# Chandler + #2 for Marion under "serious consideration"?



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

http://journaltimes.com/nucleus/index.php?blogid=24



> he scuttlebutt among some NBA officials Thursday was that fired New York Knicks coach Larry Brown will find another coaching job next season, and that *the Bulls and Suns are giving serious thought to a trade in which Suns forward Shawn Marion would be jettisoned to the Bulls for power forward Tyson Chandler and the Bulls' top draft pick, which is the second overall choice*. ...


I don't think I'm a fan of this. I like Marion a lot, but I don't think he puts us over the hump. And given that we're giving up a lot to get him (the #2 pick, Chandler, and $6M or so in cap space), I think it's probably too much to give up to not really put us in the upper tier of things. 

I don't know which guy at #2 is the right guy, but I think someone likely can be picked there who will be a star within a couple years. And Chandler and the cap space have some value as well.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

Pass.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Recently, it was reported Phoenix was trying to move up to nab Morrison but they said in Insider that they would want Thomas.

I don't like the trade...at all


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Its not like I have a huge love for Chandler right now, but without him OR the #2 pick, that leaves us even more shorthanded in the front line, with only the #16 pick and whatever FAs we can attract to make up the difference.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

Paxson should be hung if he does that trade.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Geez you would think Shawn Marion suddenly turned into Dalibor Bagaric! Marion has immense game and a deal like this you have to STRONGLY consider. We would still have enough cap space to sign a big and we would have options at 16 too. I am a Chandler fan but Marion is a elite player.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> Geez you would think Shawn Marion suddenly turned into Dalibor Bagaric! Marion has immense game and a deal like this you have to STRONGLY consider. We would still have enough cap space to sign a big and we would have options at 16 too. I am a Chandler fan but Marion is a elite player.


I mean I agree

But from what Pax was saying in that interfiew, one of these big FA's aren't promised.

G Hinrich
G Gordon
F Deng / Nocioni
F Marion

It's a real nice core, I won't lie. I'd just feel like we were helping the Suns future TOO much.

BUT at at the same time, you get a 20 & 10 player who'd be another extremely solid piece to our run.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

The ROY said:


> I mean I agree
> 
> But from what Pax was saying in that interfiew, one of these big FA's aren't promised.
> 
> ...


Nothing is guranteed. I think Chandler will probably have a real nice season next season, but what if he doesn't? I think it is pretty safe to think we can land one of: Ben Wallace, Pryz, Mohammed, Nene, hell even Lorenzen Wright, Jackie Butler, Vujic. And who knows who will be at 16? Maybe O'bryant slips and is better than expected? Or Cedric Simmons, or maybe Sene drops and isn't as much of a project as expected? I am just saying there ARE options to fill the holes if we do this trade. Sure, it would be ideal if Ben Wallace signed but there are directions we can go and don't forget we have what will likely be a high draft pick in a big deep draft next year.

Hinrich
Gordon
Deng/Noc
Marion
Wallace (or one of the others..)

Thats pretty damn good.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

So....we have size problems....and the issue is to get smaller?

Edit: After stepping away from the laced Kool-Aid, I am unsure. Hanging might not be in order. Clearly, I need a beer or two before I begin thinking too hard....


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

rumors like the chandler/marion rumors are not grounded in logic. while marion is a great player, acquiring him would represent a major shift change in management's thinking on how this team is constructed. also, while chandler is no great shakes, moving him without a center in return is completly illogical, exacerbated by the notion that by giving up the #2, the team removes the possiblity of drafting a replacement. as well, acquiring marion's salary doesn't leave $$ to make a serious run at even a respectable replacement. i could be wrong re: salary, cause i don't know what shawn makes, but it's major coin at the least. THEN, and finally you have 3 players that essentially play the same position, whether cast as 3 or 4's they all bring the same thing to the table only to lesser or greater degrees.

like it or not, the GS rumor makes a little more sense with respect to the players involved; this one lacks all reasoning to be even remotely feasible.

paxson has at least to me displayed an understanding of what it takes to put a balanced team together, and while the bull is definitely still under construction, adding marion would mean he's totally changed his thinking, which at this point is next to impossible (imo) with that rumor as constructed.

goat droppings.....


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> Nothing is guranteed. I think Chandler will probably have a real nice season next season, but what if he doesn't? I think it is pretty safe to think we can land one of: Ben Wallace, Pryz, Mohammed, Nene, hell even Lorenzen Wright, Jackie Butler, Vujic. And who knows who will be at 16? Maybe O'bryant slips and is better than expected? Or Cedric Simmons, or maybe Sene drops and isn't as much of a project as expected? I am just saying there ARE options to fill the holes if we do this trade. Sure, it would be ideal if Ben Wallace signed but there are directions we can go and don't forget we have what will likely be a high draft pick in a big deep draft next year.
> 
> Hinrich
> Gordon
> ...


I agree....If that trade goes down...I expect Paxson to throw more than enough to Nene or possibly Ben Wallace....who's the rich man version of Chandler anyway


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Vintage said:


> So....we have size problems....and the issue is to get smaller?



We do have size issues but there are other ways to address those issues than with Chandler and the draft pick. And "getting smaller" isn't necessarily a bad thing when you add a huge talent upgrade like Marion. You could always do the deal and then work to fill team needs in other ways, either via trade, free agency, the #16 pick in the draft. Maybe we get a later pick from the suns, package it with 16 and move up for a guy like O'bryant. I think, even though the Bulls clearly need size, you can't get locked into tunnell vision and miss the big picture.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

So..so far we have

Chandler + #2 for Marion
Chandler + #16 for Murphy, Pietrus & #9
Chandler + #2 for Odom (or was it #2 + #16?)


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> We do have size issues but there are other ways to address those issues than with Chandler and the draft pick. And "getting smaller" isn't necessarily a bad thing when you add a huge talent upgrade like Marion. You could always do the deal and then work to fill team needs in other ways, either via trade, free agency, the #16 pick in the draft. Maybe we get a later pick from the suns, package it with 16 and move up for a guy like O'bryant. I think, even though the Bulls clearly need size, you can't get locked into tunnell vision and miss the big picture.



True. Marion is 6'7" but often guards PF's. Deng is probably 6'9" and has loooooong arms... And he has solid defense.

Maybe we wouldn't be hurting.... but what we'd lack, is the shotblocking presence in the middle.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

The ROY said:


> So..so far we have
> 
> Chandler + #2 for Marion
> Chandler + #16 for Murphy, Pietrus & #9
> Chandler + #2 for Odom (or was it #2 + #16?)



it was #2 & #16 for Odom, they don't want Chandler as they would be making this move to dump salary.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Vintage said:


> True. Marion is 6'7" but often guards PF's. Deng is probably 6'9" and has loooooong arms... And he has solid defense.
> 
> Maybe we wouldn't be hurting.... but what we'd lack, is the shotblocking presence in the middle.


Wallace or Pryz would address that don't you think?


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> Wallace or Pryz would address that don't you think?


Wallace wants out of Detroit?

I haven't really been paying much attention to basketball lately.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Wallace wants out of Detroit?


He's a FA and didn't end the season on the best of terms possible.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

I might be willing to trade Chandler and 16 for Marion, but I'd pass on Chandler and the 2.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Vintage said:


> Wallace wants out of Detroit?
> 
> I haven't really been paying much attention to basketball lately.



He hasn't been too happy in Detroit and he would be a perfect fit in Chicago, especially with Marion next to him in the frontcourt.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> I might be willing to trade Chandler and 16 for Marion, but I'd pass on Chandler and the 2.



Well, if you could pull off Chandler and 16 for Marion you might go down as the best GM in the history of the league.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> Wallace or Pryz would address that don't you think?


IF we can sign Wallace and at least one other FA big -- Nene, Pryz, etc., that would more than address my concerns.

I still consider Wallace leaving Detroit for Chicago to be a long shot, at best.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

step said:


> He's a FA and didn't end the season on the best of terms possible.



...which doesn't necessarily mean he wants out.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

I think this trade might happen

Over a week ago they were saying that even if Thomas were selected by us, he'd possibly be moved in a deal which has already been discussed and his agents know about it.

Phoenix becomes MORE scary though, you lose Marion but now have Stoudamire, Diaw, Thomas & Chandler? That hurts to think about, especially when Thomas could POSSSSSSSIBLY be a similar player to Marion or even Stoudamire down the line.

The more I think about it, the more I don't like it.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

I'm ambivalent. Marion got exposed a little bit in the playoffs, imo, and he doesn't do very well when he's asked to locate his own shot. So to maximize his effectiveness, we'd have to go high up-tempo like the Suns do. We have the personnel to do that, but in the long haul, I'm not sure it's the right tack to take if you want to go far in the playoffs.

The other problem is that some of the possible replacements for Chandler -- Przybilla, Nazr, O'Bryant -- don't strike me as good transition players. Nene or Wallace might work, but I really hate to have a rebuilding plan hinge on landing a restricted FA whose current team seems to want him, or a 32-year-old who is going to cost damn near $15 million a season.

I would do #2 and Deng/Nocioni for Marion in a heartbeat, however.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> I would do #2 and Deng/Nocioni for Marion in a heartbeat, however.



WHY? That's an even WORSE deal IMO


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> IF we can sign Wallace and at least one other FA big -- Nene, Pryz, etc., that would more than address my concerns.
> 
> I still consider Wallace leaving Detroit for Chicago to be a long shot, at best.



Well, we couldn't sign another big unless we shipped Sweetney and or Duhon off to Phx also. Just sending Chandler would leave us with around 13 mil roughly to use, which would probably ALL go to Wallace. If we shipped both Duhon & Sweetney to Phx as well we would have abouty an addittional 6mil to use. 

I actually consider Wallace leaving Detroit and coming to the Bulls as a likeliehood, assuming we express strong interest, it was pretty clear that Wallace doesn't get along as well with Flip as he did with Brown.

oh and btw:

Marion: 21.8ppg, 11.8rpg, 1.8apg, +28.85 eff. I think a lot of people are forgetting just how good this guy is. I know every year Marion leads all the fantasy leagues as the best overall guy.

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/shawn_marion/index.html


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I would do #2 and Deng/Nocioni for Marion in a heartbeat, however.


I am assuming "Deng/Nocioni" means one or the other, and not both.

If so, I have to agree, I would do that deal.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

You buy low, sell high.


Selling low on Chandler right now and buying high on Marion is a bad idea... bad enough to cost us the #2 pick in the draft. In two or three years when our core is ready to make a serious title run the gap between Chandler and Marion will not equate to the value we'd be losing in a guy like Aldridge or Tyrus Thomas.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> Well, if you could pull off Chandler and 16 for Marion you might go down as the best GM in the history of the league.


I'd be right there next to Elgin with his #2/Skinner for Brand - although he'd still win. :biggrin:


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

My only question is...

Is he putting up THOSE numbers without Steven Nash?


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

marion is easily the best player in this deal. That being said, I'm not sure I'd do this one. I'm trying to understand the logic of making this kind of deal from either side of the table. For the Bulls, we lose what little size we had and don't leave much wiggle room to acquire any more. We'd still be small in the backcourt also. As much as I've ragged on Chandler in that other thread, he still does have value and that value is his size, rebounding and interior defense. He's the only guy on the whole club who provides those things. If you're gonna get rid of him, you'd better have some method of replacing what he provides and this deal really doesn't do that.

My understanding from the Suns side of things is they want to move Marion to save money in order to be able to sign Barbosa, Diaw and possibly Tim Thomas and with Nash, Amare and Marion all making very nice salaries they can't make it work and stay within their financial parameters. I don't see how a deal like this helps the Suns out from a cash standpoint. From a personnel standpoint, this is a nice deal for the Suns. Chandler gives them a rebounder and inside presence. The #2 pick gives them yet another player for Nash to make look like a superstar. Simply put, the Suns can't afford to keep Marion and also retain Barbosa, Diaw and Thomas. This deal doesn't help them out at all. 

Now, I could see Marion for the #2 pick (done after June 30 for cap purposes) or even Marion and #21 for the #2. This is primarily done by Pheonix to save money by swapping Marion for the #2 (I'm guessing it would be Thomas). Throw in the #21 as additional savings for Pheonix.

There's now way I'd do the oiginally proposed deal. I'd rather have Chandler and Aldridge/Thomas/Bargnani over just Marion. I would swap Marion for the #2 pick though. I'd also try to finagle the #21 pick from them.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

The ROY said:


> WHY? That's an even WORSE deal IMO


It would resolve the Deng/Nocioni duplication, which imo is a long-term problem even without bringing another quality SF/PF hybrid into the mix. I am resigned to the fact that we are not going to pay both Deng and Nocioni $50-60 million extensions.

I don't like a lineup that features Deng/Nocioni/Marion. At least one guy would be badly out of position.

And I don't underrate Chandler's impact on our team defense. We'd be a middle-of-the-pack FG% team without him, and I don't know that whatever offense Marion brings to the table would sufficiently offset that slip.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

The ROY said:


> My only question is...
> 
> Is he putting up THOSE numbers without Steven Nash?



go to his player profile and look at his stats. He was putting up very respectable numbers without Nash. Not quite where he is with Nash but Hinrich is a pretty good pg himself.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

fl_flash said:


> marion is easily the best player in this deal. That being said, I'm not sure I'd do this one. I'm trying to understand the logic of making this kind of deal from either side of the table. For the Bulls, we lose what little size we had and don't leave much wiggle room to acquire any more. We'd still be small in the backcourt also. As much as I've ragged on Chandler in that other thread, he still does have value and that value is his size, rebounding and interior defense. He's the only guy on the whole club who provides those things. If you're gonna get rid of him, you'd better have some method of replacing what he provides and this deal really doesn't do that.
> 
> My understanding from the Suns side of things is they want to move Marion to save money in order to be able to sign Barbosa, Diaw and possibly Tim Thomas and with Nash, Amare and Marion all making very nice salaries they can't make it work and stay within their financial parameters. I don't see how a deal like this helps the Suns out from a cash standpoint. From a personnel standpoint, this is a nice deal for the Suns. Chandler gives them a rebounder and inside presence. The #2 pick gives them yet another player for Nash to make look like a superstar. Simply put, the Suns can't afford to keep Marion and also retain Barbosa, Diaw and Thomas. This deal doesn't help them out at all.
> 
> ...


If we're not giving them Chandler, who I still put a high value on, I'm guessing we'd at least have to give them the #2 and the #16 with no additional pick coming back in return. In offering Chandler and #16, I was keeping the #2 to draft Chandler's replacement whether it's Thomas or Aldridge.


----------



## BULLS23 (Apr 13, 2003)

I'm not a fan of this deal . . . Nothing against Marion, but I'm not sure he's a fit here. I know that everybody rails on about how we can address our size deficit thorugh FA but I'd just hate to rely on that uncontrollable element. Ben Wallace ain't leaving Detroit at this point, it just wouldn't make any sense. Though I think we should target Nene, everything I've seen and heard is pointing to Denver making a good push to keep him. That leaves Pryzbilla, Nazr, and Wright all of whom I'd be OK with but would much rather have Aldridge and Sene/O'Bryant than any of those guys. I agree with the earlier poster who thinks that Marion wouldn't quite fit with us due to his lack of being able to create his own shot consistently.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Marion's value is at an all-time high.

Chandler's is at an all-time low.

While I would love Marion on this team, even if it means playing him at PF, giving up Chandler and the #2 is pushing it. I'd rather swing for the fences with the #2 and hope that Chandler reverts to his 04-05 self. We're more likely to become a championship contender that way. 

The cap space isn't a deal breaker for me. Chandler's $8M + the $4M from the #2 pick = $12M. Marion makes $14M. So we lose about $2M in cap room, correct?

Not a terrible deal from our end because Marion's a stud, but I'm leaning toward keeping the #2 and letting Chandler find his way back to productivity.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Bulls would have Cap problem in 2008.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Ballscientist said:


> Bulls would have Cap problem in 2008.



they would? DO they really expect to build a championship team while staying under the cap? If so they might as well shut the franchise down.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Have Bulls fans become a little gunshy now about dumping big men after last season’s regression?

Heck, Chandler was pretty much a stiff last year and we'd be getting one of the better players in the league back in return.

Best case, TT is compared to Shawn Marion by many draft gurus.

But yah, one twin tower disappearing was bad enough. Both? Kind of scary going forward... even with Shawn Marion being who is coming in return.

If we could put together a Gordon/Deng/16/filler for close to all-star big man and slightly higher pick deal I'd make the Marion deal. Keep the Cap Space at a level to get 2 from NeNe/Przy/Gooden. Frees up the Deng/Noc logjam ( i think deng has more trade value) and gives us a great player in Marion. Go big guard with the slightly higher pick. Or keep the pick and pray Brewer slides. We'll still have the Knicks swap next year to take a flier on a big, assuming the Knicks don't rebound.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

In the new INSIDER

Arn Tellem says Aldridge & Roy didn't work out for the Bobcats because he KNOWS where they're going.

Could they have gotten promises from Chicago & Toronto? Will we draft Roy and ship him to L.A.?


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> If we're not giving them Chandler, who I still put a high value on, I'm guessing we'd at least have to give them the #2 and the #16 with no additional pick coming back in return. In offering Chandler and #16, I was keeping the #2 to draft Chandler's replacement whether it's Thomas or Aldridge.


Why give them more? The Suns want to move Marion in order to keep Diaw, Barbosa and maybe Tim Thomas. In getting the #2 pick, they'd take a guy they really want to replace him (to an extent). To me that seems pretty apparent. If that's the case, why help them out? They're the ones who want to move Marion. The Bulls aren't the ones asking for Marion. For me, offering the #2 pick is sufficient. No need to give up the #16 also or any players. I'd ask for their #21 in addition knowing that they're trying to save a little cash because they're going to need it. I wouldn't give the Suns what they want. I'd tell them what they can have. If they don't like it, walk away. Eventually, their desire to move Marion to keep the above players will, let's say, lessen their resolve and they'd come back to the table to deal.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

ace20004u said:


> they would? DO they really expect to build a championship team while staying under the cap? If so they might as well shut the franchise down.


Agreed. Cap room is only important for adding players, not keeping players.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Have Bulls fans become a little gunshy now about dumping big men after last season’s regression?
> 
> Heck, Chandler was pretty much a stiff last year and we'd be getting one of the better players in the league back in return.


Am I gunshy about the possibility of having Sweetney be the best big man on our roster, since the FA market remains uncertain? 

Yoooouuuu Betcha!

Even with the #16 and the FA market to look forward to, we need a _number_ of big bodies. 

Tyson is a 7 footer, and I believe he'll be back to the "Good Tyson" this season. Its not like I count on Tyson to be The Guy, but this team can't afford to get any smaller, that's for sure.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Am I gunshy about the possibility of having Sweetney be the best big man on our roster, since the FA market remains uncertain?


The problem is we're not using "Sweets" correctly. We've got to put the ball in his hands more often and let him create and distribute.










I also hear he's "off bread" and is looking sleek and feeling vigorous.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

this Marion talk scares me. Paxson always talks about having a long term vision for the team. If he trades for Marion I will seriously reevaluate me faith in him as a GM.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

O man, I feel sorry for Chandler if this trade goes down. Amare's gonna kick his *** seven times a week and by midseason Chandler will be nothing more than a shell of a man. 

Those two guys DO NOT like each other.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

The ROY said:


> In the new INSIDER
> 
> Arn Tellem says Aldridge & Roy didn't work out for the Bobcats because he KNOWS where they're going.
> 
> Could they have gotten promises from Chicago & Toronto? Will we draft Roy and ship him to L.A.?


Maybe, but it could also mean one of them has a promise from a team outside the top 3, like maybe Minnesota #6, and they wouldn't mind playing with KG? I'd be very surprised if Toronto takes Aldridge. I'd be more surprised if we traded #2 for Odom.

As far as this Marion trade goes... I think Phoenix would be the big winners in this deal. A Tyson/Amare/Tyrus frontcourt would be scary. Tyson would average a double double with that team too, bank on it.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> The problem is we're not using "Sweets" correctly. We've got to put the ball in his hands more often and let him create and distribute.
> 
> http://www.bestsportsphotos.com/image.php?productid=16847
> 
> I also hear he's "off bread" and is looking sleek and feeling vigorous.


While I'm not one to believe in torturing ones self over a game, I heard it was more about his new exercise equipment than it was his diet.










and I certainly can't argue with the results.










Maybe this explains why Chandler is expendable in all these trade talks.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

SALO said:


> Maybe, but it could also mean one of them has a promise from a team outside the top 3, like maybe Minnesota #6, and they wouldn't mind playing with KG? I'd be very surprised if Toronto takes Aldridge. I'd be more surprised if we traded #2 for Odom.
> 
> As far as this Marion trade goes... I think Phoenix would be the big winners in this deal. A Tyson/Amare/Tyrus frontcourt would be scary. Tyson would average a double double with that team too, bank on it.


Don't forget DIAW....no way he isn't starting

Oh yeah, you're right...definintely doesn't mean they have a promise in the top 2 now that I think about it.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I cannot comprehend how trading Chandler and the pick (which I'm hoping would be a size player) to get another small forward is a good idea for Chicago. 

Point of fact, its a damn horrible idea and I'll be outraged if it happens. Marion is a terrific small forward. Undoubtedly one of the best in the NBA. But he is yet another complimentary player to be theoretically added to a team that already has small forward as its deepest and most talented position.

And if you are going to argue that Marion would play the 4 in Chicago, save your time. I'll be ignoring your argument. 

If this were to happen, I'd be waiting for the other shoe to drop with Noc or Deng being shipped in another package to get bigger.

Yuk. I absolutely hate it.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

This trade only works if we get Sene at 16.

Then we'd have:

PG-Kirk Hirnich/Chris Duhon
SG-Ben Gordon/
SF-Andres Nocioni/Luol Deng
PF-Shawn Marion
C- Saer Sene

but Paxson seems like he's keeping the picks, except I could see him trading up from 16 to leapfrog the Jazz and take Sene. Or maybe he takes Reddick to be our big guard at 16. Since it seems that Reddick/Sene are going to be avaialble unless Utah picks one of them. However, if Sene and Reddick go higher that just means someone like O'Bryant or Brewer starts there tumble down to 16.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

I'd be a fan of this trade if Marion was brought in as a PF and we committed to an up-tempo style of play. As far as getting his own shot, Marion is only slightly better than Deng and Nocioni.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Marion's value is at an all-time high.
> 
> Chandler's is at an all-time low.
> 
> ...


Good point, I hadn't included the rookie salary.

I dunno.

How do we feel, for example, about Marion vs. Odom? I think Marion's clearly the more accomplished player at this point, but he's not as good a fit in terms of skills.
The way I'd look at it:

Odom vs. Marion
----------------
Skills vs. Head
Potential vs. Production
Size vs. Heart

We get a couple million more to play with in free agency with Odom too. Obviously we don't know which options are actually available, but it's an interesting question to me

Odom
Chandler, Thomas/Aldridge/Roy
Marion


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Ron Cey said:


> I cannot comprehend how trading Chandler and the pick (which I'm hoping would be a size player) to get another small forward is a good idea for Chicago.
> 
> Point of fact, its a damn horrible idea and I'll be outraged if it happens. Marion is a terrific small forward. Undoubtedly one of the best in the NBA. But he is yet another complimentary player to be theoretically added to a team that already has small forward as its deepest and most talented position.


Actually, Marion has not played any small forward in either of the last 2 season. He's been super effective as an undersized PF. The Bulls need "size" but I take that to mean we need players who can produce from the PF/C spots. So while Marion doesn't have the prototypical size for the PF spot, he's still really good playing that position.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Frankensteiner said:


> Actually, Marion has not played any small forward in either of the last 2 season. He's been super effective as an undersized PF. The Bulls need "size" but I take that to mean we need players who can produce from the PF/C spots. So while Marion doesn't have the prototypical size for the PF spot, he's still really good playing that position.


I disagree. Marion hasn't played small forward because he's on a 1 in 30 gimmick team that essentially has no offensive or defensive half court sets. 

Skiles, on the other hand, has very specific half court offensive and defensive half court sets. He's a great fit at small forward on the Bulls. He's a horrible fit as a power forward. 

Okay, I said I'd ignore the argument and I didn't. Who was I kidding anyway? :biggrin:


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

My thought:

Chandler/#2 for Marion and 2 protected first rounders from Hawks.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Did I miss this being discussed in this thread:

When you try to put a Chandler for Marion trade through on ESPN Trade Checker, it says the trade doesn't work because the Bulls are over the cap. What is the date of the switchover between 05/06 salaries and 06/07 salaries? To do this trade, would we have to draft Thomas and hold him for a few days? That would be awkward.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Ballscientist said:


> My thought:
> 
> Chandler/#2 for Marion and 2 protected first rounders from Hawks.


lol that Hawks pick has almost no protection and will probably be a #4-7 pick next season which should be worth more than this years #1 pick.

Chandler's contract really is pretty bad so I am not sure I like THIS version of the trade as the Suns get clearly the lesser and more overpaid player with a smaller but longer contract.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> Odom
> Chandler, Thomas/Aldridge/Roy
> Marion


Marion would be far and away my third choice of those options.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Dornado said:


> You buy low, sell high.
> 
> 
> Selling low on Chandler right now and buying high on Marion is a bad idea... bad enough to cost us the #2 pick in the draft. In two or three years when our core is ready to make a serious title run the gap between Chandler and Marion will not equate to the value we'd be losing in a guy like Aldridge or Tyrus Thomas.


this is something i agree with , right now this deal is very fair.

but I am going to go out on a limb and say tyson will avg. more than 3 shots a game next season if he were a sun and make this deal look bad ...very bad.


----------



## taurus515th (Oct 13, 2005)

if it was just the #2 pick i would do that trade but like someone said we will lack size in the frountcourt if we trade Chandler with the pick. 

NO.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Ron Cey said:


> I disagree. Marion hasn't played small forward because he's on a 1 in 30 gimmick team that essentially has no offensive or defensive half court sets.
> 
> Skiles, on the other hand, has very specific half court offensive and defensive half court sets. He's a great fit at small forward on the Bulls. He's a horrible fit as a power forward.
> 
> Okay, I said I'd ignore the argument and I didn't. Who was I kidding anyway? :biggrin:


I don't see where Marion's skillset is all that different from Nocioni's (although Marion is more athletic, which is important). Noc has played a ton of PF alongside Deng (or even the 3 guards) so I'm not sure why Marion wouldn't be able to do the same in our offense. I do think, though, that our style of play would have to be modified.

Also, calling Phoenix a gimmick team is a bit much. A gimmick team is one that is successful through smoke and mirrors but is eventually exposed by stronger opponents. Reaching the Western Conference Finals two years in a row would seem to validate the Suns.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

I'd think that they would love to have JJ Redick with the pick they have at the moment. He would flourish in that type of system, so they would essentially be getting a player that will do very well with a low draft pick, and a low contract deal. I don't like this trade for the SUNS. Basically what they're doing is trading Marion for Tyson Chandler and Adam Morrison. That is not a good trade in my eyes for them.

They would be much better off drafting JJ and keeping Marion.


----------



## taurus515th (Oct 13, 2005)

do u think Phoenix would do it if we gave them both the #2 and #16 picks instead of Chandler?


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

So they can draft Thomas and Sene and be set for the next 8 years? **** no

C FA / Sene
F Marion / FA
F Deng / Nocioni
G Gordon
G Hinrich / Duhon

I'd say we'd be pretty set personally. Land Wilcox/Nene & someone like Mohammed or Pryz


----------



## atlbull (Feb 27, 2004)

Is Marion ok with playing fulltime PF? Like many have said in this thread, Phx can get away with having a smaller lineup because they try to outscore everyone so they need quick guys but like many have mentioned, we play a much slower game so he would have to actually defend his man. Do you think he'll be ok or last full season actually having to guard bigger & stronger opponents?


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Again, from me it's a resounding HELL NO to this trade scenario. I only read the first page of posts here just so you know. Marion has one hell of an ugly shot, is WAY too small to play PF unless it's a run and gun team like the Suns, and is just not what we need. I'd rather have a 7'1 shot blocking PF like Chandler than give up our only decent player with size (yes Chandler is decent due to his shot blocking and rebounding) than an undersized PF who wouldn't fit into our style of play anyway. It wouldn't be as bad if we could keep the #2, so we could take Aldridge or Bargnani or someone else with loads of potential, but to give up that player AND Chandler for Marion is asinine. As much as I love Pax, the guy who wanted to hang him isn't too far off base if that happens. We'd be absolute sh*t as far as size goes, and we're already pretty good at the forward positions. I would have to wait for the end of the season before I called for Pax's head of course, cause maybe they'd make all the right FA moves to make it a good transaction, but I don't see any way that this could possibly benefit us at all.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Again, from me it's a resounding HELL NO to this trade scenario. I only read the first page of posts here just so you know. Marion has one hell of an ugly shot, is WAY too small to play PF unless it's a run and gun team like the Suns, and is just not what we need. I'd rather have a 7'1 shot blocking PF like Chandler than give up our only decent player with size (yes Chandler is decent due to his shot blocking and rebounding) than an undersized PF who wouldn't fit into our style of play anyway. It wouldn't be as bad if we could keep the #2, so we could take Aldridge or Bargnani or someone else with loads of potential, but to give up that player AND Chandler for Marion is asinine. As much as I love Pax, the guy who wanted to hang him isn't too far off base if that happens. We'd be absolute sh*t as far as size goes, and we're already pretty good at the forward positions. I would have to wait for the end of the season before I called for Pax's head of course, cause maybe they'd make all the right FA moves to make it a good transaction, but I don't see any way that this could possibly benefit us at all.


yeah bringing in a talented perrennial all star usually calls for a lynching of your gm. :raised_ey


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

The problem that I have with this trade is that at the peak our team would turn into is this year's Suns. Pass.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> yeah bringing in a talented perrennial all star usually calls for a lynching of your gm. :raised_ey


2nd pick and Chandler for Kidd. Should Paxson be lynched if he did that. I think so, despite Kidd being "a talented perrennial all star."


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> The problem that I have with this trade is that at the peak our team would turn into is this year's Suns. Pass.


At the peak of our team as is, is still a first round eliminated team.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

If we could get the right guy with the #16 pick and have a successful run at couple FA's...

This deal wouldn't be so bad..

pax said it would be nice to have a 20 & 10 guy to depend on....

We would be the smallest team in basketball thouogh, that's the problem...


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> 2nd pick and Chandler for Kidd. Should Paxson be lynched if he did that. I think so, despite Kidd being "a talented perrennial all star."



Well of course it depends on the all star but Marion is a guy who has been a statistical league leader for years, is better than Kidd by far, is younger than Kidd...ahhh..the heck with it I give up. Why anyone would want Marion's versatile, scoring, rebounding, defending all star behind in Chicago is beyond me. Lets keep Chandler and cross our fingers that he plays well next year (I think he will but Marion is STILL gonna be worlds better) and draft Thomas with the #2 and hope he is as good as advertised.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

This trade would be great for Chandler. Playing with Nash, Diaw and Stoudemire would straightend his game big time.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

ace20004u said:


> Well of course it depends on the all star but Marion is a guy who has been a statistical league leader for years, is better than Kidd by far, is younger than Kidd...ahhh..the heck with it I give up. Why anyone would want Marion's versatile, scoring, rebounding, defending all star behind in Chicago is beyond me. Lets keep Chandler and cross our fingers that he plays well next year (I think he will but Marion is STILL gonna be worlds better) and draft Thomas with the #2 and hope he is as good as advertised.


IF John Paxson is dead set on drafting Tyrus Thomas, then Iam all for the trade. Tyrus will not ever come close to Marions production and trading away Tyson Chandler for Marion is a steal. IMO Rudy Gay and Adam Morrison are the only true special talents in this draft and if Pax is not interested then Go with the Marion trade if in fact its even on the table.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> I cannot comprehend how trading Chandler and the pick (which I'm hoping would be a size player) to get another small forward is a good idea for Chicago.
> 
> Point of fact, its a damn horrible idea and I'll be outraged if it happens. Marion is a terrific small forward. Undoubtedly one of the best in the NBA. But he is yet another complimentary player to be theoretically added to a team that already has small forward as its deepest and most talented position.
> 
> ...


I agree. I don't like it. Marion is a really nice player who works as a 4 in Phoenix's system, which involves a ton of running and guarding nobody. Anybody see those Clippers/Suns playoff games? Brand shot 18 for 22 in one of them. Decent 4 and 5's did whatever they wanted against Marion and the Suns all year long.

While he's a great player I also have questions about Marion's attitude and ability to perform in big games. He really didn't show up to a bunch of the Suns playoff games this year. There's also a constant low level rumbling in Phoenix that he's the source of locker room friction because he believes he doesn't get enough credit, and that Nash and Stoudamire get too much. I'm passing on this one, I hope Pax does too.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

thebizkit69u said:


> IF John Paxson is dead set on drafting Tyrus Thomas, then Iam all for the trade. Tyrus will not ever come close to Marions production and trading away Tyson Chandler for Marion is a steal. IMO Rudy Gay and Adam Morrison are the only true special talents in this draft and if Pax is not interested then Go with the Marion trade if in fact its even on the table.


Why do you say things like that?

You really don't KNOW what he'll do...It's like he's a failure in your eyes and he hasn't even played a game....

I remember the world thinking Josh Smith is gonna be a bust and dude is on the verge of being a MAJOR player in the NBA...

I'd rather have a 6"8 player with the wingpan of a 7footer and a 7 FOOTER than a 6"7 sf....although marion is SICK


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

The ROY said:


> We would *[still]* be the smallest team in basketball thouogh, that's the problem...


 :biggrin:


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

ace20004u said:


> yeah bringing in a talented perrennial all star usually calls for a lynching of your gm. :raised_ey


Well, when you give up our ONE big guy, while EVERYONE is claiming we need to get bigger and draft bigs, and get bigs in FA etc etc, it's pretty damn retarded. Marion is only good if in the right system, which Phoenix is for him. He's a run and gun type player, and we're not a run and gun team. If you know anything about basketball you know that if you try and make a player play the wrong style of ball they can be crap even though in the right system they're an all star. I really don't think he'd be half as good with us as he is with the Suns, so he wouldn't be an all star caliber player anymore. Meanwhile, you give up the #2 pick overall in the draft, who could turn out to be a better player than he is, especially in our system, plus Chandler, plus cap room. Just dumb any which way you look at it. Now IF he actually filled a NEED, and FIT OUR TEAM, I'd be all for it. Stoudamire (if healthy) would be worth that trade for sure. But a runt-sized PF made for the run and gun has no place on this team. Hell he's a PF who is smaller than a lot of the SGs and even a PG or 2.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

The ROY said:


> Why do you say things like that?
> 
> You really don't KNOW what he'll do...It's like he's a failure in your eyes and he hasn't even played a game....
> 
> ...


Dude, Tyrus Thomas DOES not have a possition.
Tyrus Thomas wants to play SF and is Barely 6'8
Tyrus Thomas is 2-3 years away from developing any kind of offensive game, Marion is a set thing.
Tyrus Thomas has not even given the Bulls a full balls out workout in 2 visits!
Marion is a legit allstar who can help the Bulls right away, Marion would be the leading scorer and leading rebounder how can you say no to that?


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

I'm pretty sure the Suns will do everything in their power to make this trade happen.

They wanna extend Diaw, who's as versitile, longer and is more CLUTCH than Marion.

He's expendable to them and I see why.

G Nash / #21 pick
G Bell / Barbosa
F Diaw / Tyrus Thomas
F Stoudamire / Tim Thomas
C Chandler / Kurt Thomas


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I think I am just frustrated at so many people poo pooing this idea. I don't even know if I would actually pull the trigger or not but it definitley bears some consideration. I don't buy all this hooey about how he wouldn't fit in our system, heck during the playoffs the announcers called the Bulls "suns east" because we ran so much...difference of course is we play defense better and Marion is, by all accouts, a good defender. You can come up with a lot of reasons, it will leave us thin on bigs, the draft could produce a player better than Marion, Marion doesn't fit in our system. But you can give answers to all those things too. A big can be had in FA or at 16, trading Chandlers salary for Marions salary also allows us some flexibility in signing a big. The player in teh draft could also be Joe Smith like in his impact. Marion hasn't PLAYED in our system and our system isn't exactly rocket science. 

Anyway, I don't see any reason in the world that people wouldn't strongly consider this deal. Marion has sort of moved into the background on a deep PHX team but he is clearly one of their better players. Heck, a deal like this a few years ago people probably would have jumped all over it.


----------



## StackAttack (Mar 15, 2006)

...If you hypothetically pick up Ben Wallace this off season and make this trade...wow, what a team...

Hinrich
Marion
Deng
Gordon
Wallace

Jeez...And you STILL have a 1st round pick, which with a draft as weak as this one you're just as likely to get a future star with pick #30 as you are with pick #1...


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

thebizkit69u said:


> Dude, Tyrus Thomas DOES not have a possition.
> Tyrus Thomas wants to play SF and is Barely 6'8
> Tyrus Thomas is 2-3 years away from developing any kind of offensive game, Marion is a set thing.
> Tyrus Thomas has not even given the Bulls a full balls out workout in 2 visits!
> Marion is a legit allstar who can help the Bulls right away, Marion would be the leading scorer and leading rebounder how can you say no to that?


I can say no for a number of reasons

He's not a PF
He only played PF because of the system the Suns run
He'd make us even SMALLER

You don't know how many years away he is from developing an offensive...We've never seen him as an option ON offensse....Nobody who worked him out said his offense was horrid....

This isn't even about Thomas, it's about losing two assets for a player that may or may not fit in YOUR system...and who's very undersized for the positions we need to fill


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

1337 said:


> ...If you hypothetically pick up Ben Wallace this off season and make this trade...wow, what a team...
> 
> Hinrich
> Marion
> ...


and we'd still be the smallest team in the NBA


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

You might as well call Paxson the ZEKE of this trade...Cause he'd definintely be making Phoenix even better than they already are...


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

The ROY said:


> I'm pretty sure the Suns will do everything in their power to make this trade happen.
> 
> They wanna extend Diaw, who's as versitile, longer and is more CLUTCH than Marion.
> 
> ...


I think so too. Robert Sarver doesn't seem interested in approaching the luxury tax, and Marion was the Suns' third best player in the playoffs. If he's got a problem with Nash, imagine the friction that'll come when Diaw's role expands even more.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> I think I am just frustrated at so many people poo pooing this idea. I don't even know if I would actually pull the trigger or not but it definitley bears some consideration. I don't buy all this hooey about how he wouldn't fit in our system, heck during the playoffs the announcers called the Bulls "suns east" because we ran so much...difference of course is we play defense better and Marion is, by all accouts, a good defender. You can come up with a lot of reasons, it will leave us thin on bigs, the draft could produce a player better than Marion, Marion doesn't fit in our system. But you can give answers to all those things too. A big can be had in FA or at 16, trading Chandlers salary for Marions salary also allows us some flexibility in signing a big. The player in teh draft could also be Joe Smith like in his impact. Marion hasn't PLAYED in our system and our system isn't exactly rocket science.
> 
> Anyway, I don't see any reason in the world that people wouldn't strongly consider this deal. Marion has sort of moved into the background on a deep PHX team but he is clearly one of their better players. Heck, a deal like this a few years ago people probably would have jumped all over it.


here are my reasons for hating the deal:

1. In a normal basketball system, Marion is a 3 not a 4. This team is stacked at SF.

2. Marion is 28 and relies on athleticism quite a bit. When he starts to slip in a few years, all the other Bulls players will be entering or in their primes. So Marion will be at his best before the Bulls are at their best and the rest Bulls will be at their best after Marion is at his best. That is inefficient. I'd rather have 10 years of Chandler and and 15 years of Thomas, Aldridge, whomever instead of 5 years of Marion.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

The ROY said:


> it's about losing two assets for a player that may or may not fit in YOUR system...and who's very undersized for the positions we need to fill


Exactly my thinking.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Well, when you give up our ONE big guy, while EVERYONE is claiming we need to get bigger and draft bigs, and get bigs in FA etc etc, it's pretty damn retarded. Marion is only good if in the right system, which Phoenix is for him. He's a run and gun type player, and we're not a run and gun team. If you know anything about basketball you know that if you try and make a player play the wrong style of ball they can be crap even though in the right system they're an all star. I really don't think he'd be half as good with us as he is with the Suns, so he wouldn't be an all star caliber player anymore. Meanwhile, you give up the #2 pick overall in the draft, who could turn out to be a better player than he is, especially in our system, plus Chandler, plus cap room. Just dumb any which way you look at it. Now IF he actually filled a NEED, and FIT OUR TEAM, I'd be all for it. Stoudamire (if healthy) would be worth that trade for sure. But a runt-sized PF made for the run and gun has no place on this team. Hell he's a PF who is smaller than a lot of the SGs and even a PG or 2.



Giving up a big doesn't mean we won't have any bigs. Bigs can be added through FA, the draft, and trades. Do you think we are just gonna trade for Marion and make Sweetney our starting center and call it an offseason? I sure don't. Marion isn't a "run and gun" type player! Sure, he CAN rung and gun which is something every team should look to do on the break and you can bet your sweet petunias the Bulls will be trying to run on the break. Marion really is a very good all around player, his production in Phx isn't the result of him being in the right system and thats that. He surely benefits from Nash but he produced before Nash was even there. I have forgotten more about pro ball than a lot of people know and yes, sometimes a player will suceed in one system and not in another, Marion is NOT that guy. His skillset should make him very productive in just about any teams offensive sets, especially a team that doesn't bang it into the post every possession, gee...like we don't do. MArion is definitley an all star caliber player whether he is on the suns or the Bulls and I think your giving way too much credit for the system defining the player and that actually isn't as common as you make it sound. The player in the draft could also turn out to be much worse than Marion, Joe Smith, Kwame Brown, those guys ring a bell? Chandler would be a loss and I admit that but sometimes you gotta give to get. And we would only be giving up a couple million in capspace and we have a lot to spare. Marion is not a runt he has good size for a sf and is only a little small for a pf, at his size he has been the TOP statistical player in the NBA for 2 or 3 years running now, seems like he can get the job done. Needs change...trades happen....new guys are brought in and pieces are brought in around him. If you want to look at the team with tunnell vision and like it is a puzzle and the only thing we need are pieces that fit then thats your prerogative but it is short sighted IMO.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

The ROY said:


> I can say no for a number of reasons
> 
> He's not a PF
> He only played PF because of the system the Suns run
> ...


Well if you fell that a legit allstar will not help our system then there really is nothing I can say to make you change your mind. The fact is that Shawn Marion regardles of how tall he is, is one of the best players in the NBA. If the Bulls are afraid of pulling this trade because they think they would be to small, well then be prepared for another mediocre season followed by another first round exit.

This team could have 2 7 footers in the front court
and 3 players in the back over 6'6 and this team still would not be guaranteed to be better then it is.

Its about Talent and Skills and Shawn Marion has all the skills that would make this team much better then it was last year.

Ranks #15 in the NBA in Points Per Game(21.8) Ranks #3 in the NBA in Rebounds Per Game(11.8) 
Ranks #10 in the NBA in Field-Goal Percentage(0.525) Ranks #5 in the NBA in Steals Per Game(1.98) 
Ranks #17 in the NBA in Blocks Per Game(1.69) Ranks #7 in the NBA in Minutes Per Game(40.3) 
Ranks #6 in the NBA in Minutes Played(3263.0) Ranks #8 in the NBA in Field Goals Made(716.0) 
Ranks #18 in the NBA in Field Goal Attempts(1365.0) Ranks #6 in the NBA in Offensive Rebounds(249.0) 
Ranks #6 in the NBA in Offensive Rebounds Per Game(3.1) Ranks #3 in the NBA in Defensive Rebounds(710.0) 
Ranks #4 in the NBA in Defensive Rebounds Per Game(8.8) Ranks #3 in the NBA in Total Rebounds(959.0) 
Ranks #3 in the NBA in Steals(160.0) Ranks #12 in the NBA in Blocks(137.0) 
Ranks #13 in the NBA in Points(1769.0) Ranks #5 in the NBA in Steals Per Turnover(1.28) 
Ranks #16 in the NBA in Field Goals Per 48 Minutes(10.53) Ranks #7 in the NBA in Defensive Rebounds Per 48 Minutes(10.4) 
Ranks #11 in the NBA in Rebounds Per 48 Minutes(14.1) Ranks #13 in the NBA in Steals Per 48 Minutes(2.35) 
Ranks #19 in the NBA in Blocks Per 48 Minutes(2.02) Ranks #1 in the NBA in Total Efficiency Points(2337.0) 

If you think a player like this cant help or even suceed in the Bulls system, then there is no player out there who can play in our system.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> I think I am just frustrated at so many people poo pooing this idea.


For me, its very easy. I'm not interested in trading our only big man, and our best shot at selecting the big man of our choice, for a 3rd small forward. Especially one who you can't run an offense through. He's terrific, but he's a complimentary player whose game is largely contingent on others getting him the ball. 



> I don't buy all this hooey about how he wouldn't fit in our system, heck during the playoffs the announcers called the Bulls "suns east" because we ran so much...difference of course is we play defense better and Marion is, by all accouts, a good defender.


In defending small forwards, I'd even go so far as to say he's an excellent defender. But in Phoenix he did not have to play half court defensive sets against post up power forwards like he would have to in Chicago. Defensively, he'd be a disaster for us at the 4. And if we play him at the 3 where he belongs, then Deng, Noc, or both need to be traded. 

So, essentially you've traded Chandler, the #2 pick and are forcing yourself to trade Deng or Noc in another deal just to make sense of acquiring Shawn Marion. He's a fine player. But he isn't worth that. 

As for us being "Suns east", whatever announcer said that is an idiot. Skiles system doesn't even remotely replicate D'Antoni's anarchical style.



> You can come up with a lot of reasons, it will leave us thin on bigs, the draft could produce a player better than Marion, Marion doesn't fit in our system. But you can give answers to all those things too. A big can be had in FA or at 16, trading Chandlers salary for Marions salary also allows us some flexibility in signing a big. The player in teh draft could also be Joe Smith like in his impact. Marion hasn't PLAYED in our system and our system isn't exactly rocket science


. 

First, when we are discussing this team's real need - size - the 16th pick isn't a reliable way to get out of painting yourself into a corner. Second, I have no doubt Marion would be wonderful in Skiles system. As a small forward.



> Anyway, I don't see any reason in the world that people wouldn't strongly consider this deal. Marion has sort of *moved into the background * on a deep PHX team but he is clearly *one of* their better players. Heck, a deal like this a few years ago people probably would have jumped all over it.


I bolded two reasons why we shouldn't do it. He's a complimentary player. And he's a complimentary player that isn't a facilitator.

I love him. If we were looking to fill out the 3 spot, he might be my first choice in the entire league not named LeBron. But that isn't where we are.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> Well if you fell that a legit allstar will not help our system then there really is nothing I can say to make you change your mind. The fact is that Shawn Marion regardles of how tall he is, is one of the best players in the NBA. If the Bulls are afraid of pulling this trade because they think they would be to small, well then be prepared for another mediocre season followed by another first round exit.
> 
> This team could have 2 7 footers in the front court
> and 3 players in the back over 6'6 and this team still would not be guaranteed to be better then it is.
> ...



Oh all of those accolades were only earned because he is in the right system! :frenchy:


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> For me, its very easy. I'm not interested in trading our only big man, and our best shot at selecting the big man of our choice, for a 3rd small forward. Especially one who you can't run an offense through. He's terrific, but he's a complimentary player whose game is largely contingent on others getting him the ball.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have to respectfully disagree ron for reasons stated ad nausem already.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

I'm not AGAINST Marion, I love his game.

What I am against is how much this HELPS Phoenix and the fact that it COULD hurt us a bit.

You guys complained about 2 months straight about how Tyrus is too small, but Now we're talking a Marion, a guy an inch shorter and only 20lbs heavier?

Chandler and Thomas would be absolutely PERFECT in Phoenix, that's almost too good to be true for D'Antoni

A 7"1, athletic rebounding and blocking workhorse + a 6"8 atheletic beast who would GREATLY benefit from playing with Nash, a kid who'd have NO pressure & could possibly develop the same game as a Marion type.

This is ROBBERY

If Marion was 6"9 & a natural PF...this would be different


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

The ROY said:


> I'm not AGAINST Marion, I love his game.
> 
> What I am against is how much this HELPS Phoenix and the fact that it COULD hurt us a bit.
> 
> ...



Honestly I think losing Marion would hurt them more than they realize. Adding Chandler would be nice for them and Thomas would be a nice fit too Phx is, in my mind, already the team to beat next year. I think losing Marion weakens them in the end analysis.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

Again I say - THis draftmay be weak in HOF candidates, but it's great in conjecture and wild rumours.


FOr the trade boils down to this:

Would I trade Chandler + #2 + Loss of atleast one good FA for Shawn Marion. 

Answer - No.

Chandler (as much as I bash him) does provide soemthing that Marion isn't - a very good defensive presence in the paint.

#2 pick, may or nmay not develop, so I won't argue except to say there are some very good options.

Approx $6 - 7 Mill in lost cap space - PF is the easiest position to find in my opinion. So, I wouldn't overpay. 


His height, weight, etc don't bother me, it's just that I don't think he is better than 3 starter quality guys. Unless you are Dwayne Wade or kobe you are not enough to change our fortunes. Plus, while he can fit into our system, we are about Defense and depth as long as Skiles is in charge. Thus duhon very valuable to us, not so valuable elsewhere.


So - I'll flip it Biz - If you're set on taking on Marion at that cost, just go ahead and grab TT.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

ace20004u said:


> Oh all of those accolades were only earned because he is in the right system! :frenchy:


Nobody's accusing him of purely being a system guy. What people are saying (correctly, in my opinion) is that on our team he's redundant as he'd be a very expensive upgrade at a position we're stacked at.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> I have to respectfully disagree ron for reasons stated ad nausem already.


I know. 

The fundamental difference of opinion on "all things Marion" is whether he's a 3 or a 4. If you think he's a 4, its a stroke of genius. 

If you think he's a 3, its mind-numbingly stupid. It really all comes down to that.


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

jbulls said:


> I agree. I don't like it. Marion is a really nice player who works as a 4 in Phoenix's system, which involves a ton of running and guarding nobody. Anybody see those Clippers/Suns playoff games? Brand shot 18 for 22 in one of them. Decent 4 and 5's did whatever they wanted against Marion and the Suns all year long.
> 
> While he's a great player I also have questions about Marion's attitude and ability to perform in big games. He really didn't show up to a bunch of the Suns playoff games this year. There's also a constant low level rumbling in Phoenix that he's the source of locker room friction because he believes he doesn't get enough credit, and that Nash and Stoudamire get too much. I'm passing on this one, I hope Pax does too.



Marion was still putting up numbers as a SF before he was moved to PF and before we had this system, and he is better defender on the perimeter and against SF's than against PFs or even C's which he played. 

Marion also avged 26 and 12 against the Clippers. He may not have played well for the Lakers series and I think because he guarded Odom down low hurt his offense and tired him out a little bit which happened in Clips series when he did guard Brand, but he still played well after then. This playoff stigma has jumped on him because last yr Bruce Bowen of all people shut him down. That's not a big deal. He showed up the other series' against Memphis and Dallas before then too. But yeah, people don't remember that or the fact that he was playing out of position on defense.





The ROY said:


> I'm pretty sure the Suns will do everything in their power to make this trade happen.
> 
> They wanna extend Diaw, who's as versitile, longer and is more CLUTCH than Marion.
> 
> ...


D'Antoni said after our loss to Dallas when asked about the Marion to the Bulls rumor that went on during the last week of the series that it makes no sense to trade Marion with Amare coming off injury. He does too much for us and this yr was his career high by .6, they made too much of a big deal out of that. Diaw did not make him expendable, nor was he more clutch. Diaw disappeared in games too, just as Marion did. When Marion was active and not playing down low on defense he was playing better. Which is probably why he's moving back there and playing PF sparingly like the plan was this year before Amare got hurt.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

jbulls said:


> Nobody's accusing him of purely being a system guy. What people are saying (correctly, in my opinion) is that on our team he's redundant as he'd be a very expensive upgrade at a position we're stacked at.



Thats fair enough if you don't buy into him playing the 4. Of course Nocioni CAN play the 4 and did so effectively last season so then that leaves us with two guys at the three, Marion and Deng. And having an all star who can give you 22ppg & nearly 12rpg while shooting a high percentage, blocking, stealing etc.... (see post above) is never redundant IMO.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> Honestly I think losing Marion would hurt them more than they realize. Adding Chandler would be nice for them and Thomas would be a nice fit too Phx is, in my mind, already the team to beat next year. I think losing Marion weakens them in the end analysis.



They lose a very good talent, but the team did not rely on him. They would benefit much mroe with Chandler providing some actual defense and with Diaw continuing to step it up even more.

Marion most talented, but I'd rather have Chandler, Diaw and the potential of the #2 pick (whoeer it turns out to be). Phoenix would be in great shape.

Chicago would be praying for NENE, Pryz or waiting till the lottery balls bounce next season and pray IT and the knicks choke again, landing us Oden, Noah, etc.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Dissonance19 said:


> D'Antoni said after our loss to Dallas when asked about the Marion to the Bulls rumor that went on during the last week of the series that it makes no sense to trade Marion with Amare coming off injury. He does too much for us and this yr was his career high by .6, they made too much of a big deal out of that. Diaw did not make him expendable, nor was he more clutch. Diaw disappeared in games too, just as Marion did. When Marion was active and not playing down low on defense he was playing better. Which is probably why he's moving back there and playing PF sparingly like the plan was this year before Amare got hurt.


Problem is, why is this being "seriously considered" by both sides then?

Diaw's more clutch than Marion & is damn near as versitile. I know they want to re-sign him at all costs. If it takes losing Marion but possibly adding Marion Pt. 2 + Chandler? I think they'd pull the trigger. Especially if their trying to conserve capspace.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

chifaninca said:


> They lose a very good talent, but the team did not rely on him. They would benefit much mroe with Chandler providing some actual defense and with Diaw continuing to step it up even more.
> 
> Marion most talented, but I'd rather have Chandler, Diaw and the potential of the #2 pick (whoeer it turns out to be). Phoenix would be in great shape.
> 
> Chicago would be praying for NENE, Pryz or waiting till the lottery balls bounce next season and pray IT and the knicks choke again, landing us Oden, Noah, etc.


Don't you think Wallace would like the idea of coming here and playing in the front court with Marion? I do.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> I think I am just frustrated at so many people poo pooing this idea. I don't even know if I would actually pull the trigger or not but it definitley bears some consideration. I don't buy all this hooey about how he wouldn't fit in our system, heck during the playoffs the announcers called the Bulls "suns east" because we ran so much...difference of course is we play defense better and Marion is, by all accouts, a good defender. You can come up with a lot of reasons, it will leave us thin on bigs, the draft could produce a player better than Marion, Marion doesn't fit in our system. But you can give answers to all those things too. A big can be had in FA or at 16, trading Chandlers salary for Marions salary also allows us some flexibility in signing a big. The player in teh draft could also be Joe Smith like in his impact. Marion hasn't PLAYED in our system and our system isn't exactly rocket science.
> 
> Anyway, I don't see any reason in the world that people wouldn't strongly consider this deal. Marion has sort of moved into the background on a deep PHX team but he is clearly one of their better players. Heck, a deal like this a few years ago people probably would have jumped all over it.


Shawn Marion IS a star. A proven 20-10 player. Chandler isn't and whoever we could take at #2 isn't. Still, Chandler and the #2 is a lot to give up.

I don't have any more problem with Marion at the 4 than I do with Ben Wallace at the 5. Sometimes the "tale of the tape" doesn't mean much when you're looking at an honest to God track record rather than merely potential. Marion and his 40 mpg of all-star caliber play would look pretty good in a Bulls' uniform.

As I see it, this one's not a no-brainer one way or the other.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

The ROY said:


> A 7"1, athletic rebounding and blocking workhorse


 He was reaping the benifits of a grueling hard working 2005 offseason. :raised_ey 
Tyson will foul out even quicker in the Western Conference, I cant wait to see how long Chandler will last playing against guys like Dirk, Brand, Yao etc 3 times each.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

The ROY said:


> I'm not AGAINST Marion, I love his game.
> 
> What I am against is how much this HELPS Phoenix and the fact that it COULD hurt us a bit.
> 
> ...


Of course it's a no brainer for Phoenix. Why in the world wouldn't you jump on getting rid of a guy who is basically your 6th man, for a starting 7'1 shot blocking guy, AND the #2 pick in the draft? They'd be the real deal then IMO. These guys clamoring for Marion are also looking SHORT-TERM. As someone already mentioned, Marion isn't exactly young anymore, and a guy like him (way undersized, gets it all done with athleticism) goes down hill around 30. So basically he'll be past his prime about the time our team really gets going, and then we're without Chandler (who'd still be in his prime) and the #2 pick, who would be just entering his prime in a couple years.


----------



## different_13 (Aug 30, 2005)

I think Noah would be a very good fit in Chicago, and i (currently) see him being picked anywhere from 3 to 8 (Oden 1, then probably Young 2).

Which is why i'd rather the bulls drafted 5's and 2's this year, n try for Noah next year.
He's athletic, can run, can block, can rebound, and is developing his post game (mostly cos he cant shoot from further out yet, true, but still!)

I still don't understand why CHicago would want to give up Chandler and the #2 for a small combi-forward who has difficulties in half court sets (as shown in playoff games where the suns were forced to play low-tempo, such as most lakers games).

He also doesn't have a consistant shot.

If Chicago's trading the #2, try it to seattle for a resigned wilcox n #10 (which lets them get Brewer too)

works best for both the future and the now.

looking back, chifaninca said it best (6 or so posts down)


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Of course it's a no brainer for Phoenix. Why in the world wouldn't you jump on getting rid of a guy who is basically your 6th man, for a starting 7'1 shot blocking guy, AND the #2 pick in the draft? They'd be the real deal then IMO. These guys clamoring for Marion are also looking SHORT-TERM. As someone already mentioned, Marion isn't exactly young anymore, and a guy like him (way undersized, gets it all done with athleticism) goes down hill around 30. So basically he'll be past his prime about the time our team really gets going, and then we're without Chandler (who'd still be in his prime) and the #2 pick, who would be just entering his prime in a couple years.



the guy is 28! you make it sound like he is 34. Marion the 6th man now? geez, gimme a break. He is head and shoulders with Nash & Amare...period. The guy is THE leading statistical player in the NBA for the past 2 and possibly 3 seasons and you want to label him a 6th man? I can't even figure out WHY Phoenix would do this and you seem to think it is lopsided in the Suns favor for some strange inexplicable reason.


----------



## UMfan83 (Jan 15, 2003)

So whats the problem with trading Tyson for someone who averages more PP40M, RP40M, BP40M. Personally I am not at all thrilled with Tyrus Thomas, and when Tyson is on the floor its like playing 4 on 5 because the only time Tyson can handle the ball effectively is when hes beyond the 3 point line. Furthermore, he can't set picks without moving his feet.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Marion or Odom?


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

The ROY said:


> Problem is, why is this being "seriously considered" by both sides then?
> 
> Diaw's more clutch than Marion & is damn near as versitile. I know they want to re-sign him at all costs. If it takes losing Marion but possibly adding Marion Pt. 2 + Chandler? I think they'd pull the trigger. Especially if their trying to conserve capspace.


By a small paper though, it's not a credible source, I would say.

Adding Chandler will just create more problems money wise and add more salary later on. Marion has 3 yrs left on his deal. Chandler has what 5 more yrs left? It just makes no sense to trade a guy like that for what he does (21/12, and close to the top in every other category) and tact more salary at the end of it, which would defeat the purpose of clearing room for Diaw. Plus after what we showed this yr, add Amare and KT to this team we have a very good chance at winning it all. We shouldn't do anything, and we're fine this year as for cap situation. Next yr would be the yr if any yr that Marion does go.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Dissonance19 said:


> By a small paper though, it's not a credible source, I would say.


Gery Woelfel has been covering the NBA for over 30 years, he's got lots of sources. The Racine Journal-Times coverage of the Bucks is frequently much better than the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. The Journal-Times may be small, but Racine likes its basketball.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

While i disagree with this deal , i have to disprove some notions put forth.

marion is a power forward and also a small forward , he plays both positions very well and it has nothing to do with the system at least on defense .

the other 29 teams aren't forced to run when they are on offense and they usually dont, the thing is , marion can defend most 4 pretty well and the ones he cant everyone doubles anyway so he is no worse off than any other team.

in the west there was really just 2 power forwards he couldn't guard tim duncan and elton brand, the east it will be no different there may be 1 or 2 he cant guard and those guys are doubled anyway , your avg. 4 like drew gooden marion bottles up no problem.

where marion is really helped by the suns system is on offense where he gets easier shots created for him by nash .


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> marion is a power forward and also a small forward , he plays both positions very well and it has nothing to do with the system at least on defense .


Then why is it that you could fill the Manhattan Yellow Pages with all the column inches that've been written over the past few years about Marion's *****ing about being asked to play the 4, the Suns' desire to land a frontline player who would allow Marion to slide back to the 3, the Suns' concerns that Marion was getting too beat-up from going against bigger players every night, and so forth? 

It's the same deal with Marion as it is with Nocioni and (to a lesser extent) Deng -- they CAN play the four, but it's not their optimal position. Marion'll get his 20-10 whether he plays the 3, the 4, the 1, or the 5, but the position where he stands the best chance of shutting down his own man, and providing the biggest benefit to his team in the balance, is the 3. The 4 remains one of the game's premier positions, and Marion simply can't effectively guard a lot of the good 4s.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Then why is it that you could fill the Manhattan Yellow Pages with all the column inches that've been written over the past few years about Marion's *****ing about being asked to play the 4, the Suns' desire to land a frontline player who would allow Marion to slide back to the 3, the Suns' concerns that Marion was getting too beat-up from going against bigger players every night, and so forth?
> 
> It's the same deal with Marion as it is with Nocioni and (to a lesser extent) Deng -- they CAN play the four, but it's not their optimal position. Marion'll get his 20-10 whether he plays the 3, the 4, the 1, or the 5, but the position where he stands the best chance of shutting down his own man, and providing the biggest benefit to his team in the balance, is the 3. The 4 remains one of the game's premier positions, and Marion simply can't effectively guard a lot of the good 4s.


alot of the problems he supposedly gets at the 4 he gives them right back and more by being so much quicker than most 4's which is why he is such a good player. and the ability to keep deng noce and marion at the 3/4 spots would look nice and work nice, but not at the price being bandied about.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Pax on the Score: "I would never do that." and then he said it's giving up an awful lot for one player - cap space, the pick and a player. And he likes Marion.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

B&B asked the question right off the bat.

pax: no, i would never do that.

giving away chandler
giving the #2 pick
giving away $$ 

a rumor not based in fact.


----------



## greekbullsfan (Oct 26, 2003)

mizenkay said:


> B&B asked the question right off the bat.
> 
> pax: no, i would never do that.
> 
> ...


hey miz,i wrote that first,i'll sue u for stealing my rights for this news i brought up :biggrin:


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

mizenkay said:


> B&B asked the question right off the bat.
> 
> pax: no, i would never do that.
> 
> ...


THANK GOD!!!!!


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

DaBabyBullz said:


> THANK GOD!!!!!



I totally relate to this reaction, even if I didn't fully believe it lol. I didn't want to see Marion go and the deal just didn't make sense to me.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Dissonance19 said:


> I totally relate to this reaction, even if I didn't fully believe it lol. I didn't want to see Marion go and the deal just didn't make sense to me.


I think that assuming we get a good player with our pick we'd be in better shape without the trade. With the Suns it's debatable. They could get a good player with the pick, and Chandler would help, but Marion is a perfect fit for them (and I don't think he'd be as good of a fit for us).


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

DaBabyBullz said:


> I think that assuming we get a good player with our pick we'd be in better shape without the trade. With the Suns it's debatable. They could get a good player with the pick, and Chandler would help, but Marion is a perfect fit for them (and I don't think he'd be as good of a fit for us).



Yeah, you guys should look at putting someone next to Chandler and by you taking him away, you need to find someone to replace him too. Then you have a trio of SF's like Noci, Marion, and Deng, who can play PF but it just doesn't fit. I don't think we need this high of a pick, we keep Marion, get Amare and Kurt back. We already have 2 draft picks to gain even more depth. Adding Chandler would just add more money to our situation later on.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Dissonance19 said:


> Yeah, you guys should look at putting someone next to Chandler and by you taking him away, you need to find someone to replace him too. Then you have a trio of SF's like Noci, Marion, and Deng, who can play PF but it just doesn't fit. I don't think we need this high of a pick, we keep Marion, get Amare and Kurt back. We already have 2 draft picks to gain even more depth. Adding Chandler would just add more money to our situation later on.


I see we're thinking alike here. Good to see that.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Hahahah Good

Next!


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Paxson put this one to rest very definitively. Ain't happenin'. His reaction was pretty consistent with the consensus on this board.

What I learned is that Paxson isn't desperate to get a star. Marion qualifies. Though Chandler + the #2 is a high price, if he were desperate for a star, he wouldn't have dismissed this so easily.

I said that the Marion proposal wasn't a no-brainer. Paxson pretty much said that this is exactly what it was.

I won't second-guess him.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

That's the thing... I would not expect a trade from Paxson... every time I hear him talk about it its very reluctantly and the names are always Kobe type players.

Well, young superstar top 5 players are rarely traded.

Something to remember for those banking on the consolidation trade to keep us out of Grizzlies hell.

The found money needs to be invested well. That’s really our only way out, IMO.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

"Never".

I knew there was a reason I like that guy.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Ron Cey said:


> "Never".
> 
> I knew there was a reason I like that guy.


I hear you there buddy!


----------

