Not that this hasn't been rehashed a-plenty over the past couple years, but seeing Tyson Chandler deservedly lauded by national TV coverage as a key cog on a title-contending team is bizarre.
Not that he didn't show the talent here, or is even performing that much better now than he was as a Bull (when he was at his best as a Bull). The incredible part is the change in perception. Someone who once was a key face in a regime that meant failure and unrealized potential, is now deemed someone we should know more about.Yes, playing with Chris Paul helps, not as much to make Tyson better but to make the team better, with winning serving as the cure for all ills.
Tyson was dealt after his steady career growth was stunted by an abysmal season. The same type of season that most of the current Bulls just went through. The postscript to Tyson's exit was that it was an irreparable rift between him and Skiles, and they needed to be separated for him to regain his confidence. This whole team is now getting separated from Skiles.
It's not guaranteed that Deng, Gordon, Hinrich, et. al will get back on track in terms of performance with a new coach. But one thing I don't like reading is the labeling of them as losers, the type who can never be a real part of a good team again. The same was once said about Chandler, and all it took for him was a better situation for him to 'magically' become a winner again.
(This isn't meant to go into the past and get into why dealing Chandler was a mistake. I never thought the deal was because of not believing in Chandler's talent. Just incorrectly figured that effectively replacing him with Ben Wallace was a good move because even a bounced-back Chandler wouldn't be as good as Wallace. I was wrong, of course, because Wallace was dead man walking. A healthy lesson to consider when dreaming up any 'upgrade' trades.)