PDA

View Full Version : Tyson Chandler



pacergod2
04-01-2011, 12:17 PM
I didn't see a free agency thread on the first two pages so I figured I would start a new thread, because I specifically wanted to talk about Tyson Chandler.

The one player that I want us to target this off-season is Chandler. Not ZBo or DWest, which I don't think either will be available now, anyway. I would target Tyson Chandler to play PF/C for us. I would start him at PF. He easily slides over to center and actually gets the bulk of his minutes at C. He is quick enough and versatile enough to play both positions well. He is probably the second best defensive Center in the league. He defends the pick and roll well. He defends the paint by using his length to block shots. He is quick for being so big. His offensive arsenal has improved every year in the league. He has improved his jumper, but he doesn't take enough mid range shots to make a huge difference. I think he would be a great fit with the players we have already. If we resign McRoberts as well, (and even Foster) all of our front court players would be able to play together. That continuity is important, IMO for the rotations. We have the room to give Chandler a solid 25-30 mpg.

I would like people's input. We have given so much attention to David West and Zach Randolph, and they both sound like they will be staying with their current teams as things look right now. Chandler will be available and we have the cap and roster space.

vnzla81
04-01-2011, 12:24 PM
I like Tyson but I'm not sure if he can play power forward, it also looks like Cuban likes him so he is going to pay for him.

wintermute
04-01-2011, 12:37 PM
I'm a fan of Chandler, and he's played really well this year.

That said, injury risk would be my main concern. Remember, OKC once rescinded a trade for him because of long term injury concerns. He's only 28, but there's a lot of miles on his body.

Regarding Dallas matching, I think it all depends on whether they find a taker for Haywood. If they don't, they might decide that Haywood is perfectly serviceable (which he is) and just letting Chandler go.

Sparhawk
04-01-2011, 12:55 PM
I'm a fan of Tyson, but not sure he's a good fit here with Roy.

redfoster
04-01-2011, 12:59 PM
Between J-Mac, PG, and Chandler, I think 50% of our plays would be alley-oops. Not that I would complain.

Justin Tyme
04-01-2011, 01:00 PM
Chandler is a 5 and if the Pacers acquire him it means he starts and Hibbert doesn't. If the Pacers use him in the role as a reserve, he won't sign with the Pacers.

"IF" he can play starting PF and B/U 5, then maybe, but he will be in demand with the price not cheap. Knicks, Rockets, and Hawks, to just mention a few, all need a 5.

IUfan4life
04-01-2011, 01:07 PM
Getting Chandler would make us twice as "tough" but that isn't saying a whole lot. Also why would he ever leave Dallas? I would love to have him here as a Pacer, but I think there is a better chance of acquiring Larry Bird

mattie
04-01-2011, 01:08 PM
lol Chandler is a 5 just like Tim Duncan is a 4.

Yeah you're absolutely right, Chandler would make an absolute excellent fit here. Roy and Tyson could help form an absolute excellent interior defense. The kind of defense you need if you actually want to compete against the best.

The nice thing is, as Tyson is an injury risk, he'd still make a nice fit as Tyler could take a lot of minutes from him. Tyler would make a great 6th man as he showed earlier in the year, and with him coming in to play 30 minutes, we wouldn't have to depend on Tyson playing a full 36 every night.

It'd be just a great fit all around.

The only problem is, it is doubtful that we'd be able to obtain him at a reasonable price. Mark Cuban will keep him at all costs, which prevents him from being a viable option.

I will say I've been on the get Tyson bandwagon all year. I'd love for him to be here. He'd be a far superior fit than Zach Randolph, David West, or Al Jefferson.

spreedom
04-01-2011, 01:15 PM
Regarding Dallas matching, I think it all depends on whether they find a taker for Haywood. If they don't, they might decide that Haywood is perfectly serviceable (which he is) and just letting Chandler go.

Which Brendan Haywood have you been watching over the last 8 years? He's had about one good season, and it was last year when his contract was up. As an avid Mavs fan, I can tell you that he's nothing more than a part-time player at this point of his career unless he's on a really bad team. He's a nice luxury as a backup center, but Mahinmi has outplayed him at times this year, and that should say just about all you need to know about him.

And I doubt Cuban lets Chandler go even if he can't find a taker for Haywood. Their depth at center (and Chandler himself) has been one of the biggest reasons that the team hasn't imploded after Butler's injury. That and the excellence of Dirk Nowitzki.

Unclebuck
04-01-2011, 01:18 PM
I'm a fan of Tyson, but not sure he's a good fit here with Roy.


Fit? he'd be a replacement

wintermute
04-01-2011, 01:20 PM
Which Brendan Haywood have you been watching over the last 8 years? He's had about one good season, and it was last year when his contract was up. As an avid Mavs fan, I can tell you that he's nothing more than a part-time player at this point of his career unless he's on a really bad team. He's a nice luxury as a backup center, but Mahinmi has outplayed him at times this year, and that should say just about all you need to know about him.


:blush: I was going by last season, didn't realize he had such a dropoff this year. I thought it was more because of Chandler taking his minutes.

vnzla81
04-01-2011, 01:25 PM
If we turn Roy into Al then I would be all for it.

Ozwalt72
04-01-2011, 01:25 PM
lol Chandler is a 5 just like Tim Duncan is a 4.


No, that doesn't work at all.

Chandler's the man in the middle, he's a space eater, rebounder and excellent defender. He might have been a 4 earlier in his career, but he isn't mobile enough now. He's a 5 that can play minutes at the 4.

CableKC
04-01-2011, 01:33 PM
Dallas has about $45.4 mil in guaranteed contracts for 6 Players and have the option ( which they will more then likely take ) to guarantee Jason Terry's $10.6+ mil 2011-2012 Salary. That would put them close to $57 mil if they pick up Terry.

I think that the only way that the Pacers can sign Chandler is if he doesn't mind closing his career out on an "up and coming" team like the Pacers and if the Pacers pay top $$$ for him.

Assuming that there will be a similar Salary Cap and LT in the new CBA.....the Mavs will only be able to pay him "so much"...at least not enough that the Pacers can match if not exceed.

mattie
04-01-2011, 01:54 PM
No, that doesn't work at all.

Chandler's the man in the middle, he's a space eater, rebounder and excellent defender. He might have been a 4 earlier in his career, but he isn't mobile enough now. He's a 5 that can play minutes at the 4.

it does work actually. You like many NBA fans have come to the conclusion that there is a vast different between the 4 and the 5, just like there is a big difference between the 2 and the 3. However it just isn't true.

There are three positions on the basketball court, point, wing and forward. That's it.

The positions are identical. When assembling a starting 5 however it is true that you must have players in that have the ability to defend against their counterparts. In the case of certain centers in the league like Duncan and Howard, you have to have a "true" center. The only thing you have to worry about when starting a big man tandem, is ensuring they can defend against the most dominant centers, or the quickest powerforwards.

If you started both Tyson and Roy, this would be the case. They'd be a very long and intimidating front court similar to the twin tower days in San Antonio. (if you all remember the Spurs started two centers, no matter how hard the NBA tried to convince us Duncan was a "powerforward and not a center."

Ozwalt72
04-01-2011, 01:58 PM
it does work actually. You like many NBA fans have come to the conclusion that there is a vast different between the 4 and the 5, just like there is a big difference between the 2 and the 3. However it just isn't true.

There are three positions on the basketball court, point, wing and forward. That's it.


Nope. There are three positions on the basketball court. Guard, Forward and Center. Prove me wrong.

It's team relative. It's player relative. Chandler can defend a lot of 4s, but for the love of god don't put him on a perimeter oriented 4.

mattie
04-01-2011, 02:19 PM
Nope. There are three positions on the basketball court. Guard, Forward and Center. Prove me wrong.

It's team relative. It's player relative. Chandler can defend a lot of 4s, but for the love of god don't put him on a perimeter oriented 4.

wow. Good counter, "nu uh... prove me wrong"

Did you read what I said?

pacergod2
04-01-2011, 02:24 PM
Nope. There are three positions on the basketball court. Guard, Forward and Center. Prove me wrong.

It's team relative. It's player relative. Chandler can defend a lot of 4s, but for the love of god don't put him on a perimeter oriented 4.

It has way more to do with fit as you suggest. Pau Gasol played a hell of a lot of center in Memphis and even in Los Angeles. If they want to play a perimeter oriented four, who is he going to guard on our end of the court? Good luck with his 40% from the perimeter against our 55% from five feet. I will take the inside presence every time. Thank you Troy Murphy for my spitefulness.

Also, if they are just killing us with a perimeter oriented four, then we have the fours or big threes that can guard a player like that.

Imagine bringing in Chandler and McRoberts at the same time. I would have Chandler and McRoberts shooting a lot of 15 footers this off-season though.

PS - Be nice boys.

mattie
04-01-2011, 02:42 PM
In order to understand why this would work, we're going to have to step back and put our thinking caps on. You'll have to take a step outside of your closed little box for a moment.

First we realize that the the positions listed in the NBA, point, shooting guard, small forward, powerforward and center, are merely ideas. The way the game is played by default, we have descriptions of the necessary roles on the court, but nothing is finite.

Now, a big problem with describing the difference between center and powerforward, is no matter how you describe each position and the so called differences, I can give you an example of players that played at the corresponding positions in stark contrast to the way you describe it.

As an example, you might say the powerforward is generally a big man who likes to face up on the offensive side in the post. This position would also be responsible for stepping out to defend the quicker powerforwards in the high post for instance. If that was your example of a powerforward, than you'd have to come up with some way to describe JO in his prime who helped protect the basket with his shotblocking ability, and he used his back to the basket post up game to score. (to be fair, O'Neal was relatively rounded, using jump shots as well.)

The more and more that you try to argue the distinct differences between a powerforward and center, the more complicated and confusing it gets. It's a lost cause.

Generally I think we can agree every team wants to have a "true center" that can be a dominating presence in the middle on defense. (of course JO is an example of a PF who did that- don't forget) We can also agree, that there are a few pretty quick powerforwards that are tough to handle if the big you have starting doesn't have the footspeed to handle him too far out from the basket.

The conclusion we can come to, as I've said before, is you need your too bigs to be able to handle whoever they may face which could mean a quicker than normal PF, or a more powerful center in the low post.

In the Pacers case if they started Roy and Tyson, for the most part they could handle every big men tandem in the league without question. The problems they could face is when they meet the Heat. Tyson might have a little trouble playing defense on Chris Bosh who is an undersized PF.

If that was the case, (and I really doubt Tyson would ever have that much trouble defending Bosh) the Pacers could always depend on big minutes from their 6th man Tyler Hansbrough. It would not be an issue. There is just no way you could argue it would be.

The reality is your big men as a whole, if you were to think of them as a unit, would need to out rebound everyone they play against, shot block on both sides of the rim, and challenge the shots of opposing big men. If Roy and Tyson were in the starting lineup, I think that is exactly what would happen.

Ozwalt72
04-01-2011, 02:56 PM
wow. Good counter, "nu uh... prove me wrong"

Did you read what I said?

Yes I did. And I think you are overrating Roy...and the athleticism of Chandler.

But my point with the "prove it" comment is your claiming that there are only PGs, Wings and Forwards in the NBA. And that is true, but not for every team.

mattie
04-01-2011, 03:06 PM
Yes I did. And I think you are overrating Roy...and the athleticism of Chandler.

But my point with the "prove it" comment is your claiming that there are only PGs, Wings and Forwards in the NBA. And that is true, but not for every team.

Sure, that's a good argument, that the two of them are just two slow to be any good together.

But see, I'd much more value the dominant inside presence the two could provide together than what we have now, which is an undersized PF who doesn't rebound well, doesn't protect the rim, and generally gets beat against good low post scorers.

If the case were we had a weakness against good outside shooting PF's, I'd be fine with that weakness. I believe the positives would for outweigh the negatives. Not too mention, the Pacers would always have the ability to adapt by using both Tyler and Josh. The result would be a very flexible frontcourt.

Ozwalt72
04-01-2011, 03:12 PM
If the case were we had a weakness against good outside shooting PF's, I'd be fine with that weakness. I believe the positives would for outweigh the negatives. Not too mention, the Pacers would always have the ability to adapt by using both Tyler and Josh. The result would be a very flexible frontcourt.

Well, yeah, assuming we keep Josh around. Also, Granger probably matches up with perimeter 4s better defensively than the smaller more athletic wings, so if you have to...send Hibbert to the bench and go small with Chandler at 5 and Granger at 4.

It sounds good in theory and I wouldn't be opposed to it.

Richard_Skull
04-01-2011, 03:16 PM
I have been thinking about this all year and again bc of the game last night. I think a Roy Chandler combination would work well. Chandler would only be getting half his mins at PF anyhow. With Chandler, we would have the longest lineup in the NBA
C- Roy 7'2
PF- TC 7'1
SF- DG 6'8
SG- PG 6'9 or is he 6'10 now
PG- If its lance one day 6'5

pacergod2
04-01-2011, 03:18 PM
I have been thinking about this all year and again bc of the game last night. I think a Roy Chandler combination would work well. Chandler would only be getting half his mins at PF anyhow. With Chandler, we would have the longest lineup in the NBA
C- Roy 7'2
PF- TC 7'1
SF- DG 6'8
SG- PG 6'9 or is he 6'10 now
PG- If its lance one day 6'5

But wouldn't that force us to go small? :eek: :D

mattie
04-01-2011, 03:24 PM
I have been thinking about this all year and again bc of the game last night. I think a Roy Chandler combination would work well. Chandler would only be getting half his mins at PF anyhow. With Chandler, we would have the longest lineup in the NBA
C- Roy 7'2
PF- TC 7'1
SF- DG 6'8
SG- PG 6'9 or is he 6'10 now
PG- If its lance one day 6'5

Exactly. Height is always a good thing. We'd be starting 4 shot blockers. That'd be a good thing lol.

Even on offense it would work well as Tyson doesn't need the ball. The ball could be fed through DG, PG and Roy ... TC wouldn't have to play a lot of minutes on top of that as Tyler could come in, and I love the idea of Tyler playing big minutes of the bench. If thats the case, we can use his outstanding hustle through out the game while not suffering in crunch time when he's giving up offensive rebounds, or not playing the best defense.

It would be outstanding. I can dream can't I?

troyc11a
04-01-2011, 03:32 PM
Fit? he'd be a replacement

No kidding! TC does not have much of an offensive game but he plays hard. I would really like the idea of him and Tyler on the court at the same time. That would give opponents nightmares!

Would you want to trade Roy or keep him as a back-up?