We already have a defensive only player in Chandler. We need low post scoring, not an aging undersized center who can't shoot free throws or add much offense. I like Big Ben a lot and if we didn't have Chandler he might be a good sign...but we do have chandler.

Besides, it wouldnt make sense to give a max contract to an aging player. We should add other players through FA and the draft. Plus, he has had problems with Carlisle, Brown and now Flip. He will have major problems with Skiles.

I agree wholeheartedly.

how do u know he will have problems with skiles. besides him being a 6'9 center has never hurt him before

Boo to big ben, he's not the low post scoring threat we need. Thumbs up to this thread. He's in great great physical condition, but he's also old and I wouldnt give him a long term deal.

Chandler isn't even close to Ben Wallace. Get a legit top 3 defensive player (best defensive center in the league) and move Chandler for another need.

that's reasonable. If we trade chandler, then I would be more interested in signing Big Ben...just not to a max 6 year deal, which is what he wants. You can't have a C and PF who can't score, shoot free throws or post up. Either one or the other.

I'm not a Chandler fan...but I'd rather keep with the youth and add other FA's and hopefully draft aldridge.

Relax guys Wallace is playing with the pistons because he want a max contract...detroit will give the contract to wallace

dont be too sure about that.. if u listen to pistons fans.. a lot of them wouldnt mind Wallace leaving.. they want a shake up on their line-up... They would still like to keep him.. but.. i dont think theyre going to give a max contract.. no way...

Ben Wallace is in great shape.... IMO he will still be able to get 9-10 boards for us in 3 years... and in 3 years, Alridge/ Bargnani, will be starting to take off... Also, lets not forget the knicks 2007 pick... And im sure Chandler will get a little bit better/consistent with Wallace here too...

-Is it wrong to control the paint the whole game?? (Chandler/ Ben)

-Is it wrong to dominate the rebounds? ^

-Do you guys know how important it is to control the rebounds??.... Why is it that mostly every1 forgets about this, and underates this part of the game?? What would happen if the Bulls got 5+, or maybe even +10 boards in some nights? All while playing good defense throughout the whole game... instead of being a good, ok rebounding team, why not be great?

-Both Chandler and Wallace avrged OVER 3 offensive rebounds a game this season... (and Chandler can get more once he gains more weight, and doesnt get pushed around as much when facing the big guys) Second opportunities ARE HUGE. especially late in the game... that can change a whole game...

-the Bulls were 16th in the league in points in the paint...and im sure the will be better next year... Mostly bcuz i saw the bulls drive in a lot more late into the season w/ consistency... To me it looked like Kirk and Ben finally understood that they have to drive in... Any1 remember when the opponents would shoot like 100+ free-throws compared to us in the beginning of the year? So overall, we're not that bad as every1 thinks in scoring points in the paint... many people think we're just a jump shooting team....

-What i like about Ben Wallace is that you can throw him alley-oops, or in a pick-and-role, ben Wallace can catch it and if the lane is somewhat clear, he will finish strong w/ one hand... That was a BIG problem for us this year... no one could finsih strong to the hoop. Chandler sometimes..... but the bulls couldnt do it too much because of Chandlers bad hands, etc...

-the Bulls avgd around 97 points... and allowed around 97 points.. with better defense, the opponets can avg aound 94-95 points.. maybe even less once every1 is clicking in...

Why is every1 trying to trade Chandler if we sign Big Ben??

-

Why keep with youth, having a fully young team gets you nowhere. It took Dirk like 9 years to turn them into an NBA championship team. You need good veterans around if you are going to win.

The Bulls have enough youth, plus we'd have at least 1 high pick this year (maybe 2 if we don't trade the other) as well as the Knicks pick next year (which odds are we will be dealing our 1st round pick next year for).

Tyson Chandler may be young, but in our wildest dreams the best we could ever hope out of Tyson is for him to turn into Ben Wallace. Why not just pay Ben Wallace to do that, since we are grossly overpaying Tyson in the hopes that he'll turn into Big Ben.

Than move Tyson and Gordon (maybe something else) for a legit 2 guard (or for a scoring big) depending on whether we go with Aldridge or Roy in the draft. In FA pick up either a SG (if we take Roy, sign a veteran to a 1 or 2 year deal that can play solid defense and help teach Roy) or if we dealt Tyson for a SG (pick up a guy like Drew Gooden) who could initially start opposite Big Ben.

Someone has to want to take on Tyson's deal to trade him...

I would have to think a team out there would be interested in Chandler. Even if its a 3 team deal where 1 team gets an expiring contract, another gets Tyson and we get a guard (obviously some other parts would be going places).

is it wrong to have a C and PF shoot 30% from the free throw line?

is it wrong to have neither guy be able to hit a shot from over 8 feet?

is it wrong to want someone who can put their back to the basket and score?

I understand the idea of dominating with rebounds...but we can have another good defensive player who can also play offense...

Also, Chandler has been in the league for 5 years...why would he all of a sudden put on weight? He is what he is going to be...

Which is exactly why we need to pawn Chandler off on someone else. I want Chandler gone, Wallace here, and a low post scorer added as well as a guard that can CONSISTENTLY score (no Ben Gordon isn't that since he doesn't have a clue on how to get to the free throw line and cant play defense).

I'm all for Big Ben if we trade Chandler...but we still need to add another PF low post scoring option...

I like Gordon a lot though, so I have to disagree on that part.

My only concern if we did this would be signing Wallace to a 6 year max deal... Bc in the last 2-3 years of that deal he would be a cap waste.

He could very well be a waste of salary 4 years from now, but at least there is a really good chance that we get an all star center for 3 years (and a decent center for a 4th year). We won't get any of that with what we are paying Tyson and picking up Wallace allows us to move Tyson, sign someone like Gooden (low post scorer) as well as draft Aldridge.

And we could find a legit two guard in a trade with Tyson (Gordon plus Duhon or a draft pick).

Plus I got to be honest, the last year of Wallace's deal, even if he sucks he'll be attractive because he's an expiring contract, so really I think odds are we will have 3 great years, 1 average year, 1 year where he may suck, but he'll be an expiring contract the following year and we can get him off the books and take someone else on if we want.

Whatever happens, I trust Pax and he has earned it so far...

I agree with that. The only concern I have with Pax is that he may be too conservative. I like a conservative guy, but on ocassion you have to have the cohonies to go out and make a ballsy move. I truly believe ballsy moves (when done in connection with a lot of conservative well thought out moves) are what can put a team over the top.

You need to be willing to go out on a limb for a guy and nkow that if things work out you have a super bowl champion. Kind of like how Kenny Williams was ballsy enough to go out and move Carlos Lee, let Maggs walk, and go out and add an El Duque and Scott Podsednik (as well as AJ and Iguchi) and pretty much overhaul a club that was close to being a playoff team. Sure those moves could have made us worse, but instead it was those ballsy moves that turned the Sox into a World Series champ.

I think this year he will get out of the box. I say that bc he needed to build a solid foundation and repair the damage done over the last 7 years. He needed to build a team and he got guys he knew he could count on without taking chances. Now that we have a core and chicago is a desired destination again...look for him to suprise this off season.

Also, I think trading Currie was a risk. He does have upside and he knew all year we wouldnt have a low post guy. I think it worked out well, but it will pay dividends in the long run, especially when we land aldridge...

How about swapping picks with Phoenix when you really want Luol Deng, and after you'd spent several years in the lottery in a row, a move that could potentially cost you a top pick?