Knicks · Should we try to reacquire Wilson Chandler? (page 1)

I did some checking and apparently we could sign and trade for Wilson Chandler once the new CBA is agreed upon.

I dont think Denver wants to spend on him when he has been sucking it up for them.

Wilson Chandler would give us defense and he doesnt demand the ball to be effective.

What are you guys thoughts?

On one hand, I would love to have him back because he is a proven supplementary piece. On the other hand, he's an injury waiting to happen.

I think I would rather address PG or C first, and if there isn't an immediate player available then maybe... but even then it may make the most sense to wait for that type of player to become available

I think if there is still a MLE at 24 years old I would give him the whole thing. 5 years $36mm. Your not going to get a better player that still has upside. I would 100% assume Denver would match, but Chandler has has a very poor playoffs and Denver has a lot of players on the books.

fishmike wrote:I think if there is still a MLE at 24 years old I would give him the whole thing. 5 years $36mm. Your not going to get a better player that still has upside. I would 100% assume Denver would match, but Chandler has has a very poor playoffs and Denver has a lot of players on the books.

I agree, I think he would benefit playing with a guy like melo who has proven to be a willing and able passer.. the easy hoops chandler would get.. I think if we offer the full MLE denver does not match, not with the upcoming contract issues they have...

SupremeCommander wrote:On one hand, I would love to have him back because he is a proven supplementary piece. On the other hand, he's an injury waiting to happen.

I think I would rather address PG or C first, and if there isn't an immediate player available then maybe... but even then it may make the most sense to wait for that type of player to become available

I was thinking we trade Fields(replacement for Chandler) and Turiaf(replacement for Martin) for a Chandler in a Sign and Trade.

We'd still have Billups contract to get a PG/C.

tkf wrote:

fishmike wrote:I think if there is still a MLE at 24 years old I would give him the whole thing. 5 years $36mm. Your not going to get a better player that still has upside. I would 100% assume Denver would match, but Chandler has has a very poor playoffs and Denver has a lot of players on the books.

I agree, I think he would benefit playing with a guy like melo who has proven to be a willing and able passer.. the easy hoops chandler would get.. I think if we offer the full MLE denver does not match, not with the upcoming contract issues they have...

They'd match the MLE man.

AnubisADL wrote:

tkf wrote:

fishmike wrote:I think if there is still a MLE at 24 years old I would give him the whole thing. 5 years $36mm. Your not going to get a better player that still has upside. I would 100% assume Denver would match, but Chandler has has a very poor playoffs and Denver has a lot of players on the books.

I agree, I think he would benefit playing with a guy like melo who has proven to be a willing and able passer.. the easy hoops chandler would get.. I think if we offer the full MLE denver does not match, not with the upcoming contract issues they have...

They'd match the MLE man.

Which is why we have no shot at players like DeAndre Jordan/Gasol and the likes....

The Billups situation continues to tick

AnubisADL wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:On one hand, I would love to have him back because he is a proven supplementary piece. On the other hand, he's an injury waiting to happen.

I think I would rather address PG or C first, and if there isn't an immediate player available then maybe... but even then it may make the most sense to wait for that type of player to become available

I was thinking we trade Fields(replacement for Chandler) and Turiaf(replacement for Martin) for a Chandler in a Sign and Trade.

We'd still have Billups contract to get a PG/C.

Nuggs got Afflalo and Gary Forbes who they like, no need for Fields.

martin wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:On one hand, I would love to have him back because he is a proven supplementary piece. On the other hand, he's an injury waiting to happen.

I think I would rather address PG or C first, and if there isn't an immediate player available then maybe... but even then it may make the most sense to wait for that type of player to become available

I was thinking we trade Fields(replacement for Chandler) and Turiaf(replacement for Martin) for a Chandler in a Sign and Trade.

We'd still have Billups contract to get a PG/C.

Nuggs got Afflalo and Gary Forbes who they like, no need for Fields.

No need for Chandler either. Still doesnt mean they wont match a MLE deal.

They also might lose Smith and Martin. Denver needs cheap talent at this point.

Wilson Chandler has scored 16 points for Denver all series, while getting plenty of minutes with the exception of Game 4.

Got that Melo fellow playing the wing. Chandler no a SG and Field has better contract and a bright future.

Can't have it both ways. I like Shy Will a lot and hope he finds fame an fortune.

AnubisADL wrote:I did some checking and apparently we could sign and trade for Wilson Chandler once the new CBA is agreed upon.

I dont think Denver wants to spend on him when he has been sucking it up for them.

Wilson Chandler would give us defense and he doesnt demand the ball to be effective.

What are you guys thoughts?

I knew that dunk was coming.

JrZyHuStLa wrote:Wilson Chandler has scored 16 points for Denver all series, while getting plenty of minutes with the exception of Game 4.

Doesnt really matter because he has proven he is a solid role player.

Plus he is low maintenance and knows his role.

Nalod wrote:Got that Melo fellow playing the wing. Chandler no a SG and Field has better contract and a bright future.

Can't have it both ways. I like Shy Will a lot and hope he finds fame an fortune.

Chandler isnt a SG in a traditional offense but playing next to Melo and Amare he is fine.

Waiting for Fields to maybe become as good as Chandler is not that smart considering Amare is slowing breaking down. Do we give Fields another 2 years? We can rock and roll with Chandler next year.

I'd love Chandler. Worried about paying that much $ for a guy who is essentially going to backup Melo AND Amare.

Don't really know if he's a 2 guard.

If our biggest holes are PG and C does it make sense to spend a lot of $ on Chandler, as much as we love him?

AnubisADL wrote:

JrZyHuStLa wrote:Wilson Chandler has scored 16 points for Denver all series, while getting plenty of minutes with the exception of Game 4.

Doesnt really matter because he has proven he is a solid role player.

Plus he is low maintenance and knows his role.

I can't say it doesn't matter. He's capable of doing more than that. We've seen it.

We have to address the center position first. Tyson is the Chandler we need.

NYKBocker wrote:We have to address the center position first. Tyson is the Chandler we need.

So we are going to outbid Dallas for Tyson Chandler? Likelihood of happening = ZERO.

I miss Felton

not happening...and why?

yeah, we sure need another sf...

No thanks, too many disappearing acts. When his contract was the talk in the NY papers he suddenly found his mojo and went on a tear.
When the talks cooled down so did he. When he was first traded to Denver, same thing. Look at his numbers, they've gone down every month he's been in Denver. Pts, FG pct, 3pt pct. The man can't stay focused for very long. Ike is right, we have our SF, other more important needs like Center and addressing the PG situation.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/4301/splits;_ylt=As5qmjlPmyjnErfQ9C5oU5agPaB4