# Now for the thread which will earn me some hatred, why we need to make a deal



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

look. this thread is going to make me some enemies, but its one that I think needs to be said. I dont mean to piss anyone off

First off, I am a tyson chandler fan. Love the kid. love his energy, love his personality, even thought he could be in the allstar game last year (shambulls wont let me forget that prediction). Love Love Love him. But yes folks, we need to deal him. Damn I hate saying that. But its my opinion. I am going to take flak for that, especially from a poster i have a ton of respect for in Johnston, but i just dont see any other way.

I thought about this. It came down to Curry vs Chandler, what will get us that first rate all star 3 that we need. I came down to trading Chandler over Curry even though I like Chandler more. The reason is Chandlers bad back, because its so hard to get a good 5 and because of what curry accomplished last year. While Chandler could emerge as the better player, and probably will, i stick with my thinking. There are a ton of athletic 4s in the league, its the easiest position to fill. Stromile Swift as Tyson Chandler like potential, that cant be denied, and we could sign him next summer for cheap. I prefer that we add a 4 who can shoot the J some. I like Radmonovic, though he wouldnt be a great fit because he isnt a good rebounder and neither is Curry. but adding a player like Okur should be the focus. 

Another avenue is if the Bulls are in the lottery, draft Emeka Okafor. Here is a guy with an emerging game who has all the athletic ability in the world. He could be the long term answer at the 4 if we deal Tyson

Now, chandlers potential, and contract are appealing to alot of clubs. He has shown it all. Now the argument is, what could we get for Chandler? Opinions will vary on the board on what his value is. Alot of people wouldnt trade Chandler for Tmac, which is just mularky. And we wont get Tmac for Chandler. But the Bulls could certainly atleast get Seattles attention if we mentioned Chandler for Rashard Lewis as the principles (cap issues have to be taken care of). Chandler for Dunleavy could also work. Though I would insist they throw in my boy Pietrus. Chandler and a player to portland for knuckleheads Qyntel Woods and Zach Randolph is another. The point is, you can get a first rate 3 for Tyson. and that is what we need. replacing tyson wont be that hard. sure, the player might not be the potential game changer that tyson is, but hey. Would Sacramento be willing to atleast talk about a tyson for Peja as principles? Prob pushing it there. The point is, we have a dynamite backcourt with Hinrich and Jamal, with Jay 1 in 5 in coming back in a year and being effective. That is probably going to the focus of the offense going forward. Curry is going to be a star. Now getting a front line 3 is not an easy thing to do, particularly one who can shoot, defend, handle. But Tyson and contracts for Rashard Lewis is something Seattle would entertain at the least. And I think its time to do it.

in conclusion, people will say this is some kind of indictment on tyson. It isnt. he is my favorite player on the club. but the club is bigger then tyson or my favorites. And curry and tyson just dont have the chemistry that the fat man promised us. Pax, get us a 3 who can play and will be here for 10 years. they arent easy to get ( though Luol Deng is the one 3 a year who might be able to do it). I just think its much easier to get an athletic 4 then a front line 3 in the NBA now. and teams always go crazy for size. lets take advantage of it. Heck Dallas would deal us Jamison or Walker for Chandler now, I am fairly certain they would atleast entertain it. Lets do it.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Do we keep Fizer if we do this? Does he reamin our future 4? AD is getting up there in age and so is JYD. 

Don't look for a trade until deadline. 

I would be more inclined to trade Curry and put Chandler at center. But that is me.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

I'm also a fan of Chandler, but it seems we'd be alright without him, and, if we can get something good for him, it'd be the best for the team.

I'd feel bad, as much as he's put into the team, but if a good deal comes around, Paxson would have to capitolize on it.

I wouldn't mind a Tyson for Rashard Lewis trade myself, though I don't know much about Lewis, or Seattle for that matter.
Would they do it?
Or something, as you mentioned, with this as the principal?

Is Lewis consistent?
How old is he?
Actually I'll check that, I'm going to read his bio on nba.com, but does anyone have any insight on whether this trade would work, or even be considered by Seattle?

All in all, nice post rlucas, I agree with pretty much all of it.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> Do we keep Fizer if we do this? Does he reamin our future 4? AD is getting up there in age and so is JYD.
> 
> Don't look for a trade until deadline.
> ...



I was thinking that as well, about Davis, but I liked what rlucas mentioned in the original post about Okafor.

Now of course we're not even guaranteed to get anywhere close to Okafor, its gonna depend how we do the rest of the year, and where our pick is, etc etc, but it could be a question of is there better 4/5's in the draft, or better SG/SF's.

Because if theres more SF's to pick from, we'd hold on to Chandler, and grab a nice SF in the draft.
If theres none, but better bigs, we take Lewis while we can (or whichever SF Chandler can get us) and pick up another big guy in the draft.

I don't know much about the draft class at all, so I can't see which way it is, if either. 
Also, I don't even know what we could get for Chandler, so its tough to speculate.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

my reasoning is that we can get by with AD and JYD for the rest of this year and prob next. We could be in a position this summer to add Stromile Swift, who has the identical game of Chandler or we could get lucky and pick Emeka. regardless, getting a 4 isnt that hard. getting a 3 however isnt


----------



## Parabull (Nov 4, 2003)

I think Jamison would be a good fit for the Bulls. I've watched him play a lot throughout his career and he gets it done.

He has no established move, but is able to score by hitting mid-range jumpers, driving and hitting floaters or layups, and even comes off screens sometimes. He is not an offensive "black hole" like Fizer or Eddy - although he doesn't get a lot of assists, he moves the ball after he catches it if he doesn't have a lane or a shot. His defense, while being infamously atrocious, was getting better throughout the season under Musselman (I haven't seen him play with Dallas, so I can't vouch for it now).

Most of all, he has a good - nay, great - attitude. He was in an awful situation for years in GS with a terrible team, but he never blamed anyone or called out the fans for booing or anything. He just said that he needed to keep working on his game, and got much better over his first three years. Now I think he's plateaued - but if he were on the Bulls right now, apart from backcourt depth, we'd be a very dangerous offensive team.


----------



## Parabull (Nov 4, 2003)

*Adding on...*

At the same time, I'd be fine with just sticking with the players we have. I think the wins will come pretty soon, especially when Tyson gets back.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Jamison would be an ok fit. I would prefer having a guy who can knock down the 3 consistently. that is why i threw Lewis out there first, but Jamison would be a good 2nd or third choice. and with dallas desperately wanting a guy who can play inside, they would entertain it. Now ofcourse, the Bulls would probably have to add 2 or 3 players or throw in AD and expect to get something back, but its soemthing that could work


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

With an injury like Tyson Chandler has, it makes it nearly impossible to trade him. The problem is that we have the best information on just how bad his back is, so if we offered an absurd trade like Chandler for Shane Battier, Memphis might think that the only reason we were willing to offer such a trade is that Chandler's back is much worse than what we are letting on. Thus, it may be impossible to trade Chandler even for someone like Shane Battier right now, let alone someone better. This is a classic asymmetric information problem. 

Thus, even if we wanted to trade Chandler, the only way we would get any value for him is to wait until his back is better. Otherwise, teams will just assume that we are trying to sucker them.


----------



## Lusty RaRue (Sep 9, 2003)

I've always seen TC as a high post 5. No hate, just no thanks.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> With an injury like Tyson Chandler has, it makes it nearly impossible to trade him. The problem is that we have the best information on just how bad his back is, so if we offered an absurd trade like Chandler for Shane Battier, Memphis might think that the only reason we were willing to offer such a trade is that Chandler's back is much worse than what we are letting on. Thus, it may be impossible to trade Chandler even for someone like Shane Battier right now, let alone someone better. This is a classic asymmetric information problem.
> 
> Thus, even if we wanted to trade Chandler, the only way we would get any value for him is to wait until his back is better. Otherwise, teams will just assume that we are trying to sucker them.


some truth to it. But some teams might look at it as a call option. he gets better, they get a talented young big. plus the fact that his contract is relatively small with not many years makes it easy to move him. but clearly, he would have more trade value if he was playing all the time


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

I like trying to get Rashard Lewis from Seattle with Chandler. As important as Lewis is up there, Radman is also a 3, and they are dying for a player like Chandler. They could easily sacrifice Lewis with the emergence of Flip.

You play Flip, Ray Allen, Vlad, Chandler and Collison when he gets back next year(evans or booth until he gets back) and that's a much more balanced team.

As far as what Rashard would mean to us. Rashard is a pretty unselfish guy, who is a very efficient scorer. When he goes for 50 it's usually on about 20-25 shots. He'd be the perfect 3 to pair with Jamal and with Eddy downlow.

I agree that of the two, even though I love chandler's effort, and hate Curry's, I think picking up a 4 is easier than a 5 or a great 3. And I don't think we actually NEED Curry, Chandler, and Davis(pick two but all 3 are basically starters). In the short term we pretty much have Chandler's replacement already in Davis who puts up similiar numbers.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> I like trying to get Rashard Lewis from Seattle with Chandler. As important as Lewis is up there, Radman is also a 3, and they are dying for a player like Chandler. They could easily sacrifice Lewis with the emergence of Flip.
> 
> You play Flip, Ray Allen, Vlad, Chandler and Collison when he gets back next year(evans or booth until he gets back) and that's a much more balanced team.
> ...



:yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: thank you. great post


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Where do I join the rlucas4257 fan club?

You state the obvious.

Let me take it one step further, though.

Instead of trading Chandler, we trade Curry. Why? He's not injured, he's not the defender Chandler is, we don't need his scoring if we get a 3 to replace his scoring (14PPG-ish), and for all the reasons WE like him (potential, beast of a C, and so on), he should be appealing to other teams.

His contract is roughly the same as Chandler's. If we deal him, I believe Bird rights go to the other team, too.

Here's the caveats I've pondered:

1) Since Chandler isn't healthy, we're left with AD starting at C and Blount as our reserve C. When Chandler is healthy, he fits in the C rotation nicely.

2) For the reason stated in #1 above, we can't afford to use Blount as filler in the deal (CBA), though it may look like we need to in trade checker. 

3) Beware of the salary issues. We can't trade Curry or Chandler for a max player without using AD's contract to compensate. This means you have to look at guys like Ricky Davis and Artest who have bargain contracts (something like 1/2 MAX).

4) ERob's contract at ~$6M can be real useful, but it hurts our depth at SF to get rid of him. So look for filler that can play SF for us in a pinch.

If we get a SF who can score and play D, we go from a team with 3 good defenders on the court to one with 4. This should give us the ability to create more fast break opportunities from our defense. Along these lines, a SF who can be good on the break is a good idea.

If we get a SF who can score and be #2 option to Crawford, it will really change "the book" on how to play the Bulls. You can't stop Crawford and let this (unnamed) SF score at will.

Last point. Aim HIGH. I like Battier, but not for Curry (or Chandler). I like the idea of Lewis or Artest or Jamison or Walker. All-stars each one. Battier and Radman aren't all-stars.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Where do I join the rlucas4257 fan club?
> 
> You state the obvious.
> ...


One more point. As good as we all think Curry may become, he's got 8 votes out of 83 in a poll on another thread, "Who's your favorite Bulls player?" A rather amazingly low vote total for a guy who was supposed to be our #1 goto guy this year, and to whom our playoff hopes were clearly tied.


----------



## Lusty RaRue (Sep 9, 2003)

Conceptually this is what I'd try: 

More or less ending contracts that could be bought out and the 2004 Bull first round pick UNPROTECTED for Jamison. With these contracts available, there's no need for Dallas to choke on the Davis(who they don't need:Fortson) or ER(Finley/Howard) contracts.
=================================
Bull 2004 pick, "J", SP, MF

for 

Jamison
=================================
I think if a deal for a "star" is done, it will be JC and more for Ray Allen.


----------



## curry_52 (Jul 22, 2002)

No one will trade for Chandler right now, unless it is a Miles for Chandler deal. 
And, were Chandler to be healthy, it makes no sense to trade him for Walker or Jamison. Lewis is an interesting option but you can find plenty talented SF in the world.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Where do I join the rlucas4257 fan club?
> 
> You state the obvious.
> ...


Count me in. Trade Curry. Chandler plays with more energy and defense. Curry may score more, but we have plenty of 4s and 5s who can score. I am with you on these trade ideas.


----------



## curry_52 (Jul 22, 2002)

Im afraid of the Bulls giving up on Curry (Either by trade or not matching offer sheet) and then come back to haunt us. eddy is the type of player that you would ***** when he is on your team but would say "**** No" if you have to go against him, especially in 2-3 seasons.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

alot easier to get a 4 then a 5. Otherwise, i would keep Chandler. thats the only reason I would keep Curry.


----------



## Bullwhip (Feb 26, 2003)

I'd rather trade Curry. People aren't afraid of Curry. Chandler, on the other hand, changes one's perception of security when they're in the post. He's so active and can use his length to strip balls, block shots, rebound, etc., where Curry just seems to loaf and underachieve. 

I'd deal Curry right friggin' now while is stock isn't damaged that much yet. But if the guy tanks out the rest of the year, and we want to trade him then, what will we get.

I was never really sold on Curry, mainly there are too many red flags with popping up. He IS soft. He DOES loaf. He doesn't have ENERGY or FIRE for this game. Chanlder seems the opposite of Curry. Thank God for that.

I'm optimistic his back can be kept in check. We just need to take care of him.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> alot easier to get a 4 then a 5. Otherwise, i would keep Chandler. thats the only reason I would keep Curry.


I see Chandler as a 5 playing out of position at 4, so either way we'd be trading a 5...


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

chandler needs to add a lot of weight to play the 5. i dont think he can do it. its been 3 years, and at one point, he was actually lighter now then he was his rookie year. its a problem i wish we all have


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> chandler needs to add a lot of weight to play the 5. i dont think he can do it. its been 3 years, and at one point, he was actually lighter now then he was his rookie year. its a problem i wish we all have


He started at 5 for us about 50 games last year. He looked fine. Since most guys playing 5 are PFs anyhow, he won't be that out of place. Plus he played 5 in HS... Plus I think his height makes up for the lack of weight. Plus we could still play him alongside AD or someone like AD (later on) who can play 5 against the true centers.

Just my $.02


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

the problem is, down the line, your going to have to play against a real 5, and Chandler isnt going to be able to handle them close to the basket. if its not shaq, it will be Yao, or eventually Darko or someone like that. Duncan even. Chandler can play the 5 on most nights, but not against the best of the best at that spot. Not unless he gains strength, which he hasnt shown he can do. plus, i worry about his back and all the pounding inside


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Chicago trades: SF Eddie Robinson (4.7 ppg, 2.2 rpg, 1.4 apg in 18.8 minutes) 
C Eddy Curry (14.1 ppg, 6.6 rpg, 1.1 apg in 31.2 minutes) 
SG Roger Mason (1.0 ppg, 1.0 rpg, 1.0 apg in 14.3 minutes) 
Chicago receives: SF Ron Artest (18.3 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 3.4 apg in 38.7 minutes) 
C Scot Pollard (1.6 ppg, 2.7 rpg, 0.2 apg in 11.7 minutes) 
Change in team outlook: +0.1 ppg, -1.3 rpg, and +0.1 apg. 

Indiana trades: SF Ron Artest (18.3 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 3.4 apg in 38.7 minutes) 
C Scot Pollard (1.6 ppg, 2.7 rpg, 0.2 apg in 11.7 minutes) 
Indiana receives: SF Eddie Robinson (4.7 ppg, 2.2 rpg, 1.4 apg in 17 games) 
C Eddy Curry (14.1 ppg, 6.6 rpg, 1.1 apg in 18 games) 
SG Roger Mason (1.0 ppg, 1.0 rpg, 1.0 apg in 3 games) 
Change in team outlook: -0.1 ppg, +1.3 rpg, and -0.1 apg. 

TRADE ACCEPTED


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Chicago trades: SF Eddie Robinson (4.7 ppg, 2.2 rpg, 1.4 apg in 18.8 minutes)
> C Eddy Curry (14.1 ppg, 6.6 rpg, 1.1 apg in 31.2 minutes)
> SG Roger Mason (1.0 ppg, 1.0 rpg, 1.0 apg in 14.3 minutes)
> ...


Bulls:
PG Hinrich/Crawford
SG Crawford/Gill
C Davis/Pollard/Blount/Chandler
SF Artest/JYD
PF Chandler/JYD/Fizer/Blount


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I like this one way better:

Chicago trades: SG Roger Mason (1.0 ppg, 1.0 rpg, 1.0 apg in 14.3 minutes) 
SF Chris Jefferies (2.7 ppg, 0.7 rpg, 0.7 apg in 4.3 minutes) 
C Eddy Curry (14.1 ppg, 6.6 rpg, 1.1 apg in 31.2 minutes) 
SF Eddie Robinson (4.7 ppg, 2.2 rpg, 1.4 apg in 18.8 minutes) 
Chicago receives: SF Ron Artest (18.3 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 3.4 apg in 38.7 minutes) 
C Scot Pollard (1.6 ppg, 2.7 rpg, 0.2 apg in 11.7 minutes) 
PG Jamaal Tinsley (1.8 ppg, 0.8 rpg, 1.8 apg in 10.5 minutes) 
Change in team outlook: -0.8 ppg, -1.2 rpg, and +1.2 apg. 

Indiana trades: SF Ron Artest (18.3 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 3.4 apg in 38.7 minutes) 
C Scot Pollard (1.6 ppg, 2.7 rpg, 0.2 apg in 11.7 minutes) 
PG Jamaal Tinsley (1.8 ppg, 0.8 rpg, 1.8 apg in 10.5 minutes) 
Indiana receives: SG Roger Mason (1.0 ppg, 1.0 rpg, 1.0 apg in 3 games) 
SF Chris Jefferies (2.7 ppg, 0.7 rpg, 0.7 apg in 3 games) 
C Eddy Curry (14.1 ppg, 6.6 rpg, 1.1 apg in 18 games) 
SF Eddie Robinson (4.7 ppg, 2.2 rpg, 1.4 apg in 17 games) 
Change in team outlook: +0.8 ppg, +1.2 rpg, and -1.2 apg. 

TRADE ACCEPTED


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

We could have an all-Jama(a)l backcourt


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>curry_52</b>!
> but you can find plenty talented SF in the world.


I'd respectfully disagree. I would say that after Center, Small Forward is by far the weakest position in the NBA right now. Too many undersized power forwards, or oversized Shooting guards are playing the position.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I like this one way better:
> 
> Chicago trades: SG Roger Mason (1.0 ppg, 1.0 rpg, 1.0 apg in 14.3 minutes)
> ...


Man. Getting Artest would be amazing. Artest is on the fast track to superstardom himself. His offensive game is starting to catch up to his defensive one, and there's not anyone who strikes more fear into opposing guards than Artest. What he does to opposing 2's and 3's is scary.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Chicago trades: PF Marcus Fizer (6.0 ppg, 2.9 rpg, 0.3 apg in 10.0 minutes) 
C Eddy Curry (14.1 ppg, 6.6 rpg, 1.1 apg in 31.2 minutes) 
Chicago receives: SF Rashard Lewis (21.1 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 2.5 apg in 38.2 minutes) 
Change in team outlook: +1.0 ppg, -3.0 rpg, and +1.1 apg. 

Seattle trades: SF Rashard Lewis (21.1 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 2.5 apg in 38.2 minutes) 
Seattle receives: PF Marcus Fizer (6.0 ppg, 2.9 rpg, 0.3 apg in 8 games) 
C Eddy Curry (14.1 ppg, 6.6 rpg, 1.1 apg in 18 games) 
Change in team outlook: -1.0 ppg, +3.0 rpg, and -1.1 apg. 

TRADE ACCEPTED


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Chicago trades: PF Marcus Fizer (6.0 ppg, 2.9 rpg, 0.3 apg in 10.0 minutes) 
C Eddy Curry (14.1 ppg, 6.6 rpg, 1.1 apg in 31.2 minutes) 
Chicago receives: PF Chris Mihm (7.9 ppg, 6.4 rpg, 0.5 apg in 18.2 minutes) 
SF Ricky Davis (16.5 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 4.9 apg in 37.2 minutes) 
Change in team outlook: +4.3 ppg, +2.3 rpg, and +4.0 apg. 

Cleveland trades: PF Chris Mihm (7.9 ppg, 6.4 rpg, 0.5 apg in 18.2 minutes) 
SF Ricky Davis (16.5 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 4.9 apg in 37.2 minutes) 
Cleveland receives: PF Marcus Fizer (6.0 ppg, 2.9 rpg, 0.3 apg in 8 games) 
C Eddy Curry (14.1 ppg, 6.6 rpg, 1.1 apg in 18 games) 
Change in team outlook: -4.3 ppg, -2.3 rpg, and -4.0 apg. 

TRADE ACCEPTED


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Chicago trades: SF Eddie Robinson (4.7 ppg, 2.2 rpg, 1.4 apg in 18.8 minutes) 
PF Marcus Fizer (6.0 ppg, 2.9 rpg, 0.3 apg in 10.0 minutes) 
C Eddy Curry (14.1 ppg, 6.6 rpg, 1.1 apg in 31.2 minutes) 
Chicago receives: PF Antoine Walker (16.8 ppg, 9.9 rpg, 4.3 apg in 36.7 minutes) 
Change in team outlook: -8.0 ppg, -1.8 rpg, and +1.5 apg. 

Dallas trades: PF Antoine Walker (16.8 ppg, 9.9 rpg, 4.3 apg in 36.7 minutes) 
Dallas receives: SF Eddie Robinson (4.7 ppg, 2.2 rpg, 1.4 apg in 17 games) 
PF Marcus Fizer (6.0 ppg, 2.9 rpg, 0.3 apg in 8 games) 
C Eddy Curry (14.1 ppg, 6.6 rpg, 1.1 apg in 18 games) 
Change in team outlook: +8.0 ppg, +1.8 rpg, and -1.5 apg. 

TRADE ACCEPTED

(Works for Finley, too)


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Chicago trades: SF Eddie Robinson (4.7 ppg, 2.2 rpg, 1.4 apg in 18.8 minutes) 
PF Marcus Fizer (6.0 ppg, 2.9 rpg, 0.3 apg in 10.0 minutes) 
C Eddy Curry (14.1 ppg, 6.6 rpg, 1.1 apg in 31.2 minutes) 
Chicago receives: SF Caron Butler (4.3 ppg, 1.3 rpg, 1.1 apg in 21.4 minutes) 
SG Eddie Jones (19.9 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 2.5 apg in 35.9 minutes) 
Change in team outlook: -0.6 ppg, -6.2 rpg, and +0.8 apg. 

Miami trades: SF Caron Butler (4.3 ppg, 1.3 rpg, 1.1 apg in 21.4 minutes) 
SG Eddie Jones (19.9 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 2.5 apg in 35.9 minutes) 
Miami receives: SF Eddie Robinson (4.7 ppg, 2.2 rpg, 1.4 apg in 17 games) 
PF Marcus Fizer (6.0 ppg, 2.9 rpg, 0.3 apg in 8 games) 
C Eddy Curry (14.1 ppg, 6.6 rpg, 1.1 apg in 18 games) 
Change in team outlook: +0.6 ppg, +6.2 rpg, and -0.8 apg. 

TRADE ACCEPTED


----------



## Lusty RaRue (Sep 9, 2003)

:upset: I'm really disappointed.

The Bull have 2 real 5's: TC& EC that are of starting caliber.
The Bull have 15 roster spots if they want to use them and they usually do. There are 5 positions on a team. That makes 3 players per position(duh). 

Blount can play either 4 or 5.
Davis is a 4. The snake oil salesmen will try to say he's a 5 but he's not. He's a 6'9" 230lb. 35 year old 4 who shoots about .40 on FG's.

Both Blount and Davis should be considered 3rd string.

Fizer is an undersized(at least height) 4. "O".

JYD is a 3/4. 206 lb. defender.

The Bull aren't rich/phat at the 5! If the Bull are going to win a championship they can't do these type of deals. They have to beat the West, not the junior league here in the East. Yao, Duncan, Shaq are the real deal.

Why the bleep repeat the same mistake Krause made? For a nut that needs meds to stay in control & Pollard?! To a close rival?! 

The Bull aren't going anywhere this season anyway so why trade Curry for a wing when 5's are so dear? The rebel without a clause and the fire sale by Paxson assured the Bull of a crappy season and delayed the progress of the team. I don't like it anymore than you do but I wouldn't compound the problem like these deals do. 

Fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

These Artest trade proposals are ridiculous, what makes anyone think he's available? Face facts, trading Artest was a mistake, we're not getting him back.

Trading Curry would be beyond stupid, sometimes it amazes me, kids like him, Jamal, Tyson, are my age...yes we expect a lot and should, but I would not trade him, he's not a Kwame Brown.

I would like to see them make a run at CB4, if he's available, Jones I guess if you plan on moving Jamal back to the 1 exclusively, and Kirk coming off the bench.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> These Artest trade proposals are ridiculous, what makes anyone think he's available? Face facts, trading Artest was a mistake, we're not getting him back.
> 
> Trading Curry would be beyond stupid, sometimes it amazes me, kids like him, Jamal, Tyson, are my age...yes we expect a lot and should, but I would not trade him, he's not a Kwame Brown.
> ...


If I'm Indy, I don't trade Artest. Figure you can go against Shaq and the other big C's in the west with Pollard. If I'm the Bulls, I'd make the call and suggest the deal. Can't hurt.

I don't think I'd do the Jones/CB4 trade if I were the Bulls.

The trades I posted were just ones that worked under the trade checker. Similar ones work for Chandler, but I don't know why anyone would trade a lot for a guy who can't pass a physical.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

rlucas and Da Bullz,


I love your posts and while I frequently find myself suicidal after reading your posts, this one goes under...."Things that make you go Hmmmmmmmmmmm."

The reason we need Chandler and Curry is what we are currently going through. One is not available, one is hurt, one is in foul trouble, one is a soft masrshmallow man for 20 games.......We have two studs in the making and shouldn't part with them for anything less than McGrady, Kobe or Vince. Rashard Lewis is tempting I admit. Artest? 

First off, like the guys I mentioned, teams aren't looking to move these players they are too valuable to the team and the fan base.

Secondly, we are weak right now with Davis (Hot then cold), JYD (All Heart...if we could only put his attitude in Curry's Body!)......Fizer (Blister sores are getting bigger from the splinters in his rear......Blount....pass me one when this guy is on the court for extended minutes....

We are not deep at the position. We are average when one of Curry/Chandler is gone. Again, there is no quick fix. Why do we need a quick fix? We've waited this long...One more year is nothing new to us.

We need a 3. This off-season we will get a quality 3. I wish Pip wasn't done, but it's another great lesson for Paxson. Don't hire friends. 

We can still make the playoffs, but if we don't I won't be suicidal. I really like where I believe Skiles is taking the team. Give him time with the young guys and we may well see the results we've waited so long for.

We traded Artest and Miller prematurely. Why do we want to do that again when we don't have to. Again, McGrady or Kobe becomes available...then every team listens.

We need a 3, I completely agree. We just don't need it at the cost of having to find another stud 4 (cause it's obvious we are all getting tired of waiting).

Go Bulls!


Chifaninca


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

I'm willing to evaluate where the Bulls are at the end of the season. I'd look at our record, if we made the playoffs, and where would we pick if we didn't make the playoffs.

At this stage, I'd probably be more likely to trade Curry than Chandler. A Chandler/Okafer frontline could be a huge defensive presence. Trading Chandler for someone like Lewis, and having an Okafer/Curry frontcourt wouldn't be bad either.

As I said, evaluate at the end of the season.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

Curry is one of the top3 centers in the league. he has more values than any centers right now besides yao and Shaq. If we absoultely must trade one, I say trade chandler, as much as we like to think that defense is the most important part of the game, its the offensive game that determines how dominant a player really is. anyone aside from Bill Russell in the History of the NBA, who has really made a reputation of being the most dominant player of his era with only def? in today's era, or any era, you almost always go by how many points a guy can put up, def is a bonus. sure Jordan was graet both on offense and defense, but nobody complained about the lack of def of barkley. why? cause he was so good in offense, almost unstoppable and he grabbed crap loads of rebs too.

another example would be, if artest was averaging say 13-15 pts a game, would we still be talking about even curry wouldn't get artest from the pacers? the fact is hes averaging close to 19pts, WHILE PLAYING SUPER DEF. its just a bonus a player has. people like payton, if he was a carrer averager of 13pts a game, and evne if he's the 2x of def player that he was, we still wouldn't rate him as highly as the real payton. its all because he's a carrer averager of 20pts a game. 

bottom line, dominant player=great offensive player, with or without def. def to me is the most overrated aspect of the game.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

> bottom line, dominant player=great offensive player, with or without def. def to me is the most overrated aspect of the game.



What is sad is that in todays NBA this is exactly the way it is. Call me an old school coach or whatever but in my mind defense is the single most important aspect of the game of basketball. The NBA however does not see it this way. This is why my dream coaching job is head coach at a major college program not a NBA team.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> What is sad is that in todays NBA this is exactly the way it is. Call me an old school coach or whatever but in my mind defense is the single most important aspect of the game of basketball. The NBA however does not see it this way. This is why my dream coaching job is head coach at a major college program not a NBA team.


totally agree. offense wins games, but defense wins championships. This mantra didn't just invent itself - it's been proven time and time again. The Bulls of the 90's weren't built on their explosive offense, but their incredible defense. Barkley has been ridiculed for years due to his inability to play D. Didn't some magazine give him the dubious award of worst defender ever??? Rodman IMO should make the hall of fame and he offered next to nothing in offensive skills.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> What is sad is that in todays NBA this is exactly the way it is. Call me an old school coach or whatever but in my mind defense is the single most important aspect of the game of basketball. The NBA however does not see it this way. This is why my dream coaching job is head coach at a major college program not a NBA team.


Have you watched the NBA? Defense is what it's all about. That's why any player that can score in this day and age is so valued. Because everyone is so atheletic and the court is so small, and defenses are so far ahead of offenses, that special players who can score regardless are at a premium.

Even as poorly as the bulls defend, they still are probably more advanced defensively than a similiar level team of the 80's.

Just about every single coach in the NBA is a defensive coach first. With only a few exceptions. It's always defense this, defense that.


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Sith</b>!
> Curry is one of the top3 centers in the league. he has more values than any centers right now besides yao and Shaq.


I don't agree with this at all. Curry is no way near top 3 and even calling Yao as top 3 as of now is rather ridiculous. Specially as a center it's not just about point you put up to be considered as top C. It's more about whether he can change the course of the game with his presence in the middle. Offensively and defensivley.

Curry as of now hasn't either factor at all. Offensively he can score some points occasionally (key word here) against not so good centers but just lack the heart to go against rather good centers around the league. When people considre him as top center in the league, they still refer him in the future tense.

Another key factor is intimidation factor on both end. Right now and probably ever, nobody in the league is fearful of him. Curry got zero intimidation factor.

More discouraging facor for him regarding Curry is his lack of energu and demeanor. He just seems like he doesn't care that much about his game and how to improve it.

On the other hand, Chandler even with more limited offensive skill always show a lot more energy and desire on the floor. When you compare above average talent (Curry) and desire and heart(Chandler) I have to go with Heart.

My prediction is that Curry will be pretty Curry that we know of now. On the hand Chandler will keep improve his game and as soon as Chandler can master 15 ft jump shoot so he can shoot them consistantly, Chandler will be much more valuable for bUlls.

I say "Keep Chandler and Trade Curry for decent SF". 

That will give us the following starting line up:
PG: Hinrich
SG: Crawford
SF: Trade 
PF: Chandler
C: Davis

Depending on the quality of SF that we can get, this could be pretty damn good strating five in the Eastern Conference.


----------



## Wild Wild West (Jun 30, 2003)

I could see a Chandler trade under certain circumstances surrounding this years draft. I believe if we draft in the 5-10 area a pretty good small forward like Deng, Warrick or Smith might be available. If we wind up in the top 3 Okafor or D. Howard the high school PF might be too talented to pass on, and then the question could be either what SF you could get for Chandler or for the ability to pick Okafor or Howard.


----------



## Cochise (Apr 13, 2003)

Where the heck do you start with this thread? It's this kind of impatience that got Ron Artest traded in the first place. DaBullz, did you think Ron was going to be a superstar when he was traded? At the time of the trade, Ron was older than either Eddy or Tyson is now. 

It makes no sense at all. You draft two high schoolers and expect them to bust out quick like KG and Lebron? And if they don't you start looking for trades as their third year begins? 

This team is a Matt Harpring away from being the team we thought it'd be. That's one solid SF (who averages 15-17 points and plays hard nosed defense) away from being playoff bound this year. The Bulls don't need to trade one of their three most important players to get a star SF when all they need is to wait for the young talent to develop and find just a solid SF. Who else wants to see what Pax can get from the draft?

Jerry West got Mike Miller and Bonzi for not much. Danny Ainge got himself an awesome young wing in Jiri Welsch through the Dallas trade. Dallas got a two all-star caliber SFs for Van Exel and dumped a horrible contract with Raef. And the damn season had only started. 

Chill out. It's cool to debate but we all know the previous trades will never happen and there's a damn good reason why Pax or anyone else in the organization wouldn't do it.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Cochise</b>!
> Where the heck do you start with this thread? It's this kind of impatience that got Ron Artest traded in the first place. DaBullz, did you think Ron was going to be a superstar when he was traded? At the time of the trade, Ron was older than either Eddy or Tyson is now.
> 
> It makes no sense at all. You draft two high schoolers and expect them to bust out quick like KG and Lebron? And if they don't you start looking for trades as their third year begins?
> ...


Yeah, I thought Artest would be a really good player all along. He was a GREAT draft pick, a friend and teammate of Brand from earlier days, etc.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*My Sarcastic Post*

Yea, it's really sucked to trade away all our good young players the last few years.

So, to make up for it, let's trade away another.

Only this time, let's trade the guy that's hurt and has the least trade value that he has ever had.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

I think some of you may be missing the point. The point isn't that we're giving up on Chandler or Curry, per se. It's that given the emergence of Crawford, it might be in the better interests of the team's future to trade for a great second scorer at the 3 to compliment Jamal and whichever big guy we keep. Whether we trade Chandler, Curry or Davis, we'll still have basically 2 starting centers at the 4 and 5. It seems like a big waste to have a player like either of those sitting on the pine when we could address a major need by parting with any of them.

The time when I knew Ron Artest was going to be a great player in this league was the first time he locked down Gary Payton in his rookie year. That was insane. A rookie coming in and putting the glove on the glove. That earns you respect in this league. And it was just foreshadowing what was to come.

The thing is, we wouldn't have half the urgency that we do, for this trade if Pax had got MoP from toronto, or just not included Marshall in the deal.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> The thing is, we wouldn't have half the urgency that we do, for this trade if Pax had got MoP from toronto, or just not included Marshall in the deal.


This last part, though, sums up why it's not urgent to make such a deal in the first place, however.

I mean yes, we _should_ have gotten MoPete back. Or at least someone who wouldn't be a two year waste of cap space :|.

But my point is that a guy _like_ MoPete, a guy who can reduce the urgency we're feeling, could be had without giving up on Chandler or Curry when their value is low. Right now, we're in a position of desperation, and that's definitely not good for making trades. I'm pretty certain, however, that some kind of stopgap can be found if Pax is creative enough.

If Chandler or Curry would just fetch an awesome deal, then ok. But in the meantime, we can increase their value, and the number of wins by filling in on the peripherary. Hell, the guy we get doesn't have to be great, he's just got to stop the bleeding.

To bring up an old phrase... *don't be complacent!*
1. With the Pippen surgery insuring he's on the roster for a while, that removes one option, but call around the league, and especially to teams under the cap (Utah, Denver), and see if you can dump Chris Jeffries since he won't be given a chance to play. Offer a 2nd rounder and cash to offset his salary. Some team will do it (I'm assuming they've already decided by seeing in practice he can't play).
2. Then, cut or trade, if possible, Lint and Roger Mason. 
1 and 2 give us three roster spots. Try and chose between Brunson and Mark Jackson to fill one, and let the other two go to the best swingmen you can dig up. Walt Williams looks to be available, so does DeMarr Johnson. That'd give us a nice mix of young and old.
3. If it can be pulled off, since you aren't going to play Fizer, get the best you can for him. Rodney White maybe? He HAS to be available since its obvious the Nugs don't want him... offer them 2nd rounder also, if that's what it takes.

All in all, these moves would obviously cause some short-term chaos, but there's already short-term chaos. The goal is to get as much raw talent in our positions of need as possible. Some of it, undoubtably, will not work out as well as we'd like. But by exchanging several guys we KNOW aren't helping for several guys who at least MIGHT help, we're maximizing our chances. We only need one of those guys to be solid, and we're back in the hunt.

1- _Jamal_, Kirk, Brunson
2- Gill, Jamal, DeMarr (IR)
3- ERob, Walt, White, Pippen (IR)
4- AD, JYD, Chandler (IR)
5- Curry, _AD_, Blount


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

The easiest solution is in my opinion is do the Mason for Brunson trade, try and get someone to take Jeffries, and then sign Walt Williams. Then in the offseason sign a SF with the MLE(assuming we have no Pippen), let Fizer walk, resign JC, and draft a young project SG/SF like Monya. Keep Brunson, sign Austin and bring back Gill. I left an open roster spot because I am not sure if Jay will be on roster or not.


Next season:

Crawford,Hinrich,Brunson,
Gill,Monya,
E.Williams(MLE),Robinson,Pippen(IR)
Chandler,JYD,Austin
Curry,Davis,Blount


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> look. this thread is going to make me some enemies, but its one that I think needs to be said. I dont mean to piss anyone off
> 
> First off, I am a tyson chandler fan. Love the kid. love his energy, love his personality, even thought he could be in the allstar game last year (shambulls wont let me forget that prediction). Love Love Love him. But yes folks, we need to deal him. Damn I hate saying that. But its my opinion. I am going to take flak for that, especially from a poster i have a ton of respect for in Johnston, but i just dont see any other way.
> ...


i see your line of reasoning but i respectfully disagree big time 

I think the bigger focus should be on what we have ,no more trades ,get what we have to gel.

the defense is doing well ,so i'll leave it alone but on offense

1st run some plays for e-rob and play him 30 minutes a game ,make him and accounted for threat with vets like davis and williams who are good pick setters they should be able to get robinson avg. 12 a game in that time ...add that to what JC brings and the wings are scoring almost an avg. of 40 a game which is definitely good enough considering how accurate a mid range shooter robinson is

2. play fizer more at the 3 and get him time at the 4 fizer + court time equals points...teaming him up with davis should give the opponents fits because both are bruisers who can hit mid-range J's and when you look at other teams back-up you'll see few teams with 2 good defensive players who can pyhsically stand up to that duo ,also while curry is underachieving he can pick up the slack and take some of curry's min. in the 4th quarter 


Tyson when he comes back is simply the best option at PF ,he can post up as well as davis though not on the level of marcus and plays good defense, rebounds extremely well ,and he is developing a mid-range shot . To trade him now without a long term solution at PF (marcus i dont think meshes well with eddy)

i dont think we need a scoring 3 that badly ,we just need a few more points there and we'll be fine ... curry will come out of his funk soon enough and that should be enough considering how JC is playing 

this team will never start winning because of a trade unless we ship them all out and make it a veteran squad ...and if that doesn't happen the young ones are going to have to do the job TC and Ec are a good tandem and they will get better , i would rather place my faith in them then hoping for a top 5 pick to get okafor who will probably go in the top 3 anyway


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Fizer at the three?? Skiles wants Marcus to play better D. That is why he isn't playing right now. If he can't defend a 4, imagine what a three would do to him! 

I do agree, we are one good three away from being a nice team. But I wonder if people realize that since the trade, e-rob is averaging 9 pts a game on 54% shooting?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I've noticed. This move seems to have awakened ERob. Hope he continues to play well, but in a way it ticks me off to think he should have been doing this all along.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

again, its much easier to get a jumping jack 4 with all world athletic ability then a skilled 3. for every legit 3 you can name, i can name a 2 4s. Look no further then Stromile Swift. He has all the skills Chandler has and we could have him this summer for the MLE. How many Pejas, or Pierces are there? Not many. And Dallas seems to have a monopoly on them to a degree. The point is, Chandler is expendable. This summer, the Bulls could draft Okafor, and he is as ready as Tyson is now. in an NBA that values size, perhaps Chandler can be a great start in getting you a front line 3. There arent going to be any available this summer for the MLE. And their is only 1, MAYBE, in the draft this year and his name is Deng. And even he is going to need a year or 2. To move deep into the playoffs, you need one. and we dont.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> Fizer at the three?? Skiles wants Marcus to play better D. That is why he isn't playing right now. If he can't defend a 4, imagine what a three would do to him!
> 
> I do agree, we are one good three away from being a nice team. But I wonder if people realize that since the trade, e-rob is averaging 9 pts a game on 54% shooting?


thats why i say get robinson more shots 

but on fizer i'm not talking about him playing 35 minutes a game against the peja's of the world but you can easily zone up for a few min. and have him guard the back up 3's in the league 

if they can score on marcus as well as fizer will score on them they wouldn't be backups ..


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> Fizer at the three?? Skiles wants Marcus to play better D. That is why he isn't playing right now. If he can't defend a 4, imagine what a three would do to him!
> 
> I do agree, we are one good three away from being a nice team. But I wonder if people realize that since the trade, e-rob is averaging 9 pts a game on 54% shooting?


Fizer as a 3 on offense isn't that much of a stretch... and JYD as a 3 on defense isn't that much of a stretch. From that perspective I think that arrangement could work pretty well if we actually tried it.

The problem is that's all in theory. In reality, something I don't know- Fizer's knee, his attitude, or some just plain suckiness that's not apparent to us- is preventing him from getting the opportunity.

I do agree though, that *in theory*, we shouldn't have a big problem. We should be able to:
1. Look for ERob more. The guy is still not getting the looks I thought he was worthy of, and not what I expected when Skiles took over. In fairness, he's been sick, so maybe we'll see more starting tonight.
2. Play and look for Fizer. An AD, Fizer, JYD lineup seems to me to provide a decent range of offense and defense.

That all makes great sense in theory, but so far it hasn't been being done. Why? What is it that Skiles et al know that we don't?

And while we're at it, we might as well at least give a look to Jeffries since we're paying him for the next two years.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> again, its much easier to get a jumping jack 4 with all world athletic ability then a skilled 3. for every legit 3 you can name, i can name a 2 4s. Look no further then Stromile Swift. He has all the skills Chandler has and we could have him this summer for the MLE. How many Pejas, or Pierces are there? Not many. And Dallas seems to have a monopoly on them to a degree. The point is, Chandler is expendable. This summer, the Bulls could draft Okafor, and he is as ready as Tyson is now. in an NBA that values size, perhaps Chandler can be a great start in getting you a front line 3. There arent going to be any available this summer for the MLE. And their is only 1, MAYBE, in the draft this year and his name is Deng. And even he is going to need a year or 2. To move deep into the playoffs, you need one. and we dont.


I'm beginning to agree with you. The problem is, I dont want just an average 3 for Chandler, who could be in the upper eschalon (sp?) of those athletic 4's. We need to wait for Chandler to build his stock up a little, then put an offer on the table for Lewis preferably, or Pierce. 

Maybe I'm underestimating Chandlers worth, but I think we'd be lucky to get a Tayshaun Prince calibur 3 for Chandler, which isnt bad, but we should be aiming higher.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> I've noticed. This move seems to have awakened ERob. Hope he continues to play well, but in a way it ticks me off to think he should have been doing this all along.


Me too! And....

Ticks me off that Marshall and Rose are on a roll in Toronto. They could have played that we here.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> again, its much easier to get a jumping jack 4 with all world athletic ability then a skilled 3. for every legit 3 you can name, i can name a 2 4s. Look no further then Stromile Swift. He has all the skills Chandler has and we could have him this summer for the MLE. How many Pejas, or Pierces are there? Not many. And Dallas seems to have a monopoly on them to a degree. The point is, Chandler is expendable. This summer, the Bulls could draft Okafor, and he is as ready as Tyson is now. in an NBA that values size, perhaps Chandler can be a great start in getting you a front line 3. There arent going to be any available this summer for the MLE. And their is only 1, MAYBE, in the draft this year and his name is Deng. And even he is going to need a year or 2. To move deep into the playoffs, you need one. and we dont.


elite player are elite players 

swift isn't one but garnett is ,there are tons of 3's in the league missing something keeping them from being elite 

miles doesn't have a J 
mo pete isn't althetic enough 
vanhorn isn't aggressive enough 

and so on and so on there is more to being a great player at the 4 than runing and jumping 

how many star 4's came out this past years draft ?(bosh)

how many star 3's (LBJ melo , jarvis hayes and according to you pietrus ) 

being good and being a game changer are 2 different things and if chandler is a game changing PF you dont go trying to exchange it because there are a lot of good ones out there 

there are a lot of good 3's out there too who can be had for the MLE and for what its worth the nba puts a premium on size so we actually should get a better player the smaller he is so you can get in most cases a better 3 than a 4 on the open market


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Fizer as a 3 on offense isn't that much of a stretch... and JYD as a 3 on defense isn't that much of a stretch. From that perspective I think that arrangement could work pretty well if we actually tried it.
> ...


That is the only way that lineup would work, but if you have Fizer guarding the four, his defense is still not good enough. There was a quote in one of todays newspapers where Skiles said Fizer is not playing because his defense is not good enough(not exact quote) For that lineup, you would have to include AD in there with his jump shot. 

As for Jeffries, with pippen out, I imagine we will see a little more of him. When we get Brunson, he will play a little as well.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

I will say it again, if you look at whats coming up, your more likely to get a top 4 out of the draft then a top 3. And if you look at the NBA, there are a ton of talented 4s out there, but not much at the 3. Heck, you could deal Chandler for a 3 tomorrow and then turn around and deal for Chris Wilcox. What does Chandler have that Wilcox doesnt? In fact, Wilcox has a better post game. Another thing, I dont believe Chandler complements Curry at all, or vice versa. Thats obvious.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> I will say it again, if you look at whats coming up, your more likely to get a top 4 out of the draft then a top 3. And if you look at the NBA, there are a ton of talented 4s out there, but not much at the 3. Heck, you could deal Chandler for a 3 tomorrow and then turn around and deal for Chris Wilcox. What does Chandler have that Wilcox doesnt? In fact, Wilcox has a better post game. Another thing, I dont believe Chandler complements Curry at all, or vice versa. Thats obvious.


I've seen enough of Wilcox on the Clips to know that hes nowhere near as effective as Chandler. Theres a 3 inch height difference, Chandler is a MUCH BETTER rebounder, and a much better shotblocker. Wilcox is a shorter, watered down version of Chandler.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> I've seen enough of Wilcox on the Clips to know that hes nowhere near as effective as Chandler. Theres a 3 inch height difference, Chandler is a MUCH BETTER rebounder, and a much better shotblocker. Wilcox is a shorter, watered down version of Chandler.


who has a better body, better touch and stronger.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

6'10 - 229 compared to 7'1 235 is not much difference in strength. Wilcox does have a better touch, but he doesnt compare to Tyson in any other category of being a successful power forward.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Rlucas saying bad aughty things about Tyson?


THE Tyson?



The I-predict-Tyson-will-be-an-allstar-in-his-rookie-season Tyson?



:whofarted



:jawdrop: 


You've come a long long way, but I don't know if it's a good thing. You'll be saying bad things about Pietrus next. :uhoh:


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

ERob,Chandler for Lewis,Daniels is a deal that I would do for Chandler. I like Davis/Curry frontline and then throw in JYD and we would be okay at 4/5. LIke rlucas you can also draft a 4 with Okaefor or sign Swift. I think Seattle might do it too since they have Radman who needs to play the 3.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 6'10 - 229 compared to 7'1 235 is not much difference in strength. Wilcox does have a better touch, but he doesnt compare to Tyson in any other category of being a successful power forward.


look at the body, who cares about weight etc. Wilcox is ripped. Chandler isnt. The point is, there is not that much difference between Wilcox, or Swift, or a handful of other good 4s and Chandler. You can always replace a 4 in the NBA. But to get a top level 3 is not an easy thing to do. And look at what a top level 3 can do for a team. What is Denvers record now that they have added Melo? 

Grinch, for the record, James and Pietrus have so far played almost exclusively in the backcourt. and in the case of Pietrus, that is when he does play which isnt very often. Melo is the only true 3 in there


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ShamBulls</b>!
> Rlucas saying bad aughty things about Tyson?
> 
> 
> ...


I havent said a bad thing about Tyson. I just dont think he and Curry mesh. and I think a talented 4 is far easier to get then a talented 3. To have balance, the Bulls need a 3 in the worst kind of way. Chandler might be able to get that for you. AD and JYD can be the 4 for the next 2 or 3 years. and if the Bulls get lucky, they can draft Okafor. and Emeka is as good as Tyson is, though i know people will argue with that. I dont care that Emeka is 3 inches shorter then tyson, height isnt everything. Okafor might just be there for the Bulls this summer. and if that happens, you could deal either him or tyson for a 3, but just get a 3. the bulls without tyson are adequate there already.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

You know rlucas I remember something about Chandler+#7 pick for Melo back in draft time. I for one would do that now in a heartbeat.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> look at the body, who cares about weight etc. Wilcox is ripped. Chandler isnt. The point is, there is not that much difference between Wilcox, or Swift, or a handful of other good 4s and Chandler. You can always replace a 4 in the NBA. But to get a top level 3 is not an easy thing to do. And look at what a top level 3 can do for a team. What is Denvers record now that they have added Melo?
> 
> Grinch, for the record, James and Pietrus have so far played almost exclusively in the backcourt. and in the case of Pietrus, that is when he does play which isnt very often. Melo is the only true 3 in there


First of all, I agreed originally. I just think you underestimate Tysons ability. We would have to be getting an elite small forward for him, and I dont think thats possible until he gets back on the court and builds his stock up around the league a little bit. Lewis would be the perfect guy to trade for. 

Denver didnt just add Melo, they added Andre Miller and Marcus Camby returned from injury. Not to mention Jon Barry and Earl Boykins, they are a completely different team than last year. Melo is part of that, but there are players at different positions who should get just as much credit.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> You know rlucas I remember something about Chandler+#7 pick for Melo back in draft time. I for one would do that now in a heartbeat.


Wasnt it Jwill and 7 for the #2, thats what I remember. Denver lucked into Carmello. They wanted Darko. They scouted Pietrus heavily. They looked to deal Melo. they ended up with him and he has changed everything for that club. He has been an allstar this year. Sometimes teams can get lucky, kind of like we did with jordan in 83-84, The Bulls almost dealt Jordan for Jack Sikma.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> First of all, I agreed originally. I just think you underestimate Tysons ability. We would have to be getting an elite small forward for him, and I dont think thats possible until he gets back on the court and builds his stock up around the league a little bit. Lewis would be the perfect guy to trade for.
> ...


Great post, and I agree with it. As for me and Tysons ability, lets remember that I said Tyson would make the allstar team last year! If there is anybody who thinks the sky is the limit for this kid, its me. and I think you can get an elite 3 for him. I wouldnt trade him for anything less. and Dallas and Seattle have elite 3s. I just think Tyson is replacable. All things equal, I would pick Tyson over Eddy, but 5s are harder to come by. But if Pavel is available this summer, maybe it would be wiser to take Pavel and deal Eddy. Its not that far fetched


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36743&highlight=Tyson+Chandler+Carmelo

This is what I remember rlucas regarding Chandler+7 for Melo.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36743&highlight=Tyson+Chandler+Carmelo
> 
> This is what I remember rlucas regarding Chandler+7 for Melo.


Wow! I am not sure I would have done that trade then, but in retrospect, WOW.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

I wonder if the Bulls could get Deng as a SF in the draft. Then we wouldnt have to trade anyone. 

and if one of the Big guys is going to go, it should be Chandler. I like how JC and Eddy are such good friends, and I wouldnt want to break that up if it comes down to trading Eddy or TC.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> I wonder if the Bulls could get Deng as a SF in the draft. Then we wouldnt have to trade anyone.
> 
> and if one of the Big guys is going to go, it should be Chandler. I like how JC and Eddy are such good friends, and I wouldnt want to break that up if it comes down to trading Eddy or TC.


Getting Deng is the best case scenario. thats for sure. then everything else is moot


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Is Deng someone who could make an immediate impact in the pros?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> Is Deng someone who could make an immediate impact in the pros?


unable to tell right now, but he has the ability to play at Carmellos level eventually, Maybe


----------



## Mr. Bill (Nov 26, 2002)

OK we all think Tyson is going to be good. The question is just how good? Rasheed Wallace good? Kevin Garnett good? Tim Duncun good? I's say if Tyson is going to be a non-MVP candidate type player, then a trade like this makes sense. But if we believe that he is going to get to that level, these trades are short sighted. You don't trade an MVP level player for the sake of getting more balanced. You build around that player as best you can. 

All championship teams have an MVP level player. I don't know who ours is. Right now it seems like we're counting on Chandler getting to that level eventually. Otherwise we have no shot at a championship (unless Eddy or Jamal gets to that level). I'm not ready to give up on that dream yet. Tyson was tearing it up with a bad back early this season. We haven't even seen what he's like healthy since 3/4 through last season. Let's at least wait and findout how much progress he's made.


----------



## Cochise (Apr 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> again, its much easier to get a jumping jack 4 with all world athletic ability then a skilled 3. for every legit 3 you can name, i can name a 2 4s. Look no further then Stromile Swift. He has all the skills Chandler has and we could have him this summer for the MLE. How many Pejas, or Pierces are there? Not many. And Dallas seems to have a monopoly on them to a degree. The point is, Chandler is expendable. This summer, the Bulls could draft Okafor, and he is as ready as Tyson is now. in an NBA that values size, perhaps Chandler can be a great start in getting you a front line 3. There arent going to be any available this summer for the MLE. And their is only 1, MAYBE, in the draft this year and his name is Deng. And even he is going to need a year or 2. To move deep into the playoffs, you need one. and we dont.


First of all, you're off with your analysis of Tyson. You wrote he has no indication of a face up game. Name one young PF that shoots near 80% from the free throw line that has no indication of a face up game. (That in itself is an indication of at least an emerging face-up game. ) In reality, his jumper is coming along nicely and his offense has never had a chance to be displayed on the court. How many games of Amare Stoudemire have you seen? I've seen over seven and it wouldn't take that many to know that Tyson has a better overall offensive game skill-wise. He's producing better numbers than Amare across the board as he played with a sore back and as the fifth option on his team. They are different players but those two are on the same level and I wouldn't trade Amare as easily as it seems you would.

Here is something to take note when you look at Tyson: His unrefined game could look like a chicken with it's head cut off, or to the more observant -- a young hungry player who with every move is trying to embarass someone, whose every single move is to out work you and kill you. It much more than energy with Tyson. (From the Score's Jason Goff, their "NBA Expert")

And I don't even know where your coming from. Either you've been lying or you're trying to get away with contradicting yourself:

Tyson is a pogo-stick; Wilcox/Swift can replace Tyson; Tyson can't pass a physical; (While Swift has had a much worse history with injuries) Sky's the limit for Tyson; Tyson could have been an all-star last year.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Cochise</b>!
> 
> 
> First of all, you're off with your analysis of Tyson. You wrote he has no indication of a face up game. Name one young PF that shoots near 80% from the free throw line that has no indication of a face up game. (That in itself is an indication of at least an emerging face-up game. ) In reality, his jumper is coming along nicely and his offense has never had a chance to be displayed on the court. How many games of Amare Stoudemire have you seen? I've seen over seven and it wouldn't take that many to know that Tyson has a better overall offensive game skill-wise. He's producing better numbers than Amare across the board as he played with a sore back and as the fifth option on his team. They are different players but those two are on the same level and I wouldn't trade Amare as easily as it seems you would.
> ...


first off, no need to make anything personal. There is no lying and there is no contradictiing myself. I am stating an opinion. and frankly I have an answer for everything that anyone can throw at me on this

I think Tyson is a good player. But if you want an athletic 4, they are a dime a dozen. Its the easiest position in the league to fill. 


Now, I believe for Eddy Curry to be effective, you need to spread the court. Tyson does not have a semblance of a face up game right now. 3 years and we have seen zilch of it. Maybe Skiles will bring it out, but you have never seen it. and dont tell me you have. I have seen every single one of Tysons games since he has come to the league minus 2. he has hit a grand total of about 6 jumpers outside of 15 feet in regular play. Here is another fact. Over his last 20 games or so during his rookie year, he hit not just 80% from the line, but nearly 90% from the line. Redd Kerr used to talk about this. It was on this basis that I said that Tyson could make the allstar team in his 2nd year. guess how many jumpers outside of 15 feet he hit his second year? 3, maybe 4. Now anyone, as I am sure you know, that has seen basketball knows a FT and a face up game are 2 totally different things. Have you ever played? if you have, you know hitting a shot with a hand in your face is a different world then hitting FTs. FTs can be hit by anyone who has a little bit of concentration. 


Now, again, Tyson is a very good player. And yes he will be an allstar. But, he is far more replaceable then Eddy Curry. and since Curry and Chandler dont complement each other at all, and there is no evidence they will, why not capitalize on Chandler now and get a quality 3 for him? They are far harder to get. I would rather have a 4 who can knock down long jumpers. Think Mehmut Okur type for this club. But if there is no one like him, then just draft Okafor, or deal for Wilcox or Swift, or any of the other dozen athletic 4s in the NBA whose ceiling is limitless but who havent seem to make it. Indiana has one in Bender, who doesnt seem to have a position. Or Eddie Griffin if he gets out of rehab, or Nene Hilario who is not happy in Denver (Hilario is atleast as good as Tyson is, I am sorry). the point is, getting a rashard lewis level 3 is very hard then going out and dealing for a 4. And if the Bulls want to gamble some, they could just sign Rasheed Wallace this summer, who I am sure wont be well sought. Because of his face up game, he would complement Curry far greater then Tyson. unless of course tyson finds a reliable 20 foot J and a dribble drive move under skiles that his other coaches were hiding. Chandlers offense right now consists of pure garbage points. which is ok, but it makes Currys spacing not very good. It brings an extra defender towards Curry. Isnt it ironic that the best stretch in both guys careers have been when the other guy ISNT playing? How interesting is that? 

Bottom line, I love Tyson Chandler. But the problem is, you guys love the players, not the team. Hey, I loved a young Charles Oakley, but dealing him away was the right thing to do. Getting BC helped us win 3 rings. Accuse me of contradicting myself is ok, but read the facts first. I want the team to succeed, and either Curry or Chandler has to go to bring us an elite 3. Chandler is far easier to replace then Curry. Thats fairly obvious. if chandler would put on the weight, it wouldnt be so obvious. But after being told he would be heavier in his second year, he was LIGHTER THIS SUMMER THEN HIS ROOKIE YEAR. Thats going backwards. its not his fault, but he just doesnt have the muscle to play the 5 every night. Sorry. and he never will. So curry stays, Chandler goes. This is not to say he wont be a future allstar at the 4, he will, i am certain of that. But it is still best for our team, and probably tyson as well, that he be dealt. This is my opinion


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> Bottom line, I love Tyson Chandler. But the problem is, you guys love the players, not the team. Hey, I loved a young Charles Oakley, but dealing him away was the right thing to do. Getting BC helped us win 3 rings. Accuse me of contradicting myself is ok, but read the facts first. I want the team to succeed, and either Curry or Chandler has to go to bring us an elite 3. Chandler is far easier to replace then Curry. Thats fairly obvious. if chandler would put on the weight, it wouldnt be so obvious. But after being told he would be heavier in his second year, he was LIGHTER THIS SUMMER THEN HIS ROOKIE YEAR. Thats going backwards. its not his fault, but he just doesnt have the muscle to play the 5 every night. Sorry. and he never will. So curry stays, Chandler goes. This is not to say he wont be a future allstar at the 4, he will, i am certain of that. But it is still best for our team, and probably tyson as well, that he be dealt. This is my opinion


Brilliant observations, every one. Truly.

This one is one of the better ones of them all.

I agree we can deal for a 4. Heck, we can play Fizer there in a pinch and we may get a lot of mileage from him. I've pointed out how there's Jahidi White type players all over teams' rosters who could fill the 4 spot for us (the athletic types you talk about). I get what you're preaching. Halleluyah!

The reason the Rose/Marshall trade was horrible was that we gave up both our quality 3's and have none left. It was horrible because it solved nothing by itself and now requires us to deal for a 3, and from a position of weakness everywhere but the 4/5.

Peace!


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Brilliant observations, every one. Truly.
> ...



Here is another thought, just get 2 or 3 of these young athletic 4s on your roster and pay them next to nothing. Jerome Moiso and Keon Clark as a tag team would work. but frankly, AD and JYD and Fizer as a 3 headed monster at the 3 might work for a year or 2. Eventually, the Bulls would be best served getting one of these types who can shoot the ball and rebound in a pinch. Mehmut Okur is impressive, that type of player. but lets get a front line 3 first. chandler certainly would open some eyes. If he became available, even with a bad back, dont you think Dallas would deal Walker or Jamison for him in a second? Alot of teams would want to have him. thanks for the post dabullz.


----------



## Cochise (Apr 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> first off, no need to make anything personal. There is no lying and there is no contradictiing myself. I am stating an opinion. and frankly I have an answer for everything that anyone can throw at me on this
> ...



What was Tyson doing before the trade? He was never asked to contribute much on offense because the team needed him to pound down low and play 'd'. He had no calls for him because four other options were better. He's a young player who needs time and opportunities to shoot. Amare is getting those opportunites and guess what happened? Even with the help of two all-stars, Amare was still shooting badly at sub 45%. They give him opportunities because they need him to develop. Tyson is on the same level and even is better overall offense skill-wise than Amare.

Stop contradicting yourself. You mention Tyson with other athletic 4s who have a tremendous ceiling but never seem to make it. Then you say Tyson is going to be an all-star. What all-star PF has no shot from 15-20 feet? Ben Wallace? That's one in how many all-star PFs? Jermaine Oneal does more for his team than Rashard Lewis.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

I really don't understand this agreement at all.

First, if we are going to trade Chandler for a great 3, it couldn't happen until this summer at the earliest. Chandler will not have even close to his full trade value by the trade dealine. He will not have even played 2 full months at this time. 

So strike one.

Second, a championship team needs great interior D. Curry alone will not cut it. On D, Chandler is the perfect fit. Any posters that thinks these guys are a dime a dozen are flat-out wrong. If these types of guys were so easy to find, why the heck doesn't Dallas have one of these? Sorry, but Jahidi White or Danny Fortson or Marcus Fizer or Stomile Swift will not be the anwser.

Strike 2.

Third, looking at the Spurs last year, if Chandler can be effective enough to give Curry as much space as a 38-yr Robinson gave to Duncan, what's the issue? They won. And without a great 3, I might add.

Strike 3.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> I really don't understand this agreement at all.
> 
> First, if we are going to trade Chandler for a great 3, it couldn't happen until this summer at the earliest. Chandler will not have even close to his full trade value by the trade dealine. He will not have even played 2 full months at this time.
> ...


interestingly I have answers to this as well

David Robinson had a reliable 18 foot J. And he used it plenty during the Spurs 2 championship runs. Malick Rose played as much as Drob did, his range is out to 20 feet. plus, Duncan created his space for himself by hitting Js. Can you see Curry hitting Js anytime in his career soon? I cant.

Stromile Swift, for instance, had a stretch last year that was as good as anything Tyson ever had. I know Tyson is a Bull, but to say Swift is not in his league is not entirely correct, and a bit shortsighted. Keon Clark last year drew rave reviews early for the Kings playing the 4. And that was out west. Jerome Moiso had a stretch of playing well IN THE PLAYOFFS. These guys all have big upsides as well. they might not have tysons heart, but all have shown something. 

If Tyson hit the market now, a team like Dallas wouldnt under pay for him. Teams are desperate for what Tyson can add. You say his back would deter people. Did it deter NJ or Dallas from offering Mourning their full MLE for 4 years? Did it stop Chicago from pursuing Pippen agressively even though he was done? The fact is, if pax made it be known he was interested in dealing Tyson, there would be no shortage of teams looking to deal for him. his stock hasnt fallen one notch. Dallas would deal Jamison for him in a heart beat. maybe even walker. Miami would deal Butler, no questions asked. I think his back is a worry, but how often do 7-1 players come along. teams love size. always have, always will.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

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


you mention ben wallace. There is a reason that he is effective, because he plays next to 2 big guys who can open it up for him. Okur and Rebraja complement him well. Now, put wallace next to curry and guess what happens? Its called collapsing the lane. for Curry to be successful in the NBA, he is going to need space. And Chandler hasnt supplied that to him yet. again, here is a fact, tyson has had his best stretch when Eddy was riding pine. and Eddy had his best stretch when tyson was hurt last year. together as a unit, not good chemistry. sorry, but this is the facts


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Rlucus,

First, if neither Curry or Chandler have the ability to develop a 12-foot jump shot, then I am wrong. And so is Krause. And so is Paxson. Etc.

Stromile Swift is 3 years older than Chandler and is decribed by SI NBA Editor, John Hollinger, in his Pro Basketball Prospectus as making more mental errors in one game than most players make in 1 year. For more details about Hollinger, see http://www.alleyoop.com/

Jerome Moiso can't beat out our own departed Lonnie Baxter for time. 



> If Tyson hit the market now, a team like Dallas wouldnt under pay for him. Teams are desperate for what Tyson can add. You say his back would deter people. Did it deter NJ or Dallas from offering Mourning their full MLE for 4 years? Did it stop Chicago from pursuing Pippen agressively even though he was done?


For Mourning and Pippen, all these teams had to spend were money. And the alternatives were much less talented, but healthy players. A trade is completely different. Would we have given up JC to get Pippen or would NJ have given up RJeff. Nuff said. 

Lastly, are you even suggesting that Tyson should be bait for guys like Butler or Jamison?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> Rlucus,
> 
> First, if neither Curry or Chandler have the ability to develop a 12-foot jump shot, then I am wrong. And so is Krause. And so is Paxson. Etc.
> ...


he should be dealt for a front line 3. If he could put weight on, which i dont, i would deal Curry for that front line 3. 4s are the most abundant position in the NBA, 5s are not. Chandler can play the 5, if he would just put on 25 lbs. He cant seem to do it however. Jamison is a front line 3. Butler could be a front line 3, though Miami would owe us something else in a chandler for butler swap

oh any by the way, Krause was wrong, Pax might be wrong. we dealt Brand away to get someone who would "complement" Curry. That hasnt happened. and that cant be disputed. Would detroit deal us Prince and Okur for Chandler and a throw in?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> he should be dealt for a front line 3. If he could put weight on, which i dont, i would deal Curry for that front line 3. 4s are the most abundant position in the NBA, 5s are not. Chandler can play the 5, if he would just put on 25 lbs. He cant seem to do it however. Jamison is a front line 3. Butler could be a front line 3, though Miami would owe us something else in a chandler for butler swap


I am going to jump off this thread (for now) with one observation:

If Chandler is even close to being healthy for his career, saying that we should trade him for Jamison or Butler is going to look very, very bad in the very near future.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> I am going to jump off this thread (for now) with one observation:
> ...


your opinion is respected.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

correction, make chandler eat pizza everyday for the rest of the year, make him the 5, and deal Eddy Curry for the starting 3 that we need.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Did anyone watch Vlad and Lewis tonight on ESPN?

Either one of those guys would be great on the bulls. And I would take Lewis over any of our two towers.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> Did anyone watch Vlad and Lewis tonight on ESPN?
> 
> Either one of those guys would be great on the bulls. And I would take Lewis over any of our two towers.


Curry for Lewis. Done deal. add a cap player to make it work. we need to shake this mother up, and do it right now


----------



## Cochise (Apr 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> interestingly I have answers to this as well
> ...



You missed on both Robinson and Ben Wallace. Ben Wallace is only effective because of Okur and Rebraca? OMG, have you forgotten he was an all-star before anyone outside of Detroit have heard of those guys? LOL. It's called interior defense/rebounding. 

You want to know the reason why Robinson was so effective? It sure as hell wasn't his offense. How many points did Robinson average last year? Reliable 20 foot jumper my asss. It was his interior defense/rebounding that made the Spurs the dangerous team they were. Now they got Rasho who offers more offense than Robinson last year, but they'll trade that for Robinson's interior d and rebounding any damn day.

Who was the Bulls best player before the trade? Answer: at the fresh age of 21, Tyson Chandler. And he was playing hurt! Who's going to be the Bull's best player when Tyson gets back?

Tyson Chandler will be an All-Star -- your words. Now which all-star power forward will he resemble? Jermaine? Ben Wallace? I'll take either of those guys before someone like Rashard Lewis. 

Big men own this league.


----------



## Robert23 (Dec 3, 2003)

RLucas, a couple of things I think you missed with your assesment of Chandler. First off is that we don't know for sure if he can gain weight yet or not. He was eating applesauce for a portion of the summer trying to overcome the esophagus problem he had. That didn't give him the time needed to bulk up. I would imagine he spent the summer just trying to get back to where he was before he was put on a applesauce diet. Second I agree that good or even great 4's are pretty common nowadays. But how common are great 4/5's? Most 4's are too short for the 5 position. Yet Chandler can play 5 without worrying about being undersized. Even at his weight he is a better 5's than most. Last is his lack of a j. I think we all know he has one. We've seen it a couple times but not enough. His problem is he has no confidence in it. The times I've seen him make it it looked natural but the times he didn't he hesitated like he doesn't know to shoot or pass. I think that is somthing that the coach could correct with encouragement to shoot those in games. I think it would be a mistake to trade Chandler even for a three. We are definetly going to be in a position this year to get a good 3 from the draft so I wouldn't make a risky trade like this that I know we will regret in the long run.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

Just a couple of points that may be useful.

I wouldn't do a deal until the summer. No point trading Chandler yet. His value is low with his injury. I would just evaluate where the Bulls are at the end of the season.

We traded away a top 8 PF (Brand), top 5 C (Miller) and the best perimeter defender (Artest) because we were impatient. Do we what to do that again? See one of our guys blossom, and we are left with the inferior player.

Are we, as Bulls fans, more frustrated by Chandler and Curry's lack of development because of the expectations placed on them, or the fact our rebuilding campaign is in year 6 and likely will continue? I believe the expectations placed on Chandler and Curry were unfair.

Finally, questioning Chandler's and Curry ability to complement each other at this stage is really something that can't be judged because they both have not fully developed. The fact they were both clueless coming into league, and the Bulls had to develop both of them hasn't help them.


----------

