# Just wondering what the Fire Pax! crowd has to say



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

This is a serious question. Are there still people who want him gone, and if so, why? What about Skiles?


----------



## ScottVdub (Jul 9, 2002)

if anyone would want paxson fired after witnessing the 6 years of bull**** basketball we had before him then i guess you really can't make some people happy.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Even if we do this Chandler-Brown trade I'd be more inclined to put it on Reinsdorf. He had his hand in the Wallace deal and it wouldn't surprise me if he made it clear to Pax that this was an either / or deal.

I still believe Paxson and Skiles have done an excellent job.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz actually disbanded the Fire Pax sig club!



The boo-birds were generally pretty happy with the Ben signing (and with the Tyrus draft).

They are regrouping and laying a foundation for a Chandler trade ruining the org campaign.

If that trade goes through, "Reinsdorf forced Chandler out of town to save money rather than win a championship on Tyson's back, which would have been inevitiable" theory will be the theme.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Scott, nice to see you back!

I think the questions about Paxson's desire not to take risks has been blown out of the water this offseason.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> If that trade goes through, "Reinsdorf forced Chandler out of town to save money rather than win a championship on Tyson's back, which would have been inevitiable" theory will be the theme.


How many times do you forsee yourself locking the inevitable "OFFICIAL Tyson Chandler *UPDTATE* Thread"?


----------



## Pain5155 (May 28, 2006)

he hasnt proven anything yet until the team starts to win.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> DaBullz actually disbanded the Fire Pax sig club!
> 
> They are regrouping and laying a foundation for a Chandler trade ruining the org campaign.
> 
> If that trade goes through, "Reinsdorf forced Chandler out of town to save money rather than win a championship on Tyson's back, which would have been inevitiable" theory will be the theme.


Never been in the "camp fire", but I would believe Reinsdorf and his budgetary restrictions would be all over a Chandler salary dump.

Didn't Mizenkay say things changed here and we play nice together now or are ad hominem attacks still good?


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Pax had a few very good hours on the board. Then the Chandler-PJ Brown thing came up, although that skinflint Reinsdorf (you know, the same guy who just laid out $60MM of what you call yer up front whip-out for Wallace) is taking a decent amount of the heat for that.

At best, the Pax haters are being held at bay...for now.

I suspect Paxson is feeling pretty good about himself right now though. He wanted Thomas, Sefolosha and Wallace and got them. Heck, he even got Khryaba as a bonus. No doubt about it, he's on a monster roll.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

no need to instigate or gloat, folks

I respect dabullz for being a mench about it and changing his mind


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

people accusing the Bulls of salary dumping are not thinking straight. when Reinsdorf has a winner, he doesnt do that.

yes, the Sox let Magglio Ordonez go and traded Carlos Lee for multiple guys. and what did he do with the money he saved there?  spent it on Iguchi, AJ, Hermanson. 

the Bulls will save money with the Chandler deal, and then redirect it elsewhere. and obviously Wallace is part of that. i mean, it really is a Tyson-for-Wallace deal when you consider how we have to re-sign our young core and spend lots of money.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

and before someone mentions the White Flag trade, consider that the Sox team that year wasnt going to win any kind of championship, no matter how bad their division was.

and the players they got in that deal included Foulke and Howry.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

transplant said:


> Pax had a few very good hours on the board. Then the Chandler-PJ Brown thing came up, although that skinflint Reinsdorf (you know, the same guy who just laid out $60MM of what you call yer up front whip-out for Wallace) is taking a decent amount of the heat for that.
> 
> At best, the Pax haters are being held at bay...for now.


I'm as big an organization guy as anyone here. I've taken the kool-aid and rose colored glasses stuff. I just see Chandler-Brown as a cheap move and I don't like it. 

Maybe I'll be wrong and it won't be the first or last time. But, I'm not sure why Reinsdorf would deserve any props for letting Paxson bring in Wallace. We're a major market team that is still under the salary cap. 

It is my expectation that at a minimum we be willing to spend up to the cap. When the situation warrants it (now?) I believe we should be willing to exceed the cap even if it means absorbing the luxury tax.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

paxman said:


> no need to instigate or gloat, folks
> 
> I respect dabullz for being a mench about it and changing his mind


me too. i practically fainted when i saw he removed the club from his sig.

:clap:


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

Mr. T said:


> I'm as big an organization guy as anyone here. I've taken the kool-aid and rose colored glasses stuff. I just see Chandler-Brown as a cheap move and I don't like it.
> 
> Maybe I'll be wrong and it won't be the first or last time. But, I'm not sure why Reinsdorf would deserve any props for letting Paxson bring in Wallace. We're a major market team that is still under the salary cap.
> 
> It is my expectation that at a minimum we be willing to spend up to the cap. When the situation warrants it (now?) I believe we should be willing to exceed the cap even if it means absorbing the luxury tax.



so your only prerequisite for what is or isnt a winning an organization is whether or not they're at luxury tax level? lots of flaws in your logic if that's the case.

you spend big when you're within close range of contention. at other times, you rein it in and rebuild. 

now in the Bulls case, we have a rare situation where we did the latter, and the young guys matured so fast that they became a near contending team while still on their rookie contracts. and according to your logic, this is a BAD thing?


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

mizenkay said:


> me too. i practically fainted when i saw he removed the club from his sig.
> 
> :clap:



rock'n'roll salute to the converted :wordyo: 

the wagon is large, all are welcome



















[unless that pj brown trade happens. that's just foul. in pax we trust now, damnit pax later]


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> now in the Bulls case, we have a rare situation where we did the latter, and the young guys matured so fast that they became a near contending team while still on their rookie contracts. and according to your logic, this is a BAD thing?


Ah, so now the 47 win team is "near contending" again. I went through a season hearing how that squad wasn't all that good.... about the same as a .500 team.

Two of the three best players from that team will be gone in a week. 

------

As for the fire pax club... i was ready to quit last year if he resigned everyone from that "near contending" team. 

If such a club still existed, I would ask to be removed. The draft had me trending out and Pax delivering on Cap Space seals the deal. I'm stunned that the Pistons decided to give up on trying to win World Championships. Good for the Bulls. We did have to throw a *lot* of money at a guy that only plays one side of the court. Still though, given the corner we were painted into, it was a good move, IMO.

Great job this off-season Pax. Now convince Jerry to hold on to Chandler for at least 1 more year... and explore some better trades than the one for PJ.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

paxman said:


> no need to instigate or gloat, folks
> 
> I respect dabullz for being a mench about it and changing his mind


If anyone thinks I'm gloating, I apologize. I hate gloating and in fact, think it's short-sighted behavior. Life is a pendulum...what goes around comes around.

DaBullz is being a mensch about this. Gotta respect that. Though the perpetual critics frustrate me sometimes, the best of them (DaBullz and K4E come to mind) generally provide well thought out opposing perspectives that help us examine issues from all angles.

The worst of them are just hemorroids, but I suppose even hemorroids gotta live.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

transplant said:


> The worst of them are just hemorroids, but I suppose even hemorroids gotta live.


Nah. Get rid of those pains in the ***.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

DengNabbit said:


> so your only prerequisite for what is or isnt a winning an organization is whether or not they're at luxury tax level? lots of flaws in your logic if that's the case.
> 
> you spend big when you're within close range of contention. at other times, you rein it in and rebuild.
> 
> now in the Bulls case, we have a rare situation where we did the latter, and the young guys matured so fast that they became a near contending team while still on their rookie contracts. and according to your logic, this is a BAD thing?


Wow, you're really trying to paint with a broad brush. If only you were an artist the portrait wouldn't have turned out so messy! :biggrin: 

It's quite simple actually. I expect the organization to use all available cap dollars to put out the best possible product. If they aren't used immediately, I expect there to be a plan to make use of them later.

However, being a major market team with above average resources, we should be prepared to exceed this cap amount even if it means paying a luxury tax in order to compete for a title.

I feel the organization believes we are in this window otherwise it was likely foolish to pursue the 32-year old Wallace and make him the highest paid player on the team. 

Since we are now contenders by many media accounts, I believe we should be more concerned with the roster makeup than the roster salaries.

My own personal opinion is that Chandler for Brown is not good. I would believe a deal like this might have come about more because of an eye on the bottom line and not what was in the best interests of chasing the title. If that were the way it came down, I'd likely figure it was Reinsdorf's doing.

Now if you can reconcile this with what you're assumptions of me are, you're a better man than I. 

:cheers:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Ah, so now the 47 win team is "near contending" again. I went through a season hearing how that squad wasn't all that good.... about the same as a .500 team.


They indisputably won 6 games more than a .500 team. Without question. Can't argue it.



> Two of the three best players from that team will be gone in a week.


I don't think it will cost us a single game. Whether we play next season with Tyson or PJ Brown, I think the outcome is likely to be the same.

Which is not, IMO, a bad thing. Shooting for 50+ wins. Second round at a minimum.



Frankly, I'd like to see the trade fizzle (unless Brown really would help Tyrus transition from local yokel to big man in the city).

Not that I think it makes much difference for next year, but I'd like to see the Chandler experiment go one more year, and see if the "and this time I mean it" talk about coming ready to play is really true.

If so, I'd like to see US benefit from the lessons he learned being humiliated last season.

If he really DOES come ready to kick butt and take names, maybe he WOULD make a difference for a couple of games.

But overall, I think he and Brown are likely to be a wash. Non-issue.


----------



## KwaZulu (Jul 7, 2003)

Is K4E actually Jerry Krause?

Sometimes it sure sounds like it.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Which is not, IMO, a bad thing. Shooting for 50+ wins. Second round at a minimum.


Could be a lot more if Paxson nails a consolidation trade, of which Chandler is a part of.

Costs us nothing to keep Chandler this season.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Every once in a while, I've noticed around the league where big, fat expiring contracts can be part of a consolidation trade.

Anyway, you want to keep the "one of the three best players of our winning season..." as one of the anchors moving forward, right? He is one of the keys, right?


You don't want to keep him around just as trade bait.

Right?


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

my .02.......

i suppose some fans will never be truly "satisfied" until the bull regain the trophy. however, i think pax has made his boldest move to date, and i support it wholeheartedly. point being, it appears (whether in accordance with fan belief or not) pax has a vision of how he believes a championship caliber team should be constructed and wallace enhances that vision. i'm also of the belief that wallace's offensive capabilities, though limited, far exceed chandler's because wallace can catch in traffic and finish. chandler could have easily scored 10 to 12 ppg if he could have just caught the ball.....further, the perimeter defense will be better because of wallace's shot blocking ability as well. the bull defense will be amongnst the top in the league with ben's prescence, and as it's been proven, defense wins championships. i cannot fault pax for aligning his vision with this mantra; it works.

at any rate, with regard to moving chandler, i'm mixed. chandler probably won't reach wallace's level of production anytime soon, but he is 7'1" and is chemically good in the team construct. he could back up wallace just fine and pax could wait for a better deal. would i? tough call........however, if brown is brought on board, i'm ok with him too. a pro's pro; he's smart, fundamentally sound, good on the pick and pop and won't obstruct minutes from tyrus. i don't buy the "he's from louisiana" bit, that's overblown; but the same base that clamored for antonio davis next year should realize, pj's an upgrade from AD. pj takes care of himself well, and 25+ minutes a game should be a piece of cake.

and even *if* it's for one year, the team could catch lightning in a bottle, meaning someone from the core players mature into an all star level perfomer, ben repeats as DPOY, and one of the rookies surprises. i expect the core to play more consistently through the yearly maturation process, so there's no reason (at least from my view) the bull shouldn't be in the running as a top 3-4 team in the east, possibly fighting for the EC crown. the bull match up talent wise with each of the top 4.

and to top it off, if brown's deal is an expiring one the bull position themselves to acquire another top level FA next season, and (should) have another lottery pick, again after fighting for significant standing in the playoffs; but as stated earlier, fans won't be happy til they're holding the trophy so.......

if this is the process on the road to the championship, i'm on board.......


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

Mr. T said:


> Wow, you're really trying to paint with a broad brush. If only you were an artist the portrait wouldn't have turned out so messy! :biggrin:
> 
> It's quite simple actually. I expect the organization to use all available cap dollars to put out the best possible product. If they aren't used immediately, I expect there to be a plan to make use of them later.
> 
> ...



i just dont see how people consider this a Reinsdorf budgetary move. we are paying a player more than what we were paying Tyson, but he's way better. we'll add another part or two, or bring back Songaila. and then we'll have a complete roster, and a better one.

and one that doesnt destroy our chances of extending our young core. how is it that people see all this as a scrooge owner move? what Reinsdorf did with his team payroll last year with the White Sox is redirect the funds he saved from letting people go, and made the overall team better.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Every once in a while, I've noticed around the league where big, fat expiring contracts can be part of a consolidation trade.


Sure didn't happen last season for the Bulls.


And, if we're bringing PJ here to be Tyrus' special friend, it would be awfully traumatic for the young guy to lose his PJ in the middle of the season.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Sure didn't happen last season for the Bulls.
> 
> 
> And, if we're bringing PJ here to be Tyrus' special friend, it would be awfully traumatic for the young guy to lose his PJ in the middle of the season.


Kid will have to grow a sackful of beans sometime.

Also, see the rest of my edited post, which I think I typed while you were replying.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

KwaZulu said:


> Is K4E actually Jerry Krause?
> 
> Sometimes it sure sounds like it.


have you ever seen both krause and k4e at the same place at the same time? hmmm


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Anyway, you want to keep the "one of the three best players of our winning season..." as one of the anchors moving forward, right? He is one of the keys, right?
> 
> 
> You don't want to keep him around just as trade bait.
> ...



I think you can use him either way.


With Ben on the team, Chandler's services for the Bulls are less needed. No doubt. I outlined in another post how Chandler would be valuable as Ben ages / gets injured.

Other NBA teams though, do need those services, as we see with the Hornets and the other teams that Paxson is talking to (hornet insider) about Chandler.

I'd have to think that Duhon, Deng/Noc and Chandler could land you a really, really nice player to plug into the 4 spot this season. Then we'd be talking about trying to win the NBA Title next season. And having a real shot to do it. 

If not, you have one of the best young rebounders in the game playing Steve Young to Big Ben's Joe Montana.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Ah, so now the 47 win team is "near contending" again. I went through a season hearing how that squad wasn't all that good.... about the same as a .500 team.
> 
> Two of the three best players from that team will be gone in a week.


you wouldnt have to hear about it for a whole year if you'd finally let go of Eddy Curry, and realize that this team now has smart basketball players, ones that actually have intensity and a will to win.


the 47 win team had more wins, and was far less impressive than the Bulls team that nearly took Miami to a Game 7. now we have a frontcourt beast added to that mix with the money we saved. all this plus a 2007 draft pick means that any Fire Pax list should be good and blank right now.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> you spend big when you're within close range of contention. at other times, you rein it in and rebuild.


My problem, and I think Mr. T's too, is that the Bulls appear to be poised to rein it in just as they should be poised to spend big.

Getting Wallace was a coup, but it doesn't guarantee us anything, now or in the future. Reining it in, even a bit, with a Tyson Chandler firesale for a 37 year old expiring contract reeks of reining it in when an inspired bit of spending might push us over the top while still keeping our future bright.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> My problem, and I think Mr. T's too, is that the Bulls appear to be poised to rein it in just as they should be poised to spend big.
> 
> Getting Wallace was a coup, but it doesn't guarantee us anything, now or in the future. Reining it in, even a bit, with a Tyson Chandler firesale for a 37 year old expiring contract reeks of reining it in when an inspired bit of spending might push us over the top while still keeping our future bright.



again think Carlos Lee and Magglio Ordonez in exchange for several players. it's not a fire sale when you get multiple players, and get set to wrap up your core of players in the next 2 or 3 years. just as Jerry has done with Konerko and the pitchers. this is not Florida Marlin baseball, by any stretch.


Tyson has no role here. Ben will do everything he does, but better, and for whole games, not half games.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> the 47 win team had more wins, and was far less impressive than the Bulls team that nearly took Miami to a Game 7.


So the .500 team was more impressive than the "near contending" team?

Or was last year's team "near contending?"


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2006)

paxman said:


> have you ever seen both krause and k4e at the same place at the same time? hmmm


Yes, I have, and keeping the photo negatives in a safe and secret place has made me a small fortune off of each of them.

Coupla preverts, them two.


----------



## draft tyrus (Jun 29, 2006)

just the fact we were _disappointed_ with going .500 last year says tons about Pax.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> again think Carlos Lee and Magglio Ordonez in exchange for several players. it's not a fire sale when you get multiple players, and get set to wrap up your core of players in the next 2 or 3 years. just as Jerry has done with Konerko and the pitchers. this is not Florida Marlin baseball, by any stretch.


What multiple players? JR Smith is not a player, he's an absolute bust. PJ Brown is a one year player. And there is no legitimate reason we can't wrap up our core players and keep Tyson. As you said, spend big when you're going to contend. 

Maybe there are other players out there. If that's true, I'll certainly reevaluate. But the deal as mentioned doesn't get us anything of value except a one year lease of PJ Brown, and a wad of cash in Jerry's pocket that in my eyes is no boon, because he should be willing to pay for contention anyway.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> So the .500 team was more impressive than the "near contending" team?
> 
> Or was last year's team "near contending?"



why are you assuming that i was calling the 47 win team the near contending team? the team with Curry wasnt going to contend for anything. Noc/Deng were nothing compared to what they did last year.

i said the young guys became a contending team while on their "rookie contracts." not "as rookies"


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I think you can use him either way.
> 
> 
> With Ben on the team, Chandler's services for the Bulls are less needed. No doubt. I outlined in another post how Chandler would be valuable as Ben ages / gets injured.
> ...


Don't get me wrong, I have said I'd prefer Tyson to stay.

However, I don't think it is devastating if he goes.

He is a good rebounder and decent blocker when he is in shape, ready to play, and focused.

But he is no Steve Young.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I think you can use him either way.
> 
> 
> With Ben on the team, Chandler's services for the Bulls are less needed. No doubt. I outlined in another post how Chandler would be valuable as Ben ages / gets injured.
> ...


I agree with this more than anything. It's not the fact that the rumored Tyson deal is part salary dump, it's the fact that it's just a bad trade. You look at his salary when compared to other young bigs and is relatively comparable. Young centers get paid a lot, whether they produce, or not. Even if Tyson has a disasterous season (anything barring injury), the Bulls would still have enough trade value next season to move him for an expiring contract. Why trade Tyson now? And for an expiring PJ Brown? It just doesn't make sense. 

Tyson also doesn't duplicate what Wallace brings. The Bulls just don't have enough depth on the front line for them to margenalize the other. There are enough minutes to go around. Someone is going to get injured. One of them will be in fould trouble. Etc. 

Hold on to Tyson for a year. See what happens. If Chandler fails again -- then you move him. Not now when there are no financial repercussions. Isn't that just good business? You don't make moves until you have to? 

The Chandler trade feels like a frustration move and I'm not pleased.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> why are you assuming that i was calling the 47 win team the near contending team? that's the team as it is now.





DengNabbit said:


> now in the Bulls case, we have a rare situation where we did the latter, and the young guys matured so fast that they became a near contending team while still on their rookie contracts.


Not sure what I misunderstood.

"we did" the latter. "matured" so fast.

All past tense.

Rookie contracts. Past.

Deng, Gordon, Noc and Duhon were on their rookie deals when we won 47 games.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Not sure what I misunderstood.
> 
> "we did" the latter. "matured" so fast.
> 
> ...



um, you realize that last year's season is also PAST tense? no male basketball is being played right now.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> I'm as big an organization guy as anyone here. I've taken the kool-aid and rose colored glasses stuff. I just see Chandler-Brown as a cheap move and I don't like it.
> 
> Maybe I'll be wrong and it won't be the first or last time. But, I'm not sure why Reinsdorf would deserve any props for letting Paxson bring in Wallace. We're a major market team that is still under the salary cap.
> 
> It is my expectation that at a minimum we be willing to spend up to the cap. When the situation warrants it (now?) I believe we should be willing to exceed the cap even if it means absorbing the luxury tax.


It's always easy to spend other people's money.

I give Reinsdorf all sorts of credit for allowing Paxson to make the Wallace signing. They've got projections on what it's going to take to sign the other core players over the next couple years, and in signing Wallace, he pretty much had to commit to a payroll that would increase 30% or so. The Bulls put out a team last year that was among the top attendance teams in the NBA. They didn't need to sign Wallace to stay there, and Wallace is not the kind of sexy/spectacular player who puts more people in the seats. TV money is set. What this all means is spending more on payroll cuts into the team's profits. He approved it because, believe it or not (and I don't expect you to believe it), he and his fellow Bulls' investors want to put a true contender on the floor. 

If he believes spending even more will get him ANOTHER championship, I believe he'll do it. However, he knows the difference between smart money and dumb money. Paying one-dimensional subs $10MM/year is dumb money.

It never ceases to amaze me when the best sports franchise owner in Chicago history is portrayed as a cheapskate who who doesn't care about winning. The city should build a statue of the guy.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Don't get me wrong, I have said I'd prefer Tyson to stay.
> 
> However, I don't think it is devastating if he goes.
> 
> ...


The difference between winning and losing is usually quite small. Even one bad deal is the sort of thing that can screw it up.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

and yea "rookie contracts" is what they're on now. the contracts they signed as rookies. youve never heard it called that??


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> and yea "rookie contracts" is what they're on now. the contracts they signed as rookies. youve never heard it called that??



Ah OK, gotcha.

So the .500 team was "near contending."

Ok.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

:sigh:










damned if he does, damned if he doesn't??


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Ah OK, gotcha.
> 
> So the .500 team was "near contending."
> 
> Ok.


They got as far as your beloved 47 win team.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> They got as far as your beloved 47 win team.


Our beloved, right?

I seem to remember a couple key guys being injured in that playoff series where we had home court advantage.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Ah OK, gotcha.
> 
> So the .500 team was "near contending."
> 
> Ok.


unbelievable. you were not legitimately impressed by the playoff run last year? the team that made Miami look absolutely stupid in one game?

the team that was incomplete, with no true big? and still doing amazing things?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> The difference between winning and losing is usually quite small. Even one bad deal is the sort of thing that can screw it up.


I think PJ and Tyson are a wash for next season. Similar production. PJ does add vet presence that Tyson lacks. And if he helps Farmer Thomas get over the "Garsh, Look at all 'em tall buildings...and the gurls shure seem ta wanna be firends" thing, he may be worth the loss of...whatever it is we would actually be losing.

By all accounts, next year, we are going after our so called Big of the Future. 

Tyson isn't our Big of the Future. If they decide to trade him, it will not make or break anything, next year, or into the future.

If he is back, great. I hope he comes ready to impress. If not, I'm not losing any sleep over it. Brown is a fine stopgap.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

the fire clubs on hiatus. Members still exist but back down slowly bit by bit inch by inch. They're wrong, but they won't ever officially say uncle until they get whapped across the beak with a title.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

and again "contending" is open to .500 teams when you have a conference like the East. wide open, you cannot deny this.

when you see how easily Detroit bit the dust, and how close we came to beating Miami, you can see how easy it is to come out of the East.


and now Indiana is getting worse, and Cleveland is still not complete. good times right now.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Our beloved, right?
> 
> I seem to remember a couple key guys being injured in that playoff series where we had home court advantage.


My beloved, yes.


your _precious_.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> This is a serious question. Are there still people who want him gone, and if so, why? What about Skiles?


I will say one thing: This thread should never have been started. 

Here's hoping that Ben's coming is not a mirage, but the real thing, and that the rest of the team, whoever is on it, will do their damndest to make the dream of being a contender a reality.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> damned if he does, damned if he doesn't??


In the case of the Chandler trade, he won't be damned by me if he doesn't.

You still believed dammit !!!!!


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

You know, when the day comes and the next championship banner is being raised to the rafters at the United Center, someone, somewhere, will say if we only kept (fill in your favorite ex-bull here), we'd have had this a year sooner. We should fire Pax right away. 

:biggrin:


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> In the case of the Chandler trade, he won't be damned by me if he doesn't.
> 
> You still believed dammit !!!!!


yup. i believed right up until pax was able to pull the deal off for ben wallace.

_*ben wallace!*_

now i feel tyson is redundant.

so yes, i changed my mind. 

and yes, i do believe there are other/better ideas out there over PJ Brown.


----------



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

narek said:


> You know, when the day comes and the next championship banner is being raised to the rafters at the United Center, someone, somewhere, will say if we only kept (fill in your favorite ex-bull here), we'd have had this a year sooner. We should fire Pax right away.
> 
> :biggrin:


In the same way that if we don't get out of the 1st round, someone, somewhere will say if only (fill in any Bull not named Kirk Hinrich) stepped up/worked harder, we would've advanced. Player X not named Kirk Hinrich needs to be traded because we will get their replacement through the draft anyway.


----------



## Future (Jul 24, 2002)

I honestly don't understand all this love for Tyson Chandler all of a sudden. Ben Wallace can do everything he does times TEN!

I also imagine that Paxson sees Tyrus Thomas as a player that can replace Chandler. Tyrus has the tenacity,energy, defense, and athletic ability that we can use off the bench. 

Tyson Chandler has no offensive ability. Even his ability to catch the ball is in question. How many times have we watched him fumble away great passes because he can't catch the ball. The only positive Chandler brought to us was his energy and defensive ability.... and that HAS BEEN ALL REPLACED! 

Tyson Chandler is expendable now. What use do we have for him now that we have Ben Wallace and Tyrus Thomas. We should be happy someone is going to take his bloated contract away, and we will replace it with a vet who supplies us with the same numbers as Tyson. 

And if you believe Tyson when he says he will be an all-star next year, then guess what, I'm going to be an astronaut next year and I am going to outer space.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Just wondering what the Fire Pax! crowd has to say


Where's Garnett?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Future said:


> I honestly don't understand all this love for Tyson Chandler all of a sudden.


I understand a lot of it. 

When Chandler was performing miserably he was the lightning rod to attack management's decision making. 

Now his value is being inflated and his redundancy ignored to accomplish the same purpose.

He's the Elian Gonzalez/Terri Shivo of the Chicago Bulls.

I mourn the death of the "Club". But I take comfort in the knowledge that its spirit lives on.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

Spud said:


> Yes, I have, and keeping the photo negatives in a safe and secret place has made me a small fortune off of each of them.
> 
> Coupla preverts, them two.


:laugh:


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I understand a lot of it.
> 
> When Chandler was performing miserably he was the lightning rod to attack management's decision making.
> 
> ...


You don't think that people are more passionate during the games, during the season and more rational when the season is over and they can see last season for what it was -- a road bump in the career of a 23 year old? 

And, by the way, I defended Tyson all season.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

DengNabbit said:


> unbelievable. you were not legitimately impressed by the playoff run last year? the team that made Miami look absolutely stupid in one game?
> 
> the team that was incomplete, with no true big? and still doing amazing things?


if you want to claim that we were a "near contending" team last year, then you must also admit that we "nearly missed the playoffs" :clown:


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

TripleDouble said:


> You don't think that people are more passionate during the games, during the season and more rational when the season is over and they can see last season for what it was -- a road bump in the career of a 23 year old?
> 
> And, by the way, I defended Tyson all season.


It was more of 5 years of road bump. That's what it is. But honestly I think we already saw the best out of Chandler. I won't cry over his departure.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> It was more of 5 years of road bump. That's what it is. But honestly I think we already saw the best out of Chandler. I won't cry over his departure.


Again, name the NBA players who had their best season at 21.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Future said:


> I honestly don't understand all this love for Tyson Chandler all of a sudden. Ben Wallace can do everything he does times TEN!


Actually, the guy I see attempting to make a talking point out of things is you guys with lines like this. I've seen that one trotted out several times in an effort to be confrontational and diss anyone you disagree with, and cast their motives and assessments as somehow dishonest. All the while spinning quite hard to point out every negative on Chandler you can. 

The reality of things is that I don't think anyone is in love with Chandler, but it's possible to not be in love with him and yet think an immediate salary dump of him for an over the hill player on an expiring contract is an exceedingly poor move that is a step in the wrong direction that sours several very good steps in the right direction.

To me, that's very similar to the premise of this thread, which is a bunch of political BS about questioning people's motives and honesty instead of just having a good time and allowing everyone to have their own opinions.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Actually, the guy I see attempting to make a talking point out of things is you guys with lines like this.


Oh brother. What a load of self righteous hooey.



> I've seen that one trotted out several times in an effort to be confrontational and diss anyone you disagree with, and cast their motives and assessments as somehow dishonest.


Or its his opinion based on what he has observed. Wallace *is* superior at everything that is considered a strength of Chandler's. And he *was* the team whipping boy on this board all season. 



> All the *while spinning quite hard to point out every negative on Chandler you can*.


Lordy, lord. Is that a "confrontational diss" of someone you disagree with I smell, Mike?



> The reality of things is that I don't think anyone is in love with Chandler, but it's possible to not be in love with him and yet think *an immediate salary dump* of him for an *over the hill * player on an expiring contract is an exceedingly poor move that is a step in the wrong direction that *sours several very good step*s in the right direction.


And that isn't negatively connotated spin against the notion of the trade? A trade that many of us objectively view as having greater value that a mere salary dump as we have detailed over these last few days?



> To me, that's very similar to the premise of this thread, which is a bunch of political BS about questioning people's motives and honesty instead of just having a good time and allowing everyone to have their own opinions.


And you dismissing the trade as a salary dump and questioning that posters are "spinning quite hard to point out every negative on Chandler they can" isn't a dig at motives? 

Look, I don't mind that you are doing it. And I don't mind this thread. I don't think anyone does. But spare us the condescension that utilizes the same conduct you profess to scold. Tsk, tsk.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> And that isn't negatively connotated spin against the notion of the trade? A trade that many of us objectively view as having greater value that a mere salary dump as we have detailed over these last few days?


If I remember right a central point to your backing of the Chandler/NO deal was the idea that Wallace wouldn't leave his old team in the lurch without giving them something back (the NO guys). Now that's out the window, why is this a good deal? Chandler's not without value. Can't we do better than an unproven malcontent and a 37 year old? PJ Brown and Ben Wallace on the floor 30+ minutes a game? Goodbye fast break.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

jbulls said:


> If I remember right a central point to your backing of the Chandler/NO deal was the idea that Wallace wouldn't leave his old team in the lurch without giving them something back (the NO guys). Now that's out the window, why is this a good deal? Chandler's not without value. Can't we do better than an unproven malcontent and a 37 year old? PJ Brown and Ben Wallace on the floor 30+ minutes a game? Goodbye fast break.


Yeah, I'm sure PJ Brown is playing 30+ minutes for us next year.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Frankensteiner said:


> Yeah, I'm sure PJ Brown is playing 30+ minutes for us next year.


Okay, so the deal is Tyson Chandler for an unproven malcontent and a player you don't think has any shot at logging 30 minutes a game?!? How is this good?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jbulls said:


> How is this good?


In Pax We Trust.


----------



## FanOfAll8472 (Jun 28, 2003)

jbulls said:


> Okay, so the deal is Tyson Chandler for an unproven malcontent and a player you don't think has any shot at logging 30 minutes a game?!? How is this good?


 I think he'll play under 30 mpg. It's good for his body and the Bulls have a deep enough frontcourt to allow him to rest more during the regular season. He only played 31 mpg last year.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> In Pax We Trust.


That seems to be the idea. Does anybody (outside of JR Smith's immediate family) believe that either Smith or PJ Brown will have value to us after next season?


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

jbulls said:


> Can't we do better than an unproven malcontent and a 37 year old?


How would you, or anyone for that matter, know what trades are on the table? The idea that Chandler has this mega trade value has been floated out there by a few people. If the Bulls could get something better than PJ Brown and JR Smith, don't you think they would have done that instead?


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

FanOfAll8472 said:


> I think he'll play under 30 mpg. It's good for his body and the Bulls have a deep enough frontcourt to allow him to rest more during the regular season. He only played 31 mpg last year.


Great. I'm sure resting PJ will be just dandy for his health/productivity etc. That still doesn't make dealing a 23 year old 7 footer who, warts and all, is an elite rebounder worthwhile.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Frankensteiner said:


> How would you, or anyone for that matter, know what trades are on the table? The idea that Chandler has this mega trade value has been floated out there by a few people. If the Bulls could get something better than PJ Brown and JR Smith, don't you think they would have done that instead?


I have no idea what trades are on the table, but if that's all you can get for Chandler then keep him.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

jbulls said:


> Okay, so the deal is Tyson Chandler for an unproven malcontent and a player you don't think has any shot at logging 30 minutes a game?!? How is this good?


Because Tyson Chandler has no shot of logging 15 minutes a game for the next 3-4 years while getting paid a ton of money and possibly preventing the team from re-signing its core talent. How is this good?!?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jbulls said:


> That seems to be the idea. Does anybody (outside of JR Smith's immediate family) believe that either Smith or PJ Brown will have value to us after next season?


No, of course not.

Its a salary dump. Nothing more.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> How would you, or anyone for that matter, know what trades are on the table? The idea that Chandler has this mega trade value has been floated out there by a few people. If the Bulls could get something better than PJ Brown and JR Smith, don't you think they would have done that instead?


That makes sense, but there is an awful lot of discussion that never surfaces publicly. e.g., I don't believe for a minute that the Bulls were the only team to have an interest in Ben Wallace, even though that's what's been reported.

Anyway, this is a wretched deal for the Bulls -- today, tomorrow, four years from now, ten years from now.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

jbulls said:


> I have no idea what trades are on the table, but if that's all you can get for Chandler then keep him.


So you can play him a few minutes each game while losing one of Hinrich, Gordon, Nocioni, or Deng to another team? Great idea.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> How would you, or anyone for that matter, know what trades are on the table? The idea that Chandler has this mega trade value has been floated out there by a few people. If the Bulls could get something better than PJ Brown and JR Smith, don't you think they would have done that instead?


I'm 95% sure that we could. The answer to your question is that the 37 year old happens to have an expiring contract. That's the key-- salary dump.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Frankensteiner said:


> Because Tyson Chandler has no shot of logging 15 minutes a game for the next 3-4 years while getting paid a ton of money and possibly preventing the team from re-signing its core talent. How is this good?!?


Okay.

Well, I hope Pax decides to upgrade all of our positions of strength in the future and trade our current redundant players for less than value.

It's my opinon that Tyson Chandler is way more valuable than PJ Brown and JR Smith. I am not taken with the idea of trading him to save money. Wait it out and get something better. There's no reason Tyson has to be traded on day 7 of free agency.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

jbulls said:


> If I remember right a central point to your backing of the Chandler/NO deal was the idea that Wallace wouldn't leave his old team in the lurch without giving them something back (the NO guys). Now that's out the window, why is this a good deal? Chandler's not without value. Can't we do better than an unproven malcontent and a 37 year old? PJ Brown and Ben Wallace on the floor 30+ minutes a game? Goodbye fast break.


You don't remember right. 

I specifically wrote that I support the trade as a direct deal, and if it were instead a required deal to get Wallace then my support would enter a "whole new stratosphere." 

I have no idea if we can "do better". Perhaps we can. But looking at this deal, I like it. And I've detailed it numerous other posts. But I'll do it again:

(a) I consider PJ Brown a better short term player to team with Wallace.

(b) I consider Thomas a better long term player to team with Wallace.

(c) I consider Wallace and Chandler together to be horribly redundant.

(d) I value Brown as a veteran and a leader that will not only aid us with officials, but in mentoring Tyrus Thomas.

(e) As for the salary dump part, I've written about this in great detail and will try to find the link later. But the point is I don't think Chandler is as easy to "unload" as everyone thinks. I've seen no evidence that there are a bunch of teams lining up to take on a 5 year $54 million obligation to a center who most recently regressed. All the earlier proposals - Odom, Marion, Murphy, etc. - included first round draft picks. That stuff is all off the table now. Now we are talking about Chandler and role players. I'm not convinced this has significant value. 

I can understand Jerry wanting to take advantage of a short term gain (my opinion) now to unload him so that later he can safely and comfortably re-sign far more important players like Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Noc, and Thomas without getting into obscene luxury tax penalties.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The only reason its being done now is the glow of the Wallace signing.

Casual fans will mistakenly associate adding Wallace to losing Chandler. As if it were a trade or something.

Paxson brought in Wallace and managed to dump dat bum chandler? yahoo!

I wonder if anyone will check back in 5 years when Chandler is 28.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Deng is pretty redundant with Nocioni, Khryapa, and Thomas around. His value can only drop because he's not going to get minutes. And we probably won't be able to afford him because of Ben, Kirk, and Nocioni. 

Why not trade him for a future draft choice?


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

jbulls said:


> Okay.
> 
> Well, I hope Pax decides to upgrade all of our positions of strength in the future and trade our current redundant players for less than value.


See, there you go again. "Less than value"? Are you in on the GM meetings?

Also, what was our position of strength that we just upgraded? Center?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> So you can play him a few minutes each game while losing one of Hinrich, Gordon, Nocioni, or Deng to another team? Great idea.


Man, I wish I had your kind of faith to pencil in Tyrus Thomas for 32+ minutes a night at the 4 next year. I don't even know what position he's going to play.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> (e) As for the salary dump part, I've written about this in great detail and will try to find the link later. But the point is I don't think Chandler is as easy to "unload" as everyone thinks. I've seen no evidence that there are a bunch of teams lining up to take on a 5 year $54 million obligation to a center who most recently regressed.


If you believe the Hornets insider, who has been pretty much right on the money so far, there were other teams wanting to get in on the Chandler action.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> You don't remember right.
> 
> I specifically wrote that I support the trade as a direct deal, and if it were instead a required deal to get Wallace then my support would enter a "whole new stratosphere."
> 
> ...


I have no sympathy for Uncle Jer's short term financial gains.

It's July 5. Less than a week into free agency. Hinrich, Deng, Noc and Thomas don't have to be re-upped for a while. This deal is not value. Wait it out.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> The only reason its being done now is the glow of the Wallace signing.
> 
> Casual fans will mistakenly associate adding Wallace to losing Chandler. As if it were a trade or something.
> 
> ...


Yes, Bulls fans are sheep. Paxson has brainwashed the entire fanbase. We get it.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Frankensteiner said:


> See, there you go again. "Less than value"? Are you in on the GM meetings?
> 
> Also, what was our position of strength that we just upgraded? Center?


Of course I'm not in GM meetings.

My opinion is that Smith and Brown have substantially less value as players than Chandler does as a player. I don't need to be in GM meetings to come up with that opinion.

In a general sense, can we as fans not express our opinions on trades because we're not in GM meetings? If I think a trade stinks, I think it stinks. Same goes for all of us here.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Man, I wish I had your kind of faith to pencil in Tyrus Thomas for 32+ minutes a night at the 4 next year. I don't even know what position he's going to play.


Whoa, whoa, whoa. Who said anything about Tyrus Thomas getting 32+ minutes a nights next year? He'll be lucky to get 15.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

jbulls said:


> In a general sense, can we as fans not express our opinions on trades because we're not in GM meetings? If I think a trade stinks, I think it stinks. Same goes for all of us here.


I agree. But saying a trade stinks and there was a better deal are two completely different things.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Just trying to figure out the minutes distribution at the 4/5 on our contending team next season.

Wallace -- 35
TT -- 23
PJ Brown -- 15
Sweets -- 15
Nocioni -- 8

Is that close to the story?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The better deal that we know for sure is to keep Chandler.

Buy an assistant coach to be TT's nanny.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Whoa, whoa, whoa. Who said anything about Tyrus Thomas getting 32+ minutes a nights next year? He'll be lucky to get 15.


So who'd be getting those minutes? "Sweets"? Nocioni? Malik Allen? 

How about the backup center minutes? Schenscher? 

We're a really bad team when "Sweets" or Nocioni mans the 4. Thomas is going to have typical rookie struggles. Ben Wallace is 32 years old.

There is (was) an ample role for Chandler on this team in both the short and long haul. And he and Wallace are far less redundant than Deng and Nocioni are.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Frankensteiner said:


> I agree. But saying a trade stinks and there was a better deal are two completely different things.


Yes, and never once did I say there was a better deal. I haven't even speculated on what might be out there, I've just said I don't like this trade.

My point is that this isn't value, it's a salary dump, and that we should wait until there is value. If value never materializes and we need to re-sign guys then we can consider a salary dump.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Just trying to figure out the minutes distribution at the 4/5 on our contending team next season.
> 
> Wallace -- 35
> TT -- 23
> ...



Frankensteiner posted this earlier: 

PF - Brown 15 / Noc 20 / Tyrus 13
C - Wallace 35 / Sweets 8 / Brown 5


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> If you believe the Hornets insider, who has been pretty much right on the money so far, there were other teams wanting to get in on the Chandler action.


But for what? Its all vagueries.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

jbulls said:


> Yes, and never once did I say there was a better deal. I haven't even speculated on what might be out there, I've just said I don't like this trade.
> 
> My point is that this isn't value, it's a salary dump, and that we should wait until there is value. If value never materializes and *we need to re-sign guys then we can consider a salary dump.*


You aren't alone here, jbulls, but people write this like its just something that happens whenever you want it to on whatever terms you want. Its not. 

Like I said, I suspect that the line of teams lining up to take on Tyson's potential albatross contract is quite short. And that they aren't offering much. But that the Bulls see some short term and long term value in expelling him now before it becomes too difficult and they end up with a Kenyon Martin on their hands (contractually speaking). Teams have trouble moving unwanted contracts all the time.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> So who'd be getting those minutes? "Sweets"? Nocioni? Malik Allen?
> 
> How about the backup center minutes? Schenscher?
> 
> ...


First, Wallace is going to get 35 minutes. Him and Chandler can't possibly be on the floor together unless it's part of some gimmick line-up at the end of the game. So that means Chandler would get no more than 15 min/game.

As far as the 4, I would have Brown and Noc getting the bulk of the minutes there. Noc is best as an undersized PF, and our lineup will be more effective with a real center behind him. He was playing at an All-Star level at the end of the season... the guy needs to be out on the floor. Thomas can come along slowly with about 12-13 minutes per game his first season.

I then see Sweets and Brown getting backup minutes at the 5.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I think Thomas will be fine out of the gate. He's raw, yes, but he has top-notch athletic ability and defensive instincts. If he's only averaging 13 minutes a game, then that's not a very good indication for his future as a player. 

I think Thomas can potentially play small forward, too, but Nocioni and Deng already have that position locked up. So, for better or for worse, he's a power forward.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> First, Wallace is going to get 35 minutes. Him and Chandler can't possibly be on the floor together unless it's part of some gimmick line-up at the end of the game. So that means Chandler would get no more than 15 min/game.
> 
> As far as the 4, I would have Brown and Noc getting the bulk of the minutes there. Noc is best as an undersized PF, and our lineup will be more effective with a real center behind him. He was playing at an All-Star level at the end of the season... the guy needs to be out on the floor. Thomas can come along slowly with about 12-13 minutes per game his first season.
> 
> I then see Sweets and Brown getting backup minutes at the 5.


So you favor a linuep where we are undersized at EVERY position?


----------



## Future (Jul 24, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Actually, the guy I see attempting to make a talking point out of things is you guys with lines like this. I've seen that one trotted out several times in an effort to be confrontational and diss anyone you disagree with, and cast their motives and assessments as somehow dishonest. All the while spinning quite hard to point out every negative on Chandler you can.
> 
> The reality of things is that I don't think anyone is in love with Chandler, but it's possible to not be in love with him and yet think an immediate salary dump of him for an over the hill player on an expiring contract is an exceedingly poor move that is a step in the wrong direction that sours several very good steps in the right direction.
> 
> To me, that's very similar to the premise of this thread, which is a bunch of political BS about questioning people's motives and honesty instead of just having a good time and allowing everyone to have their own opinions.


Are you kidding me? I made my own opinion. I pointed out every negative I had on Chandler because HE HAS MANY NEGATIVE parts to his game. I pointed out that we don't need Chandler now that we have a player that is superior to him in every aspect of the game. Is there something wrong with that?

I voice out my own opinion, yet you try to spin it out as if I have some sort of motive. MY MOTIVE IS TO VOICE MY OPINION! My opinion was that I support the Chandler trade! The irony is that everything you have just wrote is what you did to my post.


----------



## UMfan83 (Jan 15, 2003)

I love what Pax has done, but I also understand the amount of risk that each move has....so potentially if all went bad, I could see this being a collassal disaster. But mostly I am happy that we went out and made a splash and presumably upgraded our team substantially


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> My problem, and I think Mr. T's too, is that the Bulls appear to be poised to rein it in just as they should be poised to spend big.
> 
> Getting Wallace was a coup, but it doesn't guarantee us anything, now or in the future. Reining it in, even a bit, with a Tyson Chandler firesale for a 37 year old expiring contract reeks of reining it in when an inspired bit of spending might push us over the top while still keeping our future bright.


Thats exactly it and I think K4E is in the club too.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

Mr. T said:


> Thats exactly it and I think K4E is in the club too.



ugh. do you guys want to do the math on what the payroll will be once BG, Kirk, Luol and Noc have extensions? plus what Ben is making? you cant have everything. and in this offseason, you cant get it.

those guys can mature, play alongside Ben Wallace, and later on we'll get contributions from the 06 and 07 rookies. but again, you cant have everything right now. i mean unless you love Tyson Chandler and want to keep him, what else do you want to spend on? everyone but Wallace in this offseason was either an overpay or a bad fit for our team.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> ugh. do you guys want to do the math on what the payroll will be once BG, Kirk, Luol and Noc have extensions? plus what Ben is making? you cant have everything. and in this offseason, you cant get it.
> 
> those guys can mature, play alongside Ben Wallace, and later on we'll get contributions from the 06 and 07 rookies. but again, you cant have everything right now. i mean unless you love Tyson Chandler and want to keep him, what else do you want to spend on? everyone but Wallace in this offseason was either an overpay or a bad fit for our team.


It's been stated many times that even with Chandler on payroll, and Kirk and Nocioni extended, the Bulls wouldn't pay the luxury tax this season. So it's entirely possible to wait a year and then trade Chandler, AND still resign our players.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

transplant said:


> It's always easy to spend other people's money.
> 
> I give Reinsdorf all sorts of credit for allowing Paxson to make the Wallace signing. They've got projections on what it's going to take to sign the other core players over the next couple years, and in signing Wallace, he pretty much had to commit to a payroll that would increase 30% or so. The Bulls put out a team last year that was among the top attendance teams in the NBA. They didn't need to sign Wallace to stay there, and Wallace is not the kind of sexy/spectacular player who puts more people in the seats. TV money is set. What this all means is spending more on payroll cuts into the team's profits. He approved it because, believe it or not (and I don't expect you to believe it), he and his fellow Bulls' investors want to put a true contender on the floor.
> 
> ...


Maybe you don't recall the many, many times I defended Krause, Reinsdorf, the organization. Then it was Paxson and Skiles. I'm sure DaBullz or ScottMay could vouch for it. During those volatile times it was always about drinking kool-aid or wearing the glasses. Well, I still believe in the organization, but I have some real issues with this move.

I'm simply saying I think Brown for Chandler would be dumb and wreaks of a salary dump not a legit roster move. I've said maybe I'm wrong about it, but thats how it comes across. I, like MikeDC and K4E think Chandler should be held onto for another year or be used in a bigger consolidation move that would bring in a legit 4. 

As for attendance, profits, etc. Again, I was defending the switch to "the right way" when we were benching the big payroll guys for the NBDL types. Others argued the big $ guys were more talented and should be used while I argued the guys who play the right way should be. But, I also believe we should spend all of our cap space to put out the best product.

Reinsdorf himself said he would pay for a winner. I ALWAYS believed that would mean he would pay whatever it took when he was in position to win. In my opinion, the Bulls themselves have declared the window to be open for them to win a championship by paying Wallace what they did. If I understand that correctly, I assume Reinsdorf should be ready to pony up the finances to help make it happen.

Sure they didn't need to sign Wallace. The last decade has pretty much shown they've moved into "Cubs" territory. I still believe Reinsdorf and the group want to win, I just question how far they're willing to go. I always assumed it would mean they would absorb the luxury tax if necessary. With this possible move, I began to question that. 

I'm not thrilled with being dumped into this anti-org guy stereotype, but I guess its inevitable. Question the organization once and you're no longer a fan enjoying things "the right way"! :biggrin:


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Ron Cey said:


> I understand a lot of it.
> 
> When Chandler was performing miserably he was the lightning rod to attack management's decision making.
> 
> ...


I for one have never attacked Chandler. I'll throw in some teasers about Tyson catching the ball, but I like Tyson. I don't attack Paxson or Skiles either. Gonzalez and Schiavo are best left to cable news.

Sure, I may overvalue Tyson, but whats the rush? We're so worried his stock might fall in a half a season or a season, but we've got no problem with Ben at 32 yrs old and an already declining stat line? We've got no problem already penciling in Thomas for stardom? C'mon, do we really need to make this trade NOW? 

How about we keep Livingston at the far end of the bench as the security blanket for Thomas instead of bringing in Brown for that? I mean, TT did choose Livingston to prepare him for the NBA draft.

I'm not showing Chandler newfound love and I'm not reinventing my stance on things. I think its a straightforward wish list.


Keep Chandler this year or at least until the deadline
Use Chandler in a consolidation trade for a bigger talent (Odom being a handy example)
Yes, I did get off the reservation a bit questioning why we would dump him for PJ Brown, but thats just the way I felt about it. Again, I must overvalue him. If holding him amazingly risks his value dropping to exactly zero thats a chance I'm willing to take.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

Does anyone feel that Pax actually thinks Brown can help us? YOu guys act like Brown will walk in and assume the wardrobe of EROB. There is a reason the Bulls want him. 

The reason the Bulls want to dump Chandler now instead of waiting until the middle of the season is Chandler doesn't fit on this ballclub with player like Wallace and Tyrus Thomas. 

With teh view of some of you posters the Bulls would end up coming out of the gates slow as Chandler and Wallace are mirror images of each other. 

I swear its like you guys are playing checkers *thinking one move ahead*, while Paxson is playing Chess and seeing the whole board and planning 6 moves in advance.

Watch Paxson make this trade and get Brown & JR Smith and use the extra cap space to re-sign Darius Songalia.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

One of my chief gripes against Paxson has been that he's never said the words "whatever it takes" nor has his actions been "whatever it takes." Whatever it takes to win the championship.

The signing of Ben Wallace is the very first "whatever it takes" kind of move. For that he gets the nod of my cap.

He's not at all off the hook:

Paxson's drafted 3 quality role players and signed a euro who's another quality role player. Wallace is the first actual star that Pax has brought to the team. 

Every trade he's made has been lopsided not-in-our-favor. The proposed Chandler deal is exactly that kind of deal.

This past draft isn't guaranteed to bear any fruit at all. I was thrilled on draft night when we got Gordon and Deng. I'm not at all thrilled with the last draft. Not at all.

Paxson still hasn't shown me that he's a good guy - one who treats his employees with respect. I do think that is hugely important in any walk of life.

Anything it takes:

MikeDC has shown very convincing statistical evidence that Wallace's performance has declined in real terms in a serious way for the past 4 years. I am not ready to drink the kool-aid before we see him in uniform and how the team performs.

On the other hand, I cannot blame Paxson even if Wallace is a complete total bust. It is a gutsy move to sign him, and I could not blame him for being gutsy.

Keeping Chandler is part of "anything it takes." At least keeping him instead of doing a salary dump for PJ Freaking Brown who really is pretty awful at this point in his career. No spin can change the facts on the ground about him. 9 points, 7 rebounds in way more minutes than Chandler.

Enough said.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> Actually, the guy I see attempting to make a talking point out of things is you guys with lines like this. I've seen that one trotted out several times in an effort to be confrontational and diss anyone you disagree with, and cast their motives and assessments as somehow dishonest. All the while spinning quite hard to point out every negative on Chandler you can.
> 
> The reality of things is that I don't think anyone is in love with Chandler, but it's possible to not be in love with him and yet think an immediate salary dump of him for an over the hill player on an expiring contract is an exceedingly poor move that is a step in the wrong direction that sours several very good steps in the right direction.
> 
> To me, that's very similar to the premise of this thread, which is a bunch of political BS about questioning people's motives and honesty instead of just having a good time and allowing everyone to have their own opinions.


I actually remember you took a quite similar stance with Jamal during a very turbulent time on the board. I'd say you're approaching it quite consistently.

Again, I agree with you and I don't see people lining up behind Chandler the way they did behind Jamal. I don't see anyone proclaiming he's still going to be the next KG. I don't see anyone promising double doubles, etc. 

I see some pretty rational thinking that we may be giving up on him too early. I also see near universal belief among this group that if Chandler goes it merely needs to be in a better roster move.

Despite some of the stereotyping I am pleased this is nothing like the old days. For the most part I do feel like we're all genuine Bulls fans without player agendas just trying to debate whats best for the team.

And hey, maybe the fact that some posters are looking at me like I'm an anti-organization guy will help my street cred! :laugh:


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> ugh. do you guys want to do the math on what the payroll will be once BG, Kirk, Luol and Noc have extensions? plus what Ben is making? you cant have everything. and in this offseason, you cant get it.
> 
> those guys can mature, play alongside Ben Wallace, and later on we'll get contributions from the 06 and 07 rookies. but again, you cant have everything right now. i mean unless you love Tyson Chandler and want to keep him, what else do you want to spend on? everyone but Wallace in this offseason was either an overpay or a bad fit for our team.


Please don't mention BG and extention in the same breath. Pax is already posturing for not re-upping him, with statements like "Ben's contract situation is gonna be a problem".


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Future said:


> Are you kidding me? I made my own opinion. I pointed out every negative I had on Chandler because HE HAS MANY NEGATIVE parts to his game. I pointed out that we don't need Chandler now that we have a player that is superior to him in every aspect of the game. Is there something wrong with that?


Not in and of itself. When it's all just in a thread trying to call out a certain segment of folks, and 



> I voice out my own opinion, yet you try to spin it out as if I have some sort of motive. MY MOTIVE IS TO VOICE MY OPINION! My opinion was that I support the Chandler trade! *The irony is that everything you have just wrote is what you did to my post.*


Well, it's sort of hard to point out someone questioning others' motivations without questioning theirs. That's the problem I have with going down that road in the first place... there's no way it can go anywhere good, and it's damn near impossible to respond to with anything useful.

Look, I don't doubt that this was your honest opinion, and there's nothing wrong with it as an honest opinon. I'm sorry I came off implying it was. It's just that coming in a thread where the whole point seems to be to question peoples' motivations, and given that your opinon appears to be one that has been (very suddenly) adopted by others in the last 72 hours and then used as some sort of rhetorical wholecloth to imply some sort of intellectual dishonesty on the part of others, it's seemed a good place to point things out. I'm sorry, it was a bad choice of words on my part to aim that response in your direction.

That being said, the general point eems only more applicable the further this thread goes. All I'm saying is there's plenty of honest grounds for discussion on whether a move is good or not (and speculating about what else could be done), without the need to get negative and personal with people. Of course, it's hard to point that out in response when you see it without appearing to do the same thing, but the fact remains that a response is quite a lot different than an initiation of hostilities. Sorry, and now back to the regularly scheduled argument...

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

Speculation or not (and I'm always amazed when people get bent about this... I mean it pretty much goes without saying that it's just speculation when it's coming from a fan, doesn't it? Yeash), I'd rather hold tight and see what the future holds. If no deal comes along, we suck it up, pay some money, and lose out on the vast advantages of having PJ Brown for one year.

By the way, what are the expectations on Brown? I see Brown as looking about like AD did in the playoff series against the Wizards. Smart, but old and slow. In fact, Brown will be turning 37 at the beginning of this season, just like AD turned 37 at the beginning of this past season. And the AD we saw last season had a huge drop off from the 36 year old AD we saw the year before. Basically put, he was toast, and I wouldn't be surprised if Brown is TOA (Toast On Arrival) here too. 

The potential upside is what? That he provides veteran leadership? It doesn't seem to me we need a lot of that. Our young players seemed to bootstrap themselves pretty well, and under what were at one point pretty dire circumstances.

He can hit a jumper and set a screen, but it doesn't appear to me he does it much better any more than Allen (who we also appear to be giving up) or Songaila did last year. I do see that in terms of style of play he's a better fit, but at some point style doesn't much matter if the body is no longer able to do much. PJ is quite rapidly approaching that point, and a live body... any live body, might end up being a better fit. I'd put it a bit like the comparison between Sweetney and Allen last year. In terms of what he could do, Sweetney made a hell of a lot more sense than Allen on paper. But in practice Sweetney's poor physical condition made Allen the better guy to play in practice.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> Please don't mention BG and extention in the same breath. Pax is already posturing for not re-upping him, with statements like "Ben's contract situation is gonna be a problem".


A perfect example of not treating his employees right, pointed out in my previous post.


----------



## draft tyrus (Jun 29, 2006)

no offense to anyone, but some people are just trying too hard.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Ron Cey said:


> I've seen no evidence that there are a bunch of teams lining up to take on a 5 year $54 million obligation to a center who most recently regressed. All the earlier proposals - Odom, Marion, Murphy, etc. - included first round draft picks. That stuff is all off the table now. Now we are talking about Chandler and role players.


Seriously Ron, how come this seems to keep coming up. More than a few posters who want to deal Chandler for Brown have stated what is or isn't on the table and those who want to deal Chandler for something other than Brown are accused of simply making stuff up. 

So only one set of posters actually knows what is or isn't in play? I was always under the opinion none of us ever really know.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> Despite some of the stereotyping I am pleased this is nothing like the old days. For the most part I do feel like we're all genuine Bulls fans without player agendas just trying to debate whats best for the team.


No doubt about that. Like I said, it's just the bringing up of these "gotchya" posts and threads that seems to fly in the face of that spirit. There's a lot of room for honest disagreement without getting personal.

On that note, too bad we didn't re-sign Eddy and trade away Tyson to the Knicks last year. He would have been a much better complement for Wallace and we wouldn't be having this discussion. :angel::biggrin::angel:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mr. T said:


> Seriously Ron, how come this seems to keep coming up. More than a few posters who want to deal Chandler for Brown have stated what is or isn't on the table and those who want to deal Chandler for something other than Brown are accused of simply making stuff up.
> 
> So only one set of posters actually knows what is or isn't in play? I was always under the opinion none of us ever really know.


One set of posters is assuming there is something better and some, you for example, drop names like Odom and Marion even though those deals involved lottery picks as the primary bait - not Chandler.

Another group says they don't care what is available now, just keep him and dump him later if you gotta. As if its really so simple.

I say there is no information a superior deal exists now or ever will. And I can appreciate this as a positive move both in the short and long term. 

There seems to be a lot of persecution complex going around. But frankly I think its misplaced. Seems to me the majority of fans here strongly oppose the deal.

For 2 days now I've been accused of blindly spinning a "glass half full" story, drinking the "PaxSkiles juice", wearing "rose colored glasses" and "drinking Kool-Aid" despite the fact that I genuinely like this move and have objectively argued why.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> The only reason its being done now is the glow of the Wallace signing.


cool, conspiracy theory. except i would see nothing wrong with Pax coming out and saying, "we had to move Tyson's salary in order to bring in an established star like Ben Wallace." even though we usually dont hear things like that from GMs.

and yes, we want to lose Tyson's salary for someone who will come off the books soon. his salary is clutter at this point, and if a team is willing to take on $50 million for underdeveloped talent, great. 




kukoc4ever said:


> Casual fans will mistakenly associate adding Wallace to losing Chandler. As if it were a trade or something.
> 
> Paxson brought in Wallace and managed to dump dat bum chandler? yahoo!
> 
> I wonder if anyone will check back in 5 years when Chandler is 28.


it's a trade. Chandler for Wallace. i'm no casual fan and i have no problem viewing it that way. we added a four time defensive player of the year, cut loose a vastly overpaid, thin center. and we added payroll in all this. so i dont understand why people cant appreciate that this is quality maneuvering from management that wants to win.

Ben Wallace will play all the minutes Tyson was going to play, but he'll ALSO play in those intervals when Tyson was on the bench catching his breath. and Ben will not vanish in the games when it's time to box out a REAL big man. and you'll see a scoring big next to him (Sweetney, Songaila, other). 

it's funny how all this horrifies people, just because some salary is being cut. this is what you have to do to win. we just spent a whole season mocking the Knicks, but now we want to be a team that pays contract after contract mindlessly?

oh wait, kukoc has pretty much been wanting to be the knicks, so i guess this all fits.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> On that note, too bad we didn't re-sign Eddy and trade away Tyson to the Knicks last year. He would have been a much better complement for Wallace and we wouldn't be having this discussion. :angel::biggrin::angel:


http://basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3758817&postcount=171


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Ron Cey said:


> One set of posters is assuming there is something better and some, you for example, drop names like Odom and Marion even though those deals involved lottery picks as the primary bait - not Chandler.


Ok, since it's all rumor at this point anyway how about I drop Garnett instead of Odom and Marion? C'mon does it really matter what the names were? The point was we should pursue something better or keep him this year. In my 7 zillion posts today are you telling me I didn't make that theme clear? 


ESPN INSIDER

Today's edition of the Daily Southtown reports the Bulls, after agreeing to a contract with *Ben Wallace*, are going to make another run at *Kevin Garnett*.
According to the newspaper, the Bulls believe they can revive the talks if they sweeten their offer to Chandler, *Luol Deng* and first-round draft pick *Tyrus Thomas* for Garnett.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mr. T said:


> Ok, since it's all rumor at this point anyway how about I drop Garnett instead of Odom and Marion? C'mon does it really matter what the names were? The point was we should pursue something better or keep him this year. In my 7 zillion posts today are you telling me I didn't make that theme clear?
> 
> 
> ESPN INSIDER
> ...


The difference between us is that I have no doubt that the Bulls would do this if they could. If they don't do it in my mind it means they couldn't.

That is an assumption on my part. But I consider it more logical than assuming they chose PJ Brown and a salary dump over Kevin Garnett.

This whole thing has gotten silly. I've probably been more irritable than usual because this is a great time to be a Bulls fan and when I read multiple fans wringing their hands over Tyson Chandler in the wake of the greatest free agency coup in the history of the team, I simply can't believe it.

But I'm happy. Damn happy. I'll leave you guys to your concerns. I have none. None that relate to Chandler anyway.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

DengNabbit said:


> we just spent a whole season mocking the Knicks, but now we want to be a team that pays contract after contract mindlessly?


Are you suggesting Pax was mindless when he extended Chandler or that he'd be mindless when re-signing Hinrich, Nocioni, Gordon, Deng, etc.? :biggrin:


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Ron Cey said:


> The difference between us is that I have no doubt that the Bulls would do this if they could. If they don't do it in my mind it means they couldn't.


How could I possibly think something different? The Bulls would be all over it and I'd be exponentially excited compared to the Wallace deal. They couldn't and it's suggested they'll go back with more. I'm pretty sure they'll fail again.



> That is an assumption on my part. But I consider it more logical than assuming they chose PJ Brown and a salary dump over Kevin Garnett.


Why is one media report more valid than another? Garnett talks are dismissed but Brown talks are valid? What the heck, BBB.NET favorite Mike McGraw cites two new deals in his article today.



> This whole thing has gotten silly. I've probably been more irritable than usual because this is a great time to be a Bulls fan and when I read multiple fans wringing their hands over Tyson Chandler in the wake of the greatest free agency coup in the history of the team, I simply can't believe it.


Its not over Tyson Chandler its over making this team a championship contender. If I'm criticized for trying to trade him for an Odom or Marion its clearly not about my love for Tyson.

I want to turn Chandler and accompanying pieces into something more. If thats silly, anti-organization, anti-Pax or just plain unrealistic I'll accept it.



> But I'm happy. Damn happy. I'll leave you guys to your concerns. I have none. None that relate to Chandler anyway.


If you didn't have concerns I suspect you wouldn't be posting. But hey, I'll get back to my real life as well. It was fun to debate things for a day.


----------

