New Benny, and Other changes (Bulls offseason)

[David]

but yeah, even taking into account draft position, i think paxson's 1st round draft record looks pretty damn good even with (essentially) choosing thomas over aldridge.

 

hinrich, gordon/deng, thomas/thabo, noah, rose, johnson/taj, niko/butler, teague, snell, mcdermott, portis, valentine

 

aside from the obvious with tyrus, the biggest misses relative to draft position (teague was like 29th or 30th) are probably snell or james johnson but overall that's a solid hit rate...obviously the jury is still out on the more recent guys. despite people having higher hopes, if mcdermott can even forge a kyle korver type of career, i'd say you call that a hit.

And as much as Pax has rightfully gotten grief for overvaluing his own picks, he also managed to salvage some value from failed picks he was basically dumping (Sefalosha for a pick that became Taj, and Johnson into a pick that became Jimmy Butler, and Thomas for a pick which partially turned into McDermott)

 

good point, i had forgotten most of that.

[Cubbie Swagger]

i definitely raised an eyebrow at the brand for chandler trade at the time and it definitely did not look good for the first few years, but tyrus wound up putting together a very nice career, much to my surprise.

You mean Tyson put together a nice career, right? Tyrus was a total bust.

 

Chandler ended up becoming a useful center, but he never came close to Elton Brand in his prime. And he certainly wasn't "the next KG". Brand continued to dominate every single year until he got hurt.

 

Also, how funny is it that Eddy Curry was hailed as a smaller version of Shaq? Considering Shaq's best attribute was his size, that doesn't sound so great.

[David]

i definitely raised an eyebrow at the brand for chandler trade at the time and it definitely did not look good for the first few years, but tyrus wound up putting together a very nice career, much to my surprise.

You mean Tyson put together a nice career, right? Tyrus was a total bust.

 

Chandler ended up becoming a useful center, but he never came close to Elton Brand in his prime. And he certainly wasn't "the next KG". Brand continued to dominate every single year until he got hurt.

 

yeah you beat my edit by like 2 seconds. i meant tyson, of course.

 

i don't see how "the next KG" thing is at all relevant...yeah, i'd take brand's career. never said i wouldn't...but for the sake of argument, elton has had 109.6 win shares in 1058 games, and tyson has had 92.7 in 986. so while elton was the better player with the better career, i think there's probably a serious case to be made that tyson closed the gap quite a bit after all was said and done. definitely more than just a useful player in his prime.

[apete6]

i definitely raised an eyebrow at the brand for chandler trade at the time and it definitely did not look good for the first few years, but tyrus wound up putting together a very nice career, much to my surprise.

You mean Tyson put together a nice career, right? Tyrus was a total bust.

 

Chandler ended up becoming a useful center, but he never came close to Elton Brand in his prime. And he certainly wasn't "the next KG". Brand continued to dominate every single year until he got hurt.

 

yeah you beat my edit by like 2 seconds. i meant tyson, of course.

 

i don't see how "the next KG" thing is at all relevant...yeah, i'd take brand's career. never said i wouldn't...but for the sake of argument, elton has had 109.6 win shares in 1058 games, and tyson has had 92.7 in 986. so while elton was the better player with the better career, i think there's probably a serious case to be made that tyson closed the gap quite a bit after all was said and done. definitely more than just a useful player in his prime.

 

Also, how many of those Win Shares for Brand came with the Bulls? Factoring in just the years after the trade, Tyson was probably better than Brand.

[Cubbie Swagger]

i definitely raised an eyebrow at the brand for chandler trade at the time and it definitely did not look good for the first few years, but tyrus wound up putting together a very nice career, much to my surprise.

You mean Tyson put together a nice career, right? Tyrus was a total bust.

 

Chandler ended up becoming a useful center, but he never came close to Elton Brand in his prime. And he certainly wasn't "the next KG". Brand continued to dominate every single year until he got hurt.

 

yeah you beat my edit by like 2 seconds. i meant tyson, of course.

 

i don't see how "the next KG" thing is at all relevant...yeah, i'd take brand's career. never said i wouldn't...but for the sake of argument, elton has had 109.6 win shares in 1058 games, and tyson has had 92.7 in 986. so while elton was the better player with the better career, i think there's probably a serious case to be made that tyson closed the gap quite a bit after all was said and done. definitely more than just a useful player in his prime.

The next KG is just what he was called when we drafted him. All I was saying is that Tyson was a disappointment.

 

If you consider the fact that Brand ended up getting hurt, and Tyson has remained useful until basically now, yeah, there might be some debate there as far as who had the better overall career. It was still a horrible trade that I would not have made, even in hindsight. The first 8 years of Brand's career would have been worth so much to us in our rebuild. We could have stopped the sucking so much sooner.

 

Also, I pay literally no attention to advanced stats in basketball. I'm sure some of them are valuable, but I don't have the same desire to learn about them as I do with baseball.

[Sammy Sofa]

If you consider the fact that Brand ended up getting hurt, and Tyson has remained useful until basically now, yeah, there might be some debate there as far as who had the better overall career. It was still a horrible trade that I would not have made, even in hindsight. The first 8 years of Brand's career would have been worth so much to us in our rebuild. We could have stopped the sucking so much sooner.

 

Eh; those were REALLY bad teams, and like David has pointed out, we're not talking about that big a difference in players. Best case scenario likely would have just them being less bad.

[Cubbie Swagger]

If you consider the fact that Brand ended up getting hurt, and Tyson has remained useful until basically now, yeah, there might be some debate there as far as who had the better overall career. It was still a horrible trade that I would not have made, even in hindsight. The first 8 years of Brand's career would have been worth so much to us in our rebuild. We could have stopped the sucking so much sooner.

 

Eh; those were REALLY bad teams, and like David has pointed out, we're not talking about that big a difference in players. Best case scenario likely would have just them being less bad.

We ARE talking about a big difference in players for the first 8 years of their careers. The only reason they sort of leveled out in the end is that Brand had a very severe drop in production due to injury, whereas Chandler just had a normal decline due to old age. Brand was averaging 25 and 10, plus getting assists, steals, and blocks. He was an elite player at his position. Chandler has never been more than a really good role player.

 

I know that having Elton Brand on a really bad team wouldn't have made much difference by itself. I guess the assumption would be that if you have Elton Brand, maybe you become a little more aggressive about surrounding him with talent.

[Sammy Sofa]

Brand's obviously was the better player, but not game-changingly so; the Clippers sucked when they had him except for one season. Sure, maybe the Bulls would have been inexplicably better run if they had him, but probably not.

[David]

If you consider the fact that Brand ended up getting hurt, and Tyson has remained useful until basically now, yeah, there might be some debate there as far as who had the better overall career. It was still a horrible trade that I would not have made, even in hindsight. The first 8 years of Brand's career would have been worth so much to us in our rebuild. We could have stopped the sucking so much sooner.

 

Eh; those were REALLY bad teams, and like David has pointed out, we're not talking about that big a difference in players. Best case scenario likely would have just them being less bad.

We ARE talking about a big difference in players for the first 8 years of their careers. The only reason they sort of leveled out in the end is that Brand had a very severe drop in production due to injury, whereas Chandler just had a normal decline due to old age. Brand was averaging 25 and 10, plus getting assists, steals, and blocks. He was an elite player at his position. Chandler has never been more than a really good role player.

 

I know that having Elton Brand on a really bad team wouldn't have made much difference by itself. I guess the assumption would be that if you have Elton Brand, maybe you become a little more aggressive about surrounding him with talent.

 

tyson chandler was a legitimate impact defensive player and one of the best rebounders in the league. he also basically averaged a double double a few times. he was more than just a role player.

[Cubbie Swagger]

 

Eh; those were REALLY bad teams, and like David has pointed out, we're not talking about that big a difference in players. Best case scenario likely would have just them being less bad.

We ARE talking about a big difference in players for the first 8 years of their careers. The only reason they sort of leveled out in the end is that Brand had a very severe drop in production due to injury, whereas Chandler just had a normal decline due to old age. Brand was averaging 25 and 10, plus getting assists, steals, and blocks. He was an elite player at his position. Chandler has never been more than a really good role player.

 

I know that having Elton Brand on a really bad team wouldn't have made much difference by itself. I guess the assumption would be that if you have Elton Brand, maybe you become a little more aggressive about surrounding him with talent.

 

tyson chandler was a legitimate impact defensive player and one of the best rebounders in the league. he also basically averaged a double double a few times. he was more than just a role player.

Yeah, I mean, it just depends how you define the various roles. By "really good role player", I mean that on a good team he is going to be a complimentary piece alongside a couple of legit scorers. Typically guys that aren't primary scorers on their team are going to be regarded as role players.

 

The fact that he took so long to develop was probably the biggest issue. Brand was ready. 20 and 10 in his rookie year.

 

Also, for an impact defensive player, he didn't block many shots. I'm not saying he wasn't a good defender, though, don't get me wrong.

[WrigleyField 22]

At least they sold high on Brand, even if they messed up the pick.

 

Unintentional benefit, clearing Brand allowed Curry to get more offensive attention and ultimately more trade value which we turned into LaMarcus Aldrige (for a few minutes anyways haha) and Joakim Noah.

 

Unfortunately we decided to turn Chandler into cap/tax relief and a year of old PJ Brown.

[WrigleyField 22]

https://twitter.com/sephgat/status/350317863665549313

 

Good time to share

[WrigleyField 22]

Also, how funny is it that Eddy Curry was hailed as a smaller version of Shaq? Considering Shaq's best attribute was his size, that doesn't sound so great.

I mean, it was just a nickname, Baby Shaq. Length wise they were very close (1/2 inch wingspan, 2 inch standing reach). Eddy Curry was actually probably just as heavy, but he was a doughy 18 year old where Shaq as a prospect was a fit, ripped athletic specimin. He didnt became SO big for a few years. Shaq was a bit more athletic too, but Eddy Curry did a pretty good impression with his nimbleness and hands atbhis peak. He just didnt have the drive.

 

http://www.beckett.com/basketball/1993-94/fleer-rookie-sensations/18-shaquille-oneal-3061513

[Cubbie Swagger]

At least they sold high on Brand, even if they messed up the pick.

They absolutely did not. If they were going to trade him, they would have been better off allowing him to blossom for a few years into a legit superstar. At his peak, they could have received a lot more than the #2 pick in return for him. It would have been a whole package.

 

Again, he didn't get injured until 8 years into his career. It wasn't like Rose where it happened right away.

[Sammy Sofa]

At least they sold high on Brand, even if they messed up the pick.

They absolutely did not. If they were going to trade him, they would have been better off allowing him to blossom for a few years into a legit superstar. At his peak, they could have received a lot more than the #2 pick in return for him.

 

How often does that happen?

[UMFan83]

At least they sold high on Brand, even if they messed up the pick.

They absolutely did not. If they were going to trade him, they would have been better off allowing him to blossom for a few years into a legit superstar. At his peak, they could have received a lot more than the #2 pick in return for him. It would have been a whole package.

 

Again, he didn't get injured until 8 years into his career. It wasn't like Rose where it happened right away.

 

Yeah seriously how does trading the number 1 pick 2 years into his career of putting up 20/10s both seasons for the number 2 pick constitute selling high? If that was the best you could get for Brand his value would have been higher before the draft he was picked in

[WrigleyField 22]

At least they sold high on Brand, even if they messed up the pick.

They absolutely did not. If they were going to trade him, they would have been better off allowing him to blossom for a few years into a legit superstar. At his peak, they could have received a lot more than the #2 pick in return for him. It would have been a whole package.

 

Again, he didn't get injured until 8 years into his career. It wasn't like Rose where it happened right away.

They had won 32 games in two years with him as a 20/10 guy. He wasn't going to blossom in value by being the leader of sub 20 win teams with a dwindling rookie contract. He saw a small uptick in his third year after the trade, then settled back down between the two, and that's then basically who he was sans one All Star year 5 years later where he saw an uptick again.

[Cubbie Swagger]

At least they sold high on Brand, even if they messed up the pick.

They absolutely did not. If they were going to trade him, they would have been better off allowing him to blossom for a few years into a legit superstar. At his peak, they could have received a lot more than the #2 pick in return for him. It would have been a whole package.

 

Again, he didn't get injured until 8 years into his career. It wasn't like Rose where it happened right away.

They had won 32 games in two years with him as a 20/10 guy. He wasn't going to blossom in value by being the leader of sub 20 win teams with a dwindling rookie contract. He saw a small uptick in his third year after the trade and that's then basically who he was sans one All Star year 5 years later.

All I was saying is it would have been possible to sell higher on him, like, after that season.

[WrigleyField 22]

At least they sold high on Brand, even if they messed up the pick.

They absolutely did not. If they were going to trade him, they would have been better off allowing him to blossom for a few years into a legit superstar. At his peak, they could have received a lot more than the #2 pick in return for him. It would have been a whole package.

 

Again, he didn't get injured until 8 years into his career. It wasn't like Rose where it happened right away.

 

Yeah seriously how does trading the number 1 pick 2 years into his career of putting up 20/10s both seasons for the number 2 pick constitute selling high? If that was the best you could get for Brand his value would have been higher before the draft he was picked in

That assumes each draft is equally as valuable. And I think the Bulls did try to trade that pick, but there wasn't much motivation by anyone to jump ahead for Brand before the draft he was picked in.

[WrigleyField 22]

They absolutely did not. If they were going to trade him, they would have been better off allowing him to blossom for a few years into a legit superstar. At his peak, they could have received a lot more than the #2 pick in return for him. It would have been a whole package.

 

Again, he didn't get injured until 8 years into his career. It wasn't like Rose where it happened right away.

They had won 32 games in two years with him as a 20/10 guy. He wasn't going to blossom in value by being the leader of sub 20 win teams with a dwindling rookie contract. He saw a small uptick in his third year after the trade and that's then basically who he was sans one All Star year 5 years later.

All I was saying is it would have been possible to sell higher on him, like, after that season.

Hindsight, he improved a little bit that next year, but the book that was written on him probably is unchanged. He wasn't a franchise changer, not before the draft, not after two years, not after three years.

[Cubbie Swagger]

On another note...

 

I was thinking earlier about how the Bulls traded Charles Oakley without consulting Michael or anything. That is what supposedly started the whole, "the Bulls' front office isn't loyal" thing. I feel like that would never happen today. Could you imagine the Cavs just up and trading one of Lebron's cronies without saying anything? Maybe it's just a result of the game changing over time? Players have more power now, I guess.

[UMFan83]

On another note...

 

I was thinking earlier about how the Bulls traded Charles Oakley without consulting Michael or anything. That is what supposedly started the whole, "the Bulls' front office isn't loyal" thing. I feel like that would never happen today. Could you imagine the Cavs just up and trading one of Lebron's cronies without saying anything? Maybe it's just a result of the game changing over time? Players have more power now, I guess.

 

That or Jerry Krause was just a pompous ass

[Cubbie Swagger]

They had won 32 games in two years with him as a 20/10 guy. He wasn't going to blossom in value by being the leader of sub 20 win teams with a dwindling rookie contract. He saw a small uptick in his third year after the trade and that's then basically who he was sans one All Star year 5 years later.

All I was saying is it would have been possible to sell higher on him, like, after that season.

Hindsight, he improved a little bit that next year, but the book that was written on him probably is unchanged. He wasn't a franchise changer, not before the draft, not after two years, not after three years.

There are very few players that are capable of single-handedly turning a bad team into a playoff team. You could probably put Lebron James on any team in the league and they would make the playoffs, but who else can you say that about? Elton Brand could have been a very nice piece on a contender if we had been able to pair him with a couple other elite players. He could have been, like, the Chris Bosh of a Big 3.

[Cubbie Swagger]

On another note...

 

I was thinking earlier about how the Bulls traded Charles Oakley without consulting Michael or anything. That is what supposedly started the whole, "the Bulls' front office isn't loyal" thing. I feel like that would never happen today. Could you imagine the Cavs just up and trading one of Lebron's cronies without saying anything? Maybe it's just a result of the game changing over time? Players have more power now, I guess.

 

That or Jerry Krause was just a pompous ass

God, he was so easy to hate.

[WrigleyField 22]

On another note...

 

I was thinking earlier about how the Bulls traded Charles Oakley without consulting Michael or anything. That is what supposedly started the whole, "the Bulls' front office isn't loyal" thing. I feel like that would never happen today. Could you imagine the Cavs just up and trading one of Lebron's cronies without saying anything? Maybe it's just a result of the game changing over time? Players have more power now, I guess.

 

That or Jerry Krause was just a pompous ass

He was probably correct to. That was a good deal for that first Bulls run, no?

 

There is something to the difference of eras though... they were in an uncapped, no max era. Money would still have even been the driving source to any superstars decision, so you could always just outbid anyone else. Piss off Lebron now and he can go get the same deal from any other team and you have no way to outbid them. So short of money, pleasing your star players with personal influence over the roster is a big bargaining chip now.