# Hindsight is 20-20



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

You're the GM. You have cap space and the two draft picks. What would you have done differently?

1. Kept Chandler
2. Signed Harrington
3. Drafted Aldridge and one of Roy or Brewer or Gay or Morrison

Put the best 5 players on the court, regardless of position.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Kept Chandler.

Signed Gooden.

Too early to judge the picks.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

I would have drafted Aldridge, but that's just me. I still feel Tyrus Thomas best case scenario is Gerald Wallace.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> Kept Chandler.
> 
> Signed Gooden.
> 
> Too early to judge the picks.


That's the thing about the picks. Instead of drafting for-sure projects, I'd have drafted for best players available and the best chance to immediately help the team. They're all young enough that they're going to be in the league and hopefully on the team for a long time...

EDIT: I like the gooden move, too.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

HKF said:


> I would have drafted Aldridge, but that's just me. I still feel Tyrus Thomas best case scenario is Gerald Wallace.


I think he's ERob part deux. He'll work hard to get an awkward kind of jump shot, but he'll never be more than a 10 PPG scorer. People will always marvel at his athleticism and ask "how come he doesn't/didn't do X?"


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Looks like Aldridge is going to make us pay. That's why you second guess yourself if your analysis on college players doesn't agree with HKF's analysis.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Are we to assume that the owner is placing no luxury tax restrictions on us?

I assume the answer is "no". For us to replay what Paxson did, we would need to recreate the parameters. 

So, given the luxury tax restriction, I:

(a) Sign Wallace
(b) Trade Chandler for Brown
(c) Keep JR Smith and ignore Griffin
(d) Draft Aldridge.

That is my 20/20 to date. It will probably change as the future unfolds.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

CHANGES

Kept Chandler.

Signed Gooden.

Look into sign and trade deal for Chris Wilcox.

Sign John Salmons.

Keep Othella. (wisdom)

Don't give THE HAWK a 3 year deal.

-----------------


I'm cool with the TT pick and the Thabo pick, but I would not be crying if we came away with Rudy Gay and Cedric Simmons/Ronnie Brewer.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Traded Chandler for Gooden, signed Wallace, drafted Aldridge, Sefelosha.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Are we to assume that the owner is placing no luxury tax restrictions on us?


None of the moves mentioned so far would have any luxury tax restrictions for this season.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> I think he's ERob part deux. He'll work hard to get an awkward kind of jump shot, but he'll never be more than a 10 PPG scorer. People will always marvel at his athleticism and ask "how come he doesn't/didn't do X?"



that actually is why he in fact does not do ecstasy - he's not E-Rob.


----------



## JPTurbo (Jan 8, 2006)

Ron Cey said:


> Are we to assume that the owner is placing no luxury tax restrictions on us?
> 
> I assume the answer is "no". For us to replay what Paxson did, we would need to recreate the parameters.
> 
> ...


That has been exactly what I wanted and will continue to piss and moan about.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> None of the moves mentioned so far would have any luxury tax restrictions *for this season.*


The bolded part being the short-sighted key to your statement. Reinsdorf, I doubt, thinks in one year increments.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Yeah I feel like if we're evaluating the GM's moves, the suggestions need to comply with the instructions ownership has apparently issued stating that the luxury tax cannot be incurred. That means to retain the possibility of resigning the core down the line you're looking at Chandler or Wallace or Gooden/Wilcox/Etc. and not two of the three. That makes for a tough decision. Part of me thinks that over the duration on their contracts Chandler will be more valuable than Wallace. However, Wallace is definitely better right now and that "win now" move seems to have generated a lot of credibility and buzz for the team. I'd probably go with the compromise of keeping Chandler and signing Pryzbilla (though in hindsight do I know he would be hurt?). There's an inclination to say the team should have added a frontcourt player with scoring ability (I've previously said Gooden would've been my top free agent target) but it's hard to imagine our interior defense without Chandler OR Wallace.

I would've kept Smith around and see how well he fit.

I would've made the exact same draft picks. I really hope the people advocating Aldridge over Thomas are doing so based on their opinion going into the draft and not 6 (!) games by Aldridge.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

I am sure that everyone knows that Thomas is a project and Aldridge is regard as the more ready player.If you based it on this season and nothing else then Aldridge was the obvious pick.I have no way of knowing how Thomas will develop,but you won't be able the judge the wisdom of that pick for many years.Personally I am usually of the mind to take a guy that has proven himself,but at some point you see that guy as someone who has proven he can only help you so much.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I really hope the people advocating Aldridge over Thomas are doing so based on their opinion going into the draft and not 6 (!) games by Aldridge.


Both. I preferred Aldridge on draft day. And I prefer him even more now that we have Ben Wallace in the fold for 3-4 years. He'd be a better short term fit for this team.

That said, Thomas was very close behind Aldridge as my second choice. So I'm certainly not upset with the pick. But if I had my 'druthers, Aldridge would be a Bull.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

In hindsight you should have traded for Zach Randolph when the Blazers would have been happy to give him to anyone that would take his contract


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Hindsight

Traded: Chandler, sweetney, Allen, and pick 2 for Bynum and Odom

Drafted: MWilliams

Signed: Wallace, and kicked JR in the nuts.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Hustle said:


> Hindsight
> 
> Traded: *Chandler, sweetney, Allen, and pick 2 for Bynum and Odom*Drafted: MWilliams
> 
> Signed: Wallace, and kicked JR in the nuts.


Was that a realistic option??? Ouch!!


----------



## jalen5 (Nov 19, 2004)

I assume we are just talking about last years' moves, as if we go any further beyond that, things would get crazy...

I like the Ben Wallace signing...I'd do it

I like the Tyson trade...HOWEVER, I would have kept J.R. Smith...he's a big, young, athletic guard...you have to give him a shot w/ the new team as sometimes all young players need is a change of address to bust out...

I would still draft Tyrus...if I remember correctly the Bulls had a higher second 1st round pick around 10-13 and traded down to draft Sefolosha...I might have drafted Brewer instead but Sefolosha seems to have nice promise

...the thing that could really put the Bulls into championship contender status is next year's offseason...that hight 1st round pick from the Knicks will be key and it will be very important for the Bulls to get a BIG guard


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

jalen5 said:


> ...the thing that could really put the Bulls into championship contender status is next year's offseason...that hight 1st round pick from the Knicks will be key and it will be very important for the Bulls to get a BIG guard


Big guard? No. Thats what Thabo is. The Bulls need to get another big man with that Knicks' pick (assuming we overtake the Knicks in the standings  ) either through use or trade. Hopefully one that can score a little bit.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

OK, I was playing around with the very handy MikeDC spreadsheet, which I imported into Excel.

Here is an alternate scenario.

1.) Sign Gooden to a 4 year contract starting at 8.75 million with 9% salary raises. (better than clevs offer... more money, more years)
2.) Perform a sign and trade with Seattle for Chris Wilcox. Trade Nocioni, Sweetney and Allen. Wilcox's contract is a four year deal starting at 8 million with 8% salary raises. (better than seattle's offer, more money, more years)
3.) Keep Chandler.
4.) Draft Rudy Gay and Cedric Simmons.
5.) Sign John Salmons to same deal he signed with the Kings.
6.) Sign Bonzi Wells to a two year deal. 4 million this year, 5 million next year. (more money than houston is giving him)
7.) Hinrich: Resign him to the same years but backload the deal starting at 8.3 million with 8% raises. (same NPV as the frontloaded one he signed).
8.) Last move: Sign Othella to a one year deal for 4.5 million. (just as good a deal NPV wise as his one with Charlotte). (wisdom)

Hinrich / Duhon / Salmons
Bonzi / Gordon / Salmons
Deng / Gay / Khryapa
Gooden / Wilcox / Othella
Chandler / Wilcox / Cedric Simmons

Plan on NOT resigning Gordon to a big time deal when his contract is up. We can give him a deal starting at 6 million and stay under the tax in 2008.
Plan on signing Deng to the deal MikeDC describes.
Plan on not retaining Khryapa when this season is over.
This plan does put us over the tax in 2009 (less than 1 million). If things are not going well, player dump one or two of our highly paid guys in 2008. (long time from now)

I'm no CBA expert, so I may be breaking a rule or two. But, we can stay under the tax threshold and have Chandler, Gooden and Wilcox on the same team, under better deals than they are getting with their existing teams.

That squad is better win now, IMO, certainly better win later, and, if a consolidation trade opp comes up, we have the pieces to recover.

Let's say we can get Paul Pierce for Rudy Gay, Bonzi, Wilcox and the Knicks pick. We still have a very solid "win now" roster.


----------



## alexander (May 6, 2005)

you should have signed Stojakovic, he is the one you need the most right now


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

My question to everyone that posted is are you thinking about this season or the next 4 years. I think Paxson's very much is looking long term and still has something up his sleave with P.J and to a lesser extend Sweetney's expiring contract. As the season goes on, two or three teams will consider whether they want to focus on next year and not his year and might become very interested in some salary freedom.

If we don't get anything for P.J expiring contract, then yeah, we got ripped off in the trade, only time will tell.

People have said alot on this board the signing Ben Wallace makes us a win now team, but we didn't give up young talent to get him, we still have nearly all our young talent (excluding Tyson).

TT is 20, Deng is 21, Thabo's 22 and Gordons 23. 

Trading all our young talent for vets would make us a win now team, what Paxson has done has balance winning now with developing talent for the future. He knows the basketballs peak from 27-30, which our core is is quite a few years away from approaching. 

I would guess Paxson has a timeline on when he would like to challenge for a title say four years. Yes you should try and win it every year, but with the salary cap and draft rules you have to have a more long term view of things.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

signed wallace
kept chandler
drafted roy and marcus williams
kept othella.
kept J.R. Smith

in the end you have to play to your strengths and skiles can coach the perimeter game, so add more firepower there and let the bigs rebound and defend the basket....and maybe you can deal for a big who can score in skiles' system(not named othella) down the line with the overload of perimeter chips.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

lol @ tyrus never being more than a 10ppg scorer...c'mon now

and there was NO reason to pay Chris Wilcox whatever he asked for...he looks ok but he definintely isn't playing as hard as he was last year...

So, the kid SIGNS a 60 mill deal, then plays like GARBAGE through the year and plays even WORSE in the playoffs..and u want to KEEP him? please


----------



## whiteshadow (Dec 22, 2005)

How can Tyrus be even a 10 ppg player when he has absolutely no shot whatsoever? Another Ben 
Wallace offensively. My concern is that next year Skiles will somehow convince Paxson to take another athletic, defensive player...then we will have more "bigs" who can't fill it up. Is LaRue Martin still around?


----------



## jalen5 (Nov 19, 2004)

Ron Cey said:


> Big guard? No. Thats what Thabo is. The Bulls need to get another big man with that Knicks' pick (assuming we overtake the Knicks in the standings  ) either through use or trade. Hopefully one that can score a little bit.


I wasn't talking about using the Knicks pick on a big guard...hopefully there is a big man there when the Bulls use that pick...I meant in addition to the hopeful big man w/ the Knicks pick, I think the Bulls still need a bigger backcourt


----------



## jalen5 (Nov 19, 2004)

whiteshadow said:


> How can Tyrus be even a 10 ppg player when he has absolutely no shot whatsoever? *Another Ben
> Wallace offensively*. My concern is that next year Skiles will somehow convince Paxson to take another athletic, defensive player...then we will have more "bigs" who can't fill it up. Is LaRue Martin still around?


that's just flat out wrong


----------



## smARTmouf (Jul 16, 2002)

Hindsight is 20/20?

Sounds like another excuse to me.


----------



## Rodman (Feb 5, 2004)

1. Trade #2 and #16 Pick and Noc/Duhon to Portland for #4 and #7 and Khryapa, Bassy (if they want to get rid of Bassy that bad)
2. Draft Roy and Gay
3. Sign Gooden to a 4 year contract starting at 9m
4. Sign Wilcox to a 4 year contract starting at 7,5m
5. Trade Eddie Basden and 2 future 2nd-rounders to NO for JR Smith 

HInrich/Ben
Roy/Ben/JR
Deng/Gay/Kryapa
Gooden/Wilcox/Sweets
Chandler/Sweets/Schenscher


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> None of the moves mentioned so far would have any luxury tax restrictions for this season.


They would if we had Chandler AND Wallace.

So if what you mean is keep Chandler and NOT sign Wallace -- No thanks, I'll stay pat.

As I've said, I've grown to like TT. That being said, I still think Roy would have been a better pick.


BTW: I've been reading hindsights on this board long enough to know that hindsight is absolutely NOT 20/20.


----------



## gregorius (Apr 26, 2005)

A: Kept Chandler

or

B: Dealt him and kept JR Smith instead of picking up Grif.

Too early to judge the picks but both look like proper players to me.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> They would if we had Chandler AND Wallace.
> 
> So if what you mean is keep Chandler and NOT sign Wallace -- No thanks, I'll stay pat.
> 
> ...


 Chandler and PJ Brown both make about $9M. There is no consequence for this year.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Chandler and PJ Brown both make about $9M. There is no consequence for *this year.*


Ron Cey already pointed this out, but this season is this season and Ben and Tyson's contracts run much longer than that, and most definitely DO present LT consequences.


----------



## anorexorcist (Aug 3, 2005)

and reinsdorf has openly said he's not paying any LT, so we can forget about having BW and TC here at the same time.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

anorexorcist said:


> and reinsdorf has openly said he's not paying any LT.


Quote/link?

The only times I can recall Jerry discussing LT at all (and this was quite a while back) he said he would pay LT if it meant another championship team.

I'm not sure if his actions live up to the words, but I certainly don't know of any statements by Reinsdorf that he would not pay LT.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Ron Cey already pointed this out, but this season is this season and Ben and Tyson's contracts run much longer than that, and most definitely DO present LT consequences.


 Chandler could be traded next season; Heck, he might be so awesome we want to keep him and dump Hinrich (there's always _some_ chance). With him on the Hornets, there's zero chance.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Chandler could be traded next season; Heck, he might be so awesome we want to keep him and dump Hinrich (there's always _some_ chance). With him on the Hornets, there's zero chance.


I'm ok with that. His rebounding is up and that is really great. He has decreased turnovers slightly.
But he is performing the same or worse in just about every other stat line. Fewer points (he's scored double digits exactly twice this season), horrendous FT shooting, another half a foul average per game, blocks are down, his assists still average a lowly one per game. So overall, he's still not much of a player.

People see his 11 1/2 boards average and suddenly we've given up a HOF player or something. I mean, his rebounding is fantastic this season, no question, but I think people are losing a bit of perspective.

And yeah, I know, someone is going to turn this around and point out that Ben Wallace's numbers are all down. Point taken.

But I'll take my chances overall with the 4 time DPOY over the course of the season going forward rather than Tyson's sudden burst of adequacy.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I'm ok with that. His rebounding is up and that is really great. He has decreased turnovers slightly.
> But he is performing the same or worse in just about every other stat line. Fewer points (he's scored double digits exactly twice this season), horrendous FT shooting, another half a foul average per game, blocks are down, his assists still average a lowly one per game. So overall, he's still not much of a player.
> 
> People see his 11 1/2 boards average and suddenly we've given up a HOF player or something. I mean, his rebounding is fantastic this season, no question, but I think people are losing a bit of perspective.


 Bill Russell had crummy offensive stats, too. In fact, so did Tom Boerwinkle


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Bill Russell had crummy offensive stats, too. In fact, so did Tom Boerwinkle



To paraphrase Lloyd Betson:

Senator, I watched Bill Russell, I knew Bill Russell, Bill Russell was a friend of mine. Senator, Tyson Chandler is no Bill russell. Or Tom Boerwinkle either.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> To paraphrase Lloyd Betson:
> 
> Senator, I watched Bill Russell, I knew Bill Russell, Bill Russell was a friend of mine. Senator, Tyson Chandler is no Bill russell. Or Tom Boerwinkle either.


What's our record without him? Hornets with him?

My point is there's clearly some intangibles to having him on the court.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

If Tyson is the same player and is producing the same stats, how come we couldn't make him look productive ?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> What's our record without him? Hornets with him?
> 
> My point is there's clearly some intangibles to having him on the court.


I'm sure the loss of his intangibles is felt somewhat in our 3-9 November (4-9 if we beat the Knicks again). I'm sure his intangibles are at least part of the hornets better than expected start.

But, recall:

We had his intangibles in our 7-6 2005 November (our losing streak didn't start until December).

We had his intangibles in our 1-10 2004 November.

We had his intangibles in our 3-11 2003 November.

We had his intangibles in our 3-12 2002 November.


----------



## hammer (Oct 29, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Tyson's sudden burst of adequacy.


HE JUST TURNED 24 YEARS OLD IN OCTOBER

Sudden burst of adequacy LOL. Find a clue.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Last summer I wanted to sign Gooden and just sit tight. In hindsight: 

Sign Gooden and Pryzbilla for a combined 16-18 million per year over 5 years. Trade Chandler for PJ Brown for future consolidation trade. Keep JR Smith and let him rot on the bench if he refuses to play defense. Draft/trade for Tyrus Thomas and Viktor Khryapa. 

I think Wilcox sucks.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I'm sure the loss of his intangibles is felt somewhat in our 3-9 November (4-9 if we beat the Knicks again). I'm sure his intangibles are at least part of the hornets better than expected start.
> 
> But, recall:
> 
> ...


We had his intangibles during our amazing winning streak to sneak into the playoffs last season.


----------



## H.O.V.A. (Jul 13, 2005)

1. Sign Al Harrington
2. Trade Tyson for JR Smith and PJ Brown
3. Trade Duhon
4a. Draft Aldridge
4b. Draft T2


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

1. Trade Kirk Hinrich and the #16 pick to the Lakers for Andrew Bynum (Earlier this summer, EHL came here offering this deal, but most people did not like it. Before the preseason started, Lakers assistant coaches were still calling Bynum raw and unready.)
2. Draft Brandon Roy
3. Sign Drew Gooden
4. Trade Tyson Chandler for PJ Brown. 
5. Keep JR Smith. 

1- Roy/Duhon
2- Gordon/Duhon
3- Deng/Nocioni
4- Gooden/Nocioni
5- Bynum/Brown


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I was on board with Wallace. I wasn't on board with dumping Chandler, at least getting **** all in return.

So for me:
+ Sign Wallace
+ Draft the same (I would have taken Brewer, but I was pretty well on board with Thabo given the high level at which the Bulls appeared to scout him)
+ Pitched Sweetney, Duhon, and possibly Noc pretty hard in an effort to land Harrington, Gooden, or Wilcox. Lets suppose we got Sweetney, Duhon and a conditional pick for Gooden and taking back Damon Jones' contract.
+ Made offers to the following guys until we got one 1) DeShawn Stevenson, 2) Bonzi Wells

I think we come out loaded for bear and ready to go to the NBA finals:

1- Kirk, Thabo
2- Wells, Gordon
3- Deng, Noc
4- Gooden, Khyrapa, Thomas
5- Wallace, Chandler, Allen


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

hammer said:


> HE JUST TURNED 24 YEARS OLD IN OCTOBER
> 
> Sudden burst of adequacy LOL. Find a clue.


:rofl2: :drool2: :boohoo2:

I got a clue for you: He's a fifth year pro.

About TIME he showed a sudden burst of adequacy -- if he can maintain it.


----------



## hammer (Oct 29, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I got a clue for you: He's a fifth year pro.
> 
> About TIME he showed a sudden burst of adequacy -- if he can maintain it.


You keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, the dude's peak years won't even begin until the 2009-2010 season or thereabouts, and he already has the potential to lead the NBA in rebounding at the age of 24.
[edit - stick to basketball, chap]


----------



## ballocks (May 15, 2003)

hammer said:


> You keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, the dude's peak years won't even begin until the 2009-2010 season or thereabouts, and he already has the potential to lead the NBA in rebounding at the age of 24.
> 
> ... over the past few years in regards to Chandler... dismissing terrific rebounding/defensive prospects that are in their early 20s.


to be fair (imo), i think tyson's career to date has arguably provided enough of a sample size to project how well he'll play from this point forward. sure, most nba players (historically) tend to 'peak' around 27-30, but this isn't necessarily the same for those who declared early out of high school. 

t-mac's the obvious example of a player, now 27, who feels his body is already on the decline. he's probably under an illusion, although he is a 10-year veteran no matter how he looks at it. he might be the exception, i'm not sure, and i certainly don't feel how relevant he would be to the tyson chandler discussion, but i'm not sure he's entirely _irr_elevant either. what's more, when you consider the other hs'ers who were drafted lottery high on potential- like kevin garnett, darius miles, jermaine o'neal (granted, not quite lottery high), kobe bryant- they have all, having just recently entered their late 20's, long since developed into peak form, and if anything are already on some kind of a decline today. their bodies may not be worn but their minds could very well be.

my point, i guess, may be the same as tom's: most players peak at 28-30, sure, but if they're drafted at 18 (like tyson), are far more likely to peak 5-6 years earlier. put differently, i think players tend to peak ~ 5-6 years into their pro careers, regardless of starting age. i think that would make more sense too, and would lend support to the idea that tyson chandler may no longer be an appreciating asset.

peace


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> to be fair (imo), i think tyson's career to date has arguably provided enough of a sample size to project how well he'll play from this point forward. sure, most nba players (historically) tend to 'peak' around 27-30, but this isn't necessarily the same for those who declared early out of high school.
> 
> t-mac's the obvious example of a player, now 27, who feels his body is already on the decline. he's probably under an illusion, although he is a 10-year veteran no matter how he looks at it. he might be the exception, i'm not sure, and i certainly don't feel how relevant he would be to the tyson chandler discussion, but i'm not sure he's entirely irrelevant either. what's more, when you consider the other hs'ers who were drafted lottery high on potential- like kevin garnett, darius miles, jermaine o'neal (granted, not quite lottery high), kobe bryant- they have all, having just recently entered their late 20's, long since developed into peak form, and if anything are already on some kind of a decline today. their bodies may not be worn but their minds could very well be.
> 
> my point, i guess, may be the same as tom's: most players peak at 28-30, sure, but if they're drafted at 18 (like tyson), are far more likely to peak 5-6 years earlier. put differently, i think players tend to peak ~ 5-6 years into their pro careers, regardless of starting age. i think that would make more sense too, and would lend support to the idea that tyson chandler may no longer be an appreciating asset.


this is a very good point that i believe often goes overlooked. since the advent of the teenaged player, 10+ years could very easily mark the beginning of a decline in play. injuries, wear and tear on the feet, back, knees and such will occur at an earlier age as opposed to say 35-36 as was the case when players played into their senior years in college. i'm doubtful that so many of these young hyped up stars will play as long as some of their predecessors due to the money being so great and injury being so prevalent. in tyson's case, i don't see his "hunger" (for lack of a better word, lol) providing him with much incentive past 27-28; he is what he is, prospective rebounding titles notwithstanding.


----------



## hammer (Oct 29, 2005)

hammer said:


> [edit - stick to basketball, chap]


What the hell is that? 

What I said was about as tame as the smilies that he used in the post that I was responding to.

What a bunch of BS.


----------



## hammer (Oct 29, 2005)

ballocks said:


> to be fair (imo), i think tyson's career to date has arguably provided enough of a sample size to project how well he'll play from this point forward. sure, most nba players (historically) tend to 'peak' around 27-30, but this isn't necessarily the same for those who declared early out of high school.
> 
> t-mac's the obvious example of a player, now 27, who feels his body is already on the decline. he's probably under an illusion, although he is a 10-year veteran no matter how he looks at it. he might be the exception, i'm not sure, and i certainly don't feel how relevant he would be to the tyson chandler discussion, but i'm not sure he's entirely _irr_elevant either. what's more, when you consider the other hs'ers who were drafted lottery high on potential- like kevin garnett, darius miles, jermaine o'neal (granted, not quite lottery high), kobe bryant- they have all, having just recently entered their late 20's, long since developed into peak form, and if anything are already on some kind of a decline today. their bodies may not be worn but their minds could very well be.
> 
> ...


Two things:

1) College Ball is demanding. Your "5 to 6 years in" equation doesn't really account for that when discussing typical peak years (27-30).
2) Guys straight out of HS don't get much playing time in their first couple of years. They'd have put on more wear and tear after playing a couple college seasons.

So yeah, you're obviously a smart guy, but there's a hell of a lot more to consider here. Specific examples don't mean anything; I'm talking by and large.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

ballocks said:


> my point, i guess, may be the same as tom's: most players peak at 28-30, sure, but if they're drafted at 18 (like tyson), are far more likely to peak 5-6 years earlier. put differently, i think players tend to peak ~ 5-6 years into their pro careers, regardless of starting age. i think that would make more sense too, and would lend support to the idea that tyson chandler may no longer be an appreciating asset.


T-Mac, Garnett and Kobe sure have a lot more miles on their bodies than Chandler. 

Some of the other HS kids like Baby Al and Reggie Lewis are still getting better and they are a few years older.

Chandler is still getting his body right for the NBA. 

I think all of this needs to be accounted for.


----------



## hammer (Oct 29, 2005)

BULLHITTER said:


> in tyson's case, i don't see his *"hunger"* (for lack of a better word, lol) providing him with much incentive past 27-28; he is what he is, prospective rebounding titles notwithstanding.


You're right, that is a terrible word. The guy is passionate as hell. Even Stevie Wonder can see that Tyson plays to win.

I don't know where the hell you get this stuff from.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

I woulda traded Gordon & the 15th pick to Boston for the 7th pick and taken Roy

I would of signed Ben Wallace

I would of moved Tyson (regardless) for P.J. Brown & JR Smith

I would of kept LaMarcus Aldridge (hard for me to say honestly, but Tyrus is ways away from finding his game and true position)

I would of moved Duhon to say, Charlotte for Melvin Ely (I know they didn't need him then but NOW they're looking for a PG, go figure)

I would of kept Aaron Miles

*The ROY's squad :*

G Hinrich / Miles
G Roy / Smith
F Deng / Nocioni
F Aldridge / Brown
C Wallace / Ely

That team gives you size, atheleticism, versitlity & defense.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Even Stevie Wonder can see that Tyson plays to win.


too bad he's so laughingly bad at it......:rock: 

i'm sure he's going to be the "center" piece in guiding the hornet to the finals.....


----------



## hammer (Oct 29, 2005)

BULLHITTER said:


> too bad he's so laughingly bad at it......:rock:


Way to know your NBA.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Blazer Fan here:

At the time and in hindsight, I was thrilled that the Bulls signed Ben Wallace. That meant the team Joel really wanted to go to was out. He was so bummed, when Detroit and San Antonio made offers, he strangely declined!? to stay with the team with the worst record. On one-side my (very low in talent) team sees a free agent waltz off with no compensation. On the other we keep a decent defensive center at a below market price. Sweet.

At the time and in hindsight, I was thrilled that the Bulls wanted Thomas and made that trade. It was cute of them to force the Blazers to cough up Khryapa by grabbing our pick. But, who knows, they may have saved us by keeping Charlotte from taking LaMarcus and making some other deal. Anywho, we got the guy who had been #1 on my personal draft board for an entire year leading up to the draft.

As for the Bulls moves:

Drafting Thomas seemed a mistake to me. Similar to the Pistons getting Darko, using the logic that a "project" with a big upside is better to stash, then grabbing a player to help now that might "mess with chemistry on want/need playing time". I don't understand that line of thinking. The Bulls are in a win now mode. Why they didn't seriously consider Roy, Morrison or even LaMarcus is a puzzle.

I understood the rationale for the Wallace signing. He had been much better than Joel and plays big minutes - something Joel has never done. The team also weakened a key rival. No small thing. I am very surprised that the early going has been so rough and never would have guessed it.

Yet some thoughts on that poped up in a thread about the Pistons here:
http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=285869


> Detroit with Rasheed was the PERFECT situation for Ben Wallace.
> 
> Rasheed is a fundamentally sound, anti-stat hound, that was perfectly happy to put a body on someone while Ben chased down the ball on the boards.
> 
> ...



I understand why the Bulls traded Chandler. He and Wallace aren't a good match. But if they thought PJ Brown was Rasheed Wallace - he isn't.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

hammer said:


> What the hell is that?
> 
> What I said was about as tame as the smilies that he used in the post that I was responding to.
> 
> What a bunch of BS.


It was a personal attack. If you don't understand that, I don't know what to tell you, besides...STOP DOING IT.


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

Diable said:


> In hindsight you should have traded for Zach Randolph when the Blazers would have been happy to give him to anyone that would take his contract


Another Blazer fan here with too much time on his hands....

Not that I am proposing a trade or anything, but what in your opinions would Chicago put on the table for Zach now? I'm just curious to see what is possible? :biggrin:


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

yuyuza1 said:


> Another Blazer fan here with too much time on his hands....
> 
> Not that I am proposing a trade or anything, but what in your opinions would Chicago put on the table for Zach now? I'm just curious to see what is possible? :biggrin:


Well the NY pick would definintely be OFF the table...

Ya'll got Webster, Jack, Roy, Outlaw, Aldridge & Pryzbilla all as the future of the team...what would ya'll want? Seems like ya'll got everything covered to me.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Why they didn't seriously consider Roy, Morrison or even LaMarcus is a puzzle.


They did cover all their bases, whether the choice will pan out is a different story.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

I find it amazing that people are evaluating draft choices 14 games into the season. Patience!


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

TripleDouble said:


> I find it amazing that people are evaluating draft choices 14 games into the season. Patience!


I think the only reason some panic is because of our start.

If we were 9-5 right now, nobody would even care about Roy, Aldridge or Morrison...


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

The ROY said:


> Well the NY pick would definintely be OFF the table...
> 
> Ya'll got Webster, Jack, Roy, Outlaw, Aldridge & Pryzbilla all as the future of the team...what would ya'll want? Seems like ya'll got everything covered to me.


The Blazer board, and many fans are torn over whether or not to shop Zach around. Does one trade when value is high,up these amazing stats?

Nontheless.....I will specualte

I think the immediate need for the Blazers is some veteran leadership and experience. There is a glaring weakness in perimeter defense (atleast, without Roy), and I was thinking Deng and PJ Brown. You say the pick is off, but would adding Outlaw entice you to throw in the NY pick? Just asking.... :gopray: 

My perception of the Bulls is that they want to win NOW. Zach can be that low-post scorer for you guys, and the Blazers can bolster their reputation as a good, clean, and hard-working team, all the while taking big steps to return to success. If so, IMO, this deal can be good for both teams.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

yuyuza1 said:


> The Blazer board, and many fans are torn over whether or not to shop Zach around. Does one trade when value is high,up these amazing stats?
> 
> Nontheless.....I will specualte
> 
> ...


Deng is breaking out this season...doubt he'd be availible...


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Zach is not a defender and the Bulls need someone that can play the other teams best low post player so that Wallace can be at his best. Pass.


----------



## Samael (Sep 1, 2005)

TripleDouble said:


> Zach is not a defender and the Bulls need someone that can play the other teams best low post player so that Wallace can be at his best. Pass.



:lol: I believe it's suppose to be the other way around. Wallace is suppose to guard the best low post player so that Zach or whomever can be at his best.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Samael said:


> :lol: I believe it's suppose to be the other way around. Wallace is suppose to guard the best low post player so that Zach or whomever can be at his best.


I'm not sure that you watched a lot of Pistons games recently. Rasheed usually covered the opposing teams best big leaving Ben to wreak havoc as a weakside defender.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

step said:


> They did cover all their bases, whether the choice will pan out is a different story.


Really?

During the offseason they covered their needs for:

Post Scoring
Solid, full-sized Shooting Guard
(Another) feared shooter

How?

They addressed none of those needs in the off-season.

They could have addressed some of that in the draft with Roy or Morrison.


----------

