Marv wrote:joec32033 wrote:misterearl wrote:joec32033 wrote:misterearl wrote:joec32033 wrote:No. Not unless he is.coming.off the bench for 25-30 per game. As nice as he is be is an injury waiting.to happen and is not.dependable. My take is that one of the biggest things that separates a starter from a sub is consistency. Wil is not consistent and not dependable. You need to know what you are gonna get from the guys you give the most minutes to, the starters. Wil is too unpredictable and injury prone to depend on.
Hogwash
How is 72 games, 49 starts, 15 points and 6 not dependable?
The "injury prone" garbage is only a result of The Mayor beasting inside against guys he takes it strong against.
With that said, the Knicks have more immediate, and documented, void at the center position. We need at least two. It would be better to have three.
We have none.
Hogwash on your hogwash with all due respect to your position as the president of the Wil Chandler fan club, I beg to differ. He always gets hurt around the all star break and for last few games of the season he is hurt. I called it this year. It happened last year. It is what he does.
And 15 and 6 is great if it is every game. It is not.so great when it is 28 and 8, then the next game it's 2 and 4.
Wil got talent and potential but he don't got dependability. You simply can't depend on him every night.
joec - everyone in the NBA gets injured.
Point of Clarification. I have, nor have I ever been, president of any Wilson Chandler fan club.
I have proudly served as the Mayor's Campaign Manager since 2007. I stand on my record of service and loyalty. Unlike some, who are quick to yank the trap door for any yoots who wear the orange and blue, I have been a tireless advocate for patience in the players who show up to practice early, get back on defense, eat their vegetables, hit the open man and play the right way.
Trades are for kids.
Earl, I understand your point but at some point a player is who he is. Chandler has been in the league long enough. He is young and he does improve in some aspects of his game but he has consistently been the same player for a while now. I don't argue he has talent nor do I argue he can be a useful player.
What I do argue is in what capacity. Because of his consistency struggles, which he has had for years, I think he is the type of player you have to bank on getting from him his worst case scenario. I explained before that what separates starters from subs to me is consistency. You need to be able to count on the guys you give the most minutes to to be productive. Wil isn't there (yet?). I think he can be a very good bench player with his versatility and skill set. He however is that player where what you get from him is more gravy than turkey. You can't count on it but it is nice when it is there.
joe i 100% agree with you. that's always been the knock on the mayor. he improves his game every year but he never eliminates the disappearing factor from his game fof stretches. whether it's injury-related or head-related it always happens. he gave nothing in the playoffs. earl i don’t think you can deny this or keep passing it off to youthfulness.
he's too laid back and doesnt assert himself.
I think he's shown he's more than a bench player though
He's a good defender, a very good help defender and has a lot of all around skills. He can play 3 positions. He works hard and does improve his game every year. The depth he would add would be huge. Its not the 16ppg and 6rebs and 1.5blcks you can count on from him, its the games where some guy turns an ankle or gets into foul trouble and Chandler gives you 25 and 10. Sure... you get 8 and 5 the next game but thats OK.
The point is he's not great but he's quality, and he's a good all around player. When teams focus on Amare/Melo Chandler is a guy who can light you up if ignored. He would be a great MLE piece Denver doesnt want to match. We know he liked playing here and he was always a good soldier.
Getting Chandler back isnt a home run, but its a solid single up the middle and you need guys like that
"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
4/27/2011 11:39 AM