# Sam Smith On Chandler



## JeremyB0001

> Chandler doesn't exactly point to Skiles, but their differences created an undercurrent that roiled the team last season.
> 
> The former talks about a lack of opportunities on offense, but anyone who saw him knew that was best for the team. A Chicago friend said he recently asked Krause what it was he saw in Chandler. Krause replied that Chandler could shoot. Well, not that anyone could see. Chandler says he just needed some support.
> 
> "When you know you're not going to get the ball, you kind of go through the motions," Chandler said without rancor. "You say to yourself, 'What am I doing this for?' Then you start believing it yourself. Like, 'Damn, I can't score. What happened?' It got so I didn't want to go into games at home. I felt like I was letting the city down. I loved Chicago. I made so many friends. I loved my teammates (two of whom are with him now, Jannero Pargo and Linton Johnson).
> 
> "I felt like I wasn't getting a fair shake. All that is forgotten now, but it is in the back of my head. So I'll never let that happen again. It will make me a much better player in the long run. It will all make me work that much harder. Now things are going the way they should have all along."


http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...,4007097.column?page=2&coll=cs-home-headlines

I'm sure everyone will roll their eyes at this but I've said for sometime now that Chandler's biggest roadblock as far as developing an offensive game was that the fans, the media, the entire organization, and eventually Chandler himself decided at some point that he was a defensive stopper incapable of playing offense. The scouting reports and the tape from when Ty was in high school paint a very different picture (there are supposedly clips of him hitting pull up threes). Even early in his NBA career Chandler showed more offense than in his last season or two. Whether or not it comes back to haunt us, deciding that a sickeningly athletic 20 year old 7 footer would never develop an offensive game was a terrible mistake.


----------



## theanimal23

The guy is mentally weak. Thats what separates the successful atheletes from the rest. I can go on and on about why I think Tyson will not succeed, but this will open up the same can of worms from over the summer. 

The potential will always be there. But there comes a time where it has to be developed into skills. The question is how long do you give a person to develop these skills? IMO, he has been given his shot, he didn't succeed, and he was rightfully given the boot.


----------



## JeremyB0001

theanimal23 said:


> The guy is mentally weak. Thats what separates the successful atheletes from the rest. I can go on and on about why I think Tyson will not succeed, but this will open up the same can of worms from over the summer.
> 
> The potential will always be there. But there comes a time where it has to be developed into skills. The question is how long do you give a person to develop these skills? IMO, he has been given his shot, he didn't succeed, and he was rightfully given the boot.


He just turned 23 (the same age as someone who played four years in college and just finished their rookie season) so he still has quite a bit of time to put it together. He's always been punished by coming to the league straight from college, people look at experience in the league when age is probably a better way to measure development. I suppose that's fair though, he was earning millions while other guys were taking exams. 

People are fond of critisizing Chandler's personality but as far as I can tell he's always played hard and gets along with fans and teammates well. Last offseason was obviously a huge failure on his part but I've never heard anyone critisize his work ethic before or after that incident (aside from petty frustrations that he was working out in California instead of at the Berto Center).


----------



## theanimal23

JeremyB0001 said:


> People are fond of critisizing Chandler's personality but as far as I* can tell he's always played hard * and gets along with fans and teammates well. Last offseason was obviously a huge failure on his part but I've never heard anyone critisize his work ethic before or after that incident (aside from petty frustrations that he was working out in California instead of at the Berto Center).


I don't want to make this an Eddy vs Tyson thread, and maybe I'm going to explain a different point regarding playing hard. Tyson appeared to play 'hard' in games, but I don't think he worked hard at his game. The thing was, people wanted to give Eddy the boot b/c he appeared to not give a damn while Tyson would beat his chest and flex his 3" biceps after a block. The fact was, both were mirror images of each other. They were the same person, with different skill-sets. They both showed up in their contract year and showed flashes at times. But none of them could do anything. Now, I loved that 47 win team, b/c it appeared that these two got it together, but I think that was an anomaly. Very few people could say they expected us to be good with our Twin Toddlers and 4 rookies. 

Tyson may be 23, but he's been in the league for 5 years. 5 years is a lot of time to develop ANY skill. You just don't lose your offensive skills, especially if you were one of the best in HS. You don't lose it that much to the point that you are afraid to look at the basket. 

Sure he was a good teammate, but so is Luke. I do think he has a better chance to succeed in NO now, but there was no pressure on him before this past year. Our team was the worse in the league after MJ/Pip, but his game was one-dimensional. I can blame management/coaching for a lot of that, but this kid did not work at it. It goes both ways.

I'm hoping that all of us do not fall into this trap with Tyrus. I hope Tyrus walks the walk unlike Chandler. 

Sorry for the ramble, but in my books, if it takes Chandler until he is 27 to pan out, thats putting in a 9 year investment for a kid to develop. Thats just wrong for any team drafting these kids. And I know he got 'market' value, but no way in hell did he justify his contract. There should have been less pressure since he got it, not trying to play for one.


----------



## BG7

I still wanted to see that Tyrus, Tyson, Wallace frontcourt....block party!


----------



## Sir Patchwork

I saw Tyson play live and up close twice at Dominguez and he was not a good offensive player. He was akward, not at all smooth, and the jumper didn't look good, but it did go in sometimes. Problem is, he was so much taller, longer and more athletic than everyone else, that he never had a hand in his face. I'm sure to this day he can still make open 10 footers at high school basketball speed, but that's not a realistic shot in the NBA. It just doesn't happen. 

It's strange. It's like he went from not having any offensive game, to having potential to have offensive game, to actually having offensive game in high school but it magically disappeared.


----------



## JeremyB0001

theanimal23 said:


> I don't want to make this an Eddy vs Tyson thread, and maybe I'm going to explain a different point regarding playing hard. Tyson appeared to play 'hard' in games, but I don't think he worked hard at his game. The thing was, people wanted to give Eddy the boot b/c he appeared to not give a damn while Tyson would beat his chest and flex his 3" biceps after a block. The fact was, both were mirror images of each other. They were the same person, with different skill-sets. They both showed up in their contract year and showed flashes at times. But none of them could do anything. Now, I loved that 47 win team, b/c it appeared that these two got it together, but I think that was an anomaly. Very few people could say they expected us to be good with our Twin Toddlers and 4 rookies.
> 
> Tyson may be 23, but he's been in the league for 5 years. 5 years is a lot of time to develop ANY skill. You just don't lose your offensive skills, especially if you were one of the best in HS. You don't lose it that much to the point that you are afraid to look at the basket.
> 
> Sure he was a good teammate, but so is Luke. I do think he has a better chance to succeed in NO now, but there was no pressure on him before this past year. Our team was the worse in the league after MJ/Pip, but his game was one-dimensional. I can blame management/coaching for a lot of that, but this kid did not work at it. It goes both ways.
> 
> I'm hoping that all of us do not fall into this trap with Tyrus. I hope Tyrus walks the walk unlike Chandler.
> 
> Sorry for the ramble, but in my books, if it takes Chandler until he is 27 to pan out, thats putting in a 9 year investment for a kid to develop. Thats just wrong for any team drafting these kids. And I know he got 'market' value, but no way in hell did he justify his contract. There should have been less pressure since he got it, not trying to play for one.


It's certainly debatable but I was under the impression that with the exception of last offseason, Chandler did work hard at improving his game. As I referenced before there was one offseason where minor controversy arose because he chose to work out in California instead of at the Berto. Regardless of the legitimacy of that decision it does imply he was working in the offseason. The summer afterwards I believe he placated management by working out at Berto for a good portion of the offseason. Additionally, I remember him putting substantial work into his jump shot on one or two occasions (certainly once before he developed the hitch, it was in okay shape at that point). He also has added substantial muscle since entering the league and might've added a lot more if not for the condition with his esophogas where he lost a bunch of weight.

Someone who is 23 and had four years of college experience and only one year of pro experience would have also had the last five years to work on various skills. NBA players have more time and resources to work on their games I suppose but otherwise there are still the same number of hours in the day to improve your game. I don't know if there has been any research done for the NBA but I know that in baseball, the data very strongly indicates that age is a far bigger factor in development than experience. You'd much rather have a 23 year old with five years of NBA experience who has struggled than a 27 year old with a year of NBA experience who has struggled.

I'm not sure whether you're saying it's unreasonable for Ty to have regressed offensively or that it's impossible and the tales of his offensive prowess in high school are false. If you're arguing the former then I agree with you. It is unreasonable for him to have regressed from the age of 18 to 23 while playing in the NBA, the Bulls organization takes a lot of the blame, and he should still have some chance to redisover his offense. If you're making the latter argument, I'd refer you to scouting reports like this: 



> He shoots the ball fairly well from the perimeter and can even hit shots from beyond the college three-point line. Chandler also passes and handles the ball pretty well for a man his size. His height and wingspan will allow him to dominate the backboards and intimidate shooters with his shotblocking.


Obviously scouting reports can be wrong but some of this seems like it is pretty much a matter of fact and not opinion. If people saw Chandler routinely attempting and making three pointers in high school then Chandler at least had some ability to look for his shot and make a jumper at that point in time. Clearly he did not demonstrate that ability at all the last couple seasons.


----------



## The ROY

theanimal23 said:


> The guy is mentally weak.


This is ALL that needs to be said

Unlike a player like Tyrus, who was dismissed as a defensive player with no offensive skill, he actually is out to PROVE the doubters wrong. He's also not afraid of the challenge.

Tyson on the other hand is a very weak minded individual.

So glad he's gone.


----------



## JeremyB0001

Mebarak said:


> I still wanted to see that Tyrus, Tyson, Wallace frontcourt....block party!


I really wanted to see Ty in a front court with Pryzbilla (obviously Ben would be even better) so he could roam more defensively. He was a much stronger defender when he could roam than when he was stuck guarding someone like Shaq.


----------



## johnston797

The ROY said:


> This is ALL that needs to be said
> 
> Unlike a player like Tyrus, who was dismissed as a defensive player with no offensive skill, he actually is out to PROVE the doubters wrong. He's also not afraid of the challenge.
> 
> Tyson on the other hand is a very weak minded individual.
> 
> So glad he's gone.


This post is at least one year premature. Could be horribly wrong.


----------



## JeremyB0001

The ROY said:


> This is ALL that needs to be said
> 
> Unlike a player like Tyrus, who was dismissed as a defensive player with no offensive skill, he actually is out to PROVE the doubters wrong. He's also not afraid of the challenge.
> 
> Tyson on the other hand is a very weak minded individual.
> 
> So glad he's gone.


This is probably getting off topic and turning me into a broken record but it still amazes me to hear people talk this way. All we got in return for Chandler was one year of P.J. Brown and the money Reinsdorf saves by avoiding the luxury tax down the line yet people are thrilled Ty is gone just because they no longer have to deal with the dissapointment and frustration they felt because he hadn't met expectations.


----------



## futuristxen

PJ Brown at 40 is a better player than Chandler will ever be. The Hornets were stupid turds to make that trade. And Paxson made off like the Cat Burgler. Not only is a washed up PJ Brown better than Chandler, so is Isiah Rider JR Smith. And they lost them both for an overpaid glass tower of spunk.


----------



## futuristxen

Tyson Chandler is one of the few NBA players who could possibly ellicit the response "I'd rather have Jerome James".


----------



## JeremyB0001

futuristxen said:


> PJ Brown at 40 is a better player than Chandler will ever be. The Hornets were stupid turds to make that trade. And Paxson made off like the Cat Burgler. Not only is a washed up PJ Brown better than Chandler, so is Isiah Rider JR Smith. And they lost them both for an overpaid glass tower of spunk.


Since you're making outlandish, over the top comments you probably don't want to debate this seriously but I'll act as though you do regardless. Brown is not clearly better than Chandler. Last year Ty averaged twice as many blocks, nearly two more rebounds, and his field goal was .100 points better despite playing five fewer minutes per game. That's before considering that it was a down year for Chandler, Brown is 13 years older, and Chandler is signed for four times as long (you have to be pretty terrible to produce less in four seasons than a 37 year old does in one season). Jerome James averaged 3 points and 2 rebounds last year so I think you know how ridiculous it is to compare him to Chandler.


----------



## Ron Cey

Sir Patchwork said:


> I saw Tyson play live and up close twice at Dominguez and he was not a good offensive player. He was akward, not at all smooth, and the jumper didn't look good, but it did go in sometimes. Problem is, he was so much taller, longer and more athletic than everyone else, that he never had a hand in his face.


Well said. 

I saw him play live once in HS - against Eddy Curry no less. Chandler was then what he is now. He didn't have a skill-based offensive game. 

Look, Chandler has bad hands and lacks coordinated movements. He has always been this way. He's fast and he can jump, but he does not have skill based athleticism. Its that simple. 

The discussions about his ability to have a meaningful offensive game beyond put backs and dunks needs to end. We might as well be talking about converting Andre Barrett into a weak side shot blocker.


----------



## McBulls

futuristxen said:


> Tyson Chandler is one of the few NBA players who could possibly ellicit the response "I'd rather have Jerome James".


Now you go too far. Tyson certainly has his problems and limitations, but we have watched Tyson Chandler for five years, and Tyson is definitely a better player than James.

NO is on the wrong track if they are trying to turn Chandler into an offensive force. He has too many limitations. Not only can he not shoot very well (see free throw line performance) but he's prone to turnovers and is not a very good passer. That's why the guards were reluctant to pass him the ball on offense, and why he eventually stopped looking for it.

What he can do is get the boards on both ends of the floor and block the more than occasional shot. NO should concentrate on teaching him how to set a non-moving pick. That should be simple enough for him and would give him something to do on offense.


----------



## johnston797

McBulls said:


> NO is on the wrong track if they are trying to turn Chandler into an offensive force. He has too many limitations. Not only can he not shoot very well (see free throw line performance) but he's prone to turnovers and is not a very good passer. That's why the guards were reluctant to pass him the ball on offense, and why he eventually stopped looking for it.
> 
> What he can do is get the boards on both ends of the floor and block the more than occasional shot. NO should concentrate on teaching him how to set a non-moving pick. That should be simple enough for him and would give him something to do on offense.


We willl see. NO is taking the perfect approach with Chandler IMHO. Small risk. Huge upside. He will never be a #1 or #2 option but if he becomes just a bit more comfortable on O as compared to 04-05 than he is going to be a top 5-7 Center in the league.

FWIW, If you take out the TO for illegal screens, Chandler's TO ratio is pretty good. So is his passing. Better than most Cs.


----------



## giusd

I miss TC and i hoped he would work out with the bulls but the truth is he has small hands, poor hand eye skills, and very weak lateral movement. He will never be a serious offensive player. He just doesnt have the skills and tools like a player like EC. I am sorry he is gone and hope it works out for him in NO but he does need to stop blaming others and start improving his game.

david


----------



## The ROY

johnston797 said:


> He will never be a #1 or #2 option but if he becomes just a bit more comfortable on O as compared to 04-05 than he is going to be a top 5-7 Center in the league.


U can't be serious

If he became a BIT more comfortable on offense, he still wouldn't even be a top 15 center in the NBA.

Some of the Tyson love on here is a bit TOO strong, but you are from oakland so it's understandble.


----------



## Da Grinch

johnston797 said:


> We willl see. NO is taking the perfect approach with Chandler IMHO. Small risk. Huge upside. He will never be a #1 or #2 option but if he becomes just a bit more comfortable on O as compared to 04-05 than he is going to be a top 5-7 Center in the league.
> 
> FWIW, If you take out the TO for illegal screens, Chandler's TO ratio is pretty good. So is his passing. Better than most Cs.


I'm gonna have to agree with johnston here .

tyson is a guy whose play will never be enough because he was scouted badly 

rasheed wallace = tyson is obviously wrong ,and 1 big reason is if he does a move and it starts not to work , he stops using it , a guy with no faith in his own offense cant be a serious option

just like curry=shaq he difference is curry is being compared to possibly a top 3 center of all time so if he doesn't reach that lofty expectation he can still easily be worth all the trouble.

tyson is no rasheed wallace , he is more ben wallace , but i do believe his height, motor and uncommom quickness for his size should get him 10 points a game easy at a high fg% 

he can be a top 5-7 center in the league if they throw him the ball if only rarely , just enough to keep him involved, let him pick 2 basic moves a hook and some counter move , wind him up and let him go. the defense and rebounding will take of themselves . 10 points 12 boards , 2+ bl on 53 % fg in lets say 34 min. is enough to be a top 5-7 center in today's nba, and he's played at that level at times, he just not all that consistent at it.

but the idea he got enough touches when his off. rebounding and his shot attmpts were roughly the same bothers me , no player is that bad offensively, that means any shots he got were purely by accident of the offense, and thats too bad . he was being wasted by skiles to some degree.


----------



## JeremyB0001

Ron Cey said:


> Well said.
> 
> I saw him play live once in HS - against Eddy Curry no less. Chandler was then what he is now. He didn't have a skill-based offensive game.
> 
> Look, Chandler has bad hands and lacks coordinated movements. He has always been this way. He's fast and he can jump, but he does not have skill based athleticism. Its that simple.
> 
> The discussions about his ability to have a meaningful offensive game beyond put backs and dunks needs to end. We might as well be talking about converting Andre Barrett into a weak side shot blocker.


It's very interesting to see the differences between the observations of those on the board and the scouting reports from when TC was drafted.

http://www.nba.com/draft2001/playerfiles/tyson_chandler.html - "prefers to face the basket and owns an excellent perimeter shooting touch."

http://www.nbadraft.net/profiles/tysonchandler.htm - "can shoot the ball well"

http://www.ibiblio.org/craig/draft/2001_draft/Players/chandler.shtml - "Feels comfortable facing the basket can hit jump shots from about 16 feet out and has even shown the ability to hit the 3-point shot"

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/2001/draft/ - "he has abundant skills, including a feathery 3-point shot."

Without fail, pretty much every single scouting report from 2001 says he has a good jumper. I trust you guys posting here who saw Chandler with your own eyes in high school but I also trust the scouts to some degree. Perhaps there was just some misinformation that was put in a scouting report and then spread like wildfire. Perhaps also though there's some hindsight bias involved for those who saw Chandler five years ago and have been watching his offensive ineptitude in the NBA ever since. One thing I value about these scouting reports is they were written before Ty was drafted so you know their conclusions haven't been influenced by his play since entering the NBA.


----------



## JeremyB0001

The ROY said:


> U can't be serious
> 
> If he became a BIT more comfortable on offense, he still wouldn't even be a top 15 center in the NBA.
> 
> Some of the Tyson love on here is a bit TOO strong, but you are from oakland so it's understandble.


I think that depends on your definition of a center. If you look at true centers I doubt there were more than 15 or 20 guys in the league that were even good enough to play 30 MPG last season. If you go by the players ESPN.com considers to be centers, Chandler was 7th in rebounds and 16th in blocks. If he returns to his '05 levels those numbers will go up a bit and his scoring will approach double digits. Also, he might play an extra 10 MPG if NO gives him a large role. Suddenly you're looking at 10 PPG/11 RPG/2 BPG. Considering the lack of competition at the center position that's top 15 easily. I feel like people will balk at thos numbers but c'mon we're talking about a 23 year old who averaged 8/9.7/1.8 in 27 minutes in '05, there's absolutely no reason he coudln't put up those numbers this season in 35 MPG. It's really not that liberal of an estimate.


----------



## mr.ankle20

johnston797 said:


> We willl see. NO is taking the perfect approach with Chandler IMHO. Small risk. Huge upside. He will never be a #1 or #2 option but if he becomes just a bit more comfortable on O as compared to 04-05 than he is going to be a top 5-7 Center in the league.
> 
> FWIW, If you take out the TO for illegal screens, Chandler's TO ratio is pretty good. So is his passing. Better than most Cs.



He would fumble the ball alot when he was wide open for a dunk alot . Just face the facts he is a bust


----------



## Philomath

Talented but weak minded people, when they are surrounded by support and don't have to provide the strength themselves, can do things that you wouldn't expect. It takes a lot of structure from the people around them, but if you're willing to cater to them, it can happen. Some people need babied a bit, maybe he is one, and if so, so be it.

The simple ability to hit an occasional open jumper and put in offensive putbacks in traffic could make him an all star. It's not like Brad Miller is doing a lot of sky hooks or power dunks. I don't know. I wouldn't put it past him.

To some degree an open jump shot is an open jump shot in my opinion, and if he could hit them in high school he should be able to hit them now, ie there's nothing physical preventing him from shooting it. There's no reason he shouldn't get two or three open looks a game when rotation breaks down. Bill Wennington made a good career on open jump shots from 15 feet. That could take Chandler from 10 points a game to 15, and that's a big leap. And God forbid he should get an up and under move.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Two seasons ago the Bulls had their first winning season since MJ. It just so happened that Chandler was one of our 3 most productive players and led the team in rebounds and blocks, with the second most minutes played.

Last season the team was in a tail spin, due to prolonged funks by Chandler and Hinrich. Surprise, Surprise, once Chandler started producing again, the Bulls started winning again.

When Chandler plays well, you have a good shot at winning a NBA basketball game. Difference maker.

Criticize the consistency all ya want... I hear ya. 

Comparing Tyrus Thomas to Chandler is silly, IMO. Tyrus is a SF/PF. Chandler is a center. Compare Chandler to Wallace, Big Marty and Luke.


----------



## rosenthall

Philomath said:


> Talented but weak minded people, when they are surrounded by support and don't have to provide the strength themselves, can do things that you wouldn't expect. It takes a lot of structure from the people around them, but if you're willing to cater to them, it can happen. Some people need babied a bit, maybe he is one, and if so, so be it.
> 
> The simple ability to hit an occasional open jumper and put in offensive putbacks in traffic could make him an all star. It's not like Brad Miller is doing a lot of sky hooks or power dunks. I don't know. I wouldn't put it past him.
> 
> To some degree an open jump shot is an open jump shot in my opinion, and if he could hit them in high school he should be able to hit them now, ie there's nothing physical preventing him from shooting it. There's no reason he shouldn't get two or three open looks a game when rotation breaks down. Bill Wennington made a good career on open jump shots from 15 feet. That could take Chandler from 10 points a game to 15, and that's a big leap. And God forbid he should get an up and under move.


Yeah, I think you kind of hit on an issue here. For all of his bravado, Tyson had a pretty shaky psyche that seemed to change with every little perturbation to his professional life. I think the days when people view Tyson as a guy with the potential to be a very good player _without the influence of other players around him_ are pretty much gone, but if you put him in a good environment and build the appropriate walls around him, he has the capability to really shine, due to his physical gifts.

I think perhaps what really did him in here was that what Tyson needs around him to succeed and what Skiles' expects players to be capable of on their own were very disparate, and the gap between the two was too big to be crossed. 

On one hand, it makes me think twice about our ability to develop players, and on the other, it makes me wonder if Tyson just doesn't have the mental fortitude to really make it, since there probably aren't too many teams that would be willing and able to provide the little coccoon for player development that Tyson apparently needs to do well.


----------



## Babble-On

Chandler, while never a smooth offensive player, somehow managed to look to be developing into pretty decent offensive player before he injured his back. Look at his numbers in 03' pre injury and even at times the previous season and you can see that. For whatever reason, his coonfidence went out the window after that. Really, though I think he improved defensively by way of his small bball increasing with more familiarity with the league, I even think he lost some of his swagger on the defensive end as well, as he never was as aggresive a shot blocker.


----------



## Ron Cey

JeremyB0001 said:


> Without fail, pretty much every single scouting report from 2001 says he has a good jumper. I trust you guys posting here who saw Chandler with your own eyes in high school but I also trust the scouts to some degree. *Perhaps there was just some misinformation that was put in a scouting report and then spread like wildfire.* Perhaps also though there's some hindsight bias involved for those who saw Chandler five years ago and have been watching his offensive ineptitude in the NBA ever since. One thing I value about these scouting reports is they were written before Ty was drafted so you know their conclusions haven't been influenced by his play since entering the NBA.


I think its pretty obvious that this is exactly what happened. As a 15 year draft junky, I can tell you that it is not at all uncommon for there to be terribly inaccurate scouting reports for even lottery-projected players. Especially when those players are coming out of small colleges, high school, or international leagues. 

Do you actually think that there is any scout anywhere who actually saw Tyson Chandler display a "feathery three point shot"?

Also, I distinctly recall that during the mock drafts leading up to the draft that Tyson started to plummet when he first started working out for teams. Specifically, one I recall when he had dropped down to projected late lottery said something like "Great run and jump athlete who lacks skills. Can he be successful when its a basketball game and not a track meet?" 

That said, I only saw him play live once. But it seems hard to believe that in the 1 year between high school and joining the Bulls, he forgot how to dribble, catch passes, and his formerly feathery jumper turned into a misguided laserbeam.


----------



## JeremyB0001

Babble-On said:


> Chandler, while never a smooth offensive player, somehow managed to look to be developing into pretty decent offensive player before he injured his back. Look at his numbers in 03' pre injury and even at times the previous season and you can see that. For whatever reason, his coonfidence went out the window after that. Really, though I think he improved defensively by way of his small bball increasing with more familiarity with the league, I even think he lost some of his swagger on the defensive end as well, as he never was as aggresive a shot blocker.


I forget about that often. There was a time when Chandler would get the ball on the block, back his man down a bit, and throw up a somewhat ugly combination between a jump and a hook. People complained Chandler didn't have any "moves" in the low post and that his offense was ugly but he scored with some frequency using this move. In '02-'03 he averaged 9 PPG in 24 MPG on 53% shooting and got to the line often. It is absolutely shocking to look at his number of field goal and free throw attempts from year to year. Ty went from attempting 6.5 field goals and 3.9 free throws in 24.4 MPG in '02-'03 to 3.6 FGA and 2.4 FTA in 26.8 MPG last season! Supposedly his back injury created the hitch in his jumper which limited his offense some but halving your number of field goal attempts from the time you're 19 to the time you're 22 has to be largely a result of psyche and role in the offense.


----------



## rosenthall

Ron Cey said:


> I think its pretty obvious that this is exactly what happened. As a 15 year draft junky, I can tell you that it is not at all uncommon for there to be terribly inaccurate scouting reports for even lottery-projected players. Especially when those players are coming out of small colleges, high school, or international leagues.
> 
> Do you actually think that there is any scout anywhere who actually saw Tyson Chandler display a "feathery three point shot"?
> 
> Also, I distinctly recall that during the mock drafts leading up to the draft that Tyson started to plummet when he first started working out for teams. Specifically, one I recall when he had dropped down to projected late lottery said something like "Great run and jump athlete who lacks skills. Can he be successful when its a basketball game and not a track meet?"
> 
> That said, I only saw him play live once. But it seems hard to believe that in the 1 year between high school and joining the Bulls, he forgot how to dribble, catch passes, and his formerly feathery jumper turned into a misguided laserbeam.


I recall similar reports that said he was getting beaten pretty badly in individual workouts. In fact, I specifically remember reading about how Steven Hunter had pretty much given him the 411 in a couple of individual workouts, and that he was developmentally ahead of Chandler by a fair margin. Enough said.

And I actually think it's perfectly understandable that it can be a lot easier to do something like hit a jump shot and drive to the basket in high school than in the pros. Particularly when you are 6 inches taller, have a vertical leap that is 20 inches higher than the guy guarding you. It doesn't really indicate how good of an offensive player you are, since there's so much you can get away with.

I believe this, because I'm an example of the same thing, although on a much lesser scale. In junior high, I was a very good basketball player, because I hit my growth spurt early and was bigger than everyone else. I was actually considered a marquee player and did things like make jumpshots and score with my back to the basket. I was pretty uncoordinated, but it didn't really matter. When high school came around, and my competition was as big and strong as I was, my game was pretty much rendered completely ineffective, and I was reduced to a spot minute, hustle/defense kind of guy, because I couldn't do much else.


----------



## JeremyB0001

Ron Cey said:


> Do you actually think that there is any scout anywhere who actually saw Tyson Chandler display a "feathery three point shot"?
> 
> Also, I distinctly recall that during the mock drafts leading up to the draft that Tyson started to plummet when he first started working out for teams. Specifically, one I recall when he had dropped down to projected late lottery said something like "Great run and jump athlete who lacks skills. Can he be successful when its a basketball game and not a track meet?"
> 
> That said, I only saw him play live once. But it seems hard to believe that in the 1 year between high school and joining the Bulls, he forgot how to dribble, catch passes, and his formerly feathery jumper turned into a misguided laserbeam.


Haha. I do remember a poster - I believe it was on this board - claiming that on the highlights montages they show on draft night there was footage of TC hitting at least one pull up three off the dribble. If anyone knows where to find any HS footage of him I'd be very interested in seeing it. I've been able to find a few links from the 2001 draft but the videos have been removed. At least one of the scouting reports I've linked mentioned that work was needed with his ball handling skills so apparently that was never considered a strength. Any idea what the reasons were that Chandler shot back up after his stock dropped?


----------



## JeremyB0001

rosenthall said:


> I recall similar reports that said he was getting beaten pretty badly in individual workouts. In fact, I specifically remember reading about how Steven Hunter had pretty much given him the 411 in a couple of individual workouts, and that he was developmentally ahead of Chandler by a fair margin. Enough said.
> 
> And I actually think it's perfectly understandable that it can be a lot easier to do something like hit a jump shot and drive to the basket in high school than in the pros. Particularly when you are 6 inches taller, have a vertical leap that is 20 inches higher than the guy guarding you. It doesn't really indicate how good of an offensive player you are, since there's so much you can get away with.
> 
> I believe this, because I'm an example of the same thing, although on a much lesser scale. In junior high, I was a very good basketball player, because I hit my growth spurt early and was bigger than everyone else. I was actually considered a marquee player and did things like make jumpshots and score with my back to the basket. I was pretty uncoordinated, but it didn't really matter. When high school came around, and my competition was as big and strong as I was, my game was pretty much rendered completely ineffective, and I was reduced to a spot minute, hustle/defense kind of guy, because I couldn't do much else.


Yeah I wouldn't necessarily expect Ty to hit a 15 footer while a 7 footer has hand in his face, it's just that the last year or two defenders have sagged off of him so that there's been no one within five feet of him and he's had tons of time to set himself before shooting. It's basically the equivalent of shooting a free throw (on a similar note his FT% plummeted from 67% to 50% last season).


----------



## Ron Cey

JeremyB0001 said:


> Any idea what the reasons were that Chandler shot back up after his stock dropped?


I don't remember, but it happened before draft day. In fact, it was reported that within the day or two before the draft, Jordon had Brown and Chandler as his two finalists and that he took Brown because he had more game-ready skills. 

I suspect what happened is that once individual workouts started, and teams were surprised at just how unskilled Chandler was and word got out, his stock dropped. But as teams became more accepting of this reality and the draft drew near, his undeniably rare athleticism/height combination took over as the driving factor and his stock went back up. 

Either way, his stock had returned to "high lottery" level at least several days before the draft and probably more like a week before.

EDIT: By the way, I'm not arguing that Chandler didn't offensively regress these last few years. He clearly did. But he was bad to begin with and simply got worse as his confidence increasingly faltered.


----------



## rosenthall

JeremyB0001 said:


> Yeah I wouldn't necessarily expect Ty to hit a 15 footer while a 7 footer has hand in his face, it's just that the last year or two defenders have sagged off of him so that there's been no one within five feet of him and he's had tons of time to set himself before shooting. It's basically the equivalent of shooting a free throw (on a similar note his FT% plummeted from 67% to 50% last season).


Oh, no doubt that his offensive struggles last year were by and large mental. I was just referring to how people were forecasting his offensive potential in the first place. I never saw him play in high school, but I would guess that Tyson never had the offensive potential to play like Kevin Garnett or Rasheed, or whomever. And that perhaps people got so infatuated with his run/jump athleticism that they falsely projected some of his offensive production in high school to the pros, when really it was just a product of his physical superiority over his competition. I basically agree that with some commitment, a supportive team and coaching staff, and with a healthy state of mind, Tyson could be a passable offensive player. In fact, I'd agree with you that he appeared to be on that path with us in the beginning, but it got derailed somewhere along the lines and never really seemed to get itself back on track.


----------



## johnston797

mr.ankle20 said:


> He would fumble the ball alot when he was wide open for a dunk alot . Just face the facts he is a bust


Man, I don't understand this board. Our god-like GM gave Chandler a $64M contract just 1 year ago. This may be the biggest contract that Reinsdorf has ever signed. Chandler then had a very, very bad year. But if he bounces back to 04-05 level this year and keeps getting better, then it's just that one very bad year. 

And isn't that exactly what NOK just bet $50M on.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Chandler should still be a Bull.

Malik > PJ.

cheap.

Bulls will still be good this year, but they would be better with Chandler coming off the bench.


----------



## Hustle

Teams have to pay twice as much for the amount they go over the tax threshold. So Chandler after extending Deng and Ben would cost, what 24-25M, I wouldn't call any owner cheap for avoiding that(I probably already have). Yeah it's a little unfair to say all the tax would be because of Tyson, but he is easily the least important of the guys who made up our core last year, especially since we added Wallace and Tyrus. Because of the addition of those guys I think PJ despite his age is much more valuable for this team this season than Tyson. Next year may be the one year that the Bulls could regret trading Tyson, but if we add Noah or Oden or maybe even Thabeet or Hibbert or Splitter or Hawes or BWright or McRoberts or Horford next year, I don't think we will.


----------



## DaBullz

Chandler was developing and developing an offensive game when Cartwright was the coach. Big man coaching young big men, and he had a big men assistant coach, too. The bulls ran plays for Chandler and everything. These are not Skiles' qualities.

Seems to me that Cartwright had both Curry and Chandler on such an upward trajectory that Paxson proclaimed playoffs, and fans (particularly here) were all kool-aid uppity over the 3Cs.

Those are the facts.

My conjecture would be that he's been set back by poor coaching, poor quality of team play, and unreasonable expectations.

My assessment of him is that he's still quite young, and his defensive presence, height, and athleticism makes him already an NBA player (obviously) and any offense he learns to provide will be icing on that cake.


----------



## JeremyB0001

Hustle said:


> Teams have to pay twice as much for the amount they go over the tax threshold. So Chandler after extending Deng and Ben would cost, what 24-25M, I wouldn't call any owner cheap for avoiding that(I probably already have). Yeah it's a little unfair to say all the tax would be because of Tyson, but he is easily the least important of the guys who made up our core last year, especially since we added Wallace and Tyrus. Because of the addition of those guys I think PJ despite his age is much more valuable for this team this season than Tyson. Next year may be the one year that the Bulls could regret trading Tyson, but if we add Noah or Oden or maybe even Thabeet or Hibbert or Splitter or Hawes or BWright or McRoberts or Horford next year, I don't think we will.


Look at Kukoc4Ever's signature. As long as Reinsdorf is making millions it doesn't sit well with me that we traded a player who could make substantial contributions just to make millions more. I'm sure that merchandise and ticket sales will already shoot upwards just because of the Big Ben acquisition. The deep run most of us seem to expect come playoff time is only going to lead to more money in merchandise and ticket sales. I suppose it was naive but considering that we were selling out games for years while fielding the worst team in the NBA made me think money would be no object once we put a winning team together, that we could spend like the Knicks and do crazy things like gamble $25 million a season on a player's upside.


----------



## JeremyB0001

johnston797 said:


> Man, I don't understand this board. Our god-like GM gave Chandler a $64M contract just 1 year ago. This may be the biggest contract that Reinsdorf has ever signed. Chandler then had a very, very bad year. But if he bounces back to 04-05 level this year and keeps getting better, then it's just that one very bad year.
> 
> And isn't that exactly what NOK just bet $50M on.


I've said this before but I view it as being largely emotional. To a lot of fans Chandler (along with other players such as Curry and Crawford) represents a failure to work hard, a failure to meet expectations, the player traded for Elton Brand, some of the worst seasons in franchise history, etc. While these things have little to do with how much he can contribute in a given season, it is in the forefront of the fans minds. They would rather have TC on another team even if he could help the Bulls win some because it is so upsetting to them to see him brick a wide open jumper or drop a pass under the basket. This would explain why their arguments are along the lines of "Chandler sucks he fumbles the ball," "Face it Chandler is a bust," or "Chandler is as terrible as Jerome James." These are emotional reactions moreso than reasoned assessments of his overall game.


----------



## Philomath

Hustle said:


> Teams have to pay twice as much for the amount they go over the tax threshold.


Even more than twice. It is a dollar for dollar penalty, but there's also about a 10 million dollar lump sum loss when you first exceed the tax threshold (due to escrow losses and other penalties). So, if you're a penny under the cap and then pay a player 10 million a year, that player will cost you something approaching $30 million a year, if I'm not mistaken.

Dan Rosenbaum's discussion of the new CBA, esp. regarding luxury tax


----------



## theanimal23

My favorite part is how Pax was looking to move Tyson before FA started. Rumors were, the talks had begun with NO around the draft.

Support Tyson or not, no one can deny his is inconsistancy. This inconsistancy is what took him out of the equation. If he consistantly sucked, he would have not gotten his contract. If he played at the level during the 47 win season, he would have warrented his contract, and would have stayed, or moved (if we were definitely getting Big Ben) for more value than PJ Brown (an expiring contract/vet).

I hope we can retain PJ next year for the Vets Min if he isn't traded in part of a bigger package. I like what he brings. Always admired him as a player.


----------



## SALO

JeremyB0001 said:


> Haha. *I do remember a poster - I believe it was on this board - claiming that on the highlights montages they show on draft night there was footage of TC hitting at least one pull up three off the dribble.* If anyone knows where to find any HS footage of him I'd be very interested in seeing it. I've been able to find a few links from the 2001 draft but the videos have been removed. At least one of the scouting reports I've linked mentioned that work was needed with his ball handling skills so apparently that was never considered a strength. Any idea what the reasons were that Chandler shot back up after his stock dropped?


It was the highlight footage from TNT's draft coverage. The pre-draft show also had him pulling off a _one-handed _ windmill dunk, which seems improbable now but he did pull it off. No I don't have any clips for you to download.


----------



## kukoc4ever

JeremyB0001 said:


> Look at Kukoc4Ever's signature. As long as Reinsdorf is making millions it doesn't sit well with me that we traded a player who could make substantial contributions just to make millions more. I'm sure that merchandise and ticket sales will already shoot upwards just because of the Big Ben acquisition. The deep run most of us seem to expect come playoff time is only going to lead to more money in merchandise and ticket sales. I suppose it was naive but considering that we were selling out games for years while fielding the worst team in the NBA made me think money would be no object once we put a winning team together, that we could spend like the Knicks and do crazy things like gamble $25 million a season on a player's upside.


It would not have cost the Bulls much more, if anything, this season to keep Chandler. 
And he would help the cause. Jeez… Chandler, Tyrus and Wallace on the same team? 

Big Marty is kinda entertaining to watch, but come on. That trio would romp over most other teams, and it looks to me like Allen is going to be continuing his strong, solid, veteran play from the end of last season.

And, we very well need to make a consolidation trade. 

Chandler would help in this effort, IMO.

Going to be a fun season, but that move still rubs me the wrong way.


----------



## kukoc4ever

theanimal23 said:


> I hope we can retain PJ next year for the Vets Min if he isn't traded in part of a bigger package. I like what he brings. Always admired him as a player.


I hope PJ is on the bench before Christmas, since I think Tyrus and Noc are better options than PJ (who, while tall, is not much of a rebounder, shot blocker or inside scorer).


----------



## L.O.B

If Tyson was in this year's draft, would the Bulls of drafted him over Thomas? 

The Bulls were a really badly run organization at the time Tyson was brought on board. The post Jordan roster was freekin joke. The rebuilding foundation started with a team built to lose. 2 highschool rookies coming into the Floyd lead Bulls had little chance.Ron Mercer and Eddie Robinson might of been the toddlers role models. 

If 19 year old Eddy and Tyson had this current cast of Bulls as teammates and Skiles as their 1st coach, they would of learned a work ethic. 

5 years of losing leaves a mark.


----------



## kukoc4ever

...


----------



## Hustle

JeremyB0001 said:


> Look at Kukoc4Ever's signature. As long as Reinsdorf is making millions it doesn't sit well with me that we traded a player who could make substantial contributions just to make millions more. I'm sure that merchandise and ticket sales will already shoot upwards just because of the Big Ben acquisition. The deep run most of us seem to expect come playoff time is only going to lead to more money in merchandise and ticket sales. I suppose it was naive but considering that we were selling out games for years while fielding the worst team in the NBA made me think money would be no object once we put a winning team together, that we could spend like the Knicks and do crazy things like gamble $25 million a season on a player's upside.


I am aware of the Bulls financial situation. But to call someone cheap, to not want to pay Chandler


Philomath said:


> something approaching $30 million a year, if I'm not mistaken.
> 
> 
> 
> at some point, I think is perfectly reasonable, especially when long term he is looking to be like the 4rth big on this team and if thats the case the bigs won't have very diversified talent.
> 
> Now did Pax jump the gun by a year in trading Chandler, maybe. It seems to me Chandler could've opened up a few trade possibilities next summer. But Pax was aware of that, the team's financial situation could've waited a year, maybe Pax just doesn't see anything real expensive that he likes, we've talked about consolidating a million times and there are only 2 feasable names out there with contracts that would demand a Tyson like salary, and I am pretty sure Paxson knows exactly where those 2 guys stand. Likely the financial flexibilty we will have next year, being 15-17M under the cap before resigning Hinrich and Nocioni and having PJ this season is what Paxson saw as more desirable(than holding Chandler for another year). I don't think this team can go another offseason w/o consolidating, I am sure Paxson is preparing for it.
> 
> In 3 years TT is going to raise this issue again. I expect the Bulls to be proven contenders by then, and I will then expect JR to flip the bill. If he doesn't pay up at that point I will be calling for his head. Likely even before then, if he doesn't let Pax bring in a mid-level guy that looks like he can bring the team to another level or secure another championship.
Click to expand...


----------



## McBulls

kukoc4ever said:


> It would not have cost the Bulls much more, if anything, this season to keep Chandler.
> And he would help the cause. Jeez… Chandler, Tyrus and Wallace on the same team?
> That trio would romp over most other teams, and it looks to me like Allen is going to be continuing his strong, solid, veteran play from the end of last season.
> 
> And, we very well need to make a consolidation trade.
> 
> Chandler would help in this effort, IMO.
> 
> Going to be a fun season, but that move still rubs me the wrong way.


Me too.


----------



## JeremyB0001

Hustle said:


> I am aware of the Bulls financial situation. But to call someone cheap, to not want to pay Chandler
> 
> 
> Philomath said:
> 
> 
> 
> something approaching $30 million a year, if I'm not mistaken.
> 
> 
> 
> at some point, I think is perfectly reasonable, especially when long term he is looking to be like the 4rth big on this team and if thats the case the bigs won't have very diversified talent.
> 
> Now did Pax jump the gun by a year in trading Chandler, maybe. It seems to me Chandler could've opened up a few trade possibilities next summer. But Pax was aware of that, the team's financial situation could've waited a year, maybe Pax just doesn't see anything real expensive that he likes, we've talked about consolidating a million times and there are only 2 feasable names out there with contracts that would demand a Tyson like salary, and I am pretty sure Paxson knows exactly where those 2 guys stand. Likely the financial flexibilty we will have next year, being 15-17M under the cap before resigning Hinrich and Nocioni and having PJ this season is what Paxson saw as more desirable(than holding Chandler for another year). I don't think this team can go another offseason w/o consolidating, I am sure Paxson is preparing for it.
> 
> In 3 years TT is going to raise this issue again. I expect the Bulls to be proven contenders by then, and I will then expect JR to flip the bill. If he doesn't pay up at that point I will be calling for his head. Likely even before then, if he doesn't let Pax bring in a mid-level guy that looks like he can bring the team to another level or secure another championship.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I'm not sure that cheap is the best word. Greedy perhaps? I just have the impression that Reinsdorf made millions for years while putting a subpar team on the court and the fans kept throwing down a lot of money for tickets. It seems to me that if hardworking folk took a hit like that to go watch a losing team play he can take a bit of a hit to give the organization every opportunity possible to win. Considering that we've made the postseason two years in a row and are being picked by some to win the East, I'd say we're pretty solid contenders right now. What I always remember hearing is that Reinsdorf would not pay the luxury tax for a losing team. I naively assumed that meant that once the team established itself as a playoff team, we'd turn into the Knicks. I found this really exciting because I thought it would give us a huge competitive advantage if we never had to worry about losing an asset - no matter how ridiculous his salary demands - for payroll reasons.
> 
> Assuming Reinsdorf has indicated he will not allow the team to pay the luxury tax I think Pax handled the situation as best as he could. It is true that Chandler's contract wouldn't have had salary cap ramifications until next season but some were surprised Pax found someone to take him off our hands this past offseason without receiving a bad contract in return. If TC had a repeat of last season most likely no one would have taken him and his contract would've made it impossible to extend Kirk, Lu, Gordon, or Noc without paying the tax. From the standpoint of fiscal responsibility it was a brilliant move, that's why it received so much praise from analysts. The problem is that fiscal responsibility benefits the shareholders and not the fans.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Cager

The penguin is 100% on it. Bad hands and lack of coordination cannot be changed. At best Tyson could be a sub-par offensive player. Also cutting 23-24 year olds slack because of their age is naive if they have had 5 years of NBA time. Time where they get a tremendous amount of coaching help. Little or no improvement in 5 years almost always means it ain't ever going to happen. Players do have to believe in themselves to succeed which is why so many get "re-born" with new coaching in the off season. They need to have an excuse they can live with for not being a better player. It doesn't make them bad people. I'm sure Ty thinks he worked his butt off and from what I read over the years he really did that one summer ( his contract year). Curry also thinks he works hard. I always hoped Ty would be just OK on the offensive end but it never happened and may never happen. 

He had to go for the Bulls to be able to sustain a drive to the championship. He is way over paid for what he brings. It is amazing to watch Ben and see that he is sio much more talented on the offensive end than Tyson. Tyson has to be the only NBA player that Wallace compares favorably to. Krause --- what were you thinking ??


----------



## johnston797

Cager said:


> Bad hands and lack of coordination cannot be changed.


Not sure this is true. Hands and coordination usually looked very good rebounding. Also when catching Jalen Rose's Alley Oops. Pretty darn good on O when needed in the 04-05 playoffs (11.7ppg, 1.3 A, 1.3 TO). I think he went into "Don't, don't screw up mode". 

On the other hand, I've can't remember the last player to play so bad and turn it around 100%. We'll see.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

> Chandler says he just needed some support.
> 
> "When you know you're not going to get the ball, you kind of go through the motions," Chandler said without rancor. "You say to yourself, 'What am I doing this for?' Then you start believing it yourself. Like, 'Damn, I can't score. What happened?' It got so I didn't want to go into games at home. I felt like I was letting the city down...
> 
> "I felt like I wasn't getting a fair shake. All that is forgotten now, but it is in the back of my head. So I'll never let that happen again. It will make me a much better player in the long run. It will all make me work that much harder. Now things are going the way they should have all along."


It won't surpise anyone that this is the kind of thing that gives me indigestion.

If a professional athlete thinks he is a scorer and is not getting the opportunities, what is he supposed to do? Well, there is the whole "work on your game in the offseason" thing. If you want to gain the confidence of coaches and teammates, you SHOW them in practice that you are a scorer. Then they start to trust you. You want to gain confidence from the fans and the media? Put it in the hole during a few games in a row. Guess what? The fans will love you for it. And the questions will stop.

What you don't do:

You don't just go through the motions and mope to yourself "what happened?"

That is penny ante bull**** through and through. It is worthless and weak.

NOW he is going to work that much harder?

NOW things are going the way they should?

Guess what, Ty?

THAT IS WHAT YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOING ALL ALONG.

But you didn't.

Thanks for the rebounds and the blocks. They were much appreciated.

But you could have done so much more if you hadn't settled for going through the motions.

Don't you dare try to pin that on Skiles or anyone else.

Showing you got game is YOUR responsibility.

Hanging your head helped no one. Not you, not your yeam, not your friends or the city you loved.

It just wasted our time and yours.

Best wishes.


----------



## mr.ankle20

johnston797 said:


> Man, I don't understand this board. Our god-like GM gave Chandler a $64M contract just 1 year ago. This may be the biggest contract that Reinsdorf has ever signed. Chandler then had a very, very bad year. But if he bounces back to 04-05 level this year and keeps getting better, then it's just that one very bad year.
> 
> And isn't that exactly what NOK just bet $50M on.



8 points and 9 rebound per game is not good for a former # 2 pick


----------



## johnston797

mr.ankle20 said:


> 8 points and 9 rebound per game is not good for a former # 2 pick


Look, if people can't appreciate the frequent game changing play that Chandler brought to us in less than full-time minutes in 04-05, I can't help them. Paxson appreciated it.


----------



## garnett

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> It won't surpise anyone that this is the kind of thing that gives me indigestion.
> 
> If a professional athlete thinks he is a scorer and is not getting the opportunities, what is he supposed to do? Well, there is the whole "work on your game in the offseason" thing. If you want to gain the confidence of coaches and teammates, you SHOW them in practice that you are a scorer. Then they start to trust you. You want to gain confidence from the fans and the media? Put it in the hole during a few games in a row. Guess what? The fans will love you for it. And the questions will stop.
> 
> What you don't do:
> 
> You don't just go through the motions and mope to yourself "what happened?"
> 
> That is penny ante bull**** through and through. It is worthless and weak.
> 
> NOW he is going to work that much harder?
> 
> NOW things are going the way they should?
> 
> Guess what, Ty?
> 
> THAT IS WHAT YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOING ALL ALONG.
> 
> But you didn't.
> 
> Thanks for the rebounds and the blocks. They were much appreciated.
> 
> But you could have done so much more if you hadn't settled for going through the motions.
> 
> Don't you dare try to pin that on Skiles or anyone else.
> 
> Showing you got game is YOUR responsibility.
> 
> Hanging your head helped no one. Not you, not your yeam, not your friends or the city you loved.
> 
> It just wasted our time and yours.
> 
> Best wishes.


 :clap:


----------



## Bulls_Bulls_Bulls!

Now that Ty-RUS appears to be stepping up to the plate as the real deal, the Ty-SON trade doesn't rub me in such a bad way, anymore, at least in terms of basketball....


----------



## DaBullz

Since we seem to have an official Chandler update thread now...

Chandler's out with a sprained ankle.

He's a DNP in the last three games.

His last game was a 10 pt/3 reb/1 blk/5 pf in 17 minutes type.


----------



## Showtyme

I think Chandler didn't understand that if he tried harder to be more effective at getting the garbage points, he could earn the trust of his teammates on offense instead of getting pity possessions with which he can't do much.

I feel like I'm like Chandler when I play ball. I'm shaky offensively, and timid, but if I'm playing with guys that trust me to make simple plays, and if I start making them, then my teammates confidence in me and my own self-confidence begin to rise. If I cut to the basket and get near the opposite block when the little guards are driving in, I can sometimes get a dump pass when he gets doubled or tripled and all I need to do is convert a layup. If I can get an offensive rebound and get a putback, it will make it more likely that I'll be trusted (especially in a pickup game) for an open jumper.

But sometimes I want them to give me a chance without having earned it up front, and then when I get my chances, I fumble the ball or try a move that is completely wrong, and then I'm basically just a rebounder or defender for the rest of the game.

For anyone who hasn't figured it out by now, I'm actually pretty bad at basketball.

But I just think that Chandler's being just like me, trying to get more involved with offense but not earning it by doing the little things first. Stop dropping lob passes in the lane! Start making putbacks! Move the ball properly when you get it in the high post, triangle-style! Get tips and dunks and show that you are good with the ball in general, near the hoop.

Ben Wallace eventually got way more involved in the offense in Detroit. He even put the ball on the floor several times and got to the hoop for fairly soft-handed layups. But this was all after he demonstrated that he could score in the way that defensive specialists can score, FIRST.

If Tyson expects a three-point shooting coach or wants to handle the ball and cross guys over on the baseline... it's just not going to happen, and he's trying to grow a skill set that will never translate into anything useful in the League.


----------



## Ron Cey

johnston797 said:


> Look, if people can't appreciate the frequent game changing play that Chandler brought to us in less than full-time minutes in 04-05, I can't help them. Paxson appreciated it.


The key difference in the positions people appear to be taking is which Tyson they are referring to.

For all the discussion about the monetary aspects of this (which I agree was a big part of the trade), lets not forget the basketball aspects too. We can talk about 2004-05 until we're blue in the face, but the reality is we were one full season removed from that when the team decided to deal Chandler.

Tyson Chandler's inconsistent play actually hurt the team last year. Thats a pretty big issue that is being overlooked here, I think. Not to mention that he would team horribly with Ben Wallace. PJ Brown, Tyrus Thomas and even Malik Allen are so far and away better complements to Wallace that its hardly worth discussing.

Chandler's value - assuming he could play with consistency which is an incredibly shaky assumption - would have been to provide 10-12 minutes a game when Wallace was on the bench. 

Now that we have Wallace, I'll take PJ Brown (and many, many other role playing power forwards around the league) over Chandler every time. 

Truth is though, it appears the Bulls decided to trade Chandler regardless of Ben Wallace. Had Wallace not been signed, I'd probably be against the Chandler trade. But that isn't what happened.


----------



## JeremyB0001

Cager said:


> The penguin is 100% on it. Bad hands and lack of coordination cannot be changed. At best Tyson could be a sub-par offensive player. Also cutting 23-24 year olds slack because of their age is naive if they have had 5 years of NBA time. Time where they get a tremendous amount of coaching help. Little or no improvement in 5 years almost always means it ain't ever going to happen.


I think that's revisionist history to some degree. Chandler averaged 13 points per 35 minutes in his second season with a solid FG and FT%. I would say that is at least average offense and probably above average offense for a center. There are definitely counter examples (Jermaine O'Neal for one) suggesting that it is not naive to cut straight to high school players slack because of their age. As I said before, every indication I have is that age is a more relevant factor in judging development than experience. As I said before, having the resources of a pro can certainly help a player develop faster but it's not as though college players are working hard on their games and developing as players. Since even a four year college player typically isn't expected to make major contributions as a rookie, many players are never expected to show that much until the age of 23 (TC's current age). You can argue that because Chandler had the resources of a pro he should've developed one or two years earlier than the age of 23 when many players start to become a force but at most that puts him a year or two behind schedule and I don't think that's enough to completely give up on a player.


----------



## McBulls

Ron Cey said:


> Now that we have Wallace, I'll take PJ Brown (and many, many other role playing power forwards around the league) over Chandler every time.
> 
> Truth is though, it appears the Bulls decided to trade Chandler regardless of Ben Wallace. Had Wallace not been signed, I'd probably be against the Chandler trade. But that isn't what happened.


I don't think anyone questions trading Chandler after the Wallace signing per se. But it seems likely that the Bulls could have gotten better long-term value in return if they were not so concerned about saving money. The trade was primarily a contract dump at a time when the Bull could have well afforded to carry that contract or ones similar to it. 

Maybe PJ will have one or two good years with the Bulls -- time will tell. But after that Chandler will still be playing for another 10 years or so, and the Bulls will only have two second rounders to show for a guy we traded Elton Brand for, and carefully developed for so many years.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Chandler, with his bad hands and lack of coordination and all, was one of the main reasons the Bulls won 47 games two seasons ago and one of the main reasons the Bulls turned their season around last year. His productive play was essential to the Bulls even finishing at .500.

As for the inconsistency, yah, the start of last season sucked. But, many of our young players were inconsistent, and somehow they are not mentioned. For instance, Hinrich's 10 game vacation last season around late Dec/Early Jan when the Bulls were in a brutal losing streak was also hurt the team. 

Here's hoping that Ben Wallace plays 82 games, 33 minutes a night and can do the same for our entire playoff run. Seems like keeping Tyson would be cheap (free) insurance to this not happening... since I don't think PJ Brown is much of a difference maker at all. Average player... but average players are abundant in this league. Difference makers are not.

A team focused on "win now" would have kept Chandler, IMO. Or have gone for Murphy and Pietrus (man, just think of the consolidation trade we could pull off this off season if we had those two guys as well) Allen can play PJ's role just fine, IMO. And neither are really difference makers... just solid players.

All this being said, the Bulls still have a shot at making the NBA Finals this year, so things are hardly bleak big picture. I think we'd have a better shot at making the NBA Finals though if the Chandler dump didn't go down.


----------



## RoRo

another important factor being overlooked. tyson wants playing time. more than the 10-20 minute role he would have had here with ben, pj, tyrus, etc. 

tyson wants to start and wants 35+ minutes.
if chandler was moping around last year imagine how he'd play with (the possibility of) an even more limited role. how badly would that effect his mental approach to the game?


----------



## kukoc4ever

RoRo said:


> tyson wants to start and wants 35+ minutes.


link?

(pretty much all players want playing time. i loved this reason when the crawford dump went down. now he's content to come off the bench. miracle. the goal is to win a nba championship. the heat and spurs have really good players in complimentary/bench roles... we should too.)


----------



## ScottMay

Ron Cey said:


> Tyson Chandler's inconsistent play actually hurt the team last year. Thats a pretty big issue that is being overlooked here, I think.


Actually, that couldn't be further from the truth. Like the year before, the Bulls were a considerably better team with Chandler on the court vs. off -- hugely so in terms of overall offense and overall rebounding.

http://www.82games.com/0506/05CHI17D.HTM

You can argue that Tyson failed to build on the momentum of a tremendous close to 2004-2005, you can argue that he failed to add anything to his game over the summer, you can argue that he is a aesthetically ugly player to watch. 

But you can't argue that Chandler hurt the team last year. He didn't. He was one of the key reasons we won games, even as poorly as he appeared to play vs. 2004-2005.

And I see no evidence to suggest that Wallace and Chandler couldn't have easily coexisted and probably thrived together. P.J. Brown may be a classy guy and a hell of a human being, but he's not in Chandler's class as a rebounder or shot-blocker, and his offense is basically a wash -- yeah, he'll hit a jumper here or there, but he seldom ventures into the paint.


----------



## ScottMay

RoRo said:


> another important factor being overlooked. tyson wants playing time. more than the 10-20 minute role he would have had here with ben, pj, tyrus, etc.


A. PJ wouldn't have been here, so throw that out the window.

B. Tyrus Thomas fancies himself a 3; Chandler's a 5. I don't think they'd be directly competing for minutes. Chandler's competition would come from Sweetney, Schenscher, Allen, et. al.

C. I think once Skiles saw the Bulls utterly dominate opponents in the paint with Wallace and Chandler, Chandler would get as many minutes as his foul situation allowed.


----------



## JeremyB0001

mr.ankle20 said:


> 8 points and 9 rebound per game is not good for a former # 2 pick





TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> It won't surpise anyone that this is the kind of thing that gives me indigestion.
> 
> If a professional athlete thinks he is a scorer and is not getting the opportunities, what is he supposed to do? Well, there is the whole "work on your game in the offseason" thing. If you want to gain the confidence of coaches and teammates, you SHOW them in practice that you are a scorer. Then they start to trust you. You want to gain confidence from the fans and the media? Put it in the hole during a few games in a row. Guess what? The fans will love you for it. And the questions will stop.
> 
> What you don't do:


It's hard to find a better example of the point I made in post #41 than these two posts. These posts focus entirely on TC's production relative to his potential/expectations and the morality of his behavior. While these considerations may have an indirect effect on his future performance, in my mind the bottom line remains that even if TC doesn't work hard enough, has a bad attitude, and is a massive failure relative to his potential and expectations, that has virtually no bearing on whether or not he can help a team win basketball games. If he is moderately productive, having him on the roster helps you win more games than not having him at all.


----------



## Ron Cey

> Actually, that couldn't be further from the truth. Like the year before, the Bulls were a considerably better team with Chandler on the court vs. off -- hugely so in terms of overall offense and overall rebounding.
> 
> http://www.82games.com/0506/05CHI17D.HTM
> 
> You can argue that Tyson failed to build on the momentum of a tremendous close to 2004-2005, you can argue that he failed to add anything to his game over the summer, you can argue that he is a aesthetically ugly player to watch.
> 
> But you can't argue that Chandler hurt the team last year. He didn't. He was one of the key reasons we won games, even as poorly as he appeared to play vs. 2004-2005.


That isn't my argument. Had we replaced him with a more consistent producer, we would have been even better. Had he played with greater consistency - as he had in the previous season - we would have been even better. His failure to do so hurt relative to what it could have been, should have been, and will be now that we are going to get more consistency on the interior. 

Chandler playing wildly inconsistent basketball = 41 wins. Chandler not regressing dramatically and retaining his previous year's form = more than 41 wins and likely not battling Miami in the first round. 

I wrote that his *inconsistency* hurt the team - not that his presence on the court caused us to be worse than when he was riding pine. 

No stat from 82games.com is going to convince me that Chandler's inconsistent season didn't adversely affect the win column relative to what it would have been if he had showed up every night. 



> And I see no evidence to suggest that Wallace and Chandler couldn't have easily coexisted and probably thrived together. P.J. Brown may be a classy guy and a hell of a human being, but he's not in Chandler's class as a rebounder or shot-blocker, and his offense is basically a wash -- yeah, he'll hit a jumper here or there, but he seldom ventures into the paint.


I don't know what to tell you about that. Chandler's offense is a wash with Browns? There is more to offense than scoring and there is more to defense than the statistically quantifiable number of blocks and rebounds one gets. Passing. Shooting. Free Throws. Decision making. Screens. Position defense. Outlets. Fouls. Turnovers. Communication. Catching a pass. The list goes on and on. 

And please remember, I don't consider Chandler a bum. I do think he has value. But once Ben Wallace was signed, his value to the Bulls was essentially replaced and superceded.


----------



## BULLHITTER

> Maybe PJ will have one or two good years with the Bulls -- time will tell. But after that Chandler will still be playing for another 10 years or so, and the Bulls will only have two second rounders to show for a guy we traded Elton Brand for, and carefully developed for so many years.


this is NOT a given; chandler's upside is not as great as some here want to believe. not being able to catch, shoot or possess one offensive move, set picks (without fouling), all basic FUNDAMENTAL basketball as a 5th year player falls on the player moreso than the coach. as well, to believe bill cartwright was helping curry and chandler is wishful thinking at best; cartwright hasn't helped the bigs in jersey, nor has he distinguished himself as a head coaching candidate since his flop with the bull. and i LIKED medical Bill!

also, while it's easy to label ownership as parsimonious, getting a similar player who's ready to do the things that chandler did though CONSISTENTLY, was the primary reason (imo) management decided to cut ties with chandler. paying wallace a 4 time dpoy was a greater risk reward scenario than to keep hoping chandler was going to "get it". i'd challenge any poster to name a big man who blossomed into a top tier or "better than serviceable" player after 5 years in the league; i'd hazard to guess there aren't many, if any.

chandler may have been a nice kid and all, but 5 years is a fair enough indicator of what you've got with *any* player. further, with the impatience of fans (read some of the skeptical threads related to bull decisions) i'm surprised that there's still so much pro-chandler, curry, and even crawford floating around. the team is poised to make a serious run for the conference in little more than 3 years, yet some fans still want to feel like "they shoulda, woulda, coulda" with respect to certain guys. personally, after i see some wheel spinning, player busts, grossly overpaid player decisions, i'll give pax and company the benefit of the doubt inasmuch as it's their job to understand the mechanics of putting together a winning team, which 99.9999% of fans haven't a clue about other than random opinions like mine.


----------



## Swan

ScottMay said:


> A. PJ wouldn't have been here, so throw that out the window.
> 
> B. Tyrus Thomas fancies himself a 3; Chandler's a 5. I don't think they'd be directly competing for minutes. Chandler's competition would come from Sweetney, Schenscher, Allen, et. al.
> 
> C. I think once Skiles saw the Bulls utterly dominate opponents in the paint with Wallace and Chandler, Chandler would get as many minutes as his foul situation allowed.


Would you honestly want to have Chandler and Wallace sharing significant court time? We'd be good on defense, sure, but what could you run on offense?

A point that's probably been made, but could be said again is that P.J. Brown consistency and vet experience counts. Having a guy you don't have to worry about teaching can allow Skiles to focus on teaching our younger guys, and also makes game planning easier. Skiles doesn't have to worry about what frontcourt is going to show up play nearly as much as he had to last year, and that's a big deal. If chandler stayed, his minutes and numbers would imo be down, and there is the possibility that we could've gotten less or gotten stuck with his contract. It was a win-win move for both Chandler and the Bulls, once we got Wallace. was it a perfect deal? No, but I like P.J. in the short term and roster flexibility in the long term.


----------



## kukoc4ever

BULLHITTER said:


> this is NOT a given; chandler's upside is not as great as some here want to believe. not being able to catch, shoot or possess one offensive move, set picks (without fouling), all basic FUNDAMENTAL basketball as a 5th year player falls on the player moreso than the coach. as well, to believe bill cartwright was helping curry and chandler is wishful thinking at best; cartwright hasn't helped the bigs in jersey, nor has he distinguished himself as a head coaching candidate since his flop with the bull. and i LIKED medical Bill!


And yet, somehow, when Chandler played well the Bulls won. 3rd best team in the East with Chandler one of our most 3 productive players, leading the team in rebounds and blocks. Last season, when Chandler emerged from his start of the year funk, the Bulls starting rolling.

Chandler helps you win basketball games. That is the mark of a good basketball player. In Chandler's case, of course, its a lot more physical gifts than basketball fundamentals, but who cares, if he helps you win games.

How many 20+ rebounding games will Big Marty ever have? lol.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Swan said:


> A point that's probably been made, but could be said again is that P.J. Brown consistency and vet experience counts. Having a guy you don't have to worry about teaching can allow Skiles to focus on teaching our younger guys, and also makes game planning easier.


Malik Allen.

(maybe i'm the only one around here impressed with his play down the stetch last season and in the playoffs, and in the preseason. he looks better to me than creaky yet wise PJ. at least as good, imo.)


----------



## ScottMay

Ron Cey said:


> Chandler's offense is a wash with Browns? There is more to offense than scoring and there is more to defense than the statistically quantifiable number of blocks and rebounds one gets. Passing. Shooting. Free Throws. Decision making. Screens. Position defense. Outlets. Fouls. Turnovers. Communication. Catching a pass. The list goes on and on.


Man, with all that, you'd think Brown's impact on NOH's offense last year would have been profound. I guess it's just a fluke that the numbers don't bear that out.


----------



## jnrjr79

kukoc4ever said:


> And yet, somehow, when Chandler played well the Bulls won. 3rd best team in the East with Chandler one of our most 3 productive players, leading the team in rebounds and blocks. Last season, when Chandler emerged from his start of the year funk, the Bulls starting rolling.
> 
> Chandler helps you win basketball games. That is the mark of a good basketball player. In Chandler's case, of course, its a lot more physical gifts than basketball fundamentals, but who cares, if he helps you win games.
> 
> How many 20+ rebounding games will Big Marty ever have? lol.



Hmm. I can't remember where I put my "Third best player on the third best team in the second best conference getting bounced in the first round of the playoffs" foam finger.

:clown:


----------



## kukoc4ever

jnrjr79 said:


> Hmm. I can't remember where I put my "Third best player on the third best team in the second best conference getting bounced in the first round of the playoffs" foam finger.
> 
> :clown:



You probably shipped it down to New Orleans for a pack of Sea Monkeys and a Sour Patch Kid.

:clown:


----------



## RoRo

kukoc4ever said:


> link?
> 
> (pretty much all players want playing time. i loved this reason when the crawford dump went down. now he's content to come off the bench. miracle. the goal is to win a nba championship. the heat and spurs have really good players in complimentary/bench roles... we should too.)


ok i have no link 

like you said it's common sense. for crawford i think he got the taste of 'you can't do it by yourself'. i think every young player goes through that phase. then they realize it takes a team. i think chandler has gone throught that phase as well, but for him i don't see tyson being productive in a 10-20 minute time frame. it's not like he can explode for a 20 rebound perfomance (like crawford could explode for a scoring flurry). if tyson wants to get 10+ boards he needs playing time.


----------



## ScottMay

Swan said:


> Would you honestly want to have Chandler and Wallace sharing significant court time? We'd be good on defense, sure, but what could you run on offense?


What are we going to run on offense with Brown/Wallace?

We're talking about P.J. Brown here. A career 9.4 ppg scorer in 32 mpg (just about the exact equivalent of Chandler's 7.1 in 24 mpg). Not Karl Malone or Elvin Hayes.

P.J. Brown has morphed into a guy who does little more than take 15-foot jump shots. We have Malik Allen for that. P.J. Brown rarely scores inside, rarely scores on put-backs, and rarely draws fouls. Even in a wretched season, Chandler provided all of that and vastly superior, team-anchoring defense.


----------



## RoRo

ScottMay said:


> A. PJ wouldn't have been here, so throw that out the window.
> 
> B. Tyrus Thomas fancies himself a 3; Chandler's a 5. I don't think they'd be directly competing for minutes. Chandler's competition would come from Sweetney, Schenscher, Allen, et. al.
> 
> C. I think once Skiles saw the Bulls utterly dominate opponents in the paint with Wallace and Chandler, Chandler would get as many minutes as his foul situation allowed.


a. true, but look at least year. unspectacular malik allen and off-year songo and out-of-shape sweets were just as likely to be on the floor in crunch time as tyson was. even last year tyson couldn't stand out against that competition.

b. i think tyrus speed and instincts are more than enough to take minutes away from chandler. krypaya (sp) would be in for offense/defense. noc had alot of success as the pf vs miami.

c. or he could watch teams play suffocate kirk and ben on those pick and rolls and let chandler and wallace beat them on offense.


----------



## superdave

Where is the 'Chandler is a 5' talk coming from? Most of the board agreed that he was playing out of position the last two years w/o Curry.


----------



## BULLHITTER

> And yet, somehow, when Chandler played well


and yet he couldn't find out how to do it in each game. maybe he should play a high school or college schedule number of games and the bull would have gotten their money's worth.


----------



## kukoc4ever

BULLHITTER said:


> and yet he couldn't find out how to do it in each game. maybe he should play a high school or college schedule number of games and the bull would have gotten their money's worth.


Do you think the Bulls will be getting their moneys worth out of PJ Brown this season?


----------



## Cager

We pulled for Chandler for five years and he was definitely a difference maker in the second half of the 04-05 season but ... we have to be willing to see things the way they really are and not through fan's eye. Tyson had no real reason not work on his game or his body in the summer of 2005; in fact he just finsihed a season that seemed to confirm that he could become special. A great defender and rebounder with some ability to score. But .. he was terrible last year. He couldn't catch the ball, he regressed shooting the ball and yes the fans got on him but only because he stunk for too many games. 

If we are going to be challenfing for championships, we don't have time or money to spend waste on someone who showed no improvement offensively in 5 years and still was inconsistent at staying in games due to foul troubles. I wish him well in NOK but it was a great move to trade him. We now have a shot this year and we have money to keep everybody together. Tough love is the only way to win in sports. TY just wasn't pulling his weight and most importantly could not be counted on to improve his game. He was the major reason we had to play Miami in the first round last year. If he would have played like 2004-2005 then we would have gotten the #4 seed again. He simply is not dependable.


----------



## BULLHITTER

> Do you think the Bulls will be getting their moneys worth out of PJ Brown this season?


the simple and concise answer to that question is yes.


----------



## DengNabbit

kukoc4ever said:


> Malik > PJ.




you've said a few times that Malik and PJ are somehow interchangeable or directly comparable with their skills set. i just dont see that. PJ is going to be much more physical, defensively and for down low scoring. he wont fill it up down low, but Malik is nonexistent there. 

Malik can hit the open jumper, and PJ has the ability to do that also, perhaps with a little less consistency. 


I'll go along with saying there's at least a vague similarity between them....... but even with that in mind...... wouldnt you rather have two guys like that, as opposed to two Wallaces? Wallace will get big minutes here, and at the other frontcourt spot.... you're better off having someone with a little offense. Tyson wouldnt play.

also, Malik had more stretches of nagging injury than P.J did last year... so i dont think you want him to be the only guy on your roster who can be 6'10" with a jumper.


----------



## RoRo

BULLHITTER said:


> the simple and concise answer to that question is yes.


i think it boils down to what you think a good team should be made of. some would say a good team has room for players that bring a high reward but with a relative risk. others would rather have a conservative and predictable bench. 

i don't know if one's more correct than the other, but i think i see where pax is coming from. all those years with the bulls who were mj and pip's backups? unspectacluar bench players that were really good at 1-2 things. were they more representative of the untapped potential of chandler or were they more along the lines of a boring old PJ Brown?


----------



## jnrjr79

kukoc4ever said:


> You probably shipped it down to New Orleans for a pack of Sea Monkeys and a Sour Patch Kid.
> 
> :clown:


Lol. I LOVE Sour Patch Kids.


----------



## kukoc4ever

DengNabbit said:


> you've said a few times that Malik and PJ are somehow interchangeable or directly comparable with their skills set. i just dont see that. PJ is going to be much more physical, defensively and for down low scoring. he wont fill it up down low, but Malik is nonexistent there.


Actually, they are about the same.

Last season.
Malik Allen
76% offense from outside -- .497 eFG
24% of offense from inside -- ..475 eFG
Total eFG: .492

PJ Brown
70% of offense from outside -- .431 eFG
30% of offense from inside -- .534 eFG
total eFG: .462

So, both choose to shoot mostly from the outside. Malik is more effective. .431 eFG is pretty crappy from PJ. If anything, he should not settle for that outside shot. He was not good at it last season. 

(the main reason PJ's inside eFG is higher is that he's more productive on tip-ins, for whatever reason)




> Malik can hit the open jumper, and PJ has the ability to do that also, perhaps with a little less consistency.


No perhaps about it. He's poor at it, at least he was last season.




> I'll go along with saying there's at least a vague similarity between them....... but even with that in mind...... wouldnt you rather have two guys like that, as opposed to two Wallaces?


Hell no. I'd rather have two difference makers on the squad than two average players. Its a lot more difficult to replace a difference maker than it is an average player. Its pretty easy to replace the tangibles that PJ gives you. 

As for the intangibles, I'll have to see. I'll admit that I didn't see a lot of New Orleans Hornets basketball last season.... did you? 





> also, Malik had more stretches of nagging injury than P.J did last year... so i dont think you want him to be the only guy on your roster who can be 6'10" with a jumper.


PJ didn't have a jumper last season. Perhaps he'll be better this year.


----------



## jnrjr79

I'd like to make one point about Chandler being a "difference maker." I agree that he is a player with a special gift that can win you games. However, I also feel that he can lose you games when he disappears entirely during several stretches of the season. The steady but unspectacular play of someone like PJ might not be likely to win you some games that Tyson could, but he's not going to lose them for you either.


----------



## kukoc4ever

jnrjr79 said:


> I'd like to make one point about Chandler being a "difference maker." I agree that he is a player with a special gift that can win you games. However, I also feel that he can lose you games when he disappears entirely during several stretches of the season. The steady but unspectacular play of someone like PJ might not be likely to win you some games that Tyson could, but he's not going to lose them for you either.


The nice thing about having Chandler on this roster is that we would no longer have to play him heavy minutes on the nights that he does not "have it."

If, heaven forbid, Wallace gets hurt, we'd rather have Chandler at center, no doubt about it.

As for PJ at PF, Allen gives you what he does, and I hope he'll be benched for Tyrus by mid-season anyway. Noc can be fairly productive at that spot as well. Lots of options to replace creaky yet wise PJ. Its pretty easy to replace an average player. Not true with Big Ben.


----------



## Ron Cey

ScottMay said:


> Man, with all that, you'd think Brown's impact on NOH's offense last year would have been profound. I guess it's just a fluke that the numbers don't bear that out.


Did I assert that PJ had big offensive impact on NO? I'm not arguing that PJ Brown is an offensive force. He's not. But he's a more skilled offensive player - taking into consideration everything that offense entails - and, therefore, a better match with Wallace (and Ben Gordon for that matter, since he can set effective screens) than Chandler would be. 

Contrarily, Chandler may be a better blend with West than Brown was. Its scenario specific. 

I don't think its even remotely accurate to say he's "a wash" with Chandler when evaluating how their skills mesh with Ben Wallace.


----------



## kukoc4ever

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_lxjfEfcKAM"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_lxjfEfcKAM" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


----------



## Ron Cey

ScottMay said:


> Even in a wretched season, Chandler provided all of that and vastly superior, team-anchoring defense.


Chandler provided "team-anchoring defense" to the Bulls *last* season? That simply isn't true. 

And the year before with all his spectacular 4th quarter stops, he still wasn't a "team-anchoring defender". Chandler is an opportunistic, roaming, weak side defender. And when he's on he's great at it and I'm not trying to downplay the significance of that role. 

But he is not an achor. Ben Wallace has a team anchoring imact. Pippen. Zo in his younger days. Motumbo. Artest. AK47. Even Jason Kidd when he was a little younger. 

Even when he was on, Chandler was a specialist.


----------



## McBulls

I didn't see New Orleans play much last season, but the fact that PJ has been named to all-NBA defensive teams several times in the past makes me think that he may add at least as much to the team as Chandler would have. 

Both Chandler and PJ would be fated to play relatively few minutes with the additions of Thomas, Khryapa and Wallace to the lineup. The difference is that lighter minutes fit PJ's age while they would have inspired complaints from Chandler.

But, as K4E points out, if Wallace goes down for an exended period of time, there's no doubt that we'll miss Chandler. We'll miss him even more in a year or two if we don't draft or trade for a competent 7 footer.


----------



## Ron Cey

> If, heaven forbid, Wallace gets hurt, we'd rather have Chandler at center, no doubt about it.


I consider this to be the only legitimate argument against the Chandler trade. I don't have a counter-argument other than to note his salary. And since many of you, perhaps rightly so, refuse to accept fiscal responsibility as a legitimate issue in the wake of some very nice profits during the Dark Ages, I don't have anything to add. 

Clearly, having Chandler stored away at the end of the bench for insurance is better than Big Marty. 



> As for PJ at PF, Allen gives you what he does


If you ignore the 50% of the game that is defense.


----------



## JeremyB0001

Ron Cey said:


> Did I assert that PJ had big offensive impact on NO? I'm not arguing that PJ Brown is an offensive force. He's not. But he's a more skilled offensive player - taking into consideration everything that offense entails - and, therefore, a better match with Wallace (and Ben Gordon for that matter, since he can set effective screens) than Chandler would be.
> 
> Contrarily, Chandler may be a better blend with West than Brown was. Its scenario specific.
> 
> I don't think its even remotely accurate to say he's "a wash" with Chandler when evaluating how their skills mesh with Ben Wallace.


I disagree with the notion that Chandler and Wallace would have been a poor fit together on two different levels:

1) I believe that balance is oftentimes overrated in sports. Perhaps there is value in having a frontcourt player like Brown who theoretically complements Big Ben in some ways. But on the other hand, isn't there also value in having two devastating shot blockers on the floor at the same time? If one is pulled away from the basket for some reason, odds are the other is going to be there to contest the shot. And if both players are at the basket and contest the same shot you have an even better chance of altering or successfully blocking the attempt. 

This is essentially the same argument some analysts have been advancing about the Bulls this season, "Sure they added a great defender in Wallace but they were already one of the best defensive teams in the league, how much better can they get defensively, they need to improve their offense." My answer is that just because you're already great defensively doesn't mean you can't improve even more and become easily the best defensive team in the league or perhaps one of the best defensive teams in the history of the league. I'm sure it is true to some extent that a good offensive player can improve a poor offensive better than a good defensive player can improve a good defense but I think that concept is often vastly overstated.

2) Admittedly I never paid a great deal of attention to Big Ben's defense when we played the Pistons so it's hard for me to say how much he acted as a roaming defender. Articles I've read since we landed him seem to suggest he thrives in that role but at the same time I have seen him credited for shutting down the team's best post scoring threat (I guess he could be receiving credit for shutting down Shaq because he came over on double teams and helped shut him down). Regardless, I imagine it will be Ben and not Brown defending Shaq when we play the Heat this season which suggests to me that had Chandler stuck around he wouldn't have been asked to guard the opposing team's biggest/most dominant post player as he was last season. As someone else referenced a few posts back, there seems to be a consensus that Chandler is much more dominant defensively when he's allowed to roam and it appears he would've played this role more with Ben on board.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Ron Cey said:


> If you ignore the 50% of the game that is defense.


Not ignoring it, just didn't have time to compile it. Now that I have, I'm sure it will just be poo-pooed, but I like punishment. 

Last season, for the Hornets, PJ played 56% of the available team center minutes and 3% of the available minutes at PF. Opposing Cs had a PER of 16.3 (good) against him and opposing PFs had PERs of 12.6. The PFs # is promising, but he played very few minutes at PF, so I'm not sure what to make of it. The bulk of his minutes were at center and centers did very well against him, unless he was shutting down their intangibles so much that it offset the tangibles they were piling on against him.

Malik Allen played 8% of the teams minutes @ PF and 8% of team teams minutes @ C. Opponents had a PER of 14.8 and 14.6 against him, both indicating below average tangible performances. So, Allen wasn't getting lit up by any means tangibly.


----------



## The ROY

kukoc4ever said:


> If, heaven forbid, Wallace gets hurt, we'd rather have Chandler at center, no doubt about it.


Actually, I'd rather have the 10,7 & a blk by PJ instead

and a Chandler/Wallace front court would of been the least productive offenensively in the HISTORY of the NBA. It simply wasn't gonna happen


----------



## Ron Cey

> 1) I believe that balance is oftentimes overrated in sports.


Man, I think its one of the most underrated things. 



> But on the other hand, isn't there also value in having two devastating shot blockers on the floor at the same time?


In bursts, it would be absolutely devastating. No doubt about it. But basketball is a 48 minute per game, 82 game process. Play in, play out I think a better positional, heady defender like Brown blends better with Wallace. 

And Brown might not be a great shot blocker - he's not - but he is an excellent man defender which should facilitate Wallace doing more of what he does best: Be everywhere. 

Not to mention that the majority of my "who is the better fit" analysis is about offense. 



> This is essentially the same argument some analysts have been advancing about the Bulls this season, "Sure they added a great defender in Wallace but they were already one of the best defensive teams in the league, how much better can they get defensively, they need to improve their offense." My answer is that just because you're already great defensively doesn't mean you can't improve even more and become easily the best defensive team in the league or perhaps one of the best defensive teams in the history of the league. I'm sure it is true to some extent that a good offensive player can improve a poor offensive better than a good defensive player can improve a good defense but I think that concept is often vastly overstated.


I agree with this, but I don't think its the same argument. 



> 2) Admittedly I never paid a great deal of attention to Big Ben's defense when we played the Pistons so it's hard for me to say how much he acted as a roaming defender.


I have always likened Wallace to an interior version of Pippen. He plays everywhere. As for the remainder of this paragraph, Detroit fans will tell you that Ben Wallace typically was left to play that "team anchor" role while Rasheed was given the man-to-man assignments. 

Personally, I think it will depend on the type of player we are talking about. Ben will get some of the man assignments and PJ will get other ones. And there are even more matchups where PJ probably shouldn't be used at all - Antawn Jamison, Shawn Marion, Lamar Odom, etc. - and Noc/Deng/Tyrus will be primarily teamed with Wallace.


----------



## kukoc4ever

The ROY said:


> Actually, I'd rather have the 10,7 & a blk by PJ instead


Well, if you looked at it a little harder, I don't think you would.

Opposing centers lit Brown up last season. A PER of 16.3. Chandler, while at center, held his guy to a 14.9 PER. Perhaps Chandler let his guy whoop us with his intangibles, but the tangibles that the Cs Chandlers guarded were worse than the tangibles from the Cs Brown was guarding.

Chandler is a better rebounder and shot blocker... that goes without saying.

Perhaps you would prefer Brown lobbing up his jump shots with a poor eFG of 43.1... but I don't know why you would want that.

Passing? Chandler's assist ratio of 14.8 was much higher than Brown's 10.8.

What part of Brown's game do you like? Just curious.




> and a Chandler/Wallace front court would of been the least productive offenensively in the HISTORY of the NBA. It simply wasn't gonna happen


Who is saying to start both of them?


----------



## Ron Cey

kukoc4ever said:


> Not ignoring it, just didn't have time to compile it. Now that I have, I'm sure it will just be poo-pooed, but I like punishment.
> 
> Last season, for the Hornets, PJ played 56% of the available team center minutes and 3% of the available minutes at PF. Opposing Cs had a PER of 16.3 (good) against him and opposing PERs of 12.6. The PFs # is promising, but he played very few minutes at PF, so I'm not sure what to make of it. The bulk of his minutes were at center and centers did very well against him, unless he was shutting down their intangibles so much that it offset the tangibles they were piling on against him.
> 
> Malik Allen played 8% of the teams minutes @ PF and 8% of team teams minutes @ C. Opponents had a PER of 14.8 and 14.6 against him, both indicating below average tangible performances. So, Allen wasn't getting lit up by any means tangibly.


Sounds good that PJ will be playing PF for us, then. What were his "promising" PF #s? 

For the most part, Malik Allen played his minutes against scrubs, not starters. This is where I take issue with the significance of these statistics. Forgive my ignorance, but do these statistics take into consideration the collective PERs of the players he actually was assigned to defend so as to compare whether they went up or down against Malik? In other words, if the average PERs of the players Malik defended were 13.2, giving up 14.8 PER doesn't strike me as particularly good. Though it could be the converse, which would really impress me. 

Malik has never struck me as a particularly solid defender. Not bad, I don't think. But certainly nothing better than a little bit below average.


----------



## The ROY

kukoc4ever said:


> Well, if you looked at it a little harder, I don't think you would.
> 
> Opposing centers lit Brown up last season. A PER of 16.3. Chandler, while at center, held his guy to a 14.9 PER. Perhaps Chandler let his guy whoop us with his intangibles, but the tangibles that the Cs Chandlers guarded were worse than the tangibles from the Cs Brown was guarding.
> 
> Chandler is a better rebounder and shot blocker... that goes without saying.
> 
> Perhaps you would prefer Brown lobbing up his jump shots with a poor eFG of 43.1... but I don't know why you would want that.
> 
> Passing? Chandler's assist ratio of 14.8 was much higher than Brown's 10.8.
> 
> What part of Brown's game do you like? Just curious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is saying to start both of them?


U don't pay 60 million for bench players

as far as all those statistics go, BLAH, that stuff never tells the whole story so I pay no attention to that.


----------



## fleetwood macbull

if this familiar sentiment goes according to historical form, the idea that we've made a bad move with Chandler will probably go about as far as the idea we've made a bad move with Eddy Curry, Eddie Robinson, Jamal Crawford, Jalen Rose, Jerry Krause, John Paxson, Scott Skiles etc etc etc on and on and on. 

Batting .1000 with those guys. Keep em coming. Very entertaining. Meanwhile, the Bulls will win 50+ games this year....*yawn*


----------



## JeremyB0001

The ROY said:


> Actually, I'd rather have the 10,7 & a blk by PJ instead
> 
> and a Chandler/Wallace front court would of been the least productive offenensively in the HISTORY of the NBA. It simply wasn't gonna happen


Ty average 7.9 points per 40 last year in arguably his worst offensive season and Brown averaged 11.4. Chandler had a substantially better FG%. I've heard this argument plenty and I just don't find it to be the slightest bit compelling.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago

Hilton Armstrong will eventually partner David West in the starting line up IMO

Chandler syncs in with Marc Jackson 

Cedric Simmons is still a project for another 1 to 2 seasons .

That's your big man rotation 

They need true vet leadership and preferably someone that can add scoring support to David West and also to Armstrong , who won't be a spectacular scorer , but will suprise some people IMO

Chandler is a wind bag who has never backed up his mouth and has had half a season over 5 of making a difference as a defensive specialist

I think Byron Scott will tire of him quickly ..I am not expecting great things of Chandler in New Orleans or anywhere else for that matter


----------



## kukoc4ever

Ron Cey said:


> Sounds good that PJ will be playing PF for us, then. What were his "promising" PF #s?


Sorry, edited the post. Brown played 3% of the team's PF minutes and the opposing PF had a PER of 12.8. Not many minutes, though. 




> For the most part, Malik Allen played his minutes against scrubs, not starters. This is where I take issue with the significance of these statistics.


I don't think that is true. I remember Allen basically not playing for most of the 1st half of the season. When he did start playing, he started for us a lot. Looking at his game log from last year seems to back this up. 

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3507/gamelog





> Forgive my ignorance, but do these statistics take into consideration the collective PERs of the players he actually was assigned to defend so as to compare whether they went up or down against Malik? In other words, if the average PERs of the players Malik defended were 13.2, giving up 14.8 PER doesn't strike me as particularly good. Though it could be the converse, which would really impress me.


Yah, it does not take this into account. Looking at the game logs though, I think both were playing against starters for a considerable portion of the time. There are good centers in both conferences at this point, but you could also argue that one of the two played more games against Cs/PFs from one conference.



> Malik has never struck me as a particularly solid defender. Not bad, I don't think. But certainly nothing better than a little bit below average.


I agree.... I don't think he's that bad either. I also don't think, from what I've seen from PJ the last couple years, that he's all that great anymore either.

I'm not sure which one is better than the other... just that Allen didn't get lit up and that Brown didn't shut down centers by any means, and thats where he played the bulk of his minutes. It looks like Brown did a good job against PFs, but he played only 3% of the teams minutes there. Also, these pos vs pos matchups don't take a lot into account... since defense is a team effort. But, I think its valuable to look at.


----------



## fleetwood macbull

this reminds me of the Walter Mondale and Bob Dole campaigns


----------



## kukoc4ever

The ROY said:


> as far as all those statistics go, BLAH, that stuff never tells the whole story so I pay no attention to that.


<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_lxjfEfcKAM"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_lxjfEfcKAM" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


----------



## JeremyB0001

The ROY said:


> U don't pay 60 million for bench players
> 
> as far as all those statistics go, BLAH, that stuff never tells the whole story so I pay no attention to that.


Maybe "U" and I don't be we don't have $60 million lying around. The owner does and considering everything the fans gave the franchise through the darks years and the team's revenue I don't see why the fans can't greedily demand fiscal irresponsibility if it gives us a bit of an edge by allowing us to overpay certain players to resign and to keep players with potential around to see how they develop.


----------



## kukoc4ever

JeremyB0001 said:


> Maybe "U" and I don't be we don't have $60 million lying around. The owner does and considering everything the fans gave the franchise through the darks years and the team's revenue I don't see why the fans can't greedily demand fiscal irresponsibility if it gives us a bit of an edge by allowing us to overpay certain players to resign and to keep players with potential around to see how they develop.


I agree with this.

But, I also think its important to reiterate that there would be little change in team payroll this season if we kept Chandler.


----------



## fleetwood macbull

kukoc4ever said:


> I agree with this.
> 
> But, *I also think its important to reiterate that there would be little change in team payroll this season if we kept Chandler*.


 only if you don't consider long term salary implications or why the trade was made


----------



## kukoc4ever

fleetwood macbull said:


> thats only if you don't consider long term salary implications or why the trade was made


I did consider that. That's why I said "this season."

Of course, I'm more of a "win now" guy since we broke the bank for a starting center a couple years north of 30.


----------



## fleetwood macbull

kukoc4ever said:


> I did consider that. That's why I said "this season."
> 
> Of course, I'm more of a "win now" guy since we broke the bank for a starting center a couple years north of 30.


then you should be happy. We're going to win. We'll be as theoretically good as any team can claim to be in the NBA, or in the ball park thereabouts. Short of maybe 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 elite clubs. I don't see the problem. Unless there is some kind of unreasonable standard being applied here. Is there an unreasonable standard being applied here?


----------



## kukoc4ever

fleetwood macbull said:


> if this familiar sentiment goes according to historical form, the idea that we've made a bad move with Chandler will probably go about as far as the idea we've made a bad move with Eddy Curry, Eddie Robinson, Jamal Crawford, Jalen Rose, Jerry Krause, John Paxson, Scott Skiles etc etc etc on and on and n.


Last season the Bulls regressed after making the Eddy Curry trade. We were a mediocre group (.500) and were quickly dispatched by a relevant team.

We've accomplished very little of note in the last 3 years, except for one good 47 win regular season where Curry was our leading scorer and Chandler our leading rebounder and shot blocker.



> Batting .1000 with those guys. Keep em coming. Very entertaining. Meanwhile, the Bulls will win 50+ games this year....*yawn*


Thank goodness the Pistons decided it was not worth it to resign their starting center to what we were willing to pay him and that we hit the lotto. "Found Money" and hoping champions don't want to remain champions. Great strategy. Thank goodness it worked out... i saw a guy split 10s at a blackjack table and win a couple times as well.


----------



## fleetwood macbull

kukoc4ever said:


> Last season the Bulls regressed after making the Eddy Curry trade. We were a mediocre group (.500) and were quickly dispatched by a relevant team.
> 
> We've accomplished very little of note in the last 3 years, except for one good 47 win regular season where Curry was our leading scorer and Chandler our leading rebounder and shot blocker.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness the Pistons decided it was not worth it to resign their starting center to what we were willing to pay him and that we hit the lotto. Lotto hitting and hoping champions don't want to remain champions. Great strategy. Thank goodness it worked out... i saw a guy split 10s at a blackjack table and win a couple times as well.


yeah, and the last 3 seasons where what its all about :rolls eyes:


----------



## kukoc4ever

fleetwood macbull said:


> then you should be happy. We're going to win. We'll be as theoretically good as any team can claim to be in the NBA, or in the ball park thereabouts. Short of maybe 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 elite clubs. I don't see the problem. Unless there is some kind of unreasonable standard being applied here. Is there an unreasonable standard being applied here?



Given the amount of money we spent on Wallace, and his level of production, its "win the championship now" if you are going to maximize his value. He's not getting any younger.

No unreasonable standard. I think 4 years on the job is a reasonable amount of time for a GM to make a run at the title.

While "theoretically good" sounds fun, I'm hoping to make an actual run at the title this season. Given the early promising play from Tyrus and a couple of other very good moves Paxson made this off-season, I think we're in good shape. That being said, we'd be in better shape if we kept Chandler on the roster.


----------



## kukoc4ever

fleetwood macbull said:


> yeah, and the last 3 seasons where what its all about :rolls eyes:


OK, which season is it "all about?"

This one? Do you think we'll win the title this year?


----------



## Ron Cey

> Sorry, edited the post. Brown played 3% of the team's PF minutes and the opposing PF had a PER of 12.8. Not many minutes, though.


No, its not many minutes. But considering that this is the position he'll largely be playing for us, that is encouraging. Especially since he really is a 4. 

What was Chandler's PER against in his minutes as a 4 last season? 

And where do you get this stuff so I don't have to keep asking you for the answers? :biggrin: Is it 82games or basketball-reference or what? 

EDIT: Nevermind. I found it. Chandler's was 13.0. Just a hair worse than Brown's when playing the 4 but pretty comparable. 



> I don't think that is true. I remember Allen basically not playing for most of the 1st half of the season. When he did start playing, he started for us a lot. Looking at his game log from last year seems to back this up.
> 
> http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3507/gamelog


Your recollection is correct. I'll take a look at the minutes and get back to you if I have a further quibble.


----------



## Hustle

All this per talk means nothing to me. Chandler is a better defender now (PJ has made 2nd team all-d 3 times), I don't really see how that is disputable, just watch the games. Tyson changes how teams work the ball and get shots in the paint, the way he gets up for a rebound is among the best in the league, PJ isn't half as noticeable or productive. 

I also don't understand how anyone could not think PJ is not better on offense to this day. Just look at our last game, he hits the open 15 footer, makes a post move, steals a ball and finishes on the other end. Don't even bring up FG% Tyson doesn't take anything more than 2 feet from the basket mostly dunks. FT%, passing(assist/TO ratio), the ability to set a screen w/o fouling....... what exactly does Tyson do better? Imagine not being able to play two of our bigs at the end of the game because they can't hit FTs'.


----------



## fleetwood macbull

kukoc4ever said:


> Given the amount of money we spent on Wallace, and his level of production, its "win the championship now" if you are going to maximize his value. He's not getting any younger.
> 
> No unreasonable standard. *I think 4 years on the job is a reasonable amount of time for a GM to make a run at the title*.


oh yeah, all the GMs are doing great at that one. :rolls eyes again:




> While "theoretically good" sounds fun, I'm hoping to make an actual run at the title this season. Given the early promising play from Tyrus and a couple of other very good moves Paxson made this off-season, I think we're in good shape.


well of course its so unforseen for you to apply the win it all this particular season standard. congrats, you will probably end up having something to be disapointed about all next summer



> That being said, we'd be in better shape if we kept Chandler on the roster.


of course. Is that a revalation? Then again, I'd be in better shape too if I won the lotto. But you can't always get what you want. Chandler had to go. We've got better players to worry about keeping on this team


----------



## kukoc4ever

fleetwood macbull said:


> well of course its so unforseen for you to apply the win it all this particular season standard. congrats, you will probably end up having something to be disapointed about all next summer


Uh, OK, how many years on the job until its reasonable to think we can win the title?

Paxson has created a solid environment here, at the expense of blowing up a team and enduring a miserable losing season. The Cap Space "plan" paid off. The "found money" was capitalized on. All the ducks are seemingly in a row. When is it reasonable to expect a title?





> Chandler had to go. We've got better players to worry about keeping on this team


He *had* to go? Why?

How does that affect the Bulls *this* season?


----------



## fleetwood macbull

kukoc4ever said:


> OK, which season is it "all about?"
> 
> This one? Do you think we'll win the title this year?


no. But we will keep on being competetive for the Eastern Conference title now and on into the long term future.
You'd think that would make a person happy, but i guess if you keep moving the line of unsatisfaction beyond the reasonable as you possibly can each season, you can always be in the position say I told you so. 

peace out amigo :smile:


----------



## Ron Cey

kukoc4ever said:


> I think 4 years on the job is a reasonable amount of time for a GM to make a run at the title.


What? 

Damn, you're a tough one. I'm glad you aren't my boss. :biggrin: 

If GMs had to live up to this standard, 99% of them would be fired in year 4.

With all those firings, eventually they'd get around to offering *me* the job. :banana: Of course, I'd get fired 4 years later.


----------



## ViciousFlogging

hey, this is a pretty good discussion.

The frustration Chandler caused me as a Bulls fan last year allowed me to watch him get traded with no real emotional reaction whatsoever. I know that he was sitting on his butt last season waiting for Pax to get a deal done, but honestly it seemed like he completely forgot how to play basketball when he came back last season. If his ability to be productive is that fragile, I'd rather not deal with the stress of wondering which Tyson we can expect on a daily/weekly/monthly basis. We have Ben for four years, three of which I expect to be at or near his historic performance level. We have PJ for one and he'll help. It'll be nice to have an entire frontcourt of players (minus Tyrus's likely ups and downs) who we can rely on to show up and get things done each night, even if it's not the rollercoaster that Eddy and Tyson had us on the last couple years.

That said, everyone who is saying Tyson is a worthless pile of feces and we are sooooooooo glad to be rid of him should go back and read some game threads from 04-05 and even the second half of last season. His help defense in 4th quarters saved our hides many times over. 

I think the reality is that, no matter how right k4e and ScottMay, among others, are about how much money the Bulls make and SHOULD be willing to spend, the Bulls will continue to try to keep the payroll under control unless or until we prove that we're title contenders. And, under the constraints of that reality, if it was necessary to move Tyson's long-term deal to put ourselves in better shape to retain all (or all but one, at the very least) of Kirk, Gordon, Deng, and Nocioni, then I can live with that. I'd rather have any of those four than Tyson (and that's not a slam on Tyson).


----------



## kukoc4ever

ViciousFlogging said:


> I think the reality is that, no matter how right k4e and ScottMay, among others, are about how much money the Bulls make and SHOULD be willing to spend, the Bulls will continue to try to keep the payroll under control unless or until we prove that we're title contenders. And, under the constraints of that reality, if it was necessary to move Tyson's long-term deal to put ourselves in better shape to retain all (or all but one, at the very least) of Kirk, Gordon, Deng, and Nocioni, then I can live with that. I'd rather have any of those four than Tyson (and that's not a slam on Tyson).


But, but, but, but.....

The payroll would basically be unchanged this season if the trade never happened.

If we're "win now," which the Wallace signing seemingly indicates, it seems like keeping Chandler would be a reasonable risk to take.

I don’t expect a Knicks level of spending by any stretch. But, we should be in the top quarter, given the amount of revenue the team generates. I think that’s reasonable.


----------



## BULLHITTER

> I think 4 years on the job is a reasonable amount of time for a GM to make a run at the title.


i think 4 years is enough to decide if a player is going to be the guy you want to move forward with when making that run......


----------



## Ron Cey

> But, but, but, but.....
> 
> The payroll would basically be unchanged *this season* if the trade never happened.


Right. This first season, with absolutely no regard for the future ramifications. 



> If we're "win now," which the Wallace signing seemingly indicates, it seems like keeping Chandler would be a reasonable risk to take.


Assuming he's a better option than Brown to team with Wallace. Which, in my opinion, he most certainly isn't. In the "win-now-one-year-window-analysis" approach you are taking, its still the right trade. 

As McBulls has pointed out, however, year 2 might be a different story. 



> I don’t expect a Knicks level of spending by any stretch. But, we should be in the top quarter, given the amount of revenue the team generates. I think that’s reasonable.


I think when we re-sign the core (which begins next summer evidently) or consolidate the talent for big contract player, we will be. I would certainly think so, anyway. 

I guess until we can evaluate the quality of our team based on total payroll, being pretty much universally considered a top 5-6 contender for the league Championship will have to do.


----------



## ViciousFlogging

kukoc4ever said:


> But, but, but, but.....
> 
> The payroll would basically be unchanged *this season[b/] if the trade never happened.
> 
> If we're "win now," which the Wallace signing seemingly indicates, it seems like keeping Chandler would be a reasonable risk to take. *


*


I know. I'm not disputing that...but it's the payroll down the line that is more important if we're talking about retaining the other members of the "core." If you're simply arguing that we didn't have to deal Chandler until next season at the earliest, fair enough. I personally don't think, if Wallace is on the team, Chandler would do much for the "win now" mandate - or, at least, any more than Brown would (I'm more or less with Ron Cey on that point as far as who fits better on a team WITH Wallace), but I can see where you're coming from.




I don’t expect a Knicks level of spending by any stretch. But, we should be in the top quarter, given the amount of revenue the team generates. I think that’s reasonable.

Click to expand...

me too. I think you're totally right when you talk about the Bulls' spending habits (or lack thereof). I was just talking about what the reality seems to be, not what we might like it to be.*


----------



## L.O.B

K4E,

You love potential so much, it seems when a 4 DPOY lands on the team your only complaint is the fact he's going to get old at sometime.


----------



## kukoc4ever

L.O.B said:


> You love potential so much, it seems when a 4 DPOY lands on the team your only complaint is the fact he's going to get old at sometime.


Actually, no, I'm probably going to pick the Bulls to make it to the NBA Finals.

But, a positive spin on the Chandler dump from me? Not gonna happen.


----------



## theanimal23

My pick: Bulls vs Spurs, but I think that series would be too boring. A fun series would be (due to clash of styles) Chicago vs Phx or Dallas, or the Clipps (b/c I like some of their guys).


----------



## The ROY

ViciousFlogging said:


> honestly it seemed like he completely forgot how to play basketball when he came back last season.


From what I remember, he did say something along the lines of "forgetting" what he was good at in the first.

Face it, he was a DISSAPOINTMENT, not only to the fans but to our coach who couldn't depend on him to do the LITTLE things right in games and to our GM who paid him 60 Mill and would of gladly kept him had he not played so horribly last season.

There is no point of comparing per stats between P.J & Tyson when Tyson only scored a dunk to two per game and had a few free throws.

Frankly, I'm sick of the guy making excuses, you guys making excuses and I'm very happy he is a New Orleans Hornet. Let someone else deal with that headache.

:banana:


----------



## L.O.B

kukoc4ever said:


> Actually, no, I'm probably going to pick the Bulls to make it to the NBA Finals.
> 
> But, a positive spin on the Chandler dump from me? Not gonna happen.


The positive I take away from the Tyson trade is cap flexibility and the minutes will go to better players in Nocioni, Deng and the rook Thomas. For what I've seen of Wallace, he's not coming out unless the opponents are playing hack a ben and then you wouldn't want to replace him with Tyson. So if Tyson is not backing up Ben, he's playing minutes at 4 and regardless of height I would rather have Nocioni,Deng, Thomas and Viktor playing minutes at pf and all of them combined don't make what Tyson does.


----------



## Ron Cey

L.O.B said:


> The positive I take away from the Tyson trade is cap flexibility *and the minutes will go to better players in Nocioni, Deng and the rook Thomas.* For what I've seen of Wallace, he's not coming out unless the opponents are playing hack a ben and then you wouldn't want to replace him with Tyson. So if Tyson is not backing up Ben, he's playing minutes at 4 and regardless of height I would rather have Nocioni,Deng, Thomas and Viktor playing minutes at pf and all of them combined don't make what Tyson does.


This is an excellent point that I had completely overlooked.


----------



## kukoc4ever

L.O.B said:


> The positive I take away from the Tyson trade is cap flexibility and the minutes will go to better players in Nocioni, Deng and the rook Thomas. For what I've seen of Wallace, he's not coming out unless the opponents are playing hack a ben and then you wouldn't want to replace him with Tyson. So if Tyson is not backing up Ben, he's playing minutes at 4 and regardless of height I would rather have Nocioni,Deng, Thomas and Viktor playing minutes at pf and all of them combined don't make what Tyson does.


Depends on what you are looking for.

If you are looking for more vertical defense, rebounding and shot blocking, you would rather have Chandler in there over Noc and Deng.

3 point shooting and gritty play? Noc it is. Slashing scoring? Deng.

I know that I'd rather have Chandler in there for any minutes that Big Marty and Luke are getting.

20 minutes for one of the top reobunders in the game? Yah, I think we could find a spot. 

Tyrus may very well end up being better than any of these guys... so yah. But, even if you are making the minutes argument, if you think that the team needs a consolidation trade, Chandler helps you big time with that as well, IMO.

Here's hoping that Big Ben stays healthy all year. If he gets hurt, it becomes Big Marty or back to small-ball.


----------



## fleetwood macbull

whoe Back for a minute. 

My intuitiveness is telling me the Bulls felt damn lucky to find a suck......eh uh...taker for the Chandler contract when they did. And that They didn't want to wait around to see how much further Chandler would make his contract unmoveable with another blah season.
The risk of another bad Chandler year was too much to take apparently.

win now? PJ and Tyrus mitigate the loss of whatever Chandler was to bring this season, if not entirely obliterating the loss. Given the opportunity both those fellas present balanced against the risk that Chandler makes himself an untradeable commodity with another bad year...the Bulls jumped at the chance of trading him to the Hornets imeejetly.

the Hornets are rolling the dice now, and don't have the Bulls issues to deal with

I might add, The Bulls really really don't want players around who mail in preparation and effort, poisoning the air at Berto. They will move heaven and earth if they need to make sure the real incubating talents on this team develop away from bad influences. Thats becoming so clear. Sweetney is a goner too.
.... they probably simply want practices to be as productive as possible without any drags out there (dumb players). Everyone pulling in the same direction smartly and all.


----------



## Wynn

L.O.B said:


> K4E,
> 
> You love potential so much, it seems when a 4 DPOY lands on the team your only complaint is the fact he's going to get old at sometime.


....add to that a three-time All-Defensive player (2nd team). Not much better than Malik Allen? The difference is the veteran presence and knowing where to be on the court. We've got two defensive quarterbacks who know how to play the game on the floor. We've got back what we lost in the big AD trade last summer..... a couple of solid post players who know where to be and when to be there.

I took the liberty of seeking out some career highlights. Granted that PJ and Ben have been around longer, it's hard for me to imagine that if we had to pick two of the following four players, most wouldn't come up with the same answer. Tyson's potential? In his five NBA seasons, it's difficult for me to locate any consistent upward trend. Maybe some stat guy can find one. I say the guy is what he is......

* Collier "PJ" Brown, Jr.* (from bio on NBA.com)

* Selected as the Central Division winner of the NBA Sportsmanship award and finished second in voting for the overall award

* Named to the NBA All-Defensive Second Team for the third time in his career

* Named to the 1998-99 NBA All-Defensive Second Team

* Played a vital role on a Miami team that won a franchise-record 61 games, captured the Atlantic Division title and reached the Eastern Conference Finals of the 1997 NBA Playoffs 

* Was voted to the NBA All-Defensive Second Team and also won the J. Walter Kennedy PBWA Citizenship Award for his off-court work

* Seen as an enticing physical package who could potentially mature into a competent NBA player, selected by New Jersey Nets in the second round (29th pick overall) of the 1992 NBA Draft ... Spent the 1992-93 campaign honing his game in Greece, averaging 17.0 points and 13.3 rebounds in 26 games for Panionios ... Joined the Nets as a 25-year-old rookie in 1993-94 and logged time at both center and power forward, appearing in 79 games and averaging 5.7 points and 6.2 rebounds in 24.7 minutes per game ... Ranked third on the club in rebounding and second in blocked shots (93) ... Selected to play in the inaugural Rookie Game at the NBA All-Star Weekend in Minneapolis. 


*Tyson Cleotis Chandler* (from bio on NBA.com)

* named the CDW/HP November Player of the Month, as he posted averages of 13.0 ppg, 10.3 rpg, 1.30 bpg, 1.0 apg and 28.6 mpg, while shooting .494 from the field

* Named Bulls/CDW Player of the Month for February after averaging 8.8 ppg, 6.8 rpg, 1.1 apg and 1.54 bpg, shooting .535 from the floor and .591 from the free throw line

* As a senior at Dominguez High School in Compton, California, was named to the Parade Magazine All-American first team and USA Today All-USA second team. ... Named USA Today California State Player of the Year as a senior. ... Led Dominguez to a 31-4 record as senior. ... Averaged 26 points, 15 rebounds and eight blocked shots for the season, helping Dominguez to the No. 8 final ranking in USA Today. ... Averaged 20.1 points, 11.3 rebounds, 4.7 blocked shots as a junior, leading the team to the No. 1 ranking in USA Today.

*Malik Omar Allen*

* Went undrafted in NBA Draft 2000 … played in the ABA with the San Diego WildFire and in the International Basketball League with Trenton in 2000-01 … signed as a free agent by the Miami Heat (07/20/01) … re-signed by the Heat (09/10/03) … traded by Miami to the Charlotte Bobcats in exchange for Steve Smith (02/24/05) … signed as a free agent by the Chicago Bulls (09/02/05).

*Ben Wallace*

* Finished the season as the only NBA player ranked in the Top-5 in blocks and Top-25 in steals

* Named to the Eastern Conference all-star team for the third consecutive year at NBA All-Star 2005

* Named All-NBA Third Team, All-Defensive First Team and NBA Defensive Player of the Year

* Finished the season as the only NBA player ranked in the Top-10 in rebounds, steals and blocks

* Earned All-NBA Second Team honors for the second consecutive season and NBA All-Defensive First Team honors for the third consecutive season

* Named as the Eastern Conference starting center for the second consecutive year at NBA All-Star 2004

* Named as the Eastern Conference starting center at NBA All-Star 2003

* Was the shortest person to lead the NBA in blocked shots


----------



## L.O.B

I don't believe Chandler has the worth in a consolidation trade because if a team is trading away a Superstar player, they aren't going to want Tyson's contract in return. It's my belief if a team is going into rebuilding mode they're going to want expiring contracts not 5 year players that still haven't developed a single post move that have 4 years remaining on the deal.


----------



## JeremyB0001

Hustle said:


> I also don't understand how anyone could not think PJ is not better on offense to this day. Just look at our last game, he hits the open 15 footer, makes a post move, steals a ball and finishes on the other end. Don't even bring up FG% Tyson doesn't take anything more than 2 feet from the basket mostly dunks. FT%, passing(assist/TO ratio), the ability to set a screen w/o fouling....... what exactly does Tyson do better? Imagine not being able to play two of our bigs at the end of the game because they can't hit FTs'.


Sometimes our eyes betray us and we come away from the game with inaccurate perceptions. Sometimes fans, coaches, and scouts are biased by how pretty a guy looks doing something (for example P.J. shooting a smooth jumper or putting up a nice hook) compared to a play doing dirty work (putbacks) or scoring on ugly moves. In the end it doesn't matter because two points is two points. I can say P.J. is not substantially better of offense because unlike other aspects of the game, we can measure scoring with extreme accuracy. If Tyson scores a comperable number of points on a comperable number of shot attempts that means he has comperable value to P.J. offensively. I find that to be pretty simple.


----------



## JeremyB0001

L.O.B said:


> The positive I take away from the Tyson trade is cap flexibility and the minutes will go to better players in Nocioni, Deng and the rook Thomas. For what I've seen of Wallace, he's not coming out unless the opponents are playing hack a ben and then you wouldn't want to replace him with Tyson. So if Tyson is not backing up Ben, he's playing minutes at 4 and regardless of height I would rather have Nocioni,Deng, Thomas and Viktor playing minutes at pf and all of them combined don't make what Tyson does.


Just to clarify, Tyson had no affect on the salary cap. You can go over the salary cap by any amount to resign your own players. The salary cap only affects signing free agents and after signing Wallace, the Bulls would only have cap money in the future if multiple members of the core were not resigned. Financially, moving Tyson's contract allows the team to resign most or all of the core and Wallace without paying the luxury tax. This is completely different because it only affects the players that are on the roster to the extent that Reinsdorf puts a limit on payroll.

If Noc plays major minutes at PF this season that is a decent argument that Tyson's worth would be diminished. However, there are some indications Skiles wants Noc to see fewer minutes at PF this season. Furthermore in my opinion it is pretty clear that Chandler is more valuable than Brown, Khryapa, Allen, Sweetney, and quite possibly TT for this season. Basically assuming that any players other than Noc, Wallace, and perhaps Thomas see substantial minutes at PF or C, the team is losing some productivity by moving TC.


----------



## Wynn

JeremyB0001 said:


> If Noc plays major minutes at PF this season that is a decent argument that Tyson's worth would be diminished. However, there are some indications Skiles wants Noc to see fewer minutes at PF this season. Furthermore in my opinion it is pretty clear that Chandler is more valuable than Brown, Khryapa, Allen, Sweetney, and quite possibly TT for this season. Basically assuming that any players other than Noc, Wallace, and perhaps Thomas see substantial minutes at PF or C, the team is losing some productivity by moving TC.


It will certainly be interesting to follow Chandler as a member of the Hornet this season and see what he does. I'm inclined to believe he'll be about what we've seen in his five years as a member of the Bull. I'm looking forward to comparing his productivity to that of PJ, Chapu, Malik, and the Wolverine. I highly doubt Sweets sees enough time to even warrant a comparison.


----------



## The ROY

JeremyB0001 said:


> the team is losing some productivity by moving TC.


That is simply NOT true. I don't even see how you could say that. Factor in what he brought to the table and what we lost when he was traded. Then think about Ben Wallace, Tyrus Thomas, P.J. Brown & Viktor Khyrapa all being added to the frontcourt. We didn't lose ANYTHING, we gained a HELL of alot more, if anything.

Are we forgetting the fact that Tyson didn't have his BEST year until it was time for that new contract? He's a bum, ask Adonyle Foyle & Erick Dampier


----------



## kukoc4ever

Wynn said:


> ....add to that a three-time All-Defensive player (2nd team). Not much better than Malik Allen?



Keep looking at production from 2000 if you want to. Why you would expect anywhere close to that from PJ this season is beyond me. Do you really expect all-defensive-team production from PJ Brown?

Maybe we can sign Robert Parish as well. I bet his bio is *really* impressive.


----------



## rosenthall

Wynn said:


> It will certainly be interesting to follow Chandler as a member of the Hornet this season and see what he does. I'm inclined to believe he'll be about what we've seen in his five years as a member of the Bull. I'm looking forward to comparing his productivity to that of PJ, Chapu, Malik, and the Wolverine. I highly doubt Sweets sees enough time to even warrant a comparison.


I'm rooting for Chandler in NO, but I have mixed opinions about how it will turn out. In some respects it looks like a good situation for him, but I have my doubts. 

I think he'll do well with an open court team and a running PG with Chris Paul, and given how temperamental he is, a fresh start and a good attitude could do a lot for his confidence, and I think that just getting off on the right foot will do a lot of good for him. I hope it does.

On the other hand, I'm guessing he'll still have the gaping holes in his game that he's had since he came into the league, and I don't think NO is good enough all around to compensate for that, so I suspect he might have a hard time staying on the court more than 30 minutes a game. Also, Byron Scott seems to be cut from the same cloth as Scott Skiles, and I can't imagine he'll have much patience with Tyson if he starts to lose it. He might actually be the one coach in the league that has a bigger doghouse than Skiles does.


----------



## JeremyB0001

The ROY said:


> That is simply NOT true. I don't even see how you could say that. Factor in what he brought to the table and what we lost when he was traded. Then think about Ben Wallace, Tyrus Thomas, P.J. Brown & Viktor Khyrapa all being added to the frontcourt. We didn't lose ANYTHING, we gained a HELL of alot more, if anything.
> 
> Are we forgetting the fact that Tyson didn't have his BEST year until it was time for that new contract? He's a bum, ask Adonyle Foyle & Erick Dampier


05-06 Stats Per 40 Minutes:

Chandler - 7.9 Points, 13.5 Rebounds, 2.0 Blocks, .8 Steals, 1.5 Assists, 2.3 Turnovers, .565 eFG%
Brown - 11.4 Points, 9.2 Rebounds, .8 Blocks, .8 Steals, 1.5 Assists, 1.5 Turnovers, .461 eFG%
Khryapa - 10.8 Points, 8.2 Rebounds, .8 Blocks, 1.3 Steals, 2.4 Assists, 2.3 Turnovers, .477 eFG%
Allen - 15.2 Points, 8.0 Rebounds, .9 Blocks, .8 Steals, 1.1 Assists, 1.9 Turnovers, .492 eFG%

Chandler looks like the best player on that list to me especially when you consider that the consensus is that he is the best defender in the group. Khryapa could improve because he's still young like Chandler but Allen is 28 and at his age we'll be lucky if we get numbers that good from Brown. I left open the possibility that TT will outplay TC this season but it seems like a bit of a stretch in his rookie season. Furthermore, remember that Chandler was traded for Brown only. You act as though we acquired Wallace (free agent) and Khryapa (TT trade) for Chandler somehow. In reality as long as Chandler outproduces Brown - that seems like a very good bet considering their ages - we will not be as good this season as we would have had we not made the trade. My point in the earlier post was that were TC still on the roster his minutes would figure to come from some of the minutes Khryapa, Brown, Allen, and Thomas will receive. The numbers above suggest Chandler will outproduce most and probably all of those players.


----------



## rosenthall

ViciousFlogging said:


> I think the reality is that, no matter how right k4e and ScottMay, among others, are about how much money the Bulls make and SHOULD be willing to spend, the Bulls will continue to try to keep the payroll under control unless or until we prove that we're title contenders. And, under the constraints of that reality, if it was necessary to move Tyson's long-term deal to put ourselves in better shape to retain all (or all but one, at the very least) of Kirk, Gordon, Deng, and Nocioni, then I can live with that. I'd rather have any of those four than Tyson (and that's not a slam on Tyson).


I think in a lot of ways, that was the essence of the situation. I think when the trade was made, there were two overriding factors in the decision making process:

1). Tyson really soiled his place in the teams future with his lack of preparation last year. Say what you will about the PaxSkiles MO, but they are certainly consistent. And if you're not with it, then you've pretty much deemed yourself replaceable. I think the Bulls have pretty much established that they don't have any tolerance for weak-minded, ill-prepared players. For better or worse. (And it's probably a little bit of both).

2). With the signing of Ben Wallace, Tyson's role was immediately diminished, and with his salary, I'm guessing that Pax figured it would just get harder and harder to move him. And given the apparent financial realities that the Bulls seem to be operating under, now was the best time to move him since he still could. With the our players extensions coming up right around the corner, I'm guessing that Pax forecasted having Tyson on the roster would've severely comprimised his ability to resign everyone. And he decided which players were worth committing too, and Tyson wasn't one of them (although I think at one time he was, FWIW). And even though getting PJ Brown wasn't highway robbery, he presented enough value, both from a financial and basketball standpoint, that it was the right to move Tyson.

In an ideal situation, I would've preferred to keep Tyson, since he was a useful player. (And actually, I think he could've done very well in a specialist role with us this year, since he would've had so much support around him). But given the circumstances (even though I don't like them), I can understand while the Bulls felt like the deal was in their best interest.

FWIW, I think Pax was trying to learn from the mistakes he made with the Curry fiasco. If there was anything Pax did done wrong, it was that he waited too long to deal him, even though it appeared that that would be the best course of action for all parties involved. Instead, he painted himself into a corner, and with a combination of skill and luck, managed to get himself out of it smelling like roses. 

I'm guessing he saw a similar situation with Tyson if we would've held on to him, since he was probably going to have to go as well, but this time, he wasn't planning on the basketball gods working in his favor, and decided to salvage the situation while he still had the opportunity to do so.


----------



## McBulls

Wynn
[b said:


> Collier "PJ" Brown, Jr.[/b] (from bio on NBA.com)
> 
> * Selected as the Central Division winner of the NBA Sportsmanship award and finished second in voting for the overall award
> 
> * Named to the NBA All-Defensive Second Team for the third time in his career
> 
> * Named to the 1998-99 NBA All-Defensive Second Team
> 
> * Played a vital role on a Miami team that won a franchise-record 61 games, captured the Atlantic Division title and reached the Eastern Conference Finals of the 1997 NBA Playoffs
> 
> * Was voted to the NBA All-Defensive Second Team and also won the J. Walter Kennedy PBWA Citizenship Award for his off-court work


If you had to pick a guy to mentor Tyrus Thomas you'd be hard pressed to find a better active player than PJ in the NBA at this time. At least on paper. Doesn't hurt that he's from Louisiana either.


----------



## ViciousFlogging

kukoc4ever said:


> Keep looking at production from 2000 if you want to. Why you would expect anywhere close to that from PJ this season is beyond me. Do you really expect all-defensive-team production from PJ Brown?
> 
> Maybe we can sign Robert Parish as well. I bet his bio is *really* impressive.


Hey wait, didn't you used to point to production from several years ago when the subject was the unfortunate departure of Jalen Rose? 


I kiiiiid.


----------



## kukoc4ever

ViciousFlogging said:


> Hey wait, didn't you used to point to production from several years ago when the subject was the unfortunate departure of Jalen Rose?


Only when Rose was called a cancer and I'd be reading things like "no team will win with Jalen Rose." (the pacers did)

PJ is no cancer. Just really old and not really that good anymore.

He'll be OK and a decent mentor. I'd just rather hire an assistant coach to be Tyrus' friend and keep the difference making top 10 in the NBA rebounder on the roster. Especially if we're trying to "win (the title) now."


----------



## ViciousFlogging

kukoc4ever said:


> Only when Rose was called a cancer and I'd be reading things like "no team will win with Jalen Rose." (the pacers did)
> 
> PJ is no cancer. Just really old and not really that good anymore.
> 
> He'll be OK and a decent mentor. I'd just rather hire an assistant coach to be Tyrus' friend and keep the difference making top 10 in the NBA rebounder on the roster. Especially if we're trying to "win (the title) now."


I was just goofing around.

As for the Tyson v. PJ argument, reasonable people can disagree. I already said my piece.


----------



## hammer

Tyson Chandler is a 23 year old kid with unlimited defensive upside. Hell, he is still a good three or four years away from reaching his prime. He's gonna prove a whole gang of folks wrong before all is said and done.

You don't dismiss prospects with enormous defensive potential. It's like against the law, or something.

And that is what he is. HE IS A 23 YEAR OLD DEFENSIVE PROSPECT, a baby in NBA terms. Some of y'all need to get that idea into your heads. Don't act like he is a polished veteran. Don't tell me that he is supposed to be an option on offense. He is a paint defender. You build with defense first and foremost, and it all starts down in the paint. You surround a player like Tyson with guys who can score. This is not a difficult concept, yeah?

It just so happens that we signed one of the greatest defensive players of all time in Ben Wallace, so you better believe that I am happy about that, but NEVER ON MY WORST DAY would I dismiss such an incredible prospect like Tyson. Never.


----------



## jbulls

kukoc4ever said:


> Depends on what you are looking for.
> 
> If you are looking for more vertical defense, rebounding and shot blocking, you would rather have Chandler in there over Noc and Deng.
> 
> 3 point shooting and gritty play? Noc it is. Slashing scoring? Deng.
> 
> I know that I'd rather have Chandler in there for any minutes that Big Marty and Luke are getting.
> 
> 20 minutes for one of the top reobunders in the game? Yah, I think we could find a spot.
> 
> Tyrus may very well end up being better than any of these guys... so yah. But, even if you are making the minutes argument, if you think that the team needs a consolidation trade, Chandler helps you big time with that as well, IMO.
> 
> Here's hoping that Big Ben stays healthy all year. If he gets hurt, it becomes Big Marty or back to small-ball.


Wallace's history suggests that he'll stay healthy. In the event that he does go down, I think you'll see more of Sweetney, Allen and Brown at center than you will of Big Marty.

I still think Chandler has a shot to be a pretty good player, and I wasn't a fan of the deal at the time. That said, if Tyrus Thomas comes along quickly, and Khryapa contributes it makes some sense. Those two are better paired with stout interior defenders like Wallace and Brown, than they are with Chandler. 

For what it's worth, I don't think Chandler is all that great a fit in New Orleans. He doesn't have a post presence like Curry to give him breathing room, and if the Hornets play him much with Cedric Simmons or Hilton Armstrong I suspect he'll really struggle. I know the Hornets plan to play up-tempo, and Tyson can run, but can he catch on the run and finish? We'll see.


----------



## kukoc4ever

jbulls said:


> For what it's worth, I don't think Chandler is all that great a fit in New Orleans. He doesn't have a post presence like Curry to give him breathing room, and if the Hornets play him much with Cedric Simmons or Hilton Armstrong I suspect he'll really struggle. I know the Hornets plan to play up-tempo, and Tyson can run, but can he catch on the run and finish? We'll see.


I don't really care how he does in NO. I've seen him play well in Chicago, and be one of the main reasons for any winning that went down here since MJ.

He may not have the mental makeup to be a consistently great player... or just the game for it. Time will tell. 

Given it was free to keep him on the roster this season, and that he's one of the best rebounders in the game (not potential.... production), can block and alter shots and is good on defense, we should have kept him.

If Wallace misses any time this year it was a BIG mistake, if we are a "win now" team (every game matters). If we are just content to be "pretty good" then it does not really matter. Our current team will certainly be "pretty good."

If our goal is to make a consolidation trade, using any of our assets, it was a mistake to deal him for PJ as well, IMO.


----------



## jbulls

kukoc4ever said:


> I don't really care how he does in NO. I've seen him play well in Chicago, and be one of the main reasons for any winning that went down here since MJ.
> 
> He may not have the mental makeup to be a consistently great player... or just the game for it. Time will tell.
> 
> Given it was free to keep him on the roster this season, and that he's one of the best rebounders in the game (not potential.... production), can block and alter shots and is good on defense, we should have kept him.
> 
> If Wallace misses any time this year it was a BIG mistake, if we are a "win now" team (every game matters). If we are just content to be "pretty good" then it does not really matter. Our current team will certainly be "pretty good."
> 
> If our goal is to make a consolidation trade, using any of our assets, it was a mistake to deal him for PJ as well, IMO.


A big part of what's made me more okay with moving Chandler is hearing his comments post-trade. It's obvious that he wasn't happy in Chicago and it wasn't working out here. You can blame Skiles for that to some degree, I suppose, but it seems like this worked out well for everyone.


----------



## jbulls

kukoc4ever said:


> Perhaps you would prefer Brown lobbing up his jump shots with a poor eFG of 43.1... but I don't know why you would want that.


That's not really a poor eFG% for a 4/5. Big's don't get to pad their jump shot eFG% with 3 point attempts. I don't have the data to prove it, but I imagine Brown's jump shot eFG% is in the 75th percentile or so for big's, which is fine. Some points of comparison:

Kevin Garnett: .469
Tim Duncan: .355
Kurt Thomas: .431
Darius Songaila: .437
Malik Allen: .497
Lamar Odom: .417
Brad Miller: .475
Kenny Thomas: .340
Chris Webber: .354
Channing Frye: .417
Joe Smith: .428
Elton Brand: .475

I just kind of randomly went through 82games.com and picked big's who I think shoot the ball pretty well from the outside (without a bunch of 3 point attempts to color the stat). PJ's not an outstanding jump shooter, but he's certainly above average for a big.


----------



## Wynn

kukoc4ever! said:


> Keep looking at production from 2000 if you want to. Why you would expect anywhere close to that from PJ this season is beyond me. Do you really expect all-defensive-team production from PJ Brown?
> 
> Maybe we can sign Robert Parish as well. I bet his bio is *really* impressive.


I guess I was seeing where Chandler is this dominating defender........ no love from the league! PJ, on the other hand, has shown the ability to defend at a level that has been recognized by his peers. Sure, he's old. I grant this. These awards were in the past. Further granted. PJ is still, however, physically able to do the job, and MENTALLY able to understand his position and how it fits with the rest of the team. Chandler never figured these things out. Add that PJ participates in the offense....



JeremyB0001! said:


> 05-06 Stats Per 40 Minutes:
> 
> Chandler - 7.9 Points, 13.5 Rebounds, 2.0 Blocks, .8 Steals, 1.5 Assists, 2.3 Turnovers, .565 eFG%
> Brown - 11.4 Points, 9.2 Rebounds, .8 Blocks, .8 Steals, 1.5 Assists, 1.5 Turnovers, .461 eFG%
> Khryapa - 10.8 Points, 8.2 Rebounds, .8 Blocks, 1.3 Steals, 2.4 Assists, 2.3 Turnovers, .477 eFG%
> Allen - 15.2 Points, 8.0 Rebounds, .9 Blocks, .8 Steals, 1.1 Assists, 1.9 Turnovers, .492 eFG%


Got a stat on fouls per 40? I'm not sure what this post means. Nobody has denied that Chandler rebounds and blocks at a higher rate. Is his one extra block worth the points he doesn't score? Worth his lack of paricipation on the other end of the floor?



hammer! said:


> Tyson Chandler is a 23 year old kid with unlimited defensive upside. Hell, he is still a good three or four years away from reaching his prime. He's gonna prove a whole gang of folks wrong before all is said and done.


I'm not convinced he has "unlimited defensive upside". I'm pretty sure that what you see is what you get. Chandler's defense (and I'm not knocking what he provides) is based on athleticism, length, and reflexes. The kid has almost no fundamentals to his game. Almost no understanding of how to fit his game into a team defensive concept. As he gets older, his athleticism will decline. His mental acumen, however, seems unlikely to rise in inverse relation.

Hey.... I liked the kid when he was here. As I mentioned several weeks ago, however, I'm pleasantly surprised to find that I really don't miss him. I look forward to seeing solid fundamental basketball being played in the post here in C-Town.

*Go Bull!*


----------



## jnrjr79

kukoc4ever said:


> If our goal is to make a consolidation trade, using any of our assets, it was a mistake to deal him for PJ as well, IMO.


This, I disagree with. I think PJ will be easier to move in a consolidation trade, because he represents cap space to the team that gets him, rather than being saddled with Tyson's bloated contract. I see a consolidation trade being:

1 of our talented young guys on their rookie deal
PJ
Filler 

That said, I'm not sure a consolidation trade is what lies in the future, but I figure that's the way it'd go down.


----------



## Sham

hammer said:


> Tyson Chandler is a 23 year old kid with unlimited defensive upside. Hell, he is still a good three or four years away from reaching his prime. He's gonna prove a whole gang of folks wrong before all is said and done.
> 
> You don't dismiss prospects with enormous defensive potential. It's like against the law, or something.
> 
> And that is what he is. HE IS A 23 YEAR OLD DEFENSIVE PROSPECT, a baby in NBA terms. Some of y'all need to get that idea into your heads. Don't act like he is a polished veteran. Don't tell me that he is supposed to be an option on offense. He is a paint defender. You build with defense first and foremost, and it all starts down in the paint. You surround a player like Tyson with guys who can score. This is not a difficult concept, yeah?
> 
> It just so happens that we signed one of the greatest defensive players of all time in Ben Wallace, so you better believe that I am happy about that, but NEVER ON MY WORST DAY would I dismiss such an incredible prospect like Tyson. Never.



It is entirely possible to have peaked at 23. When the motivation, confidence and mindset have gone, so has most of your ability. It only takes one leg injury for the one thing that hasn't failed Tyson (his leaping ability) to fail him.


----------



## JeremyB0001

Wynn said:


> Got a stat on fouls per 40? I'm not sure what this post means. Nobody has denied that Chandler rebounds and blocks at a higher rate. Is his one extra block worth the points he doesn't score? Worth his lack of paricipation on the other end of the floor?


Chandler - 5.6
Allen - 5.2
Brown - 3.6
Khyrapa - 5.6

The extra block per 40 stood out to me less than the fact that he pulls down over 4.3 boards more than the next best rebounder in the group especially when "the points he doesn't score" aren't all that huge. He scored within 3.5 points of Brown and 3 points of Khyrapa per 40 with an eFG% .70 points better than the next best in the group. So discounting Allen's impressive points per 40 - hard to say how much court time he'll see this year and if those numbers will stay that high, he's 13.6 for his career - I would say that four boards and a block per game are significantly more valuable than three or four points especially when your fg% allows your more offensively inclined teammates an extra shot or two over the course of the game.


----------



## JeremyB0001

Sham said:


> It is entirely possible to have peaked at 23. When the motivation, confidence and mindset have gone, so has most of your ability. It only takes one leg injury for the one thing that hasn't failed Tyson (his leaping ability) to fail him.


True but it is exceptionally uncommon. A permanent physical limitation will devestate most anyone's career. However, when you're talking about the mental aspect, guys oftentimes workout those issues with they still have over ten years left in the league to deal with them.


----------



## Sham

Well, it hasn't happened yet. Call me a sceptic if you wish, but for the remaining 5 years of his contract, do we think Chandler will put up even one year as good as his 04/05 campaign?


----------



## DengNabbit

kukoc4ever said:


> Not ignoring it, just didn't have time to compile it. Now that I have, I'm sure it will just be poo-pooed, but I like punishment.
> 
> Last season, for the Hornets, PJ played 56% of the available team center minutes and 3% of the available minutes at PF. Opposing Cs had a PER of 16.3 (good) against him and opposing PFs had PERs of 12.6. The PFs # is promising, but he played very few minutes at PF, so I'm not sure what to make of it. The bulk of his minutes were at center and centers did very well against him, unless he was shutting down their intangibles so much that it offset the tangibles they were piling on against him.
> 
> Malik Allen played 8% of the teams minutes @ PF and 8% of team teams minutes @ C. Opponents had a PER of 14.8 and 14.6 against him, both indicating below average tangible performances. So, Allen wasn't getting lit up by any means tangibly.



your stat fascinations dont work with defense, youre not looking at the team as a whole when you do that.

the other day, some stat compilers announced that Miami's best five on the floor last year did not include Shaq. to that i say the same i say to you: interesting stuff, not particularly helpful.


PJ Brown will be tougher than Malik Allen, will not be a swinging door defensively, and will foul someone hard. plus he'll do some of what Malik does on offense -- and if all is going well, we do not need tons from either. 

Malik tends to get banged up and miss stretches. i think you will appreciate Brown more later on. didnt you like him right away when we got him? perhaps you changed your opinion on him just to fit the usual format of your posts.


----------



## ScottMay

Sham said:


> Well, it hasn't happened yet. Call me a sceptic if you wish, but for the remaining 5 years of his contract, do we think Chandler will put up even one year as good as his 04/05 campaign?


You seemed to think so until Chandler got traded. What changed *your* mind?


----------



## mr.ankle20

hammer said:


> Tyson Chandler is a 23 year old kid with unlimited defensive upside. Hell, he is still a good three or four years away from reaching his prime. He's gonna prove a whole gang of folks wrong before all is said and done.
> 
> You don't dismiss prospects with enormous defensive potential. It's like against the law, or something.
> 
> And that is what he is. HE IS A 23 YEAR OLD DEFENSIVE PROSPECT, a baby in NBA terms. Some of y'all need to get that idea into your heads. Don't act like he is a polished veteran. Don't tell me that he is supposed to be an option on offense. He is a paint defender. You build with defense first and foremost, and it all starts down in the paint. You surround a player like Tyson with guys who can score. This is not a difficult concept, yeah?
> 
> It just so happens that we signed one of the greatest defensive players of all time in Ben Wallace, so you better believe that I am happy about that, but NEVER ON MY WORST DAY would I dismiss such an incredible prospect like Tyson. Never.


Chandler defense is really overrated . He's a decent Help defender but a awful one on one Defender he would . It was embarassing watching him getting Manhandle By Brendan Haywood Etan Thomas and Michael Ruffin everytime TheBbulls played the Wizards . If he such a great defender then how come he gave up so many points on defense . look at his performance in the Playoffs it was Pathetic For a guy getting 64 million dollars . Chandlers great defense is a Myth


----------



## Ron Cey

JeremyB0001 said:


> I can say P.J. is not substantially better of offense because unlike other aspects of the game, we can measure scoring with extreme accuracy. *If Tyson scores a comperable number of points on a comperable number of shot attempts that means he has comperable value to P.J. offensively. I find that to be pretty simple.*


Jeremy, I appreciate your posts in this thread and I like your tone. Also, unlike many of our other former players whose departure have generated lengthy and sweaty debate, I think there are two completely objectively reasonable sides to the Chandler discussion. Especially so when we start discussing economics. 

So I don't want my bluntness to be taken the wrong way - but this is superficial. 

This signifies, to me, a significant flaw in your analysis and its a trend I see in many posts (not just yours) in this thread about offense and defense. 

As you say, you can measure scoring with "extreme accuracy". Indeed, scoring can be measured with perfect accuracy. However, scoring does not = "offense". 

The fact that you find it so "simple" underscores the superficiality of the argument. Its far from that simple.

We cannot look at one player's ppg or fg% or eFG% or any of that, and declare him the the superior "offensive" player when analyzing his role on a team. 

Off the ball movement, screens, focus, recognition and improvisation, consistency, dribbling, passing, turnovers, offensive fouls, facilitating offensive flow, positioning, communication, and more all go into whether one player is more beneficial to the team's offense than another player is. And this is especially so when we are comparing two role playing power forwards who simply don't score much. Both being nonscorers, the "intangibles" (as some like to call it) become even more important to the discussion. 

Tyson Chandler can't dribble more than once, he turns the ball over a lot, isn't a terrible passer but always breaks the flow of ball movement, is wildly inconsistent, has trouble handling passes, commits a lot of offensive fouls, is completely ineffective from the high post, and sets the worst screens in the history of the NBA. 

All of this, and more, must be considered in discussing offense from a team perspective. What you are talking about is individual scoring.


----------



## ScottMay

Ron Cey said:


> Off the ball movement, screens, focus, recognition and improvisation, consistency, dribbling, passing, turnovers, offensive fouls, facilitating offensive flow, positioning, communication, and more all go into whether one player is more beneficial to the team's offense than another player is. And this is especially so when we are comparing two role playing power forwards who simply don't score much. Both being nonscorers, the "intangibles" (as some like to call it) become even more important to the discussion.
> 
> Tyson Chandler can't dribble more than once, he turns the ball over a lot, isn't a terrible passer but always breaks the flow of ball movement, is wildly inconsistent, has trouble handling passes, commits a lot of offensive fouls, is completely ineffective from the high post, and sets the worst screens in the history of the NBA.
> 
> All of this, and more, must be considered in discussing offense from a team perspective. What you are talking about is individual scoring.


But this is where your observations run afoul of what's actually happening on the court.

If Tyson Chandler is as offensively inept as you describe, then why was the Bulls offense so strikingly better with him on the court last year as opposed to not? And "strikingly better" is not an exaggeration -- his impact was more pronounced than that of Gordon, Deng, and Hinrich (our other "positive" big-minute players).

Similarly, if P.J. Brown is so skilled in all these little things, why was his impact on the Hornets' offense essentially neutral?

Jeremy's overall point is sound, whether we're talking about individual scoring or anything else. The game is won by scoring more points than the opponent. There are many different ways to skin a cat, and even though Chandler may not *look* the way we feel a basketball player ought to, clearly and indisputably he was an extremely effective player.


----------



## fl_flash

Wow. 12 pages (and counting) on Tyson Chandler.

While I like Chandler and what he brought/brings to the table, I'm not all the concerned over his absence from this team. In the short term, he's easily been replaced by the combo of Wallace and PJ brown. Easily. In the longer term, his salary slot means that it will be far easier to extend Hinrich and Nocioni this comming summer. When push comes to shove, I'd much rather prefer Hinrich/Nocioni to Hinrich OR Nocioni and Chandler. Frankly, I think that's what all this comes down to.

When looking at just the trade, as a transaction in and of itself, I'd say we lost out. Chandler was the best player in the deal - all things considered. What I do take into account is that his leaving allows this team to stay in-tact and moving forward. 

According to Hoopshype, our total salary for this season is right around $53 mil. I don't know what the luxury tax threshold is, but I'm guessing the Bulls are right at it. I'd also go out on a limb and say that Pax has been ordered to keep this team below that threshold. From what I can gather, it's looking like around $13.7 million could possibly come off the books this summer. ( Brown $8 mil, Sweetney $2.7 mil, Allen $1.8 mil (not sure if his deal is multi-year or not), and Eisley $1.2 mil) I also believe that Big Ben's contract is front-loaded and he'll actually count a little less against the cap in each of the next three years.

Take into account the incremental cost of keeping Hinrich and Nocioni and a possibly high first round pick and I'm guessing that the total is going to be right around that $13.7 mil ($3 mil for the draft pick, $6 mil for hinrich and $5 mil for Nocioni = $14 mil).

Now if the edict has been issued from up above that Pax is not to exceed the lux tax threshold until told otherwise, keeping Chandler around while also trying to retain Hinrich, Nocioni and bring on another possible lottery salary is impossible. Something would have to give. Chandler was something of the sacraficial lamb that had to be moved in order to continue forward.

In the past, Reinsdorf has paid for a winner. I'm going to be curious to see what happens with this team. Indications are pretty positive right now. This ought to be a pretty good basketball team and if its' kept together for a few years, it could become a very good ballclub. Ultimately, without some sort of 3 for 1 (or 2) trade, there are going to be too many mouths to feed to keep this team under the luxury tax line. Will Uncle Jerry pony up when the time calls for it? The Bulls probably have another year or two of being able to stay below the tax limit, but when it comes time to negotiate with Deng and Gordon, if nothing much changes in the meantime, it could get very interesting.

In the end, I always liked what Chandler brought to the table. He kept me wanting more though. It's kind of sad to see him gone, but like I wrote above, if it's a choice between keeping two out of Hinrich, Nocioni and Chandler - in my book Chandler is the odd man out. C'est la vie!


----------



## Ron Cey

ScottMay said:


> But this is where your observations run afoul of what's actually happening on the court.
> 
> If Tyson Chandler is as offensively inept as you describe, then why was the Bulls offense so strikingly better with him on the court last year as opposed to not? And "strikingly better" is not an exaggeration -- his impact was more pronounced than that of Gordon, Deng, and Hinrich (our other "positive" big-minute players).
> 
> Similarly, if P.J. Brown is so skilled in all these little things, why was his impact on the Hornets' offense essentially neutral?
> 
> Jeremy's overall point is sound, whether we're talking about individual scoring or anything else. The game is won by scoring more points than the opponent. There are many different ways to skin a cat, and even though Chandler may not *look* the way we feel a basketball player ought to, clearly and indisputably he was an extremely effective player.


No, this is where your dependancy on statistics runs afoul of meaningful analysis. You are basing this on those PP 100 possession statistics from 82games.com, correct? 

Those can tell you what the Bulls did with Chandler on the court in their particular offensive scheme. They can tell you how that compares with what the Bulls did without Chandler. 

Those can tell you what the Honrets did with Brown playing center for New Orleans with their particular offensive scheme. They can tell you how that compares with what the Hornets did without Brown.

But they can't tell you what substituting Brown for Chandler, in the Bulls system last year, would have accomplished. 

And more importantly, since this is what we are discussing, they can't tell you what substituting Brown for Chandler next to Ben Wallace will accomplish. 

They also can't tell you who Chandler was typically on the floor with when those statistics were compiled. For example, given that Chandler was so ineffective offensively, it stands to reason that Skiles balanced his minutes with a better offensive unit. With Ben Gordon, on the other hand, the analysis might be somewhat different. That statisic is based on 5 players, not one. And its not clear which 5 players - weighted by minutes with Chandler on vs. off the court - we are typically talking about. 

Moreover, and probably most importantly, Chandler was so inconstent last year that he sat when he was playing bad and only played when it appeared he was showing up. Unlike the Hinrichs and Nocionis of the team who pretty much get their minutes regardless, Chandler was on the floor based on his productivity in that particular game. When he didn't have it - which was a lot of the time - he sat and, accordingly, his negative statistical impact was mitigated. 

The point? He's on the court BECAUSE he's playing well. So it would be natural that the team's output will reflect positively on the minutes he actually played. Had Skiles just let him play regardless even on the many nights when he was sucking it up from the start, the team's output with him on the court would statistically take a hit. 

There are so many significant shortcomings to that pp 100 possessions statistic that it can't possibly be used to make your blanket pronouncements that "indisputably he was an extremely effective player" on offense. In fact, I think that statement of yours is the perfect illustration of the peril of statistics.


----------



## ScottMay

Ron Cey said:


> But they can't tell you what substituting Brown for Chandler, in the Bulls system last year, would have accomplished.
> 
> And more importantly, since this is what we are discussing, they can't tell you what substituting Brown for Chandler next to Ben Wallace will accomplish.


No, they can't. Fortunately, that isn't the point I was arguing. 

Your argument was that Chandler is capable of doing little, if anything, right on the offensive end. The stats show that our offense was far, far better with Chandler on the floor vs. off.

Similarly, your argument was that P.J. Brown is the ultimate "little things" offensive player. That even though his actual output isn't impressive, he contributes in other ways. What better way to capture that than a measure of how his former team's offense performed with him on the floor vs. off?



> They also can't tell you who Chandler was typically on the floor with when those statistics were compiled. For example, given that Chandler was so ineffective offensively, it stands to reason that Skiles balanced his minutes with a better offensive unit. With Ben Gordon, on the other hand, the analysis might be somewhat different. That statisic is based on 5 players, not one. And its not clear which 5 players - weighted by minutes with Chandler on vs. off the court - we are typically talking about.


You can look up whatever lineup information you want here:
http://www.82games.com/0506/0506CHI2.HTM

It seems that Chandler, as one of the team's starters and better players, usually played with other starters. I don't see any trickery or overcompensating for Chandler with offensive firepower. I could also argue that Skiles was able to surround him with good offensive players since Chandler is such a good team defender.



> Moreover, and probably most importantly, Chandler was so inconstent last year that he sat when he was playing bad and only played when it appeared he was showing up. Unlike the Hinrichs and Nocionis of the team who pretty much get their minutes regardless, Chandler was on the floor based on his productivity in that particular game. When he didn't have it - which was a lot of the time - he sat and, accordingly, his negative statistical impact was mitigated.
> 
> The point? He's on the court BECAUSE he's playing well. So it would be natural that the team's output will reflect positively on the minutes he actually played. Had Skiles just let him play regardless even on the many nights when he was sucking it up from the start, the team's output with him on the court would statistically take a hit.


Whew. Well, if you're right, it means two things -- one, that Skiles is probably the greatest coach in the history of the NBA, knowing exactly when to play the good Chandler and when to sit the bad, and two, it is just an unbelievable coincidence that when Skiles decided to sit the bad Chandler over the last two seasons, the team then went ahead and performed worse with him off the floor.

I don't know, Ron. Looking at his game logs, the big thing that seemed to limit Chandler's minutes was his foul situation. It's the same thing that happened with Curry vis a vis fouls *and* conditioning -- if either Chandler or Curry had been able to, Skiles would have played both 35+ minutes a game. 



> In fact, I think that statement of yours is the perfect illustration of the peril of statistics.


I think your theory about Skiles and minutes and good Chandler/bad Chandler is the perfect illustration of the perils of statistics phobia.


----------



## Ron Cey

> No, they can't. Fortunately, that isn't the point I was arguing.


Well, it IS what I was arguing. 



> Your argument was that Chandler is capable of doing little, if anything, right on the offensive end. The stats show that our offense was far, far better with Chandler on the floor vs. off.


No it wasn't. My argument was that in evaluating which player - Brown or Chandler - would be the better "offensive" player for the Ben-Wallace-Bulls, we can't just look at ppg. Go back and check the context of the discussion. 

I was not arguing that Chandler can't do anything right on the offensive end - though I certainly can make that argument if I want to. Just because the teams best players can score despite Chandler's presence does not make Chandler an effective offensive player. Its a ludicrous argument. 



> Similarly, your argument was that P.J. Brown is the ultimate "little things" offensive player.


I didn't make that argument either. You are overstating my points and, in the process, constructing a straw man. 

I do argue, however, that Brown is a better "little things" player than Chandler and, therefore, is a better match with Ben Wallace for this team. 



> That even though his actual output isn't impressive, he contributes in other ways. What better way to capture that than a measure of how his former team's offense performed with him on the floor vs. off?


Because its flawed. He played 32 minutes a game. During the 16 minutes he didn't play, what was happening in those games? Who was on the court in his place? Who was on the court with his replacement? What was the average point differential of the games spread out over those 16 minutes (i.e., was either team in garbage minutes for a significant amount of that time?)

EDIT: Let me give an example. Last year the Knicks' pp 100 possessions was better with Eddy Curry off of the court. It was the same with Bulls the year before - scoring went up without Eddy. In your opinion, would I then be correct in concluding that Eddy Curry is an "extremely ineffective" offensive player? Does that jive with your expressed opinion of Curry during the "Summer of Barry Maron"?

Even I, far from what one would consdier a Curry supporter, would admit that having Curry adds a useful offensive dimension to a team. Yet 82games.com suggests that duct-taping Curry to the locker room bench is by far the better option. 

Moreover, the Knicks defense is likewise better with Curry on the bench. Given the offensive and defenseive pp 100 possessions for Big Eddy, why is he even in the NBA when he clearly hurts his team on both ends of the court?

The statistic simply isn't reliable to make such a pronouncement. 



> You can look up whatever lineup information you want here:
> http://www.82games.com/0506/0506CHI2.HTM
> 
> It seems that Chandler, as one of the team's starters and better players, usually played with other starters. I don't see any trickery or overcompensating for Chandler with offensive firepower. I could also argue that Skiles was able to surround him with good offensive players since Chandler is such a good team defender.


I'm not saying its trickery. I'm saying its what it is. And its part of the reason why we can't look at those pp 100 possession stats, that take 5 varying players into consideration, and declare that it leads to the conclusion that one of those 5 players is "an extremely effective" offensive player. The variables are numerous. 



> Whew. Well, if you're right, it means two things -- one, that Skiles is probably the greatest coach in the history of the NBA, knowing exactly when to play the good Chandler and when to sit the bad,


Its not hard to identify when a player is off and sitting that player as a result. It just takes stones to do it. And Skiles has shown a quick trigger with Curry, Chandler, Crawford, and even Gordon over the last few years. 

You aren't actually arguing that Chandler is one of the guys that Skiles let play through his mistakes, are you? Chandler was only on the court 53% of the time. 

If Chandler was such an "extremely effective player" on offense as reflected on 82games.com, why didn't Skiles play him more? 



> and two, it is just an unbelievable coincidence that when Skiles decided to sit the bad Chandler over the last two seasons, the team then went ahead and performed worse with him off the floor.


Why? We all agree that when Chandler was playing well that the team was better off. When he's playing badly and benched, it seems natural that the team would be worse off. 



> I don't know, Ron. Looking at his game logs, the big thing that seemed to limit Chandler's minutes was his foul situation. It's the same thing that happened with Curry vis a vis fouls *and* conditioning -- if either Chandler or Curry had been able to, Skiles would have played both 35+ minutes a game.


Well that was certainly a part of it. But often times he fouled more when he was not focused and playing poorly (thats an observation not capable of statistical quantification). The two aren't necessarily exclusive concepts. Chandler "frustration fouls" a lot. Not to mention that he seemingly got called for a lot of offensive fouls (especially when setting his poor screens) - which certainly didn't help offensive productivity. 



> I think your theory about Skiles and minutes and good Chandler/bad Chandler is the perfect illustration of the perils of statistics phobia.


I don't have a statistics phobia, as I've tried to explain before. I just don't accept large scale pronouncements based on statistics that can't possibly take all of the variables into consideration.

Using 82games.com's pp 100 possession to declare Tyson Chandler an "extremely effective player" on offense despite the fact that we all know he is supbar in shooting, free throws, dribbling, passing, catching, and setting screens, illustrates my reluctance to accept the basis for the pronouncement. 

Everyone has a system they are comfortable with. I just don't think my system runs the risk of calling an elephant an elk.


----------



## Sham

> According to Hoopshype, our total salary for this season is right around $53 mil. I don't know what the luxury tax threshold is, but I'm guessing the Bulls are right at it


Nah, miles away. The cap is $53,150,000 for this season (ever so slightly over that), but the tax threshold is $65,420,000.


----------



## Sham

ScottMay said:


> You seemed to think so until Chandler got traded. What changed *your* mind?



Quite a few things. The 75 out of 100 free throws comment was funny, and a part of it. As were game tapes of his frustrating ineptitide. And the fact that int he short time he's had this season, he's shown absolutely no difference in his game, nor improvements in his flaws. It's very early indeed, but he's looked real bad. At least last year, he had moments.

And let's just get some clarity on this - I thought Chandler could get back to where he was, but I didn't make no proclamations about him doing much more than that. These days, though, I don't think I'd be right even on that.


----------



## McBulls

ScottMay said:


> I think your theory about Skiles and minutes and good Chandler/bad Chandler is the perfect illustration of the perils of statistics phobia.


Statistics are fun and all, but when they defy the common sense test its time to give up on them. 

82games ranks Chandler way above Sweetney offensively in +/- statistics. But other than the possibility that Chandler may have gotten a few more offensive rebounds, it defies common sense to conclude that Chandler is a more effective offensive player than Sweetney.

Sweets is a better shooter from any range. He's better free throw shooter and draws more fouls on offense. He's a better passer, and IMO sets better screens. Isn't as prone to turnovers. And, he's not a bad rebounder.

So, once again I conclude that there's something seriously wrong with blindly concluding anything from 82games +/- stats.


----------



## JeremyB0001

Sham said:


> Well, it hasn't happened yet. Call me a sceptic if you wish, but for the remaining 5 years of his contract, do we think Chandler will put up even one year as good as his 04/05 campaign?


It's just that what you're arguing in favor of is highly unlikely. Certainly no one would disagree with me that the Hawks can't win the championship this season but the odds are very slim. Here's a list of big men with long careers (it appears Chandler will be in the NBA for a long time) I pulled off the top of my head and the age at which they posted the best PER of their career:

PJ Brown - 33
Ben Wallace - 27
Shaq - tie 26/27
Garnett - 27
Antonio Davis - 30
Dale Davis - 30
Robert Parish - 27
Patrick Ewing - 27
Ervin Johnson - 26
AC Green - 25
Sam Bowie - 30
Theo Ratliff - 24
Moses Malone - 26
Bill Cartwright - 25

Ever player but three had their best season when they were 26 or older and no one had their best season at 22. I'm not saying it's impossible Chandler had his best season in '04-'05 but the odds of a player doing that have to be less than 5%.


----------



## Ron Cey

JeremyB0001 said:


> It's just that what you're arguing in favor of is highly unlikely. Certainly no one would disagree with me that the Hawks can't win the championship this season but the odds are very slim. Here's a list of big men with long careers (it appears Chandler will be in the NBA for a long time) I pulled off the top of my head and the age at which they posted the best PER of their career:
> 
> PJ Brown - 33
> Ben Wallace - 27
> Shaq - tie 26/27
> Garnett - 27
> Antonio Davis - 30
> Dale Davis - 30
> Robert Parish - 27
> Patrick Ewing - 27
> Ervin Johnson - 26
> AC Green - 25
> Sam Bowie - 30
> Theo Ratliff - 24
> Moses Malone - 26
> Bill Cartwright - 25
> 
> Ever player but three had their best season when they were 26 or older and no one had their best season at 22. I'm not saying it's impossible Chandler had his best season in '04-'05 but the odds of a player doing that have to be less than 5%.


This is a flawed sample. These guys stayed in the league and were effective in large part because of their ability to improve and develop. Chandler simply hasn't shown the ability to sustain developement. Quite the opposite. By most recent returns, he's regressed. 

There is a reason the guys who fail to develop aren't in a list taken "off the top of your head" - they are forgotten. That is why Kandi-man, Vitaly Potapenko, Eric Montross, and Kevin Duckworth aren't on your list. 

Moreover, most of these guys started their NBA careers after enjoying collegiate and even international (AD) careers. What happens if you adjust it for "years in the NBA" instead of age?

I'm not saying that Chandler can't return to form, or even improve, and that he's doomed to the scrap heap of NBA history. I'm just disputing this particular argument. Anything is possible. There are no hard and fast rules.


----------



## kukoc4ever

jbulls said:


> Those two are better paired with stout interior defenders like Wallace and Brown, than they are with Chandler.


I didn't see a lot of Hornets basketball last year.... but looking @ the numbers, it appears that the opposing center that Brown was matched up against while on the Hornets did quite well against him... a PER of 16.3. That combined with his poor rebound rate and lack of blocked shots make me quite leery of hearing about PJ's "stout" defense.

How much Hornets ball did you watch last season? What are you basing your "stout" evaluation on? He used to be really good on D.... I just don't see it anymore.


----------



## JeremyB0001

Ron Cey said:


> Jeremy, I appreciate your posts in this thread and I like your tone. Also, unlike many of our other former players whose departure have generated lengthy and sweaty debate, I think there are two completely objectively reasonable sides to the Chandler discussion. Especially so when we start discussing economics.
> 
> So I don't want my bluntness to be taken the wrong way - but this is superficial.
> 
> This signifies, to me, a significant flaw in your analysis and its a trend I see in many posts (not just yours) in this thread about offense and defense.
> 
> As you say, you can measure scoring with "extreme accuracy". Indeed, scoring can be measured with perfect accuracy. However, scoring does not = "offense".
> 
> The fact that you find it so "simple" underscores the superficiality of the argument. Its far from that simple.
> 
> We cannot look at one player's ppg or fg% or eFG% or any of that, and declare him the the superior "offensive" player when analyzing his role on a team.
> 
> Off the ball movement, screens, focus, recognition and improvisation, consistency, dribbling, passing, turnovers, offensive fouls, facilitating offensive flow, positioning, communication, and more all go into whether one player is more beneficial to the team's offense than another player is. And this is especially so when we are comparing two role playing power forwards who simply don't score much. Both being nonscorers, the "intangibles" (as some like to call it) become even more important to the discussion.
> 
> Tyson Chandler can't dribble more than once, he turns the ball over a lot, isn't a terrible passer but always breaks the flow of ball movement, is wildly inconsistent, has trouble handling passes, commits a lot of offensive fouls, is completely ineffective from the high post, and sets the worst screens in the history of the NBA.
> 
> All of this, and more, must be considered in discussing offense from a team perspective. What you are talking about is individual scoring.


Thanks for the kind words. Your point is well taken, offense is more than pure scoring. I also do share many of your concerns with plus minus statistics but I don't know that I'm quite willing to writ them off completely.

As far as Chandler's overall offense, you are correct that he rather turnover prone. Just the same, struggling to handle passes, commiting offensive, and turning over the ball in over ways are all included in his number of turnovers per 40 minutes. While he ties with Khyrapa for the worst mark out of the foursome last season, I'm not of the opinion that the moderate difference between TC compared to Allen (.4 fewer turnovers per 40) and Brown (.8) means Chandler was less effective than those two last season. Obviously if a player severely disrupt's the flow of his own teams offense, the value of his other contributions is dimished. I don't doubt that an experienced veteran like Brown works within the offense more effectively. I just have a hard time believing that even if a player does struggle setting screens and moving away from the ball that he could be capable of drastically decreasing the efficiency of the offense without the ball in his hands. I guess we can see if Brown seems to ramp up the offense by setting excellent screens, drawing his man away from the basket, and whatnot once the season starts.


----------



## fl_flash

Sham said:


> Nah, miles away. The cap is $53,150,000 for this season (ever so slightly over that), but the tax threshold is $65,420,000.


Interesting. I'll take your word on this because you're johnny-on-the-spot with this stuff... Would keeping payroll under the cap figure entitle Reinsdorf and Co. to the redistribution of funds from those fiscally irresponsible teams? In other words, if the Bulls were $.01 over the cap figure (but still under the lux tax limit), they wouldn't qualify for any of that free money?

I could see that being a motivating factor from Uncle Jerry's standpoint. Hell, if the Bulls have an additional $12 mil of wiggle room to work with over the next couple of summers and this team is seriously knocking on the door to a championship - I fully expect Uncle Jerry to pony up and forgo his annual redistribution bonus in order to put a contender on the floor.

It's going to be something to see if Pax is given more free reign in the next couple of years or if Reinsdorf will remain steadfast in holding payroll at its' current level.


----------



## JeremyB0001

Ron Cey said:


> This is a flawed sample. These guys stayed in the league and were effective in large part because of their ability to improve and develop. Chandler simply hasn't shown the ability to sustain developement. Quite the opposite. By most recent returns, he's regressed.
> 
> There is a reason the guys who fail to develop aren't in a list taken "off the top of your head" - they are forgotten. That is why Kandi-man, Vitaly Potapenko, Eric Montross, and Kevin Duckworth aren't on your list.
> 
> Moreover, most of these guys started their NBA careers after enjoying collegiate and even international (AD) careers. What happens if you adjust it for "years in the NBA" instead of age?
> 
> I'm not saying that Chandler can't return to form, or even improve, and that he's doomed to the scrap heap of NBA history. I'm just disputing this particular argument. Anything is possible. There are no hard and fast rules.


It's hard to find players that played long careers (no one has yet argued Chandler is on his way out of the league anytime soon) and failed to improve at all from their young 20s forward. Olowokandi had his best season at 26, Potapenko at 24, Montross was out of the league by 30 and never posted a PER above 12.1, Duckworth had his best season at 23 though he was out of the NBA by 32. Again, I've never claimed there were no counter examples and that players don't ever peak very early, just that it is incredibly rare. Duckworth comes the closest to the scenario in which Ty never has a better season than '04-'05 but it's still not a perfect comparison and it's clearly the exception and not the rule.


----------



## Ron Cey

JeremyB0001 said:


> I guess we can see if Brown seems to ramp up the offense by setting excellent screens, drawing his man away from the basket, and whatnot once the season starts.


Truly. But then we also need to take into consideration Ben Wallace's impact on the team's offensive productivity. And this is what it all comes down to for me. In the short term, combining Wallace's offensive flaws with Chandler's would, in my opinion, be problematic. I simply wouldn't want them on the court at the same time for a meaningful number of minutes.


----------



## RoRo

kukoc4ever said:


> I didn't see a lot of Hornets basketball last year.... but looking @ the numbers, it appears that the opposing center that Brown was matched up against while on the Hornets did quite well against him... a PER of 16.3. That combined with his poor rebound rate and lack of blocked shots make me quite leery of hearing about PJ's "stout" defense.
> 
> How much Hornets ball did you watch last season? What are you basing your "stout" evaluation on? He used to be really good on D.... I just don't see it anymore.


the per differential is almost identical to chandlers (-2.9 vs -2.7). so maybe they both stink


----------



## Ron Cey

I just noticed at 82games.com that the Pistons were better offensively with Ben Wallace on the court.


----------



## kukoc4ever

RoRo said:


> the per differential is almost identical to chandlers (-2.9 vs -2.7). so maybe they both stink


Right, but differential is not the right thing to look at, IMO.

I'm interested in how the person that Brown was guarding did.... not how much better Brown did (offense included) vs. the guy he was guarding.

I don't see any evidence of Brown being good on defense. The guy he was guarding played well. He's not playing very athletically down there (lack of rebounding / blocks). Heck, even if you go by the end of season awards, he has not received one since 2000. The Hornets were in the bottom half in defensive efficiency.


This does not capture everything by any stretch… I’m just wondering what people are basing their evaluation on. I’ll admit I didn’t watch a lot of Hornets ball last year.


----------



## RoRo

kukoc4ever said:


> Right, but differential is not the right thing to look at, IMO.
> 
> I'm interested in how the person that Brown was guarding did.... not how much better Brown did (offense included) vs. the guy he was guarding.
> 
> I don't see any evidence of Brown being good on defense. The guy he was guarding played well. He's not playing very athletically down there (lack of rebounding / blocks). Heck, even if you go by the end of season awards, he has not received one since 2000.
> 
> This does not capture everything by any stretch… I’m just wondering what people are basing their evaluation on. I’ll admit I didn’t watch a lot of Hornets ball last year.


neither did i. i agree 82 games isn't enough. one thing to consider: our team defense as a whole is better than new orleans. i have no immediate links or stats but i think most people would agree. 

now with a superior team defense, chandler gets outplayed at the C spot (in fairness probably not his natural position). conversly, pj brown is on a team with a less effective team defense. so imo it'll be easier for brown to get out played by his C counterpart. less reliable help defense, less reliable help on the boards, less containment of driving/slashing etc etc. 

so i think this year it's reasonable to assume pj can be just as effective as chandler was (at the center spot). now that pj gets to play with a superior team defense around him, it makes his job easier.


----------



## kukoc4ever

RoRo said:


> now with a superior team defense, chandler gets outplayed at the C spot (in fairness probably not his natural position). conversly, pj brown is on a team with a less effective team defense. so imo it'll be easier for brown to get out played by his C counterpart. less reliable help defense, less reliable help on the boards, less containment of driving/slashing etc etc.


First off, you are still looking (mistakenly IMO) at differential. Chandler held his guy to a below average PER.

I agree that the Bulls were a better defensive team than the Hornets and that help D and overall team strength at D are not taken into account in these player X vs player Y comparisons.

But, there is NOTHING indicating that Brown is "stout" on defense anymore.

Brown contributes very little of value, tangibly. He is, allegedly, wise.




> so i think this year it's reasonable to assume pj can be just as effective as chandler was (at the center spot). now that pj gets to play with a superior team defense around him, it makes his job easier.


I strongly disagree. Chandler is the superior defensive player to Brown. The numbers back it up (and my eyes, from what i've seen from brown in the preseason, perhaps he'll turn it on once the big games start). I wish 82games would provide splits on these things… I’d like it broken down by months… since its pretty well established that Chandler played better the 2nd half of the season once he got his legs under him.

What are you basing your assumption about PJ on? You admit you have not seen much Hornets basketball.


----------



## RoRo

kukoc4ever said:


> First off, you are still looking (mistakenly IMO) at differential. Chandler held his guy to a below average PER.
> 
> I agree that the Bulls were a better defensive team than the Hornets and that help D and overall team strength at D are not taken into account in these player X vs player Y comparisons.
> 
> But, there is NOTHING indicating that Brown is "stout" on defense anymore.
> 
> Brown contributes very little of value, tangibly. He is, allegedly, wise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I strongly disagree. Chandler is the superior defensive player to Brown. The numbers back it up. I wish 82games would provide splits on these things… I’d like it broken down by months… since its pretty well established that Chandler played better the 2 nd of the season once he got his legs under him.
> 
> What are you basing your assumption about PJ on? You admit you have not seen much Hornets basketball.


i'll admit chandler on his good days > than pj brown.

however i'm talking about defense supporting cast. i'm thinking of the team context.
the bulls > the hornets.

PJ's numbers are worse due in part to the team around him. 
he gets less help and he has to help more.

Now that pj's on a better team i expect his numbers to get better.
He's going to get better help defense and he's going to have someone like ben wallace covering his back. it'll make pj's job a ton easier.

I expect chandler's to take a dip now that he has more responsibility on the hornets UNLESS he returns to his old form. if he plays like bad chandler the hornets are in for a long year.


----------



## Sham

fl_flash said:


> Interesting. I'll take your word on this because you're johnny-on-the-spot with this stuff... Would keeping payroll under the cap figure entitle Reinsdorf and Co. to the redistribution of funds from those fiscally irresponsible teams? In other words, if the Bulls were $.01 over the cap figure (but still under the lux tax limit), they wouldn't qualify for any of that free money?



I think you're confusing the cap and the tax threshold. What you worry about above is what happens when you go over the taxh threshold, not the cap. I'll give it a run down, and if I cover anything you already know sorry, but I tend to ramble like that.

You've got the salary cap, right - in theory, the amount a team can spend on players. It's a soft cap, though, and teams are able to go over it in a variety of ways. And basically, everybody does. Every so often a team will go under the cap as a big contract expires, or a few do simultaneously, and they'll be big players in the free agent market. But there's only 3 or 4 teams like this every year. This past year, it was us, New Orleans, Atlanta and Charlotte. Us and New Orleans spent big, Atlanta spent a bit on third tier players, and Charlotte barely spent at all (they're still below the minimum team salary). Next year, barring drastic change between now and then (which will probably happen), the main players figure to be Charlotte (again), New Orleans (again), Orlando (possibly) and Milwaukee (see other thread). Memphis has a bit too.

So while the league doesn't mind that basically every team goes a bit over the cap, they don't want them to do it too much. So they brought in the tax - a deterrent for teams thinking of massive cap circumvention. The basic tax principle is that, if your payroll exceeds a certain figure, they have to pay more than just the payroll. It's an extra dollar paid for every dollar that you are over the tax threshold (NOT over the cap, which I believe is where your confusion comes from).

In addition to this, they also lose money in another way. All the luxury tax money paid by teams that were over the threshold is divvied up amongst all those teams who weren't. So last year, for example, the San Antonio Spurs were a mere $0.9 million over the threshold...which isn't a lot, but means they had to pay the tax and yet also lose their share of the cheese. So that $0.9 million of payroll costs them, in total, over $4 million. Which probably didn't feel nice.

How they calculate both the salary cap figure and luxury tax threshold is both incredibly boring and intensely dull (boring AND dull, not just either/or), but if you're interested, it's at Larry ****'s CBA FAQ, the URL of which escapes me, but I believe it's in the shortcuts in the forum menus here somewhere. For reference, though, the salary cap for this coming season is $53,150,000, and the luxury tax threshold is $65,420,000.

The tax really does work as a deterrent. When it was first invoked, there were three people that were head and shoulders above the rest of the rest when it came to payroll - Dallas, New York and Portland. Portland more than halved their payroll and, if it wasn't for some bad decisions by John Nash concering Miles and Randolph, woulda have a hefty amount of cap room 2 offseasons ago. Dallas also took great strides in cutting payroll (See Finley being waived, Daniels for Croshere, and other somesuch moves), and while they were still a tax team last year....it wasn't by as much as it used to be. They figure to be slightly above it next year, and then under in 2007/08 it as Croshere and Stackhouse expire. New York are also apparently having payroll concerns - or a tleast, so said some reports early this offseason. Seen to be believed, though - they're still way out in front of all others in total pay roll.


We're currently between the cap figure and tax threshold, like pretty much everybody else. Thing is, unlike most teams, we're only ever so slightly over the cap, so we still have a ton of wiggle room before we get to the tax. However, as rookie contracts run out and people start needing extensions, that becomes less true each year, and payroll will rise accordingly.

That's the main reason for two things:

a) It's why Ben Wallace's contract shrinks annually over its duration and not increases, which is a rare thing (about 90% of contracts increase. Some stay flat. But very few decrease. Off the top of my head, I can only think of Ben Wallace, Jarron Collins and Speedy Claxton as players who do have this, though there's more I'm forgetting)

b) It's why we dumped the massive contract of a bit part player in Chandler.

And that's why changing Chandler's $54 million remaining for PJ's $8.5 million remaining was a big thing. We cna take the money that was being spent on a bit part player, and use it on someone who isn't.

Jerry Reinsdorf says he's willing to spend - whether by this he means he'll pay tax is unknown. It might - we'll wait and see. Either way though, it seems pretty apparent that if he is willing to sign off on tax payments, it won't be by a large amount, because it's both pretty pointless (why pay Tyson $54 million + the tax payments it incurs when he didn't deserve it? Why pay double for someone not worth half of what they're getting? By all means go over the tax for someone who's worth it....but Tyson wasn't) and also bad for the basketball side of things - as New York is demonstrating right now (they have no one earning under $5.2 million that isn't on a rookie contract, and apparently they wub their rookies so much), if your payroll is chockablock from top to toe with big salaries, it absolutely cripples your roster flexibility. Every move you make with a highly priced player is going to result in you having to sweeten the package in some way, be it with picks or a cheap quality rookie. And that's just not helping anybody.


So, yes, we're over the cap, but no, we're not over the tax. We've got a lot of wiggle room before we are.


----------



## jbulls

kukoc4ever said:


> I didn't see a lot of Hornets basketball last year.... but looking @ the numbers, it appears that the opposing center that Brown was matched up against while on the Hornets did quite well against him... a PER of 16.3. That combined with his poor rebound rate and lack of blocked shots make me quite leery of hearing about PJ's "stout" defense.
> 
> How much Hornets ball did you watch last season? What are you basing your "stout" evaluation on? He used to be really good on D.... I just don't see it anymore.


I saw a handful of Hornets games last year. I'm not trying to imply that PJ Brown is Chandler's equal as a defender - he isn't. When he's playing well Chandler is a difference making weakside defender, and he's always been a great rebounder. Brown isn't a difference making anything at this point.

What PJ is, is a good positional defender who doesn't foul much and plays smart. Opposing PER aside (and there isn't a whole lot in a difference of 16.3 and 14.9 opposing PER, in my opinion), we're talking about a guy who played 30 minutes a game at center for a team that allowed less than 90 points a game last year, while mostly playing alongside an undersized 4 in David West. I think he did fine defensively for New Orleans last year and, barring a substantial drop off, he'll do fine for the Bulls this year. I expect he'll make an able compliment to Ben Wallace and Tyrus Thomas, who should provide shot blocking and protect the goal. I don't think Chandler would've been as good a compliment, though I do think he's a better player.


----------



## Ron Cey

jbulls said:


> I saw a handful of Hornets games last year. I'm not trying to imply that PJ Brown is Chandler's equal as a defender - he isn't. When he's playing well Chandler is a difference making weakside defender, and he's always been a great rebounder. Brown isn't a difference making anything at this point.
> 
> What PJ is, is a good positional defender who doesn't foul much and plays smart. Opposing PER aside (and there isn't a whole lot in a difference of 16.3 and 14.9 opposing PER, in my opinion), we're talking about a guy who played 30 minutes a game at center for a team that allowed less than 90 points a game last year, while mostly playing alongside an undersized 4 in David West. I think he did fine defensively for New Orleans last year and, barring a substantial drop off, he'll do fine for the Bulls this year. I expect he'll make an able compliment to Ben Wallace and Tyrus Thomas, who should provide shot blocking and protect the goal. I don't think Chandler would've been as good a compliment, though I do think he's a better player.


Well said.

As an aside, I think the "must spread rep" message is displayed a bit too liberally. I don't just rep the same one or two posters over and over, yet I find myself getting this message a lot. 

Hell, I even got that message the last two times I tried to rep ScottMay! :biggrin: (True story, though)

What gives?


----------



## jbulls

Ron Cey said:


> Well said.
> 
> As an aside, I think the "must spread rep" message is displayed a bit too liberally. I don't just rep the same one or two posters over and over, yet I find myself getting this message a lot.
> 
> Hell, I even got that message the last two times I tried to rep ScottMay! :biggrin: (True story, though)
> 
> What gives?


I think the "must spread rep" message may apply to posters who have recieved a substantial amount of rep from anyone lately, not just the poster trying to rep them...


----------



## Darius Miles Davis

Sham said:


> I think you're confusing the cap and the tax threshold. What you worry about above is what happens when you go over the taxh threshold, not the cap. I'll give it a run down, and if I cover anything you already know sorry, but I tend to ramble like that.
> 
> You've got the salary cap, right - in theory, the amount a team can spend on players. It's a soft cap, though, and teams are able to go over it in a variety of ways. And basically, everybody does. Every so often a team will go under the cap as a big contract expires, or a few do simultaneously, and they'll be big players in the free agent market. But there's only 3 or 4 teams like this every year. This past year, it was us, New Orleans, Atlanta and Charlotte. Us and New Orleans spent big, Atlanta spent a bit on third tier players, and Charlotte barely spent at all (they're still below the minimum team salary). Next year, barring drastic change between now and then (which will probably happen), the main players figure to be Charlotte (again), New Orleans (again), Orlando (possibly) and Milwaukee (see other thread). Memphis has a bit too.
> 
> So while the league doesn't mind that basically every team goes a bit over the cap, they don't want them to do it too much. So they brought in the tax - a deterrent for teams thinking of massive cap circumvention. The basic tax principle is that, if your payroll exceeds a certain figure, they have to pay more than just the payroll. It's an extra dollar paid for every dollar that you are over the tax threshold (NOT over the cap, which I believe is where your confusion comes from).
> 
> In addition to this, they also lose money in another way. All the luxury tax money paid by teams that were over the threshold is divvied up amongst all those teams who weren't. So last year, for example, the San Antonio Spurs were a mere $0.9 million over the threshold...which isn't a lot, but means they had to pay the tax and yet also lose their share of the cheese. So that $0.9 million of payroll costs them, in total, over $4 million. Which probably didn't feel nice.
> 
> How they calculate both the salary cap figure and luxury tax threshold is both incredibly boring and intensely dull (boring AND dull, not just either/or), but if you're interested, it's at Larry ****'s CBA FAQ, the URL of which escapes me, but I believe it's in the shortcuts in the forum menus here somewhere. For reference, though, the salary cap for this coming season is $53,150,000, and the luxury tax threshold is $65,420,000.
> 
> The tax really does work as a deterrent. When it was first invoked, there were three people that were head and shoulders above the rest of the rest when it came to payroll - Dallas, New York and Portland. Portland more than halved their payroll and, if it wasn't for some bad decisions by John Nash concering Miles and Randolph, woulda have a hefty amount of cap room 2 offseasons ago. Dallas also took great strides in cutting payroll (See Finley being waived, Daniels for Croshere, and other somesuch moves), and while they were still a tax team last year....it wasn't by as much as it used to be. They figure to be slightly above it next year, and then under in 2007/08 it as Croshere and Stackhouse expire. New York are also apparently having payroll concerns - or a tleast, so said some reports early this offseason. Seen to be believed, though - they're still way out in front of all others in total pay roll.
> 
> 
> We're currently between the cap figure and tax threshold, like pretty much everybody else. Thing is, unlike most teams, we're only ever so slightly over the cap, so we still have a ton of wiggle room before we get to the tax. However, as rookie contracts run out and people start needing extensions, that becomes less true each year, and payroll will rise accordingly.
> 
> That's the main reason for two things:
> 
> a) It's why Ben Wallace's contract shrinks annually over its duration and not increases, which is a rare thing (about 90% of contracts increase. Some stay flat. But very few decrease. Off the top of my head, I can only think of Ben Wallace, Jarron Collins and Speedy Claxton as players who do have this, though there's more I'm forgetting)
> 
> b) It's why we dumped the massive contract of a bit part player in Chandler.
> 
> And that's why changing Chandler's $54 million remaining for PJ's $8.5 million remaining was a big thing. We cna take the money that was being spent on a bit part player, and use it on someone who isn't.
> 
> Jerry Reinsdorf says he's willing to spend - whether by this he means he'll pay tax is unknown. It might - we'll wait and see. Either way though, it seems pretty apparent that if he is willing to sign off on tax payments, it won't be by a large amount, because it's both pretty pointless (why pay Tyson $54 million + the tax payments it incurs when he didn't deserve it? Why pay double for someone not worth half of what they're getting? By all means go over the tax for someone who's worth it....but Tyson wasn't) and also bad for the basketball side of things - as New York is demonstrating right now (they have no one earning under $5.2 million that isn't on a rookie contract, and apparently they wub their rookies so much), if your payroll is chockablock from top to toe with big salaries, it absolutely cripples your roster flexibility. Every move you make with a highly priced player is going to result in you having to sweeten the package in some way, be it with picks or a cheap quality rookie. And that's just not helping anybody.
> 
> 
> So, yes, we're over the cap, but no, we're not over the tax. We've got a lot of wiggle room before we are.


Great post, Sham.

I don't think we are over the cap this year, nor do I think we can be over the cap this year. See this passage in Larry ****'s FAQ:



> If a team isn't over the cap, then the concept of an exception is moot. Therefore, if a team's team salary ever drops this far, its exceptions go away. The effect is that a team may have either exceptions or cap room, but they can't have both.


http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#20

So we renounced all of our exceptions to get that much more cap room this year. Therefore, we can't cross over the cap threshold this year.

Not that they're the most accurate, but hoopshype has us at 52.8 mil before adding in Luke or Barrett's potential contract:

http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/chicago.htm

And in reference to another thing you posted above, just how is it that Charlotte is below the salary minimum for this year. I thought by year 3 or the franchise, they had to be treated just like any other team. Are they going to sign someone this week, because right now they're way under the minimum.


----------



## DengNabbit

hi Kukoc4ever, if possible i'd like to get your itemized response to my post near the bottom of page 11. it may have been lost in the mix, and i think it is way better than my earlier poorly worded post that you did respond to at good length.

if you've got time-thanks ttyllll!


----------



## narek

Darius Miles Davis said:


> And in reference to another thing you posted above, just how is it that Charlotte is below the salary minimum for this year. I thought by year 3 or the franchise, they had to be treated just like any other team. Are they going to sign someone this week, because right now they're way under the minimum.


I read something about Charlotte last week - if they don't get their payroll to a certain point, they're going to have to pay the player's association a certain amount of money. Weird.


----------



## Sham

Charlotte doesn't have to be over th eminimum salary until season's end - in the mean time, they'll do like what Utah did a few years ago, and have teams give Charlotte some picks to convince them to dump their salary on Charlotte. Utah did this with Glen Rice and Tim Gugliotta (may have done it with more, can't remember), and wound up with a bevvy of picks from it. So not to worry, they'll make it.



> So we renounced all of our exceptions to get that much more cap room this year. Therefore, we can't cross over the cap threshold this year.
> 
> Not that they're the most accurate, but hoopshype has us at 52.8 mil before adding in Luke or Barrett's potential contract:


Yeah, but they're wrong on so many levels. Noce earns more than that, and so does PJ. We own Eisley nothing. And even if we waive Barrett and Schenscher and pay them nothing....we're still over it. Just.

After signing Griffin, we were a couple of thousand under it - however, we hadn't at that pointed signed Tyrus and Thabo, and for good reason. While they were unsigned, their salary was held against our cap figure at 100% of the rookie scale figure. Yet when we signed them, we signed them to the maximum allowable - 120%. (If you're wondering why it is that we gave them 120%, it's because every team does. Loyalty, I guess. It's just the done thing). Combined, the difference between their 100% figure and 120% figure was roughly $800,000 - it was adding that that put us over the cap.

Next year, we're over it unless we renounce Nocioni and Kirk. And doing that would be somewhat silly.


----------



## Sham

> I thought by year 3 or the franchise, they had to be treated just like any other team.


Salary caps have a maximum and a minimum. The maximum is the $53,150,000, but rarely do you hear about the minimum figure as it's never really a factor. Charlotte now has a full cap figure, as you mention, and thus is also liable to meet the full salary cap minimum.

The cap minimum is equal to 75% of it's maximum. Or $39,862,500. Charlotte's currently residing at a hair over $38 million with 16 players under contract.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis

Sham said:


> Salary caps have a maximum and a minimum. The maximum is the $53,150,000, but rarely do you hear about the minimum figure as it's never really a factor. Charlotte now has a full cap figure, as you mention, and thus is also liable to meet the full salary cap minimum.
> 
> The cap minimum is equal to 75% of it's maximum. Or $39,862,500. Charlotte's currently residing at a hair over $38 million with 16 players under contract.


Nah, I know that, Sham. However, the Bobcats had a special set of salary cap rules for the first two years of their franchise in which they were allowed - even required - to pay a lower salary level. However, I believe the "startup rates" disappear this year, which is why there should be some sort of punishiment/fine if they don't make it.


----------



## Sham

> However, I believe the "startup rates" disappear this year....


....they do....



> ....which is why there should be some sort of punishiment/fine if they don't make it.


...and there will be.

But they will make it. They have 9 months to put on $2 million, after all.


----------



## bullsville

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Great post, Sham.
> 
> I don't think we are over the cap this year, nor do I think we can be over the cap this year. See this passage in Larry ****'s FAQ:
> 
> 
> 
> http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#20
> 
> So we renounced all of our exceptions to get that much more cap room this year. Therefore, we can't cross over the cap threshold this year.
> 
> Not that they're the most accurate, *but hoopshype has us at 52.8 mil before adding in Luke or Barrett's potential contract:*
> 
> http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/chicago.htm
> 
> And in reference to another thing you posted above, just how is it that Charlotte is below the salary minimum for this year. I thought by year 3 or the franchise, they had to be treated just like any other team. Are they going to sign someone this week, because right now they're way under the minimum.


Even if Hoopshype is right, $52.8 million would put us $335,000 under the cap- and either Barrett or Luke at the minimum would put us over the cap.


----------



## fl_flash

Sham said:


> .....


Thanks for all the info. I'm quite clear on the difference between the cap and the tax. Where I was off was on not knowing what the tax threshold was. I thought it was around $53 mil (which ends up being the cap figure) and not the $65 mil which is the tax figure.

The other thing I was unsure of was which teams qualify for the lux tax payment distributions. I thought it was only teams that were under the cap (and that was a large reason why it seemed that Pax was moving heaven and earth to get under it) but from you and ****'s page, it's all teams that are below the tax limit (which is most every team - save a few big spenders).

I was erroneously thinking the Bulls were up against the tax when they were only up against the cap. That's why I'm fully expecting Reinsdorf to ante up when the time comes if he's got roughly $25 mil to play with over the next couple of summers. ($13 mil comming off the books this summer plus the $12 mil cushion before they hit tax land). He'll still get his 1/30th share of the tax distribution so long as he doesn't go over the tax level and we should have a pretty damned good team locked up for quite a while.


----------



## hammer

Chandler update:

In his first game back, at halftime:

8 Points (4-4 shooting)
7 Rebounds
1 Assist
3 Steals
1 Block

His assist was off an offensive rebound. He kicked it out to Peja for three.


----------



## Wynn

hammer said:


> Chandler update:
> 
> In his first game back, at halftime:
> 
> 8 Points (4-4 shooting)
> 7 Rebounds
> 1 Assist
> 3 Steals
> 1 Block
> 
> His assist was off an offensive rebound. He kicked it out to Peja for three.


Overall nice boxscore for Tyson... was particularly impressed that in 35 minutes he only had 3 fouls. Looks like his second half wasn't as productive as the first, as he finished with:

8 Points (4-8 shooting)
10 Rebounds
2 Assists
4 Steals
1 Block

Likely got worn down since he's been out the last few games. Nice numbers, regardless.


----------



## girllovesthegame

> 8 Points (4-8 shooting)


4-6 shooting. I was rather impressed that he only had 3 fouls as well. Especially having only 1 at halftime.


----------



## Sham

Dammit, if Paxson knew Chandler could grab 10 rebounds in a single game, he never would have traded him.


----------



## superdave

Wynn said:


> Overall nice boxscore for Tyson... was particularly impressed that in 35 minutes he only had 3 fouls. Looks like his second half wasn't as productive as the first, as he finished with:
> 
> 8 Points (4-8 shooting)
> 10 Rebounds
> 2 Assists
> 4 Steals
> 1 Block
> 
> Likely got worn down since he's been out the last few games. Nice numbers, regardless.


Starting his sixth NBA season as the #2 overall pick in a draft and we're impressed with 8/10 and a block in an NBA preseason game versus SAR and Kenny Thomas. I'm not nitpicking you Wynn (honestly), its just amazing how low the bar has been set for a guy we formerly traded Elton Brand for.

:cheers:


----------



## DengNabbit

superdave said:


> Starting his sixth NBA season as the #2 overall pick ........... its just amazing how low the bar has been set for a guy we formerly traded Elton Brand for.



he wasnt worth that #2 pick?!???????!!!


----------



## such sweet thunder

Amplified by the fact that Tyrus could very welll put up eight and ten his rookie year.

Amplified by the fact 
That I can't get by with my 9 to 5 
And I can't provide the right type of life for my family 
Cause man, these goddam food stamps don't buy diapers 
And it's no movie, there's no Makai Pfeiffer


----------



## Wynn

superdave said:


> Starting his sixth NBA season as the #2 overall pick in a draft and we're impressed with 8/10 and a block in an NBA preseason game versus SAR and Kenny Thomas. I'm not nitpicking you Wynn (honestly), its just amazing how low the bar has been set for a guy we formerly traded Elton Brand for.
> 
> :cheers:


Seen in that light, it's silly that we are also impressed that he had "only" three fouls. I guess I've stopped thinking of him as a #2 draft choice and just started thinking of him as foul-prone easy to disappear Chandler.......

....needless to say, I agree with you. Have been one of those stating how much I really don't miss the guy. That said -- it was a nice game by Tyson standards.


----------



## Ron Cey

The likelihood that Tyson Chandler, Eddy Curry and Jamal Crawford will have some exceptional performances between them each and every year is probably 100%.

On a completely unrelated note, Roger Mason, Jr. scored 22 points for the Wizards last night.


----------



## Showtyme

Ron Cey said:


> The likelihood that Tyson Chandler, Eddy Curry and Jamal Crawford will have some exceptional performances between them each and every year is probably 100%.
> 
> On a completely unrelated note, *Desmond Mason* scored 22 points for the Wizards last night.


You might have meant Roger Mason Jr., who I always thought would pan out into a decent player but forgot about for the past year or so.


----------



## narek

Ron Cey said:


> The likelihood that Tyson Chandler, Eddy Curry and Jamal Crawford will have some exceptional performances between them each and every year is probably 100%.
> 
> On a completely unrelated note, Desmond Mason scored 22 points for the Wizards last night.


Desmond is with the Hornets. Larry Harris's trade of Desmond and a first round pick for Jamal Magloire will go down as dumb trade.


----------



## Ron Cey

Showtyme said:


> You might have meant Roger Mason Jr., who I always thought would pan out into a decent player but forgot about for the past year or so.


That is exactly who I meant. I have made the necessary change. 

My error negated what would have otherwise been a brilliantly sarcastic post. :biggrin:


----------



## hammer

Ron Cey said:


> The likelihood that Tyson Chandler will have some exceptional performances each and every year is probably 100%.


And so, Tyson's quest to lead the NBA in offensive rebounding has officially begun. He has 10 through two games. Whatchoo know about that?


----------



## JeremyB0001

I meant to say this earlier: the backlash over the Chandler trade is likely to appear very quickly. Ty never played more than 27 MPG with the Bulls. He figures to play close to 35 a game with NO which figures to take his rebounding average close to 12 RPG, placing him in the mix for the league lead. Fans and the media alike tend to pay a good deal of attention to the league leaders and some will start asking why the Bulls traded one of the best rebounders in the league for a 37 year old playing limited minutes. Just a hunch, I could be wrong. If it does go down that way though, you heard it here first.


----------



## DaBullz

JeremyB0001 said:


> I meant to say this earlier: the backlash over the Chandler trade is likely to appear very quickly. Ty never played more than 27 MPG with the Bulls. He figures to play close to 35 a game with NO which figures to take his rebounding average close to 12 RPG, placing him in the mix for the league lead. Fans and the media alike tend to pay a good deal of attention to the league leaders and some will start asking why the Bulls traded one of the best rebounders in the league for a 37 year old playing limited minutes. Just a hunch, I could be wrong. If it does go down that way though, you heard it here first.


Speak up, I can't hear you.


----------



## Babble-On

JeremyB0001 said:


> I meant to say this earlier: the backlash over the Chandler trade is likely to appear very quickly. Ty never played more than 27 MPG with the Bulls. He figures to play close to 35 a game with NO which figures to take his rebounding average close to 12 RPG, placing him in the mix for the league lead. Fans and the media alike tend to pay a good deal of attention to the league leaders and some will start asking why the Bulls traded one of the best rebounders in the league for a 37 year old playing limited minutes. Just a hunch, I could be wrong. If it does go down that way though, you heard it here first.


I doubt that Tyson could manage to avoid fouls to the extent that he played 35 mpg. That being said, the backlash should still come if PJ continues being totally useless like he has so far.


----------



## JeremyB0001

DaBullz said:


> Speak up, I can't hear you.


Sorry. I didn't realize that beating a dead horse began at post #213 and at no point earlier or later in the thread. I think it's a valid point for both Tyson's supporters and detractors that hasn't been mentioned. His detractors can argue that any improvement in his numbers is superficial as he's simply playing more minutes and that those who watched him play on a regular basis are aware of his flaws which have not evaporated. Ty's supporters on the other hand might argue that increased minutes clarify how valuable he's been all along. Whatever though, if no one wants to hear my thoughts on this subject anymore I can stop.


----------



## DaBullz

JeremyB0001 said:


> Sorry. I didn't realize that beating a dead horse began at post #213 and at no point earlier or later in the thread. I think it's a valid point for both Tyson's supporters and detractors that hasn't been mentioned. His detractors can argue that any improvement in his numbers is superficial as he's simply playing more minutes and that those who watched him play on a regular basis are aware of his flaws which have not evaporated. Ty's supporters on the other hand might argue that increased minutes clarify how valuable he's been all along. Whatever though, if no one wants to hear my thoughts on this subject anymore I can stop.


That's not what I meant.

If he gets 35 minutes a game, he's bound to improve. I remember in a game thread, one of the fellows here had gone to the game and posted about how tall Chandler looked. Like an umbrella. There's a lot of value in having a guy like that standing near the basket.

But hey, I didn't value him at the big contract he signed.


----------



## hammer

15 offensive rebounds through three games.


----------



## yodurk

hammer said:


> 15 offensive rebounds through three games.


That doesn't change the fact that, a) we'd be forced to cut loose some of our other players if we'd kept his remaining $52M in salary, and b) he'd be a flat-out horrible fit next to Ben Wallace. 

He's a very good fit for New Orleans, who have the best young PG in the league to dish him a few easy buckets each game, and also an excellent post-scorer who can't rebound (David West). Honestly, I don't think there's a better fit for Tyson Chandler in the entire NBA when you really break things down. They can afford to play 4 on 5 since their scorers are so good, and Tyson can just focus on the few things he's good at.

Edit: I should probably also mention that I'm still a big Chandler fan (unlike Crawford and Curry), so I'm happy to see him in a good situation. As for our end of the deal, I'll be happier to retain our core than to retain Chandler (you can't keep everyone) and I'd be incredibly surprised if PJ Brown continues to stink it up like this.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

Tyson's yearly stats to date -vs- career stats.

Not sure what to make of it overall.

Clearly, a renewed emphasis on rebounding.

Everything else is earily similar to the past.

3 games of defensive emphsasis and zero blocks from a 7'1" guy with incredible spider arms?

It looks like FT%, A-TO Ratio and PFs are going to continue to be a major problem for him and for the team.

The O boards stat is indeed impressive, though. If he can keep that up, it will sure help NO/OKC. Nice to see that high FG% as well.


----------



## JeremyB0001

yodurk said:


> That doesn't change the fact that, a) we'd be forced to cut loose some of our other players if we'd kept his remaining $52M in salary


I've probably belabored this point by now and everyone is therefore aware of it, but assuming that Pax has been instructed he cannot cross the luxury tax threshold which would mean keeping Tyson would have prevented us from resigning members of the core, no one seems to be arguing Pax was wrong to trade him. The argument is that Reinsdorf should have been willing to pay drastic sums of money to keep Tyson.


----------



## JeremyB0001

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Tyson's yearly stats to date -vs- career stats.
> 
> Not sure what to make of it overall.
> 
> Clearly, a renewed emphasis on rebounding.
> 
> Everything else is earily similar to the past.
> 
> 3 games of defensive emphsasis and zero blocks from a 7'1" guy with incredible spider arms?
> 
> It looks like FT%, A-TO Ratio and PFs are going to continue to be a major problem for him and for the team.
> 
> The O boards stat is indeed impressive, though. If he can keep that up, it will sure help NO/OKC. Nice to see that high FG% as well.


At least some of the increased rebounded can be attributed to increased minutes. The lack of blocks are counfounding but can be chalked up in part to the small sample size. I wouldn't say FT% has historically been a problem. 61% is not a horrific mark from a center, we would certainly take that from Wallace. Furthermore Tyson has had seasons where he shot significantly better than that from the line. As far as the other numbers I agree. He's still turning over the ball and he's not getting more shots in NO's offense.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

Interestingly, Big Ben is 6-9 on FTs for the season (.667). As you say, it is a small sample, but an encouraging start none the less.

I'll take it.


----------



## MikeDC

Babble-On said:


> I doubt that Tyson could manage to avoid fouls to the extent that he played 35 mpg. That being said, the backlash should still come if PJ continues being totally useless like he has so far.


Yeah, I don't think Tyson is going to make 35mpg because he's just not able to play that much without fouling, but I do think he'll probably manage to notch 30 this year. To me it's that much worse if PJ Brown continues to look this old, but the real story of this trade isn't going to be this year but a couple years down the road when Ben slows down and we belatedly realize capable replacements don't grow on trees.


----------



## Ron Cey

MikeDC said:


> To me it's that much worse if PJ Brown continues to look this old, but the real story of this trade isn't going to be this year but a couple years down the road when Ben slows down and we belatedly realize capable replacements don't grow on trees.


No, they don't. But hopefully they come from Knicks' picks.


----------



## johnston797

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> It looks like FT%, A-TO Ratio and PFs are going to continue to be a major problem for him and for the team.


A-TO ratio is pretty good this year. It's better than Deng, TT, and PJ so far.


----------



## MikeDC

JeremyB0001 said:


> I've probably belabored this point by now and everyone is therefore aware of it, but assuming that Pax has been instructed he cannot cross the luxury tax threshold which would mean *keeping Tyson would have prevented us from resigning members of the core*, no one seems to be arguing Pax was wrong to trade him.


I'm not sure this is the case however. If we substitute in Tyson's salary while taking out Brown and Adrian Griffin's (IIRC he was only able to be signed due to the Brown/Chandler trade and subsequent JR Smith trade) salary, we could still probably have re-signed Noc, Deng and Gordon and had enough room under the tax threshold to fill out the last couple roster spots with minimum salary type guys. It would have been close and we may probably would have had to cut loose Duhon or Khyrapa at some point, but that seems fairly acceptable to me.

Of course, one might also consider whether a guy like Nocioni or Gordon will be as valuable to the Bulls or as scarce to get in a couple years. It's an open question at this point.



> The argument is that Reinsdorf should have been willing to pay drastic sums of money to keep Tyson.


Well, that too.  How much additional expected revenue might the higher chance of having a championship contender generate 3-5 years down the road vs. how much additional it costs now (for certain). Very unclear, but my impression is that winning championships (and better, a series of championships) pays off quite well for a team. That's just in financial terms... we'll leave the whole silly notion that winning in itself might be worth something non-financial out of the equation


----------



## JeremyB0001

MikeDC said:


> I'm not sure this is the case however. If we substitute in Tyson's salary while taking out Brown and Adrian Griffin's (IIRC he was only able to be signed due to the Brown/Chandler trade and subsequent JR Smith trade) salary, we could still probably have re-signed Noc, Deng and Gordon and had enough room under the tax threshold to fill out the last couple roster spots with minimum salary type guys. It would have been close and we may probably would have had to cut loose Duhon or Khyrapa at some point, but that seems fairly acceptable to me.
> 
> Of course, one might also consider whether a guy like Nocioni or Gordon will be as valuable to the Bulls or as scarce to get in a couple years. It's an open question at this point.
> 
> Well, that too.  How much additional expected revenue might the higher chance of having a championship contender generate 3-5 years down the road vs. how much additional it costs now (for certain). Very unclear, but my impression is that winning championships (and better, a series of championships) pays off quite well for a team. That's just in financial terms... we'll leave the whole silly notion that winning in itself might be worth something non-financial out of the equation


I'm not cap guru, I just mostly listen to what other people are saying. That said, assuming we keep the entire core we would at one point likely have Big Ben, Gordon, Hinrich, Noc, and Deng all signed at upwards of $7 or $8 million per season. Apparently Ben and Kirks' deals are frontloaded because just signing those five players will place us very close to the threshold. That seemingly indicates that an additional $10 million a season for Tyson would give us no chance of staying under. 

While I am more high on Tyson's future than most, it is not entirely clear to me that it would have been a good value cost wise to keep him on the team because it might give us a better chance to win a championship. It would be a definite risk. There are a lot fewer minutes available in the front court with Wallace and Thomas on board and if Tyson failed to improve and played few minutes, he'd be worth an extra win or two a season at the most. That's not a good value at $10 million a season. My point is who cares if it's a poor business decision? Reinsdorf presumably made boatloads of money when the fans sold out every single game in seasons when the team won less than thirty games and the payroll was among the league's lowest. Why not severely overpay for the couple extra wins you might get? Why not gamble millions on a player who may or may not reach his potential? The owner should have the money and there's only more on the way if the Bulls become a force again.

You make a good point about replacing Big Ben in a couple years time. Clearly Tyson is not as good as Ben at this point but Wallace and Camby are the only two guys in the league I can easily compare Tyson's game to. The fact that we had one of the better defense, rebounding, and no offense guys in the league and were able to land the best one might've blinded us to the fact that there aren't too many gamechanging players in that mold nowadays. Due soley to age, it's clear that at some point in the next several years Chandler will be better at being Ben Wallace than Ben Wallace himself will be. Hopefully Tyrus can be that type of player with an offensive game to boot.


----------



## transplant

This may have been said...I confess I didn't look at the whole post.

Paxson signed Chandler to a long-term deal because big guys are hard to find and the team was already too small. Paxson probably had second thoughts when he did it and these grew as last season progressed (and Chandler didn't). 

Chandler's stunted development caused the Bulls to take a flyer at Wallace. When they were able to sign Wallace, Chandler became a >20mpg player. This would be a terrible value for the Bulls and, given Chandler's age, a very bad thing for Chandler as well. Keeping an old overpriced player as bench strength (P.J. Brown) can work. Chemistry-wise, it doesn't work when the player is young and presumably entering his prime.

Paxson did the right thing for the team...and for Chandler.


----------



## kukoc4ever

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/stats/b...,FC,C&conference=NBA&year=season_2006&sort=26

Wow, Chandler is in the top 10 in rebounding.


----------



## jbulls

kukoc4ever said:


> http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/stats/b...,FC,C&conference=NBA&year=season_2006&sort=26
> 
> Wow, Chandler is in the top 10 in rebounding.


No surprise here. Chandler has been, and I'm sure will continue to be, one of the best rebounders in the NBA.


----------



## kukoc4ever

jbulls said:


> No surprise here. Chandler has been, and I'm sure will continue to be, one of the best rebounders in the NBA.


It should be a surprise to those who assumed he could not stay on the floor long enough to appear in the STATX per game lists.

Yah, he's always near the top in rebound rate.


----------



## jbulls

kukoc4ever said:


> It should be a surprise to those who assumed he could not stay on the floor long enough to appear in the STATX per game lists.
> 
> Yah, he's always near the top in rebound rate.


Tyson's numbers aren't all that different from last year. He's playing 2.2 more minutes per game, averaging 4.3 fouls as opposed to 3.8, and is amongst the league leaders in rebounds. If memory serves he was 12th or so in the league in rebounds per game last year, so his place amongst the league's rebounding leaders is hardly surprising.


----------



## JeremyB0001

transplant said:


> This may have been said...I confess I didn't look at the whole post.
> 
> Paxson signed Chandler to a long-term deal because big guys are hard to find and the team was already too small. Paxson probably had second thoughts when he did it and these grew as last season progressed (and Chandler didn't).
> 
> Chandler's stunted development caused the Bulls to take a flyer at Wallace. When they were able to sign Wallace, Chandler became a >20mpg player. This would be a terrible value for the Bulls and, given Chandler's age, a very bad thing for Chandler as well. Keeping an old overpriced player as bench strength (P.J. Brown) can work. Chemistry-wise, it doesn't work when the player is young and presumably entering his prime.
> 
> Paxson did the right thing for the team...and for Chandler.


If by a bad value to the Bulls you mean a bad value to Jerry Reinsdorf personally than I agree with the entire post.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Tyson Chandler would be a better use of money this season than PJ Brown.

Dump him next season if you refuse to be in the top quarter.


----------



## hammer

kukoc4ever said:


> http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/stats/b...,FC,C&conference=NBA&year=season_2006&sort=26
> 
> Wow, Chandler is in the top 10 in rebounding.


I'm expecting a hell of a lot more than just Top 10. I look forward to him duking it out with Dwight Howard and Kevin Garnett for the rebounding crown.

And when he harnesses his aggressiveness on the defensive end, he's gonna make the vast majority of Bulls fans look even dumber than they already do (if that's even possible).


----------



## hammer

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> 3 games of defensive emphsasis and zero blocks from a 7'1" guy with incredible spider arms?


Defensive emphasis? Paper ain't gonna tell you jack about defense. You have to watch the games. Chandler makes it hard for SGs and SFs to get high percentage shots at or near the rim, and that's if they even have the balls to challenge him in the first place. When you go heads up against Chandler, chances are that you're not gonna get off a fluid shot. That's what you have to zone in on. If we're talking about defense, them statsheets are the equivalent of toilet paper.

Call it like it is; he is still raw in that he has yet to harness his aggressiveness, and he doesn't get much respect from the refs, but when he starts to put it all together, he may very well be the finest goaltender in the entire NBA.

Ben Wallace is obviously more valuable right now, and I have always been a fan of his, so I'm not heated about Chandler's departure. I just hate bad basketball talk.


----------



## jbulls

kukoc4ever said:


> Tyson Chandler would be a better use of money this season than PJ Brown.
> 
> Dump him next season if you refuse to be in the top quarter.


Dump him next season? Not that easy if he turns in 5 and 9 again. I like Chandler, but he didn't grow as a player at all after the '04-05 season, and the contract he has kind of stinks as a result. You think teams will be lining up to pay Tyson Chandler 4 years and 40 million dollars after this season? I think he does some stuff well, but I don't think that'll be the case. You can't just unload him whenever.


----------



## DontBeCows

The reason that the Bulls traded Chandler was not to get P.J. Brown, but to get rid of Tyson's contract. This is done only after we signed Ben Wallace, who does similiar things with Tyson but does them better and is much more consistent. 

NO is a good fit for Tyson and I wish him best luck. I don't think that we should sink to the level of Sam Smith and badmouth a player who played hard for us after he left.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

hammer said:


> Defensive emphasis? Paper ain't gonna tell you jack about defense. You have to watch the games. Chandler makes it hard for SGs and SFs to get high percentage shots at or near the rim, and that's if they even have the balls to challenge him in the first place. When you go heads up against Chandler, chances are that you're not gonna get off a fluid shot. That's what you have to zone in on. If we're talking about defense, them statsheets are the equivalent of toilet paper.
> 
> Call it like it is; he is still raw in that he has yet to harness his aggressiveness, and he doesn't get much respect from the refs, but *WHEN* he starts to put it all together, he may very well be the finest goaltender in the entire NBA.
> 
> Ben Wallace is obviously more valuable right now, and I have always been a fan of his, so I'm not heated about Chandler's departure. I just hate bad basketball talk.


*IF*.

Otherwise, nice post.


----------



## kukoc4ever

jbulls said:


> Dump him next season? Not that easy if he turns in 5 and 9 again.


But I thought it was "no surprise" to see him in the top 10 in rebounds?

We know that at least the Warriors and Hornets were willing to take this tremendous risk, after the 5 and 9. And they were willing to cough up the old PJ Brown (a good player according to you) and Micheal Pietrus and Troy Murphy (decent players according to me). 


Anyway, here's to PJ Brown, Mr Unrisky, and to avoiding the long term contract.


----------



## jbulls

kukoc4ever said:


> But I thought it was "no surprise" to see him in the top 10 in rebounds?
> 
> We know that at least the Warriors and Hornets were willing to take this tremendous risk, after the 5 and 9. And they were willing to cough up the old PJ Brown (a good player according to you) and Micheal Pietrus and Troy Murphy (decent players according to me).
> 
> 
> Anyway, here's to PJ Brown, Mr Unrisky, and to avoiding the long term contract.


You know, I'm going to go ahead and totally reverse my position on the whole thing because the freaking Warriors and Hornets were willing to take a risk on Chandler. If those two model franchises are willing to take on his deal he MUST be good. Go Warriors. Go Hornets.


----------



## bullsville

I know there are a few PER fans here, so FWIW...

83. Ben Wallace 15.81
100. Tyson Chandler 14.35
101. Eddy Curry 14.34


----------



## DengNabbit

kukoc4ever said:


> Anyway, here's to PJ Brown, Mr Unrisky, and to avoiding the long term contract.



We had to have a big man who could conceivably put a ball in the basket. When Wallace was brought in, this is the reason Chandler was shown the door.

PJ is less of an injury risk than Malik Allen. I don't even have to mention the reliability of Sweetney.

We needed a big who can provide some offense, and PJ gives you that. I like this better than the Golden State deal, because we'll have some flexibility in the offseason. i prefer that to having the GS guys' contracts affect our ability to extend our core guys.


Also keeping Tyson for a lame duck year would damage his already frail confidence, and torpedo his trade value some more. 99-03, we had guys who knew they werent going to be around long -- it's not a cheery environment when that's the case. i much prefer the current situation, incentives are there for everyone on the roster. this breeds content.


----------



## Ron Cey

Tyson Chandler is a very good rebounder.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

Ron Cey said:


> Tyson Chandler is a very good rebounder.



17 Ananias departed, and entered into the house. Laying his hands on him, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord, who appeared to you on the road by which you came, has sent me, that you may receive your sight, and be filled with the Holy Spirit."

18 Immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he received his sight. He arose and was baptized.

Acts 9:17-18


----------



## Ron Cey

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> 17 Ananias departed, and entered into the house. Laying his hands on him, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord, who appeared to you on the road by which you came, has sent me, that you may receive your sight, and be filled with the Holy Spirit."
> 
> 18 Immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he received his sight. He arose and was baptized.
> 
> Acts 9:17-18


Had Paxson not traded Chandler, I never would have seen the truth. 

Paxson = The Lord.


----------



## Rhyder

Ron Cey said:


> Had Paxson not traded Chandler, I never would have seen the truth.
> 
> Paxson = The Lord.


Paxson usurped Thabo?!? I wasn't aware of any religious warfare.


----------



## DengNabbit

if there's ever a Thabo bobblehead night, it will constitute idolatry. hell, having the wrong guy's statue outside the building is bad enough.


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> I know there are a few PER fans here, so FWIW...
> 
> 83. Ben Wallace 15.81
> 100. Tyson Chandler 14.35
> 101. Eddy Curry 14.34



Wow. Not that much of a difference at all.

I know that there are a few ROI for the Bulls fans on this board who can't like seeing that.


----------



## Ron Cey

kukoc4ever said:


> Wow. Not that much of a difference at all.
> 
> I know that there are a few ROI for the Bulls fans on this board who can't like seeing that.


What does ROI mean?


----------



## bullsville

Roi?


----------



## kukoc4ever

DengNabbit said:


> We had to have a big man who could conceivably put a ball in the basket. When Wallace was brought in, this is the reason Chandler was shown the door.


Chandler was shown the door b/c they wanted to be rid of his long term contract and that Skiles and he were not getting along.




> PJ is less of an injury risk than Malik Allen. I don't even have to mention the reliability of Sweetney.


What are you basing this on? Anything? Certainly not age.

How much time had Malik Allen missed on the Bulls due to injury?



> We needed a big who can provide some offense, and PJ gives you that. I like this better than the Golden State deal, because we'll have some flexibility in the offseason. *i prefer that to having the GS guys' contracts affect our ability to extend our core guys.*


I thought we were a "win now" team. What we really need is someone to score in the paint, IMO. Not a jump shooting PF, and an average to below average one at that.

PJ used to be really good. That was a long time ago. I hope the old man can keep it together this season. This very well may be the most effective Ben Wallace we ever see. If we're "win later" with the fruits of the Knicks picks team, then PJ, or this season, does not really matter, save for development and talent evaluation purposes. I guess PJ can impart wisdoms on the younglings. Maybe he can write a book to leave behind for future Bulls players to leaf through on road trips.



> Also keeping Tyson for a lame duck year would damage his already frail confidence, and torpedo his trade value some more.


His best season was coming off the bench.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Ron Cey said:


> What does ROI mean?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_on_investment

Return in this case being measureable basketball production.

(i agree that PER does not measure everything. no need to unleash the diatribe.)


----------



## jbulls

kukoc4ever said:


> I thought we were a "win now" team. What we really need is someone to score in the paint, IMO. Not a jump shooting PF, and an average to below average one at that.


Troy Murphy.


----------



## Ron Cey

kukoc4ever said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_on_investment
> 
> 
> (i agree that PER does not measure everything. no need to unleash the diatribe.)


I don't get it.


----------



## kukoc4ever

jbulls said:


> Troy Murphy.


Murphy is better and younger. "win later"

Pietrus.


----------



## jbulls

kukoc4ever said:


> Murphy is better and younger. "win later"
> 
> Pietrus.


Murphy is not that good and way overpaid. I agree, perhaps Pietrus could've been the low post threat we so sorely need.


----------



## kukoc4ever

jbulls said:


> Murphy is not that good and way overpaid. I agree, perhaps Pietrus could've been the low post threat we so sorely need.



Murphy is better than PJ Brown. Brown is way, way overpiad.

Not an ideal trade. Better than the PJ Brown trade, IMO.


(might as well rename this the tyson chandler update thread.  i'm done posting on this one for 24 hours. lol )


----------



## SALO

kukoc4ever said:


> What we really need is someone to score in the paint, IMO. Not a jump shooting PF, and an average to below average one at that.


And your solution is Troy Murphy? :rofl:



> Murphy is better and younger. "win later"


Even die-hard Warriors fans know he's garbage. People get fooled by his stats. Trading for Murphy = lose now and lose in the future. If I were the Warriors, I'd gladly take ANY expiring contract for him. I wouldn't care if it was a Jalen Rose type player who I'd immediately waive, just as long as someone was dumb enough to take Murphy.


----------



## hammer

21 offensive rebounds through four games.

The Hornets are 4-0.


----------



## The ROY

He's still the same old Tyson...

Still setting moving picks....

But he's starting fresh and he's in a system that really NEEDS his rebounding and blocks....

Happy for him....

Still GLAD he's gone though...


----------



## hammer

So, how did Tyson do tonight? LOL.

He only grabbed 18 rebounds. 

And like I said before, we're gonna need to revisit some old posts soon. Real soon.


----------



## The ROY

Ben Wallace > Chandler.....STILL

Ya'll gon up this anytime the kid grabs 10 or more rebs anyway...


----------



## hammer

He's averaging 4.5 offensive rebounds per game, and 11.5 overall.

Hell yeah I'm gonna bring it up, especially after all of the ****-talking that took place around these parts. Some people bashed him over and over and over again to the point where it was beyond nauseating. Should they be allowed to get away with that? Hell no.

Ben Wallace is a defensive legend. No **** he's better than Chandler. That's not the point here.


----------



## yodurk

The ROY said:


> He's still the same old Tyson...
> 
> Still setting moving picks....
> 
> But he's starting fresh and he's in a system that really NEEDS his rebounding and blocks....
> 
> Happy for him....
> 
> Still GLAD he's gone though...


Agreed...he's in a great situation, better than what we got that's for sure.


----------



## hammer

The "He's in a great situation" card is not playable. Sorry. People wrote him off as a complete scrub when he was only 23 years old. And now, at the age of 24, he's a potential NBA rebounding champion.

Maybe some monsters like Emeka and Baby Dwight will hold him off, but he'll be right there in the thick of things come March.


----------



## SALO

hammer said:


> The "He's in a great situation" card is not playable. Sorry. People wrote him off as a complete scrub when he was only 23 years old. And now, at the age of 24, he's a potential NBA rebounding champion.
> 
> Maybe some monsters like Emeka and Baby Dwight will hold him off, but he'll be right there in the thick of things come March.


Tyson led the league in rebounds per minute last season, and that was during a "down year" for him. He's always had the ability to lead the league in that category. The problem for him last year was I believe he was 2nd in the league in fouls per minute. :clown: 

How many boards did PJ have tonight? Was he still oozing intangibles from the end of the bench?


----------



## bullsger

The ROY said:


> He's still the same old Tyson...
> 
> Still setting moving picks....
> 
> But he's starting fresh and he's in a system that really NEEDS his rebounding and blocks....
> 
> Happy for him....
> 
> Still GLAD he's gone though...


I'm glad that he's gone, but he *is* gone. So I'm not interested how he could perhaps help us.


----------



## Sham

Tyson Chandler's PER - 15.6. Ever so slightly above average. A bit like Tyson. 

Whoever is matched up against Tyson Chandler's PER - 22.4. 

That's an insanely bad differential. 




Tyson's offense, amazingly, has managed to get even worse. His rebounding, which was always the one thing he was very good at, still is. His shotblocking is way down. His offense is now worse than Michael Ruffin's. 

He's currently going through one of his good rebounding streaks, as he has always done now and then. 

And yet he's STILL making even the Troy Murphy level players of this world look like Yao Ming. 


But then I suppose we are to only look at his rebounding numbers on nights that he's not sitting all game with foul trouble, and moan about it. 

Jesus, if I'd known Tyson could grab 18 rebounds in a game.......:banghead:




The guy will go out and grab some big rebounding numbers now and then. And everything will curse silently (or not so silently in some cases), and bemoan how could we let go of such an awesome rebounder.

Yet apparently we roundly despised him when he was here doing the exact same things for us.

The grass really truly is greener on the other side, I guess.


----------



## Pain5155

futuristxen said:


> PJ Brown at 40 is a better player than Chandler will ever be. The Hornets were stupid turds to make that trade. And Paxson made off like the Cat Burgler. Not only is a washed up PJ Brown better than Chandler, so is Isiah Rider JR Smith. And they lost them both for an overpaid glass tower of spunk.


sure buddy, and next you'll be saying is pj brown is better then tim duncan.

Just drop by the Bulls board to troll around for a while? TB#1


----------



## ace20004u

This is crazy, Chandler is top 10 in the league in rebounding and playing very well and people still want to badmouth him. Him & Wallace playing next to each other would have been an defensive thing of beauty but everyone wants to believe it was "one or the other" rather than beliveing that the Bulls should, "open their wallets"


ACE


----------



## DaBullz

NOK is 8-3. Chandler must be the reason for the 3 losses, and the 8 wins must be in spite of him.


----------



## ace20004u

DaBullz said:


> NOK is 8-3. Chandler must be the reason for the 3 losses, and the 8 wins must be in spite of him.



yeah really! lol!

It's amazing how much people are seeing what they want to see.

ACE


----------



## johnston797

Sham said:


> Whoever is matched up against Tyson Chandler's PER - 22.4.
> 
> That's an insanely bad differential.


It's a bit too early to look at this stat. Certainly, not without looking at the net +/-. NOK is +4.7 points per 48 with Chandler on the floor. 

Pax positioned for years to get cap space to get a small upgrade at C thats going to disappate due to age in a couple years when the rest of his core hits their prime. Questionable?

NOK got a near-Ben Wallace clone thats 8 years younger for an expiring contract. That's my kinda GMing.


----------



## truth

johnston797 said:


> It's a bit too early to look at this stat. Certainly, not without looking at the net +/-. NOK is +4.7 points per 48 with Chandler on the floor.
> 
> Pax positioned for years to get cap space to get a small upgrade at C thats going to disappate due to age in a couple years when the rest of his core hits their prime. Questionable?
> 
> NOK got a near-Ben Wallace clone thats 8 years younger for an expiring contract. That's my kinda GMing.


Chicago fans should go to sleep every night saying a prayer for Zeke to keep his job and express their appreciation for all he has done for the Bulls...

Because without Zeke "running" the Bulls front office,you guys are in DEEP trouble..You simlply do not go for a undersized physical freak like Ben Wallace this late in his career for the duration you did..Huge mistake....Shaq yes,Ben Wallace no...

And why trade for JR Smith only to give him away....And then start Duhon???

Bored enough with the Knicks already that you'd rather drop by here and troll?

TB#1


----------



## Hustle

Who is to blame for the Chandler trade Pax or JR?

I've heard people say the NO deal was in the works regardless of the Wallace signing which is contradictory to reports, and the timeline of the deal.



> The deal allowed the Bulls to agree to a trade with New Orleans sending Tyson Chandler to the Hornets for forward P.J. Brown and swingman J.R. Smith.


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2508742

^if thats indeed the case I would lean toward blaming JR and not Pax.


----------



## JeremyB0001

Sham said:


> Tyson Chandler's PER - 15.6. Ever so slightly above average. A bit like Tyson.
> 
> Whoever is matched up against Tyson Chandler's PER - 22.4.
> 
> That's an insanely bad differential.


I like PER as much as the next guy but you have to recognize its limitations. It's not good at measuring a player's defense. There are lots of switches on defense and help defense is key. If Tyson is on a poor defensive team and continually needs to leave his man to guard others or if his teammates give him poor help that number will be inflated. Furthermore, the sample size for what is already an ambiguous stat is terribly small. Taking that number with anything more than a grain of salt when held up against a player's overall defensive reputation (and Tyson's ranges from good to great) is absurd.


----------



## Sham

johnston797 said:


> It's a bit too early to look at this stat. .


It's a bit too early to judge any damn stat, but we do. So let's stay consistent.

If you're going to make claims such as Ben Wallace is a minor upgrade over Tyson Chandler, when you have 11 games to support your argument and 5 years of evidence against it, then surely you can see the importance of decent sample sizes?


----------



## Sham

ace20004u said:


> yeah really! lol!
> 
> It's amazing how much people are seeing what they want to see.
> 
> ACE



On both sides.


----------



## johnston797

Sham said:


> If you're going to make claims such as Ben Wallace is a minor upgrade over Tyson Chandler, when you have 11 games to support your argument and 5 years of evidence against it, then surely you can see the importance of decent sample sizes?


I disagree considering Chandler is 24 and Wallace is 32. Chandler is bound to be the better player under their current contracts. At the time of the Chandler trade, I thought it was going to take 2-3 years. Looks like it could be a bit earlier now.


----------



## cima

maybe you guys should watch games instead of using PER...just a thought...


----------



## kukoc4ever

CiMa said:


> maybe you guys should watch games instead of using PER...just a thought...


Are you contending that Chandler isn't helping the Hornets to their winning record?

He seems like a key member of that team, just as he was to us that one year we had a winning record.


----------



## cima

kukoc4ever said:


> Are you contending that Chandler isn't helping the Hornets to their winning record?
> 
> He seems like a key member of that team, just as he was to us that one year we had a winning record.


no, actually the opposite. i am a chandler fan and wish we still had him instead of wallace.


----------



## Sham

You know, I've been watching this Hornets team of late, and there's one real big difference between Tyson now, and Tyson of last year. 

He doesn't set even one damn screen. He doesn't touch it on offense at all. It's eerie. They play keepaway. 

And yet it's the best way to utilise him.


----------



## hammer

Sham said:


> And yet he's STILL making even the Troy Murphy level players of this world look like Yao Ming.


Go ask Byron Scott and Chris Paul about Chandler's defensive impact. 

Oh and by the way, Tyson with 8 boards at halftime tonight.


If you don't have nice ways to address people, say nothing. Don't prefix it with an "I am not going to say something nice" prefix.


----------



## Sham

hammer said:


> Go ask Byron Scott and Chris Paul about Chandler's defensive impact.
> 
> Oh and by the way, Tyson with 8 boards at halftime tonight.



How unfeasible is it that I may have watched more of Tyson Chandler than Byron Scott?


----------



## hammer

Sham said:


> How unfeasible is it that I may have watched more of Tyson Chandler than Byron Scott?


You don't get it.

I stated in so many words that people IN THE NEW ORLEANS ORGANIZATION would have quite a bit to say about your assessment that Chandler makes Troy Murphy types look like Yao Ming. 

You have to have your head buried WAY DEEP in the sand to ever utter such nonsense.

Keep up the good work. You make a lot of people laugh, I'm sure.


----------



## JeremyB0001

Sham said:


> It's a bit too early to judge any damn stat, but we do. So let's stay consistent.
> 
> If you're going to make claims such as Ben Wallace is a minor upgrade over Tyson Chandler, when you have 11 games to support your argument and 5 years of evidence against it, then surely you can see the importance of decent sample sizes?


I agree it's too early to look at any stat. However it's an inclination people have and I think it makes perfect sense that sample size concerns apply much more to a stat of doubtful worth than more established, reliable stats. If we agree that it is too premature to place a great deal of worth on a time tested stat like RPG then certainly we shouldn't discuss a statistic that may be of minimal worth over the course of an 82 game season.


----------



## Sham

hammer said:


> You don't get it.
> 
> I stated in so many words that people IN THE NEW ORLEANS ORGANIZATION would have quite a bit to say about your assessment that Chandler makes Troy Murphy types look like Yao Ming.
> 
> You have to have your head buried WAY DEEP in the sand to ever utter such nonsense.
> 
> Keep up the good work. You make a lot of people laugh, I'm sure.



Do we really expect them to come out and slay Chandler in the press? Do we expect them to come out and say that he's the worst offensive player in the league?

Does them not saying it mean it isn't true?

And could you perhaps stop being so aggressive and rude towards people and try and be civil?


----------



## hammer

Sham said:


> Do we really expect them to come out and slay Chandler in the press?


Oh, so now you're gonna play that angle? Since when is Byron Scott one to sugercoat ANYTHING? If you've been paying attention, the guy damn near salivates whenever he discusses the work ethic of one Tyson Chandler.

And by the way, Tyson had 16 rebounds tonight. He has 47 offensive rebounds in 11 games, and 131 rebounds overall.


----------



## Sham

> If you've been paying attention, the guy damn near salivates whenever he discusses the work ethic of one Tyson Chandler.


You see, you gotta stop with these personal jibes on your opening gambits. I asked you before, and now I'm telling you. Address the poster's points, not the poster.


----------



## hammer

RESPECT THE MODERATORS, PLEASE.
--DaBullz


----------



## hammer

Tyson had 17 rebounds tonight. :biggrin:


----------



## Sham

Which all resulted in......a 17 point loss.

Still, he's working on that negaitve PER differential. Down to minus 4 now.


----------



## hammer

Sham said:


> Which all resulted in......a 17 point loss.
> 
> Still, he's working on that negaitve PER differential. Down to minus 4 now.


I know, it was all Tyson's fault.

Maybe if he'd have grabbed like 30 rebounds, they'd have won. He needs to step it up a notch. 17 rebounds just ain't getting the job done.


----------



## johnston797

Sham said:


> Still, he's working on that negaitve PER differential. Down to minus 4 now.


Down to minus 3 PER now. 

Moving a lot faster than Wallace's negative 20 +/- differencial, huh?


----------



## Sham

johnston797 said:


> Down to minus 3 PER now.
> 
> Moving a lot faster than Wallace's negative 20 +/- differencial, huh?



:clap: That's the spirit.


----------



## JeremyB0001

Sham said:


> Which all resulted in......a 17 point loss.
> 
> Still, he's working on that negaitve PER differential. Down to minus 4 now.


So by the way, are you using the stat on 82games.com? Because I looked at that just now and it doesn't even purport to measure the production of the guy Tyson is guarding, it's labeled as "counterpart production." So does 82 games decides that Tyson is a "center" and decides which players on the opposing team are "center" and then calculates their statitistic when both are on the floor at the same time? It's not even clear to me how, if the opposing teams "starting center" was on the court a player from the opposing team's who is also classified as a "center," it is determined which player is Tyson's "counterpart." In that situation, it seems entirely possible that Tyson is not guarding his "counterpart" at all or even that the stats of both players are used even though he can only guard one. 

When the people generating the stat don't even purport that it measures the production of the player the defender is guarding, that's a good indication that the stat needs to be taken with a grain of salt over an 82 game season and that means it's probably not even worth discussing at this point in the season.


----------



## hammer

Only 17 rebounds tonight?

I can't really say that I'm impressed....


----------



## max6216

hammer said:


> I know, it was all Tyson's fault.
> 
> Maybe if he'd have grabbed like 30 rebounds, they'd have won. He needs to step it up a notch. 17 rebounds just ain't getting the job done.


maybe if he snatched 30 rebounds he would still be a bull.the fact is he was given a fat contract and choked it away.where do ypu think someone would rather shine brighter in chi town or ok/no..


----------



## hammer

Tyson is averaging 3.9 offensive rebounds per game.

*I only mention this because it is the best rate in the entire NBA.*

Oh yeah, and Dwight Howard is the only guy holding him back from leading the league in overall rebounding.


----------

