# David Falk gets his latest crack at Krause



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

http://www.presstelegram.com/Stories/0,1413,204%7E21475%7E888545,00.html 

Falk and Brand turned down $60M for 6 years.



> "I want to make it crystal clear,' Falk said. "I'm not upset at Donald. I'm not angry at him. I'm more disappointed for Donald. He had an opportunity to silence the critics. The Clippers, through savvy moves by (general manager) Elgin (Baylor) * and not so savvy moves by the Chicago Bulls *, have compiled a very good roster. They could have made a very positive, forceful statement about their plan to keep their players. But they missed the opportunity.'


Help my memory. I remember the corn-row incident. But besides the Brand trade, did we really help out the Clippers?

Personally, I'd like the Bulls to help out some more teams if it means we gets guys like Chandler.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> http://www.presstelegram.com/Stories/0,1413,204%7E21475%7E888545,00.html
> 
> Falk and Brand turned down $60M for 6 years.
> ...


What a jerk. That cheap shot at Krause wasn't necessary and just goes to show what kind of person Falk is. Supposedly back in the 2000 draft the Clippers offered the 3rd pick overall to the Bulls for the 4th and 7th picks. In hindsight we should have done the deal to secure Darius Miles, but 4th and 7th picks for a number 3 is way too much. 

And we could have had Maggette and the 10th pick from Orlando but we were unwilling to take Derek Strong's contract. 

So to sum it all up instead of Fizer, Crawford, and a future 1st round pick we could have had Miles, Maggette, Strong, and whomever we wanted with the 10th pick (Q-Rich).


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

As much as I love my Bulls, I don't think Falk's shot was "cheap." Agree or disagree, it is a valid opinion, and there is a valid argument to be made that the Clippers have loaded up with young talent at the Bull's expense. Or not. Does it really matter?

The Bulls just may end up having the last laugh if TC and EC become the monsters we hope they will be. We'll see. The proof will be which, if either, team is still together in 5 years and which, if either, team gets to the conference finals. Beyond those two criteria, the "who's got the better roster and who made the better deals" arguments are pretty pointless.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

i expect David to say what he did. Brand is his client. 

What is going to be interesting is how much longer is he "not going to be mad" at sterling!


----------



## local_sportsfan (Jul 24, 2002)

I pretty much agree with what Falk said. The Clippers did improve their team dramatically somewhat at the Bulls expense.


----------



## RealFan (Jun 12, 2002)

Please - how is anyone going to judge the trade after only one year. Savvy or not, it was gutsy. Time will tell if it was savvy.

I'm surprised that Falk would make such a statement since the Bulls now have Jalen Rose, who I thought used Falk.


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>local_sportsfan</b>!
> I pretty much agree with what Falk said. The Clippers did improve their team dramatically somewhat at the Bulls expense.



How is not making the playoffs to... not making the playoffs really a "dramatic improvement"?


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> Falk and Brand turned down $60M for 6 years.


Wow. I can't belive the Clip actually offered that much. 
I REALLY can't believe Falk thinks Brand will get more then that. I really can't see him getting more then that. The guy is just NOT a "max" player. "Insanity" by Dave Falk, part 512....



> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> Help my memory. I remember the corn-row incident. But besides the Brand trade, did we really help out the Clippers?


I don't even think the Brand trade helped that much, they still didn't make the playoffs...
But that's me.


----------



## local_sportsfan (Jul 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> How is not making the playoffs to... not making the playoffs really a "dramatic improvement"?


You are a Bulls fan right? aren't the Bulls in the same boat?


----------



## ChiBullsFan (May 30, 2002)

Falk is a [vulgarity guidelines limit censored profanity- Showtyme] , plain and simple. What's the point of taking a shot at the Bulls, when the issue is Sterling's unwillingness to sign Brand long term? It's irrelevant. Falk just makes himself look petty and spiteful. How can he say the trade was made "at the Bulls' expense"??? That's is so questionable, especially because Chandler is giving every indication he can become a much better player than Brand. Of course, only time will tell, but Falk is just asking to eat his crow in the future...


----------



## local_sportsfan (Jul 24, 2002)

Can someone please explain to me where Chandler has shown he would be a better player than Brand? Last time I checked, Brand averaged more points, rebounds, and blocks than Chandler. Chandler certainly didn't dominate in summer league either. Am I missing something here?


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>local_sportsfan</b>!
> 
> 
> You are a Bulls fan right? aren't the Bulls in the same boat?


This... isn't about the Bulls. 

I didn't expect them to make it after the Brand trade.

The Clippers DID expect to make it. 

The Clips did it for THAT time, the Bulls did it for the future.

Hense, the Clipps didn't dramaticlly improve.

Hope it's all clear now.

:rbanana:


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>local_sportsfan</b>!
> Can someone please explain to me where Chandler has shown he would be a better player than Brand? Last time I checked, Brand averaged more points, rebounds, and blocks than Chandler. Chandler certainly didn't dominate in summer league either. Am I missing something here?


Yeah, your REALLY missing the point of the thread.

The thread is not about Chandler. It's about Falk.

Please stay on topic for everyones sake.

Thanks.

:rbanana:


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Nothing new here guys.

Falk has been saying this ever since the Brand-Chandler swap. Now a greater mystery is this... did 1) Sterling really offer Brand jack before giving Olokandi any love (it is generally understood that Kandi is the first domino in the line)? and 2) 6yrs/60 million? considering the new CBA and impending luxury tax, I don't know how much more Elton could get from any other team....

<b>SALO</b>, you are right on about the 2000 draft. There was a deal on the table: #3, #10 (from Orlando), Maggette and Strong for the #4 and #7. In addition, Falk was trying to keep Miles-Q as a package deal, and it wound up happening just that way in LaLa. Hence, Falk has more munition to say the things he does.

Eh.


VD


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

LA papers would indicate that both Kandi and Brand got offers for about 6yrs/60 million. Kandi perhaps a bit less, Brand perhaps a bit more.

It's not clear if either player would have signed for less than the max. The Clips's offers were not that far from being very fair, but so far all the coverage towards the Donald has been very negative.

I think that the Donald should have offered a similar contract to Miller and a smaller one to Odom and made a hell of a big deal about it. $200M+ for the 4 key players to keep lacing it up as Clippers and learn how to win together. Make 'em go into a room a split up the dough. Oh well....


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah, your REALLY missing the point of the thread.
> ...


Nice way to hurdle a potential thread-hijacking...

6 years, $120 million to tie up one of the better young big men combo's in the league would be a coup for sterling.

He must be sticking to his guns if Falk decided to take it to the media.

Ya know...there was a time when Kandi looked like he'd be a bust. Not anymore. He took the traditional 'long-route' to being effective that most big men in the history of the league have taken. Something to chew on for the Chandler, Curry and Baga critics.


----------



## DickieHurtz (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> As much as I love my Bulls, I don't think Falk's shot was "cheap." Agree or disagree, it is a valid opinion, and there is a valid argument to be made that the Clippers have loaded up with young talent at the Bull's expense. Or not. Does it really matter?
> 
> The Bulls just may end up having the last laugh if TC and EC become the monsters we hope they will be. We'll see. The proof will be which, if either, team is still together in 5 years and which, if either, team gets to the conference finals. Beyond those two criteria, the "who's got the better roster and who made the better deals" arguments are pretty pointless.


Of course it was a cheap, classless shot. Falk is still pissed that Brand didn't end up with MJeff in Washington, where he would have certainly helped the Wizards to the playoffs. And don't think for one second that MJeff wouldn't have lined Falk's pockets with his percentage of the max contract Jordan would have convinced Pollen to pay Brand. Instead Falk now has to deal with the biggest cheapskate in the NBA, Donald Sterling. Falk knows the only place Brand might have gotten max dollars is Washington. His fear is that by the time Brand becomes an unrestricted free agent, Kwame Brown will have come into his own and the Wizards won't need Brand. Pardon me while I shed a tear for poor David Falk.


----------



## local_sportsfan (Jul 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> 
> 
> This... isn't about the Bulls.
> ...


Just to clear things up, I'm talking about the Bulls this year. If the Bulls win 39 games and just miss the playoffs (like the Clips did last season), wouldn't you consider that a dramatic improvement?

And on the CHandler issue, I was responding to your buddy who said Chandler has shown signs of being much better than Brand. Oh sorry...god forbid we go "off topic."


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

The Clippers expected to make the playoffs. They improved by like 8 games with Brand and didn't achieve their goal. Of course, if the Bulls won 39 games next year it would be a dramatic improvement. I'm not sure what your point is. These are 2 different teams in 2 different circumstances.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

How many games did Lamar Odom miss, 53? I think when talking about team win totals for the Clippers that has to be taken into account.

I think Brand did surprisingly well under those circumstances.


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>local_sportsfan</b>!
> 
> 
> Just to clear things up, I'm talking about the Bulls this year. If the Bulls win 39 games and just miss the playoffs (like the Clips did last season), wouldn't you consider that a dramatic improvement?


Yes I would. 
But the Bulls didn't go out in the offseason and make a huge trade, prompting everyone to jump on thier bandwagon. So I'm not sure what your point is here...



> Originally posted by <b>local_sportsfan</b>!
> 
> And on the CHandler issue, I was responding to your buddy who said Chandler has shown signs of being much better than Brand.


Well, since I doubt you've watched as many games as me, I'll give you my take on it. Chandler has worlds of talent. He just doesn't know how to harness it yet. But he has, in fact, shown flashes of game Elton, sadly, can only dream about. 

Now I liked Elton, he was a good solider... But he's not a franchise player. Chandler could be. I liked the move from the first time I saw Tyson play.

But that's me....



> Originally posted by <b>local_sportsfan</b>!
> 
> Oh sorry...god forbid we go "off topic."


Well, you can go off topic as much as you wish, I'm just trying to keep you in the loop. 
If you wanna go dancing off on some tangent, be my guest...


:rbanana:


----------



## laso (Jul 24, 2002)

I really don't see any reason to gloat about the Clippers so far. Have they made the playoffs yet? Also, Falk is going to talk up his client, it's his role. But let's look at it another way. Wasn't Brand the starting power forward of Team USA that lost three of it's summer matches? I don't want to blame Elton for this but I think this might be another sign that he's a good player: not a true force.

Sorry, I might be going off-topic here.


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

It's funny that Falk uses this instance to take a shot at Krause/Bulls when he's trying to get a deal done with the most notoriously cheap owner in the NBA. Falk had to know the moment that Brand was traded to the Clips that he would be hard pressed to get a max deal for his client. Now he's using childish tactics to scare Sterling into paying more. Comparing The Clips to the much maligned Bulls GM is NOT going to scare that cheap man into paying Brand the max.

However, if I were Brand, Kandi, Odom and Miller I would consider taking less than my market value in order to stay together. They have the makings of a very special team. $10 million a year is enough to pay the bills.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> 
> Now I liked Elton, he was a good solider... But he's not a franchise player. Chandler could be. I liked the move from the first time I saw Tyson play.
> 
> But that's me....


Man, then I'm one crazy dude still. I think EB is as close to a Franchise player as there is.

Career 19.4ppg, 10.6rpg, 2.5apg, 1spg, 1.75bpg

Ranks #5 in the NBA in Rebounds Per Game(11.6) 
Ranks #2 in the NBA in Field-Goal Percentage(0.527) 
Ranks #10 in the NBA in Blocks Per Game(2.04) 
Ranks #11 in the NBA in Free Throws(389.0) 
Ranks #9 in the NBA in Free Throw Attempts(524.0) 
Ranks #1 in the NBA in Offensive Rebounds(396.0) 
Ranks #1 in the NBA in Offensive Rebounds Per Game(5.0) 
Ranks #13 in the NBA in Defensive Rebounds(529.0) 
Ranks #12 in the NBA in Defensive Rebounds Per Game(6.6) 
Ranks #4 in the NBA in Total Rebounds(925.0) 
Ranks #10 in the NBA in Blocks(163.0) 
Ranks #3 in the NBA in Double-doubles(55.0) 
Ranks #19 in the NBA in Free Throws Per 48 Minutes(6.18) 
Ranks #17 in the NBA in Free Throw Attempts Per 48 Minutes(8.33) 
Ranks #1 in the NBA in Offensive Rebounds Per 48 Minutes(6.3)
Ranks #7 in the NBA in Rebounds Per 48 Minutes(14.7) 

What else do you need in a player to consider him a franchise player? He led his team this year in scoring, rebounding, steals, blocks and FG% and he took 300 less shot attempts then what he had been taking the previous two years with us.

Sorry, he's a franchise player... So nah, nah, na na! :rbanana:


----------



## THE'clip'SHOW (Sep 24, 2002)

Whats with all this "I wish we would have took Q, Maggette, Miles etc,". Do you think your going to get Brand back? :no: 
What next the Chicago Clippers?
Yes we do have the cheapest owner, but he will come around, and hopefully like someone said earlier, Miller, Brand, Odom, and Kandi will all settle for a little less money and win alot more games. I don't think anyone on the Clips roster would want to leave to go to Chicago except maybe Kandi because he seems to care alot about money.

Tyson chandler will never be what Elton Brand already is. 

I like what Chicago is doing but there years behind where the Clips are now. 

And yeah when you look at the records for the two teams last year and that they both didn't make the playoffs, you MUST remember Odom, Maggette, Dooling and Brand were all injured (Odom and Dooling the worst)


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> Man, then I'm one crazy dude still. I think EB is as close to a Franchise player as there is.
> ...



You can pull out all the stats you want my man. Stats are nice. Derrick Coleman put em up. Jerry Stackhouse does too. Antwan Jamison, Ron Mercer, Nick Van Exel. I could pull out stats for players all day.... But I'm not going to appoint any of them Superstars or Franchise talent based on stats alone.

Hey, your entitled to your opinion that he's a franchise player. 
But I'll stick to mine that he'd be nothing better then a third bannana :rbanana: on a championship team.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was really hoping you'd come back with a better argument then that... seriously, I expected more from you.

You'd actually lump EB with those guys you mentioned?


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>THE'clip'SHOW</b>!
> 
> Tyson chandler will never be what Elton Brand already is.
> 
> I like what Chicago is doing but there years behind where the Clips are now.


Oh man!!! We have a psychic In the house! Tyson will never be better then Brand???
Damn if you can see into the future, who's gonna win it all this year, Mister Cleo?  



> Originally posted by <b>THE'clip'SHOW</b>!
> 
> And yeah when you look at the records for the two teams last year and that they both didn't make the playoffs, you MUST remember Odom, Maggette, Dooling and Brand were all injured (Odom and Dooling the worst)


And the Bulls had Crawford, Eddie Robinson, Mercer, Tyson, Greg Anthony & Fizer injured at one time or another...
Injuries are part of the game, you can't use them as an excuse, every team gets injured (& The Bulls HAD to have been one of the most injured teams last year, so that excuse really doesn't cut it for me personally....).


:rbanana:


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> I was really hoping you'd come back with a better argument then that... seriously, I expected more from you.


Yeah, well... We all have an off-post now and then. But ya keep shootin and eventually they will fall (ask Kobe).... 



> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> You'd actually lump EB with those guys you mentioned?


No, I woudn't dream of grouping him with any of them. He's better then all I mentioned. 

My point was that stats don't mean a thing to me. You can put em up all day long, but it doesn't mean your a preimer, franchise player.

I'm sticking to my guns on this one though. While I love EB's game, I don't think he'll ever *lead* a team to a ring. And to me, if you can't do that.... Your not a franchise player.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

So you're saying that a franchise player is only a player who leads his team to a ring? 

So therefore Karl Malone isn't a franchise player, or John Stockton? Or Reggie Miller? 

If that is your definition, we won't know until his career is over. Is that what you're saying? Please help me out here before I give a serious rebuttal.


----------



## THE'clip'SHOW (Sep 24, 2002)

Who on the Bulls had season ending injuries like Lamar and Keyon did?

Tyson Chandler will be good, IMO probably not great -who knows though?

But look what elton did last year for the clips averaging 20 - 10 when everyone knew who the ball was going to when the clips needed points. I don't think Chandler would put up numbers like elton's if stopping him was defenses number one goal.

I wonder how much Faulk is worth, the guys gotta be unbelievably rich :|


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> So you're saying that a franchise player is only a player who leads his team to a ring?
> 
> So therefore Karl Malone isn't a franchise player, or John Stockton? Or Reggie Miller?
> ...


Oh, Ret! Your really making me bring my "A" game on this one!!!!

Ok, perhaps I'll rephrase. Hmmm.... Yes the players you've mentioned are all franchise players (Much as i can't stand Malone). 

Perhaps a better definition is those players that can put a whole team on thier back and win a playoff series. Take a team deep into the 2nd season. Players like AI, Reggie, MJ, Shaq, Hakeem, Magic, Bird... Players cut from the very highest cloth.

It gets fuzzy when you talk about guys like TMac, Ray Allen, Brand, KG, Stackhouse. These guys are GOOD, don't get me wrong. But I don't see them just willing, just completely carrying thier teams DEEP in to the conference finals on thier own.

I think you define "frachise" different then I do. In my opinion there are only 5, maybe 10 "Franchise" players. I don't think ever team has such a player on thier roster. I think I'm just holding the word to a little higher standard then you are...



> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> f that is your definition, we won't know until his career is over. Is that what you're saying? Please help me out here before I give a serious rebuttal.



No, I don't think you know until a player is deep into his career if he is a franchise player. Potential franchise player?... I hear that about 50% of players in the NBA. Ya gotta earn it in my book.

Serious Rebuttal? Bring it!!!  

:rbanana:


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>THE'clip'SHOW</b>!
> Who on the Bulls had season ending injuries like Lamar and Keyon did?


Crawford and Robinson both played about 20 games each...



> Originally posted by <b>THE'clip'SHOW</b>!
> 
> I don't think Chandler would put up numbers like elton's if stopping him was defenses number one goal.


Chandler isn't expected to put up number like Brand. Yet. When Chandler is 21/22, I expect him to put up number better then Brand. If he doesn't... Then we can talk. (and i'll be piiiiiiiiiiiiiiissssssssssssseeeeeeeeeeeddddddddd!!!! haha)



> Originally posted by <b>THE'clip'SHOW</b>!
> I wonder how much Faulk is worth, the guys gotta be unbelievably rich :|


Yeah, no kidding. 10% of $50 million+ contracts is a LOT!!!
I wonder if he has any daughters.... hmmmm.... :devil:


----------



## THE'clip'SHOW (Sep 24, 2002)

Are you sure your not psychic, you read my mind, I might even change my name....Faulk - has a nice ring to it.

Hey can anyone tell me how good Robinson is because the few times I've seen him play he looks like hes got game.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

I believe the CBA has 4% as the max an agent can make on a client contract.

It is more about endorsements and money management rather than a percentage of the contract.


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>THE'clip'SHOW</b>!
> Are you sure your not psychic, you read my mind, I might even change my name....Faulk - has a nice ring to it.
> 
> Hey can anyone tell me how good Robinson is because the few times I've seen him play he looks like hes got game.


Robinson does have mad game. But after an injury-filled last year, many Bulls fans seemingly want to dump him. But, hopefully he'll be 100% this year and make people jump back on his bandwagon.

Honestly, his game reminds me a lot of Darius Miles. He's a balla. Full speed all the time, always around the hoop. 

No one knows how good the guy can be with health and minutes. He is prolly the most overlooked Bull... seem many people who though he was a savior last, think he's a scrub this year...!!!


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

The thing about Brand regarding his status as a franchise player is this: who would you trade to get him? By that I mean - take other franchise players and tell me if you'd rather have that player or Brand.

Kobe, T-Mac, Pierce, Shaq, Duncan, Carter, Webber, Garnett, Rasheed, Iverson, Nowitski, and Francis

Those guys are all guys I would rather have than Brand without hesitation.

Bibby, Miller, Baron Davis, Antoine Walker, Rose, Bonzi, Andre Miller, Marion

Those guys would make me think for a minute but I would end up keeping instead of trading for Brand.

Ben Wallace, Spreewell, Finley, Nash, Parker, Odom, Miles, Jones, Hamilton, Marbury, Jermaine O'Neal

I'd trade these guys for Brand.

I don't really know what my point is. There are very few max money players that I would value less than Brand. (Aside from the guys who don't deserve their contracts like Howard and Gugliotta.) Brand is a solid player and a nice guy and could have a Malone-type career. 60 million for 6 years seems fair. 

The thing with Brand is - I like him so much that I hope he proves all doubters wrong and does lead a team to a title. I would have no problem with that.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> 
> 
> Oh, Ret! Your really making me bring my "A" game on this one!!!!
> ...


Alright. 

Firstly, my definition of a franchise player is also one who can or could eventually lead his team (key word there) to a title through various methods including performance and leadership, or the rare combination of both. 

I don’t think it is just the ability to take your team on your back, but the ability to do that, or provide something that elevates either your own performance, team performance or again, the rare ability to do both.

I also fully believe that it takes two of what I term franchise players and several years of NBA experience to win a title. For instance, MJ would have never won without Pippen IMO, nor would Shaq have won without Kobe. Magic had Kareem and James Worthy, Bird had McHale and Parish… Yes, there are exceptions, but I think there are far fewer then those who’ve actually had a complete team.

As for the stats part of it, do you not think that is the biggest determining factor when looking at someone who is considered a franchise player? Not necessarily one statistic, but the fact that he fills an entire score sheet doing everything he can possibly do for his team, be it score, rebound, get a key steal, block a shot, etc.

As for Elton, as I’ve mentioned, he has done his part. He was expected to have Lamar Odom as his co-leader and look what happened. Had Odom stayed clean and injury free, I honestly think that team would have been a terror. 

Brand is only 23 years old and producing like he has thus far is amazing if you ask me. If you go back and look at stats, Brand is almost identical to Karl Malone’s progression, even producing more in several defensive categories whereas Karl has a couple PPG edge in scoring. Those Jazz teams back then weren’t very good, in fact, during the early days of Stockton to Malone, they were down right mediocre. 

But he developed into a franchise player? Nah, I believe it was already there… he was a franchise player way before he ever laced up shoes and put on his Jazz uniform. You just know certain players and how they are special because they do the little things… those little things that will mean winning and losing. Elton does those too. 

If you watched him religiously at Duke, I think you’d also have seen it. I remember watching a game against UNC when he was playing D and he was the last out of the gate, but he somehow raced past everyone and scored easily on the other end. He has the intangibles that other greats have, like heart, fire, desire. 

The last little thing is he has reached his level of production and been consistent since being drafted. Not only that, he has always reached it while playing team ball. I can only imagine how much better he could be if he was a bit more selfish. I've also always said that adding a legit PG with him would make his numbers even better because he'll get more open looks. 

That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Lizzy</b>!
> The thing about Brand regarding his status as a franchise player is this: who would you trade to get him? By that I mean - take other franchise players and tell me if you'd rather have that player or Brand.
> 
> Kobe, T-Mac, Pierce, Shaq, Duncan, Carter, Webber, Garnett, Rasheed, Iverson, Nowitski, and Francis
> ...


Kobe, T-Mac, Pierce, Shaq, Duncan, Iverson, and Nowitski. - That's my list... I wouldn't trade Brand for anyone outside of this list.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

I dunno, maybe Chandler will never be as good as Brand. nuthin' I can do about it. But as far as calling brand a "Franchise Player", I'm hesitant to say so even though i want to.

Vin Baker was a 20-10 guy too, but who cared? Ever!

In a nutshell, I see Brand as more of a "final piece of the puzzle" guy rather than a player to build around. The same would go for a Jamison, Houston, or Glenn Robinson.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> So you're saying that a franchise player is only a player who leads his team to a ring?
> 
> So therefore Karl Malone isn't a franchise player, or John Stockton? Or Reggie Miller?
> ...


No...a franchise player has talent and abilities above and beyond his peers.

Jury is still out on EB. Is it more talent, or a product of hardwork night in and night out? Can he go toe to toe with any and everyone in the league?

Remains to be seen. We'll all know when he gets into the playoffs and excels...or dies.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>gettinbranded</b>!
> 
> 
> No...a franchise player has talent and abilities above and beyond his peers.
> ...


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

One thing a lot of people forget is that Elton is still fairly young. He hasn't reached his peek. He is already an absolute stud and I honestly miss him. He will be a top 5 PF for the next 10 years. That being said, I'm happy with where we are on OUR team. I like Chandler and his potential, although I am admittedly disappointed with his summer league play. The season looms, lets see what happens.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Retro, I agree with you on Brand. The kid is still very young and is alreay putting up #'s in the same breath as KG. I get sick and tired of people claiming he doesn't have the athleticism, leadership, flash that would elevate his game. Sure, he couldn't lead the Bulls anywhere but he didn't exactly have an all star cast here either. And I'm sorry folks, stats DO matter. Sure, their importance can be overrated or underrated for that matter, but you still can't just go and throw them out the window, they do mean something. 

And someone mentioned E-Rob and how so many folks started to "dis" him after his injury. I agree with your comments, E-Rob is definitley a "balla" and hopefully he will prove some of his detractors wrong this season. My biggest concern for him is that damn toe. He said in one report that it was fine, then he said in another interview that he is a little affraid to go "full tilt" on it, so I don't know. It will be interesting to see if he can beat Marshall for the starting gig.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

First, yes it's Falk's opinion, but it's a cheap shot. The only reason why Falk would want to call attention to the Bulls whom decided Brand was not a true Max player is EGO.

Second, Guys, you really don't think Brand's game compares to Duncan, Webber or KG, do you?



> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Retro, I agree with you on Brand. The kid is still very young and is alreay putting up #'s in the same breath as KG. I get sick and tired of people claiming he doesn't have the athleticism, leadership, flash that would elevate his game.


His athleticism, leadership, and rebounding are excellent. His D is not - it's average at best. And this does not show in the numbers. On O, he's very good, but doesn't create for others like a Webber and due to his size, it's harder for him to kick out like a Duncan. And his game is certainly not as versitile as a Garnett (which is not all bad IMHO).



> Originally posted by <b>Krause</b>!
> Krause said "Elton Brand is a great player and a greater human being. But I don't think Eddy and Elton could have played together. Defensively and offensively it would have been a problem. That story will be told down the line. I'd do that deal seven days a week.


From http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...smith,0,7257509.column?coll=cs-home-headlines

First, Krause - shut up & let the play on the court speak. If you have to tell your side, get an alias and get on basketballboards.net.

Second, as far as the trade itself.

It was a 6'8" PF for a 7'1" PF that is 3.5 years younger. Watching Chandler last year and given his work ethic, here is how I score it a few years down the line: 

*Worst Case:*

Rebounding - Even
Offense - Minor advantage to Brand
Defense - Minor advantage to Chandler

*Best Case:*

Chandler wins the comparision hands-down.


----------



## THE'clip'SHOW (Sep 24, 2002)

Optimism is great but think about it how many guys put up 20 - 10 and exhibit the effort Brand does EVERY night. Everything Chandler has shown so far wouldn't lead me to believe he'll be a 20 - 10 guy especially anytime soon. I could be wrong. 
There are only a few players who average 20-10 and should be valued very highly.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>THE'clip'SHOW</b>!
> There are only a few players who average 20-10 and should be valued very highly.


Don't convice me, convince your owner.


----------



## THE'clip'SHOW (Sep 24, 2002)

For sure, he won't take my calls....and if for some reason he doesnt resign (I didn't just type that) I be the biggest believer in our next Chandler....


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>THE'clip'SHOW</b>!
> Optimism is great but think about it how many guys put up 20 - 10 and exhibit the effort Brand does EVERY night.


As far as effort, Chandler is right there with Brand. Of course, the same can be said about Fred Hoiberg so it may not mean too much.

As far as 20/10, first no one predicted that for Chan. Chandler could be as effective as Brand by playing better D and averaging 5 fewer points per game.

But just to play along....

Taking Chandler's 8.6/6.5 in his 28 minutes/game Post All Star break and projecting to Brand's 37 minutes leads to:

-> 11/9.

Taking Chandler's 11.3/8.6 in 30 minutes for the 9 games in April and projecting to Brand's 37 minutes leads to:

-> 14/11.

AS A 19 YEAR OLD. Perhaps the optimism is well-placed.


----------



## THE'clip'SHOW (Sep 24, 2002)

Dont get me wrong I LIKE Chandler and he is still young and developing his game. The thing you have to remember when comparing the two (the stats you just threw out) is that Chandler is not the focus of Defense, the way Elton is. He isn't the "go to" guy the way Elton is, if Defenses focused on shutting him down the way they do for Elton and he still put up comparable numbers (considering minutes) the way Elton does then I would say Chandler will be a great player in this league.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Agreed. 

Only a very, very good or great offensive player would have scored as much and as efficiently as Brand did in his first 2 years as a Bull. No arguement there.

And projecting numbers is always dangerous. But it's really all we can do with a kid one year out of HS for now.

Peace.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

I don't think Chandler will ever be an offensive focus in the NBA as long as he plays with Curry.

Krause admits to this in articles published today, saying Curry could not play with Brand, implying Chandler is not there to be a focus on offense.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Or perhaps Krause feels that Chandler's O can extend beyond the low post.

I do agree that the trade was low-post offense for D. 

Chandler may have the last laugh if he puts on some pounds and works on a nice half hook.


----------



## THE'clip'SHOW (Sep 24, 2002)

All numbers aside.....

You have two different players in general.

First you have Elton who spent his early development with Duke learning how to win as a team while establishing his skills in a college enviornment.

Then you have Chandler who had no competition in HS, and now that he is in the NBA its going to take him much longer to understand the game the way Elton did right out of college.


----------



## BamaBull (Jun 24, 2002)

*You ALSO have TWO different body shapes..*



> Originally posted by <b>THE'clip'SHOW</b>!
> All numbers aside.....
> 
> You have two different players in general.
> ...


For one thing, I believe you know you cannot "teach" heighth. Secondly, Brand will NEVER be the defensive threat that Chandler is already. Thirdly, There is ALWAYS a chance Chandler will learn to score. Brand is definitely a class act, however, Chandler by the end of this year WILL be a better player all around then Brand is.......added weight, or no added weight.

Remember, in having experience, there IS a disadvantage to that.....the bad habits that Brand learned in college that did not and could not work in the NBA, Chandler will not have to "unlearn." Besides, its also quite different learning to win as a team in the NBA, than in College. Ask Grant Hill, Laettner and Bobby Hurley....just to name a few.

All in all, I believe this time next year, we will be more able to see how much farther ahead the Bulls have come since that trade.

As far as Chandler NOT being able to play with curry, THAT is ridiculous. Brand had the body of a PF and not a center....chandler can play both. Chandler COULD, move down to SF IF he developed some skills pertinent to that position. (Better ball handling skills and a jumper as he will not be able to live by the dunk.) Its possible, as a matter of fact, immediately after the trade, I suggested Chandler could be more of a factor as a SF than PF. He still needs to bulk up IF he is to play PF, OR center unless he wants to be banged around like in a pinball machine....ask iverson.

Time will tell, eh?


----------



## THE'clip'SHOW (Sep 24, 2002)

Name one bad habit Elton Brand picked up or has????
Name one person who thinks that "Chandler by the end of this year WILL be a better player all around then Brand is....... added weight or no added weight. 
No offense but who are you kidding....... 

Oh yeah and the point about college is you learn how to do what it takes to win for the team.... Poor Grant Hill and Laettner never had a quality chance..like Brand will if the Clips resign their core players.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I think the issue with Brand and Curry is that both are similar low-post players. Chandler has a less defined, but hence, more flexible game that could compliment either of them.

I think the jury is still out on whether it was a good trade. We don't know how good Elton will be in the long run. The history of the NBA is littered with PFs who started out averaging 20 and 10 and then had dramatic fall offs (Loy Vought and Vin Baker to name a couple). On the other hand, you've got your Karl Malone, Alonzo Mourning (he's really only a bit taller than Elton), and Wes Unseld type guys who dominate because of grit and hard work despite being average or even undersized.

We also, of course, have no idea how good Tyson will be. He's got a LONG way to go to catch Elton offensively, a relatively short way to catch him in other areas.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> ....
> 
> I think the jury is still out on whether it was a good trade. We don't know how good Elton will be in the long run. The history of the NBA is littered with PFs who started out averaging 20 and 10 and then had dramatic fall offs (Loy Vought and Vin Baker to name a couple). On the other hand, you've got your Karl Malone, Alonzo Mourning (he's really only a bit taller than Elton), and Wes Unseld type guys who dominate because of grit and hard work despite being average or even undersized.
> ...


Nice post MikeDC.

Elton shows no signs of letting up. People always seem to point to the fact that he's 'undersized' or 'can't play D' or 'won't improve'. That's pure bologna. In fact, Elton averaged as many blocks per game as Shaq (2.04bpg) last season. Elton holds his own on the defensive end. And that's not even mentioning his gaudy offensive numbers.

I believe Tyson will be a special player as well. But as most here have said, only time will tell. But the trade 'worked' for the Bulls because it gave them a fresh start while possibly cornering the market on big men in the NBA for the next decade. Was the trade a big risk? Definitely. But the reward could potentially be extremely sweet.


VD


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> In fact, Elton averaged as many blocks per game as Shaq (2.04bpg) last season. Elton holds his own on the defensive end.


Vin, normally I enjoy your posts, but come'on... 

Are you even trying to imply that Brand is close to the force that Shaq is on the defensive side? No one avoids Brand inside. Game plans have been written avoiding Shaq and will be written to avoid Chandler.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Vin, normally I enjoy your posts, but come'on...
> ...


Obviously he's not Shaq, but 2 blocks a game ain't shabby for anyone, and I think that's the point. Also, i think it's probably worth noting that Elton seemed to be a better defender last year when he wasn't called on to devote all of his energies on offense.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Vin, normally I enjoy your posts, but come'on...
> ...


No way.

Sorry, no such implication here. But I was defending Brand b/c many fans are down on his defensive ability. In general, most posters praise Elton's offensive game and counteract that with saying how good Tyson is/or will be on defense. That's fine. But I'm just giving Elton some love for his improving defensive game.


VD


----------



## BullsNews (Jun 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>THE'clip'SHOW</b>!
> 
> 
> Oh yeah and the point about college is you learn how to do what it takes to win for the team.... Poor Grant Hill and Laettner never had a quality chance..like Brand will *if the Clips resign their core players.*


And therein lies the problem- the Donald won't give Brand the max right now, and he couldn't re-sign Kandi this summer. And Kandi will now be an unrestricted free agent next summer when a lot of teams will have a lot of cap room. Potentially fatal move in not locking him up now.

And if Donald won't give Brand the max, he'll be gone ASAP, I think Falk is making that clear...


----------



## THE'clip'SHOW (Sep 24, 2002)

Good ridance to Kandi.....He's gona turn out a dud after he gets his contract...hopefully hell play hard this year to get that contract. 
D.S. will give Elton what it takes to keep him....just wait and see. Kandi didn't deserve what he asked for no one would have given him what he asked for. Elton also just had surgery so both sides delayed negotiations.


----------



## BamaBull (Jun 24, 2002)

*Lets see, you got rid of Miles cuz you are ......*



> Originally posted by <b>THE'clip'SHOW</b>!
> Good ridance to Kandi.....He's gona turn out a dud after he gets his contract...hopefully hell play hard this year to get that contract.
> D.S. will give Elton what it takes to keep him....just wait and see. Kandi didn't deserve what he asked for no one would have given him what he asked for. Elton also just had surgery so both sides delayed negotiations.


.....overloaded at his position and still have the pot smoking Odom.....you are not gonna give kandi what he is asking cuz he stinks and will never be a good center......now, WHY is that your cheap owner IS gonna pay Elton the max, when he has NEVER done it in the past??? Or, is he the one who has been taking weekly trips down the yellow brick road to disneyland, huh? Sounds like SOMEONE there in "clipland" is just a little.."goofy?" I didn't mean you pluto, I meant someone else. lol


----------



## THE'clip'SHOW (Sep 24, 2002)

Funny thing is Odom would school anyone on the Bulls right after puttin down a blunt.


----------



## BamaBull (Jun 24, 2002)

*That statement right there...*



> Originally posted by <b>THE'clip'SHOW</b>!
> Funny thing is Odom would school anyone on the Bulls right after puttin down a blunt.


...is EXACTLY what I am talking about. Anyone who justifies that type activity is a slug. OF COURSE in MY opinion. He needs to be booted outta the league <strike>just like you do OFF the planet.</strike>:laugh: 

MikeDC: Bama... there's no reason to be insulting or disrespectful to other posters.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Vin, normally I enjoy your posts, but come'on...
> ...


I would go a step further and say that Brand averages a relatively high number of shot blocks precisely because he intimidates no one. People take the ball right at him, and there's no stat to keep track of how many he doesn't block.

Tyson to me has already put more of a stamp on the Bulls defensively than Brand did. In the games where he was able to stay out of fouls and get into a nice flow, you could see Chandler severely disrupting the opposition's offense, regardless of his shot-block totals.


----------



## THE'clip'SHOW (Sep 24, 2002)

You just don't get it....
That statement was not ment to promote drug use....it was meant to compare the talent level of Odom to the talent level of anybody on the Bulls.
Im tired of arguing with someone who can't defend thier team, they have to try and talk bad about someone posting. Its alright im sure you guys will have alot of fun watching the Bulls this season and hey maybe win they win half the games the clips do you might change your tune....probably not.

Oh yeah I didn't hear you respond ANDRE MILLER is a STIFF? Why don't you try thinking BEFORE posting.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

If you think Odom is more TALENTED than everyone on the bulls, may I suggest you join odom later on this year in his drug couseling sessions.


----------



## Im The One (Sep 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Tyson to me has already put more of a stamp on the Bulls defensively than Brand did. In the games where he was able to stay out of fouls and get into a nice flow



talk about a contradiction


----------



## Im The One (Sep 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>THE'clip'SHOW</b>!
> You just don't get it....
> That statement was not ment to promote drug use....it was meant to compare the talent level of Odom to the talent level of anybody on the Bulls.
> Im tired of arguing with someone who can't defend thier team, they have to try and talk bad about someone posting. Its alright im sure you guys will have alot of fun watching the Bulls this season and hey maybe win they win half the games the clips do you might change your tune....probably not.
> ...




Yeah, instead of trying to prove us wrong they result to name
calling. The years of last place have gotten to them. Do you actually think you are better than us.


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jmac910</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah, instead of trying to prove us wrong they result to name
> calling. The years of last place have gotten to them. Do you actually think you are better than us.


Dude...seriously. "Years of Last place"?

From a... Clippers fan....??


Uhh... I'm sorry.... but you just pretty much eliminated your posts from ever being taken seriously....


----------



## Im The One (Sep 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> 
> 
> Dude...seriously. "Years of Last place"?
> ...



I know we've been in last place numerous times, But I am talking bout recently you guys have been towards the end and now your better than us?I must be the only serious one.


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jmac910</b>!
> 
> 
> I know we've been in last place numerous times, But I am talking bout recently you guys have been towards the end and now your better than us?I must be the only serious one.



Not so much dude. Your more then welcome to post.

But to come from a team that has gone through YEARS of re-building, surely you can sympathise with a team that is on the upswing, like the Bulls are.

To rip on the Bulls for being in a position the Clippers were just 3 short years ago is pretty shortsighted. 

Either you have a short memory, just jumped on the Clippers bandwagon, or ya need to turn it down a notch there killer.

:rbanana:


----------



## Im The One (Sep 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes I know the Clippers shortcomeings.
It's no disrepect to the Bulls or anyone for that matter, but with all
due respect you guys are not better. Yes you have talented players and are on the rise as are we.But i see our teams as the teams of the future and we might meet up one day in June, but at the moment are you better?No
That's were the problem lies, is claiming to be better, and insulting our players such as Brand


----------



## THE'clip'SHOW (Sep 24, 2002)

Jim 
Thats exactly what I posted earlier....The bulls are where the clippers were years ago....
Its other Bulls posters who insist that they are better than the clippers now!
I can definetly sympathize with the Bulls... its just cant sympathize with statements such as "Chandler is better than Brand is right now".....etc.etc........
There are Bulls fans who obviously would disagree with you Jim they don't think that the team is where the clippers were they think that there better than the clippers now


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Good natured rivalry aside, you Clips fans are more than welcome here.

Personal insults aren't.

Just make sure that you still show up after next year's first ever Clippers re-signing frenzy


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

It's all well and good for you clipper fans to come here and pound on your proverbial chests and strut around like cocks of the roost. Right now, the clippers are a better team than the Bulls. I don't have too much of a problem with that. I suppose you should enjoy whatever basking you can.

The Clippers have 8 or 9 players who are playing for contracts next year either as full-boat FA's or as restricted FA's. That's not a good thing. Couple that with the fact that you have an owner who has shown time and time again that he's not willing to fork over major cash for a basketball player, and you've got issues. I think it rather amusing that you can come here and rag on a franchise (the Bulls) and yet turn a blind eye to your own situation. If you think, even for a minute, that Donald Sterling is going to sign all 8 or 9 of those players to contracts with the clippers for amounts that they (the players and/or their agents) think they are worth, then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that I want to show you.

Donald Sterling is not about winning championships. Donald Sterling is not about winning basketball games. Donald Sterling is about Donald Sterling and the Clippers are simply an investment intended to further his own interests. It would be one thing if he let a player or two get away over the years, but he has _consistantly_ not anted up when the time came. He didn't ponie up for Olowakandi (rightfully so) and he didn't for Brand (questionable).

I'm pretty confident that the Clipper roster as it will be established on Oct 28th 2002(or whatever day rosters have to be set) will not be the same Clipper roster on Oct 28th 2003. When I say this, I'm not stating that Eirk Piatkowski will be gone. Moreso that out of Kandi, Brand, Miller, Odom, Magette and Richardson, at least two of them will be gone, probably more like three or four of them.


----------



## THE'clip'SHOW (Sep 24, 2002)

I didn't come into this room to boast and brag.....remember now i'm a clipper fan....I came into debate the statements that Chandler is better than Brand right now....
Your right about our FA situation...........Your right about our owner, the only thing I can say is- hopefully this team will bring in enough revenue to sign 4 out of the 5 (oust Kandi).

Mikedc ......I've never insulted anyone on this thread, myself and other non-bull fans are the only ones who recieve personal attacks....


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>THE'clip'SHOW</b>!
> Mikedc ......I've never insulted anyone on this thread, myself and other non-bull fans are the only ones who recieve personal attacks....


Sorry, I wasn't clear. I wasn't suggested that you had, Clip. That part of my post was directed at ONLY those who were making the personal attacks.

The rest of my post was directed at you. You guys are more than welcome here, don't be strangers!


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>THE'clip'SHOW</b>!
> I didn't come into this room to boast and brag.....remember now i'm a clipper fan....I came into debate the statements that Chandler is better than Brand right now....
> Your right about our FA situation...........Your right about our owner, the only thing I can say is- hopefully this team will bring in enough revenue to sign 4 out of the 5 (oust Kandi).
> 
> Mikedc ......I've never insulted anyone on this thread, myself and other non-bull fans are the only ones who recieve personal attacks....


Chandler better than Brand now? No way. But that doesn't mean that Chandler is bust either. He brings things to the table that Brand doesn't. And vice versa. Brand is a very good player and just because he doesn't play for us anymore doesn't mean i will bash him. Some poster do that but i do not. If a player is good, he is good. 

I won't comment on your situation next summer. You seem to agree with most other bulls fans about that anyway. Tough situation.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>THE'clip'SHOW</b>!
> I didn't come into this room to boast and brag.....remember now i'm a clipper fan....I came into debate the statements that Chandler is better than Brand right now....
> Your right about our FA situation...........Your right about our owner, the only thing I can say is- hopefully this team will bring in enough revenue to sign 4 out of the 5 (oust Kandi).
> 
> Mikedc ......I've never insulted anyone on this thread, myself and other non-bull fans are the only ones who recieve personal attacks....


I think the problem that the Clippers will face this next offseason stems from the fact that the two or three players you really should focus hard on retaining (Brand, Miller and Odom) are the exact three players that other teams will go after. With Odom, much will depend on how he handles himself this season. Can he stay healthy? Has he put behind him his "preference" for certain controlled substances? If not, he may well be jettisoned at the trading deadline. With Miller and Brand, you've got two talented players who are also model citizens. They are going to be wooed this next offseason and I'm just not sure Sterling will get in a bidding war. He never has. The whole premise of this thread was how Falk was somewhat miffed at the Clippers offer of $60 mil of 6 years. Elton should get at least that much love next summer from a number of teams. Knowing Falk, he'd have Elton sign elsewhere just to somehow satisfy his own overblown ego that he still has some semblance of power when it comes to contract negotiations (when he really doesn't). I think this upcomming summer may well make or break the Clips. If Sterling holds true to form and lets key players walk, yet again, he'll curse that franchise. It's a shame too. I think it's an owners responsibility to at least attempt to put a competetive team on the floor year in and year out. You've got a damn good team that if they stick together, could be downright scary. 

Also, Kudos to you for comming into a hostile environment and sticking to the issues.


----------



## Im The One (Sep 1, 2002)

Much like Clipshow I didnt come in here to fight. I was amazed at the fact some of you feel you are better than us now and Chandler is better than brand is now, which is completely crazy.
I enjoy having good conversations with respectable basketball fans,with real knowledge about the game,and not letting it slip into name calling. I've already stated it is no disrespect to anyone, but of course fans are going to stick with their teams but you also have to be reasonable.

Yes I am very aware of the problems we will face in the upcoming months as far as free agent signings and players playing for contracts go. Yes i'm aware Donald is a notorious tightwad, to bad we cant have Mark Cuban as an owner. You just have to hope for the best and hope the players want to stick together.


----------

