as well. I think this kid is going to be scary, and scary right away.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

just a couple of stats

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/player/profile?playerId=5240

http://nbadraft.net/profiles/emekaokafor.asp


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> just a couple of stats
> 
> http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/player/profile?playerId=5240
> ...


NBA Comparison: Ben Wallace (more offense, less nastiness)

[email protected] nastiness


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

to put it simply Okafor is a stud ,he is going to be an elite 4 in the league imo 

but i wouldn't trade chandler for him 

they are the same with chandler being bigger and a lil' more athletic and emeka being the more fluid athlete with better hands 

they are the same age but chandler avg. a double double in the pro's already while okafor dominates college 

you have to give the edge to TC on that .

plus rlucas your belief on chandler's frame is off to say the least Chandler has somewhat wide shoulders considering his weight and the people he's been comapered to andhe should one day be in the 260 range easy .

you dont believe ...take a look at kareem abdul jabbar at 21 chandler has wider shoulders than him and kareem weighed about 230 then 

and finished his career at the listed weight of 268

chandler can easily put on 5-10 lbs a year til he is 28 and he will be in that range 

also in regarding okafor one has to consider he is a freak in uconn but he wont be in the nba ,every team will have someone who can mirror his pyhsical gifts in their starting line up

tor. bosh
det. wallace
char. P.J.(okafor has on this one)
indy j.oneal
chi chandler
mil.haslip
atl ratliff
cavs boozer(okafor may have this one too) 

but thats 6 out of 8 in the east (the weaker conf.) that can match up with a 6'8 or 9 power forward like okafor 

i dont doubt that he can be a star or that he will be a star but none of those players are any bigger than chandler or more athletic ,tyson has more potential to be a dominant player than okafor ,while emeka should be a cross between 'zo and k-mart he doesn't seem worth the gamble to trade in chandler if the bulls have the chance to.

if the bulls are lucky enough to get their hands on okafor but not any other great player who plays at a position of need , they should trade him to a team that needs him and get something extremely valuable in return


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

and to add another thing 

i dislike the cerbral types ..or socalled cerebral types , it almost never translates because of scouting and the fact that the young smart player is going up against experienced pro's and they generally outsmart the player whose gifts are his intelligence 9 out of 10 times


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> i think you can safely say that Okafor is as atheltic as bosh and amare. Maybe more so. In terms of jumping, maybe not Amare, but more then bosh. He is also far more stronger then either. I would say he is a world better then each. and both have turned out to be good.
> ...


Damn, I'll keep my eyes posted for this kid. I'm sure UCONN will have a nice run in the big dance that'll get him national attention... thereby upping his draft status so even the Bulls won't be in position to take him 

Per the post debate, and using a little Krausian logic, wouldn't Okafor's post game hinder Curry's developing game in some way? That was the original logic behind Curry's post game and Chandler's complimentary garbage and outside game on offense. 

IT was generally thought that Brand and Curry couldn't coexist. Would Okafor and Curry be able to?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> and to add another thing
> 
> i dislike the cerbral types ..or socalled cerebral types , it almost never translates because of scouting and the fact that the young smart player is going up against experienced pro's and they generally outsmart the player whose gifts are his intelligence 9 out of 10 times


Id disagree here. Duncan came in as a cerbral type. Jordan became one. There are alot of knuckleheads in the NBA who get by on athletic ability alone. This kid as all world atheletic ability but can outsmart 4 out of 5 NBA guys on day one. Just my opinion.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Damn, I'll keep my eyes posted for this kid. I'm sure UCONN will have a nice run in the big dance that'll get him national attention... thereby upping his draft status so even the Bulls won't be in position to take him
> ...


a big part of my argument for Emeka is that he has developed a very nice face the basket 17 footer from either wing. If he can stretch that out to 20 feet and be able to knock in some shots from straight away (like okur does), he will really open it up for Curry to operate. Chandler doesnt have that aspect to his game. When Chandler is in there, he does what Krause said they wouldnt do, and that is bring an extra defender right at Curry. There is zero spacing. Sure, Okafor is best on the low block. But he really has worked on his J, doesnt take bad shots, and really hits it when he steps out. You can run screen/spot with him all day. I think he probably benefits Curry more then Chandler does to be honest.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Id disagree here. Duncan came in as a cerbral type. Jordan became one. There are alot of knuckleheads in the NBA who get by on athletic ability alone. This kid as all world atheletic ability but can outsmart 4 out of 5 NBA guys on day one. Just my opinion.


duncan's biggest skill is his skill level,not playing some sort of post game chess he generally goes with his best moves whether or not the defense is playing them

MJ was a cerebral type late in his career ..i'm not big on waiting for okafor for a decade to see if he can outhink his opponents

and its really easy to say he can outsmart players when all he goes up against are collegians ,sure he can outsmart them , they have no chance anyway ,they cant run, jump or have his skills so he's gonna look smart no matter what 

i dont believe i've ever seen a post player smarter than his contemporaries on day one ,duncan included so i have strong doubts okafor will be the 1st


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> duncan's biggest skill is his skill level,not playing some sort of post game chess he generally goes with his best moves whether or not the defense is playing them
> ...


i disagree. The big fundmantal (why do you think he has the nickname?) came in and outsmarted his opponents on day one. he isnt particularly athletic, but Duncan does things in such a way that shows how smart he is. Other post players who were considered smart who dominated from day one have been Kareem, Russell and Walton. Is Emeka in their league. No. But this kid is far more athletic then the norm with a brain to match. He is about twice as good as Chris Bosh (who is fairly intelligent himself). And I think we will see his impact far exceed what the young raptor is doing.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> i disagree. The big fundmantal (why do you think he has the nickname?) came in and outsmarted his opponents on day one. he isnt particularly athletic, but Duncan does things in such a way that shows how smart he is. Other post players who were considered smart who dominated from day one have been Kareem, Russell and Walton. Is Emeka in their league. No. But this kid is far more athletic then the norm with a brain to match. He is about twice as good as Chris Bosh (who is fairly intelligent himself). And I think we will see his impact far exceed what the young raptor is doing.


the big fundamental is call that not because of his brain but because of his skills and how well he has honed them, he doesn't play some cat and mouse game with his opponents he beats them plain and simple and as efficiently as possible

comparing him(okafor) to bosh doesn't look good for emeka ..because i remember okafor as a frosh and i would say bosh looked better than him , and if bosh had a couple of years before coming out to fill out i dont think there is any doubt he would have more of an impact than he currently does 

the 3 players you named have a skill that couldn't be matched in their day from the start of their careers and it exceeds any skill okafor has 

he isn't russell on defense 
he doesn't have walton's passing 
he doesn't have kareem's unstoppable offense

if he has a rookie year as good as zo he should thank the bball gods

that being said he is a borderline franchise player in my book and should be the top pick next year


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Keep in mind, a lot of people thought Duncan was too stiff and soft out of college and wouldnt mount to anything more than an all star player. 

Jordan was a 3rd pick, people didnt think he would turn into the player he did. 

There is no obvious superstar right from the start like a Shaq or Hakeem. You have to look at the skill set and physical abilities combined with their mental toughness. I think Okafer has the best combination of those for a big man in the draft since Elton Brand.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> Keep in mind, a lot of people thought Duncan was too stiff and soft out of college and wouldnt mount to anything more than an all star player.
> 
> Jordan was a 3rd pick, people didnt think he would turn into the player he did.
> ...


The point of this is, that there is always a risk when it comes to the draft. No matter what, there is never a sure thing. However, you can have "calculated risks" which are thought out well in advance which is why these threads are good to get out in the open. If we do take the risk of trading one of the bigs and drafting Okafor, it will be because its a well thought out move and we like our chances with it.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Good grief... lots of stuff going on here... some very interesting, some not so 

* I don't agree with JSong's position here, but he's far from Songcycle. 

* I do disagree that this thread is pointless... even if this stuff never happens, it's a freaking internet message board folks! If there's any point, it's to enjoy thinking about the Bulls, and that includes interesting what-ifs. Not everyone has the same idea of interesting, so if you don't like a given thread, just ignore it and start another one.

* With respect to the thread itself, Okafor looks like Ben Wallace with offense to me. If we could get him, I would consider trading Chandler. However, I want to see how Chandler comes back... if he looks good, we'd be pretty foolish to just get Tim Thomas for him (and I'm not one who thinks Thomas sucks, but just watch if Tyson comes back healthy).


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> * With respect to the thread itself, Okafor looks like Ben Wallace with offense to me. If we could get him, I would consider trading Chandler. However, I want to see how Chandler comes back... if he looks good, we'd be pretty foolish to just get Tim Thomas for him (and I'm not one who thinks Thomas sucks, but just watch if Tyson comes back healthy).


Thats another thing I agree with. I think we can get better than Thomas, I was just using him as an example. 

If we could get Maggette or Prince for either bigs with insurance of getting Okafor, then I'd do that in a heartbeart. Kirk/JC/Mags/Okafor/Curry makes for a heck of a lineup.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> Thats another thing I agree with. I think we can get better than Thomas, I was just using him as an example.
> ...


Mags isn't going anywhere.

Chandler isn't needed on the Clips.

I think guys don't seem to understand that not every player is available nor do you take into account what a team already has and if the player you're trying to send there is even needed.

Yes the trade may work in trade checker on that other site, but that doesn't mean that trade would ever materialize or makes any sense.

This isn't a direct bash here John, this is a general statement because it applies to a lot of trades/scenarios posted on this board (and I'm sure others).


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> Mags isn't going anywhere.
> 
> Chandler isn't needed on the Clips.
> ...


I know, I'm just putting out those names as the calibur of player we should be aiming for. I just threw it out there for that reason.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

Ya I understood you John...

and I agree.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

arenas and john bring up a good point. What SF/SG would anyone hear trade for Chandler? I am interested in hearing some thoughts.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Devean George
Jarvis Hayes
Gordan Giricek
Caron Butler
Mike Dunleavy
Richard Jefferson
Stephen Jackson
Matt Harpring

I'm sure one of them could be available if the price was right. I like Harpring a lot actually, he'd be perfect for what we're trying to build in Chicago.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> Devean George
> Jarvis Hayes
> Gordan Giricek
> ...


for chandler?


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Sure for Chandler. I'm not sure if you're implying that those names arent good enough, or too good or what. Either way, they can throw in a player or we can. We can improve our SF and our depth, plus the PF position IF we know we're getting Okafor.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Man, I'm watching this Clippers-Kings game. Elton Brand is a stud, he just blocked two shots emphatically in a span of about 30 seconds. He is a bull underneath, and such an underrated shotblocker just because guys of his build usually arent great shotblockers. Brand is actually leading the fast breaks, blocking shots, hustling, the whole nine. 

I cant believe we traded this guy.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> Man, I'm watching this Clippers-Kings game. Elton Brand is a stud, he just blocked two shots emphatically in a span of about 30 seconds. He is a bull underneath, and such an underrated shotblocker just because guys of his build usually arent great shotblockers. Brand is actually leading the fast breaks, blocking shots, hustling, the whole nine.
> 
> I cant believe we traded this guy. [/QUOTE/]
> ...


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> I think you underrated Chandler on some of those guys up there. But Richard Jefferson was interested. I dont have a list in my mind. I like some kids who are emerging. But if we trade Chandler, it has to be for someone established. Would anyone on this board deal Hinrich and Chandler for PPierce? Oh wait, that would be trading our substance . Im not sure if I would do it but its an idea to throw out there


I'm just throwing names out there, I'm not saying trade Chandler straight up for any one of those guys. I just think if we're not going to be finding a SF in the draft, then those are the names we should be looking at. Add Rashard Lewis, Prince, Mags and Artest to that list. Theres plenty of them out there. Harpring, Lewis, Artest, Prince, Mags being my favorites.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm just throwing names out there, I'm not saying trade Chandler straight up for any one of those guys. I just think if we're not going to be finding a SF in the draft, then those are the names we should be looking at. Add Rashard Lewis, Prince, Mags and Artest to that list. Theres plenty of them out there. Harpring, Lewis, Artest, Prince, Mags being my favorites.


that list is a great start John. I like dunleavy and or jrich as well. Would Phoenix do a deal for Shawn Marion? I dont know. Its a real interesting question. if the clips really think they will end up with Kobe, just maybe they would trade us Maggette. 

And you are 100% right on the cLips.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> Devean George
> Jarvis Hayes
> Gordan Giricek
> ...


I hate seeing names like Jarvis Hayes, Caron (last year's Caron), and Dunleavy on a list like this....

ALL GUYS WE COULD HAVE DRAFTED IN THE PAST 2 YEARS.


----------



## blkwdw13 (Jun 12, 2002)

And the Bulls could of signed Stephen Jackson in the offseason.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> that list is a great start John. I like dunleavy and or jrich as well. Would Phoenix do a deal for Shawn Marion? I dont know. Its a real interesting question. if the clips really think they will end up with Kobe, just maybe they would trade us Maggette.
> ...


Nah we wouldn't have to...

If we signed Kobe, Q wouldn't be resigned.

Kobe would play the 2, Mags the 3...

Let me say it again..

Mags isn't going ANYWHERE.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> I hate seeing names like Jarvis Hayes, Caron (last year's Caron), and Dunleavy on a list like this....
> 
> ALL GUYS WE COULD HAVE DRAFTED IN THE PAST 2 YEARS.


I'd rather have Hinrich over the Hayes, and nobody could have guessed that Jaywill would be out for possibly the rest of his career. 

If we had Hayes over Hinrich, then I think we'd be looking for a long term solution at one of the guard spots instead of the SF, plus I think Hinrich is the better player than Hayes so we made the right choice.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

If Okafor is as good as advertised, he'll go No. 1.

If we were to trade one of the 2 C's for a SG/SF, it woul have to be for a very good player.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Benny, check your PM


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Benny, check your PM


Done rlucas, hope it can be of assistance.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

thanks, ill check out that site and get back to you when i get back to London tomorrow night. I appreciate the help


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> thanks, ill check out that site and get back to you when i get back to London tomorrow night. I appreciate the help


No problem rlucas.

Back to the topic, if Okafor can give you more than Chandler or Curry next season, and will end up as good at these two, you would draft him.

One thing to remember, especially if you were to replace Okafor with Chandler, is that while Okafor can do what Chandler can, Chandler has the height advantage. It would be interesting to see what Okafor's wingspan is. I think Happygrinch brought it up, that while Okafor averages 5 blks and 14 rebs in college, would that translate to the pro game, since he won't have the size advantage?

I see in my first post on this thread it was pointless to talk about this and I'm still talking about it. Oh well.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Hullo.

I'm in full agreement. I've made a big argument as to why Okafor needs to be on the Bulls next season in the stickied draft thread.

Okafor is the only sure thing coming out of the top 10 players in the country this year, except for maybe his teammate, Ben Gordon, who looks like the next Baron Davis.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> Okafor is the only sure thing coming out of the top 10 players in the country this year


That is true. Could be another reason not to look to the draft for great improvement.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Why would Chandler or Curry have to go? Why not keep all three, have 96 minutes a night of (hopefully) dominmant bigman play, and if minutes become a problem in the future, trade or don't resign one of them. We could even zone up on d and play all three at the same time. If we could absolutely dominate teams under the basket we would dominate games. We could be looking at a combined 4/5 production of 50 points, 30 Rebs, and 8 
blks. I would rather aim for domination than across the board solidness.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> Okafor is the only sure thing coming out of the top 10 players in the country this year


I Agree.

Though i'd consider Deng(young and all)to be a sure thing if he comes out.it might take a year but he's for real,allaround.

Still,if we had the choice i,d take Okafur,and trade for a SF , cause i believe we got a major force coming to our league, and he's gonna be productive on both ends right away.i even think he might lead blks in the league in his 1st year given the right minutes.next to tyson it could be nice- being a "no layups in my paint"team ,the opposite of current situation.Okafur just swaps or changes EVERY shot in the lane.he is a Diamond.and we r a team in a critical need of one!


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TripleDouble</b>!
> Why would Chandler or Curry have to go? Why not keep all three, have 96 minutes a night of (hopefully) dominmant bigman play, and if minutes become a problem in the future, trade or don't resign one of them. We could even zone up on d and play all three at the same time. If we could absolutely dominate teams under the basket we would dominate games. We could be looking at a combined 4/5 production of 50 points, 30 Rebs, and 8
> blks. I would rather aim for domination than across the board solidness.


1st u gotta pay all the 3.

then we gotta adress our no SF what so ever situation we have.we need to have a reliable player at every position to move forward.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

Okafor = Kenyon Martin. Mark it down now.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> Okafor = Kenyon Martin. Mark it down now.


I dont agree!

he's much more in my opinion.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> 
> 
> I dont agree!
> ...


I respect your opinion, but I'd love for you to refute and provide your case, if you would.

I've had the priviledge of watching both Kenyon and Emeka play numerous games in college and Kenyon was one of the best low post players I ever had the priviledge to watch while in college. He was flat out dominating on defense as you didn't get layups, nor did you get much in the paint in general. 

On offense, I think Kenyon has many more post moves and also had a more advanced midrange game then Emeka has.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> I respect your opinion, but I'd love for you to refute and provide your case, if you would.
> ...


Moves also Fizer had.he was a great inside college player as well.

there is a great difference between Emeka and Kenyon.while KM's blocks all relly on his leaping ability,Okafur blocks based on timing and athletic ability.their shotblocking is not even in the same league.I wont be surprized to see Emeka lead the league in BLKS.

K.M left college at 230 pounds while Emeka is 252 allready in his 3rd year (KM went after 4)and built allaround much better then Kenyon for the 4-5 in nba.KMart has an ideal body to play the 3 but the skills to play 4,and in the mens league everytime he gets bumped he loses ballance and cannot finish.Okafur has a body ready to bump rather then be bumped-very strong.unless u r KG with 6-11 dont try to be an undersized,overpowered PF in the league.

Emeka rebounds and blks more in less minutes .KM in his 2nd year wasnt even in double figures.Emeka even scores about the same per min in 2nd year(and 3rd) compared to KMart scored in his 4th and in a higher % and in a better team.
Emeka is a much better rebounder as well,positioning and all.
most important i think Emeka is just a much smarter player.charecter also indicates Okafur,while KM feels he is not paid enogh.

my opinion is in 1 year from now,top 2,u wont say KMart in the same sentence with EMEKA!!! But for now its only my opinion


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

bump, read the first post.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Basghetti80</b>!
> bump, read the first post.


It doesn't really apply to what he's saying today, though. This is before Tyson came back from his injury and totally sucked it up. Many were expecting he'd play at the same level he did at the beginning of the season, which would make those trade suggestions at least reasonable.

He sucked when he came back. That changed his value.


----------

