# OT: TC" "Eventually 20 and 10"



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

In a recent pre-season game, Chandler put up 19 on 6-8 shooting and 7-9 FTs in ~24 mins. 

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...2640127.column?page=1&coll=cs-bulls-headlines

This is from Sam Smith



> "Eventually he can be a 20 [points]-and-10 [rebounds] guy," Hornets coach Byron Scott said. "This year he's going to be a double-double guy. We like to throw it to him down there because we have a lot of confidence in him."
> 
> "He looks like a different player out there," one scout said. "They should send Shaq and Ben Wallace to the free-throw school he went to."
> 
> ...


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Chandler has worked on his shot before. I found the first article looking for something else recently.

http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/pf_preview_0304.html

This would be the 2003 Summer.



> “Tyson’s been working all summer on his face up scoring,” said Cartwright, who credits John Paxson for bring in a shooting coach, Andy Enfield, to come in and work with Chandler for much of the summer on his jump shot. “You’ll see a much improved and better looking jumper from Tyson this year.”


I assume this is from the 2004 Summer where TC was at the Berto strengthening his back.

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/print/?id=49806



> A few years back, [Bulls Asst. Coach Ron] Adams worked wonders with Tyson Chandler's shooting technique. The former Bulls center looked great one summer shooting the ball above his head with a flick of his wrist. A year later, though, Chandler went back to his old habit of shooting line drives with a hitch in the delivery and rarely shot the ball in his final season with the Bulls.


I'm not sure if the new shooting stroke will stick, but sure seems like Chandler might be a bit less scared of hard work than rumored.

Edit: added link to 2nd quote


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Thats nice, but he's on another team, in another conference.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I remember rooting for him when he was a Bull. I guess we all should stop because he's not any longer?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Yah, this one is tough to swallow.

Especially since we seem really close to being a special team this year. Too much is riding on Thomas and Noah.

The PaxSkiles approach doesn't work on everyone, that's for sure. And Chandler is quickly becoming an elite NBA center.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> *I'm not sure if the new shooting stroke will stick*, but sure seems like Chandler might be a bit less scared of hard work than rumored.


That's my thought on this. We'll see what happens, I guess.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

King Joseus said:


> That's my thought on this. We'll see what happens, I guess.


Yeah, it seems he improves his shot every offseason, only for it to decline during every regular season.

Let's not forget, this is the guy who--according to scouting reports--supposedly had great outside shooting range in high school.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The Truth said:


> Yeah, it seems he improves his shot every offseason, only for it to decline during every regular season.
> 
> Let's not forget, this is the guy who--according to scouting reports--supposedly had great outside shooting range in high school.


Actually, last season, Chandler's scoring improved considerably as the season progressed and his coach showed faith in running some offense through him. I think that the gist of the article and johnston797's posts is that it seems to have carried over and we could see Chandler have a really good season (20/10).

Tho I think he might be something like 17/15, which is more impressive, IMO.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Actually, last season, Chandler's scoring improved considerably as the season progressed and his coach showed faith in running some offense through him. I think that the gist of the article and johnston797's posts is that it seems to have carried over and we could see Chandler have a really good season (20/10).
> 
> Tho I think he might be something like 17/15, which is more impressive, IMO.


His scoring did improve last year, but it wasn't because he improved his outside shot. According to 82 games, 81% of his shots are from "close." His efg% on his "jump shots" was 30%.

Personally, I wouldn't expect him to drastically improve his outside shot. I think his areas for improvement are mostly improving his hands, footwork, and perhaps a marginal improvement in free throws. I think 20 and 10 is insanely optimistic (scoring wise), but I certainly think he still has room for improvement.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The Truth said:


> His scoring did improve last year, but it wasn't because he improved his outside shot. According to 82 games, 81% of his shots are from "close." His efg% on his "jump shots" was 30%.
> 
> Personally, I wouldn't expect him to drastically improve his outside shot. I think his areas for improvement are mostly improving his hands, footwork, and perhaps a marginal improvement in free throws. I think 20 and 10 is insanely optimistic (scoring wise), but I certainly think he still has room for improvement.


I don't see anything about Chandler on the Hornets working on an outside shot. What I did see is this:



> Posting, hitting free throws, catching a bullet pass in traffic from Chris Paul and dunking—this was Tyson "Lobster hands" Chandler? Remarkable transformation for the player who was a quivering wreck in five seasons with the Bulls.


Chandler averaged 13.2 PPG (and 16.1 RPG) in February and 12.6 PPG in March. That's something to build on, IMO.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

This thread is going nowhere and belongs on another board.

I'm sure the Hornets fans would be happy to discuss TC with whomever wants to talk about him.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> The PaxSkiles approach doesn't work on everyone, that's for sure. And Chandler is quickly becoming an elite NBA center.


seven years in the league does in no way qualify as "quickly"; if that were the case he'd still be a bull. 

it's laugable that there's even a thread about this guy. how many here believe he'd still be getting the post love if the bulls fans were (still) waiting for his "quick" ascent to 20-10? or even 15-10? he was blasted for everything and rightfully so. i view tyson as an emotional but mentally soft player. when the games counted, that's when tyson disappeared (read; fouled out, and was generally a non-factor) but once again, moving on doesn't seem to be something fans are prone to do. 

just lament the average to mediocre ones that "got away".......:whatever:


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

Yeah wow Elton Brand is now a 20/10 kinda guy, what gives?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

LOL

FWIW, last time I checked, Sam Smith still writes about the Bulls. It's his topic


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

LMAO FOR SOME REASON THIS THREAD REMINDS ME OF THIS


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Seems like EVERY season Tyson wants the general public to believe something new about his talent.

Two years ago he was working on his game and would be a help in the offense...

when he got traded, it was OUR fault

now hes a capable 20-10 threat? please

all he does is talk...and anyone with a GOOD set of eyes can see that Tyson is one of the WORST offensive players in the NBA...

I still cringe at him not being able to get the ball past his shoulders being STUFFED by guards..

good luck tho

Hell, Noahs more of a offensive threat than Tyson EVER was and he hasnt even played a reg season game yet


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

The ROY said:


> Seems like EVERY season Tyson wants the general public to believe something new about his talent.


He must be a hell of a ventriloquist. It says that was his coach talking.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

I'll believe it when I see it.

And I don't EVER expect to see it. I saw Chandler on Team USA a month ago and his offensive game looked no different than usual. I remember how at the end of every blowout Deron Williams would try to run pick n rolls with Tyson so he could get a basket or two. I don't recall the play ever actually working. Tyson would always slide too slow/quick after setting the pick, or not hold on to Deron's pass or find every way possible to mess up the play or any play on O that wasn't a lob for that matter. Even though he's a former Bulls it was still very embarrassing to watch for me. There's no freaking way this guy will ever be a 20/10 player. Just a month ago he couldn't dribble, struggled to hold on to passes, looked worse than Tyrus in the post and showed nothing offensively aside from slightly improved FT shooting. Tyson is what he is - an athletic 7 footer who can rebound and play D with the best of 'em. An offensive player he's not. Lobs and garbage points is the only way he'll ever score.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

I'm wondering why you left "can be" out of the thread title?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Sham said:


> I'm wondering why you left "can be" out of the thread title?


It's was omission, not commission. Feel free to add it.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

The ROY said:


> anyone with a GOOD set of eyes can see that Tyson is one of the WORST offensive players in the NBA...


He's got a great PG feeding him the rock. Thats going to make him look better.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

Tyson is solely a finisher. Whether he gets the ball on an offensive rebound or a dish around the basket, he is 100% dependent on other players to get him shots. The 12 or 13 ppg he currently gets will be his max.

If you are looking at preseason, the 19 points he scored against Phoenix was without Amare playing and with Marion, Grant Hill, Diaw starting on the front line. Despite this Marion still had 20 rebounds in 29 minutes.

The main thing that makes Tyson weak offensively is that you cannot run the offense through him. PaxSkiles have alluded to this in the past a reason why he didn't get 35+ minutes. You can easily run the offense through Wallace (or Noah) who are both good passers. They know how to make intelligent places and make the right pass. Once Tyson gets the ball he either shoots or turns it over.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> The main thing that makes Tyson weak offensively is that you cannot run the offense through him. PaxSkiles have alluded to this in the past a reason why he didn't get 35+ minutes. You can easily run the offense through Wallace (or Noah) who are both good passers. They know how to make intelligent places and make the right pass. Once Tyson gets the ball he either shoots or turns it over.


i hazard to guess an "elite" center wouldn't be prone to this, would he?


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

Tyson is in a good situation right now, on a center deprived team that doesn't rebound well, where he gets to play along side a perimeter oriented PF and a PG who is great at breaking down defenses, where he can get easy baskets. I think his play of last year is sustainable, and if the Hornets do well, he could even find himself in the running for an AS game or two.

However, I just don't see him as a 20 ppg kind of guy. He's got way too many holes on offense to score that much. At the end of the day, I don't think you can get around the fact that he's just not that coordinated with any part of his body, which will prevent him from ever developing any reliable offensive moves, which will be necessary for him to be able to score 20 ppg. I can see him repeating his scoring averages from last year, which is no small potatoes, and if CP stays healthy I think he'll have another great season.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Tyson is solely a finisher. Whether he gets the ball on an offensive rebound or a dish around the basket, he is 100% dependent on other players to get him shots. The 12 or 13 ppg he currently gets will be his max.



Theres a place in the league for players like that. I think we got a better version with Noah.

So this seems like a good question or two:


1. With Tysons improved stature and play in the league, does the Tyson for Elton swap now look more equal?

2. If Paxson had kept Tyson instead of trading him to the Hornets, would you have been in support of trading him for the ninth pick (assuming we didn't have it) so we could acquire Noah instead?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

GB said:


> 1. With Tysons improved stature and play in the league, does the Tyson for Elton swap now look more equal?


Yes. And it makes the PJ Brown for Tyson trade sickening, especially given the average play of the twice as expensive Ben Wallace.



> 2. If Paxson had kept Tyson instead of trading him to the Hornets, would you have been in support of trading him for the ninth pick (assuming we didn't have it) so we could acquire Noah instead?


No way. Our win now chances would have been, and would be in the next 1-2 years, improved and Tyson is young enough to be a great player for many years into the future.


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

GB said:


> This thread is going nowhere and belongs on another board.
> 
> I'm sure the Hornets fans would be happy to discuss TC with whomever wants to talk about him.


If this topic were on the Hornets board I wouldn't have seen it, and I'm enjoying it. Here the conversation has different posters, a different historical context and a different audience than it would anywhere else. The trade for TC and his trade away from here were very big strategic moves for the organization, the pros and cons are still being worked out, and they depend on what he becomes as a player. So, this still is an interesting and valid Bulls-related topic to me, and enough people seem to agree to make it an interesting discussion... I like topics like this. Just one man's opinion.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Yes. And it makes the PJ Brown for Tyson trade sickening, especially given the average play of the twice as expensive Ben Wallace.


Well, to be fair, Wallace picked it up in the playoffs, and says now that he was uncomfortable all last season. I'd give that one a season or two more.




kukoc4ever said:


> No way. Our win now chances would have been, and would be in the next 1-2 years, improved and Tyson is young enough to be a great player for many years into the future.


Thats assuming Tyson would play as well in Chicago as he has in NO/Ok. I'm not sure. I think the change of scenery is big here. 

It would be a great trade for Chicago because Noah adds so much more versatility to the offense than Tyson does. He can push it, pass it, _and_ it looks like he'll be a good rebounder on defense too. With Tyson we'd still be post-play-poor, but defensive rich.

I guess in that case you argue the LaMarcus vs. Tyrus thing. But thats called GM's prerogative. 


Edit:

I'd add this too. Some players seem to add a unique skill set to whatever team they're on, and success seems to follow them around. I think Noah will be one of those types...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

GB said:


> Well, to be fair, Wallace picked it up in the playoffs, and says now that he was uncomfortable all last season. I'd give that one a season or two more.


Or three. Then the bad contract will be off the books.





> Thats assuming Tyson would play as well in Chicago as he has in NO/Ok. I'm not sure.


Yes, the PaxSkiles approach failed with Tyson. Too bad for the Bulls, in this case. Its clear he’s a very good NBA basketball player.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

GB said:


> I'd add this too. Some players seem to add a unique skill set to whatever team they're on, and success seems to follow them around. I think Noah will be one of those types...


After 2 NBA preseason games, I'll reserve judgement on this one.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Thats assuming Tyson would play as well in Chicago as he has in NO/Ok. I'm not sure. I think the change of scenery is big here. It would be a great trade for Chicago because Noah adds so much more versatility to the offense than Tyson does. He can push it, pass it, and it looks like he'll be a good rebounder too.
> 
> I'd add this too. Some players seem to add a unique skill set to whatever team they're on, and success seems to follow them around. I think Noah will be one of those types...


all as stated above and i'd bet it won't be *seven years *into his career.:yay:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> all as stated above and i'd bet it won't be *seven years *into his career.:yay:


High school player.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Yes. And it makes the PJ Brown for Tyson trade sickening, especially given the average play of the twice as expensive Ben Wallace.


So if we kept Tyson, chances are we wouldn't be able to resign both Gordon and Deng. Or if we didn't have Wallace, we certainly would not be as good of a team. You cannot run an offense through Tyson. That is a big deal that shouldn't be glossed over. Wallace's importance is more than rebounds per game or points per game.

Things accomplished with Wallace as our starting center:
1. Playoffs series win
2. Improved win total from 41 to 49
3. Improved offense from 97.9 ppg to 98.8 ppg (I thought Wallace was an offensive drain?)
4. Improved defense from 97.2 ppg to 93.8 ppg
5. Improved point differential from +0.7 to +5.0

Impact on Detroit without Wallace as their starting center:
1. Win total dropped from 64 to 53
2. Point differential dropped from +6.6 to +4.2
3. Offense decreased from 96.8 ppg to 96.0 ppg (I thought Wallace was an offensive drain???)
4. Defense decreased from 90.2 ppg to 91.8 ppg

Impact on New Orleans with Tyson as their starting center:
1. Win total increase from 38 to 39
2. Still didn't make the playoffs
3. Defense decreased from 95.6 ppg to 97.1 ppg (what a defensive presence!!!)
4. Offense increased from 92.8 ppg to 95.5 ppg (must be the offensive genius of Tyson)

Tyson's rebounding rate was exactly the same as it was in Chicago, he simply played more minutes. Tyson's "improvement" is greatly exaggerated. He moved to a team that played him 35 minutes a night and didn't care. He didn't help us win, that's why he played the minutes he played.

He doesn't have the intangibles to lead his team to become a winner in this league (he might in the future, but doesn't right now). There is 0% chance this team improves with Tyson over Wallace.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Philomath said:


> The trade for TC and his trade away from here were very big strategic moves for the organization, the pros and cons are still being worked out, and they depend on what he becomes as a player.


No, they depend on what his replacements in the same spot within the team and the organization become.

So far, neither the fans nor the media are crying foul. Not the majority anyway.


As for the thread, it's stayed on-topic and civil, so it's ok for as long as it's like that.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Or three. Then the bad contract will be off the books.


It's not a bad contract as long as he's productive. Overpaid is arguable. Bad is just wrong.






kukoc4ever said:


> Yes, the PaxSkiles approach failed with Tyson.


If thats true, then they've still been right anywhere from 70% to 85% of the time. I can't fault them for that percentage, and that assuming that it was their approach that failed.

I'd actually say Tyson deserves as big or bigger a share of the blame too.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Or if we didn't have Wallace, we certainly would not be as good of a team.


Perhaps, but given that we didn't accomplish anything of note last season, who cares?

Wallace is on the decline. Chandler is young and in his prime, and statistically supuier to Wallace.

Given that the cornerstones of the team are the 22 year old Deng and ultra raw Tyrus, its clear, as it was last year, that this team is built to win at a later date. 

Deng/Tyrus/Chandler 2-3 years from now? ****e. 

Attributing the Bulls success last season to the on-again / off-again, overall iffy play of Wallace is wrong, IMO. The emergence of Deng and Gordon were the main reasons. 

Decent play at the 5 certainly helped, and I can buy that Skiles simply was incapable or unwilling of getting through to Chandler.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

GB said:


> Overpaid is arguable.


I'd like to hear the argument that he's not overpaid.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> High school player.


He underachieved even for a high school bigman while he was a Bull.

The difference in his play in OK and Chi is reflective mostly of his own effort and attitude.



This thread is slipping...


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> the cornerstones of the team are the 22 year old Deng and ultra raw Tyrus


Says you.


Great job ignoring Gordon and Wallace.

EDIT

You even said it in your original post:


> The emergence of Deng and Gordon were the main reasons.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I'd like to hear the argument that he's not overpaid.


Start the thread and state your argument that he is.

Lets keep this one on-topic.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Perhaps, but given that we didn't accomplish anything of note last season, who cares?
> 
> Wallace is on the decline. Chandler is young and in his prime, and statistically supuier to Wallace.


We won 49 games and beat Miami in the playoffs. Both are firsts since the Jordan era. Most Bulls fans would call that "something of note".

Statiscally, our defense improved from 97.2ppg to 93.8ppg. That seems like Wallace is statistically superior in my book.

Also, Wallace is a better defender (team and individual), has more assists, steals, blocks and less turnovers. Again, statistical superiority isn't just total rebounds and total points.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> We won 49 games and beat Miami in the playoffs. Both are firsts since the Jordan era. Most Bulls fans would call that "something of note".


Banners. We need Banners.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Also, Wallace is a better defender (team and individual), has more assists, steals, blocks and less turnovers. Again, statistical superiority isn't just total rebounds and total points.


Maybe you should look at 82games +/- net or Hollinger's PER, too. Chandler in a landslide in the former, significantly in the latter.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Well, for the record the Chandler trade currently stands like this :
NO/Ok -- Chandler
Bulls -- Griffin, (PJ Brown starter for 1 year), JO Curry and Aaron Gray.
Plus Bulls have salary space under the LT threshold to sign Nocioni, Deng, Gordon and Smith.

Obviously the money to sign existing players and Smith is dependent on the general idea that Reinsdorf refuses to play the Luxury tax.

The best player the Bulls got in the trade may very well be Gray. I like this kid -- He's got a better offensive game than Chandler will ever have. The only question is whether he can stay on the floor at the defensive end.

If Gray pans out as a decent 20-25 mpg backup center, I consider the trade a draw.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Banners. We need Banners.


Wow based on that method of evaluation Phoenix, Dallas, Cleveland, Houston all have alot of sole searching to do considering they didn't win the title last year.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> Maybe you should look at 82games +/- net or Hollinger's PER, too. Chandler in a landslide in the former, significantly in the latter.


And watching the 100 games the Bulls played last season, it is clearly obvious we are a much, much, much better team offensively and defensively last year with Wallace instead of Chandler. I expect us to win every game we play now, whereas with Chandler, you would never know what type of contribution you might get.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Wow based on that method of evaluation Phoenix, Dallas, Cleveland, Houston all have alot of sole searching to do considering they didn't win the title last year.


I believe that most teams hang banners for division and conference championships.

That does not change the ultimate goal of winning the NBA championship.

And, yah, I think those teams did do some soul searching. I'm sure Cuban isn't pleased after his 1st round drubbing. There are reasons that the Rockets are firing coaches. Phoenix has to doubt weather their style of ball can win in the playoffs. I don't sense those teams are content with where they are at... and most of them accomplished more than the Bulls.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> High school player.


totally irrelevant, counselor.....OR, can we safely assume his career will be infinitely *shorter?*
if so, then his seven years is quite a long time to just now being projected as a "can be" 20-10 player.....



> Perhaps, but given that we didn't accomplish anything of note last season, who cares?


obviously, you do because these useless, pointless thread seem to be sustained by you.

btw, i guess the past doesn't/can't just "stay in the past"? now does it?


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> High school player.


So it was a poor choice to spend a #2 pick on a guy that seven years later might develop a skill that would make him worthy of being a #2 pick?


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

If Chandler was drafted in the last draft straight out of hs where would he had been? 

I look for Noah to be a 20/10 "eventually."


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> So it was a poor choice to spend a #2 pick on a guy that seven years later might develop a skill that would make him worthy of being a #2 pick?


I'm not a fan of the Brand for Chandler trade. If the org had decided they were not going to MAX out Brand and were building for 2-3 years down the line then Brand for Chandler is far from a terrible trade.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Chandler and Noah will both have difficulties putting up 20 points a night.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> And watching the 100 games the Bulls played last season, it is clearly obvious we are a much, much, much better team offensively and defensively last year with Wallace instead of Chandler. I expect us to win every game we play now, whereas with Chandler, you would never know what type of contribution you might get.


IMHO, per minute, Chandler was better offensively and defensively in 04-05 than Wallace was last year. Chandler is back to that level per minute and beyond, and playing full-time minutes.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> IMHO, per minute, Chandler was better offensively and defensively in 04-05 than Wallace was last year. Chandler is back to that level per minute and beyond, and playing full-time minutes.


I can respect your opinion. We just disagree. Wallace is a winner. He does some things that show up well on the stat sheet and ALOT more things that don't. He brings a cohesiveness and continuity to our team on the defensive and offensive end that just wasn't there when Chandler was our starting center. The guy is just a headsy, intelligent basketball player. Some guy's just know when to get the big play in a game wether its a tipped rebound, a steal, a defensive stop or a huge block to win a close game. Chandler brings very little of that "big time player" ability to the floor despite his 12 rpg and 9 ppg. Wallace is a battle tested championship winner. No amount of PER, stats or anything on a piece of paper will convince me otherwise.

This is why Wallace has finished top 10 in MVP in the league multiple times. Chandler will never come close to this.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> This is why Wallace has finished top 10 in MVP in the league multiple times. Chandler will never come close to this.


chandler is a "patriot" though.......:lol:


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I believe that most teams hang banners for division and conference championships.
> 
> That does not change the ultimate goal of winning the NBA championship.
> 
> And, yah, I think those teams did do some soul searching. I'm sure Cuban isn't pleased after his 1st round drubbing. There are reasons that the Rockets are firing coaches. Phoenix has to doubt weather their style of ball can win in the playoffs. I don't sense those teams are content with where they are at... and most of them accomplished more than the Bulls.


I've always hated the Chandler dump. But it's not like Dallas/Phoenix haven't done the same thing over the years. Saving money has been a big factor in a lot of their decisions. 

Look what we got for Chandler. One season out of PJ. Draft picks that turned into Curry & Gray. By not utilizing PJ's contract at the deadline and instead allowing it to expire, Pax was able to sign Joe Smith for the next two years. I'm assuming we'll be able to keep our core because of this too, but that remains to be seen. 

Let's look at Dallas. They let Steve Nash walk for NOTHING. Zero return for a multiple time MVP. Why? Because they didn't want to pay him. They weren't even able to get a S&T out of it. They dumped Michael Finley for nothing too. Amnesty clause. They couldn't even get an expiring contract & draft picks out of him. 

So to compare we got very little when we dumped Chandler (PJ, Gray, Curry) and that same offseason gave $60M to acquire Ben Wallace.

Dallas gets ZERO COMPENSATION for Nash & Finley, and the year they let Nash walk they decided to use $70M to acquire Erick Dampier.

Nash & Finley > Chandler

PJ, Curry, Gray > Nothing.

Ben Wallace for $60M > Erick Dampier for $70M. 

As for Phoenix, they've been giving away 1st round draft picks for years. It's embarrassing. I thought they went over the line this year by sending Kurt Thomas & TWO future 1st round picks to Seattle in exchange for a trade exception. What the hell kind of move was that? They should have just dumped Kurt Thomas for an expiring at last year's trade deadline. That way they would've saved their money and not have had to give away two 1st rounders in the process. But knowing Phoenix they would've dumped those future 1st rounders on draft night anyway.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Banners. We need Banners.


lougehrig, this means you won your point.

Just in case you didn't realize it.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> OR, can we safely assume his career will be infinitely *shorter?*


There is at least _some_ evidence to support that theory...


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Great post SALO.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Good for Tyson

I'm glad that Byron Scott is managing to knock the Chicago out of him 

Meanwhile in other news Isiah Thomas believes that Eddy Curry and Jamal Crawford will battle it out of the scoring title this season


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I'm not a fan of the Brand for Chandler trade. If the org had decided they were not going to MAX out Brand and were building for 2-3 years down the line then Brand for Chandler is far from a terrible trade.


I was trying to stay away from the Brand part of that deal, as I think everyone on this board agrees was an absolutely horrible deal.

Assuming we had the #2 in that draft (yes, acquired by trading Brand) would it be wise to spend that pick on a guy who seven years down the road might develop into a player we all thought he could be?

Yes, we wasted five years of development time as we traded him away for an expiring. However, at what point do you decide to cut bait or move in a different direction?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> However, at what point do you decide to cut bait or move in a different direction?



Great point.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

The Bulls now have Wallace, Thomas, Smith and Noah manning the 4 & 5 positions.

I'm fine with that.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Yes. And it makes the PJ Brown for Tyson trade sickening, especially given the average play of the twice as expensive Ben Wallace.
> 
> 
> 
> No way. Our win now chances would have been, and would be in the next 1-2 years, improved and Tyson is young enough to be a great player for many years into the future.


Oh please, HOW LONG are we supposed to wait? 

And this whole Wallace/Chandler thing is silly, what Wallace lacked, atleast stat wise, he more than made up for with experience, presence and b-ball iq, all of which Tyson still has NONE of.

Calling him anything NEAR 'great' is one HELL of an overstatement my friend.

He's a very good rebounder and defender but hes just not a very SMART b-ball player, and thats the difference between him and Ben.

I'd take Ben over him AGAIN if I had to, still knowing what we know now about BOTH of them

Noah > Chandler

Tyrus WILL be > Chandler

Good riddens

LOL @ him for trying to get on sportscenter last year for dunking on a Bulls player but MISSING the dunk


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Here's a question:

How many of the top teams in the West would willingly swap their starting PF/C for Tyson straight up?


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Here's a question:
> 
> How many of the top teams in the West would willingly swap their starting PF/C for Tyson straight up?


interesting premise, and though i'm not certain about all these guys' roles on their respective teams (did most of this off the top of my head)

SA Duncan/oberto
Phoenix/ amare/marion/Thomas
Utah/kirilenko/okur
Denver/camby/nene
LA lakers/brown/mihm/bynum
LAclips/Kaman/brand
Seattle/collision/swift/petro/Wilcox
Houston/yao/hayes
Memphis/gasol/Warrick
Sacramento/miller/abdur-rahim
GS/biedrins
Dallas/dampier/nowitzki
Minnesota/Jefferson/blount

MAYBE, just maybe minny takes TC over blount; blount's far more skilled offensively. MAYBE GS takes TC over biedrens, though i think they're pretty equal talent wise, and since biedrens makes less $ that's questionable. houston might plug him in at the 4 over hayes, assuming they don't have any other options, seattle might, considering swift's a big ??, TC's got height but not skill over warrick in memphis. *everybody else is a hell no......*

TC's in the best situation he could be in; let's see how he does. pull up all the stat comparison you like, but that's the way i see it. 20-10 is not only improbable, it's (imo) impossible given TC's skill set.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> interesting premise


Here are the western conference centers last year.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/stats/b...alified=0&conference=Western&year=season_2006


Yao, Amare

Camby, Chandler

The rest


---

Team USA chose Chandler to be a center on its roster.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> MAYBE, just maybe minny takes TC over blount;


:lol: :lol: :lol: 

I had to stop there.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Team USA chose Chandler to be a center on its roster.


default does count for something......when there's no one left to dance with, even the ugliest girls get chosen for the last dance......:biggrin:


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

transplant said:


> The Bulls now have Wallace, Thomas, Smith and Noah manning the 4 & 5 positions.
> 
> I'm fine with that.


Yes. Thank you. Amen. :clap2:


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Here are the western conference centers last year.
> 
> http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/stats/b...alified=0&conference=Western&year=season_2006
> 
> ...


To repeat:
How many of the top *teams* in the West?

Would Phoenix, Utah, San Antonio, Houston, etc...trade their top center or power forward for Chandler?

Would the GM do it quickly and decisively?

How many?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

GB said:


> Would Phoenix, Utah, San Antonio, Houston, etc...trade their top center or power forward for Chandler?


And this is relevant, how?


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

I can't believe you guys are still at this, the relevance of this thread died like 2 years ago.

Just be happy we got this slick stud on our roster.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

transplant said:


> The Bulls now have Wallace, Thomas, Smith and Noah manning the 4 & 5 positions.
> 
> I'm fine with that.


You forgot Gray. He'll make the team, and even play a bit. Six years from now (the Chandler incubation period) he'll be a solid member of the rotation.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

The question now is Chandler vs. Gray. Who will be better? That will ultimately decide the trade. The big man rotation will be three men in the future (posthumous Wallace), with a few minutes at powerforward for Nocioni. Who would be making better use of those minutes, Gray or Chandler?

So far this preseason:

Aaron Gray: 12.0 PPG 8.0 RPG .5 APG 0 BPG 0 SPG in 19 MPG.
Tyson Chandler: 14.0 PPG 9.0 RPG .5 APG 1.0 BPG 2.0 SPG 23 MPG.

Per 40:

Aaron Gray: 25.3 PPG 16.8 RPG 1.1 APG 
Tyson Chandler: 24.3 PPG 15.7 RPG 0.9 APG 1.7 BPG 3.5 SPG

I think we still could come out even, or ahead on this trade. But that is because of the many idiot gm's that passed on Gray (GM luck to have him fall to him by Paxson), and not GM smarts. 

Gray is better than Chandler offensively, as you can pass it into him on a post up. Chandler doesn't post up. Gray is a slightly better rebounder. Chandler is a hell of a lot better of a defender (but Gray is just a rookie). 

Thank God for Aaron Gray!


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

Mebarak said:


> The question now is Chandler vs. Gray. Who will be better? That will ultimately decide the trade.


So the $47M we have to pay Chandler over the next 4 seasons (especially the $13.4M in 2010/2011, when Tyrus is due for extension) doesn't factor into this? Paxson has done a great job in expiring Wallace's contract just in time to resign Tyrus and in the interim allowing us to resign Deng and Gordon (or trade him or whatever).

Same goes for the trade argument (Would every top team in the West trade for Tyson?). The answer is no because every top team in the West is near the luxury tax and would rather pay Luis Scola $3M per season or Oberto $3M per season or we wouldn't except the likes of Dampier and his hideous contract or Diaw and his hideous contract in return. 

I don't see how we could have traded Chandler to any team and gotten good young valuable players in return or anything else. Trading him for expiring contract was the best move. Trade him to Minnesota? Minnesota got Ratliff's expiring contract plus Gomes, Jefferson, Green. I don't see how we could have beat that. Tyson and Deng? Jefferson = Deng, plus they got the expiring contracts for free agency.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Ultimately, if the Hornet gives Chandler enough touches to score 20ppg, they will have a losing season. The guy just does not have the smarts, the hands, or the skills to handle the ball that often without disrupting the team offense and giving too many opportunities to the opponents.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

TC 20 pts per game

:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: 
:yay: :yay: :yay: :yay: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: 

Is hell frezing over.

dg


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Mebarak said:


> The question now is Chandler vs. Gray. Who will be better? That will ultimately decide the trade. The big man rotation will be three men in the future (posthumous Wallace), with a few minutes at powerforward for Nocioni. Who would be making better use of those minutes, Gray or Chandler?
> 
> So far this preseason:
> 
> ...


Quoted for posterity.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

20 and 10? I don't see how Tyson is ever going to grab 20 boards a game.


----------



## Smez86 (Jun 29, 2006)

such sweet thunder said:


> 20 and 10? I don't see how Tyson is ever going to grab 20 boards a game.


Or block 10 shots.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

such sweet thunder said:


> 20 and 10? I don't see how Tyson is ever going to grab 20 boards a game.


hehehe...

I think you're deliberately misreading. It's 20 assists and 10 steals.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Smez86 said:


> Or block 10 shots.



Thats just plain beautiful.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

You know what... I hadn't actually read the article, but I saw almost the same thing again by Smith, but with an added bit:



> Here's a sight no one ever expected to see: When *Tyson Chandler* got the ball in the post in a win over the Suns on Saturday night,* the Suns dropped a double team on him*.


Talking is one thing, but when you see other teams actually treating him as a threat, well, that's something else.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

20/10: 20 FTA, 10 made.

Seems we have a project player who might do that, too.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> You know what... I hadn't actually read the article, but I saw almost the same thing again by Smith, but with an added bit:
> 
> 
> 
> Talking is one thing, but when you see other teams actually treating him as a threat, well, that's something else.



I wonder how well he passed out of it.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Passing was never a problem for him, catching on the other hand...


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> You know what... I hadn't actually read the article, but I saw almost the same thing again by Smith, but with an added bit:
> 
> 
> 
> Talking is one thing, but when you see other teams actually treating him as a threat, well, that's something else.



And who were the NBA studs playing against him that night?


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Passing was never a problem for him



Yes it was. Compile in your mind 5 Tyson Chandler assists.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Sham said:


> Yes it was. Compile in your mind 5 Tyson Chandler assists.


FWIW, Chandler had some great passes to Curry back in the day.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> FWIW, Chandler had some great passes to Curry back in the day.


great might be a bit generous but, this is true; i recall some rudimentary high-low passes down to curry from chandler at the high post. high school plays, but executed well to some extent by TC nonetheless. guess he's on his way to that 20-10.......


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> FWIW, Chandler had some great passes to Curry back in the day.


Yup... he always seemed fairly capable of delivering the ball to someone else. Not Tim Duncan or anything, but was certainly competent.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

I wonder how long it will take for Hilton Armstrong to replace Tyson in the starting line-up. Hilton has had a couple of very strong pre-season outings. Could "Captain USA" become "First Hornet off the Bench"?


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Wynn said:


> I wonder how long it will take for Hilton Armstrong to replace Tyson in the starting line-up. Hilton has had a couple of very strong pre-season outings. Could "Captain USA" become "First Hornet off the Bench"?


Which brings us to a very important point:

Has there ever been a better pornstar name than Hilton Armstrong? Ponder that.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

such sweet thunder said:


> Which brings us to a very important point:
> 
> Has there ever been a better pornstar name than Hilton Armstrong? Ponder that.


It certainly belongs up there with Brock Landers and Reed Chestwell


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

truth be told i see tyson finally fullfilling his promise and at least most of his potential, why that bothers some posters is a mystery to me....but to each there own.

i dont see tyson getting 20 and 10 this season maybe 15-16 and 13 to me seems more fair , with excellent defense, if people want to credit chris paul for this be my guess but i didn't see so much from PJ brown as a hornet , especially near the hoop.

i also take such comments as a backhanded swipe at kirk...like he couldn't have gotten tyson the ball when i feel he is a pretty decent facilitator and passer, also tyson got about the same production(double double) as a bull the 3 months before skiles became coach , which basically means the bulls chose wrong when it came to point guards because jamal crawford was the point guard for most of that.

i honestly just think it comes down to gameplanning and people management.

scott instills confidence in chandler as cartwright had done before skiles and both made it a point to make tyson feel involved in the offense, the result of this is less forced action from chandler , he stays focused and involved, and *he catches the ball better *, you dont learn to catch at 24, after a certain age much younger than that either you can catch or you cant.

the nba is full of talented players who dont get the chance or dont become the players their talent says they should be, I dont think its very likely you can excel to the point where you are among the top 400 in your profession while being lazy, i think sometimes you dont get the results you aim for and sometimes the the opportunities aren't there.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Wynn said:


> I wonder how long it will take for Hilton Armstrong to replace Tyson in the starting line-up. Hilton has had a couple of very strong pre-season outings. Could "Captain USA" become "First Hornet off the Bench"?


I doubt it, but if it happens, then NO will have 2 centers that are better than anything the Bulls have.



Da Grinch said:


> truth be told i see tyson finally fullfilling his promise and at least most of his potential, *why that bothers some posters is a mystery to me.*...but to each there own.


I'm not sure it's a mystery, but it sure is interesting. There also seems to be some group amnesia about how effective this guy was in 04-05.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> I'm not sure it's a mystery, but it sure is interesting. There also seems to be some group amnesia about how effective this guy was in 04-05.


seeing as now the deal stands at aaron gray(who does look like he'll have a nice future in the league) and jamesOn curry for chandler i wish i had amnesia or a do over


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

such sweet thunder said:


> Has there ever been a better pornstar name than Hilton Armstrong? Ponder that.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> truth be told i see tyson finally fullfilling his promise and at least most of his potential, why that bothers some posters is a mystery to me....but to each there own.
> 
> i dont see tyson getting 20 and 10 this season maybe 15-16 and 13 to me seems more fair , with excellent defense, if people want to credit chris paul for this be my guess but i didn't see so much from PJ brown as a hornet , especially near the hoop.
> 
> ...




[strike]Someone please take the broken record off the turntable. 

What a rambling, circular post.[/strike] I don't even know where to begin.

Cartwright, Crawford, and Chandler. 

So Chandler couldn't *catch* when he played with the Bulls because Skiles hadn't instilled enough confidence in him? :laugh:

How much coddling does this guy need?

And what could possibly indicate to you that Chandler could go from averaging 9.5 and 12.4 last season to 16 and 13 this season?

_Talk about the ideas, and not so much about how they're expressed. Thanks. --GB_


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> I'm not sure it's a mystery, but it sure is interesting. There also seems to be some group amnesia about how effective this guy was in 04-05.


While I will admit Chandler had a good season (for him) in 04-05 and had a positive impact on the team, it's not like he was setting the world on fire.

But let's see here, he played most of his games that season under Skiles. By Da Grinch's twisted logic, Skiles must have been instilling enough confidence in him in that season, but stopped instilling confidence in him during the 05-06 season.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

> also tyson got about the same production(double double) as a bull the 3 months before skiles became coach , which basically means the bulls chose wrong when it came to point guards because jamal crawford was the point guard for most of that.


Or, it means Tyson fell on a chair, really hurt himself, and set his development back about a season.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

The Truth said:


> While I will admit Chandler had a good season *(for him)* in 04-05 and had a positive impact on the team, *it's not like he was setting the world on fire.*


Seems like you have ammnesia, too. FWIF, John Hollinger called him best 6th man in basketball that season and said it was a travesty that Ben Gordon got the nod. Paxson gave him $60M after that season.



The Truth said:


> But let's see here, he played most of his games that season under Skiles. By Da Grinch's twisted logic, Skiles must have been instilling enough confidence in him in that season, but stopped instilling confidence in him during the 05-06 season.



Pretty twisted logic? Seems pretty obvious that a coach's opinion of his player's offensive worth is going to effect his performance.


----------

