Now that it's been a good two years, what does everyone think of Jerry Krause trading Elton Brand for Tyson Chandler? (It could have just as easily been Elton Brand for Eddy Curry)
A very bad one for the Bulls...I will stand by that...Brand is an allstar that puts up 20 and 10 every night..is a very good defender that can block shots...If Bulls hadn't of traded away Brand..they would be a playoff team for sure..but because they don't it is in doubt... I highly doubt Chandler will every reach the level of Brand..but we shall see
I'm not quite sure how I stand on this. We traded away consistancy for potential that has yet to be reached. I think Chandler could be a Jermaine O'Neal type player, it just depends how hard he wants to work for it. So far, it's looking good. It's kind of early for comparing though, Brand had college (4 years?) and Tyson is straight out of high school.
Eddy Curry and Elton Brand......... Yes, the thought of it is nice. But would it have worked? Both players like to get the ball on the low block. Both players offensive games are built around posting up and backing in. Having both would form a clog. I don't think that would have worked as well as many think. Miller and Brand would have worked, because Miller is a good outside shooter. But Curry and Brand wouldn't have IMO. Thats why the trade was made, among other reasons. Chandler excels in help defense, shot blocking, and rebounding. 3 areas Curry still needs to improve upon. They fit together nicely. Each player's strengths is the other player's weakness. Also, at the time, Krause wasn't convinced Brand was a max player. He still has yet to lead the Clippers anywhere(when he was supposedly their missing link- admittedly, LA did have more than just a few problems last year). Don't get me wrong, Brand is the better player now. But the future remains unknown. Brand will probably always be the better offensive player, which is fine. Thats not why Chicago brought him in. They brought him in to be a game changer on defense(something Chandler with his size and athleticsm can become better at than Brand). They already were gambling on Curry being their offensive game changer. The trade will have turned out fine if Chandler continues to develop into the glimpses of stardom we have seen. If he can continue to improve steadily, everything will be fine. Chicago's lost scoring in Brand will be replaced with Crawford, Rose, Curry's development, etc. Chandler will most likely be the defensive force. And thats why the trade was done. To better compliment Curry. As far as I am concerned, if Chandler averaged 15 ppg 12 rpg and 3 bpg for his career, I'll be happy with the trade(and assuming Curry develops into the offensive powerhouse he is hyped to become, and Chandler is the game changer on defense).
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Vintage:</div><div class="quote_post">Eddy Curry and Elton Brand......... Yes, the thought of it is nice. But would it have worked? Both players like to get the ball on the low block. Both players offensive games are built around posting up and backing in. Having both would form a clog. I don't think that would have worked as well as many think. Miller and Brand would have worked, because Miller is a good outside shooter. But Curry and Brand wouldn't have IMO. Thats why the trade was made, among other reasons. Chandler excels in help defense, shot blocking, and rebounding. 3 areas Curry still needs to improve upon. They fit together nicely. Each player's strengths is the other player's weakness. Also, at the time, Krause wasn't convinced Brand was a max player. He still has yet to lead the Clippers anywhere(when he was supposedly their missing link- admittedly, LA did have more than just a few problems last year). </div> I didn't look at it that way. Very true. At the time of the trade, I thought Krause was crazy, considering his history with drafting/signing centers. I don't think most Chicagoans are ever going to realize what he did for this franchise before he retired.
right <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Vintage:</div><div class="quote_post">Eddy Curry and Elton Brand......... Yes, the thought of it is nice. But would it have worked? Both players like to get the ball on the low block. Both players offensive games are built around posting up and backing in. Having both would form a clog. I don't think that would have worked as well as many think. Miller and Brand would have worked, because Miller is a good outside shooter. But Curry and Brand wouldn't have IMO. Thats why the trade was made, among other reasons. Chandler excels in help defense, shot blocking, and rebounding. 3 areas Curry still needs to improve upon. They fit together nicely. Each player's strengths is the other player's weakness. Also, at the time, Krause wasn't convinced Brand was a max player. He still has yet to lead the Clippers anywhere(when he was supposedly their missing link- admittedly, LA did have more than just a few problems last year). Don't get me wrong, Brand is the better player now. But the future remains unknown. Brand will probably always be the better offensive player, which is fine. Thats not why Chicago brought him in. They brought him in to be a game changer on defense(something Chandler with his size and athleticsm can become better at than Brand). They already were gambling on Curry being their offensive game changer. The trade will have turned out fine if Chandler continues to develop into the glimpses of stardom we have seen. If he can continue to improve steadily, everything will be fine. Chicago's lost scoring in Brand will be replaced with Crawford, Rose, Curry's development, etc. Chandler will most likely be the defensive force. And thats why the trade was done. To better compliment Curry. As far as I am concerned, if Chandler averaged 15 ppg 12 rpg and 3 bpg for his career, I'll be happy with the trade(and assuming Curry develops into the offensive powerhouse he is hyped to become, and Chandler is the game changer on defense).</div> 100 precent right vintage!
Brand is a great player but if as Vintage says, the development of Chandler and Curry keeps going the way it's supposed to, then this should be better for the team.
Chandler will never be as good as Brand. I think it was dumb trading him away. You could of atleast tryed Curry and Brand to see how they played together.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Kid Canada:</div><div class="quote_post">Chandler will never be as good as Brand. I think it was dumb trading him away. You could of atleast tryed Curry and Brand to see how they played together.</div> How do we even know we would of got Curry if we didnt make that trade? He might have been the 2nd pick in the draft and we would be stuck with just Chandler!
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting beasly3:</div><div class="quote_post">How do we even know we would of got Curry if we didnt make that trade? He might have been the 2nd pick in the draft and we would be stuck with just Chandler!</div>What would be so bad about Chandler and Brand Thats better than Chadler and Curry.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Kid Canada:</div><div class="quote_post">What would be so bad about Chandler and Brand Thats better than Chadler and Curry.</div> Who knows how Chandler will develope or Curry? Brand has yet to show me he can win anywhere! Untill he proved that I dont understand.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting beasly3:</div><div class="quote_post">Who knows how Chandler will develope or Curry? Brand has yet to show me he can win anywhere! Untill he proved that I dont understand.</div> I'll take 20 and 10 every night in any case. *yawns*
I agree I would have kept Brand for sure. Im just trying to defend my team I guess, even though I dissagree.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting slamduncan21:</div><div class="quote_post">Did any of you read Vintage's post? It wouldn't have worked.</div> Yeah, he brings up some great points.
Chandler is 7'1 opposed to Brand's 6'8 Tyson will be better, he is 7'1, (alot better than 6'8), Tyson is also much more athletic. I dont see a problem.
