# Insider: Possible Golden State trade



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

*Golden State Warriors*

They are one of the most active teams in trade talks at the moment. The team they put together didn't gel, and the Warriors need to make some serious changes. 
It appears that Mike Dunleavy, Troy Murphy and the No. 9 are the assets they're looking to move. However, considering the big contracts of Dunleavy and Murphy, they may have to include a young prospect like Andris Biedrins or Mickael Pietrus.

One rumored deal has the Warriors swapping Dunleavy, Murphy and the No. 9 pick to the Lakers for Lamar Odom and Aaron McKie. 

*Another has the Warriors sending Pietrus, Murphy and the No. 9 to the Bulls for Tyson Chandler and the No. 16.*

Utah could be another trading partner. A deal that would send Pietrus and Murphy to Utah for Carlos Boozer has been rumored since February.


----------



## danred7 (Apr 19, 2006)

Mr. T said:


> *Golden State Warriors*
> 
> They are one of the most active teams in trade talks at the moment. The team they put together didn't gel, and the Warriors need to make some serious changes.
> It appears that Mike Dunleavy, Troy Murphy and the No. 9 are the assets they're looking to move. However, considering the big contracts of Dunleavy and Murphy, they may have to include a young prospect like Andris Biedrins or Mickael Pietrus.
> ...


Might not be a bad move for you guys. IF you draft TT, Chandler-lite, then an offensive minded PF like Murphy could ballance it all out.

Add in Greg Oden/ Joakim Noah next year and your set.

I am actually a fan of Murphy's. Better than he's given credit for.

That LA trade is rediculous though. LA would have to take that deal.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> *Golden State Warriors*
> 
> They are one of the most active teams in trade talks at the moment. The team they put together didn't gel, and the Warriors need to make some serious changes.
> It appears that Mike Dunleavy, Troy Murphy and the No. 9 are the assets they're looking to move. However, considering the big contracts of Dunleavy and Murphy, they may have to include a young prospect like Andris Biedrins or Mickael Pietrus.
> ...



That would be a..interesting..deal for the Bulls, I might just do it if I was Pax dependent on who was available at #9, I really don't care for Murphys big contract and lack of defense though.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

I'd do that deal. At #2 you'd still grab Thomas/Aldridge/Bargnani. At #9 I'd guess you'd still look for another big because if you've got Pietrus, he's that defensive big guard that you need so drafting a guy like Brewer isn't as much of a necessity. You would pretty much have your choice between Sene, O'Bryant or Simmons. Not a bad position to be in. Still have decent cap space because swapping Chandler for Murphy is pretty close salary-wise.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I don't think GSW would do a trade without a big contract such as Murphy or Dunleavy. I would be head over heels to do 16 + Filler for Pietrus. It is an interesting trade b/c at 9 we would not need to draft a big guard after getting Pietrus. It would open up a lot of possibilities and we could take the BPA. If we did this, I would not be surprised to get Tyrus and O'Bryant at 2 + 9, or Aldridge and Sene at 2 + 9. I still think Brewer is a great fit for us, but with Pietrus, we would definitely have a logjam drafting Brewer.

I believe Murphys deal ends in 2010-2011 at just under 12 million. Tyson's ends the same year at about a million more.

I think Tyson is more valuable to our team, but it does give us a variety of options and we can fill more needs with this trade. 

Before trade: We have the 2 + 16
After trade: 2, 9, and Pietrus

It depends who you value more Tyson or Murphy. Draft wise we end up better. But will Murphy help the team. I think he would be better suited for our offense than Tyson with his J for the pick in rolls. But his D SUCKS.

I would actually do it. I think we would end up with a deep team. It worries me that Tyrus thinks of himself as a 3 though. If he can play the 4 and gain 20 lbs, I'd take him. His demeanor is Amare-like. He would replace Tyson' aggressiveness and prolly have better offensive.

Hinrich/Duhon/Pargo
Gordon/Pietrus
Noce/Deng
Murphy/Tyrus or Aldridge/Songalia
Pryz (I wish Nene)/O'Bryant/Allen


----------



## BullDurf (Feb 11, 2003)

Id do it in a second. We could even trade the 9 for future pick if no one was there we wanted.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

I would do that deal just straight up. T.Murphy. Bedreins and no.9 for No.2 & Duhon. We have the cap flexibility to absorb T.Murphys contract.

Then take R.Brewer at no.9 and Sene at 16.

We get two bigs in Murphy and Bedreins. and we'll also have enough to get a another centre/pf through free agency. if we get Murphy id probably go for Pryzibila and not Nene.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

That would be a good trade for the Bulls. Murphy is incredibly soft but I would think has more value around the league than Chandler; the #9 pick has more value than the #16. So really, we're giving away two assets for two better assets, plus getting our tall SG. Yeah, sign me up for that.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Has anyone seen Biedrins play? How is he? I know he is a young highly touted 7 footer. What if we switch Beidrins for Pietrus? Then at 9 we draft Brewer instead. 

Anyone who has seen Beidrins play, I'd love to hear about it. Think GSW would to that? This way we come out w/Brewer who can play the 1,2, and 3.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> Has anyone seen Biedrins play? How is he? I know he is a young highly touted 7 footer. What if we switch Beidrins for Pietrus? Then at 9 we draft Brewer instead.
> 
> Anyone who has seen Beidrins play, I'd love to hear about it. Think GSW would to that? This way we come out w/Brewer who can play the 1,2, and 3.



Biedrens is gonna be a good player. He has great size, good post moves, and isn't soft inside. He also has pretty good instincts when it comes to passing the ball. I don't think he is going to overwhelm anyone but I could easily see him developing into Chris Kaman lite.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

I would do that deal in a heartbeat. That trade barely eats into our cap space and we can get a big via Free Agency. At 9 we could grab Brewer and 16 BPA. All that being said, i don't believe that trade will happen.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I agree. This is one trade that has been rumored (Murphy and Pietrus for Tyson) for a LONG time. Now it just has draft picks thrown in.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Count me in as well on that deal. 

16 --> 9 = upgrade
Chandler --> Murphy = wash/slight loss
Nobody --> Pietrus = big upgrade

We improve our draft pick and get our big 2, who actually should be happy being a rotational player rather than having to play over Ben.

I prefer Chandler to Pietrus, but just slightly, and more based on the hopes that Chandler pulls his head out of his butt rather than based upon current play. You're rolling the dice that Tyson won't eventually "get it" and turn into a Ben Wallace-like force in the middle. It's a gamble, but one I'd likely take considering the other benefits.


----------



## danred7 (Apr 19, 2006)

theanimal23 said:


> Has anyone seen Biedrins play? How is he? I know he is a young highly touted 7 footer. What if we switch Beidrins for Pietrus? Then at 9 we draft Brewer instead.
> 
> Anyone who has seen Beidrins play, I'd love to hear about it. Think GSW would to that? This way we come out w/Brewer who can play the 1,2, and 3.


Part of the Reasons they want to move Murphy is to clear minutes for Bierdin and Diogu. They won't throw him in to get rid of Murphy


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I really don't know how WITH this deal I am. I expect that Tyson is going to return to form next season and have a monster year. He has his detractors but he does some things very well, even better when he has a big body to bang inside. Murphy is basically SOngalia with slightly more range. Pietrus while solid, is probably the most overrated player on this board. The #9 pick would be a motivator because it would allow us to grab a guy like Brewer more than likely. The more I think about it the more I think I would have to pass.


----------



## DaBullz4Sho (Oct 12, 2002)

I would jump all over this deal, we lose tyson and his contract, pick up murphy, pietrus who is the defensive minded big 2 we need, and get the # 9 pick.......we pick Aldridge at #2 or Bargnani if he falls......then we're still set up to pick up 0'bryant or Williams if they're there at #9....We'd be set with big men

Hinrich,Duhon
Gordon, Pietrus, fill in the blank
Deng/noc, Noc/deng
Murphy,Aldridge, Songaila
FA,Obryant,Aldridge


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

ok, i was wondering if i was the only person on the board who doesn't want to give up on chandler yet, and ace swoops in!

thanks! and no thanks to the deal. just say no to troy murphy!!!


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Without a doubt I think you do this. Throw in a FA signee at center with Joel P, Nene, or maybe even Wallace along with a #2 and a #9(both would be bigs I think) and we are set.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

ps. and the murphy trade was some **** sam smith was floating a week or so ago, so way to be original, chad.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> ps. and the murphy trade was some **** sam smith was floating a week or so ago, so way to be original, chad.


You know all those columnists just swap ideas with each other and claim "insider" status. They start the rumors and then report it. It's a great way to make a living. :biggrin:


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> ps. and the murphy trade was some **** sam smith was floating a week or so ago, so way to be original, chad.


Smith said that Murphy's was the "name you hear the most" or somesuch.

Ford's not really a rip-off artist, imo, so if he's hearing this through his own channels, I'm afraid. Very afraid.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

Troy Murphy sucks. He and Dunleavy are the two whipping boys of Warriors sportstalk. You know how badly Tyson gets treated around here for his lack of offense and bad contract? Well, that's exactly how Murphy gets talked about from Warriors fans, except his horrible contract comes with non-existant defense. He's also a "jump-shooting" big man who shoots a poor percentage. 

Pietrus would be perfect if he wasn't injured so damn much. I don't know what it is about him, it's not like he plays a ton of minutes or anything, he just gets hurt easily. 

I'd like this trade if we could get a 3rd team involved to take Murphy. Trust me, we don't want him here.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

Wow i thought you guys would be all over this trade. If everyone wants to stay away from Troy Murphy, i'm shocked that we still have faith in Tyson. I"m done with hoping Tyson finally turns it around. I do not want to deal with a guy who constantly talks a big game to the press and always comes up short (how often did we hear about Tyson and his emerging offensive game?).

I misread the trade when i first saw it. I believed it said Pietrus, Murphy, 9 for Tyson and the 2. I was all over that trade and looking at the rumor again its for the 16th, not the 2nd. How can people be against that rumor? 

After the draft the trade could look like: Pietrus+Murphy+Brewer for Tyson and whomever GS takes @ 16. 
or
The Bulls could take Roy @ 2 and maybe O'Bryant @ 9. 

Tyson is by no means an untouchable player and if a fair trade came to the table i don't doubt for a second that Pax woudl move him and his massive contract.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

remlover said:


> Wow i thought you guys would be all over this trade. If everyone wants to stay away from Troy Murphy, i'm shocked that we still have faith in Tyson. I"m done with hoping Tyson finally turns it around. I do not want to deal with a guy who constantly talks a big game to the press and always comes up short (how often did we hear about Tyson and his emerging offensive game?).
> 
> I misread the trade when i first saw it. I believed it said Pietrus, Murphy, 9 for Tyson and the 2. I was all over that trade and looking at the rumor again its for the 16th, not the 2nd. How can people be against that rumor?
> 
> ...


I think your down on Tyson. If you look back he has had quite a few double doubles of nearly epic proportions peppered with blocks and good defense. Last season wasn't his best and he didn't do much in the playoffs but he is MUCH more valuable than anyone else in this trade IMHO.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

remlover, don't forget the chest bumping, bicep flexing intimidation who has no has no muscle and can't even bang down low. The kid can jump and thats it. When push comes to shove, he kicks players. 

I'm not a fan of Murphy either, but we add 2 extra pieces.

We are basically getting Pietrus and 9 for 16. Both Tyson and Murphy's contracts are the same. One can shoot while the other can play D. Neither are good. The question is, if we can find another player who can make up for their weaknesses at the lowest cost (what we give up, not $) for our team.

I was a long time believer in the Twin Towers. Both have not exceeded my expectations. I am fine if we have a role player in Tyson's case, but the guy has to be damn good at his role for the money he makes. What good is Tyson, when Zo can provide the same thing, but BETTER and more offense for A CHEAPER PRICE. I'm not saying I want Zo, b/c I think he is a scumbag, but there have to be better Defensive oriented players at a much cheaper price. 

Tyson talks the talk, but can't even stand to walk. I hope as a Bulls fan that he returns to his old days where he put up 20 + 20. But he has to step up his game. Until them I'm gonna bust on the kid.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

I would do this just to move up to 9 from 16, which is pretty significant in this draft I think. Plus I've totally given up on Chandler. 

Trade Murphy and a 2008 1st round pick for an expiring. 

Hinrich, Duhon
Gordon, Pietrus
Deng, Noc
Noc, Bargnani/Tyrus
B. Wallace, P. O'Bryant 

That looks great to me.


----------



## 7RINGS? (Sep 28, 2004)

Thats probley the best trade idea I have heard of all year for the Bulls!!! We unload waisted air and space and get all that in return!!! :banana: WOW!!! I say we go for it.
.
.
.
.
.Problem!!! I can't see GS ever doing that trade!!!  They will be givin up too much and giving us everything we need.I say throw in J-Rich and that team will be done for!!! :biggrin:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Tyson is one of the better rebounders in the game... and was one of the main reasons we were a very good team two years ago, and also one of the main reasons we regressed last season.

Did Tyson take a step back due to the players he was surrounded by? Injury? Lack of fire due to big contract?

I don't buy the soft off-season thing. 

Chandler can still be a difference making weapon in the NBA, IMO, if used the right way.

Murphy? Blah. Does not make a difference, IMO. Pietrus? I'd rather have Chandler. We can get a 20 MPG big guard in the draft.

Perhaps that pick nets us O'Bryant or Simmons. But still, we know Chandler can be a difference maker already.


----------



## r1terrell23 (Feb 11, 2006)

Call me crazy but why would GS make that deal? It would be heavily lopsided in our favor. They would also be doing us a favor by taking TC off our hands.

Maybe Murphy, Pietrus, and #9 for TC and #2, but even that doesn't make sense from their standpoint.


----------



## garnett (May 13, 2003)

madox said:


> I would do this just to move up to 9 from 16, which is pretty significant in this draft I think. Plus I've totally given up on Chandler.
> 
> Trade Murphy and a 2008 1st round pick for an expiring.
> 
> ...


 That would probably be the smallest starting 5 ever. Being small in the backcourt obviously isn't enough.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

jnrjr79 said:


> Count me in as well on that deal.
> 
> 16 --> 9 = upgrade
> Chandler --> Murphy = wash/slight loss
> ...


It's an interesting idea. I wonder who we'd take at 10 if we solved the "big guard" problem with Pietrus. Shelden Williams?


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Mr. T said:


> *Another has the Warriors sending Pietrus, Murphy and the No. 9 to the Bulls for Tyson Chandler and the No. 16.*


I would jump on that in a second! 

But why would they trade one bad contract for another bad contract and go from the 9th pick to the 16th.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

r1terrell23 said:


> Call me crazy but why would GS make that deal? It would be heavily lopsided in our favor. They would also be doing us a favor by taking TC off our hands.
> 
> Maybe Murphy, Pietrus, and #9 for TC and #2, but even that doesn't make sense from their standpoint.



I really don't view it the way you do. Tyson Chandler is the best player in that deal and thats why GS would do it IMO.


----------



## Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! (Jun 10, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> I would jump on that in a second!
> 
> But why would they trade one bad contract for another bad contract and go from the 9th pick to the 16th.


The price to be paid for the simple fact that of the two principals, Chandler has more to offer than Murphy for a winning team. So, the premium, so to speak, for trading these two conists of (1) pick swaps; and (2) Michael P.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! said:


> The price to be paid for the simple fact that of the two principals, Chandler has more to offer than Murphy for a winning team. So, the premium, so to speak, for trading these two conists of (1) pick swaps; and (2) Michael P.


Heck , if the Bulls pull off that trade its going to help them out big time.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Ah, this is starting to shape up our draft plans.

With the #2 pick in the 2006 NBA Draft, the Chicago Bulls select LaMarcus Aldridge from Texas University. 

With the #9 pick in the 2006 NBA Draft, the Chicago Bulls select Mouhammad Saer Sene.

It'd seem to me that Paxson is trying to leap frog Utah to get Sene. Murphy's an upgrade on Chandler, 9's an upgrade on 16, and Pietrus solves the big guard problem. It wouldn't make sense to me for us to draft O'Bryant at 9, did we even work him out? Sene BLEW THE ROOF OFF in his workout with the Bulls, it'd seem to me that it would to leapfrog Utah to get him. Sene brings everything Chandler brings, and some.

PG-Kirk Hinrich/Chris Duhon
SG-BenGordon/ Mikael Pietrus
SF-Andres Nocioni/Luol Deng
PF-LaMarcus Aldridge/Troy Murphy
C- Saer Sene/Malik Allen

And thats before going into free agency even! I don't see why we WOULDN"T do this trade.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

jbulls said:


> It's an interesting idea. I wonder who we'd take at 10 if we solved the "big guard" problem with Pietrus. Shelden Williams?


I'm guessing that this deal would be contingent on the big we want being there. I don't think Shelden would be, but he'd probably be a good fit for us. Maybe we've fallen in love with Sene and think it'll be necessary to move up and get him. O'Bryant is probably available there too.

I wouldn't discount us moving up to get Brewer even if we bring in Pietrus. If we're moving up, we're obviously doing it because we're sold on someone, and Brewer has reportedly had one of the best workouts to date with us. Pietrus could just be a cap addition and flyer... he's been spotty his first couple of seasons for a variety of reasons.


----------



## BULLS23 (Apr 13, 2003)

I'm no board with this trade . . . Especially if we get Aldridge at #2 or O'Bryant at #9. I think both are good enough defensively plus we still have room to grab a FA big man that won't have to come in and amazingly average 18ppg. Can you name one of the FA bigs that will come in and be really effective on the offensive side of the ball? I think we have to get our post scoring out of this draft be it a player or a trade.


----------



## dkg1 (May 31, 2002)

sloth said:


> Ah, this is starting to shape up our draft plans.
> 
> With the #2 pick in the 2006 NBA Draft, the Chicago Bulls select LaMarcus Aldridge from Texas University.
> 
> ...


I like your thinking Sloth! Looks pretty good on paper to me. Plus as you mentioned, this is before free agency. Definitely need a servicable vet at Center via FA.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

MikeDC said:


> I'm guessing that this deal would be contingent on the big we want being there. I don't think Shelden would be, but he'd probably be a good fit for us. Maybe we've fallen in love with Sene and think it'll be necessary to move up and get him. O'Bryant is probably available there too.
> 
> I wouldn't discount us moving up to get Brewer even if we bring in Pietrus. If we're moving up, we're obviously doing it because we're sold on someone, and Brewer has reportedly had one of the best workouts to date with us. Pietrus could just be a cap addition and flyer... he's been spotty his first couple of seasons for a variety of reasons.


Heres describing Sene's workout with us:

"The Chicago Bulls were blown away by Saer Sene's athleticism, upside, and speed."

"Sene blew the roof off the workout".

"He might be the longest person in the world".

Like Paxson has said, Chandler is just an asset, not part of our future, and Sene's an upgrade on Chandler BIG TIME. Moving up to get Sene would make the most sense to me, but then what happens to O'Bryant? Say the draft goes: Bargnani, Aldridge, Gay, Roy, S. Williams, M. Williams, Thomas, Morrison, then Sene. Seattle probaly still takes Foye at 10. Then Orlando takes Carney at 11, and the Hornets take Brewer 12....and I'd imagine the Sixers take a Douby or Rondo point guard at 13, which leaves the Jazz as the wild card on O'Bryant. Assuming the Jazz take Reddick, then the Hornets take Simmons at 15.....and GoldenState gets their man O'Bryant at 16. I could see why both teams do it. Bulls get their guy Sene and Pietrus, as well as Murphy, and GoldenSt. gets their man O'Bryant, and Chandler to go along with him. Could be a good trade for both teams, and both teams get their guys in the draft.


----------



## greekbullsfan (Oct 26, 2003)

where do i sign?


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

This deal makes sense from both teams perspectives. First off, both teams would be moving two large contracts that don't seem to be working out for their respective clubs. I've been something of a Chandler supporter for quite a while, but hearing that he's not at the Berto working out and that he's, instead, in CA working out with "some guy"; that doesn't really give me the warm fuzzies. I believe that I've read that GS likes Chandler and has for years. So, swapping headaches might not be such a bad thing. Murphy... He's overpaid and not the best defender in the world but I don't see him as this terribly bad player that some here do. To some degree, I think he's more of a system player and with the Pick and Roll-type scheme that Skiles uses he's of far more value that Chandler (at least on offense). Chandler is a better rebounder, but I don't see a problem with Murph getting 8-10 boards a night and at least he'll be able to stay on the floor.

I know I've read that GS was definatly looking to trade down or possibly out of this draft - primarily due to financial concerns. If they have these concerns, Pietrus is a guy they probably aren't going to be able to afford anyway so they might as well move him now. The Bulls need a big, defensive two guard and Pietrus certainly fits the bill on that one. I'm not all that high on him as some are here, but he'd fill a need and do it quite well. Moving up from 16 to 9 just means that if there is someone the Bulls really have their eye on, the possibility that said player is available is far greater at 9 than 16. Sene at #9 makes sense. He'd replace what Chandler brought (probalby not right off the bat, but in time I feel he'll turn out the better player).

I feel like with a deal like this, we really don't lose anything and we get to fill holes that this team has. It'd be nice if it happens, but for now it's just another of the 1,456,483 rumors that are floating around out there. I'm not seeing much of a downside to a deal like this.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Mr. T said:


> *Another has the Warriors sending Pietrus, Murphy and the No. 9 to the Bulls for Tyson Chandler and the No. 16.*


I'd do that **** in a HEARTBEAT

G Hinrich / Duhon
G Gordon / Pietrus
F Deng / Nocioni
F Murphy

HELL yeah...plus the #2 and #9 pick!?

SIGN ME THE HELL UP!

and ya know what, I think it's gonna happen to unless GS finds a better deal


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

sloth said:


> Heres describing Sene's workout with us:
> 
> "The Chicago Bulls were blown away by Saer Sene's athleticism, upside, and speed."
> 
> ...




Sene is an upgrade over Chandler? wtf? Man pass that over here. Sene is a long atheletic player who is ridiculously raw. Tyson, while raw offensively can board and defend in a league that Sene would hope to acheive someday. This is kind of like "predraft" infatuations. All of the sudden Ed O'bannon is better than Paul Pierce...


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

I'd do that deal too, but only because I like Pietrus very much, not because of Murphy. We get Pietrus and draft Bargnani/Aldridge and Sene/O'Bryant, plus we have money to add Nene and Wilcox/Przybilla, it's a great deal for us in my opinion.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Troy Murphy is quite the double-double machine. I can't believe he shoots so poorly for a big man but I can see him fitting in Skiles' offense. We would definitely need to add a Sene and Ben Wallace in this scenario. Otherwise the paint will be splitting like the Red Sea.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

DO IT!

Miss tyson? Sign Pryzbilla 

C Pryzbilla / #9
F Murphy / #2
F Deng / Noc
F Gordon / Pietrus
G Hinrich / Duhon

I'd take whoever was left out of the big 3 at #2 then draft O'Bryant or Sene at #9


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

Mr. T said:


> *Golden State Warriors*
> 
> *Another has the Warriors sending Pietrus, Murphy and the No. 9 to the Bulls for Tyson Chandler and the No. 16.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

LegoHat said:


> I'd do that deal too, but only because I like Pietrus very much, not because of Murphy. We get Pietrus and draft Bargnani/Aldridge and Sene/O'Bryant, plus we have money to add Nene and Wilcox/Przybilla, it's a great deal for us in my opinion.


This right here is the truth. Pietrus is the real advantage in this deal. Murphy isn't so terrible, he's just overrated because he's not as good as his stats. But we might be able to let Songaila go if Murphy comes to town, although Darius is probably a better defender. Murphy can shoot, he's extended his range out to the arc, and he does crash the boards. I could see him being a nice bench 11/7 player for us used on offense mostly as a spot up shooter.

Pietrus would explode. I think I'd rather have him than Brewer or Roy. He could develop into a real defensive presence and have a semi-breakout year for us. He's definitely that long guard.

I'd be very happy taking Aldridge AND O'Bryant in the draft, signing Przy and calling it an offseason. This MORE than makes up for the loss of Chandler.

Hinrich/Duhon
Gordon/Pietrus
Deng/Noch
Aldridge/Murphy
Przy/O'Bryant/Aldridge

Patrick O'Bryant is supposed to be a savvy defender, Przy is already a killer shot-blocker, Aldridge also has great defensive instincts... Murphy's bad defense would be more than mitigated.

I mostly like this deal because we have a pretty guard/wing oriented team, so trading Chandler and losing Allen and Songaila wouldn't really hurt us so much, since the core guys are still there.

I find it difficult to understand why someone wouldn't do this, considering how much Chandler-likeness will be available this year.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Why not start Murphy? 14 & 10 are pretty good numbers period, I'm sure his defense can be worked on.

You add Aldridge and O'Bryant to Pryz and Murphy? We'll ALWAYS have a good defender on the floor and shotblocker.

That team would be LEGIT!

Hell, the only problem would be...what do you do with the 2007 pick from NY!?

Team is already stacked


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

The ROY said:


> Why not start Murphy? 14 & 10 are pretty good numbers period, I'm sure his defense can be worked on.
> 
> You add Aldridge and O'Bryant to Pryz and Murphy? We'll ALWAYS have a good defender on the floor and shotblocker.
> 
> ...


14 & 10 are inflated because GS has a serious paucity of bigs. Zarko, Chris Taft, Adonal Foyle, Biedrins, Ike Diogu.. that's basically the All-Scrub frontcourt. Murphy will definitely log those big minutes in that crowd and hog most of the boards as well.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

sloth said:


> Heres describing Sene's workout with us:
> 
> "The Chicago Bulls were blown away by Saer Sene's athleticism, upside, and speed."
> 
> ...



You understand this is _exactly_ what was said about Tyson coming out?


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Showtyme said:


> This right here is the truth. Pietrus is the real advantage in this deal. Murphy isn't so terrible, he's just overrated because he's not as good as his stats. But we might be able to let Songaila go if Murphy comes to town, although Darius is probably a better defender. Murphy can shoot, he's extended his range out to the arc, and he does crash the boards. I could see him being a nice bench 11/7 player for us used on offense mostly as a spot up shooter.
> 
> Pietrus would explode. I think I'd rather have him than Brewer or Roy. He could develop into a real defensive presence and have a semi-breakout year for us. He's definitely that long guard.
> 
> ...



I'll be happy with either O'Bryant or Sene. But man I would love this team. We would be a DEEP team and can be very versatile. Want to go small and quick, put Aldridge and Murphy as your front court. Wanna go big, O'Bryant and Pyrz. 

I would do this beat in a sec.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

I just have the feeling they'd do the LA or UTAH deal before they'd send that package to us.



Boozer or Odom + Davis & Richardson? Sick trio


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Pietrus really is not that good. He came into the league with people moistened over his potential, and in the three years he has been here, he has barely improved. He's still not the defender he could be, he still resorts to mediocre jumpshooting, and he's still French.

I really don't like Murphy, and while I'm willing to concede he's better than Tyson right now, I still want Tyson. Tyson can make this team win when he plays well. Murphy is a very expensive role player. (Yes I know Tyson is too, but we've all seen him turn the outcome of games before, single handedly, on the defensive end. Not many players can do this.)

Moving up 7 spots would be nice but I still don't think it is necessary.

This move, by the way, would also take an extra 3 million out of the cap room.


----------



## mr.ankle20 (Mar 7, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> I really don't view it the way you do. Tyson Chandler is the best player in that deal and thats why GS would do it IMO.



are you kidding me ? Tyson has to be one of the worst Big Men I have seen in a while . He Has been with the bulls for five years and his game has not improve at all . His offense sucks , His defense is overrated on this board and he is a decent rebounder thats about it . This guy still makes rookie mistakes with fouls .


----------



## Wishbone (Jun 10, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> You understand this is _exactly_ what was said about Tyson coming out?


definitely something I've been worried about...

and yet, it still seems he's got the most potential of all the bigs that are projected to go in the mid to late part of the 1st round. maybe even the most potential of all the bigs in the draft period.
the one thing I did like reading about Sene was that he doesn't have a problem catching the ball -- rebounding or receiving passes.... if that's true, then he probably would be an upgrade over Chandler.

I'm not really in favor of getting rid of Chandler
he's PROVEN that he can rebound and block shots at a very very high level in this league. Sene might as well someday. but not this year - and probably not next year either.



the trade idea absolutely merits some consideration... but I'm not completely sold on it. 
keep Chandler for now


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

If Chicago's personnel are in love with Sene THAT much? They'll definintely do it to get him.

You solve a few problems with this trade

Adding a bigman that can shoot from distance and rebounds strongly...

Adding a SG who can be a defensive stopper, has the right size and can score....

then you get SENE @ #9, whom I'd assume the Bulls covet now...

I don't see why Paxson wouldn't OK this deal as soon as he could...You're adding extra talent plus a possible Chandler CLONE...and he's already better offensively than Chandler...


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I know some people think Murphy makes a team worse, but I just don't see it. Admittedly though, the sampling of Golden State games I've seen the last few years is pretty limited. In my ignorance, this appears to be a no brainer trade for Chicago.

But I look at that Pietrus, Murphy, and #9 for Chandler and #16 and I can't for the life of my imagine why Golden State would do that.

They get no cap relief. They get a statistically less productive player with a worse contract than Murphy. They lose Pietrus for essentially nothing. And they lose 7 draft slots and pretty much any shot at drafting Sene or O'Bryant, even though Center would appear to be their greatest need.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

ace20004u said:


> I really don't view it the way you do. Tyson Chandler is the best player in that deal and thats why GS would do it IMO.


An old adage is that the winner of an NBA trade is the team that gets the best player. Chandler does seem to be the best player in this deal. 

If you think that either Pietrus or Murphy is a better player than Chandler, then pull the trigger. Obviously if either Chicago or GS felt this way or it would not be a 2 + draft pick for 1 deal.

The Bulls need to add quality players at this point, not quantity. They can pick up a Murphy quality player as a free agent. Shooting guards with Pietrus's stats are a dime a dozen. The swap of the #16 for the #9 pick in this weak draft is uninspiring.

No deal.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

The ROY said:


> I just have the feeling they'd do the LA or UTAH deal before they'd send that package to us.
> 
> 
> 
> Boozer or Odom + Davis & Richardson? Sick trio


I have a feeling that some pair of Boozer, KMart, Randolph, and Murphy will be traded for one another.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

mr.ankle20 said:


> are you kidding me ? Tyson has to be one of the worst Big Men I have seen in a while . He Has been with the bulls for five years and his game has not improve at all . His offense sucks , His defense is overrated on this board and he is a decent rebounder thats about it . This guy still makes rookie mistakes with fouls .


Thats my thinking. Tyson is nonexistant on offense, he hardly can put down a dunk without missing it. He can block shots, but thats about it on defense, Sene can block more shots. Tyson is one of the worse man on man defenders in the league which completely takes him out of anything that his help defense does. All he can do is rebound, and Murphy can rebound, Sene will be able to rebound, Aldridge will be able to rebound, Pryzbilla can rebound, Nocioni can rebound, Deng can rebound, Hinrich can rebound, good riddance Tyson.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I am drooling over this idea. 

The way I see it:
Lose Tyson and 16 (BPA likely Simmons, Hilton, or Thabo)

Gain:
Pietrus - We don't need to trade up to grab the big guard 

Murphy - Fits well into our offense. For a similar contract, I think he can provide more than Tyson by 1. Being able to stay on the court, and 2. Actually serve a purpose when setting a pick. Tyson can't catch or shoot.

#9 - Draft O'Bryant or Sene. Whoever Pax likes more. Likely Sene. Sene has shown in his video clips that he can catch the ball and make a layup/dunk ONE HANDED. The kid is freakishly long. He can provide what Tyson does. May take a year to develop, but that long reach will at least alter shots.

We still have the 2nd pick to add Aldridge (I like the video clip of him on the Portland website), and a lot of Cap Room. We can add a serviceable center in Pryz who will replace what Chanlder gave us while Sene still develops. 

If we keep Tyson, we add Thabo (likely) and likely Aldridge/Tyrus.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

My answer to that proposal is a resounding HELL NO! Pietrus is nothing special at all, Murphy shoots 13% lower than Chandler, at 43%. For a near 7 footer, that is HORRIBLE! He blocks .3 shots a game, vs Chandler's 1.3. He has 10 RPG compared to Chandler's 9, BUT he was playing 34 minutes a game vs 26. So when you're playing 3/4 as many minutes and still getting 9/10 rebounds, much better rebounder and shot blocker. If you project Chandler's stats per minute, here's what you get

----------------Murphy-----Chandler Projected----------Chandler Actual
Rebounds---------10---------------11.43----------------------9
Blocks ------------.35---------------1.67----------------------1.32
Points-------------14---------------6.73----------------------5.3
Steals-------------.64----------------.664----------------------.52
Assists------------1.4---------------1.27----------------------1

Shooting %--------43.3%-----------56.5% (actual)

If you look at those #s, Chandler is much more valuable. Shot blocking is what it's all about, and rebounding. Are we forgetting we're a defensive team? While I'd like to move up to #9, I wouldn't do it so I could give up a proven big man in Chandler who excels at both rebounding and blocking, for a big guy who shoots a horrible %, and doens't block hardly any shots, AND doesn't rebound as well. You could get a total bust with that #9 pick, and Sene is HARDLY better than Chandler already. He could be a complete bust, though I don't think so. As someone else said, the same hype was around Chandler when he was drafted. I think if you look past Chandler's bad year last year, which is still better than Murphy, he's good enough that he should be kept.


----------



## bruindre (Jul 18, 2004)

as a W's fan, I think this cries of desperation (on the part of the Warriors) to grab another big guy. Granted, Murphy isn't all that. 

You guys pretty much know what you're getting w/ Murph--a big guy who is in love with the outside shot and can't play D. Pietrus' potential hasn't been realized, but some of that can be blamed on the coaching situation at Golden State. In the least, Pietrus can give you good D, and I know SS will keep on him to focus on that end of his game. 

I really don't see this deal getting done...especially if the possibility of getting Odom or Boozer is out there for Golden State.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> My answer to that proposal is a resounding HELL NO! Pietrus is nothing special at all, Murphy shoots 13% lower than Chandler, at 43%. For a near 7 footer, that is HORRIBLE! He blocks .3 shots a game, vs Chandler's 1.3. He has 10 RPG compared to Chandler's 9, BUT he was playing 34 minutes a game vs 26. So when you're playing 3/4 as many minutes and still getting 9/10 rebounds, much better rebounder and shot blocker. If you project Chandler's stats per minute, here's what you get
> 
> Murphy Chandler Projected xfactor Chandler Actual
> Rebounds 10 11.43 1.27 9
> ...


Thank you. I've responded similarly in the past when the idea of trading for Troy Murphy came up, and I didn't have the energy to yet again point out how stupid it would be. He is a lousy real-life basketball player.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

bruindre said:


> as a W's fan, I think this cries of desperation (on the part of the Warriors) to grab another big guy. Granted, Murphy isn't all that.
> 
> *You guys pretty much know what you're getting w/ Murph--a big guy who is in love with the outside shot and can't play D.* Pietrus' potential hasn't been realized, but some of that can be blamed on the coaching situation at Golden State. In the least, Pietrus can give you good D, and I know SS will keep on him to focus on that end of his game.



thank you

thank you 

*thank you!!*


----------



## bruindre (Jul 18, 2004)

mizenkay said:


> thank you
> 
> thank you
> 
> *thank you!!*


Ugh...don't mention it, mizenkay.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

ScottMay said:


> Thank you. I've responded similarly in the past when the idea of trading for Troy Murphy came up, and I didn't have the energy to yet again point out how stupid it would be. He is a lousy real-life basketball player.


YW. Yeah at first you just see the 14 ppg and 10 rpg and it looks all good till you really examine the #s closely, and weigh them in per minute to make them more representative of how effective they are when they're playing. Then Murphy doesn't seem so good, especially when you look at the shooting % and the lack of D. 

One other thing to factor in there is the cohesion Chandler has with other guys on the team. Bring a bunch of new guys in, and you'll lose that and they might not gel with our other players. We know what we have in Tyson, and also that those other guys are by no means anything special. IF this trade happens, it's only because we'd be able to move up to #9 in the draft, and that would be because we think there's someone there that will be something special.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

But then you know what you are getting in Chandler, a guy who can't play offense, can't play defense, and can only rebound.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

As I said in my last post, I don't have a great sample size of Murphy at Golden State. Probably seen him play 20 times his whole NBA career. 

But he just never struck me as a terrible defender. And I don't know how such a good rebounder can be a "bad" defender. Certainly rebounding doesn't mean everything in defense. Far from it. But its pretty darn important. He's not an atheltic freak or anything, so he must have a good nose for the ball and a desire to go get it.

As for the outside shooting, that part is obviously true. But doesn't Skiles' offense call for a 4 who can pick and pop? Seems to me it does. 

At Notre Dame I always considered Murphy a pretty rugged player. Is it possible that he fell into a system in Golden State that has emphasized his perimeter shot too much without an adequate emphasis on defense? 

I'm asking seriously. I consider myself pretty good at seeing through stats (which I've often argued here are horribly overrated) to the real net value of the player. Maybe I'm missing the boat with Murphy and he really isn't very good.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

I do it in a heartbeat


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

sloth said:


> But then you know what you are getting in Chandler, a guy who can't play offense, can't play defense, and can only rebound.


Sorry, sloth. You can indiscriminately throw out the "Chandler can't play defense" accusation until the cows come home, but that observation is worth about as much as the amount of evidence you've offered to support it -- nothing.


----------



## bruindre (Jul 18, 2004)

Ron Cey said:


> As I said in my last post, I don't have a great sample size of Murphy at Golden State. Probably seen him play 20 times his whole NBA career.
> 
> But he just never struck me as a terrible defender. And I don't know how such a good rebounder can be a "bad" defender. Certainly rebounding doesn't mean everything in defense. Far from it. But its pretty darn important. He's not an atheltic freak or anything, so he must have a good nose for the ball and a desire to go get it.
> 
> ...


No. At the end of the 2004-05 season, it was clear the W's needed a low-post threat on offense, and all around improved defense. Murphy made a concerted effort to play down low for maybe the first 15 games of the 2005-06 season, but kept getting his **** blocked (the guy can't get off the floor for the life of him), so he ran back to the 15-25 footers. 

And his D is, putting it nicely, below average.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

sloth said:


> But then you know what you are getting in Chandler, a guy who can't play offense, can't play defense, and can only rebound.


Do you consider a 7' guy shooting 43% able to play offense? I sure as hell don't. I'd say that's a piss poor excuse for a 7', in that he resorts to shooting jump shots, doesn't block shots, and doesn't even rebound as well as Chandler. That lower shooting % is just like a turnover you know. OR, you could say that Tyson getting another 1.5 rebounds, and over 1 block per game more is like getting another 5 points in his favor. So if you're comparing 14 ppg to Tyson's projected and giving him another 5 for those other things he does, he's at 11.73. And he does that at a 13% better field goal %. And yes Tyson can play D little man. He's not Ben Wallace, but you don't rank #14 in the NBA in blocks by not playing D. He ranks #1 in rebounds per 48, #2 in O rebounds per 48, #3 in O rebounds per game, #4 in O rebounds, #15 in rebounds and rebounds per game. I'd say that makes him pretty valuable, cause it allows his teammates to score, even if he doesn't.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

mr.ankle20 said:


> are you kidding me ? Tyson has to be one of the worst Big Men I have seen in a while . He Has been with the bulls for five years and his game has not improve at all . His offense sucks , His defense is overrated on this board and he is a decent rebounder thats about it . This guy still makes rookie mistakes with fouls .



We will have to agree to disagree. It seems a lot of people only have short term memory, Tyson has had some of those 15 pt 20reb 3blk type games. He isn't an offensive player and I don't really expect that out of him. Defensively he is probably UNDERRATED if anything on this board. He's a very good rebounder and he is getting to the age where his potential may be maximised in the next season or two.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

A double-double big, A defensive minded SG and a chance to move up 7 spots, for Chandler + #16?

there's NO way you pass on that...none


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> My answer to that proposal is a resounding HELL NO! Pietrus is nothing special at all, Murphy shoots 13% lower than Chandler, at 43%. For a near 7 footer, that is HORRIBLE! He blocks .3 shots a game, vs Chandler's 1.3. He has 10 RPG compared to Chandler's 9, BUT he was playing 34 minutes a game vs 26. So when you're playing 3/4 as many minutes and still getting 9/10 rebounds, much better rebounder and shot blocker. If you project Chandler's stats per minute, here's what you get
> 
> ----------------Murphy-----Chandler Projected----------Chandler Actual
> Rebounds---------10---------------11.43----------------------9
> ...


So, let me make sure I've got this straight. Murphy outboards Chandler by 1 a game. Nearly triples his scoring productivity, more steals and assists. Chandler "shoots" (I use that term loosely) a higher percentage and is a better shot blocker... and you'd rather keep Chandler????

I always like when folks try to normalize the stats to make them look better in the light of a point that they're trying to make. Ya know, if Tyson could have only stayed on the floor for 34 minutes a game - look what he could have done. The problem with that mode of thought is that Chandler can't stay on the floor for 34 minutes a game and that, in and of itself, is a problem. 

Murphy is hardly someone to write home about, but then again, neither is Chandler. The thing that makes this deal so appealing (and hence probably pretty unlikely) is that Chandler is replaced by the #9 pick in either O'Bryant or Sene. Maybe those guys don't give you what Chandler does right off the bat, but I'd wager that in less than two years they would and then some - and that's the point of the deal.

I just think that from an overall standpoint that Murphy would give this team more than Chandler would. In and of themselves, neither player is gonna make a great deal of difference; I just feel that Murphy would fit in better with what Skiles and Pax want in a big.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> My answer to that proposal is a resounding HELL NO! Pietrus is nothing special at all, Murphy shoots 13% lower than Chandler, at 43%. For a near 7 footer, that is HORRIBLE! He blocks .3 shots a game, vs Chandler's 1.3. He has 10 RPG compared to Chandler's 9, BUT he was playing 34 minutes a game vs 26. So when you're playing 3/4 as many minutes and still getting 9/10 rebounds, much better rebounder and shot blocker. If you project Chandler's stats per minute, here's what you get
> 
> ----------------Murphy-----Chandler Projected----------Chandler Actual
> Rebounds---------10---------------11.43----------------------9
> ...



"A proven big man in Chandler?" A truly hysterical comment. Thanks for the yuk!


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

fl_flash said:


> So, let me make sure I've got this straight. Murphy outboards Chandler by 1 a game. Nearly triples his scoring productivity, more steals and assists. Chandler "shoots" (I use that term loosely) a higher percentage and is a better shot blocker... and you'd rather keep Chandler????
> 
> I always like when folks try to normalize the stats to make them look better in the light of a point that they're trying to make. Ya know, if Tyson could have only stayed on the floor for 34 minutes a game - look what he could have done. The problem with that mode of thought is that Chandler can't stay on the floor for 34 minutes a game and that, in and of itself, is a problem.
> 
> ...


Agreed

Miss Chandler? Sign Pryzbilla


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

bruindre said:


> No. At the end of the 2004-05 season, it was clear the W's needed a low-post threat on offense, and all around improved defense. Murphy made a concerted effort to play down low for maybe the first 15 games of the 2005-06 season, but kept getting his **** blocked (the guy can't get off the floor for the life of him), so he ran back to the 15-25 footers.
> 
> And his D is, putting it nicely, below average.


This is a pretty good summary. Ron, from what I can guess about your tastes, I can pretty confidently say that you would hate Troy Murphy as a Bull within about a week or two. I always had a hunch I didn't like him, and after watching a lot of his games this year for rotisserie purposes, my hunch became an outright certainty.

He has no post game whatsoever. None other than putbacks or accidents. He is a total face-up player. As bruindre notes, he's not athletic enough to get things done down low. His pet post move is a very ineffective step-back jumper.

He is like Rodman in the twilight years in that he will eagerly quit on a play to gain position for a defensive board. He's not a good offensive boarder to begin with, and he's become even less so as he's become so perimeter oriented.

He doesn't hustle, he doesn't hit the deck, he drifts for large parts of the game. His jumper is extremely streaky, and if he's not on he will miss a lot of wide-open shots (e.g., I would consider someone like Songaila to be a vastly superior shooter, even w/o the three-point range).

His defense is just flat-out atrocious -- he's basically Sweetney with less of a tendency to foul. I think he would drive Skiles insane in this department.

I honestly believe that any team that would feature Murphy for 30+ minutes a night is putting itself in a deep, deep hole.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I'm glad that everyone has used this thread as a chance to speak positively about Tyson Chandler. If I could tell him to read one recent thread on this board, this would be it. He would probably tell me that he feels good but the sloth kid is a *****!


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> Murphy is hardly someone to write home about, but then again, neither is Chandler. The thing that makes this deal so appealing (and hence probably pretty unlikely) is that Chandler is replaced by the #9 pick in either O'Bryant or Sene. Maybe those guys don't give you what Chandler does right off the bat, but I'd wager that in less than two years they would and then some - and that's the point of the deal.


The Bulls score more points with Chandler on the floor vs. off. They play better defense as measured by FG% with him on the floor vs. off. They shoot much a higher offensive FG% with him on vs. off. They rebound much better with him on vs. off. This was all with Tyson having an off year, mind you.

We are a better team with Chandler on the floor vs. off -- indisputably. On the 47-win team, his worth was even more pronounced. I'm not sure that replacing him with Murphy (with whom the Warriors are much better off having on the bench vs. on the court) and a massive project at #9 is a smart idea.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I'm glad that everyone has used this thread as a chance to speak positively about Tyson Chandler. If I could tell him to read one recent thread on this board, this would be it. *He would probably tell me that he feels good but the sloth kid is a *****!*


Just make sure that you remind Chandler that *Sluggo! (Sloth!)* is still bitter that the Bull traded his Boo -- Curry -- at the same time they re-signed Tyson. *Slug/Sloth!* has never quite recovered....


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I'm glad that everyone has used this thread as a chance to speak positively about Tyson Chandler. If I could tell him to read one recent thread on this board, this would be it. He would probably tell me that he feels good but the sloth kid is a *****!


So what your saying is Tyson is basically a good judge of character, right? :biggrin: :angel:


----------



## OziBull (Nov 7, 2004)

I havent given up on Tyson yet. I am still hoping! :brokenhea 
I am a strong believer if you get an offensive big next to him our front court is going to be a good mix and very effective.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> The Bulls score more points with Chandler on the floor vs. off. They play better defense as measured by FG% with him on the floor vs. off. They shoot much a higher offensive FG% with him on vs. off. They rebound much better with him on vs. off. This was all with Tyson having an off year, mind you.
> 
> We are a better team with Chandler on the floor vs. off -- indisputably. On the 47-win team, his worth was even more pronounced. I'm not sure that replacing him with Murphy (with whom the Warriors are much better off having on the bench vs. on the court) and a massive project at #9 is a smart idea.



I concur, and this is why everyone is so down on Tyson - we're so much better with him, yet for seemingly half the year we were without him.

This, though, does not mean he is bad, which is a notion that's lodged in th eback of many people's opinions. He _is_ bad on offense, perhaps terrible. But even with that, he makes us better as a team. I think this is so, so overlooked.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

OziBull said:


> I havent given up on Tyson yet. I am still hoping! :brokenhea
> I am a strong believer if you get an offensive big next to him our front court is going to be a good mix and very effective.


I really hope you are right. I really do. I bash Tyson a lot, but I just hope he can become better. If he works out with this 'guy' all offseason and shows no improvement, I want him out though. The guy needs to realize he sucks and work at his game. Thats what separates the best who have played this game and the rest of the league. Those guys continue to work hard and improve their game during the offseason. I'm not saying Tyson will become the KG he was compared to when he was drafted. But to show signs of promise and play like a smart vet. If he could provide what Zo does for the Heat, I'll be happy. Watching game 6, you saw how valuable Zo was. If Tyson could do that while being able to stay on the court, and just be able to make a few simple offensive moves, I would be happy. But if he can't do that, he needs to be out. 

Deng was said to be working out at 9pm-ish when Aldridge worked out for us. That is what separates the real core of our team from Tyson. 

I think Tyson is great for our team, but if we can add pieces to the team who replace what he gave us (Pryz, Tyrus?) without losing much, I'm up for it.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

> Deng was said to be working out at 9pm-ish when Aldridge worked out for us. That is what separates the real core of our team from Tyson.


Why do we hold this against Tyson, and not Kirk, or Ben, or Andres, or Randy, or any other of the 13 players who weren't there? Why is this exclusive to Tyson?

And why are we to be bothered if he's not shooting jumpshots at 9pm?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Sham said:


> Why do we hold this against Tyson, and not Kirk, or Ben, or Andres, or Randy, or any other of the 13 players who weren't there? Why is this exclusive to Tyson?
> 
> And why are we to be bothered if he's not shooting jumpshots at 9pm?


Isn't Nocioni preparing for the World Cup? Kirk's in Kansas I think for the Alumni game. Livingston is working out with Tyrus Thomas. Ben is working out with Charlie V., Marcus Williams, etc. You can go ask Ben if you want why he's not working out at the Berto Center.

His AIM is: bg4307, send him a message and ask if you want.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Sham said:


> Why do we hold this against Tyson, and not Kirk, or Ben, or Andres, or Randy, or any other of the 13 players who weren't there? Why is this exclusive to Tyson?
> 
> And why are we to be bothered if he's not shooting jumpshots at 9pm?


Because Tyson has shown no signs of improvement whatsoever. 

Deng - Injured last offseason. But strengthed his left hand for shooting/lay-ups.
Kirk - He sets the example. He works out and has shown improvement in his game.
Duhon - Became a better 3 point shooter
Gordon - I don't think he has done too much to improve from last year. But has shown little signs of defensive improvement. Tyson has not shown any offensive improvement whatsoever.
Noce - The kid improved vastly. Became a lot better shooter.

I can care less about Randy Livingston. The team is not going to go far if we have to depend on scrubs like him, Pargo, Luke, etc. And the rest of these guys will not be paid Tyson-esque ever.

If Tyson can magically improve his game vastly without ever getting off the couch, I can care less if he does. Sorta like Iverson not practicing (few years back). I can care less if you produce when it counts. Skiles might think otherwise :biggrin:


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

sloth said:


> Isn't Nocioni preparing for the World Cup? Kirk's in Kansas I think for the Alumni game. Livingston is working out with Tyrus Thomas. Ben is working out with Charlie V., Marcus Williams, etc. You can go ask Ben if you want why he's not working out at the Berto Center.
> 
> His AIM is: bg4307, send him a message and ask if you want.


LOL. Hilarious post. Yeah, Noce is still playing. Kirk is a workhorse. 

Maybe if Tyson went to a top-notch program, he'd have that workethic. Who knows. I just want the guy to improve for the sake of the team and to justify his contract.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

> Because Tyson has shown no signs of improvement whatsoever.


This is another thing I hate to hear.

From 2005 to 2006, no, he didn't.

From 2002 to 2005, yes, he did. A lot.

But this is generally forgotten, because people still see that Tyson has a gaping lack of ball skills and say that he hasn't improved from his rookie year, and that he just does the same sort of things with more regularity.


............


That *IS* improving, isn't it?


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Yes, but how come there were no signs of it this past year? When we needed him the most, he was MIA. He had a few good games, the block on Melo to win at Denver. But, I just don't expect a player to improve continusouly and all of a sudden totally regress in some aspects of the game. I can understand a slump here and there, but to show no capablity in certain parts of your game, is just plain wrong.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Sham, with you being one of the last Chanlder supporters, I really hope you are right and I am wrong. I am a fan of keeping players we draft, and HOPING they develop and lead us to the promise land. But, Chandler has lost my confidence in him, and I hope the he brings it back.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> Yes, but how come there were no signs of it this past year? When we needed him the most, he was MIA. He had a few good games, the block on Melo to win at Denver. But, I just don't expect a player to improve continusouly and all of a sudden totally regress in some aspects of the game. I can understand a slump here and there, but to show no capablity in certain parts of your game, is just plain wrong.



I don't condone it. But, whereas some people dismiss the first four years and focus on last year, I do it the other way around.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

FWIW Sham, I still believe in Chandler.

He's just going to turn 24 this year.

Its not like he is 30. He still has a couple of years before he is supposed to hit his prime.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

For those who are bashing Chandler, I'd like to know your answer to this question.

Why was there a drop-off in Chandler's production last season?

He was one of our top 3 players production wise in our 47 win season and, IMO, one of our main sources of competitive advantage.

1.) Lack of practice/improvement of game in the off-season.
2.) Injuries
3.) Satisfaction with fat new contract... loss of the desire.
4.) Not surrounded by players by players who complement his skill set, like we had the previous year in AD/Curry.
5.) Other.

Chandler was damn effective for us the season before last. Its the reason Paxson resigned him to the big deal. If you think he's done, never going back to the old, effective Chandler, then why not?

If you think that #1 is one of the main culprits, then why was he so effective two seasons ago? Did he have an epic off-season of practice?


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

kukoc4ever said:


> For those who are bashing Chandler, I'd like to know your answer to this question.
> 
> Why was there a drop-off in Chandler's production last season?
> 
> ...


Combo of 2 and 4. 4 moreso than anything I think.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Sham said:


> This is another thing I hate to hear.
> 
> From 2005 to 2006, no, he didn't.
> 
> ...


I'd have to take issue with this... Tyson was a far better overall player his first two years in the league - before he had the back problem and esphogitis (and his confidence has been shattered). He put up enough 15pt 18 board-type games to make one believe there was something special there. He was confident and aggressive. Since then, he's regressed and I can't see how anybody can say he's improved. His points are down. His rebounding is down. His blocks are down. He can't stay on the floor. In short, he's not what he was.

Also, you'd think in a five year span you'd see _something_ of a semblance of offensive skill. Some sort of move. A jump hook. A drive to the middle and simply outjump everyone to get a shot off. A face up jumper or some sort of dribble drive. Something.

As to his work habits - his lack of any real, tangible improvement kind of lends itself to speculation on how hard he's actually working on getting better. You cite Hinrich, Duhon, Gordon, etc and yet all these players have improved in some facet of their game. Tyson hasn't. After five offseasons of waiting for that miraculous blooming of his hidden talents I'm of the opinion that a leopard isn't going to change his spots and what I've heard this offseason is that nothing much has changed.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> For those who are bashing Chandler, I'd like to know your answer to this question.
> 
> Why was there a drop-off in Chandler's production last season?
> 
> ...



I think it is a combination of 1 & 4. He didn't work hard this offseason, not because he is lazy, but because it was a contract year and noone wants to get hurt before they sign that big deal. Also, we played him out of position at center and had NO real bigs to put next to him.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> For those who are bashing Chandler, I'd like to know your answer to this question.
> 
> 1.) Lack of practice/improvement of game in the off-season?
> 3.) Satisfaction with fat new contract... loss of the desire.
> ...


I think the reasons I kept above are why he regressed. Do I think he will be the Chandler of old? Hard to say. I think if we improve the personal of this team, yes he can. But that will not be the only thing needed to bring back the 2004-2005 Tyson. He has to put in some work in his game and regain some confidence. I think the personal who would bring back the old Tyson would be Nene and Aldridge. If we get a bunch of players who bring what Tyson does, I don't think it helps our team much, and if he plays worse than them, Tyson might not leave the bench.

I liked Tyson for what he did, but he better not come in this year like last. I don't want him to say he has no confidence and pout about it. Maybe this bad season for him is a blessing as he will face reality and improve his game to new heights? Who knows?

As I said, comments 1, 3, and 4 are why I think he regressed. Team changes and him working out need to occur for him to regain his old-self. I also want him to improve his offense. Fine if he can't hit the jumper. At least be able to hit a shot from 5' away from the hoop. You are 7'1", no excuse for you to not be able to hit that.

I don't want to seem like an a$$ guys, but I hope he gets better for this team. But if he shows no signs of improvement or at least regains his form of giving us 10,12,2 and those 20 + 20 games now and then, I will not support him.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

fl_flash said:


> I'd have to take issue with this... Tyson was a far better overall player his first two years in the league - before he had the back problem and esphogitis (and his confidence has been shattered). He put up enough 15pt 18 board-type games to make one believe there was something special there. He was confident and aggressive. Since then, he's regressed and I can't see how anybody can say he's improved. His points are down. His rebounding is down. His blocks are down. He can't stay on the floor. In short, he's not what he was.
> 
> Also, you'd think in a five year span you'd see _something_ of a semblance of offensive skill. Some sort of move. A jump hook. A drive to the middle and simply outjump everyone to get a shot off. A face up jumper or some sort of dribble drive. Something.
> 
> As to his work habits - his lack of any real, tangible improvement kind of lends itself to speculation on how hard he's actually working on getting better. You cite Hinrich, Duhon, Gordon, etc and yet all these players have improved in some facet of their game. Tyson hasn't. After five offseasons of waiting for that miraculous blooming of his hidden talents I'm of the opinion that a leopard isn't going to change his spots and what I've heard this offseason is that nothing much has changed.


I agree with all your points. This is why I have jumped over the fence onto the other side regarding Tyson. Great post.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

ace20004u said:


> I think it is a combination of 1 & 4. He didn't work hard this offseason, not because he is lazy, but because it was a contract year and noone wants to get hurt before they sign that big deal. Also, we played him out of position at center and had NO real bigs to put next to him.


I understand not working out and getting injured a la Willie Green. But that was during a game. Tyson could have at least practice FTs, Js, and hook shots with a personal trainer in his driveway. There's no excuse for that.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Lack of desire, and a lack of practice which goes hand in hand with a lack of desire. Besides that, he is an incredibly stupid player on the court, and that doesn't help his cause any. Maybe because I make 50% of my jumpshots, but I can't fathom how hard it is to bank in a shot from within 10 feet, it is incredibly easy. The job of a big man is so easy in the NBA, I wish I was a bit taller, I'd be a top center in the league. But I'm probaly going to max out at 6'6" tops, so I really can't see myself playing anything bigger than a shootingguard/small forward if I get to the NBA. A lack of desire is a big problem with big men, its astounding that they can't bank it off the backboard at a 80% clip, and the best guy is only coming in at around 60%, their job is incredibly easy, if I go on a big late growth spurt, and can get up to 7'0" and 250 pounds, I'm sorry, but I'm the next great center in the NBA its just that easy. All you have to do is bank up a shot off the backboard. Especially a guy like Tyson who has length over everyone and athleticism so he could get his shot off before the guy could get to it, he just has to bank it off the freaking glass, that is so freaking easy. The quality of big men in the NBA is an utter joke for how easy their offensive game has to be in basketball.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> I'd have to take issue with this... Tyson was a far better overall player his first two years in the league - before he had the back problem and esphogitis (and his confidence has been shattered). He put up enough 15pt 18 board-type games to make one believe there was something special there. He was confident and aggressive. Since then, he's regressed and I can't see how anybody can say he's improved. His points are down. His rebounding is down. His blocks are down. He can't stay on the floor. In short, he's not what he was.


Yah, I should have added this to my list of answers to the question.

Deep down, I think Cartwright/Krause were willing to develop Tyson. I think PaxSkiles, especially Skiles, they just want him to rebound and block shots... I think they have given up on him offensively.

I remember several double digit offensive outputs from Chander. Heck, he was developing a shot from the elbow that I was comfortable with him taking.. and an ugly yet somewhat effective hook. I think under Skiles these skills will never be developed.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> For those who are bashing Chandler, I'd like to know your answer to this question.
> 
> Why was there a drop-off in Chandler's production last season?
> 
> ...



A combiantion of 1), 4), and:

6) When Chandler's head drops, it REALLY drops.


We can't say if it is or it isn't number 3), because we don't know that, and have nothing to base it on. I hope it's not the case. But we have definite evidence of number 1) - Tyson's free throw shooting technique didn't turn into a bowl of wet slurry through _over_practice.





> Since then, he's regressed and I can't see how anybody can say he's improved. His points are down. His rebounding is down. His blocks are down. He can't stay on the floor. In short, he's not what he was.



Right, and I largely attribute this to Kukoc5ever's point number 4.

Last year, through a simple lack of alternatives, Tyson drew all the man to man defensive assignments in the lane. He has not, and may never be, any good at this, since he has bad defensive footwork. It resulted in all them fouls, a big drop off in blocks, and a lot of offensive rebounds for the other team as, if the missed shot bounced away from Tyson, no one else laid claim to it unless a perimeter player dropped back.

In short, it played all to Tyson's weaknesses, because Antonio Davis wasn't there. When Davis could defend the main post player, Tyson could free roam on the glass, provide the help defense he's very good at, and foul considerably less.

Unfortunately, Malik Allen and Darius Songaila aren't Antonio Davis.

This is why I think we really, REALLY need a Davis type player (mid range jump shot, good man to man defense, solid rebounder) more than we need someone who will score. Because I bet that if we do, it will lead ot the resurrection of Tyson. And we need that.

But Troy Murphy isn't this guy.




> Also, you'd think in a five year span you'd see something of a semblance of offensive skill. Some sort of move. A jump hook. A drive to the middle and simply outjump everyone to get a shot off. A face up jumper or some sort of dribble drive. Something.


I agree. It's annoying. You can't do much with bad hands and no body control, though.

Although I maintain that, for a while, there was. He patented his flail, and then actually hit the resulting free throws. he also used to take and make one elbow jumpshot a game, and we wouldn't cringe at him trying. He would also get out and run. It's a shame this all disappeared down the Viktor Khyrapa, but in the words if Lee Trevino, maybe there's a spark in the fire still. He just needs to throw a log on it.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> The Bulls score more points with Chandler on the floor vs. off. They play better defense as measured by FG% with him on the floor vs. off. They shoot much a higher offensive FG% with him on vs. off. They rebound much better with him on vs. off. This was all with Tyson having an off year, mind you.
> 
> We are a better team with Chandler on the floor vs. off -- indisputably. On the 47-win team, his worth was even more pronounced. I'm not sure that replacing him with Murphy (with whom the Warriors are much better off having on the bench vs. on the court) and a massive project at #9 is a smart idea.


We rarely agree, but I'm with you 100% on this. When he's playing well Chandler is an impact player, regardless of how poor an offensive player he is. People really have short memories if they forget how important Chandler was to the Bulls two seasons ago.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Count me in as well on that deal.
> 
> 16 --> 9 = upgrade
> Chandler --> Murphy = wash/slight loss
> ...


That's about how I feel. I hate Troy Murphy and think that he's a bad player, but put him in the right role (20 min/game, pick-and-roll type jump shooter) and he could probably help. Pietrus would be a worthwhile gamble to use behind Kirk and Ben. And with the #9 pick we could snag a fine player...I'm thinking Ronnie Brewer might still be there, maybe even O'Bryant.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

> I hate Troy Murphy and think that he's a bad player, but put him in the right role (20 min/game, pick-and-roll type jump shooter) and he could probably help.


In that case, lets keep Darius.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

Sham said:


> I don't condone it. But, whereas some people dismiss the first four years and focus on last year, I do it the other way around.


I don't know if saying he improved is as accurate as saying that he found a greater level of comfort and familiarity with the NBA game.

I can't think of much in his skillset that has improved. He can run and jump, and uses those attributes to rebound and block shots. He has little to no ball skills, commits dumb fouls, etc. I guess you can say he has improve his basketball IQ to modest extent, in terms of not quite hetting as many dumb fouls, and not trying to block everything, but thats it. And still, he is woefully lacking even in that area.

All that being said, I'd still prefer 04-05 Chandler or the Chandler that was around for about a month last season to Murphy. But I don't know how likely it is we can count on having that player.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

yodurk said:


> That's about how I feel. I hate Troy Murphy and think that he's a bad player, but put him in the right role (20 min/game, pick-and-roll type jump shooter) and he could probably help. Pietrus would be a worthwhile gamble to use behind Kirk and Ben. And with the #9 pick we could snag a fine player...I'm thinking Ronnie Brewer might still be there, maybe even O'Bryant.


I'm not a Murphy fan but he's not all that terrible. He's kind of like Darius Songaila offensively, but a way better rebounder. His 1/1 AST/TO ratio isn't bad for a guy who's 6'11''. The contract does stink though.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Sham said:


> Right, and I largely attribute this to Kukoc5ever's point number 4.
> 
> Last year, through a simple lack of alternatives, Tyson drew all the man to man defensive assignments in the lane. He has not, and may never be, any good at this, since he has bad defensive footwork. It resulted in all them fouls, a big drop off in blocks, and a lot of offensive rebounds for the other team as, if the missed shot bounced away from Tyson, no one else laid claim to it unless a perimeter player dropped back.
> 
> ...


This is all well and good Sham, but you're only addressing one side of the ball. I don't think you'll get too much argument that Tyson needs some mass next to him on the defensive end in order for him to guard the lesser of the other teams 4 or 5 and freelance somewhat around the rim to alter/block shots. No argument there. But what about his offense?

In my book, defense is about desire and effort; not as much about skill. Offense - you've got to consciously work on it. I don't question Tyson's desire or effort on defense - even when asked to do things he really shouldn't be doing like guarding Shaq or stopping the other teams best post player, staying out of foul trouble and still grab 10+ boards a game and block a couple of shots. He was set up to fail in that aspect this past season. Yet, in five years time his offense - which I contend you actually have to put in time to improve - has disappeared. The only way you can sink a 12 footer is to shoot that 12-footer over and over again. Wanna be a better Free Throw shooter? Park yourself in a gym and shoot a couple hundred of em a day. Can't catch the ball in the post? Get a couple of coaches to do nothing but throw you entry passes time and time again until you get it. Got a problem with bringing the ball down to your waist when you catch it? Again, have a couple of coaches work with you and every time you lower the ball he swats so damn hard at your wrists that you'll eventually get it. I could go on and on but the basic premise is that if you're going to improve the offensive aspect of your game, you've got to put in the time - plain and simple. There is no other way. Tyson has gotten worse over time which i can only conclude that not only hasn' he put in the time to work on _anything_ but whatever skill level he had he has let erode. 





> ...
> Although I maintain that, for a while, there was. He patented his flail, and then actually hit the resulting free throws. he also used to take and make one elbow jumpshot a game, and we wouldn't cringe at him trying. He would also get out and run. It's a shame this all disappeared down the Viktor Khyrapa, but in the words if Lee Trevino, maybe there's a spark in the fire still. He just needs to throw a log on it.


Maybe. My concern with Tyson was my same concern with Curry... It's up to nobody but Tyson to put that log on the fire and I'm losing confidence that he'll actually do it. I've seen nothing that would suggest that he's got the slightest inclination to do so and so far this offseason, I've not read a single blurb suggests anything has changed in that respect and if so, the log is still sitting in the wood pile and Tyson is still sitting in CA with his pretty wife, baby and Playstation. I hope he makes me wrong 'cause i still really like what he brings to the table - he just needs to make teams pay even the slightest attention to him while on offense.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Are talks evolving or is it just one sportswriters thoughts going second-hand to third-hand and eventually becoming a rumor with a new life?

Sam Smith heard this "the most" by June 12 and 10 days later Chad Ford picks up on it in a new and improved version? Hmmm...



*June 12*

Chicago Tribune

Troy Murphy and No. 9 for No. 2 and something, maybe Michael Sweetney. This is one you hear the most about. The Warriors are desperate for a big man and figure to want a shot at Aldridge or Thomas. They've got to pare payroll and Murphy has five years left, escalating up to almost $12 million. For the Bulls he would be a power forward who could start and hit a jump shot. And the Bulls could use the No. 9 pick and probably get a shooting guard, wing player or combo guard like Ronnie Brewer, Randy Foye or Rodney Carney and still get another big man at No. 16.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/bulls/cs-0606120187jun12,1,4289735.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines

*June 22*

ESPN Insider

Another has the Warriors sending Pietrus, Murphy and the No. 9 to the Bulls for Tyson Chandler and the No. 16.


SI quoting Chicago Tribune

Here's one you hear the most about: The Warriors' Troy Murphy and No. 9 to the Bulls for No. 2 and something, maybe Michael Sweetney. The Warriors are desperate for a big man and figure to want a shot at LaMarcus Aldridge or Tyrus Thomas. They've got to pare payroll and Murphy has five years left, escalating up to almost $12 million. _ -- Chicago Tribune_

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/scorecard/06/12/truth.rumors.nba/index.html


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

And Sam's version of the trade would be flat out awful. Is the change a result of Pax working a better deal?


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

> This is all well and good Sham, but you're only addressing one side of the ball. I don't think you'll get too much argument that Tyson needs some mass next to him on the defensive end in order for him to guard the lesser of the other teams 4 or 5 and freelance somewhat around the rim to alter/block shots. No argument there. But what about his offense?
> 
> In my book, defense is about desire and effort; not as much about skill. Offense - you've got to consciously work on it. I don't question Tyson's desire or effort on defense - even when asked to do things he really shouldn't be doing like guarding Shaq or stopping the other teams best post player, staying out of foul trouble and still grab 10+ boards a game and block a couple of shots. He was set up to fail in that aspect this past season. Yet, in five years time his offense - which I contend you actually have to put in time to improve - has disappeared. The only way you can sink a 12 footer is to shoot that 12-footer over and over again. Wanna be a better Free Throw shooter? Park yourself in a gym and shoot a couple hundred of em a day. Can't catch the ball in the post? Get a couple of coaches to do nothing but throw you entry passes time and time again until you get it. Got a problem with bringing the ball down to your waist when you catch it? Again, have a couple of coaches work with you and every time you lower the ball he swats so damn hard at your wrists that you'll eventually get it. I could go on and on but the basic premise is that if you're going to improve the offensive aspect of your game, you've got to put in the time - plain and simple. There is no other way. Tyson has gotten worse over time which i can only conclude that not only hasn' he put in the time to work on anything but whatever skill level he had he has let erode.



Despite my log comment int he earleir post, I kinda quit on this a while ago. He DID improve at this for a while, mainly under Bill Cartwright. And only the lack of effort made it so blatantly crappy this past year. It was reasonable before.

Putting in effort won't overcome his bad hands and God given right to drop the ball as soon as someoen hits him. But it would, as you said, make him at least available on that end. The only offensive thing he seemed to add before and during last season was that his passing vision and skill went from crap to mediocre.





> Maybe. My concern with Tyson was my same concern with Curry... It's up to nobody but Tyson to put that log on the fire and I'm losing confidence that he'll actually do it. I've seen nothing that would suggest that he's got the slightest inclination to do so and so far this offseason, I've not read a single blurb suggests anything has changed in that respect and if so, the log is still sitting in the wood pile and Tyson is still sitting in CA with his pretty wife, baby and Playstation. I hope he makes me wrong 'cause i still really like what he brings to the table - he just needs to make teams pay even the slightest attention to him while on offense.


Again, I concur. I'm a Chandler supporter, but I'm not going to invent things ina bid to defend him. And what you said all rings true.

I just hope it's happening silently. He said it would. So here's hoping. All players are allowed a bit of time off after the season, but they've had a good month. Let's get back hard at it now.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Deep down, I think Cartwright/Krause were willing to develop Tyson. I think PaxSkiles, especially Skiles, they just want him to rebound and block shots... I think they have given up on him offensively.


This is ridiculous.

If Tyson is a brimming offensive giant then Paxson and Skiles are going to give him the same tough love / length of rope that they gave to Gordon, Deng, and Nocioni.

Paxson is a very good talent evaluator. If he and Skiles look at Tyson and don't see any offense, it's a real likely chance that its because there isn't any there.

I am mystified as to why Tyson gave up shooting those jumpshots that he was working one. But anyone would have to agree that for a team without a "superstar" those jumpshots were better taken by Nocioni, Hinrich, Gordon, etc than by Tyson.


----------



## UMfan83 (Jan 15, 2003)

I'm sure this has been touched upon, but do this trade, take Roy at #2, O'Bryant at #9, trade Gordon (for Frye?? You'll certainly have great options) sign a post player


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I posted this in the draft workout thread, but maybe you know the answer, has Pax worked out, or will work out O'Bryant?


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

Sham said:


> Pietrus really is not that good. He came into the league with people moistened over his potential, and in the three years he has been here, he has barely improved. He's still not the defender he could be, he still resorts to mediocre jumpshooting, and he's still French.
> 
> Moving up 7 spots would be nice but I still don't think it is necessary.
> 
> This move, by the way, would also take an extra 3 million out of the cap room.



Your comments about Pietrus are what everyone was saying about Diaw. Though I do agree, I hate the French.

As for the cap space loss, that's why the Marion Deal is the worst in the discussions because he's not gonna play center for us and it's very easy to find a good PF. Yes, he's better than average, but not by much.

I would rather see the GS deal because at 9 I think we can grab O'Bryant.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Sham said:


> Right, and I largely attribute this to Kukoc5ever's point number 4.
> 
> Last year, through a simple lack of alternatives, Tyson drew all the man to man defensive assignments in the lane. He has not, and may never be, any good at this, since he has bad defensive footwork. It resulted in all them fouls, a big drop off in blocks, and a lot of offensive rebounds for the other team as, if the missed shot bounced away from Tyson, no one else laid claim to it unless a perimeter player dropped back.
> 
> ...


I hate this reasoning. Tyson didn't have an AD-type player next to him when he went through a 2 month stretch of good rebounding. He was back to his 04-05 form from mid January to mid March. To me the AD excuse is such a cop out. With Tyson, everything is mental. He has to play with confidence.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

UMfan83 said:


> I'm sure this has been touched upon, but do this trade, take Roy at #2, O'Bryant at #9, trade Gordon (for Frye?? You'll certainly have great options) sign a post player


go peep paxson's new interview

he said he isn't trading ben unless it's a blockbuster


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> I hate this reasoning. Tyson didn't have an AD-type player next to him when he went through a 2 month stretch of good rebounding. He was back to his 04-05 form from mid January to mid March. To me the AD excuse is such a cop out. With Tyson, everything is mental. He has to play with confidence.



When Tyson had his streak of double digit rebounds (13 in a row, 14 of 15), who started alongside him for all 15?

Othella Harrington.

Harrington hardly played as a starter during this time, and so there's a case to be made for it being a coincedence. But was it? Given how effective a pairing they were in 0/405 as well, when Harrington played a lot more and started 20ish games at center?

Is it so hard to believe that playing alongside his co-captain, that he knows and can trust, and that has proven over time to bring the best out of him, is what made Tyson turn the corner? And when Othella couldn't see the light of day towards the end of the season and playoffs, a time in which Tyson too started to disappear again, is this also a coincidence?

Can it really be a coincidence when it's applicable to almost every game in a 90 game season?

I think I just discovered myself a theory.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

DO THIS DEAL NOW PAX!!!!!!!!!! dont think,just say that one small word DEAL....

while your at it,get over your fan boy love for ben and pack him in the deal for Jrich.throw in a 08 1st if need be....


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

bulls said:


> DO THIS DEAL NOW PAX!!!!!!!!!! dont think,just say that one small word DEAL....
> 
> while your at it,get over your fan boy love for ben and pack him in the deal for Jrich.throw in a 08 1st if need be....


and turn the garbage warriors into the bulls?

no thanks

2 guys are enuff


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

GB said:


> This is ridiculous.


No, its not.



> If Tyson is a brimming offensive giant


Noone is saying such a dramatic thing. He used to be more involved in the offense. Now he never touches the ball... and its a snowball effect to the point where he's so uncomfortable touching the ball now that he just avoids it... and Skiles is seemingly happy with that as well.





> Paxson is a very good talent evaluator.


Other than Noc, I'm not sure what you base this on. Hinrich, Gordon and Deng were all blue chip NCAA types that have pretty much developed as expected. LOL, its like if he draft Brandon Roy and he turns out decent, then its another example of Paxson the great talent evaluator. He's the safe pick with the lowest downside. He's going to be decent at worst.




> If he and Skiles look at Tyson and don't see any offense, it's a real likely chance that its because there isn't any there.


No, we used to see it developing. Now its abandoned.




> I am mystified as to why Tyson gave up shooting those jumpshots that he was working one.


B/C the coach does not what him to?




> But anyone would have to agree that for a team without a "superstar" those jumpshots were better taken by Nocioni, Hinrich, Gordon, etc than by Tyson.


Fine... but if that’s the attitude then nobody should be complaining about Tyson's lack of offense.




Back to the trade... Troy Murphy is a meaningless player. I've seen Chandler be a main cog in our only winning team since MJ. Unless Simmons or O'Bryant are going to be better than Chandler, then I don't do the trade.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Other than Noc, I'm not sure what you base this on. Hinrich, Gordon and Deng were all blue chip NCAA types that have pretty much developed as expected. LOL, its like if he draft Brandon Roy and he turns out decent, then its another example of Paxson the great talent evaluator. He's the safe pick with the lowest downside. He's going to be decent at worst.


How is a 6'2" shooting guard a safe pick? 

There have been plenty of blue chip NCAA types that have failed.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> How is a 6'2" shooting guard a safe pick?
> 
> There have been plenty of blue chip NCAA types that have failed.



Gordon can play basketball. 

There is no such thing as a sure thing, but Paxson loves the NCAA vetting process. 

He's a coachable player that had performed well in the big games and supposedly knows how to play “the right way.”


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Hmm, I have to agree that Tyson doesn't have any offensive talent, because we saw all sorts of offensive talent in Tyson early on. Cartwright was getting an offensive game out of Tyson that hasn't been there since he left. Like I said in other posts, the Bulls are in dire need of a big man coach. Skiles got the best out of Eddy yet, but under Skiles Tyson is a dwarf of the player he was in his early years in the league. I'm not sure if its too late to right ship on Tyson, but he had a really good game under Cartwright, its what we are seeing in Sene right now, a guy that is all over the place blocking stuff, and scores because of his athleticism and length. Tyson used to have it, what happened to it I don't know, because he is neither the offensive or defensive player that he used to be under Cartwright, and its a shame.


----------



## WarriorFan64 (Jul 4, 2005)

The ROY said:


> and turn the garbage warriors into the bulls?
> 
> no thanks
> 
> 2 guys are enuff


Garbage Warriors, no way we could be just as good as you guys or better, we just missing a center.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

FWIW, Rick Carlisle never involved Ben Wallace in Detroit's offense.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

sloth said:


> Hmm, I have to agree that Tyson doesn't have any offensive talent, because we saw all sorts of offensive talent in Tyson early on. Cartwright was getting an offensive game out of Tyson that hasn't been there since he left. Like I said in other posts, the Bulls are in dire need of a big man coach. Skiles got the best out of Eddy yet, but under Skiles Tyson is a dwarf of the player he was in his early years in the league. I'm not sure if its too late to right ship on Tyson, but he had a really good game under Cartwright, its what we are seeing in Sene right now, a guy that is all over the place blocking stuff, and scores because of his athleticism and length. Tyson used to have it, what happened to it I don't know, because he is neither the offensive or defensive player that he used to be under Cartwright, and its a shame.


I actually have to agree with you there Sloth, about the Bulls needing to bring someone in to coach Chandler. He is simply too good at some aspects of the game to give up on. If coached correctly so he could be more rounded, he'd be a stud. Granted I've liked him ever since he was a rookie, and have always liked him more than Curry. But then again I've always been a fan of the tall lanky shot blockers over the big bulky battering ram-types.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> This move, by the way, would also take an extra 3 million out of the cap room.


Quick calculations only have it a tiny smidgen over $2M. Plus considering we have $20M to spend, I doubt the extra $1M will really make a difference.



> If you project Chandler's stats per minute, here's what you get


People rush to use this in defense of Tyson, but can't realise that they're hurting him moreso.


> I hate this reasoning. Tyson didn't have an AD-type player next to him when he went through a 2 month stretch of good rebounding. He was back to his 04-05 form from mid January to mid March. To me the AD excuse is such a cop out.


I agree.

As much as I would love to get Pietrus and move up in the draft, I really want no part in this trade, unless we could involve another team like New York and receive Maurice Taylor instead ($9.7M expiring contract).

Nene, Sweets, Butler
Aldridge, Allen, Taylor (Nocioni starting)
Deng, Nocioni
Gordon, Pietrus
Hinrich, Brewer, Duhon.

Something I'd be much happier with. Just say no to Murphy.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

I think this whole Troy Murphy talk is quite ridiculous. I would never trade chandler for murphy. he only gets those rebounds because he has been around chuckers most of the time with the warriors. what you expect with all those misses his bound to get rebounds espically at his height.

Also about us using the no.9 pick from golden state to get Sene? after losing Murphy? thats just absurd. We'd be so thin and inexperienced upfront we'd get burned. His whole length reasoning is over rated. veterans will simply outsmart him. out muscle him. he will be a foul per min player for his first few seasons. big men take the longest to develop and we'd be taking steps backwards in that regard after watching chandler develop into one of the premier defenders in the league (when his on the floor). and with the no.9 how could you possible pass up someone like R.Brewer. to choose sene? thats jsut crazy. i would get him at no.16 as a gamble. but no.9 is way too high. 

Our team is fine. we have to stop going crazy with our TRADE IMAGINATIONS. Unless its for a substar or superstar we settle for a mediocore player and send away a core piece of our team that was crucial to us being in the play offs the last two years after not being in it for years. If you want to make trade ideas. make them BIG for crying out loud! to resort to TROY MURPHY? NEXT! 

We have free agency. and are in a good position in the draft. We need a big man that will play big IN THE POST. and a player that will slash to the basket for us. Those are the two biggest needs. Our achillies heel was not being able to make free throws. we're getting nowhere with a jump shooting big man. we need a guy like Nene who just likes to throw it down and get to the line for us. or even Wilcox. who cares if their offensive arsenal are limited at the moment. but so is Amare's at the moment. and they are similar types without the super talent. Nene and Wilcox both like just attacking the basket and wanting to throw it down everytime. that gets you to the line.

This TROY MURHPHY TALK HAS TO STOP!


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

Only trade i see feasible with Golden State is trading the no.2. no. 16 and C.Duhon for their no.9. A.Biedrins and I.Diogu. 

Why? Why not. 

Why not Petries? Because we can get someone better at his position in Brewer at no.9 and you want to get that guy in the mix right away. We also get two young promising bigs. Not sure if any of you have seen A.Biedrins play but he actually doesn't mind physical play and he can really mix it up in their. his had a few good games and his still very young. I.Diogu? well why not? His another young big body. can you say bye bye Mike Sweetney?

That would be the perfect situation for the bulls to make a deal with GS. We get two bigs that actually play in the paint. and a slasher and probably the most overlooked player in the draft this year in Brewer. and thats not including free agent hopefuls of Nene or Wilcox.

pg.Gordon/Hinrich/Brewer
sg.Gordon/Hinrich/Brewer
sf.Deng/Noc/Brewer
pf.Noc/Chandler/Diog/Biedrins/Nene-wilcox
c.Chandler/Biedrins/Nene-wilcox

thats a gorgeously well rounded team. you can imagine trouble teams would have with our defense with the length. and everyone is interchangable on our backcourt. we could constantly switch..


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Sham said:


> When Tyson had his streak of double digit rebounds (13 in a row, 14 of 15), who started alongside him for all 15?
> 
> Othella Harrington.
> 
> ...


First, Harrington played less than 15 minutes per game during that span. Second, we were looking at Tyson in relation to his play alongside AD. Harrington and AD are two completely different basketball players with different styles of play. Unless you're trying to argue the importance of "veteran presence" playing next to Tyson, I don't see how Chandler would be affected one way or the other by Harrington. I'm not buying that theory.

Tyson is a headcase, imo.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Frankensteiner said:


> First, Harrington played less than 15 minutes per game during that span. Second, we were looking at Tyson in relation to his play alongside AD. Harrington and AD are two completely different basketball players with different styles of play. Unless you're trying to argue the importance of "veteran presence" playing next to Tyson, I don't see how Chandler would be affected one way or the other by Harrington. I'm not buying that theory.
> 
> Tyson is a headcase, imo.


The analysis on 82games.com certainly supports Sham's hypothesis.

http://www.82games.com/0506/0506CHI2.HTM 

The Bulls played very well on both ends of the floor with Harrington and Chandler in the game together. Much better than when Chandler was teamed with other bigs or Nocioni. It makes one wonder why Harrington fell out of favor with Skiles late last season. 

Harrington was capable of holding his own in the middle with bigger players, and was usually matched up with the heaviest opponent when he was in the game. That took a lot of pressure off Chandler, and allowed him to concentrate on rebounding and shot blocking.

It all goes back the general idea put forward by many people on this board that Chandler would be a completely different player if he could team with an experienced big man who could take over guarding the opposition behemoths. Of course it wouldn't hurt if he put on a few pounds so he could do this job himself. Maybe he finally will this offseason.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

kulaz3000 said:


> Only trade i see feasible with Golden State is trading the no.2. no. 16 and C.Duhon for their no.9. A.Biedrins and I.Diogu.
> 
> Why? Why not.
> 
> ...


no offense..but that's a horrible deal


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> First, Harrington played less than 15 minutes per game during that span.


I know. I said that.



> Second, we were looking at Tyson in relation to his play alongside AD. Harrington and AD are two completely different basketball players with different styles of play.



Not especially. When they were int he game, they would both take the same role on defense - they would guard the stronger post players. Offensively, yes........but that's not the issue here.



> Unless you're trying to argue the importance of "veteran presence" playing next to Tyson, I don't see how Chandler would be affected one way or the other by Harrington. I'm not buying that theory.



After two straight years of evidence towards it, I believe it's gone beyond the theory stage. It's just the case.





> Tyson is a headcase, imo.


Hitler was a headcase. Tyson's just the kind of guy to worry too much.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Sham said:


> Not especially. When they were int he game, they would both take the same role on defense - they would guard the stronger post players. Offensively, yes........but that's not the issue here.


Sweetney guards stronger post players, too. It would go to reason that Tyson would be fine playing alongside Sweetney, right?


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

McBulls said:


> The analysis on 82games.com certainly supports Sham's hypothesis.
> 
> http://www.82games.com/0506/0506CHI2.HTM
> 
> ...


82games also shows the Bulls played well with Songaila and Chandler in the game together. Now, Songaila is paper towel soft and doesn't posses any of AD's qualities so I'm not sure I follow all that. Also, that analysis is spotty because it shows team performance and not Chandler's individual performance. Was it possible that Chandler contributed most of his boards/blocks during the <15 minutes in which Harrington was in the game?

If anything, the +/- seems to indicate that we were at our best when Chandler was paired with a PF who can hit an outside jumpshot (Allen, Songo, Harrington, Noc).

But if we're going to argue that Tyson needs a babysitter to grab a few rebounds or block a couple of shots, his *** shouldn't even be on the team. How many rebounders in the league have needed a good wingman to rebound the ball? That just seems so ridiculous to me.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Sweetney guards stronger post players, too. It would go to reason that Tyson would be fine playing alongside Sweetney, right?



I would argue that he did.


----------

