PDA

View Full Version : JO to Bulls for Chandler, Gordon & No 2 pick?



Unclebuck
06-27-2006, 08:58 AM
This is from CNNSI, just a rumor. But this is a trade I think I would do. I'm posting this more for discussion purproses then as an actual rumor that I think will happen


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/marty_burns/06/26/draft.preview/index.html

Talk isn't always cheap
Uncertainty surrounding top draft pick spurs rumors
Posted: Updated: Monday June 26, 2006 12:19PM




The NBA Draft is three days away, and there is still no clear-cut answer as to who will be the top pick. Andrea Bargnani? LaMarcus Aldridge? Adam Morrison?

Meanwhile, the rumor mill is churning out some pretty big names as possible draft night trade bait: Shawn Marion, Rashard Lewis, Kevin Garnett, Jermaine O'Neal.

At this point it's difficult to know which GMs and player personnel types are telling the truth and which are blowing smoke. But the uncertainty should make for a fun few days leading up to Wednesday night's main event (7 p.m. ET/ESPN).

"I don't think anybody knows what's going to happen," says one Western Conference GM who wished to remain anonymous. "Usually by now we have a good feel for who's going to be the top guy. But this year there are three or four players who could go No. 1, or that same player could slide down to six or seven."

Adding to the fun are the inevitable trade rumors. Marion has been mentioned in a possible deal with the Sonics for Lewis, and with the Bulls for Tyson Chandler. Other reports have the Bulls packaging Chandler, Ben Gordon and the No. 2 pick to the Wolves for Garnett or to the Pacers for O'Neal.

Could any of these happen? Don't bet on it. There's an old saying in the NBA, "usually the trades you hear about are the ones that don't happen." Also, there is a lot of misinformation coming from GMs this time of year.

Take the proposed Suns-Sonics deal. The idea behind the trade is that the Suns are looking to shed the remainder of Marion's contract (three years, $49.3 million) so that they will have the flexibility to re-sign Boris Diaw and Leandro Barbosa to extensions later this summer. Lewis, it could be argued, would be a good replacement in the Suns' system, and a cheap one too.

However, in order for the deal to work under league trade rules, the Sonics would have to include the expiring contract of Danny Fortson. Yes, the same Danny Fortson who once sued Suns chairman Jerry Colangelo for "defamation" after the longtime executive complained about his physical play (Fortson, as a member of the Mavericks, had broken the hand of Suns forward Zarko Cabarkapa with a hard foul). It's hard to believe Colangelo would sign off on that one.

The Raptors may have eyes for Adam Morrison on draft night after dealing for Rasho Nesterovic, according to one scout.

As for the proposed Marion-Chandler deal, it, too, smells fishy. Both Suns GM/coach Mike D'Antoni and Bulls GM John Paxson have vehemently denied it. The Suns surely would want more for an All-Star like Marion than a one-way player like Chandler and an unproven draft pick. Phoenix might be tempted if the Bulls threw in Gordon, but Chicago is unlikely to do that. The Bulls need a big man to take the next step, and Marion would not provide that dimension.

Garnett or O'Neal makes more sense for the Bulls, but neither is realistic. The T'wolves insist they aren't going to trade Garnett, while the Pacers would be loathe to deal O'Neal to a division rival. There is also a rumor going around that Chicago plans to draft Tyrus Thomas for another team (Minnesota GM Kevin McHale is said to covet the young LSU forward), but one has to believe it would take a lot more than Chandler, Gordon and the rights to Thomas to pry KG from the T'wolves.

As for who will be the No. 1 overall pick, the Raptors are still playing coy. Toronto GM Bryan Colangelo apparently intends to wait until the last minute to see what kind of deal he can get. With no clear cut No. 1 player, he might trade down a spot or two and still get the guy he wants, along with a sweetener.

Bargnani had been considered the likely No. 1 for the Raptors. The 6-foot-10 Italian forward fits Colangelo's vision of building Toronto into a high-octane, internationally-flavored team. The Raptors recently hired the GM from Bargnani's Italian League team, Maurizio Gherardini, to be Colangelo's assistant.

But in reality the Gherardini hiring was in the works long before the Raptors snatched the top pick in the draft lottery. Also, at least one veteran Western Conference scout believes Toronto's acquisition last week of center Rasho Nesterovic in a trade with the Spurs signals their intent to go with Morrison.

"[Colangelo] wants to play like Phoenix," says the scout. "With Nesterovic, he now has enough size. If he takes Morrison, he can go small with [Chris] Bosh at the 5 and [Charlie] Villanueva at the 4 and Mo Pete [Morris Peterson] at shooting guard.

If the Raptors do draft the 'Stache (as fans like to call the mustachioed Morrison), it could get hairy for the rest of the teams at the top. The Bulls suddenly would have to decide between Bargnani, who fits in well with their system, or Aldridge, who fits their need for a big man. Or they could go with Thomas (to set up that trade with another team?) or Brandon Roy (to fill their need for a bigger guard).

With the No. 3 pick, the Bobcats would then have to decide between Bargnani/Aldridge, Roy or Rudy Gay. When Aldridge, Roy and Thomas all pulled out of Bobcats workouts last week, citing minor injuries, some around the league took it as a sign that Charlotte had already decided on Morrison or Gay. With Morrison out of the picture, the Bobcats then presumably would go with Gay. But with Michael Jordan now calling the shots, Charlotte's intentions might have changed in the past week.

Other teams said to be active on the trade front are the Rockets, trying to move up from No. 8 (possibly to draft Roy) and the Sixers, trying to move down from No. 13.

The Cavs, meanwhile, are said to be interested in Texas point guard Daniel Gibson at No. 25. Cavs GM Danny Ferry and assistant Lance Blanks reportedly know Gibson well from their Spurs days, and they need a playmaking point guard who can shoot from outside.

Will any of these moves come to pass? Who knows? There are still three days left, and any one move could create a domino effect that changes the picture at the top.

Steve McQueen
06-27-2006, 09:17 AM
If we could get LaMarcus Aldridge #2, I'd do it.

Jamaal Tinsley
Ben Gordon
Danny Granger
LaMarcus Aldridge
Tyson Chandler

And then we'd still have Peja to move for most likely a young point guard upgrade, and then Hulk is still a nice young center.

Great young team, sky high potential.

Anthem
06-27-2006, 09:20 AM
Wow, that's a pretty good deal.

This is the first JO trade I'd seriously consider.

Tim
06-27-2006, 09:22 AM
Wow, that's a pretty good deal.

This is the first JO trade I'd seriously consider.

You really want Chandler?

D-BONE
06-27-2006, 09:22 AM
If we could get LaMarcus Aldridge #2, I'd do it.

Jamaal Tinsley
Ben Gordon
Danny Granger
LaMarcus Aldridge
Tyson Chandler

And then we'd still have Peja to move for most likely a young point guard upgrade, and then Hulk is still a nice young center.

Great young team, sky high potential.

Absolutely agree. However, it seems too good to be true. How certain could we be that we'd get Aldridge?

Looking at that line-up + Harrison, I'm thinking we've still got several other guys we could still talk about moving if we want/need to do it. (AJ, Cro, Jack, Foster, and I'd even maintain JT there).

I don't think I'll hold my breath for this one.

Unclebuck
06-27-2006, 09:24 AM
If this were to happen, then we could trade Jeff Foster, because Chandler is just a little better version of Foster.

YES I'd love to have Chandler.

I don't think the Bulls would do this trade for JO. They would want something more

Anthem
06-27-2006, 09:36 AM
I don't think the Bulls would do this trade for JO. They would want something more
Trade picks?

FrenchConnection
06-27-2006, 09:36 AM
When I first read the trade idea, I liked it but after taking a closer look I really think that we had better not do this. You would start a second year player in Danny who still has a lot to prove (I like him a lot, but you cannot tell me that you see all star), a rookie in Aldridge, a streaky shooter in Gordon and a semi-bust in Chandler? You also have Tinsley in the starting line-up. For all but 20 games, you had better pencil AJ in there. There is not a 20ppg scorer in that mix. Maybe Gordon could be, but then again Jack could be as well given enough shots. Can you say lottery? It would be even worse if the Raps take Aldridge and we were left with Thomas, a one year college phenom.

Now I will always be a fan of the Pacers, but that team would be worse than the Hawks were last year. And given the relationship between the league and the Pacers, what do you think the chances of the Pacers winning the Oden sweepstakes would be? I would venture slim to none.

Chauncey
06-27-2006, 09:39 AM
If I'm TPTB, I'd make that deal 20 times if I had 19 opportunities.

Unclebuck
06-27-2006, 09:49 AM
. And given the relationship between the league and the Pacers, what do you think the chances of the Pacers winning the Oden sweepstakes would be? I would venture slim to none.


wow

Shade
06-27-2006, 09:52 AM
Dear God, make it stop!!!!! :suicide3:

D-BONE
06-27-2006, 09:57 AM
When I first read the trade idea, I liked it but after taking a closer look I really think that we had better not do this. You would start a second year player in Danny who still has a lot to prove (I like him a lot, but you cannot tell me that you see all star), a rookie in Aldridge, a streaky shooter in Gordon and a semi-bust in Chandler? You also have Tinsley in the starting line-up. For all but 20 games, you had better pencil AJ in there. There is not a 20ppg scorer in that mix. Maybe Gordon could be, but then again Jack could be as well given enough shots. Can you say lottery? It would be even worse if the Raps take Aldridge and we were left with Thomas, a one year college phenom.

Now I will always be a fan of the Pacers, but that team would be worse than the Hawks were last year. And given the relationship between the league and the Pacers, what do you think the chances of the Pacers winning the Oden sweepstakes would be? I would venture slim to none.

To me it would be more like an accelerated rebuilding. The inexperience would hurt and probably mean a couple years of mediocre play. Missing the post season could be a possibility, but one or two years tops.

I think beyond that you've got a team that could develop into a legitimate threat in a relatively small window with some continued solid personnel moves. It would also be an admission that the blueprint of the JO/Ron era has been scrapped, which might actually be the path we eventually head down anyway.

UB, I would have to think the Bulls would want more than just JO and I wouldn't want to sacrifice much more than Anthem's suggested 17th pick. Another question is would RC be a good fit for this type of reconstruction?

Whatever the case, I still think this idea is too fantasyland. I find it hard to fathom the Bulls even entertaining the idea.

FrenchConnection
06-27-2006, 10:03 AM
wow

It was a joke. Sorry, I always forget to add the smiley faces. But it is a risky proposition to tank a season to get a draft pick. The Blazers had the worst record in the league and what do they get? The fourth pick.

But I am surprised that all of you would do a trade that would mean not only a single step back, but a large step back into the lottery. I also like Tyson Chandler for what he has become, but essentially trading a 20/10 big man for a draft pick in a bad draft, a guy that had 9/7 in his best year in the league (Chandler) and a combo guard seems like a bad move to me. Unless you can get a scoring big man, you do not trade JO.

Unclebuck
06-27-2006, 10:10 AM
If this trade or something similar took place it is unfair to judge it on how good the Pacers would be next season. Obviously the Pacers would be better next season if they kept JO and re-signed Peja, but what about two to four years from now. That is how you have to look at this. If the Pacers make the right trade involving JO and Peja, and get something good for JT and Jax, we might really have something in 3 years. If nothing else we would know if Bird has a clue

FrenchConnection
06-27-2006, 10:17 AM
To me it would be more like an accelerated rebuilding. The inexperience would hurt and probably mean a couple years of mediocre play. Missing the post season could be a possibility, but one or two years tops.

I think beyond that you've got a team that could develop into a legitimate threat in a relatively small window with some continued solid personnel moves. It would also be an admission that the blueprint of the JO/Ron era has been scrapped, which might actually be the path we eventually head down anyway.

UB, I would have to think the Bulls would want more than just JO and I wouldn't want to sacrifice much more than Anthem's suggested 17th pick. Another question is would RC be a good fit for this type of reconstruction?

Whatever the case, I still think this idea is too fantasyland. I find it hard to fathom the Bulls even entertaining the idea.

I don't think that the Pacers would entertain the idea and I think that the Bulls would be crazy not to take this trade. The Bulls with JO, Nocioni, and Deng would be really good. And not to mention that we would have let them out of the final piece of that terrible draft day when they traded Brand for Chandler and Curry. You think that JO is overpaid? Take a look at Chandler. He averages more than 10 million in the second year of a 6 year contract and he has yet to score 10 ppg.


If this trade or something similar took place it is unfair to judge it upon how good the Pacers would be next season. Obviously the Pacers would be better next season if they kept JO re-signed Peja, but what about two to four years from now. That is how you have to look at this

I think that Tyson Chandler, much like Kwame Brown, has proven himself to be a very good interior defender and rebounder, but not much else. And for those of you thinking about making the "J.O. wasn't much until he came here" argument, Chandler has had plenty of minutes to prove his worth and develop his offensive game in Chicago. I like Chandler, but not at $10 million per for four years. I also like Ben Gordon, but I am afraid that if we take on 2/5 of the Bulls starting lineup we would be more like them than like a contending team, both now and in the next 4-5 years, especially because Hinrich is a better PG than any player that we could play at that position and Nocioni provides outside shooting that we would not have.

Now that I think of it, if they could find a way to make it work with Nocioni in place of Chandler I would like that much better. I am sure that the money does not match, but that would be much better.

Unclebuck
06-27-2006, 10:18 AM
I didn't realize Chandler just signed a 6 year $64 million dollar deal 9/05. So he has 5 years left. That is a little steep. Maybe the Bulls would do this trade. Maybe the Pacers could get something more from the Bulls.

Chandler will never be much of a scorer, but his defense and rebounding is Ben Wallace like. If Chandler could stay healthy which is a big if, I think his contract is fine. One thing I love about Chandler is his attitude and how hard he plays.


I'd kill to get Hinrich, but I think he's pretty much untouchable, I also would love to have Nocioni and Deng.

D-BONE
06-27-2006, 10:19 AM
You think that JO is overpaid. Take a look at Chandler. He averages more than 10 million in the second year of a 6 year contract and he has yet to score 10 ppg.

Can't argue that. Good point. Definitely makes me rethink some.

However, the crux of the argument for this trade is envisioning Aldridge, Harrison, and Chandler as a rotation at the 4/5 spots a couple years down the road. Throw in DG and his rebounding, shotblocking, and athletic ability and I think you're talking about a seriously intimidating front line.

Yes there would be some risk involved and still some moves need to shore up the backcourt but Gordon helps there.

FrenchConnection
06-27-2006, 10:21 AM
I didn't realize Chandler just signed a 6 year $64 million dollar deal 9/05. So he has 5 years left. That is a little steep. Maybe the Bulls would do this trade. Maybe the Pacers could get something more from the Bulls.
Even worse than I thought. I thought that he only had four years left. If you are going to pay a player that much money, he at least has to contribute at the offensive end. Maybe they could get Nocioni.

Steve McQueen
06-27-2006, 10:21 AM
Nocioni provides outside shooting that we would not have.
Peja, Gordon, Croshere? Even Granger has shown signs of becoming a great 3-point shooter.

FrenchConnection
06-27-2006, 10:24 AM
I didn't realize Chandler just signed a 6 year $64 million dollar deal 9/05. So he has 5 years left. That is a little steep. Maybe the Bulls would do this trade. Maybe the Pacers could get something more from the Bulls.


I'd kill to get Hinrich, but I think he's pretty much untouchable, I also would love to have Nocioni and Deng.

At that rate, let's just call ourselves the Indiana Bulls. Lets just swap rosters and get this over with.:D


Peja, Gordon, Croshere?

I thought that it was a foregone conclusion that Peja is not going to be resigned if this trade goes down. I thought the idea was to accelerate Danny's progression by starting him. I do think that Croshere would begin the season in the starting lineup, but we get really soft in the front line.

Unclebuck
06-27-2006, 10:27 AM
Even worse than I thought. I thought that he only had four years left. If you are going to pay a player that much money, he at least has to contribute at the offensive end. Maybe they could get Nocioni.


But aren't there players who make more than 10 million who don't contribute on the defensive end. I don't see the difference.

Steve McQueen
06-27-2006, 10:27 AM
I thought that it was a foregone conclusion that Peja is not going to be resigned if this trade goes down. I thought the idea was to accelerate Danny's progression by starting him. I do think that Croshere would begin the season in the starting lineup, but we get really soft in the front line.
Why let Peja go? Why not sign him and trade him? There are some nice point guard out there I know we could land with Peja as the main bait.

SoupIsGood
06-27-2006, 10:30 AM
Well, if we drafted Aldridge and Rondo at 17 then, we could do this

Chandler/Alrdidge/Granger/Gordon/Rondo or Harrison/Alrdidge/Granger/Gordon/Rondo

I'd rather keep JO though. I don't think LaMarcus will be that good.

rexnom
06-27-2006, 10:37 AM
I love this trade but I don't think it will happen. Reason being...we heard about it.

It's a pity too because the trade makes sense. The Bulls get their post player, give up a big contract, settle their backcourt issues and we get put on the fast track to rebuilding.


There's an old saying in the NBA, "usually the trades you hear about are the ones that don't happen."

QFT

Fool
06-27-2006, 10:45 AM
How true can that saying be when its certainly the case that we hear about every single trade that does go through?

Suaveness
06-27-2006, 10:49 AM
Trust me, you don't want Chandler. He's just not that good.

Trader Joe
06-27-2006, 10:56 AM
KEEP JO. We cannot afford to take on a contract like Chandler and then win only 30 games next year.

ChicagoJ
06-27-2006, 11:17 AM
Tyson's Chicken? :puke:

Just because that wimp makes Jon Bender look durable doesn't mean anything.

$10 million a year for "a little better than Jeff Foster"!?!? No f'ing way.

He's an albatross on cap space, and he isn't much of a basketball player. And the back injury may even be legit.

If Reggie Miller can you knock you silly with by stripping the ball from above, you just aren't very tough. I don't care if that was the first game in his career or not...

(And I loved when Tyson was pitching a fit after he got back up - demanding a foul on Reggie - and Ronnie Garretson said to him, "Rookie, you just got clobbered by Reggie Miller, welcome to the NBA.")

W-U-S-S.

I'm only interested in two players on the Bulls: Duhon and Gordon. I saw in the print edition of the Tribune that Duhon is nearly recovered from his back surgery. I'd take a chance on him in a smaller deal (SJax?)

FrenchConnection
06-27-2006, 11:23 AM
Tyson's Chicken? :puke:

Just because that wimp makes Jon Bender look durable doesn't mean anything.

$10 million a year for "a little better than Jeff Foster"!?!? No f'ing way.

He's an albatross on cap space, and he isn't much of a basketball player. And the back injury may even be legit.

If Reggie Miller can you knock you silly with by stripping the ball from above, you just aren't very tough. I don't care if that was the first game in his career or not...

(And I loved when Tyson was pitching a fit after he got back up - demanding a foul on Reggie - and Ronnie Garretson said to him, "Rookie, you just got clobbered by Reggie Miller, welcome to the NBA.")

W-U-S-S.

I'm only interested in two players on the Bulls: Duhon and Gordon. I saw in the print edition of the Tribune that Duhon is nearly recovered from his back surgery. I'd take a chance on him in a smaller deal (SJax?)

I thought I was on an island with my negative reaction to this deal. I also like Deng and Nocioni, but not in any deals for JO. You don't trade a 20/10 big man unless you get something of that sort in return.

Mushmouth
06-27-2006, 11:26 AM
I want no part of Chandler and his negative offensive skills. Nor his contract. But Gordon and the #2 is a good start.


We'll see tho, I just find it hard to believe we'd trade JO into our own division to a team that is a player or two away from being a very good/playoff good team.


Tyson's Chicken? :puke:

Just because that wimp makes Jon Bender look durable doesn't mean anything.

$10 million a year for "a little better than Jeff Foster"!?!? No f'ing way.

He's an albatross on cap space, and he isn't much of a basketball player. And the back injury may even be legit.


Ding-Ding-Ding!

I have the Foster vs. Chandler argument all the time with a couple of my Bull's fan friends. Other than smacking the boards more often, Chandler does not outperform Foster. They've both had some injuries, both great offensive rebounders and not much else. Chandler blocks shots, but is not a great straight-up defender. I'll take Foster and his contract over Chandler and his contract any day.

ChicagoJ
06-27-2006, 12:07 PM
Trust me, you don't want Chandler. He's just not that good.


Tyson's Chicken? :puke:



I want no part of Chandler...

Just waiting for Isaac - but right it is unanimous from the Chicago contingent.

Slick Pinkham
06-27-2006, 12:14 PM
Yeah people are focusing too much on the Chandler part of the trade.

I think within 3 years Gordon will average 20 ppg. Add Tyrus Thomas or Aldridge or Barganini with the #2 pick, and I think you can live with Chandler being overpaid and only a slight upgrade over Foster.

This trade is too good to be true, frankly.

CableKC
06-27-2006, 12:20 PM
I doubt the Bulls do this....and if they do....I would much rather go to McHale then go to Bird to move Chandler, Gordon and the #2 pick for KG.

Other then injury concerns about Chandler....yes...I would do this deal in a second.

Where do I sign?

We maybe rebuilding....but this is a much better team to build on then anything else that has been "rumored".

Jermaniac
06-27-2006, 12:28 PM
Trade sucks. I like Gordon though, Chandler sucks.

Peck
06-27-2006, 01:03 PM
I'd do this trade in a heartbeat.

I think I'm just ready to move on to the next version of the Pacers though, so I am really not as opposed to trading O'Neal as many of you are.

Gordan is a good player, I don't love Chandler but I don't hate him either & whoever we get with the # 2 pick would be ok.

The faster we get away from the offense I've seen for the last three years the happier I will be & IMO as long as O'Neal is on the team you will always have to go through him on the offense.

grace
06-27-2006, 01:08 PM
YES I'd love to have Chandler.

Have you watched him play? I suppose maybe if Chuck works with him he'll get better. All Norm Van Lear ever says is the Bulls need to get a big man coach to work with him. Norm always suggests Stacey King. Of course that might be because they work together on the pregame shows.

CableKC
06-27-2006, 01:11 PM
Have you watched him play? I suppose maybe if Chuck works with him he'll get better. All Norm Van Lear ever says is the Bulls need to get a big man coach to work with him. Norm always suggests Stacey King. Of course that might be because they work together on the pregame shows.
Considering that his strengths are rebouding, shotblocking and providing solid interior defense......if he can score a couple of baskets now and then...given the # of shooters/scorers that our team will likely have.....I'm not going to be too concerned about his offense. He will either improve what little offensive game he has....or be he will ( at least ) be what he is better suited to be....a defensive roleplayer.

FrenchConnection
06-27-2006, 01:14 PM
Yeah people are focusing too much on the Chandler part of the trade.

I think within 3 years Gordon will average 20 ppg. Add Tyrus Thomas or Aldridge or Barganini with the #2 pick, and I think you can live with Chandler being overpaid and only a slight upgrade over Foster.

This trade is too good to be true, frankly.

I don't like the trade (as I have made abuntantly clear), but if Bargnani were to be available at #2 then I would have to do it. This kid will be special in a few years and will be worth the wait. I don't think much of Thomas and I think that Aldridge will be more like Chandler than JO because he is soft under the basket. I just assume that Bargnani will go #1. And to those who say that Chicago should turn to Minnesota for KG, I don't think that the Wolves are going to trade KG. So JO is probably the most likely quality big man to be traded, and at that I don't think that he will be.

Jermaniac
06-27-2006, 01:17 PM
I'd do this trade in a heartbeat.

I think I'm just ready to move on to the next version of the Pacers though, so I am really not as opposed to trading O'Neal as many of you are.

Gordan is a good player, I don't love Chandler but I don't hate him either & whoever we get with the # 2 pick would be ok.

The faster we get away from the offense I've seen for the last three years the happier I will be & IMO as long as O'Neal is on the team you will always have to go through him on the offense.As long as Rick Carlisle is coaching this team you will have to go through Jermaine on offense. Fix your face. Its not Jermaine's fault our coach cant coach for ****.

FrenchConnection
06-27-2006, 01:17 PM
Considering that his strengths are rebouding, shotblocking and providing solid interior defense......if he can score a couple of baskets now and then...given the # of shooters/scorers that our team will likely have.....I'm not going to be too concerned about his offense. He will either improve what little offensive game he has....or be he will ( at least ) be what he is better suited to be....a defensive roleplayer.

A defensive role player on that contract? Would you take Kwame Brown? Kwame is actually a better interior defender than Tyson, but much like Chandler he is considered a bust. >10 million had better buy you at least 15 ppg or 10 rpg.

Since86
06-27-2006, 01:17 PM
What would happen to Foster?

I'm not arguing Foster is better/worse, I just don't see the point in having two players that can't hit the side of a barn, can't match up with big bodied post players, often injured, who only rebound.

CableKC
06-27-2006, 01:19 PM
A defensive role player on that contract? Would you take Kwame Brown? Kwame is actually a better interior defender than Tyson, but much like Chandler he is considered a bust. >10 million had better buy you at least 15 ppg or 10 rpg.

I'm not directly comparing Chandler with Big Ben Wallace...but isn't that what he is? A guy that can rebound, block shots and defend but can't hit the side of a barn?

I can see it your way....but I'm looking at the bigger prize....the #2 pick...and Gordon.

But given that this won't happen in reality....I'm not going to get my hopes up.

Jon Theodore
06-27-2006, 01:22 PM
really we should probably do this trade in a a heartbeat. Good chance we can snatch Morrison with that 2nd pick. Gordon gives us the type of player you absolutely need to be competitive in the NBA today. I still think we need more for Jermaine. We should be able to unload tinsley in the deal for some scrub and their first round pick next year.

Unclebuck
06-27-2006, 01:23 PM
Have you watched him play? I suppose maybe if Chuck works with him he'll get better. All Norm Van Lear ever says is the Bulls need to get a big man coach to work with him. Norm always suggests Stacey King. Of course that might be because they work together on the pregame shows.


Watched him play many, many games. I think I have a very good feel for his game.


Here is a post I made after one of the Bulls Pacers games this past season


I wished I'd gone to a movie instead of the Pacers game tonight. I've never felt that way before, ever.

There were parts of the game where I honestly wanted to cheer for the Bulls. In fact the Pacers need to play like the Bulls. The Bulls play extremely hard, they play together, they play with a lot of effort, they play very unselfishly. The Pacers tonight were as flat as I've seen them this whole season. Yes I realize the schedule has not been kind to the Pacers lately, too many games and the disruption Tinsley and J.O has caused by coming back has the team completely out of sink.

But what disgusted me was the Pacers effort, it just wasn't there.

I thought Cro played decent, everyone else played just horrible. My favorite player on the court tonight was by far Tyson Chandler, wow, he dominated the game, I love Jeff Foster, but Chandler is better and I just love his game.

The Pacers players did not stick together tonight, J.O and Jeff were arguing after J.O. tried to pass the ball to Jeff, the players splintered and tried to do it on their own. Every player did that tonight. Every player. Fred, AJ, Saras. Tinsley and Harrison were especially bad tonight. But T is just coming back, so he deserves a pass, but his shot selection was mystifying.

FrenchConnection
06-27-2006, 01:26 PM
I'm not directly comparing Chandler with Big Ben...but isn't that what he is? A guy that can rebound, block shots and defend but can't hit the side of a barn?

I can see it your way....but I'm looking at the bigger prize....the #2 pick...and Gordon.

What Chandler lacks is aggression. And if I am playing that kind of money for a defender, I want the opposition to at least be afraid of him. If this was a better draft, then I think that you could agrue that you should take this deal but in this draft the #2 pick would probably go no higher than #10 in next years stronger draft.

Shade
06-27-2006, 01:28 PM
A Foster/Chandler frontcourt would make me shoot myself.

Any everyone else.

Since86
06-27-2006, 01:28 PM
really we should probably do this trade in a a heartbeat. Good chance we can snatch Morrison with that 2nd pick.


Then what do you do with Granger?

Unclebuck
06-27-2006, 01:28 PM
What Chandler lacks is aggression.

That is simply a false statement. He's extremely aggressive in fact maybe too aggressive.

tdubb03
06-27-2006, 01:33 PM
It sounded great at first, then I thought more about it.

Tinsley's days may be numbered, but he's still a Pacers right now. So with him and Chandler that's 40% of the starting line-up missing half the season to injury.

Then there's the whole trading JO within the division controversey. I think if this trade did happen, while Indy'd have some options to build a team full of tremendous potential, they'd be horrible in the present. If Chicago got JO from us, I don't think we'd finish any higher than 4th in the Central (Cle, Det, Chi).

Make it Heinrich (sp?) instead of Gordon and I'll give em JO and whatever else they want.

EDIT:
Sorry bout the double post. The fact that it merged the two by itself is marvelous.

FrenchConnection
06-27-2006, 01:34 PM
It sounded great at first, then I thought more about it.

Tinsley's days may be numbered, but he's still a Pacers right now. So with him and Chandler that's 40% of the starting line-up missing half the season to injury.

Then there's the whole trading JO within the division controversey. I think if this trade did happen, while Indy'd have some options to build a team full of tremendous potential, they'd be horrible in the present. If Chicago got JO from us, I don't think we'd finish any higher than 4th in the Central (Cle, Det, Chi).

We would finish last, because Bogut will break out this year and push the Bucks into fourth place. Remember, the Hawks have "have some options to build a team full of tremendous potential," and you see where that got them.

tdubb03
06-27-2006, 01:37 PM
We would finish last, because Bogut will break out this year and push the Bucks into fourth place. Remember, the Hawks have "have some options to build a team full of tremendous potential," and you see where that got them.

True about the Hawks. But I like to think our management's at least a little better than Atlanta's.

FrenchConnection
06-27-2006, 01:46 PM
True about the Hawks. But I like to think our management's at least a little better than Atlanta's.

But Potential is a crap shoot: sometimes it turns out, but more often than not it does not. Often teams have to take three or four stabs before they get the right mix, and then if there is a dominant team in the league when they finally do it was all for naught. Think Utah and Sacramento, teams that finally found the right mix of players only to run into two dynasties. Rebuilding is a high risk proposition, one that could spell disaster for a team in a small market that could not take a real downturn in attendance. Three to four 20-40 win seasons in a row could push this franchise under. I have faith that Donnie will not let that happen.

Peck
06-27-2006, 01:47 PM
As long as Rick Carlisle is coaching this team you will have to go through Jermaine on offense. Fix your face. Its not Jermaine's fault our coach cant coach for ****.

I'm all for getting rid of Rick as well.

Suaveness
06-27-2006, 01:53 PM
Give me Nocioni instead of Chandler and I'm on board.

FrenchConnection
06-27-2006, 01:54 PM
Give me Nocioni instead of Chandler and I'm on board.

I would like that as well, but we would have to take Chandler to make the dollars work.

rexnom
06-27-2006, 02:01 PM
I would like that as well, but we would have to take Chandler to make the dollars work.
Really? They're under the cap. Theoretically they should be able to absorb JO's deal. I could be wrong.

FrenchConnection
06-27-2006, 02:03 PM
Really? They're under the cap. Theoretically they should be able to absorb JO's deal. I could be wrong.

Come to think of it, they should be under the cap. When do the contracts roll-over to 2006-2007?

Mushmouth
06-27-2006, 02:07 PM
Really? They're under the cap. Theoretically they should be able to absorb JO's deal. I could be wrong.


The deal itself has to even up in regards to salary. Chandler is almost a necessity considering the Bulls don't have a lot of huge contracts otherwise.

Although I'm not sure how a draft pick works financially, they probably estimate the salary of the pick based on the previous year's signing at that spot.

Anthem
06-27-2006, 02:13 PM
The deal itself has to even up in regards to salary. Chandler is almost a necessity considering the Bulls don't have a lot of huge contracts otherwise.

Although I'm not sure how a draft pick works financially, they probably estimate the salary of the pick based on the previous year's signing at that spot.
As long as it happens before the pick is signed, I'm pretty sure the pick is free. No monetary value.

ChicagoJ
06-27-2006, 02:19 PM
True about the Hawks. But I like to think our management's at least a little better than Atlanta's.

Well, we trained them. For whatever that's worth.

FrenchConnection
06-27-2006, 02:19 PM
As long as it happens before the pick is signed, I'm pretty sure the pick is free. No monetary value.

The pick is free as long as he has not been signed (because you are trading draft rights and not a contract), but what I cannot figure out is when the contracts roll over to 2006-2007. Because right now the Bulls are over the cap but they should have the space that they want to sign Al after the contracts expire. Is that July 1?

ChicagoJ
06-27-2006, 02:24 PM
Watched him play many, many games. I think I have a very good feel for his game.

Here is a post I made after one of the Bulls Pacers games this past season



I wished I'd gone to a movie instead of the Pacers game tonight. I've never felt that way before, ever.

There were parts of the game where I honestly wanted to cheer for the Bulls. In fact the Pacers need to play like the Bulls. The Bulls play extremely hard, they play together, they play with a lot of effort, they play very unselfishly. The Pacers tonight were as flat as I've seen them this whole season. Yes I realize the schedule has not been kind to the Pacers lately, too many games and the disruption Tinsley and J.O has caused by coming back has the team completely out of sink.

But what disgusted me was the Pacers effort, it just wasn't there.

I thought Cro played decent, everyone else played just horrible. My favorite player on the court tonight was by far Tyson Chandler, wow, he dominated the game, I love Jeff Foster, but Chandler is better and I just love his game.

The Pacers players did not stick together tonight, J.O and Jeff were arguing after J.O. tried to pass the ball to Jeff, the players splintered and tried to do it on their own. Every player did that tonight. Every player. Fred, AJ, Saras. Tinsley and Harrison were especially bad tonight. But T is just coming back, so he deserves a pass, but his shot selection was mystifying.

Too bad there are millions of Bulls fans that would disagree with you. He sucks. But they'd love to drop him onto a team in their same division. Matter of fact, the Bulls are pretty good at trading their problem players within the division.

I'll give them SJax for Tyson's Chicken. :devil:


The pick is free as long as he has not been signed (because you are trading draft rights and not a contract), but what I cannot figure out is when the contracts roll over to 2006-2007. Because right now the Bulls are over the cap but they should have the space that they want to sign Al after the contracts expire. Is that July 1?

I believe the pick is "free" in a trade but there is a placeholder for the pick when calculating the salary cap. At least that's how it used to work... I'm still not 100% current on the new C.B.A.

Anthem
06-27-2006, 02:34 PM
The pick is free as long as he has not been signed (because you are trading draft rights and not a contract), but what I cannot figure out is when the contracts roll over to 2006-2007. Because right now the Bulls are over the cap but they should have the space that they want to sign Al after the contracts expire. Is that July 1?
I believe so. But you can announce the trade now and let it go through after July 1... happens every year.

Lord Helmet
06-27-2006, 04:12 PM
No Tyson Nuggets please....

BoomBaby31
06-27-2006, 06:19 PM
I'm in limbo about this trade, we might have to many young guys and not enough veterns. I'd have to think long and hard about this trade.

aceace
06-27-2006, 06:46 PM
Why is PD so in love with Hulk, he's shown me nothing so far. A few good games here and there but "nothing" worth a long term contract. He' s foul prone, inside game leaves alot to be desired. I don't want him here seeking a contract extension next year unless he makes big strides. Really... whats he done in 2 yrs except commit a foul every 30 seconds.

rabid
06-27-2006, 06:50 PM
The trade to me only makes sense in the context of larger moves. If this is all you do you have

PG - Tins/AJ, Runi
SG - Jax, Gordon
SF - Granger
PF - Chandler, Foster
C - Chandler, Hulk

Free agents: Peja, Pollard, Fred Jones.
(plus draft picks 2 and 17)

Yuck.

We would still have a point guard problem, the Peja/Granger issue (if Peja is re-signed), zero depth at PF and center.

As the first of two or three moves, this might be ok (as long as we did something good with those picks) but by itself it not only makes the team worse but leaves us little in the way of trade-able commodities.

EDIT: forgot about Cro. What was i thinking. Please disregard this post.

BoomBaby31
06-27-2006, 07:16 PM
The trade to me only makes sense in the context of larger moves. If this is all you do you have

PG - Tins/AJ, Runi
SG - Jax, Gordon
SF - Granger
PF - Chandler, Foster
C - Chandler, Hulk

Free agents: Peja, Pollard, Fred Jones.
(plus draft picks 2 and 17)

Yuck.

We would still have a point guard problem, the Peja/Granger issue (if Peja is re-signed), zero depth at PF and center.

As the first of two or three moves, this might be ok (as long as we did something good with those picks) but by itself it not only makes the team worse but leaves us little in the way of trade-able commodities.

EDIT: forgot about Cro. What was i thinking. Please disregard this post.

You are right, I don't think we should do it. To many young players and that roster just looks nasty almost a Hawks type roster. If some blue moon Peja didn't re-sign and we already completely that trade I bet we wouldn't make the playoffs next year. We'd be awful. I don't mind not trading anyone, just sign MoHhammed.. and Hope Redick is there and healthy at 17 this roster makes me feel alot more comfortable:

Tinsley/AJ/Saurnas
Redick/Jax
Peja/Granger
JO/Croshere
Mohhamed/Foster/Hulk

Now doesn't that look better? lol.. I say no to this trade.

Kegboy
06-27-2006, 07:37 PM
I don't love Chandler but I don't hate him either

I'd give that all of 10 minutes.

This isn't a horrible trade. Chandler is the baggage, the point is Gordon and (I would hope) Aldridge. But I think there is absolutely no way we will, or should for that matter, trade JO in the division. If we trade Jermaine, he'll go out west, which is the way it should be.

vapacersfan
06-27-2006, 07:43 PM
Why is PD so in love with Hulk, he's shown me nothing so far. A few good games here and there but "nothing" worth a long term contract. He' s foul prone, inside game leaves alot to be desired. I don't want him here seeking a contract extension next year unless he makes big strides. Really... whats he done in 2 yrs except commit a foul every 30 seconds.

Not everyone here is.

Like all sites, we have some members that really love a certain player no matter what, it is no different with a select few and David.

hoopsforlife
06-27-2006, 08:03 PM
I don't see a problem trading JO to a team in the division. Especially Chicago. We couldn't beat the Bulls last year with him on our team so let them have him. If he does for them what he's done for us, we should dominate the Bulls this coming year.

grace
06-27-2006, 09:12 PM
I don't see a problem trading JO to a team in the division. Especially Chicago. We couldn't beat the Bulls last year with him on our team so let them have him. If he does for them what he's done for us, we should dominate the Bulls this coming year.

You've got a point, but maybe the Bulls have players who will compliment him better and there's a coach who will kick the livin' :censored: out of him to get him to play the right way.

I'm not saying I'm right. I'm just saying it's a possibility.






:plot: :evillaugh

beast23
06-27-2006, 09:27 PM
I'd love to have the pick and I'd love to have Gordon. I think Chandler brings problems because of redundancy to our roster. I just think this trade would throw us into honest to god rebuilding mode, because it would require several other trades to take place.

It seems as though the trade would leave us with three players that would be tough to get rid of or that we wouldn't want in the long haul... Tinsley, Jackson and Chandler. Which reminds me.... jeez, would some of you guys give up on Tinsley already and quit showing him as a starting PG in your lineups?

I just don't like our roster following this trade. Too many problems and too much work to do. So, I'd propose a much simpler trade if I were the Pacers. Let the Bulls keep the pick. We'll take Hinrich, Nocioni and a crappy contract (crappy but not "horrendous") they want to unload and we'll give them Jermaine and Jackson or Jermaine and Tinsley.

After that, just hope we could then trade Tinsley or Tinsley and FJ (re-signed) for Rick Davis and let the rebuilding begin.

Kegboy
06-27-2006, 09:44 PM
We'll take Hinrich, Nocioni and a crappy contract (crappy but not "horrendous") they want to unload and we'll give them Jermaine and Jackson or Jermaine and Tinsley.

The problem with that is, Chandler is the only player on Chicago's roster who isn't still on his rookie contract. :-o

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

[edit] Oop, missed Othella and Malik, but they're cheap ending deals.

ChicagoJ
06-27-2006, 09:50 PM
After that, just hope we could then trade Tinsley or Tinsley and AJ (re-signed) for Rick Davis and let the rebuilding begin.

and then after we spend two years comparing Ricky Davis to SJax, we can start the re-re-building. :(

beast23
06-27-2006, 09:53 PM
The problem with that is, Chandler is the only player on Chicago's roster who isn't still on his rookie contract. :-o

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

[edit] Oop, missed Othella and Malik, but they're cheap ending deals.Well, gee whiz. That does make it tough then, doesn't it.

If that's the case, then what the hell? I guess we'll just have to bend over and take 3-4 more of those rookie contracts off their hands.:laugh:

... he says with mucho sarcasm.

Kegboy
06-27-2006, 09:54 PM
:laugh:

Anthem
06-27-2006, 10:02 PM
Kegger/Jay -

Let's say you're the GM of the Pacers and Chicago calls asking for JO. What would it take? You're both reacting against Chandler, but Gordon and the #2 is a pretty intriguing start. What third player would it take in order for the deal to be worthwhile?

Hinrich is a no-brainer, right? Would you do the trade if you got back Nocioni?

beast23
06-27-2006, 10:14 PM
I'll let Kegboy and Jay speak for themselves. But if you gave me Gordon, Nocioni and the #2, I'd be happy.

If Hinrich were involved, I would take Hinrich and Nocioni. The #2 pick would be icing on the cake in that event.

ChicagoJ
06-27-2006, 10:38 PM
I wouldn't trade JO for a bunch of perimeter players.

Chicago would need to pick somebody up that interested me.

Unclebuck
06-27-2006, 10:53 PM
Why are people saying that Chandler and Foster are redundant, Jeff would be traded, as it is we'll probably have to trade Jeff to get a team to take Jamaal or Jax.

So many of you seem to be looking at this trade in a vacuum, this would be the first of at least 3 somewhat major trades.

Kegboy
06-27-2006, 11:50 PM
If I truly believed that JO wasn't my guy, I'd do it for Gordon, Noch, and the #2, provided Aldridge was there. But I'd have to know some stuff I don't know as a fan, a la the Ron-JO fistfights in the locker room.

My point is, if Jermaine were damaged goods, be it physcially, mentally, or emotionally, then that's a good deal. But if with inside info I still felt Jermaine was a victim of circumstances beyond his control the last couple years, then no package based on a pick in this draft would be good enough.


Why are people saying that Chandler and Foster are redundant, Jeff would be traded, as it is we'll probably have to trade Jeff to get a team to take Jamaal or Jax.

So many of you seem to be looking at this trade in a vacuum, this would be the first of at least 3 somewhat major trades.

UB, you keep saying Chandler is better. Is he ~$30M better?

Eindar
06-28-2006, 12:05 AM
I like the trade because it can potentially give us 2 bigs, along with something we don't have and desperately need right now, which is someone who is able to take over games in the 4th qtr.

Young
06-28-2006, 12:50 AM
I love this trade for us but here is my question...


Why would the Bulls do this?

They get JO, who is a much more proven player but am I the only one that thinks that if they traded Chandler/Gordon/2nd pick in 2 or 3 different deals that they could get much more than JO?

I don't see how getting just JO is better for them than having Gordon/Chanlder/Aldrige. That's jmo though.

Robertmto
06-28-2006, 12:54 AM
Someone please tell me why Chicago would do this again?

CableKC
06-28-2006, 01:10 AM
Someone please tell me why Chicago would do this again?

So that they can me some of us Pacer fans happy? Is that not a good enough reason?

Shade
06-28-2006, 01:34 AM
I seriously don't see why this trade is so good. The last thing we need is another Foster clone (at this point, I don't even want one Foster starting, much less two). I like Gordon but he isn't close to JO. And the #2 pick in this pathetic draft?

Pass.

Robertmto
06-28-2006, 01:40 AM
So that they can me some of us Pacer fans happy? Is that not a good enough reason?

O ok...duh Robertmto

CableKC
06-28-2006, 02:05 AM
O ok...duh Robertmto

Well...isn't it obvious? :zip:

Steve McQueen
06-28-2006, 02:47 AM
Someone please tell me why Chicago would do this again?
So they finally get an All-Star player to get their team of young role players past round #1. Despite the hate JO gets around here, he's still a 22/10/2 All-Star PF. Those arent exactly a dime a dozen like say, 6'2" SGs.

Robertmto
06-28-2006, 03:19 AM
So they finally get an All-Star player to get their team of young role players past round #1. Despite the hate JO gets around here, he's still a 22/10/2 All-Star PF. Those arent exactly a dime a dozen like say, 6'2" SGs.

Riiight, because trading away their ONLY big man and their best player overall and the 2nd pick in the draft is eqaul valus for thet player.

Steve McQueen
06-28-2006, 03:38 AM
Riiight, because trading away their ONLY big man and their best player overall and the 2nd pick in the draft is eqaul valus for thet player.
Actually no, it's not equal value. It's sub-equal value.

It doesn't matter if Chandler is their only big man, he's still not very good. And if Ben Gordon is their best player, then even more reason for them to do this deal, because any team who's best player is a 6-2 shooting guard who shoots below 40% and plays little to no defense should be jumping through hoops at the thought of aquiring an All-Star big man.

Never trade quality for quantity. Quantity is easy to aquire, quality is not.

naptownmenace
06-28-2006, 09:45 AM
But I am surprised that all of you would do a trade that would mean not only a single step back, but a large step back into the lottery. I also like Tyson Chandler for what he has become, but essentially trading a 20/10 big man for a draft pick in a bad draft, a guy that had 9/7 in his best year in the league (Chandler) and a combo guard seems like a bad move to me. Unless you can get a scoring big man, you do not trade JO.


This is not a good trade in the least. Trading JO to an indivision rival, that is already a tough playoff team, is not a good idea.

Even if they got Aldridge in return, I don't see him producing more than 12 points and 7 boards a game as a rookie. The Pacers would win no more than 35 games with that proposed squad.

This would be a deal to make only if they are looking to totally rebuild. The Pacers are not that far from championship contention and Bird wants to win now, not later.

ChicagoJ
06-28-2006, 11:15 AM
So they finally get an All-Star player to get their team of young role players past round #1. Despite the hate JO gets around here, he's still a 22/10/2 All-Star PF. Those arent exactly a dime a dozen like say, 6'2" SGs.

100% right.


Never trade quality for quantity. Quantity is easy to aquire, quality is not.

You're on a roll today!

grace
06-28-2006, 03:00 PM
UB, you keep saying Chandler is better. Is he ~$30M better?

In a word: NO.


If I truly believed that JO wasn't my guy, I'd do it for Gordon, Noch, and the #2, provided Aldridge was there.

Chicago isn't going to trade Noch. Or if they do I don't want to be around when Paxson tells Skiles what he did.

And for everyone who wants Hinrich I don't see what the big draw is. Maybe he just had an off year last season, but I'm not all that impressed.

You people should be asking for Chris Duhon and his bad back. He'd fit in well in Pacer Land.

ChicagoJ
06-28-2006, 04:18 PM
I *would* rather have Duhon and his bad back. I don't really get the infatuation with Hinrich. Unless we wanted to make *him* our backup combo guard. That I could go for...

Unclebuck
06-28-2006, 04:19 PM
I missed Kegboy's excellent question: Is Chandler $30M better. No

Redman
06-28-2006, 04:26 PM
This trade is good i think. Chandler is good rebounder and blocker. Gordon excelent shooter and we have no 2 pick. Jo is not a good leader. Past seasons showed that O`Neal is weak in important moments.

Roster after trade

C-Chandler
PF-for a examle Aldridge
SF-Peja or Granger
SG-Gordon/Jackson
Pg-Tinsley

That look quite good i think.

Pacers must do changes because past season showed that changes is needed.