# 'I try not to look at it like vindication,' Chandler said.



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> A little more than 13 months ago, Chandler was a throwaway for the Chicago Bulls, who happily traded him to the Hornets in exchange for veteran forward P.J. Brown and guard J.R. Smith.
> --
> Today, he's one of the 12 members of Team USA, playing with Kobe Bryant and LeBron James in the FIBA Americas Tournament in Las Vegas. The tournament is one of five Olympic qualifying zone tournaments and will determine the two men's teams from the Americas zone that will qualify for the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing.
> 
> "I try not to look at it like vindication," Chandler said. "I'm just blessed. But I'm very proud of my accomplishments."


He's tries. Ha ha ha. :biggrin: He tries.



> That's because he had lost it with the Bulls, who wanted little more from Chandler than the occasional rebound and blocked shot. He wasn't anything resembling an offensive option in Chicago, and clearly chafed under the gruff leadership of Coach Scott Skiles.
> 
> "That was definitely the case," said Chandler, 24, who had lost his confidence. "I wasn't playing the most minutes, and over time, it gets to you."


http://www.nola.com/sports/t-p/index.ssf?/base/sports-32/1188366683232970.xml&coll=1


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Eh. Good for Tyson and his resurgence. He always seemed like a nice kid. I don't have any ill will towards him.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

Tyson did NOT have a "resurgence". He simply played more minutes with the same rebouding, block shot, scoring rates on a team with absolutely nothing inside. Decent enough guy who sort of played hard, but he has no reason to have a chip on his shoulder against the Bulls, Skiles, Paxson. Playing Tyson more wouldn't have won us a single extra game. Just like getting him back in his "new and improved" condition wouldn't help us win a single extra game. I'm glad the Bulls have moved on. Maybe Tyson should do the same.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

We pampered to his needs most of his career with the Bulls and the Hornets are doing the same with him since he is now a huge investment to them. But soon enough, they aren't going to want to coddle and hold his hands through everything like he seems to expect people to always do for him to practise and to motivate him.

He needs to start acting like a man, and take more responsibilty for himself. 

Im still a huge fan of Chandlers, and was sad to see him leave, yet i am happy that he is doing well. But he needs to grow the **** up and grow some basketballs!!


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

lougehrig said:


> Tyson did NOT have a "resurgence". He simply played more minutes with the same rebouding, block shot, scoring rates on a *team with absolutely nothing inside.* Decent enough guy who sort of played hard, but he has no reason to have a chip on his shoulder against the Bulls, Skiles, Paxson. Playing Tyson more wouldn't have won us a single extra game. Just like getting him back in his "new and improved" condition wouldn't help us win a single extra game. I'm glad the Bulls have moved on. Maybe Tyson should do the same.


I'm pretty sure they have David West down there with him, 5x the offensive option any Bulls player is down there...


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

Blazer Freak said:


> I'm pretty sure they have David West down there with him, 5x the offensive option any Bulls player is down there...


West is one of the poorest rebounding 4's in the game (8.1 rpg in 36 minutes!!!). He is a good offensive player, but scores alot of his points away from the basket with 15 footers. Not to mention he only played 52 games last year. Chandler's rebounding opportunities from minutes, conference, team style and teammates was greatly increased last season. His effectivity was equavilently average.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Hey how did Tyson's old team do this year? How did his new team do? Isn't it supposed to be about the team. Isn't basketball a team sport? "I'm proud of my accomplishments." Cool. Congrats on winning no awards and not making the playoffs. Going for bad to decent isn't an accomplishment.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

T.Shock said:


> Hey how did Tyson's old team do this year? How did his new team do? Isn't it supposed to be about the team. Isn't basketball a team sport? "I'm proud of my accomplishments." Cool. Congrats on winning no awards and not making the playoffs. Going for bad to decent isn't an accomplishment.


by that logic(teams overall play mean more than individual accomplishment) you could say jackie butler is better than ben wallace ...in truth the bulls improved moreso by gordon's and deng's improvements than anything that wallace brought to the table more than tyson , in fact if wallace had tyson's season the bulls most likely would have been better.


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

The Bulls dropped the ball with TC. The Krause regime treated him like a god and never demanded anything from him,and the Pax regime treated him like an step child and demanded too much from him! And they never had a big man coach to help him improve. All the Bulls coaches are former backcourt players. Like I posted many times, TC was too skinny to play center on the Bulls because he didn't have a behemoth at PF to help him. When NO traded for him they drafted some big guys to play next to him which eased his load. And, when the "get rid of TC" sentiments were their strongest, I warned that we would regret it because 7/footers are so hard to find nowadays. There aren't many good ones in the league anymore and we let one get away for nothing!:banghead:

Bottom line, if Pax had kept TC and played him next to Wallace, TC would have had a great year like the one he had playing next to EC in his last year in Chi. Tyson sucked when EC left because he had no one to take the pressure off him in the post. TC is a 4, not a 5, so if you play him at 5 you have to have a big guy next to him at 4 or he's gonna suck! He's just too thin.

I'm happy for TC because he's proving me right!


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> in truth the bulls improved moreso by gordon's and deng's improvements than anything that wallace brought



Wallace taught Deng his mid-range jumper. I hear he learned it from the master.

Wallace was thus brought in to continue a long line of mastery. Theres no scalp under Ben Wallaces Afro...theres a third hand to aid in rebounding.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

A foolish move by Paxson.

One of the worst, if not the worst trade post MJ was the foolish Chandler for Brown dump.

Dumping a Team USA caliber young 7 footer for garbage. Foolish. Especially since its obvious we were a "win later" team.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> A foolish move by Paxson.
> 
> One of the worst, if not the worst trade post MJ was the foolish Chandler for Brown dump.
> 
> Dumping a Team USA caliber young 7 footer for garbage. Foolish. Especially since its obvious we were a "win later" team.


Lets be fair. In his last season with the Bulls Chandler was not a Team USA caliber player. Not even close.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

The worst trade was the Chandler trade -- Brand for Chandler.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Dumping a Team USA caliber young 7 footer for garbage



It worked!

(btw, he wasn't Team USA caliber when he was here, and its dubious as to whether he is now)


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

He's still not team USA caliber. Lets be serious -- the NBA is an era where outside a handful of big men it's a joke.

His comments show that he was never going to be good in Chicago. Good Riddence. I'm happy he is still gone. The little USA basketball I have seen, Chandler is still the same buffoon who lacks BBall IQ, the ability to catch a pass, and performing a move outside a dunk near the rim.

If the cost was to keep Tyson or lose a player like Noce, we made the right decision.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

Bulls4Life said:


> Bottom line, if Pax had kept TC and played him next to Wallace, TC would have had a great year like the one he had playing next to EC in his last year in Chi. Tyson sucked when EC left because he had no one to take the pressure off him in the post. TC is a 4, not a 5, so if you play him at 5 you have to have a big guy next to him at 4 or he's gonna suck! He's just too thin.
> 
> I'm happy for TC because he's proving me right!


So if Tyson played alongside Wallace (10.7 rpg), Nocioni (5.7 rpg), Deng (7.1 rpg) he would have averaged 12.4 rpg?

Wallace, Noc, Deng, Tyrus combined are worlds ahead of West, Peja, Butler in rebounding. Tyson averaged 12.4 rpg playing alongside terrible rebounders. That's not an improvement.

Tyson is not a good enough player to play 35+ minutes on a championship contender. He is good enough to play 35+ minutes on a mediocre team with no inside rebounders or interior defenders. That's why he dumped him for nothing.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> He's still not team USA caliber..



Boozer, Bosh, Brand...not playing for team USA right now.

Edit: TB#1 nailed it:



> If he'd remained here, reduced to backing up Ben Wallace, he'd be in the lobby, reading a magazine and waiting for the Geico caveman to finish relating his existential meltdown to Talia Shire, rather than living his glory year, raising the Hornets franchise up to mediocrity and playing the Jack Haley role for Team USA.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

The Bulls would be better with Chandler instead of Wallace.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

Tyson in 2006-2007 (Team USA caliber apparently):
12.4 rpg, 4.4 orpg, 9.5 rpg, 1.77 bpg in 34.5 mpg...
per 48 minutes: 17.25 rebounds, 6.12 off rebs, 13.2 points, 2.46 blocks

Tyson in 2004-2005 (His best year with us...):
9.7 rpg, 3.3 orpg, 8.0 rpg, 1.8 bpg in 27.4 mpg....
per 48 minutes: 17.00 rebounds, 5.78 off rebs, 14.0 points, 3.15 blocks


Those numbers are identical. I don't get how a player who plays 34.5 mpg versus the 25 mpg he got with us is considered "growth", "improvement", "development". There is a reason he didn't play more with us. He wasn't a good enough defender, team defender, offensive player, passer to warrant it. On New Orleans they were desperate for inside players to play on there non-playoff team.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

Jizzy said:


> The Bulls would be better with Chandler instead of Wallace.


Bulls in 2006-2007: 98.8 ppg, 93.8 ppg against +5.0 ppg
Bulls in 2005-2006: 97.8 ppg, 97.2 ppg against +0.6 ppg

I'm sure that has nothing to do with Wallace in and Chandler out...


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Jizzy said:


> The Bulls would be better with Chandler instead of Wallace.


Wallace (edit: _on team_): 
1st in rebounds
1st in shot blocks
1st in steals 

Assists among centers leaguewide: 3rd in the league behind Duncan & Camby


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

GB said:


> Wallace:
> 1st in rebounds
> 1st in shot blocks
> 1st in steals
> ...


Hits nail on head.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

lougehrig said:


> Bulls in 2006-2007: 98.8 ppg, 93.8 ppg against +5.0 ppg
> Bulls in 2005-2006: 97.8 ppg, 97.2 ppg against +0.6 ppg
> 
> I'm sure that has nothing to do with Wallace in and Chandler out...



Guys like Tyrus and PJ help to, you know.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

GB said:


> Wallace (edit: _on team_):
> 1st in rebounds
> 1st in shot blocks
> 1st in steals
> ...



What makes you think Tyson wouldn't be first on the team in rebounding and blocked shots?

Doesn't matter though. Paxson destroyed Tyson, no way he would have done well here.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Jizzy said:


> What makes you think Tyson wouldn't be first on the team in rebounding and blocked shots?
> 
> Doesn't matter though. Paxson destroyed Tyson, no way he would have done well here.


Tyson destroyed himself by being lazy.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Tyson in 2006-2007 (Team USA caliber apparently):
> 12.4 rpg, 4.4 orpg, 9.5 rpg, 1.77 bpg in 34.5 mpg...
> per 48 minutes: 17.25 rebounds, 6.12 off rebs, 13.2 points, 2.46 blocks
> 
> ...


Why don't you show the 05-06 stats? Besides his splits showed a lot of growth.


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> Why don't you show the 05-06 stats? Besides his splits showed a lot of growth.


Probably because 05-06 was the aberration. There was a reason 2005-2006 was considered a disappointment and led to him being traded - it wasn't as good as what preceded or what followed. 2004-2005 led directly to 2006-2007, with maybe one silly foul being omitted leading to 6+ more minutes a game. Chandler's rates per minute are almost precisely identical to 2004-2005, so to say there's been this huge leap is imo mistaken. The significant differences between then and now are few: he plays more minutes a game (imo primarily due to being on a worse team, and also fouling slightly less, a sign of maturity), he shoots less (!) at a higher percentage, and he forgot how to shoot free throws. He is the same guy he was here, in a new situation and with just a touch more maturity. That's it. IMHO, The Hornets require much less from TC on the offensive end, and are happy with him blocking shots, rebounding and dunking. The Bulls weren't. This is not a new TC, it's the same TC grown up slightly. 

From a previous post on this topic from April:

"Minutes/G.......: 2004-2005 27.4 ..... 2006-2007 35.0 <---- the big difference 
Points/Min......: 2004-2005 0.292 .... 2006-2007 0.271
Rebounds/Min: 2004-2005 0.354 .... 2006-2007 0.354
Turnovers/Min: 2004-2005 0.054 .... 2006-2007 0.049

Shooting percentage is much better now (but it doesn't translate to scoring), blocks were better then. Assists/minute better then, steals were better then."

I doubt Paxson is surprised by what Chandler has done in NO.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

I hate how these debates have to be all or nothing.
Fact is Chandler is one of the best rebounders in the game and Wallace is still one of the best overall defenders in the game.

If Chandler's appointment to team USA is noteworthy, then all the votes Big Ben got for DPOY and All-Defensive team shouldn't be ignored.

As far as centers go Wallace was second to Camby.
As far as All-Defensive team goes, Wallace had enough votes to make the first team outright. 
But only one center is allowed on the first team Wallace is automatically the second team center.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

To me Chandler and the bulls needed to part ways. His found a place where his happy so good for him. I'm happy for him that his having some level of success but I don't think he would have achieved that here.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Jizzy said:


> The Bulls would be better with Chandler instead of Wallace.


I hated the trade, but I do think Wallace was a slightly better overall player than Chandler last season and will be this season, too. Chandler is a better rebounder and shot blocker. Wallace is better in every other respect - steals, passing, positional defense, knowing where to be on offense, etc. 

After next season... probably not. But by then Noah and Thomas should be ready to start and play big minutes. 

I think the only way the trade becomes truly horrible is if we use Thomas or Noah consolidate for a guy like Kobe. In that case Chandler would be an incredibly valuable starter. I guess you could also argue that trading Chandler has already made it more difficult to consolidate for Garnett or Kobe, but there's no way to know for sure.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> The worst trade was the Chandler trade -- Brand for Chandler.


That would make it in the end, Brand for PJ Brown.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

I have a feeling that Noah is going to make all of us forget about Tyson Chandler. He may very well be a better overall player from day one.

It would be nice if Gray became a solid backup center as well, but that is truely wishful thinking.


----------



## popeye12 (Nov 11, 2002)

I agree with all that Tyson and the Bulls had to part ways. I still can't believe all the John Paxson haters always looking for a way to say that JP is doing a horrible job. Facts are Facts, JP has done everything to make us an evergame contender. He has done an excellent job of drafting and the Bulls are finally getting free agents to come to Chicago. 

We have improved every year and have in my opinion the depth and skills to win the championship with our current squad. If Kobe does become available for trade, we actually have the depth to make this trade and not ruin our entire team as well. If we could do a Gordon, Thomas, and Victor / possibly Duhon as well we still have a team that can win it all!!!

Hinrich
Kobe
Deng
Tim Thomas
Wallace

Nocioni
Noah
Sefolosha
Griffin
Curry
Gray

Paxson best GM of the Bulls in a long time (i'm not anti krause either until the post jordan era - he did everything right until then - kinda).


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Jizzy said:


> What makes you think Tyson wouldn't be first on the team in rebounding and blocked shots?


 Watching him over several seasons.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Even if over the course of the next season Tyson Chandler turns into a 25 point, 12 rebound, 4 blocks per game monster, it still wouldn't have been a mistake for the Bulls to trade him and move on when they did. The organization gave him every chance, just like it's giving to give Noah and Tyrus every chance.

I'd understand the animus a bit if the Bulls didn't recover well, but they did. Thats why this feels more like a Paxson thing than a thing about the product on the floor.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

GB said:


> Even if over the course of the next season Tyson Chandler turns into a 25 point, 12 rebound, 4 blocks per game monster, it still wouldn't have been a mistake for the Bulls to trade him and move on when they did. The organization gave him every chance, just like it's giving to give Noah and Tyrus every chance.
> 
> I'd understand the animus a bit if the Bulls didn't recover well, but they did. Thats why this feels more like a Paxson thing than a thing about the product on the floor.


Every chance? Maybe every chance to set a pick 20 feet out from the basket.

Recover well? We had PJ and Malik playing 22 mins a game in the post in the playoffs. And Wallace's game continuing to deteriorate. I wouldn't count my chickens just yet.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Every chance? Maybe every chance to set a pick 20 feet out from the basket.
> 
> Recover well? We had PJ and Malik playing 22 mins a game in the post in the playoffs. And Wallace's game continuing to deteriorate. I wouldn't count my chickens just yet.


You wanted the ball in Chandler's hands more? Do you remember all the back to the basket moves under the Cartwright era? He makes Perkins look pretty on offense.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Every chance? Maybe every chance to set a pick 20 feet out from the basket.
> 
> Recover well? We had PJ and Malik playing 22 mins a game in the post in the playoffs. And Wallace's game continuing to deteriorate. I wouldn't count my chickens just yet.


The past is gone. We had two young guys we thought would turn into studs, and now we've got two guys who we think can turn into studs. Thats recovery.

Lots of teams would like to have what we had, and what we have. 


Tyson played thousands of minutes for three men who've experienced lots of success in basketball. Yes, he had his chances here.


----------



## popeye12 (Nov 11, 2002)

I for one will never miss Chandler's lack of hands, if i had to watch him drop a ball one more time i think i would have puked.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Tyson played thousands of minutes for three men who've experienced lots of success in basketball.


is there any way to put this statment in colorful, flashing, BIG fonts so that the internet gm's might realize that the people who do those jobs as their main source of income MIGHT possibly know just a little about what they're doing?

tyson's the poster child for unrealized potential; fans can wait until he's 35 to say "he's still growing as a player" but realistically teams can't wait that long. cutting ties with chandler (whether it was to make room for wallace or anybody else) was necessary and not a moment too soon. in reality, i'm most disappointed that chandler was so bad that he couldn't get a first round draft choice or a player more prepared to produce nightly than pj's ancient arse.

not to mention how pitifully out of place he looks playing with all-stars; kobe and lebron can't make him look good; deron can't get off a jumper after one of his noodle picks, and his fouling rate looks as bad as it does as an nba player; yes, paxson did the right thing at the right time.


----------



## popeye12 (Nov 11, 2002)

BULLHITTER

Couldnt say it any better that that!


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Unrealized potential?

The guy leads the freaking league in rebound rate and is a member of Team USA!!!!!

I love the folks who trumpet the “business sense” of the Chandler dump. 

What’s better business sense… Wallace at 15 mil a year or Chandler at 8? The answer is obvious, given that Chandler is younger and arguably a better player at this point… and almost certainly will be better 1-2 years from now... and that the Bulls were clearly a "win later" team at the tims of the moves.

The Chandler dump was a Salary/Luxury tax shell game. The organization trumpeted “Cap Space” and “financial flexibility” for years and in the end we as fans got a ****ty Ben Wallace contract and a Tyson Chandler giveaway.


----------



## girllovesthegame (Nov 3, 2005)

BULLHITTER said:


> is there any way to put this statment in colorful, flashing, BIG fonts so that the internet gm's might realize that the people who do those jobs as their main source of income MIGHT possibly know just a little about what they're doing?
> 
> tyson's the poster child for unrealized potential; fans can wait until he's 35 to say "he's still growing as a player" but realistically teams can't wait that long. cutting ties with chandler (whether it was to make room for wallace or anybody else) was necessary and not a moment too soon. in reality, i'm most disappointed that chandler was so bad that he couldn't get a first round draft choice or a player more prepared to produce nightly than pj's ancient arse.
> 
> *not to mention how pitifully out of place he looks playing with all-stars; kobe and lebron can't make him look good; deron can't get off a jumper after one of his noodle picks, and his fouling rate looks as bad as it does as an nba player; yes, paxson did the right thing at the right time*.


That's funny because when I watch the games, I don't remember seeing him on the floor with Kobe or Lebron. He's usually out there with Mike Miller, Michael Redd, Deron Williams and Tayshaun Prince. And I would hardly think 4 fouls during the entire tournament is really all that bad. Someone in an earlier post said that Tyson needs to move on. I think that can go both ways. And he may look out of place with the "All-Stars" but........ he's there.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

I just can't imagine what the fascination is for literally flogging ourselves and figuratively, Pax, for a move that helped us improve by 7 games from the previous year and advance to the 2nd rd in the playoffs!

I will say and have said from the beginning that I like Tyson and felt that paxson did this move as much for Tyson's sake as for the Bulls'.

I'm glad to see Tyson living up to his potential as a rebounder and shot-blocker. He can help his team doing what he does best. 

I don't believe he could have coexisted with Skiles, and for better or worse, Paxson has gone with Skiles and what he brings to the team over Chandler and what he might have brought to the team. 

Economics were a reason for the trade, after the basketball decision about Tyson working well in Skiles' system was already made. 

I hope he does well in New Orleans. 

I'm not sorry that we have a team near the top of the East, and don't imagine that our position would be significantly better with Tyson on board. 

Peace!


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

GB said:


> Even if over the course of the next season Tyson Chandler turns into a 25 point, 12 rebound, 4 blocks per game monster, it still wouldn't have been a mistake for the Bulls to trade him and move on when they did. *The organization gave him every chance, just like it's giving to give Noah and Tyrus every chance.*


I couldn't disagree more. It may not have been completely obvious at the time, but Skiles was clearly not the right coach for him. So how can you say he was given every chance to succeed when he wasn't in an environment conducive to improving his game?


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> I couldn't disagree more. It may not have been completely obvious at the time, but Skiles was clearly not the right coach for him.


neither was cartwright, neither was paxson the right gm.....let's just keep firing the FO folks until chandler gets it right.....hmmmm....




> So how can you say he was given every chance to succeed when he wasn't in an environment conducive to improving his game?


let's see.....the team winning and chandler being personally accountable for getting better wasn't an environment conducive to improving his game?



> That's funny because when I watch the games, I don't remember seeing him on the floor with Kobe or Lebron. He's usually out there with Mike Miller, Michael Redd, Deron Williams and Tayshaun Prince.


you're right; and he doesn't belong out there with them either. he's really impressive when you trumpet the fact that he's playing as the tallest player on the court amongst less than division I talent, and he's still the last player into the game while still managing to commit stupid fouls, drop layup passes, and not being able to set a reasonably effective pick.



> Unrealized potential?


yes, that means he ain't ****.



> The Chandler dump was a Salary/Luxury tax shell game. The organization trumpeted “Cap Space” and “financial flexibility” for years and in the end we as fans got a ****ty Ben Wallace contract and a Tyson Chandler giveaway.


lol; can't pull the wool over your eyes, huh?


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Every chance? Maybe every chance to set a pick 20 feet out from the basket.
> 
> Recover well? We had PJ and Malik playing 22 mins a game in the post in the playoffs. And Wallace's game continuing to deteriorate. *I wouldn't count my chickens just yet.*


Exactly. 

There's alot of evidence that Wallace hasn't deteriorated. 
There's pleny of evidence that coaches, gms, and sportwriters preferred Wallace last year. 

And there's nothing more than "hope" (if you can call it hope) that Wallace's massive decline begins this year. Because so far it hasn't happened.

And yes we recovered well. 
We improved from 3rd best rebounding team to the 1st. 
We jumped from 21st in blocks to 7th. 
It's a wacky thing called team effort.

And if you take Chandler's last year on the Bulls, Ben Wallace surpasses those numbers.
And that's generously not counting his playoff performance.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> neither was cartwright, neither was paxson the right gm.....let's just keep firing the FO folks until chandler gets it right.....hmmmm....





> let's see.....the team winning and chandler being personally accountable for getting better wasn't an environment conducive to improving his game?


Skiles' harsh, critical coaching style in particular was wrong for Chandler - Chandler flourished with a different coach who had lower expectations and wasn't as demanding. Say what you will about Chandler (I personally don't like him because he's whiny and refuses to take responsibility for his actions), but he's clearly a very valuable player in the right environment and the Bulls failed to provide that. 

The fact remains that the Bulls organization gave up a decent young player for scraps. I know we have capable replacements for Chandler in Noah and Tyrus, but we still got zilch. It is either the coach's fault for not handling him properly, or the GM's fault for giving up on him too soon. Chandler had already shown that he could play big minutes on a winning team, and it's up to Skiles and Paxson to bring him back to that level, not trade him for a older, declining player that won't be able to help when the team truly needs it - this team is still 2 or 3 years away from peaking and by then Wallace will be well past him prime and far worse than Chandler.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Unrealized potential?
> 
> The guy leads the freaking league in rebound rate and is a member of Team USA!!!!!


Outstanding. Truly. Anything else?



> is a member of Team USA!!!!!


Did he outplay Brand, Bosh, and Boozer to get his roster spot?

Again:

*Tyson played thousands of minutes for three men who've experienced lots of success in basketball. Yes, he had his chances here.*


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Good Hope said:


> Paxson has gone with Skiles and what he brings to the team over Chandler and what he might have brought to the team.
> 
> Economics were a reason for the trade, after the basketball decision about Tyson working well in Skiles' system was already made.


This is truth number two, after the 3 successful men one. Good post.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> I couldn't disagree more. It may not have been completely obvious at the time, but Skiles was clearly not the right coach for him. So how can you say he was given every chance to succeed when he wasn't in an environment conducive to improving his game?


Skiles was his fourth coach. How many does he get? 

At what point does it make sense to go with another young big?



> The Truths About Tyson Chandler:
> 
> 1. Tyson played thousands of minutes for three men who've experienced lots of success in basketball. Yes, he had his chances here.
> 
> 2. Economics were a reason for the trade, after the basketball decision about Tyson working well in Skiles' system was already made.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> Skiles' harsh, critical coaching style in particular was wrong for Chandler


So was Floyds, and Cartwrights...I'd say too much of made of his new coaches work with him and not enough in the change in Tysons attitude about being coachable.



> The fact remains that the Bulls organization gave up a decent young player for scraps. I know we have capable replacements for Chandler in Noah and Tyrus, but we still got zilch.


This is true (Tyson's fallen value notwithstanding). But look at it this way if it makes you feel better: He made up for it with the Curry trade. We got nothing for Tyson but we got two for one with Curry.

The organization is still hummin'. And I think that makes up a good third Tyson truth.



> The Truths About Tyson Chandler:
> 
> 1. Tyson played thousands of minutes for three men who've experienced lots of success in basketball. Yes, he had his chances here.
> 
> ...


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Unrealized potential?
> 
> The guy leads the freaking league in rebound rate and is a member of Team USA!!!!!
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> +1


Thats actually a -5.

The organization made what could have been a terrible mistake, but somehow has managed to keep on hummin'. We just plain out haven't felt the loss.

Somebody tell me honestly that losing the Chandler we had, not the one that played in Charlotte last year, hurt this team last season.

I challenge you. Make the argument. Show me that losing Tyson hurt us last season.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

> The Truths About Tyson Chandler:
> 
> 1. Tyson played thousands of minutes for three men who've experienced lots of success in basketball. Yes, he had his chances here.
> 
> ...


Please add:

4. Chandler is an elite rebounder and a very good defender.

5. Chandler played a large role on a very good team before the trade happened. 

Those are relevant, too. 



> Skiles was his fourth coach. How many does he get?
> 
> At what point does it make sense to go with another young big?


If it were easy to get good young bigs it would make plenty of sense. Unfortunately they are quite rare. 



> So was Floyds, and Cartwrights...I'd say too much of made of his new coaches work with him and not enough in the change in Tysons attitude about being coachable.


I think he has always been coachable. Injuries and one bad offseason held him back. 

-----------

With that said, I don't want Paxson or Skiles to be fired. Paxson is simply awesome at drafting talent, pretty good at FA pickups, and doesn't do short-sighted little stuff like reaching for marginal fill-ins or trading away future picks or depending on unknowns to pan out. And I don't think there are any Chandler-ish players with mental issues on the roster that Skiles will adversely effect (though he seems to have a poor relationship with Gordon -- who knows how that is affecting contract negotiations...)

Of course I'm assuming they recognize that they did indeed make mistakes and are learning from them. If they feel they haven't made any mistakes whatsoever (like a few posters) they should be fired. And that's not a shot at anyone.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> I challenge you. Make the argument. Show me that losing Tyson hurt us last season



:thinking: 

fact is.....

tyson's *addition* to NO netted +1 game in their wins.

tyson's *subtraction* from CHI netted +8 games in their wins.

all this "PER", "TEAM USA", rebound rate, AND western conference is stronger BS is just that.......


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

GB said:


> I challenge you. Make the argument. Show me that losing Tyson hurt us last season.


Losing Tyson didn't hurt last season at all, but it will hurt in future seasons and hinder our ability to make a consolidation trade. To what degree it hurt the Bulls can't really be argued conclusively.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

Tyson played his first season with a real PG which lead to less turnovers and a much better FG%.

As for rebounding, last season the Bulls grabbed 44 more rebounds during the regular season than the Hornets, but grabbed less offensive rebounds than the Hornets and gave up more rebounds to their opponents than the Hornets did.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Losing Tyson didn't hurt last season at all, but it will hurt in future seasons and hinder our ability to make a consolidation trade. To what degree it hurt the Bulls can't really be argued conclusively.


isn't there a record of minnesota rejecting a deng, chandler and #2 pick for garnett? if so, then tyson's (in)ability could be viewed as having hindered the bulls ability to make a consolidation trade.



> 4. Chandler is an elite rebounder and a very good defender.


good rebounder; elite? i'll beg to differ. IF he could manage to stay on the court, at least 10 boards per would fall into his granite mitts. good defender, nah......




> 5. Chandler played a large role on a very good team before the trade happened.


in both years the bulls lost in the first round, chandler's "large role" didn't help in the least. is he mainly at fault? no, but his "very good" defense didn't stop shaq from going 30-20, nor did his "elite rebounding" help losing to the wiz when curry and deng weren't there for support.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

I just lost 500 or 1000 words so I'll just have to summarize:

- Perhaps the writer used a poor choice of words by using "resurgence" but Tyson's offense is substantially better last season than it was in his last season with the Bulls and trended upwards over the course of last season, I don't think that's nothing.

- Yes, Tyson's performance last season isn't tons better than his best work with the Bulls, but how does that mean he's not a good player? His best work with the Bulls was enough for people to consider him one of our best players and for him to earn a big extension. He's one of the 2-3 best rebounders in the league and a very good interior defender. He posted a high (17) PER rating last season. Suggesting that he's not a quality player seems like sour grapes or pent up frustration over some of his struggles with the Bulls to me. If people want to argue he's not one of the 12 best players in the US then by all means but why go overboard and talk about him like he's a role player on a good team when all the facts indicate otherwise?

- As I've said before, assuming that Noah will be a top 2-3 rebounder like Tyson or that he'll develop a good offensive game when the scouts' conviction that he won't is the reason he fell in to us in the draft seems like a stretch to me. 

- I can't believe people are offended and upset because Ty said "I try not to" presumably in response to a reporter asking him "Do you consider this vindication." 



Rhyder said:


> You wanted the ball in Chandler's hands more? Do you remember all the back to the basket moves under the Cartwright era? He makes Perkins look pretty on offense.


I remember it well. They went in. He scored 15 points per 40 as a soph with a solid 56.5 TS%. Since then he hasn't topped 12 points per 40. Sometimes I think peoples' complaints over the fact that his offense didn't look all that pretty and smooth is what doomed his offensive game. It was working for a while whether it looked ugly or not. 



GB said:


> I challenge you. Make the argument. Show me that losing Tyson hurt us last season.


Depends on whether you mean swapping Chandler for Wallace (Pax's decision) or dumping Chandler after signing Wallace so we wouldn't have to pay luxury tax (indirectly Reinsdorf's decision). If you consider the latter, then it's hard to argue we wouldn't have been better last season with Ty playing Sweets, P.J., and Maliks' minutes.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> Please add:
> 
> 4. Chandler is an elite rebounder and a very good defender.
> 
> ...


Everything Tyson did, Ben Wallace did him 2x better. Plus now we've got two young studs. I don't see any room, in retrospect, to criticize Paxson over a judgment call.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> Losing Tyson didn't hurt last season at all


We're making progress here.



> To what degree it hurt the Bulls can't really be argued conclusively.


Say that again 10x.

But we're winning. So no fuss. It would be a big deal if we were not.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

cpawfan said:


> Tyson played his first season with a real PG which lead to less turnovers and a much better FG%.
> 
> As for rebounding, last season the Bulls grabbed 44 more rebounds during the regular season than the Hornets, but grabbed less offensive rebounds than the Hornets and gave up more rebounds to their opponents than the Hornets did.


Thats all a real reach.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> tyson's *subtraction* from CHI netted +8 games in their wins.


How much of the improvement of the Bulls is due to Deng, Gordon and Hinrich being a year older and better?

How much of both team's play is accountable to injuries? NOH had the injury bug all season. Bulls were relatively injury-free.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> How much of the improvement of the Bulls is due to Deng, Gordon and Hinrich being a year older and better?


Most of it.

Deng and Gordon's improvement especially.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

GB said:


> Everything Tyson did, Ben Wallace did him 2x better. Plus now we've got two young studs. I don't see any room, in retrospect, to criticize Paxson over a judgment call.


I think Wallace is loads better than Tyson, but it's not true to say that everything Wallace did 2x better. It's certainly not true with respect to rebounding.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Most of it.
> 
> Deng and Gordon's improvement especially.



Please go back and respond to some of the replies made to your posts.

Thanks.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I think Wallace is loads better than Tyson, but it's not true to say that everything Wallace did 2x better. It's certainly not true with respect to rebounding.


Only if you over-focus on stats.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

As an aside, I find it shocking that we still have this debate. Tyson was lost to not pay the luxury tax, nothing more. You can weigh the merits of that sort of decision, but not the basis for it, IMO. Now there's all sorts of revisionist history arguing either (1) Tyson is the best player EVER!!!!!! or (2) Tyson totally sucks!!!!!! Everyone knows neither is true. Tyson is essentially a glorified role player. He is an excellent, excellent rebounder and a pretty good shot blocker/alteror. He is more or less otherwise unskilled. Rebounding is important, and hence, Tyson can play an important role. However, I don't think you'll ever cure his stone hands or see him knocking down 17 foot jumpers. His game will always be incomplete. That will fit well for some teams, but not for others. It is what it is.

Wallace is an upgrade over Tyson for "win now" mode. We'll see whether Noah will be for "win later" mode. Could Tyson help some? Sure, if he's mentally ok playing PJ Brown minutes. But the Bulls have moved on and I think adequately replaced Tyson, even if the Tyson for PJ swap in isolation was a crappy move. NO is getting good production out of Tyson. Good for them. He's essentially doing the same things down there he did with the Bulls. He's just getting more minutes and no longer seems mentally defeated. 

Tyson is a good, but limited, player. If the Bulls don't win a championship in the next 5 years, it'll be a lot more than the loss of Tyson Chandler that caused it. 

Tyson's moved on. It's probably time for the rest of us to do so as well. C'est la vie.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

GB said:


> Only if you over-focus on stats.


Geez. I have to disagree with that. I am a pretty admitted stat hater. I don't have much use for PER, EFF, etc. But rebounding? Rebounding can be pretty easily quantified. I have a hard time believing anyone could disagree.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> As an aside, I find it shocking that we still have this debate. Tyson was lost to not pay the luxury tax, nothing more. You can weigh the merits of that sort of decision, but not the basis for it, IMO. Now there's all sorts of revisionist history arguing either (1) Tyson is the best player EVER!!!!!! or (2) Tyson totally sucks!!!!!! Everyone knows neither is true. Tyson is essentially a glorified role player. He is an excellent, excellent rebounder and a pretty good shot blocker/alteror. He is more or less otherwise unskilled. Rebounding is important, and hence, Tyson can play an important role. However, I don't think you'll ever cure his stone hands or see him knocking down 17 foot jumpers. His game will always be incomplete. That will fit well for some teams, but not for others. It is what it is.
> 
> Wallace is an upgrade over Tyson for "win now" mode. We'll see whether Noah will be for "win later" mode. Could Tyson help some? Sure, if he's mentally ok playing PJ Brown minutes. But the Bulls have moved on and I think adequately replaced Tyson, even if the Tyson for PJ swap in isolation was a crappy move. NO is getting good production out of Tyson. Good for them. He's essentially doing the same things down there he did with the Bulls. He's just getting more minutes and no longer seems mentally defeated.
> 
> ...


+1 :clap:


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> As an aside, I find it shocking that we still have this debate. Tyson was lost to not pay the luxury tax, nothing more. You can weigh the merits of that sort of decision, but not the basis for it, IMO. Now there's all sorts of revisionist history arguing either (1) Tyson is the best player EVER!!!!!! or (2) Tyson totally sucks!!!!!! Everyone knows neither is true. Tyson is essentially a glorified role player.
> 
> ...
> 
> Tyson's moved on. It's probably time for the rest of us to do so as well. C'est la vie.


Well, yeah, but this board does like to chew the fat over stuff like this. Where is the JC thread? 

I think Chandler could have helped this team, and I also think that finances were a big part of the decision. Obviously Tyson's value as a player and his contract were major and quantifiable criteria that were considered when they let him go. But I think there's a third factor, the sort of elephant in the room - what else happened in 2005-2006? Was all happy in the Bulls locker room? We know Skiles and Chandler clashed - just how much? Was Chandler seen as a problem child? Was he seen as a bad influence? Was this a case of addition by subtraction? Had the nest been completely fouled in Chicago for Tyson? What went on with him and his relationships with the team as he went into what really was a pretty severe tailspin last year and ended up in the doghouse? It's tough to know the answers to these questions, but when you see the massive contract Paxson awarded him, and then the quick trade, add in the reduced minutes, and read between the lines of some of the veiled statements made by Pax, Skiles, and TC since his departure (all of whom really have behaved pretty well toward each other), I personally think it's likely that Paxson had a much better calculus of TC and his value to the team than we could possibly have here. I'm willing to live with that, because, as JNR points out, TC was a talented but flawed player to begin with. Finances were heavily considered, but I believe the 2005-2006 season on and off the court tipped the scales on TC. I don't think Pax gave Tyson the contract with the idea that he was headed out of town to keep the Bulls under the tax, does anyone else? I believe that decision was made when Tyson's 2005-2006 went south, and not before. I don't buy that this was all about dollars.


----------



## Mateo (Sep 23, 2006)

Come on guys, Tyson is one of the best defensive players in the game right now. He's on a clear path to at least have a Marcus Camby like career, possibly even a Dikembe Mutombo like career. I'd absolutely love for my Wolves to have him. I'd rather have him over a lot more popular players.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I would still do the move today and it is along the reasons why Chicago did it in the first place. 

Chandler's horrible 05-06 season. I was disgusted watching him outside a handful of games such as the game-saving block in Denver on Melo. I even had a kid tell me the other day that Mike Sweetney was our best defender that Miami series. Thats how bad 'zeros across the box-score' Chandler was. 

His bad play probably caused fear in Paxson that he would continue to deteriorate and not improve his game. In 5 years, in all seriousness, how much did this kid improve? He had one solid year *on one side *of the court as a Chicago Bull. I'm not giving him any forgiveness for not developing an offensive game. If people rant on Eddy Curry all day long for his defense, Tyson Chandler better be dogged for being a horrible offensive player. In my opinion if you're 7 feet tall there is no excuse to be a bad offensive player, defensive presence, or rebounder. Take that plus being the guy we got for Brand and being a #2 draft pick, you better turn out damn good. 

We're in an era of the Luxury Tax. Few owners will pay it. We had capspace to get Wallace, but IMO if Chandler was an ever-improving consistant 7 footer than we would have kept him and Wallace. The end result would have been losing Noce. Forget the age difference but look at that Miami series. Noce was a stud. Chandler was worse than a dud. If you're team has made the playoffs for two years in a row, wants to win it all soon, its obvious you keep Noce and go for Wallace. Because of the Tax, we wouldn't want to miss out on the rest of our core so we get rid of Tyson. 

The kid has played more minutes and has produced more. But where has he improved? He still can't catch. He still lacks the IQ in passing and fouling less. He is all bark, and a slight nibble. It's not even a bite.

I've seen more skill from a deterioating Ben Wallace and a Raw Tyrus Thomas than Chandler in Chicago or the USA Games.

For the financial reasons, for what we saw in 05-06, and knowing that this kid barely improved through his time here --- THANK YOU JOHN PAXSON. You took out the trash that Krause gave you. This is coming from a person who was a huge Eddy Curry fan and hoped Tyson Chandler would become a force along his side. I was Punk'D big time by Kutcher here. Luckily Pax has the Bulls back.

We can win now because no matter what, Wallace still possesses the little things Chandler will never do -- Steals, Passing, fouling less. Joe Smith has replaced PJ and he will be the Vet. Tyson would have done jack again. On top of that you replace Eddy and Tyson with Noah and Thomas. Wow.

Now, I will be hard on Tyrus as I was on Tyson. You're a "#2" pick who was traded for Aldridge. You better show up and be a legit 16.5ish/10 player for us or I might want you out in a few years too. There is no excuse for a high draft pick to be a one dimensional player unless you go down as one of the greatest offensive/defensive players of your generation.


----------



## Cager (Jun 13, 2002)

Tyson gave the Bulls no other option but to go after a consistent proven rebounder/defender. Tyson did not play nearly as well in his last season with the Bulls as he did the prior year. Regressing at Tyson's age can be scary for a team ready to take the next step forward. Tyson also had an inconsistent work habit. Everybody expected Tyson to improve in the 2005/2006 season as he had and if he had then he would be here and Ben wouldn't. I guess that is the problem drafting immature teenagers. i will always follow Tyson's career and I'm really curious whether he will have the drive to always improve his game. Currently he has had two very good seasons but they were in a contratc year and the first year oan new team. i want him to progress without those incentives.

I do think that Noah will probably be able to provide almost as much from a defense and rebounding standpoint. Since Noah can catch a basketball he also has the potential to be much better offensively. And Noah is an intelligent person and has basketball smarts. Tyson was blessed with neither of those qualities.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

GB said:


> But we're winning. So no fuss. It would be a big deal if we were not.


As in as long as we're winning, it doesn't matter how much we're winning?  If Tyson would've made us two games better last season then (from purely a basketball perspective) not having him around was a big loss.



GB said:


> Only if you over-focus on stats.


I think statistics measure rebounding better than just about anything. Are you seriously arguing that Wallace is a better rebounder or even a substantially better rebounder than Tyson? 



jnrjr79 said:


> As an aside, I find it shocking that we still have this debate. Tyson was lost to not pay the luxury tax, nothing more. You can weigh the merits of that sort of decision, but not the basis for it, IMO. Now there's all sorts of revisionist history arguing either (1) Tyson is the best player EVER!!!!!! or (2) Tyson totally sucks!!!!!! Everyone knows neither is true.


Extremely well put.



jnrjr79 said:


> Tyson is essentially a glorified role player. He is an excellent, excellent rebounder and a pretty good shot blocker/alteror. He is more or less otherwise unskilled. Rebounding is important, and hence, Tyson can play an important role. However, I don't think you'll ever cure his stone hands or see him knocking down 17 foot jumpers. His game will always be incomplete. That will fit well for some teams, but not for others. It is what it is.


I agree with all this but feel like maybe there are some negative connotations there. A lot of players, some of whom are high quality players, are in the league because they are extremely good at one skill while their games are mediocre or poor elsewhere. You could call Gordon an ultimate role player because he doesn't do anything other than score particularly well. Wallace is probably the definition of a glorified role player and he's made multiple All-Star teams. 

Unless you're a great all around player, you're always going to fit better with some teams than others.



theanimal23 said:


> THANK YOU JOHN PAXSON. You took out the trash that Krause gave you.


I agree with a lot of your points, I just don't understand the jump from them to this sort of belittling, borderline hateful language. If we had to trade a good player deal with the luxury tax and whatnot then why go a step further and start degrading the player? 



theanimal23 said:


> I do think that Noah will probably be able to provide almost as much from a defense and rebounding standpoint. Since Noah can catch a basketball he also has the potential to be much better offensively. And Noah is an intelligent person and has basketball smarts. Tyson was blessed with neither of those qualities.


If Noah is an intelligent player who will play great D and average 16 and 12 then why didn't he go third or fourth instead of 9th? I have more faith in the scouts and GMs than to think they were that stupid. Claiming that any player can be in the top 5 or so in rebounding in the league is very bold.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

GB said:


> Thats all a real reach.


None of it is a reach. There is a night and day difference between playing with Chris Paul, therefore getting the ball in the right spot and playing with Kirk Hinrich.


----------



## Mateo (Sep 23, 2006)

Seems like a unimportant point at best. Chandler's value has not risen because of his offense. He's still a poor offensive player and always will be - that ship has sailed. It's nice that he's now extremely efficient instead of just very efficient, but that's hardly why people have taken to his game. It's those "other" areas that people are excited about.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

i'd like to point out a few things .

Tyson's "hands of stone " was only a big problem in the skiles era ....he wasn't the greatest catcher of passes but he caught enough of them and converted them well enough that you were reasoably sure he could either make the shot or get fouled

from the 2nd half of of the 2002-03 season through his very good start to the 2003-04 season until he got hurt right before the skiles era he was avg. something like 12 or 13 and 10 while shooting well over 50% from the field .

his hands weren't a problem , just like they really aren't a problem for the hornets now...not saying people will mistake is hands for curry's anytime soon , but i think now that we have seen a before and after its pretty much a fact his problem is how he was used in skiles system...it just made him look worse than he actually is offensively because it does not play to his strengths as a player.

skiles likes quick hits to his big men for easy scores off of ball domination by the guards , something that makes guys with good hands and good athletes look better but bad hands and poor athelets look worse because it really is a talent to catch and convert in the paint in today's nba and not many bigs really have it,...and while tyson can actually convert , it really seems to depend on the passes you get to him for instance , ...lobs well over the rim he is good at ...bullet passes through trafic he is not so great at ,sometimes its the pg's fault or credit for giving a player they type of help they need to suceed and not soley the coaches fault or credit, i have to admit i didn't think kirk did the best job of getting the best out of tyson, and i though duhon did a slightly better job , chris paul surely does a better job and even jay will and crawford seemed to better understanding tyson's faults and shielded him better .

to me this is a vindication , its an honor to be chosen to team USA and this USA team seems to be much better then the usual recent formations, he brings something they need and its good for him to be acknowledged, just like it would be good for any emerging good player in the nba. 

also tyson has obviously improved from his bulls days , if people want to say its just more minutes , well fine ,. just take a look at guys who play as many minutes , and you'll find there aren't alot of scrubs getting 30 minutes or more a game, if you can play that much its probably because you are really good and deserve to play that much.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

Mateo said:


> Seems like a unimportant point at best. Chandler's value has not risen because of his offense. He's still a poor offensive player and always will be - that ship has sailed. It's nice that he's now extremely efficient instead of just very efficient, but that's hardly why people have taken to his game. It's those "other" areas that people are excited about.


Tyson scoring nearly 13 PPG post All Star Break is what got him an invite to Team USA. If he had maintained his 8 PPG scoring for the entire season, all of his rebounding and defense wouldn't have mattered.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> its an honor to be chosen to team USA


Did he beat out Brand, Bosh and Boozer for that spot?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

GB said:


> Did he beat out Brand, Bosh and Boozer for that spot?


i dont think so but i dont remember seeing any current bulls on the team ...its an accomplishment plain and simple, and it is an honor , you know for any american who actually would want to represent his/her country.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> i dont think so but i dont remember seeing any current bulls on the team ...its an accomplishment plain and simple, and it is an honor , you know for any american who actually would want to represent his/her country.



Hinrich?


Agreed on your basic premise that being invited is an honor.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Mateo said:


> Seems like a unimportant point at best. Chandler's value has not risen because of his offense. He's still a poor offensive player and always will be - that ship has sailed. It's nice that he's now extremely efficient instead of just very efficient, but that's hardly why people have taken to his game. It's those "other" areas that people are excited about.


I absolutely disagree. A moderately below average scorer is much more valuable than a horrible scorer who otherwise has the same game. It's not as though once you slip below average, everything is equal. Chandler scored 10.9 points per 40 minutes to Wallace's 7.3 points per 40 minutes. Even if we prorate that to 30 minutes, that's _a difference of roughly 2.5 points per game_ (in terms of scoring). That's not the slightest bit unimportant.


----------



## mw2889 (Dec 15, 2005)

Nothing says revenge like leaving a Second-Round team to go to a team that misses the playoffs, the jokes on us Tyson. 

Seriously though, what's so impressive about having a player on Team USA? Did anyone watch the 2004 Olympics , Argentina won them you know. Speaking of Argentina , we actually have a member of their team on the Bulls.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

mw2889 said:


> Nothing says revenge like leaving a Second-Round team to go to a team that misses the playoffs, the jokes on us Tyson.


If the Bulls played in the West and were as injured as the Hornets last year, the Bulls would not have been in the playoffs either.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Hinrich?
> 
> 
> Agreed on your basic premise that being invited is an honor.


well i dont see him(hinrich) there now , maybe i should have modified my statements as being invited is an honor and being able to make the team is an accomplishment.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Da Grinch said:


> well i dont see him(hinrich) there now , maybe i should have modified my statements as being invited is an honor and being able to make the team is an accomplishment.


Chandler will be cut for next years team. Bosh, Brand, or Boozer could easily replace him.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> Chandler will be cut for next years team. Bosh, Brand, or Boozer could easily replace him.


ESPN's main analysis predicted TC will make it next year, but even if you are right, there is still honor in making this year's team, no?


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> ESPN's main analysis predicted TC will make it next year, but even if you are right, there is still honor in making this year's team, no?


Just as there was for Hinrich last year...


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> ESPN's main analysis predicted TC will make it next year, but even if you are right, there is still honor in making this year's team, no?



The only reason he's there now is because of all the injuries.

Edit:

Err, scratch that. It's an honor, Tyson plays good team defense and is a capable rebounder and shot blocker. He's a good fit, but only in light of the injuries, and until Mr. Oden comes up to speed.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I remember it well. They went in. He scored 15 points per 40 as a soph with a solid 56.5 TS%. Since then he hasn't topped 12 points per 40. Sometimes I think peoples' complaints over the fact that his offense didn't look all that pretty and smooth is what doomed his offensive game. It was working for a while whether it looked ugly or not.


And 6 Bulls had more ppg/40 and 9 Bulls had more FGA/40. That certainly does not make him look like the focal point of Cartwright's offensive plans.

Yes, he did run plays for him. The backdoor alley oop was extremely successful and often worked more than once per game. A large reason it was because Tyson's man would be cheating off of him getting ready to double team someone if they needed it. Why? Tyson was the worst offensive player on the floor. More dunk attempts and putbacks is probably what gave him the better TS%. I will never agree that his back to the basket moves is what made him have his most successful offensive season. To me, that would be similar to saying Tyrus Thomas had a decent jumper to give him that 15.5 ppg/40 on 52.1 TS% his rookie year.

I will never miss his running hook/scoop/knuckle ball shot or his turn around 12 footers. I never minded him taking open 12-15 footers facing the basket, and he did knock that shot down more often early in his career here than later. And of course some of them went in too.

Here's one that did look pretty:
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kbVbSVIcKig"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kbVbSVIcKig" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

A showcase of his hands:
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/77zLi_R7Sf4"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/77zLi_R7Sf4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


----------



## popeye12 (Nov 11, 2002)

This is still being discussed? I thought this thread would have been done by now. People making claims that if the Bulls had Tyson and won 2 more games that it would be considered a huge loss? How about if Tyson was on the team and they lost 10 games due to his hands and less Tyrus Thomas/PJ Brown who both won some games for us. You can't make assumptions when making an argument. Tyson is a good rebounder and shot blocker, Wallace is better at defense and team rebounding (he's not a stats guy). There are several times where Wallace is blocking out (what people should be doing) and deng/tyrus/nocioni come in and get the rebound (Wallace should get all the credit for that!). 

The Bulls are BETTER without Tyson and the record proves it and advancement in playoffs is all the proof that can be shown - facts are facts!


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

This has been an interesting thread.

Its solidified two things in my mind.

1.) Chandler for PJ Brown was a brutal trade and easily the worst deal in the post MJ era.

2.) Its another case of a guy like Skiles not getting along with some very good NBA players that have been able to thrive elsewhere. Two of them are on the current version of Team USA.

Hats off to Tyson Chandler. One of the best centers in the game and a patriot.

:usa:


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> A foolish move by Paxson.
> 
> One of the worst, if not the worst trade post MJ was the foolish Chandler for Brown dump.
> 
> Dumping a Team USA caliber young 7 footer for garbage. Foolish. Especially since its obvious we were a "win later" team.


...er...there are questions up thread you've been asked continually but continue to evade. 

We look forward to those answers.

Thanks.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> This has been an interesting thread.
> 
> Its solidified two things in my mind.
> 
> ...


And yet we're a good and improving team with plenty of cohesion.

Those two cases must be the vast exceptions, and not the rules, eh?


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> 1.) Chandler for PJ Brown was a brutal trade and easily the worst deal in the post MJ era.


another case of selective memory; the acquistion of the PICK that elton brand was traded for and BECAME tyson chandler is easily the worst deal in the post MJ era......



> 2.) Its another case of a guy like Skiles not getting along with some very good NBA players that have been able to thrive elsewhere. Two of them are on the current version of Team USA.


another case of a weak minded player not being able to hack it in a man's game; give byron scott, another old schooler, another season or so to see the real tyson.....whoever he might be.




> Hats off to Tyson Chandler. One of the best centers in the game and a patriot.


....wait, did i just hear "the battle hymn of the republic?:lol: :lol: 

FOR THE RECORD.......Mr. Team USA had an unbroken line of zeros in the stat box for his three minutes of action.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> another case of selective memory; the acquistion of the PICK that elton brand was traded for and BECAME tyson chandler is easily the worst deal in the post MJ era......


This is stunningly wrong.

Tyson Chandler is the best rebounder in the game of basketball, a true 7 footer and one of the best centers in the game.

Brand is the better NBA basketball player, but Chandler is a very good center. We’re talking about a Team USA caliber player here. Camby / Mutombo is the proper comparison. Granted, Brand is better, but Chandler is very, very good.

Chandler for nothing is simply foolish. A foolish trade.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> We’re talking about a Team USA caliber player here. Camby / Mutombo is the proper comparison. Granted, Brand is better, but Chandler is very, very good.


this is stunningly laughable.....too bad kevin mchale didn't agree when the team usa caliber "center" was offered with the bulls starting SF and their #2 pick. damn, you'd think those credentials would have been enough.

chandler will be lucky to play half as long as mutombo and i'd imagine had camby elected, he'd have been chosen over that "very, very good, true 7 footer" (even though camby's, what, 6'11"?).......



> Chandler for nothing is simply foolish. A foolish trade.


well, had chandler *not sucked donkey balls*, he'd either have still been a bull OR, gotten reasonable value in his stead. can't blame that on the GM.



> FOR THE RECORD.......Mr. Team USA had an unbroken line of zeros in the stat box for his three minutes of action.


some patriot......


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> This is stunningly wrong.
> 
> Tyson Chandler is the best rebounder in the game of basketball, a true 7 footer and one of the best centers in the game.
> 
> ...



I have frequently said that in terms of a swap of talent, Chandler for PJ is a big loss of a trade. That being said, the trade of Elton for Tyson was a much, much worse trade. 

Again, I keep feeling like I need to call out all the hyperbole on both sides of this argument. Whether Chandler is "one of the best" centers in the game is debatable. He's certainly an above average center, but not top 5 material. There are many guys I would rather have as the starting 5 on my team, including some guys that currently play 4. Still, Chandler is definitely a good basketball player.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Chandler for nothing is simply foolish. A foolish trade.


Only in retrospect. At the time, it was perfectly sensible.

And we've prospered and recovered.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Still, Chandler is definitely a good basketball player.


i don't want to drive this into the ground, but when i think about "good" basketball players, chandler doesn't enter the conversation.

here's a generic way of looking at it; if chandler's ppg and rebounds (what was it 12 or so per game) were added to the *worst* team in the league, would said team be appreciably better? my guess is no. why? because the categories in which chandler is purportedly "good" at don't impact wins that much.

now the other side of the equation, and let's use a up and coming team like the boston celtics. they've added 3 all-stars to their team. adding chandler, are they a lock for the trophy? in other words, does chandler put a *good* team over the hump? again, my guess is no because what chandler brings to the table is fine and dandy in a vacuum, but over 82 games his *impact* is going to be negligible imo; which when looked at in conjunction with his $$ was a primary reason to cut bait.

lastly, i genuinely wanted curry AND chandler to work; in theory it was a very sound idea. practically speaking, it was far riskier not to understand those two kids mentality as it relates to work ethic and winning championships. i'm of the belief that the gm paxson would have passed on both guys in the draft, or at the least not picked either at their respective slots.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> this is stunningly laughable.....too bad kevin mchale didn't agree when the team usa caliber "center" was offered with the bulls starting SF and their #2 pick.


:lol:


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

FYI, this is a list of where I think Tyson Chandler fits of guys who either are 5s or can play the 5. Some will object to the inclusion of 4s, but the distinction between 4/5 is largely an artificial one based upon the makeup of your roster. Plenty of guys are interchangeable between the 2 positions such that I think it makes sense to lump some 4s in there. Heck, many would argue we currently start a 4 at our own 5 spot.

1. Duncan
2.. Yao
3. Bosh
4. Shaq
5. Amare
6. Howard
7. Camby
8. Pau
9. Big ben
10. O'Neal
11. Emeka
12. Al Jefferson
13. Big Z (though not for long)
14. Tyson

I'm not sure that my list is in my exact order, but that's a general sense of it, based upon if I was choosing for next season alone. I could see switching Tyson and Big Z though. I love the completeness of Z's game, but physically he may be approaching done-ness at this point.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I have frequently said that in terms of a swap of talent, Chandler for PJ is a big loss of a trade. That being said, the trade of Elton for Tyson was a much, much worse trade.


How is it worse? A top 10 Center for a top 6 PF? Vs a top 10 C for nothing? What have the Clips done with Brand? What could we have done with Brand?


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

They were both horrible trades. And I find it necessary to point out for the millionth time, the Chandler/Brown trade was all JR. That said it was a much worse trade for many reasons already stated, but I think many are missing one key point, when we traded the very polished and ready to win Elton Brand, he had no polish or winning around him. Brand would have undoubtably won the Bulls many more games, I would imagine so many more that the Bulls draft picks would not have been as great as they were. If Brand was on the team we wouldve never landed Jay Will(who's injury opened the door for even more high picks). 

If not for the Brand trade.

Would Gordon, Deng, or Hinrich be a part of this team?

Would the Bulls be stuck in mediocraty like.... the Clippers?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> How is it worse? A top 10 Center for a top 6 PF? Vs a top 10 C for nothing? What have the Clips done with Brand? What could we have done with Brand?


Well, ok, but what has NO done with Chandler? The same argument can be made.

Elton Brand is a 20 and 10 guy. He is an elite player for his position. He is a complete basketball player who can do everything a guy at his position should do. Trading him for a high school kid who would take years to develop, and will never develop anything approaching a complete game, set this franchise back years and years.

Trading Tyson for PJ set this franchise back 0 years. Wallace was an upgrade. If Noah doesn't develop, then it becomes a step back, but that's a while from now. Plus, if getting rid of Tyson gave us the ability to lock up Nocioni, it's that much more mitigated. 

Tyson for PJ was a trade in which the team lost talent (rebounding). But the Bulls were nonetheless an excellent rebounding team last year. They also had an improved season and are considered a top team in the East coming in to this year. So, as viewed from the perspective of damage to the franchise, the Brand trade was light years worse.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Well, ok, but what has NO done with Chandler? The same argument can be made.
> 
> Elton Brand is a 20 and 10 guy. He is an elite player for his position. He is a complete basketball player who can do everything a guy at his position should do. Trading him for a high school kid who would take years to develop, and will never develop anything approaching a complete game, *set this franchise back years and years*.


It set us back years and years? With Brand we won 17 and 15 games. In our entire history, *the Bulls franchise was never as pathetic as when we had Brand.*


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Nothing here, move on. :cheers:


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Hustle said:


> And I find it necessary to point out for the millionth time, the Chandler/Brown trade was all JR.


Reinsdorf, right? Not the player that was dumped. That will take some of the fun out of it for folks who like to blame Paxson and Skiles.

Thanks...that makes a nice and neat 4th truth about Tyson.



> The Truths About Tyson Chandler:
> 
> 1. Tyson played thousands of minutes for three men who've experienced lots of success in basketball. Yes, he had his chances here.
> 
> ...


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> It set us back years and years? With Brand we won 17 and 15 games. In our entire history, *the Bulls franchise was never as pathetic as when we had Brand.*


That's faulty logic if I've ever seen it. Who was Brand's supporting cast? So, is your argument that Chandler is better than Brand? I don't get it.

The fact of the matter is the Bulls continued sucking for years after trading Brand. It certainly doesn't seem like the trade sped up the improvement. 

I do see though how one could argue with my belief that trading Brand set the franchise back. The team had to be blown up so many times and had to go through so many different configurations that it really is impossible to know whether the Elton Brand Bulls ever would have turned it around.

As an aside, I actually don't hate Krause for making the trade. The trade sucked. I think it sucked more than the Chandler trade, both both were bad. If reports though are true that Falk had all but promised that he was going to get Brand the hell out of there once he hit free agency, then I don't know that Jerry had a choice other than to move him.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I do see though how one could argue with my belief that trading Brand set the franchise back.


That's an understatement. Talk about faulty logic. We didn't get set back when we traded Brand. We never sucked at that level again. 

In fact, our record improved, improved and then improved some more. Ironically, the only year we failed to improve our win loss record and regressed is the year that Chandler missed 60 games. Like him or not, Chandler was a big piece of our big rotation when we became competitive again.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

To the idea that we just *had* to dump Chandler for salary purposes, I'd point out this.
1. Assume our current team, plus Chandler and minus Joe Smith
2. Assume the salary cap continues to increase about the same sort of rates it has for the past several years.
3. Figure in backloaded contracts for Gordon and Deng

and what I come out with is the Bulls paying a grand total of about $2.2M in luxury tax. That's what teams throw around for lower end 1st round draft picks.

In other words, I don't see the economic rationale as being a very good one.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> That's an understatement. Talk about faulty logic. We didn't get set back when we traded Brand. We never sucked at that level again.
> 
> In fact, our record improved, improved and then improved some more. Ironically, the only year we failed to improve our win loss record and regressed is the year that Chandler missed 60 games. Like him or not, Chandler was a big piece of our big rotation when we became competitive again.



The fault in your logic is that you assume causation. Is it your position that the Brand for Chandler swap was the cause of the eventual resurgence of the Bulls?

And by the way, I don't understand why you take a tone as if I dislike Chandler. I like Chandler. I hated the PJ Brown swap. I've made that extremely clear in all of my posts. I just think the Brand trade was worse. I think that's a defensible position, at the very least.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> That's an understatement. Talk about faulty logic. We didn't get set back when we traded Brand. We never sucked at that level again.
> 
> In fact, our record improved, improved and then improved some more. Ironically, the only year we failed to improve our win loss record and regressed is the year that Chandler missed 60 games. Like him or not, Chandler was a big piece of our big rotation when we became competitive again.


We may have sprung forward more quickly had we not traded him though


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

MikeDC said:


> To the idea that we just *had* to dump Chandler for salary purposes, I'd point out this.
> 1. Assume our current team, plus Chandler and minus Joe Smith
> 2. Assume the salary cap continues to increase about the same sort of rates it has for the past several years.
> 3. Figure in backloaded contracts for Gordon and Deng
> ...



It depends what you mean by a "good" rationale. If Pax is under the rule, "no luxury tax whatsoever unless we are a championship caliber team," then I think the economic rationale is understanable from the GM's perspective. It's just a disappointing philosophy from an ownership perspective. 

However, if Pax does in fact have the flexibility to go into mild luxury tax land, then it the rationale is not good.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

MikeDC said:


> We may have sprung forward more quickly had we not traded him though


Whew. Thanks. That was all I was trying (and failing) to express using many more words.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> We may have sprung forward more quickly had we not traded him though


Possibly. That's not the same as being set back for years.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Rhyder said:


> And 6 Bulls had more ppg/40 and 9 Bulls had more FGA/40. That certainly does not make him look like the focal point of Cartwright's offensive plans.
> 
> Yes, he did run plays for him. The backdoor alley oop was extremely successful and often worked more than once per game. A large reason it was because Tyson's man would be cheating off of him getting ready to double team someone if they needed it. Why? Tyson was the worst offensive player on the floor. More dunk attempts and putbacks is probably what gave him the better TS%. I will never agree that his back to the basket moves is what made him have his most successful offensive season. To me, that would be similar to saying Tyrus Thomas had a decent jumper to give him that 15.5 ppg/40 on 52.1 TS% his rookie year.
> 
> I will never miss his running hook/scoop/knuckle ball shot or his turn around 12 footers. I never minded him taking open 12-15 footers facing the basket, and he did knock that shot down more often early in his career here than later. And of course some of them went in too.


I was focusing on his scoring rate mostly. The only reason I included his TS% was to show that his better scoring seasons weren't just the result of jacking up poor shots on a bad team. 15 points per 40 is pretty drastically different than what Tyson has done in most all of his other seasons and is a rather solid scoring rate for a big man.

I'm not sure exactly what we want to call that move in the YouTube clip but it's precisely what I was referring to. People complained that it was ugly but it was back to the basket offense (the only back to the basket move I can remember him using with any frequency) and as far as I can remember it was rather effective. The solid TS % would seem to bear that out unless you believe that he didn't take it very often. 

The lack of that back to the basket move is the one major difference I can remember from his good offensive season and his poor ones. He took fewer jumpers over time I suppose but I don't ever remember him hitting them with any kind of success. I don't remember Ty scoring on alley oop plays more often under Cartwright than Skiles. Tyrus seemed to get a lot of alley oop plays in Skiles' offense last season.



popeye12 said:


> This is still being discussed? I thought this thread would have been done by now. People making claims that if the Bulls had Tyson and won 2 more games that it would be considered a huge loss? How about if Tyson was on the team and they lost 10 games due to his hands and less Tyrus Thomas/PJ Brown who both won some games for us. You can't make assumptions when making an argument. Tyson is a good rebounder and shot blocker, Wallace is better at defense and team rebounding (he's not a stats guy). There are several times where Wallace is blocking out (what people should be doing) and deng/tyrus/nocioni come in and get the rebound (Wallace should get all the credit for that!).
> 
> The Bulls are BETTER without Tyson and the record proves it and advancement in playoffs is all the proof that can be shown - facts are facts!


No offense but this is a pretty ridiculous post. A player who led the league in rebounding, was chosen to Team USA, and had an above average PER will make a team 10 games worse? Huh?! By the way, Tyson actually cut down on his turnovers a good bit last season. I don't see why winning two more games wouldn't be important. We would've had a better seed in the playoffs and might've advanced further. That matters to me. I'm the one who threw out the two games better hypothetical, and I think I was pretty clear that that was Tyson in addition to Wallace not instead of Wallace.



BULLHITTER said:


> this is stunningly laughable.....too bad kevin mchale didn't agree when the team usa caliber "center" was offered with the bulls starting SF and their #2 pick. damn, you'd think those credentials would have been enough.
> 
> chandler will be lucky to play half as long as mutombo and i'd imagine had camby elected, he'd have been chosen over that "very, very good, true 7 footer" (even though camby's, what, 6'11"?).......


He said comparable to Mutombo and Camby, not better. Mutombo and Camby have had better seasons than Chandler has while in their prime...but Ty's not in his prime yet. We're talking about two mediocre at best offensive players with elite rebounding and defensive skills...sounds rather similar to Tyson to me. If you really think it's laughable to talk about them in the same sentence, I'd be curious to know why.


GB said:


> Only in retrospect. At the time, it was perfectly sensible.
> 
> And we've prospered and recovered.


:lol: Suddenly Kevin McHale is a reliable talent evaluator? I guess Deng isn't very good either.

I think that's pretty hard to maintain when there are several threads on this board full of people slamming the trade immediately after it happened.



BULLHITTER said:


> i don't want to drive this into the ground, but when i think about "good" basketball players, chandler doesn't enter the conversation.
> 
> here's a generic way of looking at it; if chandler's ppg and rebounds (what was it 12 or so per game) were added to the *worst* team in the league, would said team be appreciably better? my guess is no. why? because the categories in which chandler is purportedly "good" at don't impact wins that much.
> 
> now the other side of the equation, and let's use a up and coming team like the boston celtics. they've added 3 all-stars to their team. adding chandler, are they a lock for the trophy? in other words, does chandler put a *good* team over the hump? again, my guess is no because what chandler brings to the table is fine and dandy in a vacuum, but over 82 games his *impact* is going to be negligible imo; which when looked at in conjunction with his $$ was a primary reason to cut bait.


I'm not really sure what the basis for this argument is. People never seem to say this type of thing about Mutombo, Russel, Wallace, Rodman, or Camby. You can argue that those players are better but they're certainly not light years better and have very similar skill sets. 

I think Ainge might trade his entire roster minus the big three for Chandler. It's give him a four above average starter, improve the teams subpar defense, make the Celtics one of the better rebounding teams in the league, and remove the possibility of relying on Kedrick Perkins for 30 minutes every game.



jnrjr79 said:


> Trading Tyson for PJ set this franchise back 0 years. Wallace was an upgrade. If Noah doesn't develop, then it becomes a step back, but that's a while from now. Plus, if getting rid of Tyson gave us the ability to lock up Nocioni, it's that much more mitigated.


I've been repeating this a lot, but that depends on whether you're considering the luxury tax considerations in place (swapping Chandler for Wallace) or just the basketball aspect (giving away Chandler for nothing. If it's the latter than it absolutely set us back because giving minutes to P.J., Malik, and Sweets instead of Tyson cost us wins last year and we threw away a major asset.



GB said:


> Reinsdorf, right? Not the player that was dumped. That will take some of the fun out of it for folks who like to blame Paxson and Skiles.
> 
> Thanks...that makes a nice and neat 4th truth about Tyson.


I don't get it, Tyson traded himself?



MikeDC said:


> To the idea that we just *had* to dump Chandler for salary purposes, I'd point out this.
> 1. Assume our current team, plus Chandler and minus Joe Smith
> 2. Assume the salary cap continues to increase about the same sort of rates it has for the past several years.
> 3. Figure in backloaded contracts for Gordon and Deng
> ...


Hmm. That doesn't sound quite right to me. How much are Gordon and Deng averaging per season? Is that just for the year after next? It would seem that if Gordon, Deng, Wallace, and Kirk are all signed to large back loaded contracts then the amount of luxury tax owed will shoot up from year to year (at least until Wallace comes off the books). 

Either way I don't really think it matters because I think that Pax is under orders not to exceed to luxury tax threshold. That means that whether we'd be paying $2.2 million or $20.2 million in luxury tax doesn't matter doesn't make a difference; moving Chandler was the one clear way to stay under the luxury tax. 

If it's only $2.2 million you could argue that we would be able to just move a small contract or something and stay under but Pax has made it clear that he values financial flexibility and that's probably pretty smart. You don't want Gordon's agent to sign an offer sheet for $12 million knowing that Pax can't go over $11 million because it would put us in tax land. Also, this took place a year ago so there was no telling what market value BG, Deng, and Noc would establish for themselves. Pax didn't want to paint himself into a corner.

Whether or not Pax had absolutely no choice but to trade Ty for financial reasons is probably debatable but I think it's pretty clear that financial concerns are the primary reason he made the deal.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> He said comparable to Mutombo and Camby, not better. Mutombo and Camby have had better seasons than Chandler has while in their prime...but Ty's not in his prime yet. We're talking about two mediocre at best offensive players with elite rebounding and defensive skills...sounds rather similar to Tyson to me. If you really think it's laughable to talk about them in the same sentence, I'd be curious to know why.


whether he stated "comparable" or "better", i don't think tyson's career will come close to either. since mutombo's had 16+ years in the league, with multiple awards and such (no, i don't feel like looking them up) let me know when chandler gets his first award for anything.

further, camby's the current DPOY if i'm not mistaken; don't mistake similar skills to comparable talent levels; they're hardly the same. as well, 5-6 years in the pros but "Ty's not in his prime yet"? how many GM's do you honestly believe will wait 5+ years of inconsistent performing before looking for an "out"? what's a reasonable time frame for someone to reach his "prime"? also, tyson coming into the nba at 18-19 doesn't mean him reaching his "prime" gets extended into his late 
20's, does it? it's funny how he and curry are still "growing", all while splashing pretty stats yet "helping" teams get nowhere.

lastly, when tyson helps, leads, does ANYTHING outside of grab loose balls that results in wins for his team, then i'll give him whatever props are deserved. i haven't seen it on team usa, and i'll be interested to see if the new and improved and healthy hornets are playoff material with tyson in the post.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> To the idea that we just *had* to dump Chandler for salary purposes, I'd point out this.
> 1. Assume our current team, plus Chandler and minus Joe Smith
> 2. Assume the salary cap continues to increase about the same sort of rates it has for the past several years.
> 3. Figure in backloaded contracts for Gordon and Deng
> ...


Mike, just curious. Difference between JSmith and Chandler ~$6MM in '08-'09? Are you still figuring that Gordon and Deng start at $8MM and $10MM, respectively? Figuring Duhon gone and no MLE in '08-'09? Not re-signing Gray and JOCurry?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

transplant said:


> Mike, just curious. Difference between JSmith and Chandler ~$6MM in '08-'09? Are you still figuring that Gordon and Deng start at $8MM and $10MM, respectively? Figuring Duhon gone and no MLE in '08-'09? Not re-signing Gray and JOCurry?


Oops, I should have looked harder... I copied numbers into an older spreadsheet that had Gordon and Deng at $8.5M and $9M. So you can add maybe 500k there, and add $1.5M-2M or so to stock the bottom of the roster (the league requires you to carry 14 now, I believe... I'm not going to make any presumptions about Gray, Curry, or other second rounders sticking). * So we can add add another $2.5M. Sorry about that!*

Looking at my spreadsheets, Noc and Kirk were backloaded in the one I included Chandler with. That might add more, but it's also possible we wouldn't have frontloaded their deals if we'd kept around Chandler. Hard to say.

As it stands, 08/09 and 09/10 are the danger zones. And adding the values I just mentioned *we'd probably pay $4.5M, not $2.2M or so, barring a move to get under the tax*. 

I think the general point I'm making still stands though. An investment of an additional $2.5M/year for two years doesn't seem like a big deal to me if the goal is to secure a long-run window of opportunity for a championship. I think that'd probably be true even if it ended up being $3 or 4M or $5M in those years. Again, in other contexts, those are still about the amounts teams throw around to buy draft picks.

I think that gets to something that annoys me about the Bulls (who seem to use the LT excuse a lot) in particular, but is really true of most teams. I remember a few years ago the hockey owners were accused of collusion on player salaries, and I've often wondered if the basketball owners weren't tacitly doing this with the luxury tax. Because, while I understand that it's a tax and owners rightly want to avoid it, it does seem strange to me that they'll go to such great lengths to avoid paying an extra million or two, but then turn around and spend a couple million quite lightly in other instances.

If a team went out and bought, say, three draft picks in the mid 20s over the course of a couple years (the Blazers seem to have done this a lot) they get lauded. But picks in their 20s are usually pretty marginal prospects. It seems to me the same amount of money could be better spent securing guys you know can play.

Now that doesn't mean I want complete willy-nilly spending... obviously teams have to be profitable, but the case with the Bulls here seems to be a good example. Their luxury tax "danger zone" isn't an open-ended ballooning of salary down the road, it's more of a temporary hump caused by the 1-2 merge of a really big contract (Wallace) and a couple we expect to be pretty big (Deng, Gordon, and Chandler, were he still here). 

------------
On a seperate note, I think it's pretty unlikely we'll use the MLE in 08-09 anyway since Smith will still be under contract.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Oops, I should have looked harder... I copied numbers into an older spreadsheet that had Gordon and Deng at $8.5M and $9M. So you can add maybe 500k there, and add $1.5M-2M or so to stock the bottom of the roster (the league requires you to carry 14 now, I believe... I'm not going to make any presumptions about Gray, Curry, or other second rounders sticking). * So we can add add another $2.5M. Sorry about that!*
> 
> Looking at my spreadsheets, Noc and Kirk were backloaded in the one I included Chandler with. That might add more, but it's also possible we wouldn't have frontloaded their deals if we'd kept around Chandler. Hard to say.
> 
> ...


Thanks, Mike. I didn't do the calculating, but something didn't feel right about the first number.

Of course, the truth is that whether the Bulls LT was $2.5MM (plus the ~$2MM 1/30th distribution lost by being over the cap) or $4.5MM or $40MM, I don't think most Bulls fans would care. It's not their money, the Bulls have made a ton of money with bad teams, and besides, they deserve a championship at any cost.

I'm a fan and don't care whether the Bulls pay a shootload of LT. It's just that I have enough of the businessman in me to not demand/expect that the Bulls spend unwisely.

My problem with this whole Chandler discussion is that I think keeping Chandler would have been bad for the team and for Chandler...forget the money. Many fans SPECULATE that Chandler would have still had his breakout season even if he stayed with the Bulls. 

My SPECULATION is entirely different. Chandler, demoted to backup status (Wallace and Chandler would seldom be on the floor together), coupled with his immaturity and his perceived communication problems with Skiles, would have been a recipe for disaster. Chandler and/or his agent would go to the press demanding a trade early in the season, providing a distraction the team didn't need. This counter-productive situation worsens as the trading deadline approaches. Paxson would either make a trade similar to or even worse than the Brown trade, or worse yet, be unable to find a taker for Chandler's long-term contract. Given the long-term nature of Chandler's contract, Paxson wouldn't be able to do a "Tim Thomas" with him (i.e., simply waive him). Instead, Chandler would remain a festering negative influence on the team and perhaps the Bulls don't get as favorable a seed in the playoffs and don't win their first post-dynasty playoff series. At the end of a very disappointing season for the team, Chandler is virtually untradeable and a team that should have been on the rise has its growth stunted.

A fanciful scenario? Maybe, but as I see it, it's no more fanciful than speculating that the development Chandler showed with the Hornets could have been replicated with the Bulls last season.

Just one man's opinion.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Mike's numbers would seem to imply that it wasn't about the money

What it does imply is that the Bulls simply wanted to go in another direction 

They had the young talent in Tyrus Thomas that they preferenced to develop instead of Tyson who they figured ( rightly or wrongly ) they had invested enough time , money and energy /effort into 

He didn't do what what was required of him here ( save for two decent half seasons in 5 years )

I personally can understand why they decided to cut bait and whilst PJ Brown wasn't a glamourous player with the much obsessed upside - bottom line is he did help us win games 

I don't know why this needs a 9 page threard but hey that's the offseason and there's nothing to piss and moan about

We have Thomas who will be an infinately better player than Chandler ( and IMO already is ) and we have Noah . Gray too . A young stocks going forward to mix in with the quality heady vets is strong

Nothing to see here


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

transplant said:


> A fanciful scenario? Maybe, but as I see it, it's no more fanciful than speculating that the development Chandler showed with the Hornets could have been replicated with the Bulls last season.
> 
> Just one man's opinion.


I don't think Chandler would have had a breakout season if had stayed in Chicago but I don't think he would have been a huge stiff and publicly demanded a trade by October either. I think both those situations are equally unlikely, and there's a middle ground. Let's consider the situation:

Chandler would have been coming off the bench and playing against weaker competition which is a role he's thrived in before. He would have been in Wallace's shadow and would no longer be the highest paid guy on the team, no longer expected to carry the team and be the best big man. And he had just had a beyond-pathetic playoff series that lowered his reputation in everyone's eyes. 

In sum, the spotlight would have been much smaller and the expectations from Skiles, the organization, and the fanbase much lower. I think this might have allowed Chandler to play with more confidence and possibly return to form by the end of the season as a terrific ~20 mpg utility man, which is basically what he was during the 04-05 season. 

...Also, consider that we are paying Nocioni 8 million per year even though it's very likely that he'll average only 20 minutes a game along with Deng, Smith, Thomas, Noah, and Thabo at the SF/PF slots. Suddenly Chandler's contract doesn't seem bad at all, especially when you consider that he is bigger and plays a position of more need.

I've said this before, but I think one of the main reasons Tyson was traded (that most people forget about) is that after the disastrous season he did not plan on returning to the Berto until August. Paxson believes in hard work above all else and for him I think that was the last straw and final impetus that lead to the trade. ...I think hard work is important but I think on-court performance is very important, too. Hopefully Paxson places more emphasis on on-court performance from now on.



> Of course, the truth is that whether the Bulls LT was $2.5MM (plus the ~$2MM 1/30th distribution lost by being over the cap) or $4.5MM or $40MM, I don't think most Bulls fans would care. It's not their money, the Bulls have made a ton of money with bad teams, and besides, they deserve a championship at any cost.
> 
> I'm a fan and don't care whether the Bulls pay a shootload of LT. It's just that I have enough of the businessman in me to not demand/expect that the Bulls spend unwisely.


I don't expect the Bulls organization to pay loads of luxury tax, either. But I don't think they should be making substantially more profit than any team in the league, which they absolutely are. If I'm reading the chart correctly, they made 48.5 million last year. The next most-profitable team made 34.5 million. http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/32/biz_06nba_NBA-Team-Valuations_Income.html. That seems like a pretty significant outlier to me. The Bulls organization should recognize that a lot of their profit is spillover from the halo Jordan left on the franchise, and it won't last long if they field non-championship teams.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

By the way great post from the other board. 



> The great thing about specualtion is that, so long as your assumptions fall within a broad range of reasonableness, you can't be wrong.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> whether he stated "comparable" or "better", i don't think tyson's career will come close to either.


It's pretty unheard of for anyone to play into their 40s. Is this really an argument about longevity though? Ty's missed some time with injuries but there's not a whole lot to suggest he's going to have an abbreviated career. 

Also, remember that you didn't just say you disagreed that Tyson is comparable, you said it was a laughable suggestion ie there are worlds of difference. That's by far the weakest part of your argument.



BULLHITTER said:


> since mutombo's had 16+ years in the league, with multiple awards and such (no, i don't feel like looking them up) let me know when chandler gets his first award for anything.
> 
> further, camby's the current DPOY if i'm not mistaken; don't mistake similar skills to comparable talent levels; they're hardly the same.


Mutombo has four DPOY awards, countless all defensive team selections, and a few All NBA second or third team selections. The problem with relying too heavily on awards is that they're voted on by sports writers so they're necessarily colored by perception. This is especially true with defensive awards since there aren't that many stats to fall back on. Players who have been around the league a long time tend to succeed more there because the sportswriters respect them more and have a better grasp on their game. Mutombo didn't make an All-Defensive team until his fourth season when he was 28 and Camby didn't make one until his 9th season when he was 30. Tyson already receives votes so while I'm not going to predict he has a DPOY award in his future, I think he will make multiple all defensive teams.



BULLHITTER said:


> as well, 5-6 years in the pros but "Ty's not in his prime yet"? how many GM's do you honestly believe will wait 5+ years of inconsistent performing before looking for an "out"? what's a reasonable time frame for someone to reach his "prime"? also, tyson coming into the nba at 18-19 doesn't mean him reaching his "prime" gets extended into his late 20's, does it? it's funny how he and curry are still "growing", all while splashing pretty stats yet "helping" teams get nowhere.


You calculate a players prime based on his age, not his experience. Otherwise, a 32 year old rookie would reach his prime at 35 which is obviously not accurate. Tyson was 24 last season and I'd say a players prime begins around 26-28. He had arguably his best season last year so I don't think his production has tailed off yet.



BULLHITTER said:


> lastly, when tyson helps, leads, does ANYTHING outside of grab loose balls that results in wins for his team, then i'll give him whatever props are deserved. i haven't seen it on team usa, and i'll be interested to see if the new and improved and healthy hornets are playoff material with tyson in the post.


See my other threads. This is a ridiculous double standard to maintain that other rebounding/defense/hustle players like Rodman, Russel, Wallace, Camby, and Mutombo can be huge forces in the league but Tyson is incapable of helping his team win no matter how much he excels at a skill like rebounding. 



transplant said:


> My SPECULATION is entirely different. Chandler, demoted to backup status (Wallace and Chandler would seldom be on the floor together), coupled with his immaturity and his perceived communication problems with Skiles, would have been a recipe for disaster. Chandler and/or his agent would go to the press demanding a trade early in the season, providing a distraction the team didn't need. This counter-productive situation worsens as the trading deadline approaches. Paxson would either make a trade similar to or even worse than the Brown trade, or worse yet, be unable to find a taker for Chandler's long-term contract. Given the long-term nature of Chandler's contract, Paxson wouldn't be able to do a "Tim Thomas" with him (i.e., simply waive him). Instead, Chandler would remain a festering negative influence on the team and perhaps the Bulls don't get as favorable a seed in the playoffs and don't win their first post-dynasty playoff series. At the end of a very disappointing season for the team, Chandler is virtually untradeable and a team that should have been on the rise has its growth stunted.


That's why I don't blame Pax for the trade in light of the luxury tax restrictions he faces. However, if JR had agreed to pay the luxury tax then who cares if we get stuck with a bad contract? It would've been worth the risk to keep Tyson around. He might've bounced back and flourished playing 20 or 25 minutes of the bench.



SausageKingofChicago said:


> Mike's numbers would seem to imply that it wasn't about the money
> 
> What it does imply is that the Bulls simply wanted to go in another direction
> 
> ...


It's hard for me to understand why or believe that Pax thought the team would prosper more purely on a basketball level with one year of a 38 year old P.J. Brown instead of 4 or 5 years of Tyson. You'd have to really believe Ty was killing the team in the locker room or out on the court and I can't see how that'd be the case with Sweets and Malik around.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Transplant* and *Sausage King*, I think you guys are right on the money at least insofar as the conventional wisdom of what would have happened had Chandler not been traded. And I think the general idea that the Bulls just wanted to "go in a different direction" is right.

Of course, there's lots of directions they could have gone. Plenty of other guys who were talked about as having bad contracts out there (talk at the time of Troy Murphy, Carlos Boozer, Al Harrington, etc. wouldn't have saved money, but would give a bit more help than PJ Brown did) and you never know how the conventional wisdom turns out. Think Wallace does his headband hissy fit with Tyson on the team? If he does, does he get the same level of... consideration he got? It's just as possible to imagine a positive narrative, in which we keep Chandler happy playing him just as much, or maybe more than he played the year before, keep Wallace (who looked somewhat disinterested to me for various parts of the season) fresh, and have his back issues not flare up in the playoffs.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

transplant said:


> Of course, the truth is that whether the Bulls LT was $2.5MM (plus the ~$2MM 1/30th distribution lost by being over the cap) or $4.5MM or $40MM, I don't think most Bulls fans would care. It's not their money, the Bulls have made a ton of money with bad teams, and besides, they deserve a championship at any cost.
> 
> I'm a fan and don't care whether the Bulls pay a shootload of LT. It's just that I have enough of the businessman in me to not demand/expect that the Bulls spend unwisely.


I think under the new CBA the luxury tax doesn't affect the escrow distribution any more. If you're over the tax, you pay the tax but you don't lose any other goodies. 

I agree otherwise... I don't see much sense in going huge amounts over the LT threshold, but I'm mystified why teams get so unwilling to spend an extra few million there when they don't flinch at spending an extra few million in other situations (draft picks, unnecessary FA signings, etc)


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> I personally can understand why they decided to cut bait and whilst PJ Brown wasn't a glamourous player with the much obsessed upside - bottom line is he did help us win games
> 
> I don't know why this needs a 9 page threard but hey that's the offseason and there's nothing to piss and moan about


Damn straight! Besides, lots of other interesting stuff often pops up in these big threads... it's no longer just a thread about Chandler, it's got all kinds of stuff. 

If we can throw in Lonny Baxter's gun-running, we'll be in great shape.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Wow.

Do all ex-Bulls draw this kind of animosity?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Wow.
> 
> Do all ex-Bulls draw this kind of animosity?


Only if they're still playing in the league. If they're no longer capable (or never were) of playing in the league, then they're due for a tryout!


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Wow.
> 
> Do all ex-Bulls draw this kind of animosity?


:lol: 

This thread has seriously led me to reevaluate my criticisms of Crawford and Curry to see how much my beliefs could be biased.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Hustle said:


> They were both horrible trades. And I find it necessary to point out for the millionth time, the Chandler/Brown trade was all JR. That said it was a much worse trade for many reasons already stated, but I think many are missing one key point, when we traded the very polished and ready to win Elton Brand, he had no polish or winning around him. Brand would have undoubtably won the Bulls many more games, I would imagine so many more that the Bulls draft picks would not have been as great as they were. If Brand was on the team we wouldve never landed Jay Will(who's injury opened the door for even more high picks).
> 
> If not for the Brand trade.
> 
> ...


The Brand trade and the Chander trade share two things in common :
1. Both were horrible trades.
2. Both saved Bulls ownership a ton of money a year later -- and continued to save them money for many years after that.


----------



## Mateo (Sep 23, 2006)

I don't know how/if Chandler might have developed differently had he remained with the Bulls -- none of us do so there's no use playing that game. But hindsight being what it is, letting him go was a mistake, as he's better than any Bulls players on the roster. Regardless of salary issues, if you need to resign the best player on your team, you do so and get rid of other guys. Again, I don't think management should necessarily be blamed for not seeing the future, but this is what happened.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

Mateo said:


> I don't know how/if Chandler might have developed differently had he remained with the Bulls -- none of us do so there's no use playing that game. But hindsight being what it is, letting him go was a mistake, as he's better than any Bulls players on the roster. Regardless of salary issues, if you need to resign the best player on your team, you do so and get rid of other guys. Again, I don't think management should necessarily be blamed for not seeing the future, but this is what happened.


I disagree with your statement that Tyson is better than any Bulls players on the roster. Ben Wallace is better. Kirk Hinrich is better. Ben Gordon is better. Luol Deng is better. A case can be made for Nocioni, but I won't be the one to do so...


----------



## Mateo (Sep 23, 2006)

Well, we just disagree. I see a case for Wallace, though I think Chandler surpassed him this year. I can see the case for Deng being better in a year or two, but not yet.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Mateo said:


> Well, we just disagree. I see a case for Wallace, though I think Chandler surpassed him this year. I can see the case for Deng being better in a year or two, but not yet.


I think Deng was definitely better last season. Played solid defense, rebounded really well for SF, did tons more on the offensive end than Tyson, had a PER a point and a half higher than Ty...


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> ink Wallace does his headband hissy fit with Tyson on the team? If he does, does he get the same level of... consideration he got?


I suppose the answer to that is that Wallace got more slack for the fact he had truly proven himself in the league via 2 championships and 3 time DPOY 

Chandler ?

There is a pecking order , an internalised class strata , within the league

And therein lies part of the problem - you've got a lot of false prophets who ain't all that and who get confused ( and their fans too ) about where they really are and where they think they should be 

Its why Eddie Robinson never thought he had to work . In his mind he had already signed for the big money and he was a star

Strip away all the big money bluster and the smoke that they hangers on and the vested interests blow up their arse and its really quite simple.

Do - and no one _edit_ with you ...or keep yappin with no real achievement or respect

He's an OK role player but Chandler has a tendency to whine and yap like an immature boob

And he really hasn't proved a thing


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I think it's more complicated than that Sausage King, because you've also got the pampered, over-the-hill star syndrome. Guys that have legitimately accomplished something, but who now conclude the world should kiss them on the fuzzy for getting out of bed in the morning. 

The most recent example is probably Michael Strahan, who left his team hanging for a couple months with talk of retirement, and then apparently got miffed that the Giants haven't simply fallen to their knees and begged for the return of a 35 year old player who played in half their games, had only 3 sacks last year and appears to be contributing quite a bit more to New York's celebrity gossip fetish than anyone in recent memory.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

i thought skiles was the type that didn't care what your accolades are but cared about what you are doing for him now.

i dont see why he would cut more slack to wallace than anyone else ...in fact i though headbandgate was proof he didn't.

and on eddie robinson ...if krause expected him to be a star i think he just missed the boat on that one , he looked like a guy who would be perfect in a sunslike attack but on most teams would be a good role player.

he just didn't have the skills of a star 3 in the nba , couldn't create his own shot well enough, basically just a runner on the break, an occasional offensive rebounder and a good mid range jumpshooter , not exactly the kind of skillset you would build a team around just an add on to a team imo.

all the hard work in the world wasn't going to change him into paul pierce.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Mateo said:


> Well, we just disagree. I see a case for Wallace, though I think Chandler surpassed him this year. I can see the case for Deng being better in a year or two, but not yet.


Sorry, but this deserves the "ARE u OUT OF YOUR MIND!"award for 2007

LMAO

u can't be serious, even TYSON wouldn't agree with you as he's not even better than the 4th best player on our team.

12 rebs per game doesn't AUTOmatically make you better than anyone.

He's a strong rebounder, yes, but what else exactly does he do well? And he's not a better shotblocker than Wallace or TT so u might as well not even go there.

On the other hand, I'll let u know when Tyson becomes a better player than Kirk, Luol, Ben & the OTHER Ben cause at this point in time, he'd be POSSIBLY the 5th best player on the team.

LMAO @ resigning the so called 'best player' when he averaged 1.5 ppg & 5 rpg vs. Miami in the offs AFTER signing his huge deal.


----------



## Mateo (Sep 23, 2006)

The ROY said:


> Sorry, but this deserves the "ARE u OUT OF YOUR MIND!"award for 2007
> 
> LMAO
> 
> ...


What he did in 2005/2006 isn't relevant here, as I specifically said that I don't blame the Bulls for not realizing how good Tyson was going to be... with the Bulls he was good but nothing particularly special.. I said that at this point in time, he's _probably_ better than anyone on the Bulls, at the very least he's competitive with the likes of Deng and Wallace.

I don't understand how anyone can think that Gordon or Hinrich are better than Chandler, unless that person drastically overvalues scoring.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

The ROY said:


> On the other hand, I'll let u know when Tyson becomes a better player than Kirk, Luol, Ben & the OTHER Ben cause at this point in time, he'd be POSSIBLY the 5th best player on the team.


You could make a case, though not an overwhelming one, that Tyson was the third best player on the team. He and Kirk had virtually the same PER.


----------



## Mateo (Sep 23, 2006)

JeremyB0001 said:


> You could make a case, though not an overwhelming one, that Tyson was the third best player on the team. He and Kirk had virtually the same PER.


If you want to go the "all encompassing stat" route, I prefer wins produced / 48, in which case Chandler would be the clear #1. Deng had 0.217 (which is very good), Wallace had 0.254, and Chandler had 0.325 (superstar good). Hinrich had 0.132.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> I think under the new CBA the luxury tax doesn't affect the escrow distribution any more. If you're over the tax, you pay the tax but you don't lose any other goodies.
> 
> I agree otherwise... I don't see much sense in going huge amounts over the LT threshold, but I'm mystified why teams get so unwilling to spend an extra few million there when they don't flinch at spending an extra few million in other situations (draft picks, unnecessary FA signings, etc)


Agree that the LT and escrow have been separated, but as I understand it, those under the LT still get "first dibs" on the LT pool, which means that paying $1 of LT costs you about $2MM.

(LT)Tax money:

* Teams *under the tax level* receive a full share (1/30) of the tax money. (Note that if the league expands, the fraction changes.)

* Some or all of the remaining money may be reserved by the league for "league purposes."

* Any remaining tax money that is distributed to teams must go to all teams in equal shares.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#17

I freely admit that lots of this stuff goes over my head, but my reading is that there's still a big difference between being above of below the LT threshold insofar as the distribution you might receive. 

Again, I don't think most fans would care about whether the Bulls get a $2MM distribution or not.

If I'm misreading this, please educate me.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> By the way great post from the other board.





> The great thing about specualtion is that, so long as your assumptions fall within a broad range of reasonableness, you can't be wrong.


Thanks.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Mateo said:


> What he did in 2005/2006 isn't relevant here, as I specifically said that I don't blame the Bulls for not realizing how good Tyson was going to be... with the Bulls he was good but nothing particularly special.. I said that at this point in time, he's _probably_ better than anyone on the Bulls, at the very least he's competitive with the likes of Deng and Wallace.
> 
> I don't understand how anyone can think that Gordon or Hinrich are better than Chandler, unless that person drastically overvalues scoring.


Hmm...that same thing could be said if the 'other' person DRASTICALLY overvalues rebounding.

Tyson Chandler is a GARBAGE player that happens to have an outstanding rebounding ability, nothing more.

I mean, PLEASE explain to me how he's better than anyone on the Bulls. If you come up with a logical explanation besides this 'PER' crap, then maybe I may see your side of things but 9 out of 10 people won't agree with you at all on this one buddy.

I'm still trying to figure out how 'good' Tyson has become LOL, you're talking as if he dramamatically added elements to his game that weren't there before.

He still moves on screens

He still can't score worth a damn

Where is this improvement? Besides rebounding which we ALL knew he could do anyway?


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Mateo said:


> If you want to go the "all encompassing stat" route, I prefer wins produced / 48, in which case Chandler would be the clear #1. Deng had 0.217 (which is very good), Wallace had 0.254, and Chandler had 0.325 (superstar good). Hinrich had 0.132.


I'd rather not. I'm actually not familiar with wins produced / 48. I just listed the PER to demonstrate that if you want to argue strongly in terms of certain methods of evaluation you can claim Ty would be our third best player which would contradict the claim that he would be our fifth at best.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

The ROY said:


> Hmm...that same thing could be said if the 'other' person DRASTICALLY overvalues rebounding.
> 
> Tyson Chandler is a GARBAGE player that happens to have an outstanding rebounding ability, nothing more.
> 
> I mean, PLEASE explain to me how he's better than anyone on the Bulls. If you come up with a logical explanation besides this 'PER' crap, then maybe I may see your side of things but 9 out of 10 people won't agree with you at all on this one buddy.


We're going round and round in circles here. PER is a formula that purports to assign the appropriate weight to various stats (rebounding, scoring, etc.) according to calculations explaining how much they help a team in a basketball game. If you disagree with the weight PER assigns rebounding then the ball is in your court to explain why. Simply making blanket statements that rebounding is unimportant is absurd. It's one of the skills and stats people focus on the most in basketball. Players like Wallace, Camby, Russel, Rodman, etc. where/are defense-rebounding players who people think very highly of. That's at least the third time I've posted that list in this thread and people continue to just ignore it and talk as though elite "garbage player" or "role player" big men aren't valued players when there's a heap of evidence to the contrary.

It's ludicrous to suggest that 9 out of 10 people don't think Chandler is a good player. There's already one poster who roots for another team in this thread that is laughing at the unreasonable hate directed at Chandler in this thread simply because he's a former Bulls player. It's embarrassing.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Mateo said:


> I don't understand how anyone can think that Gordon or Hinrich are better than Chandler, unless that person drastically overvalues scoring.


I think your analysis is overvaluing rebounding somewhat. The object of the game is still to score more points than the other team. Rebounding is important, don't get me wrong. So is being a shot-alterer in the paint, which Tyson is pretty good at especially late in games.

Gordon scores a lot, and reasonably efficiently. I don't know if he's a better player, all things considered, than Tyson. He's sort of similar to Tyson in that he has one great strength and isn't particularly strong at much else. But considering that we signed Wallace and are bringing along Tyrus and Noah, I'd say Gordon is far more important to this team than Chandler was or would have been. 

Hinrich is a very, very good perimeter defender, decent point guard, and above average scorer whose shooting has become respectable. I think it's easy to argue he's as good or better than Chandler because he is a pretty good player on both ends of the floor. Tyson is a great rebounder and good help defender. He's not a great man defender, not a good passer or comfortable handling the ball, and most of his offense is opportunistic stuff around the rim (which he did convert very efficiently last year). He's not a well-rounded player. That doesn't mean he's not good (he is -and I think the people who say otherwise in this thread are dead wrong), but I hardly think it's an open-and-shut case that he's a better player than Kirk. And again, I'd posit that Kirk is far more important to the Bulls than Tyson would have been once we added Wallace and assuming we still drafted the same guys.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Da Grinch said:


> i thought skiles was the type that didn't care what your accolades are but cared about what you are doing for him now.
> 
> i dont see why he would cut more slack to wallace than anyone else ...in fact i though headbandgate was proof he didn't.


You are right

There is no question they asserted their authority on Wallace , but comparatively to the handling of a younger player - or a player that dissented that wasn't cutting it , I think they did what they had to do in what was ( for them ) a low key way 

I got the impression through that whole incident that Skiles withheld himself ( in terms of his abrasiveness ) but still got his point across that he wanted to get across

Pax seems to be more user friendly on the surface , but Pax and Skiles , despite their different personalities/styles on the surface are 100% in sync when it comes to value systems and what they won't tolerate.

Irrespective of who you are personal agendas don't rank above team - and as a player if that's your push - then you are going to go down at the Bulls. That's just the way it is under the Skaxson regime 

The end game is the same in the attitude that they demand - I do think they have different ways in handling some players that depend on a number of variables

When it came down to it I believe that Skiles lost whatever little respect he had in the first place for Chandler . Curry too. He was a lot more sardonic and confronting in his media style with them. He probably thought they needed to grow up and realise that they actually hadn't done anything in the league that mattered

And he would have been right



> and on eddie robinson ...if krause expected him to be a star i think he just missed the boat on that one , he looked like a guy who would be perfect in a sunslike attack but on most teams would be a good role player.


I totally agree that this was a crap signing and expectations were whacked

I disagree about him flourishing on the Suns . Maybe Steve Nash could have got him to run the lanes and attack the rim but one thing that used to piss me off no end when he was on the Bulls was the fact he always ran the wings and shoot crap when he had a wide open road in front of him . The guy was a skirt who played with no balls whatsoever . Yeah he could jump. Big deal. Never translated into anything meaningful with what he could do with it on a basketball floor. As a runner on the break which was where his supposed skill was he was sh*thouse.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

This is what I hate about the NBA. In the NFL you don't have potential 5-7 years into the league. But hey, Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler still have the potential in their 6th and 7th years too add defense/offense. I can't wait till they are 27, in their 9th season, and people still claim they are just entering their prime. Pleaseeee


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

JeremyB0001 said:


> We're going round and round in circles here. PER is a formula that purports to assign the appropriate weight to various stats (rebounding, scoring, etc.) according to calculations explaining how much they help a team in a basketball game. If you disagree with the weight PER assigns rebounding then the ball is in your court to explain why. Simply making blanket statements that rebounding is unimportant is absurd. It's one of the skills and stats people focus on the most in basketball. Players like Wallace, Camby, Russel, Rodman, etc. where/are defense-rebounding players who people think very highly of. That's at least the third time I've posted that list in this thread and people continue to just ignore it and talk as though elite "garbage player" or "role player" big men aren't valued players when there's a heap of evidence to the contrary.
> 
> It's ludicrous to suggest that 9 out of 10 people don't think Chandler is a good player. There's already one poster who roots for another team in this thread that is laughing at the unreasonable hate directed at Chandler in this thread simply because he's a former Bulls player. It's embarrassing.


Hmm..never said rebounding WASN'T important...next

never said 9 out of 10 people would say that he's not a 'good player', I SAID 9 out of 10 people would DISGAREE with the statement that Tyson Chandler is better than ANY Bulls player...next

I don't HATE Tyson Chandler, but here or not, never cared to much for him. After his statement about 'needing to watch old video to remind himself what he was good at', that pretty much sealed the deal on my respect for a guy that just signed a 70 million dollar deal.

I'd personally rather NOT talk about about any former bulls players on OUR board, that's more embarrassing to me.


----------



## Mateo (Sep 23, 2006)

Chandler didn't just improve his rebounding. In fact, his rebounding improved less than other areas. He's improved in not fouling, not turning the ball over, and scoring efficiency. The former two, in addition to his already stellar rebounding, is why he's now one of the elite players in giving his team possessions, arguably the most important aspect to winning games.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> I totally agree that this was a crap signing and expectations were whacked
> 
> I disagree about him flourishing on the Suns . Maybe Steve Nash could have got him to run the lanes and attack the rim but one thing that used to piss me off no end when he was on the Bulls was the fact he always ran the wings and shoot crap when he had a wide open road in front of him . The guy was a skirt who played with no balls whatsoever . Yeah he could jump. Big deal. Never translated into anything meaningful with what he could do with it on a basketball floor. As a runner on the break which was where his supposed skill was he was sh*thouse.


he wasn't an innovative finisher but he could really run and elevate, if set up well he would have been great , and his skill in the half court (his mid range J) was actually pretty good when set up , but the bulls ran a crappy version of the triangle during his time there (that and he never learned the plays) he could play defense , on a regular team i dont see why he couldn't have been decent(like the team he was on before he became a bull) , instead of how he actually was on the bulls.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

theanimal23 said:


> This is what I hate about the NBA. In the NFL you don't have potential 5-7 years into the league. But hey, Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler still have the potential in their 6th and 7th years too add defense/offense. I can't wait till they are 27, in their 9th season, and people still claim they are just entering their prime. Pleaseeee


I just don't understand what the alternative is. LeBron entered the NBA as an 18 year old and Caron Butler entered as a 23 year old. You can't say that both will peak in their third season can you? Age is what makes a difference here. The only counterargument I can think of is that some people believe players who entered the NBA at 18 have shorter careers because they have more millage. I still don't think that bears on when you peak though, only how durable you are in the league. I'm not sure why it's so upsetting to you that players enter the league at different ages but now you have to be 19 instead of 18 so maybe that makes things a little bit better. It's certainly not much different than the major leagues where some players are good enough to be rookies at 20 and others are rookies at 26 or even sometimes 30.

Edit: I'm rethinking this more and wondering if the problem that you have is that you feel that anytime someone can say that a player hasn't reached his peak yet people will say that player's upside is limitless. Just because someone like Dajuan Wagner hasn't reached his peak doesn't mean that it's reasonable for someone to say that he might still become an All-Star. 99 times out of 100, a player can only improve so much. 

As I discussed below this could again be an issue of disagreement about how good Tyson is now and how good he was in his best seasons with the Bulls. He definitely had a serious down season in '05-06 but my opinion of Tyson has probably always differed from people the most in that I think he was a very good and severely under appreciated player in his best seasons with the Bulls (namely '04-05). What's strange to me is that I always perceived that at that time, others were very happy with Tyson too and excited that we locked him up long term. I what I've underestimated is how intense the animosity is over his '05-06 season. 



The ROY said:


> Hmm..never said rebounding WASN'T important...next


Well, you pretty much denied that a defense/rebounding center can have a big impact in the league so you're either saying that rebounding is of very limited importance or even more ridiculously claiming that a guy who gets all defensive team votes most seasons is bad at defense.



The ROY said:


> never said 9 out of 10 people would say that he's not a 'good player', I SAID 9 out of 10 people would DISGAREE with the statement that Tyson Chandler is better than ANY Bulls player...next


That's what you wrote, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you wouldn't post something so laughable. I guess Aaron Gray did look pretty fierce in summer league...they'll probably have him as an alternate for Team USA next season.



The ROY said:


> I don't HATE Tyson Chandler, but here or not, never cared to much for him. After his statement about 'needing to watch old video to remind himself what he was good at', that pretty much sealed the deal on my respect for a guy that just signed a 70 million dollar deal.
> 
> I'd personally rather NOT talk about about any former bulls players on OUR board, that's more embarrassing to me.


It occurred to me that what all this talk about whether Tyson improved or not is about is that some people think he's always been crap while some of us think he made some pretty major contributions while he was here. Everyone has the right to their opinion, I just have a hard time comprehending such outlandish statements sometimes. If players, coaches, writers, and fans think a player is pretty good then that's probably largely true. It's nothing new that a player who averages over 12 rebounds a game is rather well regarded and while some people seem to like to talk that way, Tyson is by no means a Danny Fortson type player who is undersized and awful at every other skill.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Well, you pretty much denied that a defense/rebounding center can have a big impact in the league so you're either saying that rebounding is of very limited importance or even more ridiculously claiming that a guy who gets all defensive team votes most seasons is bad at defense.


I think u like to put alot of words in people's mouth's buddy cause I never said none of the above. Where did I pretty much 'deny' or 'claim' any of this?

The point is about Chandler vs. the top Bulls. Not the impact that a defensive player can have in the league.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

transplant said:


> Agree that the LT and escrow have been separated, but as I understand it, those under the LT still get "first dibs" on the LT pool, which means that paying $1 of LT costs you about $2MM.
> 
> (LT)Tax money:
> 
> ...


LOL, I'm not an expert, I just play one in my spare time. But if I read that right, my understanding is it works something like this:
* Get the total amount of luxury tax collected for the season. By a quick check, 8 teams are set to pay (if they get under the threshold by year's end they won't) a total of $46M. The Knicks ($21M), Nuggets ($11M), Celtics ($6M) and Heat ($2.7M) make up the vast majority of it. 
* Dividing that by 30 gives you $1.5M, so it looks like that's the added penalty of going under the tax. 

I think you're right that it was about $2M last year... the interesting thing is it depends on how much other teams are over the tax. The vast majority of it is money the Knicks are distributing to everyone else. Supposedly they've gotten a mandate to not go completely hog wild with the salaries anymore, so it's possible that, in two years when Marbury and Malik Rose's contracts are up, the Knicks subsidy largely goes away.

Then again, maybe it won't. And if you get other teams sensing an opportunity (like the Nuggets and Celtics seem to be doing), maybe you get another team step up? All in all though, my money would be on these amounts going down rather than up in future years. Most teams rightly don't want to be in that territory indefinitely, and the luxury tax threshold itself is outpacing a fair amount of teams' salaries.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> I think your analysis is overvaluing rebounding somewhat. The object of the game is still to score more points than the other team. Rebounding is important, don't get me wrong. So is being a shot-alterer in the paint, which Tyson is pretty good at especially late in games.
> 
> Gordon scores a lot, and reasonably efficiently. I don't know if he's a better player, all things considered, than Tyson. He's sort of similar to Tyson in that he has one great strength and isn't particularly strong at much else. But considering that we signed Wallace and are bringing along Tyrus and Noah, I'd say Gordon is far more important to this team than Chandler was or would have been.
> 
> Hinrich is a very, very good perimeter defender, decent point guard, and above average scorer whose shooting has become respectable. I think it's easy to argue he's as good or better than Chandler because he is a pretty good player on both ends of the floor. Tyson is a great rebounder and good help defender. He's not a great man defender, not a good passer or comfortable handling the ball, and most of his offense is opportunistic stuff around the rim (which he did convert very efficiently last year). He's not a well-rounded player. That doesn't mean he's not good (he is -and I think the people who say otherwise in this thread are dead wrong), but I hardly think it's an open-and-shut case that he's a better player than Kirk. And again, I'd posit that Kirk is far more important to the Bulls than Tyson would have been once we added Wallace and assuming we still drafted the same guys.


i think overall impact is more important than individual skills , Shaq cant do alot of things and never could but his impact on the games doing the things he could do made him at 1 time the best in the game and probably one of the best ever.

as of right now Tyson is clearly a top 10 center in just about every1's eyes .

not really sure you can say to that extent is the case with any bull except ben wallace and i would say tyson is higher on that list than he is...ben luol and kirk could be depending on your criteria, but ben and tyson are pretty much locks at their positions.

I tend to think of big men as more important than smaller guys (special circumstances can change that but this is not one of them) they are certainly paid more all things being equal at least in part because of this in my opinion.

on the bulls with their personel it could be very reasonably argued that kirk would be more important and probably ben and luol as well....but on the average team where quality pg's 2 guards and small forwards are more easily aquired I think its very hard to make that argument.

outside of luol i dont see a player on the bulls who do all the basic things that their position says they should be able to do, kirk isn't very good at breaking down defenses off the dribble(luckily for him the rules changed allowing for unspoken moving picks to be allowed) , he needs a pick against most pg defenders, ben cant defend his position leaving the job for kirk to do. wallace is even less of a post up threat than tyson.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> i think overall impact is more important than individual skills , Shaq cant do alot of things and never could but his impact on the games doing the things he could do made him at 1 time the best in the game and probably one of the best ever.
> 
> as of right now Tyson is clearly a top 10 center in just about every1's eyes .
> 
> ...


good post. I don't really disagree with any of it on its face. The only quibble I might make is that currently the center position is lacking in quality depth in the NBA (though a new wave of centers is coming of age), so maybe it's easier to be a top 10 center than other positions.

I just thought the proposition that Gordon or Hinrich clearly aren't better than Tyson was a weak one. I think they're all good, but prefer Kirk and Ben. Just my opinion - arguments can be made either way.


----------



## Cyanobacteria (Jun 25, 2002)

Are we going to keep up the Team USA stuff with Tyson? I was really enjoying that part of the thread. 

He was indeed very patriotic cheering on the team from his front row seat for 35-ish minutes today. He did indeed get some rebounds and change some shots and even scored when Deron threw him an alley-oop that was practically through the hoop already. All when inserted into the line-up after the lead had ballooned to about 40 points mid-to-late in the 4th quarter.

You can call Chandler a member of Team USA, but let's not put it out there like it vindicates one's own opinion of his value, afer all Chandler himself tries not to look at it like vindication. Christian Laettner was an original Dream-Teamer, but I wouldn't use that as a description of his value or worth to any team for which he ever played.

Yeah, that's right. I went ahead and played the Laettner card.

I enjoyed most of Tyson's time with the Bulls, but he wasn't going anywhere with us, so that ship has sailed. He's a great role player. His overall game? Blah. So the stats that directly reflect his role look great. So what? Del Curry made a lot of 3's. I beleive that if you value Tyson's stats over what Wallace did for the Bulls last year, you are not watching the game with an appreciation of the little things. I would go so far as to say that Tyson's beauty is only stat-deep.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

The ROY said:


> I think u like to put alot of words in people's mouth's buddy cause I never said none of the above. Where did I pretty much 'deny' or 'claim' any of this?
> 
> The point is about Chandler vs. the top Bulls. Not the impact that a defensive player can have in the league.


I try not to put words in anyone's mouth. That's why, as I said before, I gave you the benefit of the doubt assumed you meant something else when you said that Tyson wasn't better than any current Bull i.e. he would be the 15th best player on our roster right now. You're right that you never explicitly said that rebounding and defense don't matter but your statements give a pretty strong impression that you don't believe Tyson is a valuable player in the league and those are his strengths. My point was that other players who have exceeded at only rebounding and defense (Rodman, Camby, Mutombo, Russel, etc.) have been well very well regarded. So to maintain your point I think it makes sense for you to distinguish Ty from those players or argue why they aren't good players. By no means do I consider PER to be an absolute measure of a player's worth but I think it's valuable and it rates Tyson and Kirk as virtually equal. Again, if you want to explain why you think that statistic overrates Tyson and/or overrates Kirk then by all means go for it. I generally respect you as a poster and mean absolutely no offense, but your posts in this thread haven't really explained why you believe certain skill sets are much more valuable than others and you seem to feel very strongly that certain skill sets i.e. Tyson's are overrated and not valuable. 



Cyanobacteria said:


> Are we going to keep up the Team USA stuff with Tyson? I was really enjoying that part of the thread.
> 
> He was indeed very patriotic cheering on the team from his front row seat for 35-ish minutes today. He did indeed get some rebounds and change some shots and even scored when Deron threw him an alley-oop that was practically through the hoop already. All when inserted into the line-up after the lead had ballooned to about 40 points mid-to-late in the 4th quarter.
> 
> ...


I haven't seen anyone in this thread suggesting that Tyson is an NBA star based on his inclusion on the USA Team so I don't think you have to worry about that. Playing the Laettner card is quite inaccurate because he was the token inexperienced college player/rookie on that team. The closest you can get to that role on this team is Kevin Durant and, in addition to being 10x the NBA prospect Laettner was, he was cut from the team. Tyson does fit the 12th man role in that he's not one of the twelve best players in the NBA and won't see a lot of minutes, but he's vastly more established in the league than someone like Laettner was.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Cyanobacteria said:


> I beleive that if you value Tyson's stats over what Wallace did for the Bulls last year, you are not watching the game with an appreciation of the little things. I would go so far as to say that Tyson's beauty is only stat-deep.


If you include a team outscoring their opponent with that player on the floor as compared to off the floor, than yea, Tyson's beauty is only stat-deep. Per 82games, he had a nice +/- net (+3.5). Unlike Wallace, who was the worst of our starters (-6.3).

If you include outscoring your opponent is only stat-deep, then the little things must be hairdo stype and good looking biceps i guess.

p.s. I knew this post was coming sooner or later because there is not a composite stat known to man (nba efficiency, Per, +/- net, Per differential) that shows Wallace as being as good as Chandler last year.

p.p.s. Even if you want to discount these stats and I would agree that +/- has some variablity, it's not a good sign when the 23 year old outperforms the 32 yr old by all objective measures. It could be a landslide by the time they are 25 and 34.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> good post. I don't really disagree with any of it on its face. The only quibble I might make is that currently the center position is lacking in quality depth in the NBA (though a new wave of centers is coming of age), so maybe it's easier to be a top 10 center than other positions.
> 
> I just thought the proposition that Gordon or Hinrich clearly aren't better than Tyson was a weak one. I think they're all good, but prefer Kirk and Ben. Just my opinion - arguments can be made either way.


the fact still remains getting a good center still trumps all other positions , the last draft was a perfect example ...there was not much more Durant could have done to have proven worthy of the top selection in basketball.

he basically killed Oden in every statistical category , was ther best player in college basketball and has as complete a skillset as any draftee in recent memory.

but he isn't a franchise center so he was picked behind oden and it surprised no one.

i dont know if its easier to be a top 10 center you still have to be better than 2/3rd of the nba starting 5's and no matter how good a guy like Carmelo gets he cant play center, the nba may not be like it was 15 years ago when to break the top 5 at center you had be better than some1 out of the group of Ewing olajuwon , robinson shaq and daugherty ( zo peeking in from 6th ) but i think people are spoiled from that era and the eras before that , some centers who were good and starters probably couldn't play today like mark eaton, in many ways the quality of today's big men aren't really appreciated, the league changes and the players have to change with it.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

Big Ben was a better player than TC last season and Big Ben was far better player than TC before he joined the Bulls. IMO Big Ben will be a better player than TC in 2007-2008 and probably 2008-2009 too. By then both TT and Noah will be better player than TC. 

Enough for a player who will never be better than what we alreasy have.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

...


----------



## BullsAttitude (Jun 11, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> the fact still remains getting a good center still trumps all other positions , the last draft was a perfect example ...there was not much more Durant could have done to have proven worthy of the top selection in basketball.
> 
> he basically killed Oden in every statistical category , was ther best player in college basketball and has as complete a skillset as any draftee in recent memory.
> 
> ...


I think the main reason Portland took Oden over Durant is the fact they had Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge on their roster. Oden fills that "need" they had, a defensive center. Roy and Aldridge will do most of the scoring, while Jarret Jack and Roy will do most of the ball handling. There was not a true need from Durant, as Roy will only improve his overall play.

Now, do you think Portland will still have chose Oden over Durant had they not had Roy and Aldridge? It's hard to say, but I believe they would have gone with Durant instead even though Oden is a "Franchise" Center. I believe Durant will have the better career, but he probably won't win as many titles as Oden unless he gets the same type of talent around him that Oden already has.

The center position is important part, but I believe it is better to have go-to superstar 2 guard/forward. The center position plays a vital role in opening up the offense, getting the stops and rebounds needed, but in reality, centers CAN'T take over a game. It's the guards and forwards that take over a game and can carry you to victory.

Go back in history and name me a Center that totally led his team to a title, with a no go-to superstar by his side or no great scorers to help. You can't besides maybe George Mikan, and that is when the league was it's very beginning. Hakeem could be considered, but he was more a PF playing the center position, not really a true center. 

Russell had HOF talent always around him.
Chamberlain didn't win until he had Hal Greer, B. Jones, and Billy Cunningham. Then Jerry West and Gail Goodrich.
Kareem had the Big O and Magic by his side.
David Robinison had Tim Duncan.
Shaq had Kobe, then D. Wade.

Question, say it was Lebron and Oden in the draft, who do you pick? Do you need the "Franchise" Center, or the "Franchise" player that can do it all?


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

BullsAttitude said:


> Now, do you think Portland will still have chose Oden over Durant had they not had Roy and Aldridge? It's hard to say, but I believe they would have gone with Durant instead even though Oden is a "Franchise" Center.


The talk was that all but two or three of the potential lottery teams with loaded front courts were locks to take Oden.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> The talk was that all but two or three of the potential lottery teams with loaded front courts were locks to take Oden.


Yeah I heard one of the talking heads and he was saying that NBA GM's were laughing at the media becuase they were trying to make a story about whether Durrant should be taken before Oden and every GM in the NBA was ready to take Oden #1.


ACE


----------



## BullsAttitude (Jun 11, 2002)

Oh, don't get me wrong, Portland didn't mess up by taking Oden. Like a lot of people said, whoever had the first 2 picks had it good.

My point is Portland not only picked Oden because he was a "Franchise" center but he filled a need they had. Yet, I truly believe had they not had Roy or Aldridge, it might have been a different story.

Just like Portland did in '84. They picked Bowie because of the need for a big man, and they already had Drexler on board.

If you have a chance for a go to superstar guard/forward, go for it instead of getting the center first. Durant fills that description, and everybody saw how he did in playing with the USA team during the tryouts.

Having a good center helps, Bulls probably wouldn't have made the next step had they not got Cartwright. Yet, still having Jordan helped, as it did for the Celtics with Bird, the Lakers with Magic, the Sixers with Dr. J, the Bucks with the Big O, etc.

I'm just saying I would rather have a good around guard/forward before having a "Franchise" center. Like I said, Centers can very rarely take over a game and close it out for you.

Of the topic, it's great to see Chandler doing well in New Orleans, I hope him the best, yet it was time for him to move on. Not working on your game waiting for your big contract shows something about you. I don't care about security for your family when you've already made millions. If you love this game, you always want to get better!!!


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

BullsAttitude said:


> I think the main reason Portland took Oden over Durant is the fact they had Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge on their roster. Oden fills that "need" they had, a defensive center. Roy and Aldridge will do most of the scoring, while Jarret Jack and Roy will do most of the ball handling. There was not a true need from Durant, as Roy will only improve his overall play.
> 
> Now, do you think Portland will still have chose Oden over Durant had they not had Roy and Aldridge? It's hard to say, but I believe they would have gone with Durant instead even though Oden is a "Franchise" Center. I believe Durant will have the better career, but he probably won't win as many titles as Oden unless he gets the same type of talent around him that Oden already has.
> 
> ...


portland has a hole at small forward too(in fact i would say magliore/pryzbilla is better than udoka/outlaw by a significant margin...but dont believe me here is some proof to that end http://www.82games.com/0607/0607POR5.HTM), but you got to be crazy to think they would select durant before oden , basically every1 knew who was going to be the 1st pick all last season .

Centers are paid more than swingmen, in fact they have the highest avg. salary in fact the avg. shooting guard or small forward is paid the least of the 5 positions , mostly because its the easiest to aquire a good one and all thing being equal they have the least impact .

and no one is saying a center can win it all by himself but centers have been known to make the other team shoot jumpshots while he gets much easier shots...and about 95% of the time if 1 team is getting jumpshots while the other is getting dunks/layups ...the team getting layups will win.

perimeter players no matter how good they are cant do that.


----------



## BullsAttitude (Jun 11, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> portland has a hole at small forward too(in fact i would say magliore/pryzbilla is better than udoka/outlaw by a significant margin...but dont believe me here is some proof to that end http://www.82games.com/0607/0607POR5.HTM), but you got to be crazy to think they would select durant before oden , basically every1 knew who was going to be the 1st pick all last season .
> 
> Centers are paid more than swingmen, in fact they have the highest avg. salary in fact the avg. shooting guard or small forward is paid the least of the 5 positions , mostly because its the easiest to aquire a good one and all thing being equal they have the least impact .
> 
> ...


That last sentence, you kinda forgot about Michael, he could take over a game when he wanted to and get layups/dunks whenever and on whoever he wanted to. Plus his defense was good enough to make the other team take shots they didn't want to.

Yes, everybody knew that Oden was going to be the number 1 pick, but that debate started to change towards the end of the year when Durant was showing he was the "Best" player in college basketball. We'll have to wait and see how it plays out, who has the more successful career.

Oden is not an offensive center, he is defense, more of the Bill Russell mold. 

A team getting layups/dunks 95% of the time is not cause of a center getting what he wants, it's due to a team not playing good aggressive defense. Defense is not truly a skill, it is just working hard and putting the effort forward to defend. As long as a team does that, regardless of what the center does, the team is not going to be getting layups/dunks with ease.

Remember, it wasn't Kareem beating the Sixers in game 6 of the '80 Finals, it was Magic getting what he wanted, how he wanted it, when he wanted it.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

BullsAttitude said:


> Oden is not an offensive center, he is defense, more of the Bill Russell mold.


People evaluate Oden in such an odd manner. Maybe it's because Durant had a historic season the same year. I can't imagine any other center averaging 16 PPG as a freshman, including 25 points in the championship game, and being referred to as someone who's "not an offensive center." Oden's freshman season compares favorably to that of most of the all time great NBA centers. Kareem and Wilt are just about the only two who came in and put up huge scoring numbers as freshman.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

JeremyB0001 said:


> People evaluate Oden in such an odd manner. Maybe it's because Durant had a historic season the same year. I can't imagine any other center averaging 16 PPG as a freshman, including 25 points in the championship game, and being referred to as someone who's "not an offensive center." Oden's freshman season compares favorably to that of most of the all time great NBA centers. Kareem and Wilt are just about the only two who came in and put up huge scoring numbers as freshman.



Not to mention he was essentially playing one-handed all year.

Oden's offense will be fine.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

BullsAttitude said:


> That last sentence, you kinda forgot about Michael, he could take over a game when he wanted to and get layups/dunks whenever and on whoever he wanted to. Plus his defense was good enough to make the other team take shots they didn't want to.
> 
> Yes, everybody knew that Oden was going to be the number 1 pick, but that debate started to change towards the end of the year when Durant was showing he was the "Best" player in college basketball. We'll have to wait and see how it plays out, who has the more successful career.
> 
> ...



1st of all defense is most certainly a skill, some players simply aren't going to be as good as others no matter how ard they try same as other aspects of the game like scoring and rebounding.

and another has noted Oden is a pretty good offensive center in college he isn't another desegana diop, he will be able to score at the nba level ...and as far as the debate for #1 pick , it was never a serious one outside of ncaa comentators and wishful thinking reporters.

Durant also turned in great workouts , i think the blazer GM said the best he had ever seen ...and it didn't matter , there was nothing he could do .Oden was going #1.

and if not for Kareem , magic never would have had his great game because the series would not have lasted to 6 ...even at Abdul jabbar's advanced basketball age of 35 he was easily the best player the lakers had.


----------



## Cyanobacteria (Jun 25, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> If you include a team outscoring their opponent with that player on the floor as compared to off the floor, than yea, Tyson's beauty is only stat-deep. Per 82games, he had a nice +/- net (+3.5). Unlike Wallace, who was the worst of our starters (-6.3).
> 
> If you include outscoring your opponent is only stat-deep, then the little things must be hairdo stype and good looking biceps i guess.
> 
> ...



Wow, I was trying to hint that you can qualitatively observe a player's performance without having to quantify it with successively more abstract statistics. Could you compare their statistical performances when the moon is waxing versus when it is waning? Or maybe we could watch the games and decide who is better? 

There's lies, there's damned lies, and there's statistics. (to paraphrase Mark Twain)


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Cyanobacteria said:


> There's lies, there's damned lies, and there's statistics. (to paraphrase Mark Twain)


Can't be any more biased than the posters on this board.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

johnston797 said:


> Can't be any more biased than the posters on this board.


Forget statistics. Let's forget the salary cap for the argument's sake for now.

If you ask any GM in this league assuming he can have either Big Ben or TC for his team for one year this coming season, who will they choose?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> Forget statistics. Let's forget the salary cap for the argument's sake for now.
> 
> If you ask any GM in this league assuming he can have either Big Ben or TC for his team for one year this coming season, who will they choose?


Well, it's a bit closer if you ignore Wallace is paid an extra $4-5M. Hornets definetly take TC. Bulls definetly take BW. I'd bet 1/2 of the other teams take Chandler especialy give Wallaces' petulance last year. In one year's time, in retrospect, I don't think it's going to be a close a call as people currently underestimate the trajectory of each player's career.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> Hornets definetly take TC. Bulls definetly take BW. I'd bet 1/2 or more of the other teams take Chandler.



Would any contender take Tyson?


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

johnston797 said:


> Hornets definetly take TC. Bulls definetly take BW. I'd bet 1/2 or more of the other teams take Chandler.


All i can say is that we have to agree to disagree.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Would any contender take Tyson?


Sure, if their GM wanted the better player and locker room influence and had some guts.

My question for you? What % of posters would have predicted that Chandler would have the superior statistics in 06-07?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

i think most of the contenders take tyson , without question.

1 is continuing a slow fade , the other is coming up , I thought tyson was better last season and Chandler from jan. 1st on was exceptional ...


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> Sure, if their GM wanted the better player and locker room influence and had some guts.
> 
> My question for you? What % of posters would have predicted that Chandler would have the superior statistics in 06-07?



Would they have been right? Tyson was better in FG%, points, and rebounds. Big Ben was better in assists, blocks, steals, fouls, and turnovers.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Would they have been right? Tyson was better in FG%, points, and rebounds. Big Ben was better in assists, blocks, steals, fouls, and turnovers.


Tyson hands down better in composite stats including PER, 82games NET +/- and PER +/-, and NBA EFF. (Is this where Twain gets quoted again? *LOL*)


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

Johnston, Grinch and K4E will choose TC no matter what and they are totally entitled to their opnions. I just disagree with them.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

lgtwins said:


> Forget statistics. Let's forget the salary cap for the argument's sake for now.
> 
> If you ask any GM in this league assuming he can have either Big Ben or TC for his team for one year this coming season, who will they choose?


it would depend on how close a team was to the luxury tax level. 
Teams that are at or above the luxury tax level would choose the cheaper player -- Chandler.
Teams that are sufficiently below the luxury tax level would choose the better player -- Wallace.

if a team was a contender, there is no way, salary considerations aside, that they would not choose Wallace who has played 103 playoff games, averaging 8.6/12.9/1.5 (8.7/9.5/1.4 in 10 games in 2007) over Chandler who has played 12 playoff games, averaging 6.8/7.1/0.9 and failed to qualify in 2007.

But you never know, there might be some idiot who would go with the younger, battle-untested, less accomplished, less talented player. He's taller after all.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> it would depend on how close a team was to the luxury tax level.


So much for the first line.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

McBulls said:


> it would depend on how close a team was to the luxury tax level.
> Teams that are at or above the luxury tax level would choose the cheaper player -- Chandler.
> Teams that are sufficiently below the luxury tax level would choose the better player -- Wallace.
> 
> ...



the olympic team did choose tyson over wallace and others but looking at how they doing its clear they know nothing, right`?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

McBulls said:


> if a team was a contender, there is no way, salary considerations aside, that they would not choose Wallace who has played 103 playoff games, averaging 8.6/12.9/1.5 (8.7/9.5/1.4 in 10 games in 2007) over Chandler who has played 12 playoff games, averaging 6.8/7.1/0.9 and failed to qualify in 2007.
> 
> But you never know, there might be some idiot who would go with the younger, battle-untested, less accomplished, less talented player. He's taller after all.


If we upon the doors to other big men to consider, I think most GMs would go with Wilt Chamberlain. Any idiot would tell you that his playoff stats slay Wallace's.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> the olympic team did choose tyson over wallace and others but looking at how they doing its clear they know nothing, right`?


It is ignorant to attribute any of Team USA's success to Chandler.



johnston797 said:


> If we upon the doors to other big men to consider, I think most GMs would go with Wilt Chamberlain. Any idiot would tell you that his playoff stats slay Wallace's.


Hardee har har.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

> Originally Posted by lgtwins
> Forget statistics. Let's forget the salary cap for the argument's sake for now.


There's ample proof that salary considerations come near the top of the list of GM concerns. Even if the time span is only one year.



johnston797 said:


> If we upon the doors to other big men to consider, I think most GMs would go with Wilt Chamberlain. Any idiot would tell you that his playoff stats slay Wallace's.


Do you really think Chandler would outplay Wallace in a playoff series, now -- not 5 years from now, but now? i didn't see Chandler's name on the NBA all-defensive teams last year.
I'd put my money on the 33 year old, not dead yet, veteran for one year, and so would most GMs (provided they had the money to spend).


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

King Joseus said:


> It is ignorant to attribute any of Team USA's success to Chandler.
> 
> 
> Hardee har har.


i didn`t but its obvious the know how to judge talent and build a team.

it was a simple response to the ridiculous notion that no one would choose tyson over wallace, especially when thread is essentially about team usa picking chandler over a host of good american big men ...wallace included.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

McBulls said:


> Do you really think Chandler would outplay Wallace in a playoff series, now -- not 5 years from now, but now? i didn't see Chandler's name on the NBA all-defensive teams last year.
> I'd put my money on the 33 year old, not dead yet, veteran for one year, and so would most GMs (provided they had the money to spend).


First, we all know that the All-Defensive teams are lagging indicators. Hinrich finally made it but he has played better D in the past. 

Yep, I would say the odds are the 25 year Chandler is going to be a better player in the playoffs than 33 year old Wallace based on their play and trajectory as 24 & 32 yrs olds. Clearly, you feel differently. Not sure you can know who GMs would pick. Wallace *will* age very badly since offensive skills (FT%, jump shot, etc.) are so poor. I feel the same way about Chandler unless he adds something to his game. And, IMHO, an aging Wallace is going to be a huge PIA. Maybe this is the year Wallace loses another 1/4 step. Maybe he doesn't decline this year, but Chandler takes a step forward. Maybe Chandler only plays well every other year. Either way, it's far from the no-brainer that you make it out to be.

Either way, IMHO, no one can be *proven* right today. Let's revisit in a few months.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> :thinking:
> 
> fact is.....
> 
> ...


Considering all the games that Peja, West, and Paul missed, +1 is pretty remarkable.

This is a team that late into the season was playing Pargo 36 minutes at guard, was without those three above, and was contending for a playoff spot.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> Tyson hands down better in composite stats including PER, 82games NET +/- and PER +/-, and NBA EFF. (Is this where Twain gets quoted again? *LOL*)


I wasn't the one who quoted Twain the first time around, but thanks for laughing at me anyway!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> That's faulty logic if I've ever seen it. Who was Brand's supporting cast? So, is your argument that Chandler is better than Brand? I don't get it.


You'd think Brad Miller and Ron Artest might be a decent "supporting" cast.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> You'd think Brad Miller and Ron Artest might be a decent "supporting" cast.


Depends on how many naked push ups Artest did at halftime.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> Depends on how many naked push ups Artest did at halftime.


Exactly!

Tho he always was a darned good lockdown defender.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Rhyder said:


> Depends on how many naked push ups Artest did at halftime.


Over a butt naked ( and I do mean BUTT naked as in poking up in he air ) Tyson on the massage table ?

A reach around perhaps ?

That's beyond support ..that's unbridled man lurve


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

I can't believe this thread is still going 

Talk about ball ranting summer wilderness ?

C'yall again in the pre

I'm out like sub prime mortgages


----------

