Chandler for Okafor deal in works {Update - Official 7/28} {mega-merged}

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CP3 & 11 others

No clue, but I know we have been studying his game closely and are trying to figure out if he would be a good fit.

Personally (my opinion, not inside) I dont think it is a good fit. I actually disagree with NIH and think this trade makes us more likely to look at a true center in FA. I mean Okafor is a PF on a title team IMO. No way we win a title with a 6'8 PF and 6'10 center (unless our SF was garnett 5 years ago) so we have West, Okafor, and Hilton as the guys who will eat up our 4/5 minutes. IMO, those are 3 PF's. We have to get a true 7 footer on this team in some shape or form. Somebody who changes shots just based on length. My buddy does statistically analasis for the Cavs and he says the one common thread amongst all champions over the history of the NBA is above average length at atleast 3-4 positions. I mean, think about the Lakers who could put 3 7 footers on the court. Or the Pistons who had a very long Prince at the 3 and Wallace's super long arms at the 4 along with Billups- a big PG.

Paul is a below aver PG, West a below average PF, Okafor a below average Center, and if Thornton pans out he would be a below average 2 guard- leaving Wright as the only avg to above avg guy for his position.

Okafor will eventually be our PF- he has to or no title. That simple. What that says for DWest, cant say. But there is no arguing with the past and the past says we have no chance at a title with West and Okafor as our 4 and 5.

---

Will have to respectfully disagree. Championships are won with chemistry, coaching, the right talent level of the day, and a little luck. The Bulls teams (tho with the greatest of all-time), never quite had a game changing 7 footer. The Pistons during their runs a few years ago didn't have one. To call Chris Paul a "below average" anything is just ludicrous.

I simply cannot believe that height wins championships. It's nice to have, but chemistry, coaching, and talent trump all else.

Okafor has the length, athleticism, footwork, and savvy to handle some of the best 7 footers out there defensively.

For those of you that believe that Okafor is too small to be our Center, don't forget that Dwight Howard is only an inch taller than Okafor.

Okafor is a better defender and scorer than Chandler.
I really hope that this deal goes through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CP3 & 11 others

No clue, but I know we have been studying his game closely and are trying to figure out if he would be a good fit.

Personally (my opinion, not inside) I dont think it is a good fit. I actually disagree with NIH and think this trade makes us more likely to look at a true center in FA. I mean Okafor is a PF on a title team IMO. No way we win a title with a 6'8 PF and 6'10 center (unless our SF was garnett 5 years ago) so we have West, Okafor, and Hilton as the guys who will eat up our 4/5 minutes. IMO, those are 3 PF's. We have to get a true 7 footer on this team in some shape or form. Somebody who changes shots just based on length. My buddy does statistically analasis for the Cavs and he says the one common thread amongst all champions over the history of the NBA is above average length at atleast 3-4 positions. I mean, think about the Lakers who could put 3 7 footers on the court. Or the Pistons who had a very long Prince at the 3 and Wallace's super long arms at the 4 along with Billups- a big PG.

Paul is a below aver PG, West a below average PF, Okafor a below average Center, and if Thornton pans out he would be a below average 2 guard- leaving Wright as the only avg to above avg guy for his position.

Okafor will eventually be our PF- he has to or no title. That simple. What that says for DWest, cant say. But there is no arguing with the past and the past says we have no chance at a title with West and Okafor as our 4 and 5.

---

That is ridiculous. Does talent have anything to do with it, or just "length"?

Cause i'm pretty sure talent has something to do with it

I think we need to aquire a 7footer to bolster the bench, Okafor is fine as a center.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Napoleon Solo

Except Okafor isn't going to be throwing down any ally-oop dunks anytime soon. Have you ever even seen this guy play? He;s the antithesis of athleticism

---

Actually, I am not really familiar with him. All I know is that TC has been hurt and could not get above the rim for much of the season. Sad. Those were fun days when the team came back full time after the evacuation. I wish TC the best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stbviper22

you dont have to be athletic for that either. Okafor gets his blocks because he controls himself very well and is an extremely smart player. In a way its better to be unathletic because in a case like chandler, he is too athletic to where hes jumping all over the place and getting unnecessary fouls

---

That's why I said "somewhat" athletic. He's not Chris Wilcox or Kenyon Martin or anything, but he's no plodder either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CP3 & 11 others

No clue, but I know we have been studying his game closely and are trying to figure out if he would be a good fit.

Personally (my opinion, not inside) I dont think it is a good fit. I actually disagree with NIH and think this trade makes us more likely to look at a true center in FA. I mean Okafor is a PF on a title team IMO. No way we win a title with a 6'8 PF and 6'10 center (unless our SF was garnett 5 years ago) so we have West, Okafor, and Hilton as the guys who will eat up our 4/5 minutes. IMO, those are 3 PF's. We have to get a true 7 footer on this team in some shape or form. Somebody who changes shots just based on length. My buddy does statistically analasis for the Cavs and he says the one common thread amongst all champions over the history of the NBA is above average length at atleast 3-4 positions. I mean, think about the Lakers who could put 3 7 footers on the court. Or the Pistons who had a very long Prince at the 3 and Wallace's super long arms at the 4 along with Billups- a big PG.

Paul is a below aver PG, West a below average PF, Okafor a below average Center, and if Thornton pans out he would be a below average 2 guard- leaving Wright as the only avg to above avg guy for his position.

Okafor will eventually be our PF- he has to or no title. That simple. What that says for DWest, cant say. But there is no arguing with the past and the past says we have no chance at a title with West and Okafor as our 4 and 5.

---

I almost went off on you :hihi:

You have to be clear and title that paragraph, "As far as size goes." I thought you were talking talent.

no offense to CP3&11 others but the argument that you need a 7 footer to win a championship is nonsense

so you need a 7 footer and you need a top 5 player based on the past 25 years in order to wn a championship you say except for one excepton being the 2004 Pistons

well based on the past 25 yrs, then we should also TRADE CP3 with that logic, because in the past 25 yrs the best player on the champion was at least 6-6 i read in some article with the lone exception being isiah thomas; so based on past history we dont have much of a chance to win a title with those odds; so trade paul or no title

i dont get your logic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the big H

That is ridiculous. Does talent have anything to do with it, or just "length"?

Cause i'm pretty sure talent has something to do with it

---

Okay, this is why I left in the first place. You make a valid point and then people add their own rediculous clauses onto it. Of course talent trumps all and it is not like I said that the tallest teams win titles. Did I say that? No, so dont add that clause in.

The fact is that teams have won with defense, teams have won with offense. Some with a great bench, some with a average bench. Some with a great coach, some with a makeshift coach. On and on. But according to the statistical analysis- the one common thread is the teams all had above average length at multiple starting positions and were as a whole a top tier team with respect to length.

Go ahead, look into the past if you dont believe me. Lakers of the early decade with a 6'10 Horry at SF, a 6'7 kobe, a big PG in Fish, a big Center in Shaq. The Bulls of the 90's had above average size and length at every spot in their early run and the second 3 pete Rodman was undersized for the position but Kucoc was a quasi starter and when Harper, Jordan, Pippen, and Kucoc were on the floor they were super long.

The Showtime Lakers had a 6 9 PG- need I say more. A 7-3 center, etc. The Celtics had a front line of 6-10, 6-11, 7-1 in the 80's. The 2007 Celtics had an abover average PG, SF, and PF with regard to height and length.

I can go on forever. This past Lakers team had above average size at all 5 positions and if you consider Odom the real SF on the team they were super long.

So yes, great observationalists, talent wins. But history show us talent plus length beats talent for the BIG prize. Why do you think the Magic- the runners up in the Finals made size such a priority this offseason and paid so much to resign Gortat? Why did Cleve get Shaq, etc. My buddy spent months on this analysis and it is over 57 pages long so excuse me if I believe his conclusion over the brilliant one sentence deduction you came up with.

Man, you try to help and these are the people that you are bombarded with. I cant take it.

I would agree that a serviceable big over 7' would probably be a big plus for us or any team. I can see Okafur moving to the 4 if DX leaves or is shipped AND we got a serviceable big. As for this being THE PLAN, I think it is too early to suggest that. At any rate, I appreciate that insight from CP3&11. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NBA Champs

If you had to guess would you say West would be a Hornet until his contract runs out or do you see us trading him before then...if you see us trading him, when do you think that would be..and are there too many factors to consider when trying to figure out what he would be traded for..considering his value is as high as it will EVER be...wouldn't it be wise to trade him this season??? And this length we need...do you think we'd wait to get a 7 footer or two via next years draft or do you think we'd try to acquire one or two by the trade deadline??

---

I don't have any inside information, but I believe if Okafor comes in and is obviously best suited as a PF, then I would expect to see D. West traded sometime. He would be a valuable trade chip and if we just let his contract expire, then we get nothing for him. Trading him might get us a valuable C in return. Just my two cents.

yea but i would like to hear what you have to say about history showing that in most cases you can't win with with your best player being under 6-6

does that mean we need to trade paul??

you can give your opinion, but we are allowed to respectfully disagree with it; i don't think anyone would want a board where everyone agrees with the same thing

CP3 The U.S. has the same problem as this board. Most people think they know and definitely have an opinion, when what they should do is listen and say thank you for the knowledge.
So, Thank you!!! :idoh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CP4MVP

no offense to CP3&11 others but the argument that you need a 7 footer to win a championship is nonsense

so you need a 7 footer and you need a top 5 player based on the past 25 years in order to wn a championship you say except for one excepton being the 2004 Pistons

well based on the past 25 yrs, then we should also TRADE CP3 with that logic, because in the past 25 yrs the best player on the champion was at least 6-6 i read in some article with the lone exception being isiah thomas; so based on past history we dont have much of a chance to win a title with those odds; so trade paul or no title

i dont get your logic

---

Again- READ MY POSTS before trashing them. Not one place did I say we need a 7 footer to win a title. The statistical analysis done by a man in an organization that knows more about the NBA than all of us combined, says that the common thread of champions is above average size and length at multiple positions. If we have CP3, West, and Okafor at 1,2, and 5 we could only meet that requirement with a super long 2 and 3- neither of which we have currently.

Of course someone could break the trend and I am sure someday someone will, but to ignore thepast is foolish. No team has ever won a title without superior length at multiple positions. I didnt conduct this study- I just had a very long conversation with a few people after reading it, and trust me people in NBA circles know this.

I still think it is a great trade but I dont know how anybody could argue that we could be a title team with a West/Okafor frontcourt if you look at history. Our best chance at a title is with Okafor as our 4 or with Okafor as our 5 and a 6'11 PF who can hit from the outside like West and plays Defense. A 6 foot PG, a 6'8 PF, and a 6'10 center wont win a title according to the past. That is not being a hater, but I have tons of evidence to back up my logic and I dont see the counter arguments you all have unless it is just to get mad and say it is nonsense.

The bad boys Pistons won with a smaller team. PG was small, same with the 2-4, until you got to the 5. But they never had a starter over 7'. They were tough and challenged the enemy for every board. For that team, position was key on both ends of the floor. So, the template is there if you want to follow it. You can win in the NBA with a smaller team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CP4MVP

yea but i would like to hear what you have to say about history showing that in most cases you can't win with with your best player being under 6-6

does that mean we need to trade paul??

you can give your opinion, but we are allowed to respectfully disagree with it; i don't think anyone would want a board where everyone agrees with the same thing

---

CP3 & 11 Others did not posit that argument...that was an article from somewhere, so I don't know why you are attacking him.

To answer your question, there were a few exceptions to that case, correct? Can't you just accept that Chris Paul may be one of the exceptions to that rule? The article summarizes many different teams and scenarios and was likely written just as a conversational piece. You can't base all arguments on trends...that would be like claiming every single person has an IQ of 100 because that is average. Trends and averages are created by fluctuations around the norm.

Can we now start to consider deals where West and fillers are packaged for a package centered around a legit big man???

I'm reading the thread. It's a decent thread. No one is attacking anyone. Let's keep that part out of it, please.

Oh, and let's not get into trading the rest of the team now. That is way premature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CP4MVP

yea but i would like to hear what you have to say about history showing that in most cases you can't win with with your best player being under 6-6

does that mean we need to trade paul??

you can give your opinion, but we are allowed to respectfully disagree with it; i don't think anyone would want a board where everyone agrees with the same thing

---

But it has been done with Isiah and I think Paul will be better than Isiah when it is all said and done so I wouldnt trade him for anyone.

The reason why no PG has led a team to a title is for several reasons and the main one is that there hasnt been one talented enough to do it in a while. Other than Isiah, the only PG in the last 20 years I think was ever a top 5 player in the NBA at a given time was J Kidd who led an average team to two Finals. And again, I think CP3 is and will be better than Kidd.

But the main thing is that you have to build around the PG accordingly. See, the Suns did it the wrong way with Nash (who wasnt top 5 despite two MVP's,m bu the was close). A great PG can make an average offensive player good, a good one great, a great one elite, etc. So you dont surround them with great offensive players and try to outscore other teams. Instead, you surround them with defense and hustle and try to make every game close with 5 minutes left, then you know you have the better defense and offensively your PG will give you a good chance to score everytime down.

Thats how the 80's Pistons did it. They didnt blow people out. They knew that at the end of games refs swallow their whistle and they would find a way to score on offense while shutting you down. Give me a team like that around Paul- again with great length on the front court and length on the bench and we can win games 95-91 and win titles.

Cp3 can lead us to a title but we have to get tough, long players around him at 2-3 positions, and make defense the #1 priority. 2-3 guys who can get their own like Dumars, Aguire, and the microwave did (Thornton is a great addition for this purpose) and we are good.

And lastly, i never care if people disagree but post evidence. I talk to people who spend months on analysis like this and you counter with opinions that have no evidence behind them. Disagree- I love debate- but come strong with facts and cite proof, thats all I ask. Is that too much for a message board?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NBA Champs

Can we now start to consider deals where West and fillers are packaged for a package centered around a legit big man???

---

i wouldn't trade west right now. Okafor is a banger.. and west can operate from mid range. They should compliment each other nicely. Ther last thing you would want would be two low post guys that can't hit a 15 - 18 footer fighting for space down low and clogging up the paint on offense.

CP3 & 11 Others, I ,like everyone here, appreciates the inside information. But, I must say, as a warning, you might not want to reveal as much about your source as you currently are. We are not posting in a bubble here. More people read this site than you would believe. Do not jeopardize your friend's career here. I think you'd be better off keeping it strictly to what you hear and not so much where it came from. Just looking out...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killah

The bad boys Pistons won with a smaller team. PG was small, same with the 2-4, until you got to the 5. But they never had a starter over 7'. They were tough and challenged the enemy for every board. For that team, position was key on both ends of the floor. So, the template is there if you want to follow it. You can win in the NBA with a smaller team.

---

Lambeer- 6' 11, Mahorn 6-10", Salley 6'11, Rodman (who played SF then) 6'8 and super long. Aguire and/or Dantley, along with Isiah were average for their positions while Dumars was small for his. However, the Pistons had, at that time, one of the biggest teams as far as the average height with regard to minutes played. Will take too long to explain, but this was the first team I brought up to my buddy and he basically showed me this formula in which he averaged the length on the court over the 48 minutes of the game for those seasons and the Pistons were the 3rd longest team in the NBA in those 2 title years. The smallest title team according to his analysis were the Spurs teams that won without DRob. They were the 7th longest team one year and the 8th the other year.

The average is 3.4- as far as the average length of the team for their title season. meaning that usually a team in the top 4 of length as far as the guys who actually get the minutes, will win the title. Like I said, this was a 57 page report and you can believe if the Cavs have him working on it, almosy every team has someone doing something similar. Why do you think horrible players with "great length and upside" get drafted high every year?

what i was saying was in every case but one a championship team's best player was at least 6-6 in an article i read;

your response was that is has been done, which i acknowledged with isiah thomas

well then it also has been done that you don't need a 7 footer or a top 5 playercuz it has been done; if you disagree with that statement then you are contradicting yourself

obviously there is a better chance to win a title with extra length or a top 5 player but there is also a better chance to win a title whn your best player isn't so small; at least that is what history shows, nd your whole argument has been based on ast results

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nolaDante

CP3 & 11 Others, I ,like everyone here, appreciates the inside information. But, I must say, as a warning, you might not want to reveal as much about your source as you currently are. We are not posting in a bubble here. More people read this site than you would believe. Do not jeopardize your friend's career here. I think you'd be better off keeping it strictly to what you hear and not so much where it came from. Just looking out...

---

ty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CP4MVP

what i was saying was in every case but one a championship team's best player was at least 6-6 in an article i read;

your response was that is has been done, which i acknowledged with isiah thomas

well then it also has been done that you don't need a 7 footer or a top 5 playercuz it has been done; if you disagree with that statement then you are contradicting yourself

obviously there is a better chance to win a title with extra length or a top 5 player but there is also a better chance to win a title whn your best player isn't so small; at least that is what history shows, nd your whole argument has been based on ast results

---

Can I get a translator? Thank you.

Okay, you are right, my bad.