Quote:
Originally Posted by xorbie
I think Chandler > Camby, so I think he was for sure good value here and with Rasheed that is a sick front line (defensively at least) that can match up with the likes of Ewing/Nance but with the added bonus of also having GP on your team.
I don't agree, Chandler is a better 1on1 defender but Camby is as good as they come in terms of weak side help. Camby is also a better rebounder - Tyson is thought of as more athletic only because Camby is like 30+ now, whereas Chandler is 25, but Camby was just as athletic then.
Also, I was having this discussion with Tbach, 100% of Chandler's offense is created by Chris Paul or putbacks. He literally has zero offensive post moves and is not a good passer. Camby, although it's hella ugly, has a midrange shot. Further, he's a better passer, court vision and lobs. So... I actually think Camby is a small upgrade on both ends of the floor. (Plus, Camby has proven he can play in a slow pace, like his Knick teams, and a fast pace, like the Nugget teams - Chandler has not proven he can run up and down, even though I believe he could do a decent job of it) The only advantage Chandler has is Camby is literally stick man in terms of health, but Chandler isn't exactly 100% healthy either. (Has never played all 82 games, missed more than half of the 2003-04 season)