# I offer chandler for Al harrington...



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

would u guys accept tyson chandler for al harrington straightup?


----------



## Cochise (Apr 13, 2003)

Why the hell would Chicago do that? So the Bulls end up with Harrington for Brand? NOOOOO.


----------



## L 23 J (Dec 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sith</b>!
> would u guys accept tyson chandler for al harrington straightup?


Harrignton is having a much much much much much better year to this point. In fact if he does this all year he will walk away with 6th man of the year. So I would say no!!!


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

If I was sure he would be able to come back with a good back and play the C for us then yes. Cochise, dont downplay Harrington too much, hes had alot of huge games already this season.


----------



## L 23 J (Dec 12, 2002)

Are you kidding? Right now there is only 3 guys on the PAcers that can consistently score. That's Harrington, Artest, and O'Neal. If you got rid of Harrignton and replaced him with a guy with a career average of 7 points the Pacers would struggle to score 80 a night. At this point Harrignton is a better play than Chandler by a lot.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Chandler is a rebounding monster though. And although we're already very solid rebounding team, more rebounds ca never hurt. Also, Bender should be back in the lineup soon and could be an offensive spark.


----------



## L 23 J (Dec 12, 2002)

Foster is all the rebounding I need. Bender would never average 15 points off the bench in amillion years.


----------



## PacersguyUSA (Sep 1, 2002)

I agree with L 23 J on everything he's said.


----------



## jvanbusk (Jun 9, 2002)

I agree with R-Star. 

Actually, I feel this is a no-brainer. Chandler is a 7 footer with a higher ceiling than Harrington. Chandler is averaging 13 and 10 this year. He has improved every year since coming into the league. Harrington is a very good player and a good scorer off the bench, but Chandler has the potential to be a superstar. It goes back to the argument that wings are a dime a dozen. Great 7 footers are not easy to come by.

I don't believe Chicago would make this offer, though. So really, it's a mute point.


----------



## TLR (May 28, 2003)

Harrington is a better player right now and that is all I need to know because I am tired of "developing" and waiting on people. Harrington is just as good of a rebounder and a better shooter by a whole lot. In fact lately Harrington has been showing a skill I didn't know he had. Passing. He's been racking up a lot of assists lately. And Harrignton is only 2 or 3 years older than Chandler anyway.


----------



## MillerTime (Jul 6, 2003)

I'd do a Harrington for Eddie Curry deal though. I don't know if Chicago would. Only if Seattle would do a Brent Barry for Jeff Foster right after the Bulls/Pacers deal though.


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

Indiana would trade Harrington for Chandler in a heartbeat. He's going to be a pretty dominant C/PF in this league for years to come. To compete for a championship, big men are a major priority and Chandler looks like a keeper.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TLR</b>!
> Harrington is a better player right now and that is all I need to know because I am tired of "developing" and waiting on people. Harrington is just as good of a rebounder and a better shooter by a whole lot. In fact lately Harrington has been showing a skill I didn't know he had. Passing. He's been racking up a lot of assists lately. And Harrignton is only 2 or 3 years older than Chandler anyway.


I dont know if I would say Al's as good of a rebounder. Tysons been injured but has still pulled down huge boards. Their offensive games arent even close, and Al is one of the better lock down defenders in the L, but Chandler is just a beast on the glass and can block shots with the best of them.


----------



## PacersguyUSA (Sep 1, 2002)

I wouldn't trade Harrington because like I've said before, he is one of only a few players in the league with an unstoppable shot, his turnaround fadaway.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PacersguyUSA</b>!
> I wouldn't trade Harrington because like I've said before, he is one of only a few players in the league with an unstoppable shot, his turnaround fadaway.


Yea i agree here, he has served a very important role to us as a great 6th man and scorer/defender in the games without JO or Artest. Plus i'm sick of developing players mainly Bender, I wanna win now. Chandler may have a higher ceiling than Harrington but i never see him getting there, in my eyes Chandler is just the next Kwame Brown or Jonathan Bender.


----------



## jvanbusk (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Pacers Fan</b>!
> 
> 
> Yea i agree here, he has served a very important role to us as a great 6th man and scorer/defender in the games without JO or Artest. Plus i'm sick of developing players mainly Bender, I wanna win now. Chandler may have a higher ceiling than Harrington but i never see him getting there, in my eyes Chandler is just the next Kwame Brown or Jonathan Bender.


Chandler is already averaging 13 and 10 for the season, though. He has gradually improved every year since entering the league. He'd be in the top 10 in rebounds per 48 minutes if he had enough games to qualify (played in 10 games so far this year), and his points per 48 minutes is actually higher than Al Harringtons. 

I don't see the logic in comparing Chandler to Brown or Bender. He's already ahead of those two guys. 

Chandlers stats for his first three years in the league:

Year one:
19.6 MPG
6.1 PPG
4.8 RPG

Year two:
24.4 MPG
9.2 PPG
6.9 RPG

Year three:
28.6 MPG
13.0 PPG
10.3 RPG

Am I the only one that sees a gradual improvement there? There aren't many guys in the NBA that are averaging double-doubles right now.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jvanbusk</b>!
> 
> 
> Chandler is already averaging 13 and 10 for the season, though. He has gradually improved every year since entering the league. He'd be in the top 10 in rebounds per 48 minutes if he had enough games to qualify (played in 10 games so far this year), and his points per 48 minutes is actually higher than Al Harringtons.
> ...


I agree. The only question is his back. If he could keep it healthy I would do this trade in a second. Although I realy dont want to lose Harrington.


----------



## Thorgal (Feb 1, 2003)

As a Bulls fan I'd say - N O W A Y

AI is going to be very solid pro, maybe even an All-Star someday, who knows.

But Tyson Chandler is a very special player. If healthy he'd *already* be in Top 5-8 in the league in rebounds and blocks. And still, he's only 21.


----------



## TLR (May 28, 2003)

Well then it is stupid for both teams. Pacers need a guy who can create his own offense and score alot of points. Bulls think they see soemthing special in Chandler, that's fine with me. Harrignton is the better player right now and is one of the few people on our team that create offense. 

Chandler has played in 10 games. Sure he's averageing 13 and 10 but come on he still hasn't proved anything over a long season. He has never been to the playoffs. He can rebound, but we have Foster, O'Neal, Harrington, and Artest for that. Rebounding is not the issue. Chandler has nothing on Harrignton at this point in their careers, except maybe more potential. And potential does not equal wins.


----------



## PacersguyUSA (Sep 1, 2002)

Bender has a higher ceiling than Chandler anyway. Bender can shoot, is 7ft, and can jump like 3.5 ft.! He can get from the 3 pt line to the basket in about 2 steps.


----------



## DetBNyce (Jul 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PacersguyUSA</b>!
> Bender has a higher ceiling than Chandler anyway. Bender can shoot, is 7ft, and can jump like 3.5 ft.! He can get from the 3 pt line to the basket in about 2 steps.


Those numbers are good and all but until Bender can put together a string of games where he actually gets to use those "skills" it doesn't matter. Just because he has the potential doesn't mean he'll fulfill it.


----------



## PacersguyUSA (Sep 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DetBNyce</b>!
> 
> 
> Those numbers are good and all but until Bender can put together a string of games where he actually gets to use those "skills" it doesn't matter. Just because he has the potential doesn't mean he'll fulfill it.


I know, but the Chandler backers said Chandler was better because of his potential.


----------



## DetBNyce (Jul 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PacersguyUSA</b>!
> 
> 
> I know, but the Chandler backers said Chandler was better because of his potential.


So because a guy can jump he is good? A lot more things factor into potential than athletic ability... like actually showing something on the court.


----------



## TLR (May 28, 2003)

There is no question between Bender and Chandler. I would take Chandler over "the human pogo stick" 10 times out of 10.


----------



## PacersguyUSA (Sep 1, 2002)

I wouldn't. Think about it. Bender get the ball at the 3 point line. The defender comes to guard him, Bender takes 2 steps and dunks it.


----------



## TLR (May 28, 2003)

You know, there are good players _outside_ of Indiana.


----------



## PacersguyUSA (Sep 1, 2002)

I'm not saying Bender is better than Chandler!!! I'm saying that we wouldn't trade Harrington for Chandler based on potential because Bender has a higher potential than Chandler anyway. 

And if you'd check my profile, you'd see that I like: 

Stephon Marbury, Amare Stoudemaire, Ricky Davis, Shawn Marion, Jalen Rose, Ben Wallace, and Tim Hardaway

Among Others.


----------



## DetBNyce (Jul 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PacersguyUSA</b>!
> I'm not saying Bender is better than Chandler!!! I'm saying that we wouldn't trade Harrington for Chandler based on potential because Bender has a higher potential than Chandler anyway.
> 
> And if you'd check my profile, you'd see that I like:
> ...


How long can you hold on to potential.

Bender may have more potential than Chandler (that can be argued) although I feel Chandler has more poential based off the fact that his potential will have more of an effect on the outcome of games. He's a great defender and is going to be a monster on the boards.


----------



## PacersguyUSA (Sep 1, 2002)

> How long can you hold on to potential.


Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!

That is why we wouldn't trade Harrington for Chandler. Harrington is better RIGHT NOW.


----------



## DetBNyce (Jul 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PacersguyUSA</b>!
> 
> 
> Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!
> ...


Don't twist my words, I'm talking about in the case of Bender how long can you hold on. Chandler has shown he can do these things on a consistent basis (he's hurt now, but he has shown), haven't seen the same out of Bender.


----------



## L 23 J (Dec 12, 2002)

Still Chandler has nothing on Harrignton at this point in his career. And Harrignton is only 2 years older than him, it's not like its a seasoned geezer that is past his prime. Harrington can still get better as he has been showing this season with his improved passing and the such. As far as bender goes I'm tired of seeing him out on the court lost and always having an excuse for sucking.


----------



## PacersguyUSA (Sep 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DetBNyce</b>!
> 
> 
> Don't twist my words, I'm talking about in the case of Bender how long can you hold on. Chandler has shown he can do these things on a consistent basis (he's hurt now, but he has shown), haven't seen the same out of Bender.


Ok, but that's not what I'm talking about. I don't see how you don't understand that I'm talking about Chandlers potential vs. Benders potential because the Chandler backers were talking about Chandlers potential. Therefore doesn't it make sense to state that we have a player with more potential than Chandler, thus we don't need Chandler based on potential?

And sorry for twisting your words, I though you ment that you can't depend on potential, I didn't know you were specifically referring to Bender.


----------



## jreywind (May 30, 2003)

I would never deal Harrington for Chandler. I think people way understand Harrington's game.


----------



## TysEdyKirkrthefuture. (Nov 19, 2003)

Chandler for Harrington?



Chandler way more talented than Harrington, and someone said Harrington is having a better year, that's because Tyson is injured you EDIT he was leading the league in rebounding before his injury to his back, and he's only 21.

How about Curry for JO, that is how I feel about Harrington for Chandler

* Dont try to bring that garbage in here again. It wont fly. No person attacks please*


----------



## jreywind (May 30, 2003)

Good we are in agreement. Stupid trade, I don't think Indy should give up Harrington for Chandler, no how, no way. Chandler is a talented kid I'll give you that, but the Pacers are above talent. They need leadership not just talent. Harrington is also a star waiting to blossom, just a little closer than Chandler.


----------



## PacersguyUSA (Sep 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TysEdyKirkrthefuture.</b>!
> Chandler for Harrington?
> 
> 
> ...


Try watching Harrington play before you say something. And yeah, it sure would be great to have another constantly injured player our team.


----------



## MillerTime (Jul 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TysEdyKirkrthefuture.</b>!
> 
> 
> How about Curry for JO, that is how I feel about Harrington for Chandler


Dude, sorry to break it to you, but Indiana wouldn't do a Harrington for Chandler trade. Curry for Harrington plus something i'd do, i don't know if Bulls would. I could careless because i'm happy with my team as it is now, with Harrington on it. We need a SG and a PG because those 2 spots will be a weakness in the future. Unless of course Artest plays SG.


----------



## TLR (May 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TysEdyKirkrthefuture.</b>!
> Chandler for Harrington?
> 
> 
> ...


you sit there and rant that Tyson is more talented, yet you add no true facts to back up your statement. Sure, you said before he got injured he led the league in rebounding. But that is garbage. Rigth now Harrignton is the better player due to his shooting, scoring, passing, playmaking, and hustle being way above Chandler's ability in those areas. I will give you that Chandler is the better rebounder but it is not like Harrignton is a rebounding slacker. the only area that Chandler is better at by a lot is shot blocking. Chandler may have more potential but if potential equlaed production Ryan Leaf would be a HOFer


----------



## Zuca (Dec 4, 2003)

Chandler and Fizer for Bender and Al Harrington...?


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Zuca</b>!
> Chandler and Fizer for Bender and Al Harrington...?


no thanks


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Zuca</b>!
> Chandler and Fizer for Bender and Al Harrington...?


Want Jermaine too? Would that be fair for the Bulls?


----------



## TLR (May 28, 2003)

I think we should also throw in a few firsts. I mean that would be only fair.


----------

