I put my money on yes. That is why I really hope these moves work and the Bulls win a championship either this year or next year because we could be looking at this move as the one that cost us $60 million for less of a future.
If Wallace flops in 2 years I don't want to be seeing the same stuff written about him that was written about Chandler because nobody made Paxon pay that much money to either one.
Full Version: Will Tyson be better then "our" Wallace
Tyson won't be able to carry Wallace's jock in 2-3 years.
No. Not even close. 
Tyson will be better than Ben Wallace in id say 3 years.
QUOTE (The Gladiator @ Jul 6 2006, 11:45 AM)
Tyson will be better than Ben Wallace in id say 3 years.
Shame on you.
Tyson Chandler will be as good as Big Ben in his wet dreams.
Tyson Chandler will not be playing in the NBA in 3yrs.
not even close.
QUOTE (chicagoconnect @ Jul 6 2006, 11:47 AM)
Tyson Chandler will not be playing in the NBA in 3yrs.
First I want to say welcome to Talkbulls, second I want to bet you whatever you want that Tyson Chandler will indeed be in the NBA in 3 years.
QUOTE (chicagoconnect @ Jul 6 2006, 11:47 AM)
Tyson Chandler will not be playing in the NBA in 3yrs.
Thats not a good start, You have lost all of your credibility with that comment right there.
QUOTE (chicagoconnect @ Jul 6 2006, 12:47 PM)
Tyson Chandler will not be playing in the NBA in 3yrs.
I disagree. But............................VOTE AJ.
QUOTE (eddog2 @ Jul 6 2006, 09:54 AM)
I put my money on yes. That is why I really hope these moves work and the Bulls win a championship either this year or next year because we could be looking at this move as the one that cost us $60 million for less of a future.
If Wallace flops in 2 years I don't want to be seeing the same stuff written about him that was written about Chandler because nobody made Paxon pay that much money to either one.
If Wallace flops in 2 years I don't want to be seeing the same stuff written about him that was written about Chandler because nobody made Paxon pay that much money to either one.
If he doesnt foul out first.
hey gladiator, did you sketch that picture of ben wallace yourself? If so, thats a pretty sweet picture.
QUOTE (|DaBulls| @ Jul 6 2006, 01:48 PM)
hey gladiator, did you sketch that picture of ben wallace yourself? If so, thats a pretty sweet picture.
o, no I wish I did. I was at my aunts for 4th of July cuz she has a big swimming pool and one of my cousins friend who is in college drew it. It is Awesome! the real copy is amazing. I just made a copy and colored it.
QUOTE (The Gladiator @ Jul 6 2006, 01:50 PM)
o, no I wish I did. I was at my aunts for 4th of July cuz she has a big swimming pool and one of my cousins friend who is in college drew it. It is Awesome! the real copy is amazing. I just made a copy and colored it.
it is still pretty sweet.
QUOTE (|DaBulls| @ Jul 6 2006, 01:58 PM)
it is still pretty sweet.
Ya im making 2 more, one in the Home Jersey and the other in the Alternate Black
I see Chandler being servicable for a long while, but I don't think he will ever be as good as wallace, unless he changes his whole game. He's too thin. I see more of a poor man's Dennis Rodman; poor becuse he can't shoot a lick, and probably never will.
Chandler would be a different player if he added some weight (which he's working on this summer) and if the refs stoped calling a bunch of those ticky tack calls...
Bottom line, is Tyson doesn't and will never have the work ethic that Big Ben Wallace has. Tyson just wanted to get paid like tim thomas, curry, crawford, e-rob, and fizer!
QUOTE (Waffles @ Jul 6 2006, 02:58 PM)
Bottom line, is Tyson doesn't and will never have the work ethic that Big Ben Wallace has. Tyson just wanted to get paid like tim thomas, curry, crawford, e-rob, and fizer!
I dont believe we ever payed Fizer with a second contract.
no we didn't b/c we drafted curry and chandler (the twin towers)
Chandler can be summed up in one highlight.
Watch any time some no name non-offensive threat does one pump fake and the guy jumps out of the gym and gets a foul called
amazing ability.....no basketball IQ, doesn't learn from his previous mistakes
Watch any time some no name non-offensive threat does one pump fake and the guy jumps out of the gym and gets a foul called
amazing ability.....no basketball IQ, doesn't learn from his previous mistakes
This is a tough call.... Tyson and Ben are close to equal when it comes to Offense.... their offense comes primarliy from stuffs and putbacks... but it looks like Tyson has reached his offensive potential.... i just cant see him mastering a mid range jump shot, or any post moves.... hes just toooo physically choppy on the floor.... no fluidity.
Defensively..... Tyson needs to reach that UPPER plateau of players to achieve Ben Wallace stature.... most of the fouls called on Tyson wont be called on Ben Wallace... hes just not established enough.
So i guess the answer to will Tyson Chandler surpass Ben imho is.... no
but can he be AS good as ben? possibly.... I think Tyson shoots better from the line, and still has a pretty high cieling (wasnt worth 60 mil but) and could become the top defensive big man in the game.
Defensively..... Tyson needs to reach that UPPER plateau of players to achieve Ben Wallace stature.... most of the fouls called on Tyson wont be called on Ben Wallace... hes just not established enough.
So i guess the answer to will Tyson Chandler surpass Ben imho is.... no
but can he be AS good as ben? possibly.... I think Tyson shoots better from the line, and still has a pretty high cieling (wasnt worth 60 mil but) and could become the top defensive big man in the game.
Wallace is much better offensively. Not because he can do anything that chandler can't do, but because when someone passes him the ball in the post he actually catches it and scores.
QUOTE (sport1016 @ Jul 6 2006, 03:44 PM)
Wallace is much better offensively. Not because he can do anything that chandler can't do, but because when someone passes him the ball in the post he actually catches it and scores.
Yes, I agree. I've seen Ben post up before and he's not bad. He has a fadeaway, a spin move, and a drop step. He just didn't do it often enough in detroit. He does have some sense of offense.
QUOTE (sport1016 @ Jul 6 2006, 03:44 PM)
Wallace is much better offensively. Not because he can do anything that chandler can't do, but because when someone passes him the ball in the post he actually catches it and scores.
Thats true.... Kirk will average +1.5 assist a game this year with Tyson's departure... and his turnovers will see the same decrease....
QUOTE (sport1016 @ Jul 6 2006, 03:33 PM)
Chandler can be summed up in one highlight.
Watch any time some no name non-offensive threat does one pump fake and the guy jumps out of the gym and gets a foul called
amazing ability.....no basketball IQ, doesn't learn from his previous mistakes
Watch any time some no name non-offensive threat does one pump fake and the guy jumps out of the gym and gets a foul called
amazing ability.....no basketball IQ, doesn't learn from his previous mistakes
we've seen that play hundreds of times from him. the best part is when he looks amazed that there was a whistle.
Ben Wallace also has a jumper out to like 13 feet.
QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Jul 6 2006, 07:18 PM)
Ben Wallace also has a jumper out to like 13 feet.
Ya and the funny thing is. I was reading somewhere where it reported Tyson can hit threes in Highschool like nothing.. What happend?
the arc is farther back... and I'm sure coaches in the nba have made sure he focused on working under the basket, and not wasting time with 3 pointers.
If Tyson learns to how catch the ball...
To answer the question, Tyson will be better than Wallace when Ben retires. Not before then though.
QUOTE
That reminds me, am I the only one who thought Chicago wasted much of its cap space for two extra rebounds per game, a mild defensive upgrade and the ongoing comedy of a Buckwheat-caliber afro? Congratulations, you get to play four-on-five for the next four years in a league where every rule adjustment favors teams that can score. Why not just keep Chandler for two-thirds the price? Instead, they overpaid for Wallace and gave away Chandler for a washed-up P.J. Brown and a draft bust that New Orleans was trying to dump? I don't get it. This is like Paramount Pictures signing William H. Macy to a four-picture, $60 million deal -- sure, he's a great actor, but that doesn't mean you pay him like a superstar. They will eventually regret this one almost as much as Wallace probably regrets filming that T-Mobile commercial that made him seem whipped
this from the latest sports guy column on espn.com...
I like the deal less and less everyday. Hopefully ben proves me wrong.
QUOTE (TeaLeafReaderII @ Jul 7 2006, 06:46 PM)
this from the latest sports guy column on espn.com...
I like the deal less and less everyday. Hopefully ben proves me wrong.
I like the deal less and less everyday. Hopefully ben proves me wrong.
1st off, which "columnist" said that?
2nd of all, in the words of Kalapse "you have allowed yourself to be brainwashed by ESPN."
We should have drafted Randy Foye.
QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Jul 7 2006, 06:05 PM)
1st off, which "columnist" said that?
2nd of all, in the words of Kalapse "you have allowed yourself to be brainwashed by ESPN."
We should have drafted Randy Foye.
2nd of all, in the words of Kalapse "you have allowed yourself to be brainwashed by ESPN."
We should have drafted Randy Foye.
Hasnt ESPN been slurping the Bulls this off-season.... if he is against the Ben Wallace move how is that being brainwashed by ESPN which have been very bull friendly this off-season.
Also Chandler will never be the intimidator that Ben Wallace is now.
QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Jul 7 2006, 06:05 PM)
1st off, which "columnist" said that?
2nd of all, in the words of Kalapse "you have allowed yourself to be brainwashed by ESPN."
We should have drafted Randy Foye.
2nd of all, in the words of Kalapse "you have allowed yourself to be brainwashed by ESPN."
We should have drafted Randy Foye.
its Bill Simmons... he isn't your average espn coumnist... his writing style is a lot more entertaining and he is pretty insightfull at times... and thus far he is the only one at espn poo pooing anything the bulls have done this offseason.
Go ahead attack the source... But I'd feel a lot better if you could actually counter his argument.
QUOTE (TeaLeafReaderII @ Jul 7 2006, 09:27 PM)
its Bill Simmons... he isn't your average espn coumnist... his writing style is a lot more entertaining and he is pretty insightfull at times... and thus far he is the only one at espn poo pooing anything the bulls have done this offseason.
Go ahead attack the source... But I'd feel a lot better if you could actually counter his argument.
Go ahead attack the source... But I'd feel a lot better if you could actually counter his argument.
Everybody has there own opinion. But from what I have seen it looks to me that more people like the signing than not. I think this guy doesnt really know what were trying to do.
We are thearetically speeding up the timetable to win a championship here in Chicago buy trading Chandler and signing Wallace. Does Chandler have the same qualities Ben does? Absolutley! But, Wallace is proven and Chandler is still developing the rest of his game and im sure Pax just wanted to take a more proven player he knows that already has won a Championship. Dont underestimate the leadership Big Ben brings, its obvious that Tyson wasnt much of a leader.
I was away on business and didn't catch Bulls game, thank god.
But I did catch the Lakers/Hornets game.... Jesus Christ is Tyson fun to watch. What could have been
But I did catch the Lakers/Hornets game.... Jesus Christ is Tyson fun to watch. What could have been
i siad it all along too.
Never like the trade of chandler for wallace was against it all along
I loved Tyson more than probably any other Bulls fan. He was my favorite player on the Bulls since the post Jordan/Pippen days. I never wanted him gone but what can you do. Anyway, I pretty happy with what Ben Wallace turned into (Drew Gooden and Larry Hughes). And we do have Noah who plays with the intensity that Chandler did for us. Maybe we'll someday turn Gooden & Hughes into a trade for a stud power forward but in the meantime I think Gooden will be a very good player for us.
In hindsight, did anyone here or anywhere predict that Ben Wallace was going to be your classic "got his money and now is shutting completely down" veteran player? I'll admit, I never saw that coming from a guy who worked himself up to the DPOY slot from barely being drafted or playing at all early in his career.
Surprised I didn't post in this thread...
On the one hand, I figured Wallace would be highly useful for at least two years of the deal, with the last two being far more iffy, and I definitely think I said they paid too much. On the other hand, I didn't expect Tyson to become this effective. That exchange sure turned out like crap.
On the one hand, I figured Wallace would be highly useful for at least two years of the deal, with the last two being far more iffy, and I definitely think I said they paid too much. On the other hand, I didn't expect Tyson to become this effective. That exchange sure turned out like crap.
Brand > Chandler > Wallace...somehow we ended up with the shittiest one. WTF.
QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Mar 15 2008, 10:57 PM) 
Brand > Chandler > Wallace...somehow we ended up with the shittiest one. WTF.
+ 
= 
QUOTE (steve9347 @ Mar 15 2008, 11:42 PM)
+ = Nice! As much as I hated Krause I really think he knew what he was doing. He did blow up the team but he drafted Curry & Chandler and he would have made it work. Those were his kids and he would have made sure everything was put in place to ensure they became effective players. Paxson on the other hand wanted to ship every last player from the Krause days out of town. He signed Chandler to $10 million so that he didn't lose him for nothing but he knew the fans would start to complain that $10 million was too much. In hindsight I bet all you dumb fans that wanted Chandler gone b/c he made too much really feel stupid now that he's better and that because he was a much cheaper options than Wallace.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.