PDA

View Full Version : Tyson Chandler



pianoman
06-01-2009, 09:25 PM
Can somebody give me a summary of his game? Is he the kind of guy we'd like to bring in? Would he fit our style? Defense? I know we were interested in him at the trade deadline. Do you think we will still pursue him this summer?

d_c
06-01-2009, 09:31 PM
Really tall. Might actually be 7'1" in socks (not shoes).

One of the better one on one low post defenders in the league. You rarely need to double team the post with him defending it. Not as good as a help defender, but pretty good. Excellent rebounder at both ends.

Limited offensively. Can't really post up on anyone. Can finish at the rim with dunks and you can throw him lobs, but he's not much else offensively.

Has had injury problems. Is due a lot of money.

Pacers chance to get him was probably at the trading deadline last year when they could have offered expiring deals. Now that ship has sailed.

Trophy
06-01-2009, 09:32 PM
I'd be willing to give up Jeff and Tinsley for him maybe. He would be a good defensive center for us and Roy as his backup.

PacerDude
06-01-2009, 09:34 PM
He doesn't have much more than dunks in his offense, but he's a decent defensive player. Runs the floor well. Long and lean. Not much of a 'banger'. NO might not want to keep him - they tried to trade him, but it fell through.

Depends on what it takes to get him. $11.8 salary next year. Player option after that for 12.7. I'd trade Jamaal and some filler for him. NO wouldn't, but I would.

d_c
06-01-2009, 09:35 PM
I'd be willing to give up Jeff and Tinsley for him maybe. He would be a good defensive center for us and Roy as his backup.

The entire point of the Hornets trying to trade him last deadline was to save money and get his contract off the books, not because they don't like Chandler.

Tinsley and Foster's deal do nothing to help the Hornets financially.

The Pacers could have included Rasho (and his big expiring deal) as the centerpiece for a Chandler deal, but chances are that the Pacers themselves didn't want to pay the luxury tax.

Trophy
06-01-2009, 09:37 PM
The entire point of the Hornets trying to trade him last deadline was to save money and get his contract off the books, not because they don't like Chandler.

Tinsley and Foster's deal do nothing to help the Hornets financially.

The Pacers could have included Rasho (and his big expiring deal) as the centerpiece for a Chandler deal, but chances are that the Pacers themselves didn't want to pay the luxury tax.

When does Chandler expire?

count55
06-01-2009, 09:39 PM
When does Chandler expire?

2011

d_c
06-01-2009, 09:39 PM
When does Chandler expire?

The same time Tinsley, Murphy, Dunleavy et al. expire.

Trophy
06-01-2009, 09:41 PM
Who would they want for Chandler?

count55
06-01-2009, 09:44 PM
My guess is that they asked for both Rasho and Daniels at the deadline.

I don't recall the specific rumors for the Pacers, but that would have given them players and expiring contracts.

d_c
06-01-2009, 09:44 PM
Who would they want for Chandler?

Cap relief. They'd probably like to get some other assets in return, but given Chandler's health and the fact that the Thunder already turned down a Chandler deal b/c of it, they probably won't get a heckuva lot.

If a team under the cap offered to take Chandler off the Hornets hands in exchange for a 2nd round pick with no other contracts going back, the Hornets would have to consider that (and would probably do it).

ChicagoJ
06-02-2009, 05:59 PM
Tyson's Chicken is a vastly overpaid, injury-prone shot blocker with few offensive skills and not much mental or physical toughness. Even if we had the cap relief assets to trade for him now, Roy would be starting again by the end of the season. Roy may have fewer "skillz", and isn't as athletic, but that's it. Between the ears, Roy is 2000x better.

Anthem
06-02-2009, 08:09 PM
Tyson's Chicken is a vastly overpaid, injury-prone shot blocker with few offensive skills and not much mental or physical toughness. Even if we had the cap relief assets to trade for him now, Roy would be starting again by the end of the season. Roy may have fewer "skillz", and isn't as athletic, but that's it. Between the ears, Roy is 2000x better.
Huh. I hadn't even considered that angle... I assumed you'd play Roy and Tyson next to each other.

MyFavMartin
06-02-2009, 08:10 PM
Might check out the NO GM's post in the Mock draft: http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?t=46966&page=6

Unclebuck
06-03-2009, 09:07 AM
I guess I like his game a lot more than many of you. if he weren't injury prone - I would kill to have him on our team, even with his bad free throw shooting. His effort is on par with Jeff Foster, he is a great offensive rebounder, an excellent shotblocker and I think his help defense is top notch. Really his defense is really, really good, helps on pick pick and rolls. he isn't quite KG defensively but he is close.

J - I think maybe you are stuck in a time-warp back to his rookie season with the Bulls

Dr. Goldfoot
06-03-2009, 12:55 PM
I'm with Buck on this one. He's a big strong rebounding/defensive presence. Two of the biggest categories this team lacks. He'll be 27 next season and while UB references his injuries he's only missed significant time twice in 8 seasons. His price tag is prohibitive but it really depends on the asking price. I've liked this player for quite some time now.

ChicagoJ
06-03-2009, 01:05 PM
Huh. I hadn't even considered that angle... I assumed you'd play Roy and Tyson next to each other.

I wouldn't play Tyson's Chicken anywhere. But that's not the point. I think he's redundant now that Hibbert has shown he's an NBA-caliber player.

ChicagoJ
06-03-2009, 01:08 PM
I guess I like his game a lot more than many of you. if he weren't injury prone - I would kill to have him on our team, even with his bad free throw shooting. His effort is on par with Jeff Foster, he is a great offensive rebounder, an excellent shotblocker and I think his help defense is top notch. Really his defense is really, really good, helps on pick pick and rolls. he isn't quite KG defensively but he is close.

J - I think maybe you are stuck in a time-warp back to his rookie season with the Bulls

You can't possibly be saying "tough" and "Chandler" in the same post can you? That has to be a mistake. He's one of the softest guys - especially mentally - in the entire league. Foster has very little talent and stays in the the league with his toughness and work ethic. Tyson, it turns out, didn't have much talent or toughness, and stays in the league because he does have good size and because Byron Scott finally got something out of him.

Unclebuck
06-03-2009, 01:29 PM
You can't possibly be saying "tough" and "Chandler" in the same post can you? That has to be a mistake. He's one of the softest guys - especially mentally - in the entire league. Foster has very little talent and stays in the the league with his toughness and work ethic. Tyson, it turns out, didn't have much talent or toughness, and stays in the league because he does have good size and because Byron Scott finally got something out of him.



I don't believe I used the word tough in my post.

d_c
06-03-2009, 01:37 PM
I'm with Buck on this one. He's a big strong rebounding/defensive presence. Two of the biggest categories this team lacks. He'll be 27 next season and while UB references his injuries he's only missed significant time twice in 8 seasons. His price tag is prohibitive but it really depends on the asking price. I've liked this player for quite some time now.

Right. People are forgetting that just a year ago the Hornets were one of the league's better defensive teams and they took the Spurs to 7 games (and probably should've finished them off) and Chandler was the defensive anchor for that team.

Now Chandler's injury history and his high cost are certainly of concern if you're considering acquiring him, but I don't quite understand the hate for a guy who has been one of the better defensive centers in the game the past few years (especially for a board that preaches defense).

count55
06-03-2009, 01:57 PM
Right. People are forgetting that just a year ago the Hornets were one of the league's better defensive teams and they took the Spurs to 7 games (and probably should've finished them off) and Chandler was the defensive anchor for that team.

Now Chandler's injury history and his high cost are certainly of concern if you're considering acquiring him, but I don't quite understand the hate for a guy who has been one of the better defensive centers in the game the past few years (especially for a board that preaches defense).

I don't have any problems with Chandler other than I don't know how we fit his salary into the team, and I don't see NO taking back enough salaries for it to make sense for us.

ChicagoJ
06-03-2009, 02:46 PM
(especially for a board that preaches defense).

not me. I'm an "outscore them" guy. There is a purpose for defense, but you should take your best offensive lineup and teach them to play team defense.

Justin Tyme
06-03-2009, 04:13 PM
not me. I'm an "outscore them" guy.

There is a purpose for defense, but you should take your best offensive lineup and teach them to play team defense.


We've seen how well that works out! Only the Kings and the Warriors gave up more points than O'Brien/Pacers.

There is a purpose to "D", and it's to keep the opposition from outscoring you by making it hard for them to score. Apparently, a concept that O'Brien has yet to realize or put into effect. Only 1 more year of his madness, thank you LORD!!

As far as Chandler, the Hornets want salary relieve, and the Pacers don't have it now. I'm not big into taking on his salary either, so I don't see any purpose to take on "another" high salary injured type player... the Pacers have and have had enough of them to last a life time.

grace
06-03-2009, 04:42 PM
I don't believe I used the word tough in my post.

I'm guessing that in comparing him to Jeff Foster and Kevin Garnett the tough part was inferred.

ChicagoJ
06-03-2009, 04:42 PM
We've seen how well that works out! Only the Kings and the Warriors gave up more points than O'Brien/Pacers.

There is a purpose to "D", and it's to keep the opposition from outscoring you by making it hard for them to score. Apparently, a concept that O'Brien has yet to realize or put into effect. Only 1 more year of his madness, thank you LORD!!

As far as Chandler, the Hornets want salary relieve, and the Pacers don't have it now. I'm not big into taking on his salary either, so I don't see any purpose to take on "another" high salary injured type player... the Pacers have and have had enough of them to last a life time.

I didn't say O'Brien was doing a good job of teaching them to play team defense, and these guys are incredibly young and young players tend to learn NBA offense a bit quicker than the learn NBA defense. But I'll take the defensive work of Mark Jackson/ Travis - Reggie - Mullin/Rose - Dale/ Austin - Rik/ Perkins. They were a good enough defensive team to get to The Finals.

d_c
06-03-2009, 04:46 PM
But I'll take the defensive work of Mark Jackson/ Travis - Reggie - Mullin/Rose - Dale/ Austin - Rik/ Perkins. They were a good enough defensive team to get to The Finals.

Don't forget A.Davis as well. He was very good.

Another thing that should be considered is that such a team with today's handchecking rules would have a lot more problems defensively (and those rules would have hurt the Bulls with the way Pippen was allowed to guard opposing ballhandlers as well) .

ChicagoJ
06-03-2009, 05:00 PM
Don't forget A.Davis as well. He was very good.

Yeah, but he was gone by the time we got to the finals - replaced by that defensive beast named Croshere.

:zip:

vnzla81
06-03-2009, 05:02 PM
Yeah, but he was gone by the time we got to the finals - replaced by that defensive beast named Croshere.

:zip:

:laugh::laugh::laugh::highfive:

rexnom
06-03-2009, 05:06 PM
Yeah, but he was gone by the time we got to the finals - replaced by that defensive beast named Croshere.

:zip:
And we finally made the finals. I don't know if it was intentional or not, but that kind of supports your point.

ChicagoJ
06-03-2009, 05:14 PM
Yes it was. And thanks for playing.

Also, I don't see the change in the handchecking rules as being a major problem for that team. They were decent at defense because of coaching, strategy and teamwork. The coaches would have needed to design a slightly different defensive scheme because of the rule changes, but the players would have adapted. They executed reasonably well as a group, in spite of obvious individual limitations.

d_c
06-03-2009, 05:23 PM
Yes it was. And thanks for playing.

Also, I don't see the change in the handchecking rules as being a major problem for that team. They were decent at defense because of coaching, strategy and teamwork. The coaches would have needed to design a slightly different defensive scheme because of the rule changes, but the players would have adapted. They executed reasonably well as a group, in spite of obvious individual limitations.

That team was decent at defense because it was a veteran, experienced team. Mullin was never quick, but in earlier seasons was always among the league leaders in steals because of his hands/anticipation.

Smits, though not a great defender by any stretch, was a big body and his one on one defense was OK simply by being 7'4". Dale Davis was a better defensive player than anyone on this current roster.

They were also oppurtunistic that year, with Jordan having retired and nobody else worth mentioning from the East that particular season.

ChicagoJ
06-03-2009, 05:32 PM
You say opportunistic as if they weren't making their fifth ECF appearance in seven seasons during an era in which the best teams were generally all in the EC.

But you're making my point for me, so thank you. A veteran team (not the young team that Jim O'Brien has been working with) can play good enough team defense to be a contender. That's what I'm looking for. A team of five Dale Davis's (great defensive players but no offensive skills whatsoever) won't even make the playoffs. But a team with Mark Jackson, Rose/ Mullin, Reggie and Smits playing heavy minutes is a good enough defensive team to get to The Finals because they are savvy veterans who play TEAM defense, along with a very, very effecient offense.

count55
06-03-2009, 05:42 PM
It's about balance.

While 27 of the last 29 Champions were top 10 Defensive teams (by DefRtg), it's important to note that 24 of the last 29 Champs were top 10 Offensive teams (by OffRtg). The worst was Detroit in 2004, who ranked 18th, but it's important to note that they were 7th in the league offensively after acquiring Rasheed.

BTW...Orlando was 1st in DR this year, while the Lakers were 6th. Offensively, the Lakers are #3, while Orlando sits at #11.

Great defense can only take you so far, if you can't score efficiently, just as great offense will not get it done without some effective defense to go along with it.

ChicagoJ
06-03-2009, 05:45 PM
It's about balance.

Of course it is. That's the foundation of what I'm saying. And that's why I don't care about any individual player's defensive skills. Get a lineup that is cohesive on offense (doesn't need five big-time scorers, of course) and then get them to play team defense as well.

d_c
06-03-2009, 05:46 PM
You say opportunistic as if they weren't making their fifth ECF appearance in seven seasons during an era in which the best teams were generally all in the EC.

But you're making my point for me, so thank you. A veteran team (not the young team that Jim O'Brien has been working with) can play good enough team defense to be a contender. That's what I'm looking for. A team of five Dale Davis's (great defensive players but no offensive skills whatsoever) won't even make the playoffs. But a team with Mark Jackson, Rose/ Mullin, Reggie and Smits playing heavy minutes is a good enough defensive team to get to The Finals because they are savvy veterans who play TEAM defense, along with a very, very effecient offense.

The Pacers that year were the definition of oppurtunistic (which isn't a derisive word, BTW). They had been knocking on the door of the finals for years but were always denied. Then Ewing went past his prime and Jordan retired. Then they made it in when there toughest competition was a one man Iverson team (sans Mutombo) and teams like the Ray Allen Bucks and Vince Carter Raptors. The Pacers making it in that year had a lot to do with being good, but also being good at the right time.

As for vet team, well one strategy you can ALWAYS have is to keep together whatever team you currently have. As long as it's relatively young, that team will usually improve efficiency on both sides of the ball. This team would be no exception. There would simply be a limit to how far you'd get with the upside of the talent.

I have a lot of respect for those 90s Pacers teams and recognize they were pretty unique in how they were built and went about winning. I also think it's a pretty difficult forumla to replicate all over again, as evidenced by the fact that there really hasn't been a team like that since. If it was that easy to do what they did, it would have been repeated over and over in the league.