« Now Tyson Chandler might play | Main | A loss that raised questions »
February 06, 2010
And finally, Chandler isn't playing
First he wasn't playing, then he was, then he wasn't again.
Charlotte Bobcats center Tyson Chandler is inactive for tonight's game against the New Orleans Hornets, after coach Larry Brown said pre-game he expected Chandler to play a few minutes.
That clearly came as a surprise to Chandler, who said after a practice Friday that though he felt well, he didn't anticipate being active for the Hornets game. He's been out since before Christmas with a stress reaction in his left foot.
Posted by Observer Sports on February 6, 2010 at 06:14 PM | Permalink
Comments
Hopefully he'll get to start the next few games after this to get some PT before the break.
Posted by: Brett Johnson | Feb 6, 2010 6:31:04 PM
No need to have Chandler get completely embarrassed by the guy we lost for him.
Posted by: DeLaQuest | Feb 6, 2010 6:40:01 PM
If you think the Chandler-Okafor trade was bad, then you probably also thought the J-Rich for Diaw/Bell and the Bell for Jackson trades were bad. You probably also wanted to trade Wallace over the past year. Anyone who wanted to move Wallace looks like a complete idiot and should no longer post on here. And since about half of you fools wanted that, these boards ought to go silent.
Posted by: Nick | Feb 6, 2010 6:57:45 PM
In hindsight, on its own (which is the key here), the Richardson for Diaw and Bell trade was bad. Have you seen Diaw play this year? It's turned out to be a good trade because we turned Bell into Jackson, but again, I'm speaking of on its own.
As for the Okafor/Chandler trade, it has been horrible, as I said it would be from day 1.
Bonnell, looks like Chandler doesn't want to be on the court "24/7," as you told me one time. And it looks like Okafor isn't the "remarkably slow healer."
Posted by: RP | Feb 6, 2010 7:02:46 PM
Oh, and this is without even mentioning Jared Dudley, who's been great in Phoenix. So, yeah, I think it's pretty obvious that Richardson/Dudley for Diaw/Bell has been a bad trade.
Posted by: RP | Feb 6, 2010 7:04:46 PM
RP, the 'Cats played much better down the stretch last season with Bell and Diaw than they had earlier in the year with J-Rich and Dudley so the trade was not bad as you had said.
Posted by: Reid | Feb 6, 2010 9:43:31 PM
We had no starting-caliber power forward before the J-Rich trade, Reid. With the J-Rich trade, we were able to fill out a big hole while still remaining adequate at the two-guard. Look at this season, though. Had it not been for the Jackson trade, we'd probably have less than fifteen wins, and both Richardson and Dudley have been better than Diaw and Bell, so again, on its own, it was a bad trade.
Posted by: RP | Feb 6, 2010 9:52:55 PM
So having even less PFs would make this team better, RP? That's flawless logic right there.
Posted by: Bro. D. | Feb 6, 2010 10:56:05 PM
Yeah RP clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. And you can't just look at the trade "on its own". A trade is for the future... obviously. Salary, skill, chemistry, age, etc. incorporates way more than the attitude toward trades you are trying to employ.
Posted by: Nick | Feb 7, 2010 4:48:19 AM
for the uninformed......we turned adam morrison, jared dudley and brandan wright into stephen jackson, boris diaw, and acie law. hate to break it to you kids but that is PHENOMINAL trading. and its not bad drafting either if you consider the outcome.
Posted by: charlottean | Feb 7, 2010 1:03:23 PM
Nick,
To suggest that disliking the Chandler trade equates to disliking all of the other trades makes no sense. The other major trades actually brought us more talent. So why wouldn't I like THOSE???
And I technically did not say I was against the Chandler trade anyway. I said no need to embarrass Chandler, who is coming off of an injury......
Posted by: DeLaQuest | Feb 7, 2010 7:46:34 PM
It's amazing that people question the Diaw trade when it led to A: A respectable season last year because we finally had a 2000's-era PF, and B: Getting Stephen Jackson for Bell this year.
For the first time in our history, we have a go-to scorer and a starting lineup of true NBA starters playing their appropriate positions. Be happy people.
Posted by: DeLaQuest | Feb 7, 2010 7:49:43 PM
dela......we don't make the chandler trade, we don't make the stephen jackson trade. we wouldn't have the future cap room for an outgoing owner to sign off on. it flat out would not have happened.
Posted by: charlottean | Feb 7, 2010 9:42:52 PM
I agree with charlottean....there's no way the Cats would have been able to commit to Jax (who is owed $9M per year for the next three years) with Okafor's deal on the books. Given the ownership situation, I'm surprised the Jax trade happened even after the Okafor trade.
Also, any trade has to be considered in context of how the guys play in the system of the coach and LB is definitely trading for guys that fit better into his system.
All that aside, we'd still be a better team with Okafor than Chandler. Remember, he was no defensive liability. And, to consider we're playing NBA-best defense with Nazr out there, it would be scary how good our D would have been with Okafor. I'm still hoping Chandler comes back 100% and our D can turn it up a level.
Posted by: Cats_Fan | Feb 8, 2010 12:38:14 PM
Charlottean,
No guarantees on that. As I understand it, we STILL could have made the Jackson trade with Okafor here--as far as the salary cap rules go. And that future salary cap money is gonna be paid to SOMEBODY anyway....Why not to two quality players? If a team has a GOOD, consistent player locked up for years, why exactly is that a liability for selling the team?
And if we had kept Okafor, who knows what other trades or player development would have happened afterwards?.......
It's great that we eventually got Stephen Jackson. But to all of those other people out there who trashed Okafor and praised Chandler when that swap was made......Are you freakin' kidding me?
Posted by: DeLaQuest | Feb 8, 2010 4:11:22 PM
No doubt Okafor is better than Chandler, however, Okafor is not a game changer, and defensively I'd say they are equal. Look at the numbers, he is strikingly similar to a healthy Andris Biedrins. And the money is what made that deal great. The Jax trade never gets done without the Okafor deal... It COULD HAVE, but would not have...
If the Bobcats had kept Okafor (and therefore the whole roster with Vlad and injured Bell) they would be nowhere close to where they are now in terms of wins and overall play. Okafor put up a whopping 12 & 10 in several seasons as the ONLY post player on a young team that had no weapons, and he was the "franchise" player.
Posted by: Nick | Feb 9, 2010 1:08:55 AM
Post a comment
Advertisements
