# rumor!! seattle called...



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

they want chandler for ray allen. i understand why they need someone big and allen is expandable now. but do we do it? and start allen+jc at the backcourt together.


----------



## BullFan16 (Jun 2, 2003)

id definatly not do it


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

I wouldn't do it right now. Just because I wouldn't want to end up with a Grant Hill type situation with Ray's ankle.


----------



## ztect (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sith</b>!
> they want chandler for ray allen. i understand why they need someone big and allen is expandable now. but do we do it? and start allen+jc at the backcourt together.


Ever here of the acroynm CBA?

No it isn't a league, but an agreement, underwhich a few
another player or two would have to be added to make the deal work.

Love Ray, but Tyson's too much of a freak to even contemplate
any such deal.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> I wouldn't do it right now. Just because I wouldn't want to end up with a Grant Hill type situation with Ray's ankle.



Whats the deal with his ankle?
Is it that bad?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Genuine Article</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You atleast have to think about it. Obviously it doesnt work under the cap. But what if they threw in Barry and Radmonovic and we threw in Davis? Could it? I dont think chandler and curry can ever be dominant together. the reason is that neither guys has the range required to keep the spacing where it is. Radmonovic could shoot it from the outside for us and keep Curry from battling both a 5 and a 4 at the same time, since Chandler is exclusively inside. Allen is a great player. and Barry comes off the books in a year. Its not going to happen, but its fun to talk about it. Maybe we can throw in Fizer?


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

paxson has been calling for another 2/3 scorer and few are better than Ray allen. good def, excellent shooter and not to mention, one good person. u want smething good? u gonna give up something good.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

if u could trade chandler for either Ray or al harrington, which one would u want? i personally would want harrington, hes younger, alot bigger and just about to as good as ray allen. and he can play the 3 or 4. we already got jamal for the 2.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> You atleast have to think about it. Obviously it doesnt work under the cap. But what if they threw in Barry and Radmonovic and we threw in Davis? Could it? I dont think chandler and curry can ever be dominant together. the reason is that neither guys has the range required to keep the spacing where it is. Radmonovic could shoot it from the outside for us and keep Curry from battling both a 5 and a 4 at the same time, since Chandler is exclusively inside. Allen is a great player. and Barry comes off the books in a year. Its not going to happen, but its fun to talk about it. Maybe we can throw in Fizer?



I agree, as much as I love Chandler's game, and his energy, I'd definitely love to say Allen in Chicago. 
I've always been a fan of his, and thats what we need right now, a player like him. 

How would such a trade pan out for us for the future?
Sure we have AD etc to cover for Chandler's spot now, but what about in a year or two.

Also , just wondering, what's Allens age? 26 or so?


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

I've got a better idea...Fizer and Mason to Dallas for Delk and Best.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Genuine Article</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i am not going to look, but just a guess. 28? he is a heck of a player. and someone who can really shoot it. But with Kirk and Jamal, we might not need a 2 as much as we need a 3. But I am of the opinion that has good as Curry and Chandler are going to be, they would be better off without one another. Curry needs a 4 who can shoot it from the outside and hit the D glass hard. Whether Vladimir could do the rebounding is up to debate. but he can stroke it, which makes eddys life 10x easier under the basket. Its a deal that you atleast have to consider. I would probably at the end of the day pass. I think if your going to deal Chandler, you need to get a first rate 3 for him. and you have to be concerned about his back problems.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

thats why i want al harrington instead of ray allen. u ugys have no idea how good harrington is.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sith</b>!
> thats why i want al harrington instead of ray allen. u ugys have no idea how good harrington is.


i like Harrington. I think he is a good player. But is he really a 3? I have seen some games where he looks like he is. and then some others where is really an undersized 4. Regardless he is a player. but maybe not exactly what we need. Last night, when the game turned, one of the reasons was spacing. We had Curry, AD and JYD in on the front line. and everytime curry got the ball, he was facing a triple team cause the average range of JYD and AD is about 4 feet. Sure JYD can defend, but you need some spacing out there. some nights, Harrington is that guy. other nights, who knows. But one thing is for sure, Indiana would deal him for the right PG. perhaps a C. Bird and carlisle want to play Croshere, but just cant find the minutes for him.


----------



## Cochise (Apr 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> i am not going to look, but just a guess. 28? he is a heck of a player. and someone who can really shoot it. But with Kirk and Jamal, we might not need a 2 as much as we need a 3. But I am of the opinion that has good as Curry and Chandler are going to be, they would be better off without one another. Curry needs a 4 who can shoot it from the outside and hit the D glass hard. Whether Vladimir could do the rebounding is up to debate. but he can stroke it, which makes eddys life 10x easier under the basket. Its a deal that you atleast have to consider. I would probably at the end of the day pass. I think if your going to deal Chandler, you need to get a first rate 3 for him. and you have to be concerned about his back problems.



What makes you think Chandler and Curry won't work together? Chandler will end up working the high post and Curry the low. Tyson's 15-17 footer looks like it will eventually be a weapon. From day one it was obvious these two will eventually complement each other. You'll never hear Pax or anyone else in the organization say otherwise. Tyson and Eddie are still learning how to play the game. In about 3-4 years they'll not only have it down but also know how to play off each other.
I look at Tyson and see (eventually) a versatile PF and Eddy a monster down low.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

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


lets hope so. But there is absolutely no indication that Chandler will ever have a face up game. and believe me, it will be easier for Curry to operate if he had a 4 who could knock down 20 footers playing along side him. Chandler has made about 5 shots over 15 feet in his NBA career. So there is no indication that its coming. Not to say it can happen, but are we going to wait another 4 years for this to happen? i dont think so. Plus, take into account that Chandler has a bad back at the ripe old age of 21, and you have to atleast consider a trade. i am the biggest Chandler fan here, ask Shambulls, but for the better of the team, this JUST MIGHT be the way to go.

also just because Pax and Krause say so doesnt mean its going to happen. I believe Curry or Chandler would be the last people Pax would want to deal. But he appears to be open to any proposal


----------



## kirk_hinrich_ROY (Nov 27, 2003)

no way in hell we do that trade, youd have to be an idiot to agree to that deal


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kirk_hinrich_ROY</b>!
> no way in hell we do that trade, youd have to be an idiot to agree to that deal


what about a trade where the principles are chandler and mashburn? or Chandler and Tmac?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> what about a trade where the principles are chandler and mashburn? or Chandler and Tmac?


TMAC is a major step up from Mashburn or Allen. You would have to listen about TMac. 

As for Allen, the Bucks and Sonics have now both "lost" Allen and are playing just as well.

Let's keep TC.


----------



## Cochise (Apr 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> lets hope so. But there is absolutely no indication that Chandler will ever have a face up game. and believe me, it will be easier for Curry to operate if he had a 4 who could knock down 20 footers playing along side him. Chandler has made about 5 shots over 15 feet in his NBA career. So there is no indication that its coming. Not to say it can happen, but are we going to wait another 4 years for this to happen? i dont think so. Plus, take into account that Chandler has a bad back at the ripe old age of 21, and you have to atleast consider a trade. i am the biggest Chandler fan here, ask Shambulls, but for the better of the team, this JUST MIGHT be the way to go.
> ...



There's absolutely indication that he has a face up game. Everytime I have seen him face up he always gets up a good shot or gets to the foul line. It's true he hardly tries it but you have to remember that he never gets any plays run for him. He was the fifth option behind Jalen, Marshall, Curry, and Jamal. Now Skiles will turn him into the third option very soon. I think you'll be surprised with what he can do on offense.

The Bulls need him to play tough down low and it's costing him back pain with his slight body. There's no structural damage. Jamal's ACl was far more serious than Tyson's back. I believe Tyson knows he made a huge mistake in not getting as much weight and strength on his frame over the summer. Rest, rehab, and finally working hard to gain muscle/weight will end those painful days.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Also, look at TC's improvement at the FT line. It's a good indication that he will be able to extend his shot.


----------



## Cochise (Apr 13, 2003)

LOL. I was just going to add that johnston.


----------



## kirk_hinrich_ROY (Nov 27, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> lets hope so. But there is absolutely no indication that Chandler will ever have a face up game. and believe me, it will be easier for Curry to operate if he had a 4 who could knock down 20 footers playing along side him. Chandler has made about 5 shots over 15 feet in his NBA career. So there is no indication that its coming. Not to say it can happen, but are we going to wait another 4 years for this to happen? i dont think so. Plus, take into account that Chandler has a bad back at the ripe old age of 21, and you have to atleast consider a trade. i am the biggest Chandler fan here, ask Shambulls, but for the better of the team, this JUST MIGHT be the way to go.


so you think Ray Allen's ankles are less of a risk then Tyson ever developing a jumper? lol. Ray allen will never be the same, and if he does he'l deteriorate every time he hurts it, its a chronic injury.. not the average type.. he's had those ankle injuries for a couple years now. besides you must not have seen the bulls much if you dont think Tyson is improving his jumper lol


----------



## kirk_hinrich_ROY (Nov 27, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> what about a trade where the principles are chandler and mashburn? or Chandler and Tmac?


if they offer you Mashburn or Ray Allen, you laugh in their faces then hang up. If they offer you Tmac, you think about it for an hour, then ask for drew gooden as well, just for ****s and giggles. then you pull the trigger


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

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


again, i hope your right. I just dont think so. but i hope so. For the Bulls on Offense, they really need Chandler to atleast knock down shots from the top of the key. A shot he has never made. Like i said, I dont think there is any indication he can do this. he has made not 5 shots in his whole career from 16 feet or futher. 

On Defense, your absolutely right. We need him downlow banging on the low blocks and rebounding, because Curry will never be a good rebounder. So i totally agree with you. However, he does have a bad back. backs tend to be chronic. Tmac has a bad back as well that acts up for the last 4 years. Sometimes you can go with it, sometimes you cant. pippen was able too. but its a worry. I dont believe Chandler will ever get to the 245-250 that he needs to get to be the muscle underneath. He is simply a skinny kid. He doesnt have wide shoulders, therefore not a good base to work from. 

However, in the right system, chandler will be an effective player in the NBA. he already is. maybe even a star. He can flat out run and jump and he has the wingspan of a 747. but if Curry is going to the focus of the teams offense, then Chandler is going to have to change his entire game. My beef isnt with Chandler, or Curry. both are stars. but I think they would be far better off without one another then with one another. i dont think they have the chemistry that everyone says they do. Its just a feel. but i do have one piece of evidence to support my point of view. 

Last year when Chandler had his best stretch of games, guess who was his front court mate? Marcus Fizer. it was during a stretch when Curry wasnt even playing. Chandler was great. Mostly cause he could operate downlow all by his lonesome while Fizer would start out 18 feet from the bucket and then back his way in. Curry had his best stretch last year after Chandler got hurt and his minutes came down. Blount was playing the 4 for alot of the games that Curry dominated. Marshall was in there too. Neither has particularly dominated when they have been in there together. Now after 3 years, I would think we would see some signs. We just havent. whether that is the coaches, GMs or the players faults, i just dont know. But I do think its something that Management needs to atleast talk about. 

Again, I hope your right. But you dont move ahead in this league thinking with your blinders on (this isnt a shot at you, but at the GMs, just being clear). krause just sold us that Chandler and Curry would be perfect for one another. That was because chandler had perimeter skills in HS that have not translated to the NBA. Krause has been wrong so far. That is clear. pax has a choice. He can stick with the Krause mantra or he can take his own. So far, he has taken the Krause mantra. my gut is that these 2 have this year to show they can dominate together. after that, patience wears thin. All i ask of our management is to keep an open mind for any trade opportunity. If someone wants Chandler/Curry bad enough and is willing to give us a star for him, take it. Again, I am the biggest Chandler fan on this board. But for the better of the team, there really is no indication that he and Curry can co-exist.  Who should go? Curry or Chandler? that is a whole different argument. But its clear Curry is the focus of the offense. and chandler is going to really need to become a totally different player to play alongside him. and if he is going to have a bad back and need rest this summer, then he probably isnt going to be able to change much. again, i hope I am wrong


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Cochise</b>!
> LOL. I was just going to add that johnston.


knocking down FTs is a whole different game then knocking down 20 footers with a hand in your face. Just thought I would point that out.

Also, I never said do the allen for chandler trade. i said you would have to consider it.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

as much as i like chandler, i would have to say 25/8 center(curry during his prime) is alot more harder to find than a 15/10 guy. curry is the future of the team not chandler, now if we could get smeone relatively young like ray allen. i say go for it!!


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

The big problem I see is that the Bulls have pretty much made the commitment to "Jamal at the 2" as a function of "Jamal not at the 1".

I don't see how we could field a team of Jamal, Allen, and Kirk in the long run. If we were to trade Chandler, I'd want to trade him for a guy that could really play the three- score and be our top defender to boot.

I don't like the Curry for Artest, idea, but conceptually I'd have to think long and hard about Chandler for Artest. Or Peja, or Shawn Marion, or someone like that.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> The big problem I see is that the Bulls have pretty much made the commitment to "Jamal at the 2" as a function of "Jamal not at the 1".
> 
> I don't see how we could field a team of Jamal, Allen, and Kirk in the long run. If we were to trade Chandler, I'd want to trade him for a guy that could really play the three- score and be our top defender to boot.
> ...


I would do a Chandler for Peja trade as the principles in a heart beat. As much as I love chandler, you can always find a super atheletic 4 in the draft or FA every year. Its the most plentiful position in the NBA.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

who do u guys think chandler will end up like during his prime?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sith</b>!
> who do u guys think chandler will end up like during his prime?


depends on the system etc. max out, 15-10 2.5 blks per. That is pretty darn good. he isnt KG. and his game isnt going to be like Rasheed Wallace. But he could be as good as Shawn Kemp was in his prime. Maybe not even that good since Kemp has far better handles and a shot. But in terms of atheletic ability and explosion, its a possibility. Before people take that as an insult, let me point out that Kemp led a team to the 5th best record of alltime and to an NBA finals. But he would need to be in a system where he was the focus of the inside game. remember, Seattle played perkins, a 3 point shooter alot with Kemp during their great years


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> The big problem I see is that the Bulls have pretty much made the commitment to "Jamal at the 2" as a function of "Jamal not at the 1".
> 
> I don't see how we could field a team of Jamal, Allen, and Kirk in the long run. If we were to trade Chandler, I'd want to trade him for a guy that could really play the three- score and be our top defender to boot.
> ...


When I came up with the Curry for Artest suggestion, it was originally a Chandler for Artest concept. I just couldn't make the trade checker work with a Chandler deal, because it still had Rose and Marshall and Baxter as Bulls and no salary combinations would work. I think Jeffries' salary could be used to make it work CBA-wise.

If Indy would do either, I'd be all over it like white on rice, if I were Paxson.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

So Chandlers prime is 15-10 so you guys are saying Chandler is already in his prime. He is already 13-10 guy so he is only 2 points away from his prime. I think not. his prime numbers will be like 20-15. The only trade I would take for Chandler is the Mrion one where Marion is a potential superstar, that is a great wing defender.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I think folks will be surprised at how Chandler's offensive game develops. His shot is coming along. Look at his free throw shooting. And just the fact that he's getting to the line a lot is pretty impressive too.

I'm really interested to see Skiles attempt to play a Curry, Ad, and Chandler lineup. In fact, I think I want to see it before I see a trade. My big concern isn't so much the shooting as the handle on Chandler... That's what's going to break him, if anything does, of playing the 3. Shooting and style of play is the second concern. He looks like he's getting a face up game, but it's still not there yet, and I wonder if that will ever be his most effective use.

On the other hand, if he can't build strength, it doesn't matter whether he's more effective in the post or not, because playing him there will keep getting him hurt.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

i have seen enough from Hinrich and Crawford to actually believe that our offense is going to be guard focused. the bulls will add a 3 at some point. at best, chandler is a 4th option as the team is assembled. To get to 20-15 would take him being in another uniform. heck, Tim Duncan doesnt average 20-15, that might be a stretch


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Chandler is taller and more athletic than Duncan and boxes out better than Duncan and can sky for the rebounds.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> I think folks will be surprised at how Chandler's offensive game develops. His shot is coming along. Look at his free throw shooting. And just the fact that he's getting to the line a lot is pretty impressive too.
> 
> I'm really interested to see Skiles attempt to play a Curry, Ad, and Chandler lineup. In fact, I think I want to see it before I see a trade. My big concern isn't so much the shooting as the handle on Chandler... That's what's going to break him, if anything does, of playing the 3. Shooting and style of play is the second concern. He looks like he's getting a face up game, but it's still not there yet, and I wonder if that will ever be his most effective use.
> ...


FT shooting is not a good indication of being a good shooter or not. I can whip out 10 guys who have zero range who can make FTs and 10 guys who are great shooters who cant shoot FTS (bruce bowen comes to mind). I would also point out that Chandler shot nearly 90% from the line over the last 15-20 games of his rookie year and never built much of a face up game from that in year 2. Now, is it possible for him to develop one? yes. But if he is going to have a bad back, then that is going to require rest. and for him to develop that game is going to require alot of work, which he might not be able to do. but hey, I can be wrong, and hope to be wrong. but i just think the Bulls ought to keep all their options open. and calling Chandler and Curry untouchables when neither has put an entire season together is quite a reach. I remember this summer when Cuban was interested in Curry, people, not here, said that they wouldnt trade him for Dirk. Cmon people. These kids have lots of potential, but that is different from production. any sane person would deal curry for dirk


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

sorry to burst the bubbles. but when its all said and done, we might have another marcus camby


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BabyBlueSlugga7</b>!
> Chandler is taller and more athletic than Duncan and boxes out better than Duncan and can sky for the rebounds.



oh my, maybe san antonio would deal Duncan for chandler then? Chandler is going to be good, but he isnt a 2 time MVP in the making.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sith</b>!
> sorry to burst the bubbles. but when its all said and done, we might have another marcus camby


which isnt a bad thing, but a definite let down


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sith</b>!
> as much as i like chandler, i would have to say 25/8 center(curry during his prime) is alot more harder to find than a 15/10 guy. curry is the future of the team not chandler, now if we could get smeone relatively young like ray allen. i say go for it!!


without the game TC left early his #s are prolly closer to 15/10 than you realize and he will improve as he gets bigger and older


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Sorry to be a let down, but......



..........sauce? :whoknows:


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BabyBlueSlugga7</b>!
> Chandler is taller and more athletic than Duncan and boxes out better than Duncan and can sky for the rebounds.


This hillarious. Look out, Chandler is going to be better than the 2 time MVP Tim Duncan.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

chandler has about 5x better chance of developing into another marcus camby than tim duncan.

camby was no.2 pick as well, and were thought to be one of the best future PF in the NBA. young, tall, skinny... hrmm sounds alotlike Tc?


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sith</b>!
> they want chandler for ray allen. i understand why they need someone big and allen is expandable now. but do we do it? and start allen+jc at the backcourt together.


Where is the link? 

I agree with rlucas on this one. I love Ray and his game. But we need a 3. 

A little scared of his ankles


----------



## macro6 (Jul 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BabyBlueSlugga7</b>!
> Chandler is taller and more athletic than Duncan and boxes out better than Duncan and can sky for the rebounds.


:laugh: 

chandler is a little bit more athletic than Duncan, ill give u that. 

other than that, Duncan is SUPERIOR to chandler in every way.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> i have seen enough from Hinrich and Crawford to actually believe that our offense is going to be guard focused. the bulls will add a 3 at some point. at best, chandler is a 4th option as the team is assembled. To get to 20-15 would take him being in another uniform. heck, Tim Duncan doesnt average 20-15, that might be a stretch


Please cease and desist calling yourself Chandler's biggest fan if you think he is going to be the 4th option at best when he hits his prime.


----------



## Illstate2 (Nov 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> lets hope so. But there is absolutely no indication that Chandler will ever have a face up game. and believe me, it will be easier for Curry to operate if he had a 4 who could knock down 20 footers playing along side him. Chandler has made about 5 shots over 15 feet in his NBA career. So there is no indication that its coming.


I don't think Curry needs a guy who can shoot *20* footers. How many top big men have had that luxury in the guy they've started next to? 
Duncan hasn't had it. 

Shaq had Horry(though Horry didn't start, he often played starter's minutes) for years, but Shaq is a dominant rebounding/defensive presence. Curry is not. 

If we started a guy like Radmonovich with Curry, our interior defense would likely suck. Pretty much any other 4's around the league who can shoot from that range would leave us with much the same problem, because those type of guys always seem to have those deficiences in the areas of defense and rebounding.

10-15 feet sounds more like it, and I think Chandler has flashed that range at times.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

Where did someone hear this rumor? What's the source? I'm sure there are many teams who would want Chandler. Doesn't mean we'll trade him.

I ask this. Before the trade and Cartwright getting fired, we were all talking about how Chandler was our best player and such a great leader for someone so young. What has changed? Just because he has a back injury? Now some are considering trading him in a deal for Ray Allen? 

Chandler is 21. He still has a lot of development in his game. I find it hard to believe some may think his max production will be 15pts 10rebs when he is averaging 13pts 10rebs in 28mins with a sore back.

Every player is tradeable. If a great deal come along with Chandler involved you would think about it. For Ray Allen, probably not.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Illstate2</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't think Curry needs a guy who can shoot *20* footers. How many top big men have had that luxury in the guy they've started next to?
> ...


Duncan and David Robinson both had enough range. Malik Rose can also make the jump shot. Shaq had horry. your right about Vladimir. too much given up in terms of rebounding. but i can tell you one thing, if the most that Chandler can hit is a 10 foot jump shot, then Curry is going to face a ton of double and triple teams. Its very easy to guard two guys with one if neither guy can step out and make a shot. Chandler, in his entire career, hasnt hit 5 shots from 18 feet and beyond in 3 years, so i dont see that as any evidence that Chandler is capable of it. johnston, i am chandlers biggest fan. I am not sure that if we had to get rid of either, that the guy to go shouldnt be Curry. Chandler has a ton of skills, but he isnt going to be a first or second option, not here. There is an old saying. What you got in the third year is pretty much what you got. Now, Chandler is in his 3rd year out of HS and there are exceptions to all the rules. But Chandler has averages of 13 ppg and 11 rpg in 10 ish games. 10ish games doesnt mean anything. 15-10 in a couple of years sounds right for him. Very solid. Perhaps even better if he was more of a focal point for someone. But on this squad, thats about it. 

one reason i might rather keep Chandler over curry is leadership. tyson is a leader. mentally, he will give it his all. thats why i believe his back is worse then the press says. He would play with pain. he is not erob. for him to not play should raise all sorts of red flags.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Please cease and desist calling yourself Chandler's biggest fan if you think he is going to be the
> ...


do you think the Bulls will call more plays for Chandler then they would for Curry, Crawford or Kirk? I seriously doubt it. where i come from, that is 3 guys ahead of you. that means he is the 4th option. if the Bulls get a legit 3, he might be the modern day horace grant. horace never had any plays called for him. because he is the 4th option doesnt mean he wont score some. he will be a force on the offensive boards, hustle and fast break. But in the halfcourt, they arent going to go to him very often unless he really changes his game. and his game as is means its going to be very easy to double team eddy curry


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> There is an old saying. What you got in the third year is pretty much what you got. Now, Chandler is in his 3rd year out of HS and there are exceptions to all the rules.


I think with Curry and Chandler, evaluating them after their 3rd years isn't fair. That is because almost all the other high school players who have come out in the last 10 years have been on veteran teams around veteran players. 

The Bulls had to develop not one but two high school players. To make it worse, two frontcourt high school players. Then we had all those other young players we were trying to develop. My point is that I think Curry and Chandler's development has been stunted because of the youth around them.

Chandler and Curry can both get a lot better.


----------



## Illstate2 (Nov 11, 2003)

David Robinson and Malik Rose have good (well in the case of Robinson had) jumpers, but they don't shoot 20-footers. Their range pretty much doesn't extend beyond 15 feet, espec though sometimes Rose can step out to about 18. 

Tyson hasn't hit many 15-footers, but how many has he taken really? I think he'll be a decent shooter out to 15 feet, and that the main thing holding him back in the regard is confidence and looking to shoot.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Benny the Bull</b>!
> 
> 
> I think with Curry and Chandler, evaluating them after their 3rd years isn't fair. That is because almost all the other high school players who have come out in the last 10 years have been on veteran teams around veteran players.
> ...


like i said, there are exceptions to all the rules. and like i pointed out, he is coming out of HS. the rule more applies to college players. But its a rule. the biggest jump usually happens from the 2nd and 3rd year. usually. Chandler is going to be good. But, in my opinion, he and curry would be better off with another front court mate rather then with one another. I could certainly be proven wrong about this long haul. Perhaps I will. But unless one of the guys develops a face up game, the spacing wont ever be good. Chandler is more likely to work hard enough to get that aspect of his game. But there is zero indication of it right now. 5 jumpshots in 3 years doesnt give me alot of confidence that we are about to see chandlers offensive game. could he develop one? of course. But it might be 2 years away., maybe 3. Do you think Pax is going to be that patient? I dont


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Man those Marcus Camby/Tyson Chandler comparisons are terrible. Camby in his first season was 22/23 years old and averaged 14 and 6. In his 2nd season he was 23/24 years old and averaged 12 pts and 7 rebs. That shows he got WORSE in his 2nd season compared to his 1st. Chandler has showed no signs of doing that and has improved a lot in each season since he was a rookie. Hes put up better numbers as a 20/21 year old than Camby did his rookie year as a 22/23 year old, and Chandler is getting better while Camby got worse. You can say they are the same type of player, but that doesnt mean Chandler wont be way more effective when he reaches his prime.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Illstate2</b>!
> David Robinson and Malik Rose have good (well in the case of Robinson had) jumpers, but they don't shoot 20-footers. Their range pretty much doesn't extend beyond 15 feet, espec though sometimes Rose can step out to about 18.
> 
> Tyson hasn't hit many 15-footers, but how many has he taken really? I think he'll be a decent shooter out to 15 feet, and that the main thing holding him back in the regard is confidence and looking to shoot.


i think he doesnt take them because he knows he cant make them. maybe he wasnt ever given the green light to shoot it, which means he has never inspired that kind of confidence in someone to give it to him? Maybe Skiles will give him that freedom. i hope so. But he needs to be a threat from out there. it opens up his game and it will open up currys game. But he is a long way from being where he needs to be.

By the way, Robinson and Rose both had solid 15-18 foot games. also Duncan has that ability to make 20 footers himself. That opens it up for him altogether. While this thread sounds like me thrashing Tyson, it can be said that I am trashing eddy as well. though i wouldnt call it trashing in either case. I dont think Eddy will work hard enough on his face the basket game to open it for himself. Duncan can step out and make that shot. It helps him greatly. Tyson will give it his all. he is more likely to try. 

again, i think both players will be great. but they might just be better off without one another, then with another


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> Man those Marcus Camby/Tyson Chandler comparisons are terrible. Camby in his first season was 22/23 years old and averaged 14 and 6. In his 2nd season he was 23/24 years old and averaged 12 pts and 7 rebs. That shows he got WORSE in his 2nd season compared to his 1st. Chandler has showed no signs of doing that and has improved a lot in each season since he was a rookie. Hes put up better numbers as a 20/21 year old than Camby did his rookie year as a 22/23 year old, and Chandler is getting better while Camby got worse. You can say they are the same type of player, but that doesnt mean Chandler wont be way more effective when he reaches his prime.


before we bash Camby, lets remember that he and Spreewell basically carried the Knicks to the championship round a couple of years back. While the average joe thinks Camby is a bust, he as accomplished something that not alot of players have. He was the Knicks MVP on that playoff run.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> like i said, there are exceptions to all the rules. and like i pointed out, he is coming out of HS. the rule more applies to college players. But its a rule. the biggest jump usually happens from the 2nd and 3rd year. usually. Chandler is going to be good. But, in my opinion, he and curry would be better off with another front court mate rather then with one another. I could certainly be proven wrong about this long haul. Perhaps I will. But unless one of the guys develops a face up game, the spacing wont ever be good. Chandler is more likely to work hard enough to get that aspect of his game. But there is zero indication of it right now. 5 jumpshots in 3 years doesnt give me alot of confidence that we are about to see chandlers offensive game. could he develop one? of course. But it might be 2 years away., maybe 3. Do you think Pax is going to be that patient? I dont


I agree with some of your points in having a guy like Nowitzki playing with Curry. I would like this set up only if Curry was a rebounding and shot blocking machine. But his isn't. That's where we need Chandler now. Maybe the guy we are thinking about is Bosh. He has more range than Chandler. Could be a similar player to Chandler. Would I trade Chandler for Bosh? No. Bosh will be a very good player though. 

I'm willing to let Chandler develop his game. We all agree he will be good, so if it is a matter of 'fit' in a few years, just deal him for the guy who may be the better 'fit' with Curry.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Benny the Bull</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree with some of your points in having a guy like Nowitzki playing with Curry. I would like this set up only if Curry was a rebounding and shot blocking machine. But his isn't. That's where we need Chandler now. Maybe the guy we are thinking about is Bosh. He has more range than Chandler. Could be a similar player to Chandler. Would I trade Chandler for Bosh? No. Bosh will be a very good player though.
> ...


100% behind it. We are in no rush to make a deal. Like i said somewhere. chandler and curry are 14th and 15th most likely to be traded on this club, meaning they are the least likely to get dealt. Chandler could prove me wrong. If anyone could, it would be him. His effort is there. But i question his mechanics and health. but his rebounding is a big plus. 

2 quick points. I wouldnt give Chandler or Curry a contract this summer. see what the mkt dictates to them in 2 summers. We have nothing to lose. If my theory is proven correct, then it would be easier to deal one of them then dealing them when they have a big deal. 

second point. one argument for dealing chandler over curry is that atheletc 4s are a dime a dozen in the NBA. you could have a chris wilcox for a pretty low price today. and he is big strong and athletic. but one guy who would fit in perfectly with Curry is Troy Murphy. GS wont deal him, but he is the right fit


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> before we bash Camby, lets remember that he and Spreewell basically carried the Knicks to the championship round a couple of years back. While the average joe thinks Camby is a bust, he as accomplished something that not alot of players have. He was the Knicks MVP on that playoff run.


Camby is a couple inches shorter than Chandler, and Chandler is more athletic and can jump higher, thus allowing him to rebound and block shots better. Not only that, but he can change more shots and be a bigger preence in the lane. Chandler is the same type of player as Camby, but Chandler will be much more effective in a couple years.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> Camby is a couple inches shorter than Chandler, and Chandler is more athletic and can jump higher, thus allowing him to rebound and block shots better. Not only that, but he can change more shots and be a bigger preence in the lane. Chandler is the same type of player as Camby, but Chandler will be much more effective in a couple years.


probably. But Camby has done alot of good in the NBA. to compare chandler to him is not an insult in the least.


----------



## BSchmaranz (May 26, 2003)

I've noticed a lot of people mentioning Allen's injury, but what about Chandler's injury? With his smallish frame (Keith Closs style), a back injury is the last thing you want to see from a guy like this. I believe his future is the same as Allen's, could mean nothing, could mean a lot, you never know.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

> 2 quick points. I wouldnt give Chandler or Curry a contract this summer. see what the mkt dictates to them in 2 summers. We have nothing to lose. If my theory is proven correct, then it would be easier to deal one of them then dealing them when they have a big deal.


This will be an interesting discussion as the season goes on. Much will depend on how well they both play. 

Another important factor is how many teams in the summer of 2005 will have cap space? If none, then if the most teams can offer Chandler and Curry is the MLE, then the Bulls are in a very strong position. So they could save some money.

However, we would still need to give them sufficient money so, firstly, the are paid what they deserve, and secondly, so they don't take a qualifying offer and walk in 2006.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Benny the Bull</b>!
> 
> 
> This will be an interesting discussion as the season goes on. Much will depend on how well they both play.
> ...


Benny, if you ever start a fan club, please include me. Good conversation


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Benny, if you ever start a fan club, please include me. Good conversation


No problem rlucas. I'll try think of something.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Is anybody else regretting trading Elton Brand for this kid...I had a long post several weeks ago so I'll summarize. With Brand we could have kept Rose (he wouldn't have been the number 1 option)...Curry would have developed faster and not been asked to do as much (rebounding and defense would be better). So we could have had 
(assuming everything else stays the same including Jay-Will injury)

PG - Kirk Hinrich
SG - Jamal Crawford
SF - Jalen Rose
PF - Elton Brand
C - Eddy Curry

Bench
Scottie Pippen
Kendall Gill
Eddie Robinson
Marcus Fizer
Donyell Marshall
Corie Blount
Lonny Baxter

Not bad at all.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

But we did trade off Brand. So what good does it do to keep bringing it back up? Plus if we had Brand, the team we had to start the season with would not have been the same.


----------



## Half-Life (Jan 1, 2003)

This team would be so different without Tyson. It would not be the same. This team would lack energy and fire.


----------



## synthdogg (Jul 14, 2003)

Interesting discussion. The funny thing about bring up the Brand trade here is the common theme that always comes up about that trade: that Brand and Curry would not work together well. Both of them back to the basket post up players. It's ironic that Chandler has turned out to be pretty much the same thing, isn't it?

I've been worried for a while now that the Chandler/Curry combo doesn't mesh as well as originally advertised. One's game always seems to be sacrificed for the other to excel. After Tyson broke out last season, his stats started taking a back seat when Curry finally broke out himself. Up until now, Tyson has been largely ineffective outside the paint, and has shown no face up game at all...so I wonder about this combo of the future sometimes. Having said that about Tyson...if the duo HAD to be broken up in the future, I would prefer Tyson being the one to stay with the Bulls, that's just my opinion though.

These is just my own musings and fears, though....I'm still very hopeful the duo could end up working together well. the fact that tyson has been working on his outside game this summer makes me think that he's identifying with my concerns, and he has shown some growth.

On the original topic of Ray Allen, though....as much as I love Ray as a plyer (and I do), I wonder if there would be a similar "chemistry" problem with a Crawford/Allen backcourt. Ithink Allen might pair better with Hinrich than Jamal.....it could end up relieving a frontcourt issue and creating a backcourt issue.

As was previously stated...it won't happen but it's fun to talk about.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

what about jc for ray allen?


----------



## hoops (Jan 29, 2003)

come on guys! let's just be content with what we have. kirk n jc have the makings of a very good backcourt if they stay together in chicago. let them play together n let them grow.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

well if we had chance to improve our team via trades, why not?


----------



## Lusty RaRue (Sep 9, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Sith</b>!
> what about jc for ray allen?


Exactly.

IF there's a Bull/Sonic deal involving Allen this is the logical one to do.

The Bull do it to get what they wanted with Rose but didn't get: a backcourt example that can be counted on/looked UP to.

The Sonic have to ask this question: Do they want to pay Allen some teen millions when he won't get them a title/serious playoff run(not with those 4's & 5's) and may not be healthy for 82 games every year. Or would they rather pay JC 8-9 million and promote him as a hometown guy who has made good and spend the money elsewhere. They could re-sign Barry as their "vet guard influence" and have $ to spend.

2 years ago I said no to Allen because he had tendenitis I think. Last year I said yes because he was healthy and JC did nothing for me -when it mattered-. This year, I'm still open to it. JC, MF, ER for Ray works. JC, MF, "J", CB for Ray works too. 

I'm surprised that JC actually wants to play the 2 and isn't causing a fuss about KH being the 1 of the Bull. I'm still afraid he can't hold up to the position physically and will still blow on "D" and may have problems when teams actually set their defenses up to stop him(they haven't yet but it's coming) but since he's apparently "with the program" then I guess I'm cool with it too. Allen is 6'5" with a slender frame and no "stopper" on "D" either but he has played the position as the #1 option and played it well for years. JC hasn't done anything well for years. 
=================================
Has Skiles become the backcourt "mentor" Rose was supposed to be? Has AD & JW become the frount court mentor(s) Mr. Bill was supposed to be? Has there been a shift? If so, maybe the KH, JC backcourt is a long term one. A mighty quick change from this summer when it was JC who was on his way out.
=================================
As for the original "rumor": :hurl:. Kobe is the only non-front court player I'd trade either of TC/EC for and now he's very doubtful too. Moron.

5's are SO underappreciated on this board. The problem with the Rose deal wasn't Artest, it was MILLER! The problem with San Antonio isn't the absence of Jackson, it's the absence of Robinson! The reason the King is doing so well WITHOUT their BEST player is because they got MILLER! The reason the Magic suck is because they have no 5! I have no respect for trades of TC/EC that don't bring back a big or bigs(Kobe was (is ? ) the exception). They're RARE. If you got 'em don't lose 'em let alone voluntarily trade them for a "small". Got that Krause!? 

TC is the 4th option? Lets accept that. That's #4 for HALF the game. The other half of the game he's OPTION numero uno! The same "D"/energy that is currently in vogue after the Rose capitulation is nothing special for TC because it's the norm for him. So now that the Bull aquired 2 6'9" guys with these traits TC is expendable?! Whaaaaat?! 

So JC is option number 1 on "O" now? Or maybe #2. But on "D" he's no higher than #4. He's the most likely to go of the 3 C's even today.

Height matters. Get over it.


----------

