# Under The Radar: What's Happened To Chandler?



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Curry and Gordon seem to have drawn a lot of attention during the month of December. As a result, the performances of other key Bulls players have more or less gone unnoticed.

Of greatest concern (at least from my point of view) has been the overall deterioration in Tyson Chandler's productivity through the entire month. In fact, his numbers have dropped off so significantly it makes you wonder if he may be wearing down physically once again.

Lets start out by looking at his numbers for the first 8 games of December:

30.1mpg.
12.5ppg.
12.6rpg.
30-41 FT's.

Now lets compare those numbers to his stats over the last 7 games this month:

26.7mpg.
5.3ppg.
8.6rpg.
9-18 FT's.

We've seen this before from Tyson. He plays like an all-star for a period of time. But that's always followed by steady decline in productivity. If this was a first time occurance I wouldn't have wasted time starting this thread. But as I said, we've seen it before so you have to be concerned about his ability to deliver on a consistent basis over the course of an 82 game schedule. You also have to be concerned about the overall longevity of his pro basketball career. Now, I'm not hitting any panic buttons. But the million dollar question remains: Do we have a player we can build around or will Tyson's physical limitations restrict him to spot duty as perhaps a defensive specialist who'll see floor time only when a real need arises?

Its something to consider. And the fact that he's continued to come off the bench instead of start suggests that Skiles may be picking his spots for Tyson the way he would for a player who has physical restrictions.


----------



## Cager (Jun 13, 2002)

I have noticed that too. Tyson has lost some of his fire the last few games. Curry also has regressed. Problem for us is there aren't many decent bigs in this league so I don't think it is obvious on what the Bulls should do. I hope someone offers too much for Curry or Chandler but it is very possible that we will end up keeping both this summer. Personally I'd love SAR if we could get him to agree to a long term contract. The only otherr big available this summer is Stromile and he seems like a Chandler clone


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

The guy is a rock on offense. He stands in one place for the most part. He doesn't put any effort into offense. He gets blocked often etc. As for the rebounding there are some variables. For the first part, he doesn't box out on rebounds. He just relys on jumping higher then the other guy, which he does quite well. So he may be playing lazier. Another variable is that Curry is playing some help defense, which would make it so that other teams are taking more jump shots rather then driving, so on the misses, it is a long rebound usually.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

That's some good evidence of your point, which I've been skeptical of for a while.

I was going to say part of his point production seems to be that he's getting fewer shots, but and that's probably true. He averaged 4.5 shots per game over the last 7 and 8 shots per game over the first 8. But then I looked at his field goal percentage and it fell from 53% in the first set to 44% in the second set. That's even stronger evidence to me- he appears to be doing less with the opportunities he's getting, not just getting fewer opportunities.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

I'll tell you something else that concerns me somewhat: I was at a game recently and as Chandler was returning to the bench I saw him lift his jersey, revealing a rather large brace underneath. And as soon as he took his seat the trainer started to apply heat compresses wrapped in towels to his back.

Now I know there have been many players over the years who receive special treatment on the sidelines for a stiff back or other ailments. But we're talking about a 22 year old young man...not some guy who's put his body on the line for the past 10 or 12 years.

Call me pessemistic if you want to, but I have real doubts about Tyson's ability to contribute as a full time player now and down the road.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

:uhoh:


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> Now lets compare those numbers to his stats over the last 7 games this month:
> 
> 26.7mpg.
> ...


This is still 15.4 rebounds/48 mins. That would be good for 7th in the NBA.

http://www.nba.com/statistics/2004/...rs/LeagueLeadersREB8Query.html?topic=1&stat=1

For the entire year, Chandler is 16.6 bounds/ 48 mins.

*So if the guy is hurt, how can he be *still* be one of the best rebounders in the league?*

I think they need to run one or two plays a half to keep him more involved on O. And I would love to see him on the baseline rather than running out by the 3 pt line and setting screens so much.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!but I have real doubts about Tyson's ability to contribute as a full time player now and down the road.


:laugh: Only if he is a Bull.

I am sure he will be a monster on another team.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> I'll tell you something else that concerns me somewhat: I was at a game recently and as Chandler was returning to the bench I saw him lift his jersey, revealing a rather large brace underneath. And as soon as he took his seat the trainer started to apply heat compresses wrapped in towels to his back.
> 
> Now I know there have been many players over the years who receive special treatment on the sidelines for a stiff back or other ailments. But we're talking about a 22 year old young man...not some guy who's put his body on the line for the past 10 or 12 years.
> ...


This scares me...

you think he is playing for a contract and then he will be an IR-ridden player for a good portion of his career? I think it's a possibility :sigh:


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> Now I know there have been many players over the years who receive special treatment on the sidelines for a stiff back or other ailments. But we're talking about a 22 year old young man...


Or it could all be precautionary, right? The guy did miss most of last season due to his back.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

It might be precautionary, but it sounds pretty scary. Heck, I get concerned when guys play with knee braces and stuff. A huge back brace.. that's rough.

But then maybe it's just what he needs to get it done. Just take a glance at Tyson Chandler; the way his body is built just looks like it takes a lot to not topple over. That kind of thin mass without a balanced filling out in the shoulders and with his skinny legs... his back is bound to be going through rough stuff.

He either has to LOSE weight (and become KG/Bosh/Keon Clark, guys that don't carry that much mass around) or GAIN weight (in his lower back and legs to support him).

As for his offensive abilities, the fewer FGA's are a serious concern. But that's the big difference between bench guys and starters. As a starter, I think you're expected to do just about everything, including score; every player on the floor at the beginning of the game has to be a threat on both ends, so that the tone can be set properly. When you bring someone off the bench, you use them as weapons, not really as all-around players. Bring Stro off the bench for crazy shot blocking. Bring BJax off the bench for "energy". Bring Damon Jones off the bench for three point shooting (oops, he starts now).

Bring Ben Gordon off the bench for pure scoring (but hope that he does other things as well).

So similarly, you bring Tyson Chandler off the bench for rebounding.

I mean, Skiles running good offensive sets and brilliant X's and O's... that's great. But if he's not getting all his players involved, then regardless of what he's doing, at some point on the court he's playing 4 on 5.


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

I've been noticing this and I was curious as to why nobody has really brought it up. Naturally, I wonder if his back is bothering him. He's not moving the same way and not being nearly as active.

For all the talk about Eddy's lack of rebounding, and rightfully so, Tyson hasn't been pulling down nearly as many boards and that's as big an effect on our games as anything else.

It seemed just a couple weeks ago that Tyson and Eddy were sure to be retained, at least through the end of the year. But, after a handful of subpar games, I think that's still very much up in the air. :no:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

The thing that makes me worry that the back is a problem and the brace is not a precaution is the fact that the Bulls have been silent about the brace or any precautions. All we've heard was at the beginning of the season, everyone said the back was fine.


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

Bottom line:

TC/EC are boys in men's bodies. When they become men they will be consistent.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Just speculating...what if Chandler's back problems turn out to be chronic? What if he's never going to become much more than a 25mpg player?

Antonio Davis is not the long term answer as our starting PF. If not Tyson, who becomes Davis' heir apparent? There's a guy out there currently averaging less than 15mpg that I would love to see the Bulls make a strong pitch for. His name's Nick Collison. The Sonics are built around Allen and Lewis. All they need out of the PF position is a couple of dirty work type of guys who are happy just to bang and rebound. They've got that in Fortson and Evans. Collison would seem to be expendable. He's a smart, versatile player who IMO would do extremely well in Skiles' system. And I think if he's given starter minutes the Bulls would be assured of getting consistent, all-around production out of the PF position for years to come.

Nick Collison, I believe, has everything it takes to become a solid, above-average PF for the Bulls under Scott Skiles. He's a guy I'd go after hard as a long term, cornerstone type of player.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> Nick Collison, I believe, has everything it takes to become a solid, above-average PF for the Bulls under Scott Skiles. He's a guy I'd go after hard as a long term, cornerstone type of player.


I like him as well.

How do you propose we get him?

Trade a tower?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

What if Chandler's been wearing a back brace all season long?


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> What if Chandler's been wearing a back brace all season long?


Its very possible. However, whether he has or not doesn't change the fact that his numbers are declining.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Maybe we could trade Chandler for Shaq -- he's been wearing a back brace, too.

I don't know -- losing Chandler and Curry and replacing them with Nick Collison and a MLE guy (no Cap Space or first rounders next year, remember) doesn't seem to be taking a step forward. It's certainly cheaper than re-signing Chandler and/or Curry or trading them for real, live NBA basketball players, but it won't make us better.

A team that starts Duhon, Hinrich, a 37-year-old Davis, Nick Collison, and Luol Deng is going to lose a ****ton of games (as opposed to just the ****load that we lose now).


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> I like him as well.
> ...


Well, since you asked, let me toss this out for consideration:

If Tyson Chandler is healthy and physically capable of playing 32-38mpg year in and year out..._and_ he begins to demonstrate that he has the consistent ability to put up the kind of numbers he did during the first half of December (12.5ppg, 12.6rpg), then I keep him and stop thinking about Collison.

But, if the reality is that the Bulls are compensating for certain chronic physical restrictions by limiting his minutes and not starting him, then I'd like to suggest we swap him for Collison, pretty much even-up. As a spot duty player he can become a very good contributor to the Sonics front line. And that goes just as well for the Bulls. Unfortunately we need a long term solution at PF. If Tyson's not it because he physically can't handle starter minutes then we have to find someone who can and worry about filling out the roster with specialists later.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, since you asked, let me toss this out for consideration:
> ...


That's what I figured. Not a bad way for the Bulls to get off the hook from paying him I guess. Cap Space may live to see another day.

I don't know why Seattle would want to upset the winning apple cart... and have to take the risk on resigning Chandler though.

The back injury is a big ?. Kinda unsettling to commit a ton of cash to him. Just like its unsettling to commit a ton of cash to an seemingly indifferent man-child.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> Maybe we could trade Chandler for Shaq -- he's been wearing a back brace, too.
> 
> I don't know -- losing Chandler and Curry and replacing them with Nick Collison and a MLE guy (no Cap Space or first rounders next year, remember) doesn't seem to be taking a step forward. It's certainly cheaper than re-signing Chandler and/or Curry or trading them for real, live NBA basketball players, but it won't make us better.
> ...


That's funny. Shaq's averaging 35mpg this season (37mpg over his last 5 games. Shaq's numbers are improving from week to week...22ppg &11rpg for the season and 26ppg & 9rpg for the last 5 games. 

Apples and oranges, Scott.

BTW, I don't see any mention in this thread about dealing both bigs so that we end up with a frontline of Collison, AD and Luol.

Your propensity for hyperbole when you disagree with another POV can occasionally become rather tedious. But Cheers and Happy New Year nonetheless!


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, since you asked, let me toss this out for consideration:
> ...


With today's medical technology, back injuries are anything but a hazy mystery. Tyson (we can only hope) has had multiple MRIs, dye tests, and CT scans. The extent and prognosis of his problem should be abundantly clear at this point. 

The Bulls aren't going to be able to pull the wool over another team's eyes in a trade. Any team looking to acquire him will have him poked, prodded, and examined by a top-notch specialist, and the deal won't go through if there are any shadows of doubt.

If Tyson does have a serious problem, the best thing for the team to do would be to shut him down right now, explore the best surgical/interventionist treatment, and plot out an aggressive rehab program, no matter how long it takes. If he doesn't have a serious problem, then all of this just looks like an attempt to drive down Tyson's market value (yes, cynical and bad and awful of me, but it has to be called what it is).


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> I don't know why Seattle would want to upset the winning apple cart... and have to take the risk on resigning Chandler though.


I'm fairly certain that Seattle would risk whatever miniscule backlash they'd get from trading their 9th man for a 7-2 big man who be a huge asset for them in a playoff run.

I could be wrong, though.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> That's what I figured. Not a bad way for the Bulls to get off the hook from paying him I guess. Cap Space may live to see another day.
> ...


If his back is chronic he won't get big money from the Bulls or anyone else. No one is going to offer him a contract without requiring an extensive physical first. What I'm suggesting is that Seattle can benefit from using Chandler as a shot-blocking specialist who plays limited minutes. With Fortson and Evans aboard its a luxury they can afford. And with those physical restrictions I think they or anyone else can feel confident that he can be resigned for a very reasonable amount of money.

The Bulls, on the other hand, aren't even close to thinking about "specialists" who can only give them limited minutes. Currently we're starting a PG who can't even shoot 30% and a 37 year old PF. We need STARTERS. If Collison is capable of giving you 32-38mpg with consistent productivity you have to consider him strongly...especially if management's consensus is through months and years of evaluation that Chandler won't.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> That's funny. Shaq's averaging 35mpg this season (37mpg over his last 5 games. Shaq's numbers are improving from week to week...22ppg &11rpg for the season and 26ppg & 9rpg for the last 5 games.
> ...


You're right about the apples and oranges bit -- Shaq's coach actually calls plays for him and lets him work through mistakes.

It's hard for me to get too down on Chandler or imagine he's got a back problem when I see him out above the three-point line on a lot of the Bulls regular offensive plays. No plays run for him at the hoop, no more rolling after picking (just popping, probably because none of the Bulls guards can successfully pass to a cutting big man). His team defense and defensive rebounding have seemed fine to me during this stretch of poor offensive play.

And no hyperbole here: from where I sit, Paxson is very likely to waffle on Curry and Chandler and end up keeping both after the trade deadline. We could easily lose both -- either in a sign-and-trade for dreck, or outright. We are playing "well" enough to lose our pick to Phoenix. Even with Curry and Chandler renounced, we'll have only slightly more than the MLE to offer to free agents. Where are their replacements coming from?

And happy new year to you (and all) as well!


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

You know, GS paid a lot of money for Troy Murphy, even though he's got plantar fasciitis, a chronic condition that limited Kukoc to 65 games or less most seasons of his career. It's CHRONIC, and basically incurable, but they paid him out anyway.

Murphy's missed only one game this season, and has become a 16/10.5 guy for them. Suddenly he's shooting 45.5% from the arc too.

I'm not saying Tyson Chandler is Troy Murphy, but from a contract signing perspective, I wonder if it's not in Pax's best interest to pay Chandler some money to just do what he does. Chandler is still young and has the ability to pack on another 10 or 15 pounds before he's in final shape.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

And just for the sake of arguement... :groucho: I'd also like to suggest that IMO Collison can become every bit as productive a player as Golden State's Troy Murphy. If I'm right we'd have a solid double/double guy with a very high basketball IQ playing PF for a long, long time. And that's one less starting position to worry about.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> We need STARTERS. If Collison is capable of giving you 32-38mpg with consistent productivity you have to consider him strongly...especially if management's consensus is through months and years of evaluation that Chandler won't.


Can I just ask what you see in Collison suggests he'll be a 32-38 minute anchorman?

His career high in minutes played is 22 -- set last night (in fact, many of his career highs were set last night). 

He averages 12.8 minutes per game. In those 12.8 average minutes per game, he averages exactly 3 personal fouls.

I'm not a math person, but I suspect that a guy who fouls close to 12 times per 48 minutes is probably not a great candidate to play 32-38 minutes night-in, night-out.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> And just for the sake of arguement... :groucho: I'd also like to suggest that IMO Collison can become every bit as productive a player as Golden State's Troy Murphy. If I'm right we'd have a solid double/double guy with a very high basketball IQ playing PF for a long, long time. And that's one less starting position to worry about.


It's half a starting position to not have to worry about -- we'd need to find someone to play the 24-odd mpg that Collison couldn't due to foul trouble.

It also bears mentioning here that Collison is nearly two full years older than Chandler. Yikes.


----------



## Qwst25 (Apr 24, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> His career high in minutes played is 22 -- set last night (in fact, many of his career highs were set last night).


Remember Collison is a still only a rookie. I wouldn't be charactertizing 27 games as a career.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> It's hard for me to get too down on Chandler or imagine he's got a back problem when I see him out above the three-point line on a lot of the Bulls regular offensive plays. No plays run for him at the hoop, no more rolling after picking (just popping, probably because none of the Bulls guards can successfully pass to a cutting big man). His team defense and defensive rebounding have seemed fine to me during this stretch of poor offensive play.


I agree 100%.

Furthermore, his blocks are up significantly in this 7 game stretch and he has had 2 great games.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> If Tyson Chandler is healthy and physically capable of playing 32-38mpg year in and year out..._and_ he begins to demonstrate that he has the consistent ability to put up the kind of numbers he did during the first half of December (12.5ppg, 12.6rpg), then I keep him and stop thinking about Collison.


Gee, so if Tyson shows he is one of the most dominant big men in the league, then you keep him.

 

You are really going out on a limb there.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Qwst25</b>!
> 
> 
> Remember Collison is a still only a rookie. I wouldn't be charactertizing 27 games as a career.


He's a rookie on a good team. I understand that. But that also means that the fouling problem would probably be worse, not better, if he were starting out games as opposed to playing lots of garbage and second-unit minutes.

And although he is a rookie-with-an-asterisk, he is a year and eleven months older than Chandler. As a four-year college player (who we've heard so many raves about since the dawn of the Hinrich Era), I'm going to hold Collison a little more accountable than the average rook.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> Can I just ask what you see in Collison suggests he'll be a 32-38 minute anchorman?
> ...


All legit points. BTW, about his tendency to foul...gotta love his aggressiveness! I've watched him several times this season and defensively he plays like a man with no conscience...won't think twice about laying a "flagrant" on you if that's what it calls for. Personally, I love that kind of mean streak in a big.

But sure, you raise a good point about Nick being untested as a starter. It would obviously require considerable due dilligence on the part of the Bulls. But from what I saw in college and what I've seen so far this year I think he'd be quite able to make whatever mental adjustments are necessary to play starter minutes.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Gee, so if Tyson shows he is one of the most dominant big men in the league, then you keep him.
> ...


There happen to be two *ROOKIES* from this year's draft class averaging a double/double. Accomplishing such a feat doesn't automatically qualify you to be labeled "one of the most dominant big men in the league." It just shows that you're doing a good job and playing consistently at both ends of the floor as a Power Forward.

Geez, you're easily impressed, aren't you.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> All legit points. BTW, about his tendency to foul...gotta love his aggressiveness! I've watched him several times this season and defensively he plays like a man with no conscience...won't think twice about laying a "flagrant" on you if that's what it calls for. Personally, I love that kind of mean streak in a big.
> ...


I like the cut of Collison's jib myself -- but as your backup 4, not as a starter.

You'd also need an elite shotblocking/lane-clogger to play alongside Collison long-term. I can see him becoming a decent defender on the ball away from the basket, but no matter how many hard fouls he gives, I don't see him scaring people out of the paint.

The bottom line with Chandler is this -- again, whatever the problem with his back is, the Bulls absolutely need to have a firm grasp on it and plan accordingly. If he's healthy or if it can be safely assumed that his condition can improve OR won't limit him to playing less than 30 mpg and fewer than 70 games a year, then the Bulls are going to have to bite the bullet and hand out their first market-value contract of the post-Jordan era.


----------



## HuejMinitZ (Dec 28, 2004)

*Re:*

I agree with Scott. I thought most of Tyson's recent "struggles", if you can even call them that, were due to inconsistent minutes because of foul trouble and matchups. It seems like the past couple ballgames he has had to sit a lot because he hasn't gotten some calls. 

Watching him play, it doesn't look like he is favoring a bad back. I see him showing the same aggressiveness and intensity that he displayed during that good stretch where he was regularly getting 10 boards per.

I don't think he's used probably on offense. I think most people are mistaken when they say he has little to no offensive skills (hello Sam Smith). He is limited I will agree, but he isn't totally inept. It just seems like, as some of you guys have pointed out, he spends way too much time setting screens for our guards who don't do a good enough job of penetrating off those screens. Drive, Draw and Dish the three "D"'s becomes with our penetrators Drive, Reset pick, Drive, Reset pick. Brutal.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> I like the cut of Collison's jib myself -- but as your backup 4, not as a starter.
> ...


When you talk about a shotblocking/lane-clogger, shouldn't that be the role that Curry has to fill? I completely agree that you need a defensive presence inside. But what good does Chandler do you if he has the ability but not the capacity to fill that role on a full time basis?

Besides, this is all speculation on our parts. This thread was based on an observation that Chandlers productivity has been on the decline and that, coupled with his history of injury, is a cause for concern. The real fact is that he'll be a restricted free agent this summer and the organization will have to make some hard decisions on how they want to invest their money long term.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Re:*



> Originally posted by <b>HuejMinitZ</b>!
> I agree with Scott. I thought most of Tyson's recent "struggles", if you can even call them that, were due to inconsistent minutes because of foul trouble and matchups. It seems like the past couple ballgames he has had to sit a lot because he hasn't gotten some calls.
> 
> Watching him play, it doesn't look like he is favoring a bad back. I see him showing the same aggressiveness and intensity that he displayed during that good stretch where he was regularly getting 10 boards per.
> ...


Agreed -- we have a guy who shoots 50% plus from the field, who, unlike Curry, has shown the ability to pass the ball and can be trusted not to turn it over constantly. Shouldn't we look for ways to play to this guy's strengths rather than have him setting a bunch of screens 30 feet from the basket?

I'd also like to point out how much Tyson has improved at not biting on head fakes. A lot of his recent foul trouble has come from stuff like trying to cut off a driving small forward or guard along the baseline and help-related stuff. I haven't done the legwork at 82games.com, but I can't imagine that our top defensive units don't all feature Chandler.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> There happen to be two *ROOKIES* from this year's draft class averaging a double/double. Accomplishing such a feat doesn't automatically qualify you to be labeled "one of the most dominant big men in the league." It just shows that you're doing a good job and playing consistently at both ends of the floor as a Power Forward.
> ...


Hey, it was Dan R showing that Tyson was the 4th most effective player in the league that stretch. All without a play being run for him.

A double double is one thing. 12 and 12 is another. There are only 2 guys in the league averaging 12 rebounds per game.

I will say that you are consistant. You have called for Tyson to be run out of town since you have been on this board.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> When you talk about a shotblocking/lane-clogger, shouldn't that be the role that Curry has to fill? I completely agree that you need a defensive presence inside. But what good does Chandler do you if he has the ability but not the capacity to fill that role on a full time basis?
> ...


Curry's never going to fill that role. He needs to be traded (you may have missed my proclamation a few days ago).

We can go around and around on Chandler forever -- there is a health risk with ANY player. There are varying degrees of risk with a back injury, but it is no longer the hit-and-miss guesswork it used to be. Reinsdorf, Paxson, and the Bulls' physicians should have all met on this issue and know what the situation is. To me, it looks like Chandler's recent statistical tailing-off is not physically related, back brace or no.

If Chandler's condition (if he has one at all) can be reasonably assumed to not preclude him from playing 30+ a night and 70+ games a year for the life of his next contract, there is no possible excuse that I will accept for not re-signing him. Not even if another team offers him max dollars.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> If his back is chronic he won't get big money from the Bulls or anyone else. No one is going to offer him a contract without requiring an extensive physical first. What I'm suggesting is that Seattle can benefit from using Chandler as a shot-blocking specialist who plays limited minutes. With Fortson and Evans aboard its a luxury they can afford. And with those physical restrictions I think they or anyone else can feel confident that he can be resigned for a very reasonable amount of money.
> ...


If the back is chronic they won't trade us Collinson for him.

A healthy Chandler is better than Collinson.

The only reason we're even talking about this is because Paxson needs to make a decision about Chander. This would be attractive b/c of jib issues and that Collinson has an attractive (ie cheap) contract. Cap Space can stay alive in 2005.

Tyson may have a bad back. I'm sure the Bulls know more about it than the public... so they have the information. Its not new news.

Yeah... we need STARTERS. 5.8 million for a STARTING SG is an OK deal... but the Bulls don't want to pay that. 

#1 problem with Paxson. Dumping assets for NON-STARTERS.


----------



## HuejMinitZ (Dec 28, 2004)

*Re:*

Totally. I'm telling you guys, everyone spends so much time focusing on Eddy and what we should do with Eddy. Just because the guy is an acrobatic 6 - 11 endomorph doesn't mean he is a good basketball player. Tyson can be a basketball player, and a good one to boot.

I am fully convinced after watching this team evolve (term used loosely) over the past couple of seasons in my devoted fandom that the plan of action should be TRADE EDDY CURRY NOW, keep Tyson and resign him and make him your 5, and then get a legitimate 4 via draft or trade.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> There happen to be two *ROOKIES* from this year's draft class averaging a double/double. Accomplishing such a feat doesn't automatically qualify you to be labeled "one of the most dominant big men in the league." It just shows that you're doing a good job and playing consistently at both ends of the floor as a Power Forward.
> ...


Uh, actually I feel like Okafor and D. Howard are going to be All-Star power fowards in this league, very soon. Okafor's already a top 10 PF in my book:

KG, TD, Dirk, Jermaine, Brand, Amare, Z-Bo, Webber, B. Wallace, Okafor; a lot of those guys start at center now, like Amare and B. Wallace. Kirilenko might be a PF but he plays more like an SF. Okafor is better than a Boozer, in my book.

Howard even competing with Okafor, the best collegiate player and an NCAA champion, as a 19-year-old... jeez. He's different than Amare, but is having a comparable rookie year. He draws comparison only to Amare; Kwame, Chandler, and Curry didn't have rookie years anything like that.

And after Amare's rookie year, and subsequent 2nd year breakout, a lot of KG comparisons were being made. They were out of line, but I think that the big men of this draft year ARE impressive.

So I'd say that Chandler would have to "catch up" to those guys, and if he did, he'd be a top 15 PF.

But Kismet, I'm with you in terms of the original intention of the post. I think Chandler DOES need to break into an upper tier starting PF for us to not think about any other big man. Yet I'm with others on this board when I question your enamor with Nick Collison, of all people. If he was really very NBA-ready, couldn't he unseat Reggie Evans or Danny Fortson for just a few more minutes a game? The Sonics greatest weakness is their frontline, and if Collison had talent to be a serious PF, he'd be getting minutes.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Hey, it was Dan R showing that Tyson was the 4th most effective player in the league that stretch. All without a play being run for him.
> ...


You make it sound like I've got a personal vendetta against the young man. Nothing could be farther from the truth. But after missing the playoffs for six straight seasons, don't you think its time we focus on the big picture and forget about protecting our favorite players? There are no untouchables on this team. You ought to know that by now. To hell with Jamal Crawford, Eddy Curry, Tyson Chandler, Kirk Hinrich...if trading anyone on our team makes us a better ballclub then it has to be done.

Poor, poor Tyson...ah, phooey.


----------



## HuejMinitZ (Dec 28, 2004)

*Re:*

We need to trade Curry, move Tyson to the 5 and get a PF who can score in the low post.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> If the back is chronic they won't trade us Collinson for him.
> ...


The thought of salaries and cap ramifications never entered my mind when I started this thread. So please don't try to portray my intentions that way...that is unless you really are a mindreader, and even then you'd be wrong.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Re:*



> Originally posted by <b>HuejMinitZ</b>!
> We need to trade Curry, move Tyson to the 5 and get a PF who can score in the low post.


I wonder what kind of STUD player we could have traded a 5.8 million Jamal Crawford and Eddy Curry for?


----------



## HuejMinitZ (Dec 28, 2004)

*Re:*

Donyell Marshall HA!


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> The thought of salaries and cap ramifications never entered my mind when I started this thread. So please don't try to portray my intentions that way...that is unless you really are a mindreader, and even then you'd be wrong.


I'm not trying to read minds.... one of my points is that the only reason we're even talking about trading Chandler is that a decision has to be made soon.

If you didn't look at Collinson's contract status... than that's cool. I think the contract status would be one of the reasons the trade would be attractive for the Bulls. Its gets them off the hook. Cap Space is still alive.

This kinda trade....

Chicago trades: PG Frank Williams (1.2 ppg, 1.0 rpg, 1.6 apg in 10.2 minutes) 
PG Jannero Pargo (1.0 ppg, 2.5 rpg, 1.0 apg in 8.0 minutes) 
Tommy Smith (No games yet played in 2004/05) 
PF Tyson Chandler (8.3 ppg, 9.4 rpg, 1.0 apg in 27.2 minutes) 
Chicago receives: C Vitaly Potapenko (0.7 ppg, 1.0 rpg, 0.0 apg in 3.7 minutes) 
PF Nick Collison (3.5 ppg, 3.9 rpg, 0.5 apg in 12.8 minutes) 
Change in team outlook: -6.3 ppg, -8.0 rpg, and -3.1 apg. 

Seattle trades: C Vitaly Potapenko (0.7 ppg, 1.0 rpg, 0.0 apg in 3.7 minutes) 
PF Nick Collison (3.5 ppg, 3.9 rpg, 0.5 apg in 12.8 minutes) 
Seattle receives: PG Frank Williams (1.2 ppg, 1.0 rpg, 1.6 apg in 10.2 minutes) 
PG Jannero Pargo (1.0 ppg, 2.5 rpg, 1.0 apg in 8.0 minutes) 
Tommy Smith (No games yet played in 2004/05) 
PF Tyson Chandler (8.3 ppg, 9.4 rpg, 1.0 apg in 27.2 minutes)

That would be a Uncle Jerry special, no doubt.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> 
> 
> Uh, actually I feel like Okafor and D. Howard are going to be All-Star power fowards in this league, very soon. Okafor's already a top 10 PF in my book:
> ...


Howard is the goods, no question. I just want to point out, though, that we can only speculate how Kwame, Chandler, or Curry would have performed as rookies if they'd been given a nice soft landing with Grant Hill, Steve Francis, Cuttino Mobley, etc. And as a rook he's playing nearly five more minutes a game than Tyson is THIS YEAR.

Okafur's rookie season reminds me a lot of Brand's. I think he'll be a good player, but the organization (and coach) have an awful lot invested in him being the rookie of the year. He plays a lot of "why is he out there?" minutes imo, and there's no one on his own frontline to truly compete with him for rebounds. Like Brand, I've seen him struggle to finish plays and to defensive rebound in fourth quarters. So my jury is still out on him.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!But after missing the playoffs for six straight seasons, don't you think its time we focus on the big picture and forget about protecting our favorite players?


How about keeping some of our promising young talent on the team? Why see Chandler rip it up elsewhere just like with Brand and Miller.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> How about keeping some of our promising young talent on the team? Why see Chandler rip it up elsewhere just like with Brand and Miller.


You continue to ignore the premise of this thread: Based on declining production over the most recent 15 game span should there be concerns about Chandler's health and his capacity to perform as a full time player in the future?

If you want to view Chandler as God's Gift and completely ignore the possibility that he may be "damaged goods," then fine...please continue to call him anything you want, including "promising young talent." Just give some thought to maybe placing an asterisk after that "Brand-like" label because maybe, just maybe, as his track record has indicated, he's got physical problems that may keep him from fulfilling all that potential in Chicago or anywhere else for that matter.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> You continue to ignore the premise of this thread: Based on declining production over the most recent 15 game span should there be concerns about Chandler's health and his capacity to perform as a full time player in the future?
> ...


Kismet, if you know something about him being damaged goods, it would be cool of you to tell us, and if you do know and can't tell us, then thumbs-down to you for starting this thread.

If Chandler has a degenerative, serious problem with his back, then shame on the Bulls for not addressing it with the seriousness and care that it deserves -- he should be shut down today, treated at the world's best specialist, and aggressively rehabbed.

And if Chandler has a degenerative, serious problem with his back that the Bulls don't know about, that's the worst shame of all. What if this is like ERob's toe? "Oops, we didn't think to send Tyson to a variety of the world's best back specialists." Ugh.

If the Bulls have had Tyson's back checked by the best specialists available and the verdict is that he has an improvable condition or no condition at all, it's time -- after 7+ years! -- for Chairman Jerry to dust off those purse strings and sign one of his own to a market value, near max contract. That's just business.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> You continue to ignore the premise of this thread: Based on declining production over the most recent 15 game span should there be concerns about Chandler's health and his capacity to perform as a full time player in the future?
> ...


How have I ignored the main premise?

I have argued against it. His rebounding numbers are the same, his blocks are up. He has not had the touches to average 12 ppg.

He played great 3 games ago and 6 games ago. Are you saying his back is coming and going?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> Kismet, if you know something about him being damaged goods, it would be cool of you to tell us, and if you do know and can't tell us, then thumbs-down to you for starting this thread.
> ...


:yes:


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> Kismet, if you know something about him being damaged goods, it would be cool of you to tell us, and if you do know and can't tell us, then thumbs-down to you for starting this thread.


Is that it then? Am I to play by a different set of rules than the rest of you? Am I not allowed to speculate like any other fan? Anything I might know about a subject I should share with the rest of the world or I shouldn't comment on the topic at all, is that it?

I can't tell you how much I resent your attempt to box me in and prohibit me from proffering my opinion on this board in the same manner that everyone else does. edited and your unreasonable attempt to censor me and my POV.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> Is that it then? Am I to play by a different set of rules than the rest of you? Am I not allowed to speculate like any other fan? Anything I might know about a subject I should share with the rest of the world or I shouldn't comment on the topic at all, is that it?
> ...


Here's a "poor, poor Kismet" right back at you.

No one's forcing you to play by any rules or box you in. I wouldn't expect that from you anymore than I'd expect people to have to tread lightly around your posts and just accept them as pronouncements from upon high.

Censor you? :laugh: 

I'm just a little determined detractor. Jeez.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> Is that it then? Am I to play by a different set of rules than the rest of you? Am I not allowed to speculate like any other fan? Anything I might know about a subject I should share with the rest of the world or I shouldn't comment on the topic at all, is that it?
> ...


Yes, if Chandler has a degenerative back condition the Bulls would be wise to trade him ASAP. Collinson would be fine... given that Chandler's back is deteriorating.

Does he have such a problem? Who knows?

If heaven forbid Chandler has colon cancer we should trade him too BTW.


----------



## Lets_Play_2 (Jan 22, 2004)

Ok, actually this is a good thread, because we're probably going to get an answer to this. You can put money on the fact that sometime during this next week the question is going to be asked of Skiles/Pax.

After all, it kind of looks like any number of our sports media types use the thoughts posted here for fodder for their shows & columns.

Actually, this TC status issue is a question I've had back to the Milwaukee game (and even more in the Nets game) - TC is our boards guy, so when you need the boards cleaned, well, get him out there & keep him out there.

If you are getting beat up on the boards & TC is in early foul trouble, well, keep him out there - he's got to learn how to board when he's in foul trouble.

As an aside, from somebody who has had back trouble, he looks to be moving ok, so I'm not thinking that it's anything with his back. And I can see why they would have him wearing a back brace when he's out on the floor - it's called protection. Giving somebody an elbow in the back can do wonders to get position (not that would ever occur in the NBA)


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

*Re: Re:*



> Originally posted by <b>HuejMinitZ</b>!
> Totally. I'm telling you guys, everyone spends so much time focusing on Eddy and what we should do with Eddy. Just because the guy is an acrobatic 6 - 11 endomorph doesn't mean he is a good basketball player. Tyson can be a basketball player, and a good one to boot.
> 
> I am fully convinced after watching this team evolve (term used loosely) over the past couple of seasons in my devoted fandom that the plan of action should be TRADE EDDY CURRY NOW, keep Tyson and resign him and make him your 5, and then get a legitimate 4 via draft or trade.


That is what I think too. Keep Tyson. Curry will be traded. No need to rush things. John has until deadline. 

And as for Collison, I think ScottMay posted the way I feel about him. A good back up. I wouldn't trade Chandler for him.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Truth is, the Bulls should absolutely be considering the cap ramifications of players they bring in, because leveraging the cap lets you add more good players. At least, it gives you the chance.

While I don't agree with the 06 cap plan, there's at least some smarts behind it in that you get a whole lot of good young players lined up so you don't have to pay them until AFTER your FA money becomes available. That means you can add a couple of good players and then re-sign your own.

If you have to re-sign your own first, then you're over the cap and you can' sign anyone else. You're limited in the number of assets you can add.

That appears to be a completely valid thing to consider to me. Of course, if the goal is just a Clippers-like only pay guys on rookie contracts plan, then Jerry Reinsdorf needs a kick in the ***. But that doesn't change the fact that such moves can also make a lot of sense if used correctly.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re:*



> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> That is what I think too. Keep Tyson. Curry will be traded. No need to rush things. John has until deadline.
> ...


And that's what I'm confused about. Why Collison, of all PF's out there? Darko has a lot more potential and is probably very gettable with Chandler. Ebi, similarly, is a SF/PF in the mold of Garnett who might be teeming with more upside than Collison, and would probably be gettable for Chandler.

I don't see anything in Collison that I don't see in Darius Songaila, another strong bench power man with some real skills. Collison's ability to hit a jumper and have more range puts him closer to Laettner, but a young Laettner would be a roof on his skills (about 17 and 8, regularly, at the very best).

It just seems like if you're going to weigh interests, they should be fairly even with each other if you're going to make argument for it. Chandler's potential health zingers vs. Collison's virtually utterly unknown presence... I think Chandler will always win that.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> Nick Collison, I believe, has everything it takes to become a solid, above-average PF for the Bulls under Scott Skiles. He's a guy I'd go after hard as a long term, cornerstone type of player.


Reading my mind? :yes: Collison is precisely who I've been considering even since before the season began. He would fit brilliantly into Skiles' system. 

I just don't see post-play starved Seattle giving up on him so quickly. Though with their long ball game and frantic pace, an athletic rebounder like Chandler would be an ideal fit on that team.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Collison, eh. Saw him a lot in college. Figured him for a journeyman in the NBA and was hoping the Bulls wouldn't draft him. Missed his rookie year due to injury, right? Looked at his stats for this season and they say journeyman.

For those who have seen him lately, how would Skiles system bring out the best in Collison?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Has Kirk Hinrich also become the Bulls' head scout? 

Next thing I know I'm gonna find out MJ once suggested we trade for Joe Wolfe


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> You continue to ignore the premise of this thread: Based on declining production over the most recent 15 game span shoJuuld there be concerns about Chandler's health and his capacity to perform as a full time player in the future?
> 
> If you want to view Chandler as God's Gift and completely ignore the possibility that he may be "damaged goods," then fine...please continue to call him anything you want, including "promising young talent." Just give some thought to maybe placing an asterisk after that "Brand-like" label because maybe, just maybe, as his track record has indicated, he's got physical problems that may keep him from fulfilling all that potential in Chicago or anywhere else for that matter.


Wow Kismet, sometimes you are such a peculiar Bulls fan. When someone like you goes on and on and on about Chandler being "damaged goods" you certainly run the risk of helping move the conventional wisdom a bit. Of course, you dance around the issue in such a way that it would be hard to accuse you of compromising state secrets, but it is hard to see how your posts aren't intended to change conventional wisdom. In fact, isn't that exactly what you are trying to do here, by arguing that Chandler is such a risk that he has less worth than the 5th best big man on the Sonics?

I just can't imagine a Scott Skiles or John Paxson or Matt Lloyd coming out and saying the things you are about Chandler. So if what you are saying is not public enough for them to say it, why are you going out of your way to appear to say that Chandler is not getting better? That despite his good play over the last month, he is still "damaged goods" - damaged goods worth less than the 5th best big man on the Sonics.

So will you be happy if you are successful in moving the conventional wisdom to the point that Chandler is worth no more than Collison? How will that help the Bulls?

At this point, this is largely academic. I root for the Sonics and Bobcats these days as much as I do the Bulls, so I don't take what you are doing personally. Six months or a year ago I would have been furious with you, much like both of us were furious at that kid over at RealGM. But these days I just find your behavior very, very peculiar for someone with such a deep love of the Bulls.

The Bulls finally have something good going. Why take a chance - even a remote chance - of possibly making things harder for folks like Paxson, Skiles, and Lloyd? Those guys work their butts off and IMHO deserve better.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> Wow Kismet, sometimes you are such a peculiar Bulls fan. When someone like you goes on and on and on about Chandler being "damaged goods" you certainly run the risk of helping move the conventional wisdom a bit. Of course, you dance around the issue in such a way that it would be hard to accuse you of compromising state secrets, but it is hard to see how your posts aren't intended to change conventional wisdom. In fact, isn't that exactly what you are trying to do here, by arguing that Chandler is such a risk that he has less worth than the 5th best big man on the Sonics?
> 
> ...


Me, move conventional wisdom and make things harder for Bulls management? You are giving me way, way, way too much credit. Who do you think I am...Sam Smith? :groucho:

Lets clear something up. First and foremost I'm a fan like everyone else. And just like everyone else I have my own opinions on different issues. Perhaps I'm a bit of a worry-wart on occasions. Maybe its justified, maybe it isn't.

One problem here seems to be that some people don't take the time to read through a post, perhaps prefering to skim through them instead. Initially I made two factual observations...one statistical and the other from an on-site, first hand observation. There was nothing top-secret about the information I posted. My third post to this thread began: _" *Just speculating*...what if Chandler's back problems turn out to be chronic?_ Please, Dan, help me out here...what more do I have to do to make it clear that I'm expressing my own opinion? I also try very hard to inject terms like "IMO" and "I believe" as often as possible to make it as clear as I possibly can that all I'm doing is expressing my personal thoughts on a particular subject, just like anyone else on this board. What else should I do? Should I preface every post with a legal disclaimer? 

Frankly, this has reached a point where I no longer get the kind of enjoyment I used to from the debates and the give-and-take that I was part of in years past, going back as far as the old SportsTalk Ranters days. Most everyone seems to have an agenda these days. And somehow, someway there are those who have concluded that I have one too...that I'm on some kind of official mission to champion the cause of the organization to the public. Some people have gone so far as to accuse me of "floating" ideas to the public on behalf of Bulls management. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I've never done any such thing. Nor do I humbly believe that managent would ever base a personnel decision on public opinion in the first place. Bottom line, I'm a die-hard Bulls fan like anyone else. I have my own thoughts and opinions on various subjects and I've never really cared whether they're popular or not. Unfortunately, it appears that in my case anyway, its no longer about the subject matter...now its more about the poster. I never wanted it to be that way. 

I know you started your post off by calling me "a fan." And I think you might have done so with an awareness of where this was really heading. If that's the case, your intuition was on target. Posting on a message board is supposed to be fun, invigorating and occasionally informative. Its supposed to be something you look forward to doing. When it stops being those things for an individual, then perhaps its time to start looking for other things to do with your free time, or at least perhaps to seek a different venue to use as a way of expressing yourself. I've been here a long, long time. And there are some really bright, insightful people who have graciously shared their thoughts with the rest of us here at bbb.net. But now, when I personally weigh the pros and cons of whether I should continue to participate here on this board...well, speaking just for myself, I've never been the kind of person who enjoys engaging in "personal wars." And for me it seems that there's too much of that going on for me, at least on this message board.

Well, I've said too much already. But you called me "peculiar" so I thought I'd at least try to clear a few things up. Obladi oblada, la vie continue.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Well, jumping into this thread on the last page only, and avoiding some of the _other_ topics sloating around...I have to say:

Before making a move, the Bulls had better figure out what the source of their success is, and not mess with it.

There are so many things going right right now...but is it BG's emergence as a scorer and go-to man?

Or is it Tyson's return to his pre-injury form of last year?

Is it Eddy or is it the revitalized AD?

Is it Nocioni's energy (no!)?


Whatever it is, the Bulls had better be _sure_ before they make a move. I sometimes feel like this teams success is built on tissue paper, and a ill-advised shift of weight could cause the whole thing to rip and collapse.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Kismet, it doesn't seem (to me) like you have an agenda.

However, you're pretty much the only person that is that worried about Chandler. I just think that he has been getting fewer touches and has been getting into foul trouble these past few games. And, you have been pushing this issue pretty hard, in this thread and others, when there doesn't seem to be much of an issue. So maybe that's why people would think you have an agenda; I don't know. Maybe you have better insight than us. 

This was discussed lightly in another thread, but chronic back injuries are hardly career threatening. Camby is the worst example out there and he's still an effective player today. Some people even believe that Camby didn't want to play so he faked some injuries. And he and Chandler have very similar body types. I just don't think that a back injury is an incurable ailment, and I don't think that Chandler has such a problem anyway.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> So will you be happy if you are successful in moving the conventional wisdom to the point that Chandler is worth no more than Collison? How will that help the Bulls?


Supposing for a moment everything you say is true, how exactly does publicly airing it help the Bulls?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

14 rebounds and 3 blocks doesn't sound like damaged goods to me.

8 offensive boards, but only 4 FGA. Must not have had many putback opportunities. Detroit sure does have a great interior defense - and they don't have to guard AD very far from the basket.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

So, I'm also jumping in on this thread after the discussion has pretty much been exhausted but I'll attempt to add a few things anyways. First of all, I don't necessarily think it's appropriate to place the blame entirely on Kismet and some speculation is certainly acceptable but I found it flaberagasting to reading people determining that Chandler has a chronic back injury that the Bulls are aware of and have relied on as a reason to limit his minutes because 1) his rebounding and points are down in the last seven games compared to the previous eight games both of which are rather small sample sizes 2) he's wearing a back brace which no one has indicated is representative of an ongoing back problem as opposed to precaution 3) one poster in the thread claimed he observed Chandler moving with dimished mobility.

Tonight's game obviously makes it pretty clear that the team has not limited Chandler's minutes (he logged 37) and that he is still capable of a great deal of activity (3 blocks and 14 boards). I for one would go even further and suggest that whether he starts or comes off the bench Chandler needs to be playing 35 minutes a game and not 27. Okafor and Howard do have better numbers than Chandler but they're doing it in 10 and 5 minutes more per game respectively. Sam Smith just wrote an article suggesting the Bulls may want to trade Curry and start Chandler at center  which includes a quote from Larry Brown stating that Ty is one of his favorite players in the league and has a tremendous impact on games. Tonight the Pistons seemed to be scoring down low at will whenever Chandler was out of the game. Chandler would average a double double and our defense would improve if his minutes went up. I realize he's been in foul trouble some lately but he hasn't fouled out once in that stretch so Skiles is not completely maximizing his minutes. I could see great things from this ballclub with Chandler replicating tonight's performance alongside 15 or 20 points from Curry on a regular basis.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!But after missing the playoffs for six straight seasons, don't you think its time we focus on the big picture and forget about protecting our favorite players?


Normally, I might agree with you. But when Larry Brown and I are on the same page, maybe not.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...03smith,1,3155128.column?coll=cs-home-utility



> "Chandler is one of my favorite players in the league," Pistons coach Larry Brown said.
> 
> "You look tonight. He had six points but also an unbelievable effect on the game. Tyson rebounds, defends and challenges shots."


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

We are winning!!!!!!!!!


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> Frankly, this has reached a point where I no longer get the kind of enjoyment I used to from the debates and the give-and-take that I was part of in years past, going back as far as the old SportsTalk Ranters days. Most everyone seems to have an agenda these days. And somehow, someway there are those who have concluded that I have one too...that I'm on some kind of official mission to champion the cause of the organization to the public. Some people have gone so far as to accuse me of "floating" ideas to the public on behalf of Bulls management. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I've never done any such thing. Nor do I humbly believe that managent would ever base a personnel decision on public opinion in the first place. Bottom line, I'm a die-hard Bulls fan like anyone else. I have my own thoughts and opinions on various subjects and I've never really cared whether they're popular or not. Unfortunately, it appears that in my case anyway, its no longer about the subject matter...now its more about the poster. I never wanted it to be that way.
> 
> ...


Kismet, it is rather unfortunate to see the same series of events unfold time after time. You post something legitimate, whether opinion, fact, speculation, argument. It turns personal and the post gets gangbanged by the same BB.net entourage.

Whether you have an agenda or not... I don't care really. I always like what you have to say. WHy some get so unbelievably worked up by your musings is beyond my comprehension.

I've stayed out of most of these postings because they get so intensely personal. However, I would like to extend an olive branch and say that you contribute a whole lot to this site. You are one of the few reasons I stick around. Peace.


----------



## SPIN DOCTOR (Oct 31, 2002)

Kismet, you are easily one on the finest posters on this site. As a matter of fact, I make it a point to read your opinions because I just might learn something interesting. 

Let it roll off your back.


----------



## atlbull (Feb 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>SPIN DOCTOR</b>!
> Kismet, you are easily one on the finest posters on this site. As a matter of fact, I make it a point to read your opinions because I just might learn something interesting.
> 
> Let it roll off your back.


Count me in on the Kismet bandwagon. I don't post much but I really enjoy reading all the regulars on this board. Right or Wrong it's their opinion and they're entitled to their opinion.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

Denver need to do something 

They need to decide what type of team they want to be . To a large extent the acquisition of Martin has confused the issue and unless they get themselves a different point guard , and a coach , who is committed to a more uptempo push style ( not Dre Miller's style ) then Martin was a waste of an acquisition 

Chandler would be a compounding of this flaw as stylistically he is running finishing type of big man at the best of what he has to offer , and , this is similar to Camby and Martin 

Keep Camby as the mop up man and if Nene were to be dealt then Eddy Curry is probably the trade you should do if you were the Nuggets 

Nene is a post player with some very impressive moves and footwork in the post .. but is he an upgrade over Eddy Curry , from the Bulls perspective , if you were to trade for Nene , this would be the most logical pick 

The short answer is I like Eddy over Nene and see Eddy having a bigger pro impact as he continues to develop so I don't really see at this time how a trade for Nene makes sense for Chicago 

I do think that Dre Miller will be dealt and a deal that seems to make sense to me is to deal him and Skita to New Jersey for Jason Kidd and Ron Mercer 

Nene , KMart , Melo , Mercer and Kidd with Camby as 6th 

Collins , Jefferson , Carter and Miller would be at the core for Jersey with favourable draft position and free agency additions to bolster big man depth at the power spot


----------

