# Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List/ Questions about Roy (merged thread)



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

*Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



> Psssssst! Don't tell anyone. I heard what the Bulls are going to do in the draft and in free agency.
> 
> The word is—Can you hear me? I'm whispering now—they're going for University of Washington guard *Brandon Roy *and Portland Trail Blazers center *Joel Przybilla* as priorities.
> 
> ...


http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-060604smith,1,6825151.column?coll=cs-home-utility


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*

When DMD reads this he's gonna pray to God its true. I'd be happy with Roy and Pryzbilla if we can package Gordon and Deng and the #16 for KG or Jermaine O'Neal.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*

If we could get Roy, then package the #16 & Duhon for O'Bryant...I wouldn't be upset personally.

I'd still rather have Thomas or Aldridge, but I see why Paxson would up for Roy (if tHIS is true)


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*

I dont find Przybilla sexy, especially at the price he would come. Cant fault Pax for drafting Roy though (Hyp)...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*

Roy seems like the safest choice. If we're looking to play it safe, it looks like Roy is the man.

Gordon for Frye would be a godsend.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*

This year's #2 is about the same as #6.

I have a thread posted one week ago, Roy will be top 3.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



El Chapu said:


> I dont find Przybilla sexy...


Depends on whether you think size matters...


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



Ballscientist said:


> I have a thread posted one week ago, Roy will be top 3.


nah, no he won't


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



T.Shock said:


> When DMD reads this he's gonna pray to God its true.


Eh, this is Sam Smith talking. Still, I've always thought Paxson would consider Roy. I'd love to see at least one year of the Hinrich/Gordon/Roy backcourt, but methinks at this point that if we draft Roy, Gordon will be traded for a big before the season.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



Ballscientist said:


> This year's #2 is about the same as #6.


Couldn't agree more!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



Darius Miles Davis said:


> Eh, this is Sam Smith talking. Still, I've always thought Paxson would consider Roy. I'd love to see at least one year of the Hinrich/Gordon/Roy backcourt, but methinks at this point that if we draft Roy, Gordon will be traded for a big before the season.


Everyone thought trading Brand was a huge mistake!!!! Trading Gordon will haunt Paxson FOREVER!!!!

:wait:


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*

I'd love to get Roy. Always said so.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



kukoc4ever said:


> Roy seems like the safest choice. If we're looking to play it safe, it looks like Roy is the man.
> 
> Gordon for Frye would be a godsend.


Depending on who you ask, Aldridge is the safe pick, or Bargnani is the safe pick, or Thomas is the safe pick, or Roy is the safe pick.

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't, as usual.

Agree on Gordon for Frye.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



> I'd love to see at least one year of the Hinrich/Gordon/Roy backcourt, but methinks at this point that if we draft Roy, Gordon will be traded for a big before the season.


Sadly it looks that way.


> Gordon for Frye would be a godsend.


I can't agree, maybe I over value Gordon but I find that too little.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*

Crazy old Sam might be on to something. I've speculated for a while now that the Bulls will continue to use Nocioni extensively at the 4 (arguably his most effective position if it's no more than 28 minutes). What this means is that we have more swingman minutes to dish out. A guy like Roy WOULD make sense. 

Let's look at Dallas and how deep they're built. I'm convinced that depth is a major factor in building a good NBA team. With Roy, we're absolutely set for the foreseeable future at all perimeter spots:

PG: Hinrich/Duhon
SG: Gordon/Roy
SF: Deng/Roy

I like the concept of using 5 guys to cover your 3 perimeter positions. Dallas does this with Terry, Harris, Daniels, Stackhouse, and Howard. What's so lethal about it is how versatile you can be with your rotations. Each guy offers something different.

So I'm certainly not opposed to the Brandon Roy acquisition. I still would prefer a big, but a jack-of-all-trades type like Roy would really bolster our backcourt for a LONG time. Now the question is, what to do to bolster the frontcourt? I already have Nocioni slated for 28 minutes at PF, and Chandler should still be good for 24-28 minutes split between PF & C. With the #16 pick, it's a no-brainer to draft the best big man available since we're set at the wings. I guess this makes free agency as important as ever...targets being a) Ben Wallace, b) Nene, c) Drew Gooden, d) Przybilla, e) Al Harrington, f) Melvin Ely, and g) Nazr Mohammad.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Depending on who you ask, Aldridge is the safe pick, or Bargnani is the safe pick, or Thomas is the safe pick, or Roy is the safe pick.


Roy is the safest pick. College senior. Leader. Not many, if any, question marks.

As NBAdraft.net says, "Does everything very well but nothing out of this world ." This guy is right up Paxson's alley. It would be funny if the one of the end results of the grand plan is to draft a young guy who people compare to Jalen Rose.


Bargnani is the safe pick? Come on.

All the other guys that we would be interested in have question marks. 

Aldridge -- heart, leader?
Thomas -- not enough experience, unproven
Bargnani -- ???????s galore. I can't believe anyone in their right mind would think Bargnani is a "safe" pick.
Gay -- heart, leader?



Morrison seems like a safer choice as well, but given we have Deng and Noc, I don't see us looking towards him. And, there is a health issue, which we all know Paxson is ultra-conservative about.


Its not a "damned if you do, damned if you don’t" situation. I would not mind trading Gordon for Frye and drafting Roy at all. Its just that Roy seems like the safest pick and it does not surprise me at all that Paxson is leaning towards Roy. He may be "forced" to draft a ? big though, if he can't get an acceptable Gordon trade done. (just like he "kinda had" to resign Chandler)


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



yodurk said:


> So I'm certainly not opposed to the Brandon Roy acquisition.


Neither am I... if Paxson thinks Roy has the best chance of being the best impact player in this draft long term than he should draft him, position be damned.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



> With the #16 pick, it's a no-brainer to draft the best big man available since we're set at the wings.


Starting to think about it, I wouldn't be suprised if we get another guard with this pick. The most likely route is Gordon is on the way out if we draft Roy with the #2, and he'll go for a big man. So we'll get a backup PF/C in FA and sure out the depth of the perimiter rotation in the draft.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



step said:


> Starting to think about it, I wouldn't be suprised if we get another guard with this pick. The most likely route is Gordon is on the way out if we draft Roy with the #2, and he'll go for a big man. So we'll get a backup PF/C in FA and sure out the depth of the perimiter rotation in the draft.


I hope you're wrong. Trading Gordon would be a bad move (unless of course it's for the right player! i.e. Channing Frye, which Isiah wouldn't do). 

I think it's a given that we draft a big man with *at least* one of our picks, possibly even both. But since there are several very good all-around big guards in this draft (Roy and Brewer being my 2 favorites), Pax should really try his darndest to draft 1 big guard and 1 big man. As I explained in my last post, drafting Roy (or Brewer for that matter) would make us golden at PG/SG/SF for a long while. That just makes things so much easier when over half your rotation is set with talented, versatile, and team-oriented players. 

Ideally, I'd like to use the #16 pick to draft a big guard, but Roy is a lock to be gone by then and Brewer more than likely will also be gone. So it would suck to settle on someone who doesn't fit as well. In a perfect world we would take a freak big man like Tyrus/Bargnani #2 then steal Brewer at #16. Still...might be too risky to rely on that #16 pick for too much. Our main targets might be gone. That's why I think Crazy Sam might be on to something with taking Roy #2. Is it obsurd to think that Hinrich/Gordon/Deng/Roy/Duhon could be as good as, or maybe even better than, Terry/Stackhouse/Howard/Daniels/Harris?

Then get 2-3 bigs via the #16 pick and Free agency and our team is set.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



yodurk said:


> Then get 2-3 bigs via the #16 pick and Free agency and our team is set.


Set for what? 

Set for the start of the season since almost all the bullets were fired from the financial flexibility gun or set for a run at the NBA title in the next couple years?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



kukoc4ever said:


> Set for what?
> 
> Set for the start of the season since almost all the bullets were fired from the financial flexibility gun or set for a run at the NBA title in the next couple years?


Set for a GOOD 2006-2007 NBA season. I'm thinking we can top almost every team in the East next season, except for maybe Cleveland and Detroit (hard to say what will happen to Miami, but they're more on the downswing than the upswing). 

As for contending, that's a struggle that is never-ending for ANY team. Year after year, adjustments will almost always need to be made. So I'm not so much worried about putting a potential contending team out there next season, but rather locking up as many good players as we can and putting together the best season we can.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*

Whats a good season next season?

Again, I decline to measure it solely in wins and losses, but also in development, ability to run away from and to catchup to teams, learning to play with a chip on their shoulder.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



GB said:


> Whats a good season next season?
> 
> Again, I decline to measure it solely in wins and losses, but also in development, ability to run away from and to catchup to teams, learning to play with a chip on their shoulder.


I would like to at least be the 3rd best team in the East, as we were two seasons ago.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*

A top 4-5 team in the east would be a good season.

Only Detriot & Miami are head-and-shoulders better than Chicago.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



kukoc4ever said:


> I would like to at least be the 3rd best team in the East, as we were two seasons ago.


Do you think it is feasible given the improvement in the East as opposed to two seasons ago?

Wade and LeBron have really blossomed and Detroit is not going anywhere, for example.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



GB said:


> Do you think it is feasible given the improvement in the East as opposed to two seasons ago?
> 
> Wade and LeBron have really blossomed and Detroit is not going anywhere, for example.


I'd sure hope so. That kind of regression should not be acceptable. Especially since the moves made were supposed to make our team better.

#3 is there for the taking. Two years ago we could beat the Pistons in the regular season and are a poorer team now than back then. The Cavs are not a powerhouse. The Heat are not built to last.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



kukoc4ever said:


> Roy is the safest pick. College senior. Leader. Not many, if any, question marks.
> 
> As NBAdraft.net says, "Does everything very well but nothing out of this world ." This guy is right up Paxson's alley. It would be funny if the one of the end results of the grand plan is to draft a young guy who people compare to Jalen Rose.
> 
> ...


I certainly have a question about Bargnani, only because I don't know enough about him. I call him a safe pick because there are enough people doing mocks and writing columns that have him going #1. 

OK. So you are alright with drafting Roy, as long as he adequately addresses the big situation in another manner -- like a trade for Frye?

I'm just trying to sort it out. You seem to use the term "safe" as a dirty word, like Pax is not doing enough, or is not doing the best thing if he takes Roy.

Many seem to think Roy is the overall best player in the draft. Is Pax better off drafting one of the players with the question marks?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



kukoc4ever said:


> I'd sure hope so. That kind of regression should not be acceptable. Especially since the moves made were supposed to make our team better.
> 
> *#3 is there for the taking.* Two years ago we could beat the Pistons in the regular season and are a poorer team now than back then. The Cavs are not a powerhouse. The Heat are not built to last.


I agree. I think we're in a great position to vault to #3 in the East. There just aren't ANY teams in the East who are primed and ready to make any significant improvements to the extent we are.

The Pistons might be losing their heart and soul, Ben Wallace. The team morale also isn't ideal after failing to make the Finals, and there are doubts about Flip Saunders.

The Heat obviously have Wade to carry them, but Shaq is clearly declining. Some of the good role players like Posey might not be back. This team is on the decline.

The Cavs will be tough with James, Hughes, and Z. Marshall and Varejao are both decent. In short, the Cavs are one of our biggest threats IMO. Still, they might be losing Drew Gooden which is a blow to their frontcourt.

I think these 3 teams are our biggest threats to move up. Unless Pax really screws up this off-season, I think we're completely going to pass teams like New Jersey, Indiana, and Washington (none of which are really going anywhere as they currently stand). None of the teams behind us are really a threat to move up, except maybe Orlando.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



kukoc4ever said:


> I'd sure hope so. That kind of regression should not be acceptable. Especially since the moves made were supposed to make our team better.
> 
> #3 is there for the taking. Two years ago we could beat the Pistons in the regular season and are a poorer team now than back then. The Cavs are not a powerhouse. The Heat are not built to last.


Paxson said we had taken a step back with the trade of Eddy Curry. In that time Wade and Lebron have shown some scary potential and are only getting better and we don't yet have a star of eithers magnitude.

I think it is kind of empty to say "not acceptable" and "should be" in a vaccuum, that is, without considering how the competition has improved. If it were a game like golf where the only competition is yourself...sure. 

Basketball, no. We'll have to wait for seasons start to see what kind of progress and regressions have been made. I hope we're keeping pace, but we cannot be sure this early in the pre-season.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



yodurk said:


> I agree. I think we're in a great position to vault to #3 in the East. There just aren't ANY teams in the East who are primed and ready to make any significant improvements to the extent we are.


Washington beat for the playoff spot we wanted and has a superstar.

Cleveland has a smart GM and LeBron is now on a mission.

Detroit will have chip on their shoulder.

Orlando has bundles of young talent and made a nice end of season run

Toronto has a very formidable front line and a smart GM.

Miami will be there.


I agree, we're in a good spot. But we cannot assume a spot this early in the off-season.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*

Just for the record, I love Roy as a pick for us not because he's a safe pick, but because I think he's freaking awesome, and I think he will continue to be awesome in the league.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*

i see where the pax love could be coming from.

if they think this kid is the next coming of chris paul (but the SG version) then i hope they grab him.

hinrich and roy in the backcourt would be awesome, imo.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*

I also like the idea of drafting Roy at #2.

After that, we need to get the best available big at #16, maybe O'Bryant (if he falls that low) or Shelden Williams.

Still like the idea of Przybilla and Al Harrington in FA.

Add AD at vet minimum as depth off the bench and training for young bigs.

Roster?

*Hinrich, Duhon, Pargo
Gordon, Roy
Deng, Noc
Tyson, Al Harrington, Sweetney
Przybilla, O'Bryant, AD*

Use the left-over two spots for developing potential, or for a vet influence (need at least one more guard on that roster)....

Here you've got a roster filled with depth, talent, balance, defense, offense, size and speed. Most of all, our key players will have the continuity of having been together most of their careers.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*

I like Roy a lot, but I have big doubts as to whether or not he'll eventually be a top-10-type of NBA player, and that's what we need this pick to be, or to turn into via a trade.

Why don't I think he'll be a superstar? I guess the Chris Paul comparison is as good as any. I know by saying that, the GM merely means he thinks that Roy will have the easiest and most successful transition of all the rookies. But I look at how Paul exploded onto the scene as a freshman in the best conference in America and followed up with a sophomore season that propelled him into the high lottery.

I know there's still such a thing as a late bloomer, but Roy's college career path worries me a bit. To take so long to establish himself in the watered-down college game leads to believe his upside might not approach Bargnani's, Thomas's, O'Bryant's, or even Aldridge's.

DMD, since he's your guy -- what do you think of his upside, especially within this context?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



ScottMay said:


> I like Roy a lot, but I have big doubts as to whether or not he'll eventually be a top-10-type of NBA player, and that's what we need this pick to be, or to turn into via a trade.





> I know there's still such a thing as a late bloomer, but Roy's college career path worries me a bit. To take so long to establish himself in the watered-down college game leads to believe his upside might not approach Bargnani's, Thomas's, O'Bryant's, or even Aldridge's.




I've come out in support of Roy, but before that, I was fine with any of the top 3 bigs, so I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the picks you want. But I do have to ask -- given your concern that the pick must be used on an eventual top-10 player, do you see the guys you mentioned dominating the league that way? I'm not sure I do, which is why I am ok with picking Roy at 2, shoring up our backcourt with 16, and relying on FA or trade for a vet big guy, and then going after our big man of the future in the strong big man draft of 2007. Hey -- Ron Cey calls me nuts for thinking that and he may be right.

Mostly I'm curious as to how much upside you think this year's big man crop really has. Have we really understimated the strength of this year's crop to the tune of multiple top-10 players going in the selection of bigs in 2006?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I've come out in support of Roy, but before that, I was fine with any of the top 3 bigs, so I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the picks you want. But I do have to ask -- given your concern that the pick must be used on an eventual top-10 player, do you see the guys you mentioned dominating the league that way? I'm not sure I do, which is why I am ok with picking Roy at 2, shoring up our backcourt with 16, and relying on FA or trade for a vet big guy, and then going after our big man of the future in the strong big man draft of 2007. Hey -- Ron Cey calls me nuts for thinking that and he may be right.
> 
> Mostly I'm curious as to how much upside you think this year's big man crop really has. Have we really understimated the strength of this year's crop to the tune of multiple top-10 players going in the selection of bigs in 2006?


I can see Bargnani, Thomas, and Gay being a top-10 player someday. The odds probably aren't great for any of them, but at least it's there. And I need that likelihood -- it seems kind of nuts to me to punt on a #2 pick, particularly when the rest of the infrastructure is so sound and we can seemingly afford to take chances now.

I realize the 2007 class of big men is a lot deeper. I don't know that many of them outside of Oden have much top-10 potential, either (I haven't seen Durant play), and I would probably rather have Bargnani over the likes of McRoberts, Noah, or Splitter. But I would want us to make an upside play with that pick in any case as well.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



ScottMay said:


> I like Roy a lot, but I have big doubts as to whether or not he'll eventually be a top-10-type of NBA player, and that's what we need this pick to be, or to turn into via a trade.
> 
> Why don't I think he'll be a superstar? I guess the Chris Paul comparison is as good as any. I know by saying that, the GM merely means he thinks that Roy will have the easiest and most successful transition of all the rookies. But I look at how Paul exploded onto the scene as a freshman in the best conference in America and followed up with a sophomore season that propelled him into the high lottery.
> 
> ...


Of all the guys I've seen in college basketball this year, I think Brandon Roy has the highest basketball IQ. He just makes the right decision all the time. I don't think we've had anyone nearly so smart on the court since Jordan and Pippen, and this is not to say that Roy is in the class of those guys, but I think he'd have a phenominal winning impact on our club.

In terms of upside, I don't know if Roy has it in him to be a top 10 player in the league, but I am not convinced that he can't be. He just get IT, and as his 41 inch vertical suggests, he's a good athlete too. I suspect that if we draft him, he will be the best player on our team in two years time. I think he's going to be at least Ginobili good.

All this upside prediction stuff is hard to make heads or tails of sometimes. Maybe Roy wouldn't be my guy if Aldridge had the killer instinct of Amare, if Bargnani ever actually caught the ball in the post, or if Thomas didn't look like he was about 210 pounds. But with all that being said, I think he's the best shooting guard prospect since Dwyane Wade, and I think he's a better prospect than Wade coming out of college, for whatever that's worth. 

ScottMay, you should read Lorenzo Romar's comments about Roy. He thinks Roy was the best player on the team from the moment he got there as freshman, and they've had at least one college star in Nate Robinson on the team during that stretch. Sorry, I don't have a link to the article I read, but I'll look for it.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



ScottMay said:


> I like Roy a lot, but I have big doubts as to whether or not he'll eventually be a top-10-type of NBA player, and that's what we need this pick to be, or to turn into via a trade.
> 
> Why don't I think he'll be a superstar? I guess the Chris Paul comparison is as good as any. I know by saying that, the GM merely means he thinks that Roy will have the easiest and most successful transition of all the rookies. But I look at how Paul exploded onto the scene as a freshman in the best conference in America and followed up with a sophomore season that propelled him into the high lottery.
> 
> ...


It's unrealistic to expect any player in this top-weak draft to become a top ten talent. Even if this were an average draft, statistically there would only be one top ten player in the draft and since the Bulls have the second pick, they couldn't expect to get him.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



TripleDouble said:


> It's unrealistic to expect any player in this top-weak draft to become a top ten talent.


Probably true.



> Even if this were an average draft, statistically there would only be one top ten player in the draft and since the Bulls have the second pick, they couldn't expect to get him.


Not necessarily true. MJ is the most obvious example that the "top-10" player is not necessarily taken #1 in the draft. Kevin Garnett #6. Gary Payton #2. Kobe #13. You don't necessarily know who is going to be a legend on that fateful day in late June each year.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



Darius Miles Davis said:


> Of all the guys I've seen in college basketball this year, I think Brandon Roy has the highest basketball IQ. He just makes the right decision all the time. I don't think we've had anyone nearly so smart on the court since Jordan and Pippen, and this is not to say that Roy is in the class of those guys, but I think he'd have a phenominal winning impact on our club.


Curious...what do you think of the basketball IQ of Deng and KH?


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Not necessarily true. MJ is the most obvious example that the "top-10" player is not necessarily taken #1 in the draft. You don't necessarily know who is going to be a legend on that fateful day in late June each year.


True. But you still can't expect to get the one top ten talent if you have the second pick.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



Darius Miles Davis said:


> But with all that being said, I think he's the best shooting guard prospect since Dwyane Wade, and I think he's a better prospect than Wade coming out of college, for whatever that's worth.


Well, that's worth a lot. I essentially consider Wade to be a top-ten player right now, and you're saying Roy's better now than Wade was when entered the league three years ago (that is what you're saying, right?).



> ScottMay, you should read Lorenzo Romar's comments about Roy. He thinks Roy was the best player on the team from the moment he got there as freshman, and they've had at least one college star in Nate Robinson on the team during that stretch. Sorry, I don't have a link to the article I read, but I'll look for it.


No offense, but I listen to what coaches say about their players with a tin ear. I'd almost rather hear it from their mothers or their agents. If Romar truly believed Roy was the best player, wouldn't he have given him more PT/shots/hype back then? 

I could not agree with you more about the bigs from this draft having some serious warts. But if each of them has even as little as a 1% chance of developing into a superstar, I want that 1%.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



ScottMay said:


> I like Roy a lot, but I have big doubts as to whether or not he'll eventually be a top-10-type of NBA player, and that's what we need this pick to be, or to turn into via a trade.
> 
> Why don't I think he'll be a superstar? I guess the Chris Paul comparison is as good as any. I know by saying that, the GM merely means he thinks that Roy will have the easiest and most successful transition of all the rookies. But I look at how Paul exploded onto the scene as a freshman in the best conference in America and followed up with a sophomore season that propelled him into the high lottery.
> 
> ...


Those are the same reservations I have. But like I've said, I'm suddenly enamored with the idea of having a corps of guards & wings that can compete with the cream of the NBA crop, on both talent, depth, and versatility. Adding Roy to our current mix allows us to match up with ANYBODY on the perimeter.

The drawback is that we would rely on more risky options to shore up the frontline (mid-first rounder and free agency). And frankly, we need size badly. It would also be nice to have a PF or C who can run and finish the fast break. I'm really torn between Tyrus, Bargnani, and Roy. The good thing is that all will make the Bulls a better team.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*

I think Roy will be a lot like a younger Jalen Rose offensively and be a better defensive player. I don't think 20 5 and 5 is unrealistic. I doubt he becomes a superstar though. 

I'm with Scott May on this. Given the need and Roy's lack of a clear advantage in upside over the bigs, I'd rather gamble on size.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



TripleDouble said:


> I'm with Scott May on this. Given the need and Roy's lack of a clear advantage in upside over the bigs, I'd rather gamble on size.


Sounds...like the safe move.

:raised_ey


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



mizenkay said:


> i see where the pax love could be coming from.
> 
> if they think this kid is the next coming of chris paul (but the SG version) then i hope they grab him.
> 
> hinrich and roy in the backcourt would be awesome, imo.


What would you think if it was Hinrich they were replacing with Roy ?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



The 6ft Hurdle said:


> What would you think if it was Hinrich they were replacing with Roy ?


I'd think they'd better find a full time point guard, pronto. Roy can play some point, but he is not going to step in and start at 1 as a rookie.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*

I've got no problem with Roy at #2 if that's who Pax deems is the best player available and the best fit. Bargnani is still my guy, but I'm pretty convinced that he's not really being considered by the Bulls. Aldridge would be OK, but at this point if it's not Bargnani, I'd much rather look at Roy, Thomas, Gay or even Morrison before Aldridge. Each one would provide something valuable to the Bulls. Roy as that solid size at the off-guard spot. Part of what could be a very good three man rotation at the guard spots. Thomas for his length and athleticism. Pretty raw but he'd be an effective defender and give our front-court some badly needed speed. Gay because of his upside. He may well be the best talent in this draft. If he's the best player available you take him and deal with the potential minutes crunch later. Morrison because of his drive and his rather potent offensive arsenal. I'm fairly confident that the guy will be able to score from almost anywhere at anytime. Again, same as Gay; if he's the best available, you take him and deal with the PT issue. Good players find ways to get on the floor. Aldridge? Eh. I'm just not seeing it. Maybe I'm off here but he just doesn't give me the warm fuzzies.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



ScottMay said:


> I like Roy a lot, but I have big doubts as to whether or not he'll eventually be a top-10-type of NBA player, and that's what we need this pick to be, or to turn into via a trade.
> 
> Why don't I think he'll be a superstar? I guess the Chris Paul comparison is as good as any. I know by saying that, the GM merely means he thinks that Roy will have the easiest and most successful transition of all the rookies. But I look at how Paul exploded onto the scene as a freshman in the best conference in America and followed up with a sophomore season that propelled him into the high lottery.
> 
> ...


I don't think that Chris Paul is a good comparison for Roy because Paul is a pure point (while Roy can log minutes at the 1, 2 and maybe the 3 IMO) and because Paul has freakish quickness. Roy doesn't really have freakish anything. Roy is closer to the 2 guard version of Deron Williams, IMO.

That said, let's not forget that Roy very nearly skipped college and went straight to the pro's, we're not talking about a Jameer Nelson, hard won success story here. Scouts have been high on him forever. I doubt very seriously that he'd have stayed in school for 4 years if injuries hadn't slowed him down...


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



jbulls said:


> I don't think that Chris Paul is a good comparison for Roy because Paul is a pure point (while Roy can log minutes at the 1, 2 and maybe the 3 IMO) and because Paul has freakish quickness. Roy doesn't really have freakish anything. Roy is closer to the 2 guard version of Deron Williams, IMO.


I just used Paul as an example of how I expect a superstar-level prospect to progress through college. I wasn't trying to draw any comparisons between their respective games.



> That said, let's not forget that Roy very nearly skipped college and went straight to the pro's, we're not talking about a Jameer Nelson, hard won success story here. Scouts have been high on him forever. I doubt very seriously that he'd have stayed in school for 4 years if injuries hadn't slowed him down...


I think the truth is somewhere in between. He withdrew from the 2002 draft because he likely wasn't going to go in the first round (if at all). I think he was highly regarded, but a notch below the elites from his HS class (he didn't go the McDonald's game, e.g.).


----------



## Banjoriddim (Aug 14, 2004)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*

I think Roy makes sense if you get Nene instead of Przybilla who has all the flaws that Tyson (injures, workethic, reputation of bust, inconsistancy, bad hands, foultrouble...) also he is older and won't improve and could pull of Jerome James trick. I don't think argument that he is bulkier than Tyson is enough to have two guys who may very well give you only 12-15 points in 55-60 minutes (if they can stay that long on court)... I mean you would have to play Sweet again to have any offense at all in post or in cases when they are in foul trouble or injured or just play like crap. Not good idea. 
Also I still have some faith in Tyson. And even if Tyson wont improve much then he would be still very good with Nene who is really strong and extreamly quick for hes size and has serious defensive skills he + Tyson help defense would be trerror and if hes foot is ok then he is much safer pick up (has allways showed up and has some good potential to be good post player) also he is allready better offensive player than Przy and Tyson tougether (he might not double them in points but he can regulary be part of offense, has good touch and isn't turnover waiting to happen if someone passes ball to him, also he can actually catch the ball in post). So if you talk about athletism and post scoring and get Przybilla then you are on wrong trail. Get Nene and draft something that helps you, has hart and fits with your needs.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



Banjoriddim said:


> I think Roy makes sense if you get Nene instead of Przybilla who has all the flaws that Tyson (injures, workethic, reputation of bust, inconsistancy, bad hands, foultrouble...) also he is older and won't improve and could pull of Jerome James trick. I don't think argument that he is bulkier than Tyson is enough to have two guys who may very well give you only 12-15 points in 55-60 minutes (if they can stay that long on court)... I mean you would have to play Sweet again to have any offense at all in post or in cases when they are in foul trouble or injured or just play like crap. Not good idea.
> Also I still have some faith in Tyson. And even if Tyson wont improve much then he would be still very good with Nene who is really strong and extreamly quick for hes size and has serious defensive skills he + Tyson help defense would be trerror and if hes foot is ok then he is much safer pick up (has allways showed up and has some good potential to be good post player) also he is allready better offensive player than Przy and Tyson tougether (he might not double them in points but he can regulary be part of offense, has good touch and isn't turnover waiting to happen if someone passes ball to him, also he can actually catch the ball in post). So if you talk about athletism and post scoring and get Przybilla then you are on wrong trail. Get Nene and draft something that helps you, has hart and fits with your needs.


 You can question Przybilla's hands, getting in foul trouble, and injures, but I have no clue how you can question his workethic or consistancy.

As a Blazer fan, I think he's going to get overpaid, and I don't want Portland to overpay for him, but I love what he brought to Portland the past two years. Joel is a class act who brings it every single night, despite how bad Portland's record was. On the defense end, he was the glue that held four poor defensive players together, playing with as much heart as anyone.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*

Tons of info on Brandon Roy can be found at this page. Scroll towards the bottom and you will find just about everything you'll need to know about him.

Brandon Roy Articles 


Some of the more interesting notes I found...



> Roy is ranked *among the Pac-10's leaders in 10 of 13 individual statistics*, — scoring (second, 19.7), rebounding (11th, 5.5), field-goal percentage (sixth, 50.3), assists (fourth, 4.19), free-throw percentage (eighth, 80.7), steals (seventh, 1.52), blocked shots (ninth, 0.88), assist-to-turnover ratio (first, 1.85), three-point percentage (eighth, 39.7) and offensive rebounds (10th, 2.23).
> 
> Roy also *leads the Huskies in charges taken and loose balls recovered*.
> 
> ...


Interesting comment about his defense. A lot of people like Bobby Jones for his defense, as some people think he could have a Bruce Bowen type career. Yet this guy Brockman said that Roy was the best defender on the team, not Bobby Jones. 

I bet Skaxon will love the part about Roy leading the team in charges and loose balls recovered. :smile:

It is not just his own coach singing his praises. Follow the links and you'll hear what opposing coaches had to say about him as well.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*

A guard who can take people into the post...instead of being taken there himself?

Alright!!


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*

That's impressive stuff.

Leading his team in charges taken? Didn't know that!

I also didn't know he had such a great assist-per-turnover ratio, which IMO, is a very telling stat (for instance, Hinrich and Duhon both have outstanding ratios of nearly 3:1).


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*

I am not surprised at all.

Even if Raptors pick him at 1.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



SALO said:


> Tons of info on Brandon Roy can be found at this page. Scroll towards the bottom and you will find just about everything you'll need to know about him.
> 
> Brandon Roy Articles
> 
> ...


Not to take this off-topic, but I'm starting to think we'd be better off scouring Europe and the CBA for a defensive specialist than trying to get a guy like Hassan Adams or Bobby Jones. Does anybody ever come out of college and really make a big defensive impact immediately? Certainly not Eddie Basden. Guys like Raja Bell and Bruce Bowen needed minor league and European league seasoning before the became productive NBA players.


----------



## Banjoriddim (Aug 14, 2004)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



Tince said:


> You can question Przybilla's hands, getting in foul trouble, and injures, but I have no clue how you can question his workethic or consistancy.
> 
> As a Blazer fan, I think he's going to get overpaid, and I don't want Portland to overpay for him, but I love what he brought to Portland the past two years. Joel is a class act who brings it every single night, despite how bad Portland's record was. On the defense end, he was the glue that held four poor defensive players together, playing with as much heart as anyone.


Well I may overreact a but what I ment was that he didn't played many minutes before he arrived to Portland where he put up ok stats but team played really badly and he had no competition on center position (this is my knock on his tetermination in past) also he has had problems with injures and thus hes consistancy has been affected by them also hes habit to pick up fouls don't help to play many minutes. But I have to agree he is seems to be nice guy who plays with some intensity and labeling him into same group with Jerome James and with other contract year players is bit unfair (still I have my doupts weather to give big contract to guy who has played well for only 2 years in poor team) also i have the same fear that someone pays him too much also I doupt he is best option for Bulls and these factors made me maybe bit too hostile.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*

great debate; i am on the fence on this one; i expressed an opinion regarding roy earlier on where i posited on the vision of pax and company being that of taken a big man; bigs were the glaring weakness, therefore with any *draft pick* consideration, the inclination would be to go big. HOWEVER, i've drifted a bit and though i'm not a roy supporter (he just seems very average.....) if the best player available, say rudy gay blows away the workouts take the guy who might have "superstar" potential, let the chips fall where they may with playing time, and get whatever quality bigs in FA. 

it's difficult for me (as it might any fan) to predict which way the cards will fall, so contributing to threads like these is equally so.

the veteran bigs in FA does make sense, even if their second tier. though i'm not a "salary cap" concerned fan, paying big money for the group that's out there now i don't think is going to happen. the team as constructed is built on balance, so with the exception of al harrington, no acquisition would eat up shots, only contribute on the boards and defensively, again at a reasonable price.

therefore, IF paxson, who i'm empowing with my "fanly" trust, decides roy can help the team, has the most upside and they go with him; fine....it's a tough call and i'm glad i don't have to make it.


----------



## JPTurbo (Jan 8, 2006)

*Questions about Roy*

1. Can he attack the basket?

2. Can he drive and dish to a big for a dunk/layup/foul?

Because to be honest I know very little about him except that he can be the big SG defender we want. If the answers to the questions is yes, then I think he would be of extreme value to us, and heck, here's an idea I've been pondering for a while now, however farfetched it may be:

First, we trade Gordon, #16, Sweets, and 2nd rounders to Toronto for the #1 overall.

Why it works for Toronto- 

1.Gives them a star in the making in Gordon, who we now know is clutch. 

2.Provides them with a good backup for Bosh and possible starting center in the small East with Sweets.

3. They still may be able to nab a center like O'Bryant, Armstrong, or Splitter at 16.

4. Someone mentioned in another thread that the #2 this year is like #6 in another draft. That would put the #1 somewhere around #3, eerily where Gordon was selected.

Why it works for us-

1. We can then draft Aldridge and Roy #1 and #2. 

2. Fills our core starting 5 for years to come without having to mix and match and F around.

3. Aldridge can play center and allow Tyson to move back to his natural power forward.

4. Roy gives us good size for defense at SG.

5. We should still have enough money to sign someone like Hilario or Pryzbilla.

Our lineup could look something like this:

PG-Kirk, Duhon
SG-Roy, Kirk, ???
SF-Deng, Noc
PF-Tyson, Allen, Aldridge
C- Aldridge, Hilario, Schensher


I don't propose scenarios very often so not sure how realistic/beneficial this is, but I've been thinking about something like this and wanted to see what everyone else thought. So feel free to rip.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

*Re: Questions about Roy*



> 1. We can then draft Aldridge and Roy #1 and #2.


Giving up Gordon and more just to take a chance on another unproven rookie would be a mistake of epic proportion. We are still feeling the effects of the last trade that went along those lines.

If we really like Roy and feel like Gordon is a luxury, why not use him and whatever else necessary within reason to target a proven big.

quick example: Gordon, Sweets, #16 for Villanueva, Alvin Williams, Eric Williams and the #35


----------



## JPTurbo (Jan 8, 2006)

*Re: Questions about Roy*

Can V play center?


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

*Re: Questions about Roy*



JPTurbo said:


> 1. Can he attack the basket?
> 
> 2. Can he drive and dish to a big for a dunk/layup/foul?


1. Yes. He's a very good athlete, but is somewhat of an under-the-rim player. The way he slashes reminds me a little bit of a more under-control Ginobili. He may not be quite as good at finishing in traffic as a guy like Wade. 

2. Definitely. He has superb court vision and is very unselfish.



> Because to be honest I know very little about him except that he can be the big SG defender we want. If the answers to the questions is yes, then I think he would be of extreme value to us, and heck, here's an idea I've been pondering for a while now, however farfetched it may be:
> 
> First, we trade Gordon, #16, Sweets, and 2nd rounders to Toronto for the #1 overall.
> 
> ...


that's not such a bad idea, but I think we're giving up a little bit much. I think Gordon might be in the conversation for #1 overall if he was in this draft, plus we're giving up another first rounder and Sweetney. I do like the way our roster could look if we pull it off, though - maybe we could hold onto either Sweets or #16 and it'd be even better. Nice thoughts.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

*Re: Questions about Roy*



> Can V play center?


No.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I certainly have a question about Bargnani, only because I don't know enough about him. I call him a safe pick because there are enough people doing mocks and writing columns that have him going #1.


Yeah, but that's because of his tremendous upside. The only reason he's not a lock #1 or #2 is that little is known about him. If he really was the next Dirk, its a no-brainer. But, you have to take a gamble if you want the next Dirk. Bargnani’s chance of complete failure is higher than Roy’s. 



> OK. So you are alright with drafting Roy, as long as he adequately addresses the big situation in another manner -- like a trade for Frye?


I could see it making sense. I think this team needs a potentially great player to put at the 4 or 5. Until then, we're screwed IMO in terms of contending for a title. If we get Frye, then Roy or Gay would be logical picks. 



> I'm just trying to sort it out. You seem to use the term "safe" as a dirty word, like Pax is not doing enough, or is not doing the best thing if he takes Roy.


It depends on what you want. Many appear quite happy with the current roster, so then its not a dirty word. Drafting Roy has the least chance of utter failure. There really are no question marks about him... noone could blame a guy for drafting him. Good solid NCAA proven player.



> Many seem to think Roy is the overall best player in the draft. Is Pax better off drafting one of the players with the question marks?


I would be surprised if Roy is the best player from this draft 4 years from now. He's the most developed commodity at the top though, and he very well may be the best player next season.

Who should Pax draft? It depends on what he's doing with all his other options. I've yet to make up my mind on who Pax should draft. When I initially looked over the crop, based on Paxson's previous decisions, Roy jumped off the page as the type of player Paxson would want.

Roy is a T-Bill. Bargnani is an early stage biotech firm.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Questions about Roy*

Does the Jalen Rose comparison make sense?

Based on everything I'm reading, it seems like it does.


----------



## BDMcGee (May 12, 2006)

*Re: Questions about Roy*



JPTurbo said:


> 1. Can he attack the basket?
> 
> 2. Can he drive and dish to a big for a dunk/layup/foul?
> 
> ...


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

*Re: Questions about Roy*



kukoc4ever said:


> Does the Jalen Rose comparison make sense?
> 
> Based on everything I'm reading, it seems like it does.


I'm not sure I see it. On the defensive end of the court the two are completely different. Offensively I think Roy is way ahead of Jalen Rose in his early years.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*

I agree that Roy is a "safe pick" compared to the three big guys in that there's less variance in opinion about how he'll turn out (good, not great) and more consensus that he'll contribute immediately vs. the other guys, who might take a while.

To me, I don't care too much about an immediate contribution. I mean, if one of those three turns out to be significantly better in the long run, it's a no brainer to me that we take them.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



kukoc4ever said:


> Yeah, but that's because of his tremendous upside. The only reason he's not a lock #1 or #2 is that little is known about him. If he really was the next Dirk, its a no-brainer. But, you have to take a gamble if you want the next Dirk. Bargnani’s chance of complete failure is higher than Roy’s.



My only concern is that it took 8 seasons to get to the Dirk we see today.


----------



## JPTurbo (Jan 8, 2006)

*Re: Questions about Roy*



step said:


> No.


Well the reason I ask is because I can't see Tyson continuing to play center much longer.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

*Re: Questions about Roy*



> Well the reason I ask is because I can't see Tyson continuing to play center much longer.


Well when you have Villaneuva who cares about Tyson.


----------



## JPTurbo (Jan 8, 2006)

*Re: Questions about Roy*

Touche


----------



## Like A Breath (Jun 16, 2003)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



GB said:


> My only concern is that it took 8 seasons to get to the Dirk we see today.


That's a little silly, Dirk was putting up 18 and 7 his second year and 22 and 9 by his third. I'd be suprised if Roy was as good so early. Of course Dirk is in his prime now, but it doesn't mean he wasn't a good player before.

Roy is not a better prospect than Dwyane Wade. Forget the measurements and numbers, Wade is just a far better athlete. Wade is leagues quicker and has always been a much better finisher. Despite the 41" leap, Roy almost never dunked in traffic or skied for rebounds. His other concerns include his knees and his NBA shooting range. His defense is good, not overwhelming or great. I watched a lot of Washington games living on the West Coast, and Bobby Jones has always guarded the best player on the opposing team.

Roy isn't a flawless prospect.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



GB said:


> My only concern is that it took 8 seasons to get to the Dirk we see today.


But he's basically been at this elite, All-NBA level for 5-6 years now. And he's still pretty young -- only 2 1/2 years older than Kirk Hinrich, e.g.

Sometimes it takes a while to get to your first Finals. And the Mavs had a longer way to go than most teams.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



Mikedc said:


> I agree that Roy is a "safe pick" compared to the three big guys in that there's less variance in opinion about how he'll turn out (good, not great) and more consensus that he'll contribute immediately vs. the other guys, who might take a while.
> 
> To me, I don't care too much about an immediate contribution. I mean, if one of those three turns out to be significantly better in the long run, it's a no brainer to me that we take them.


That's what I'm saying..

Our perimeter game is fine, all we're lacking is SIZE...you can get that in FA

I'd rather take a chance on one of the big's personally....

now if roy was WADE/ARENAS/NASH type talent....THEN, that would be different..


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



Like A Breath said:


> That's a little silly, Dirk was putting up 18 and 7 his second year and 22 and 9 by his third. I'd be suprised if Roy was as good so early. Of course Dirk is in his prime now, but it doesn't mean he wasn't a good player before.
> 
> Roy is not a better prospect than Dwyane Wade. Forget the measurements and numbers, Wade is just a far better athlete. Wade is leagues quicker and has always been a much better finisher. Despite the 41" leap, Roy almost never dunked in traffic or skied for rebounds. His other concerns include his knees and his NBA shooting range. His defense is good, not overwhelming or great. I watched a lot of Washington games living on the West Coast, and Bobby Jones has always guarded the best player on the opposing team.
> 
> Roy isn't a flawless prospect.


Damn you for posting this about Nowitzki thirty seconds before I did. 

I just wanted to point out that Roy's 41" vertical is a one-step vertical. We'll get the traditional non-step verticals at the Orlando camp.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

*Re: Questions about Roy*



step said:


> Well when you have Villaneuva who cares about Tyson.


The team that owes him 50 million dollars over 5 years? Or the one that wants rebounding and shot blocking?


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

*Re: Questions about Roy*



> The team that owes him 50 million dollars over 5 years? Or the one that wants rebounding and shot blocking?


Talking in terms of both Charlie and Tyson being on our roster. If we got Charlie and Tyson is still not useful, I'd ship Tyson out without blinking.


----------



## BDMcGee (May 12, 2006)

*Re: Questions about Roy*



kukoc4ever said:


> Does the Jalen Rose comparison make sense?
> 
> Based on everything I'm reading, it seems like it does.


They really have nothing in common except for their versatility. Roy is more unselfish, is a much better defender, slightly better athlete, and better pure scorer. Rose is taller and has better ball handling skills. Their games are completely different. I think Roy will be a better pro because he's tougher physically, is more unselfish, and has a better feel for the game than Rose. He's also a fiery competitor. He has the type of desire and killer instinct that all the great ones have.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Questions about Roy*



BDMcGee said:


> They really have nothing in common except for their versatility. Roy is more unselfish, is a much better defender, slightly better athlete, and better pure scorer. Rose is taller and has better ball handling skills. Their games are completely different. I think Roy will be a better pro because he's tougher physically, is more unselfish, and has a better feel for the game than Rose. He's also a fiery competitor. He has the type of desire and killer instinct that all the great ones have.


Do you think Roy will ever be the best player (EFF) on a team that makes it to the NBA Finals?

If he really can, I hope Pax goes for him.

You should email nbadraft.net with your comment, perhaps they will change their player comparison. Sounds like they are way off.


----------



## BDMcGee (May 12, 2006)

*Re: Questions about Roy*



kukoc4ever said:


> Do you think Roy will ever be the best player (EFF) on a team that makes it to the NBA Finals?
> 
> If he really can, I hope Pax goes for him.
> 
> You should email nbadraft.net with your comment, perhaps they will change their player comparison. Sounds like they are way off.


Don't take nbadraft.net's player comparisons too seriously. Some of them are decent but they've also had some ridiculous ones, such as comparing Deshawn Stevenson to Michael Jordan. I do think that Roy is good enough to be the best player on a team that makes it to the NBA finals. I'm seemingly one of the few that believes he could be a star. The problem with selecting him is that it wouldn't solve the Bulls big-man problems. Still, if they want to add a go-to scorer/leader they can't go wrong with Brandon Roy.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

*Re: Questions about Roy*



> Don't take nbadraft.net's player comparisons too seriously. Some of them are decent but they've also had some ridiculous ones, such as comparing Deshawn Stevenson to Michael Jordan.


Indeed, nbadraft.net are ok if you want to get a handle of player without getting into any detail, as seen by their love to have everything in dot points. 
Nothing beats seeing the player yourself, but I recommend draftexpress, they actually go into some detail and they seem to actually update their scouting reports. Looking at nbadraft.net the comments on Adam Morrison are from 2004, so it says.


----------



## laso (Jul 24, 2002)

*Re: Questions about Roy*



kukoc4ever said:


> Do you think Roy will ever be the best player (EFF) on a team that makes it to the NBA Finals?
> 
> If he really can, I hope Pax goes for him..


I don't think the threshold is that high. If you think Roy can be as good as RIP Hamilton or Ray Allen, then draft him. If he develops to be that player, you've probably set your backcourt for the next 10 years. Assuming you can re-sign everyone...


----------



## r1terrell23 (Feb 11, 2006)

*Re: Questions about Roy*



jbulls said:


> I'm not sure I see it. On the defensive end of the court the two are completely different. Offensively I think Roy is way ahead of Jalen Rose in his early years.


Roy and Rose are VERY similar offensively. They are under the rim, get to the hoop and finish, and have nice mid range shots. They also pass the ball pretty well and finish games with 25pts, 7 rebs, 6 assists. Also, let's not forget Rose is a 20-25 ppg scorer on the right team.

(excuse the edit, i was going to respond, hit the wrong button and the rest is history. not a great start to my mod career :biggrin: )


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



ScottMay said:


> I can see Bargnani, Thomas, and Gay being a top-10 player someday. The odds probably aren't great for any of them, but at least it's there. And I need that likelihood -- it seems kind of nuts to me to punt on a #2 pick, particularly when the rest of the infrastructure is so sound and we can seemingly afford to take chances now.
> 
> I realize the 2007 class of big men is a lot deeper. I don't know that many of them outside of Oden have much top-10 potential, either (I haven't seen Durant play), and I would probably rather have Bargnani over the likes of McRoberts, Noah, or Splitter. But I would want us to make an upside play with that pick in any case as well.


Just a little FYI on the next draft. Durant isn't really a "big guy" He is 6'10" and his arms hang down to his ankles, but he is rail thin and probably more of a 3. But he definitely looks to have top 10 potential. He's a freak. 

A guy I'm going to be preaching about until he embarrasses me by playing horribly is Spencer Hawes. He's a big and he'll be a freshman at Washington State this year. I think that if he declares, he'll be a top 5 pick and the second "big" taken after Oden, or maybe Noah. 

Lastly, I don't think anyone in this draft will turn out to be a top 10 player. Gay could, I suppose. Bargnani too, but I just haven't seen enough of him to guess. That isn't my expectation. My expectation is that we walk away with a solid, contributing big man. I think Aldridge, Thomas and I guess Bargnani can all fit that bill.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*

As for the "safe pick" discussion, in a vaccuum, Roy is the "safe pick". But the draft isn't a vaccuum.

The Bulls are not some young scrub team like Charlotte that should concretely take the BPA with their lotto pick. They are a rising playoff team in the East that should be seriously contending for a conference finals appearance by next season. 

No one in the top 6 of this draft appears to be measurably "better" than the others. BPA is a fraction with all of these guys based on what is known now. Therefore, Chicago needs to get size where it can control the size it takes. That is the draft, not free agency. There are 3 distinct styles of bigs in this draft. At least 2 of those 3 will be available. Unless, after watching these guys, the Bulls think they are a bunch of Othella Harringtons, they should take one.

In that sense, i.e., putting the pick in context, Roy is not the "safe pick". He's the illogical, risky, luxury pick whose fit with the success of this team will depend in part on future, unknown, and unreliable acquisitions of the right bigs in free agency. 

Roy is without question the biggest "risk" pick for *the Chicago Bulls* being discussed as an option. And more to my opinion, he would not only be the "risk" pick, he'd be stupid pick.

Don't do it, Paxson. 

(Having read that, now please consider that I was adamantly against both the Gordon and Hinrich picks - Players whose success now has me rooting against the Roy pick. :biggrin: Though I was against drafting those guys because I didn't think they'd be very good NBA players. With Roy, my criticism is not of his game or his ability - just so that is clear. I'm sure he'll be a fine shooting guard.)


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*

"low risk" in the way I'm using it is the least chance of being a bust and a better chance of being a solid player. (lower chance of being a great player)

As MikeDC said, a lower variance. That's how risk is measured in many circles. Paxson fears variance, IMO.

Yah, Roy is not a great fit for the team given our current roster. Gordon, with all his flaws, should be in the lineup if he's still on the team. Burning this top pick for a guy whose long term upside is not as high as some of the other players in the draft and that will likely come off the bench given our current roster and does not play the position that we're in desperate need of seems like a strange plan.

But, if Paxson really believes that Roy is the BPA, or if he can deal Gordon for a very good big man, then I have no problem with it.

What I don't want to hear, if Gordon is still on the team to start the season and there is no intention to trade him, is to hear Brandon Roy has the best chance to help us right way. Its time to start thinking long term and try to hit home runs, not singles. Paxson has transformed the organization into what he wants, at least on an attitude/style of play basis. Its time to start bringing the talent in that will get us deep into the playoffs.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*

Roy worked out for big jerry. 

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/cbasketball/272874_roy06.html




> Charlotte and Portland, with the third and fourth picks in the NBA draft, have shown the most interest.
> 
> While other teams scheduled workouts with Brandon Roy in Los Angeles, the Hornets arranged for him to fly to Virginia last week. The Blazers made a trip north and met with him at Mercer Island's Jewish Community Center, which offers an NBA 3-point line.
> 
> Yet the Chicago Bulls, who have the No. 2 selection, recently rescheduled a workout with Roy so the team owner could be present, a sure sign the organization is giving the former Huskies guard full consideration.





> On Monday, Roy was back on campus, playing pick-up ball in the Edmundson Pavilion north addition with several former teammates, including guard Will Conroy, incoming recruit Spencer Hawes, New York Knicks guard Jamal Crawford and Arizona forward Marcus Williams.
> 
> Conroy, after spending his first pro season in the NBA's developmental league, has a workout lined up with the San Antonio Spurs, who considered signing him a year ago.





> To learn his final destination, Roy will head to New York and the June 28 draft. He is the first Washington player invited back as a potential lottery pick. He will travel with a large contingent of family and friends, including Conroy and Crawford and former Garfield High teammate Cole Allen, all watching him realize a childhood dream.
> 
> "I get a chance to shake the commissioner's hand," said Roy, referring to the draft ritual with David Stern. "Even if I go 10th, I get a chance to shake the commissioner's hand."




I could see it playing out that the plan is to trade Ben along with Tyson for a big and make a play for Pryzbilla .


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



kukoc4ever said:


> "low risk" in the way I'm using it is the least chance of being a bust and a better chance of being a solid player.
> 
> As MikeDC said, a lower variance. That's how risk is measured in many circles. Paxson fears variance, IMO.
> 
> ...


I am all in favor of home runs, and if any of the top bigs in this draft are truly home runs, then rock on.

The problem with swinging for the fences with a player with big variances and risk is sometimes you get that home run, and sometimes you get a noble experiment that doesn't work out -- like Brand for Chandler.

We have had enough of good but not great, as you have pointed out. We have also had enough of p...p...p..potential that doesn't pan out. 

Not saying that will hapen with Bargnani, Thomas or Aldridge, but that is the risk that we are talking about.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I am all in favor of home runs, and if any of the top bigs in this draft are truly home runs, then rock on.
> 
> The problem with swinging for the fences with a player with big variances and risk is sometimes you get that home run, and sometimes you get a noble experiment that doesn't work out -- like Brand for Chandler.
> 
> ...


The risk is more like the Darko situation. Everyone knew in that draft that Melo and LeBron would be duking it out for ROY. Detroit needed a C so they could move Ben Wallace to PF and figured they could grow Darko into that C position. They drafted for position of need, not for talent.

Or it could be the Wade situation. Pull the trigger on the deal to get #4 to get the guy you want and you strike GOLD. You don't and you end up with Hinrich - pretty good, but no Wade.

We do have the #16 pick to go after a big who can give us quality minutes.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



DaBullz said:


> The risk is more like the Darko situation. Everyone knew in that draft that Melo and LeBron would be duking it out for ROY. Detroit needed a C so they could move Ben Wallace to PF and figured they could grow Darko into that C position. They drafted for position of need, not for talent.
> 
> Or it could be the Wade situation. Pull the trigger on the deal to get #4 to get the guy you want and you strike GOLD. You don't and you end up with Hinrich - pretty good, but no Wade.
> 
> We do have the #16 pick to go after a big who can give us quality minutes.


I like the analysis. I do concede that Ron Cey has a point about risk: if we don't take a big at 2 to address our most pressing need, we are sticking our neck out, assuming we can get a quality big mid-first round, or in FA or in trade. That is a big unknown, and the man in the middle situation does need attention more than any other need.

On the other hand, the "draft for need" school (and the "can't teach size/daft big with top picks" scool) always leads back to "do you draft Sam Bowie when MJ is on the board since you already have Clyde Drexler?" question.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I like the analysis. I do concede that Ron Cey has a point about risk: if we don't take a big at 2 to address our most pressing need, we are sticking our neck out, assuming we can get a quality big mid-first round, or in FA or in trade. That is a big unknown, and the man in the middle situation does need attention more than any other need.


Nobody can be sure that the knicks pick next season will be top 10. Who knows, maybe Thomas leads the team to 41 wins and something like the 16th pick.

Speaking of 41 wins, I think we all hope the bulls do no worse from now on. That translates to a lot of #16 picks from now on. 

#2 is a pretty rare thing. The chance to go for a rare player. This is the bigger picture.

I'd be all in favor of going for a big. The thing is, none of the bigs in this draft are appealing other than the fact that they're the best bigs in this draft. Bargnini is the p-p-p-p word in a huge way. Thomas - all we know about him is he played a year of college ball (and I think Chandler would have been better as a freshman!). Aldridge was like the 3rd option on his team. These guys just aren't that impressive to warrant a #2, IMO.

Now, Petey made a suggestion to me that I'm starting to like a lot. So Roy may be the guy we really want. HE is not worth the #2. So you work out a draft day trade to get Roy at a lower pick. Kind of like the Bulls did with Mihm for Crawford, or Polynice for Pippen.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*

Just for yuks...

DraftExpress has the following bigs going at 16 or higher:
Hilton Armstrong, 6'11" 235 lbs, Connecticut, Senior
Saer Sene, 7'0" 229 lbs, International
Alexander Johnson, 6'9" 226 lbs, Florida State, Junior
Paul Davis, 6'11" 250 lbs, Michigan State, Senior
James Augustine, 6'10" 235 lbs, Illinois, Senior

What, really, are your expectations for Aldridge as a pro, and why wouldn't one of these guys at #16 be close enough a fit?

(Note: they have Portland taking Roy at #4)


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



DaBullz said:


> Now, Petey made a suggestion to me that I'm starting to like a lot. So Roy may be the guy we really want. HE is not worth the #2. So you work out a draft day trade to get Roy at a lower pick. Kind of like the Bulls did with Mihm for Crawford, or Polynice for Pippen.


Hmmm. Petey must have read my letter to the Daily Herald...


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*

I'd love to see a trade down. I think if the Bulls don't take Thomas he may fall all the way to Minnesota. The trade could be #2 pick for the #6 pick plus asset/s (McCants?). 

Then trade those assets and the number 16 pick for the 8th pick.

@6 draft Roy or Thomas.

@8 draft O'Bryant, Brewer or Carney.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



DaBullz said:


> The risk is more like the Darko situation. Everyone knew in that draft that Melo and LeBron would be duking it out for ROY. Detroit needed a C so they could move Ben Wallace to PF and figured they could grow Darko into that C position. They drafted for position of need, not for talent.



Very neat intersection of circumstances. Dumars has addressed that situation:



> It wasn't long Monday before the Darko Milicic disaster was broached, and Dumars was asked if the clarity of hindsight gave him a different perspective. He knows that he blew it.
> 
> "Absolutely," he said. "As I've said before, the pick ended up being a mistake for the Pistons. It didn't work out, and I'm accountable for that. But I won't split hairs over it. After I made the pick, (we) won a championship, went to Game 7 of the Finals and came back and got the best record in the league. Want to split hairs that somebody else could have helped us more during that same period of time, and I'll give you the same answer. Maybe so."
> 
> The Pistons traded Milicic to Orlando this season. They still don't have a transitional star with the ravenous appetite to establish himself, infusing his youthful exuberance through a veteran core that has grown complacent.


http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060606/SPORTS03/606060369/1051


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



DaBullz said:


> Just for yuks...
> 
> DraftExpress has the following bigs going at 16 or higher:
> Hilton Armstrong, 6'11" 235 lbs, Connecticut, Senior
> ...


Yuks is right. Those guys aren't in the same class as Aldridge. Not by a long shot. 

Sene, from what I hear, has the raw ability to be a very good big. So athletically, he may compare. But not in the delivery department. 

Thats not to say that I wouldn't draft a few of those guys with the #16 pick. But they are a sorry substitute for the bigs at the top of the draft.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



DaBullz said:


> Now, Petey made a suggestion to me that I'm starting to like a lot. So Roy may be the guy we really want. HE is not worth the #2. So you work out a draft day trade to get Roy at a lower pick. Kind of like the Bulls did with Mihm for Crawford, or Polynice for Pippen.


I'm sure a deal could be worked out with Portland, especially if toronto does, in fact, take Bargnani. I would think that Portland would want either Aldridge or Morrison (or possibly Thomas). Charlotte, I would think, would want either Morrison or Gay. I can't see then taking Thomas and I don't think Roy really fills a need for them. They need perimeter scoring and Pg help. Roy could fall to #4. I could see a #2 for #4 swap - Travis Outlaw and Sweetney (to make salaries work - we get the better player but would still be over the cap so we'd have to send something back). Take the best big available at #16 or try to trade up a few spots to get someone like Cedrick Simmons or O'Bryant.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



> "low risk" in the way I'm using it is the least chance of being a bust and a better chance of being a solid player. (lower chance of being a great player)


Right. I agree that, in a vaccuum ignoring which team is doing the drafting, Roy is the safe pick.



> As MikeDC said, a lower variance. That's how risk is measured in many circles. Paxson fears variance, IMO.


I think its a little to early to tell when or if Paxson is willing to make the risky move. To me, if he drafts Roy, its a huge risk. And a stupid one. 



> Yah, Roy is not a great fit for the team given our current roster. Gordon, with all his flaws, should be in the lineup if he's still on the team. Burning this top pick for a guy whose long term upside is not as high as some of the other players in the draft and that will likely come off the bench given our current roster and does not play the position that we're in desperate need of seems like a strange plan.


You read my mind.



> But, if Paxson really believes that Roy is the BPA, or if he can deal Gordon for a very good big man, then I have no problem with it.


I agree with a qualification. If Paxson believes that Roy is *significantly* the BPA, then I'd back it. Certainly, if he can trade Gordon for a very good big man, then my opinion of drafting Roy would change dramatically. 

Lets put it this way. If he drafts Roy, I'll be waiting for the other shoe to drop. That means doing something with Gordon along the lines of what you wrote. 



> What I don't want to hear, if Gordon is still on the team to start the season and there is no intention to trade him, is to hear Brandon Roy has the best chance to help us right way.


Oh baby, you and I are on the same page. 



> Its time to start thinking long term and try to hit home runs, not singles. Paxson has transformed the organization into what he wants, at least on an attitude/style of play basis. *Its time to start bringing the talent in that will get us deep into the playoffs.*


I agree again. Except that, simply to dispute the connotation of your word choice, I don't think Paxson has been hitting "singles". And I also wouldn't say its "time to start" bringing in that talent. He has already brought in a lot of that talent. Its time to continue to do it by directing it at positions other than point guard, shooting guard, and small forward.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



> The risk is more like the Darko situation. Everyone knew in that draft that Melo and LeBron would be duking it out for ROY. Detroit needed a C so they could move Ben Wallace to PF and figured they could grow Darko into that C position. They drafted for position of need, not for talent.


Thats not how it happened, as I believe has been pointed out by others in the past. Move Ben to the 4? When, in 4 years? And what, then, was going to happen to 'Sheed? Move him to the point guard?

Darko is the youngest player ever drafted. It was widely known that he wasn't NBA ready and that he was a project. LeBron and Darko were considered the top 2 talents, with it understood that 'Melo would have a quicker impact than Darko.

As I recall, several scouts were quoted as saying that Darko might have even been a better prospect than LeBron. 



> Or it could be the Wade situation. Pull the trigger on the deal to get #4 to get the guy you want and you strike GOLD. You don't and you end up with Hinrich - pretty good, but no Wade.


Hindsight, but certainly true.



> We do have the #16 pick to go after a big who can give us quality minutes.


This is a popular opinion on the board these days. But the bigs projected to be available at that slot are reserves. I'm not looking to add another Malik Allen as the best big acquired by the Bulls in this draft. To me, that is unacceptable.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



The 6ft Hurdle said:


> What would you think if it was Hinrich they were replacing with Roy ?



that they didn't have a PG anymore?? sure they have duhon, but you know what i mean. 

however, they wouldn't _replace_ kirk with roy. nor would they replace ben necessarily either. i could see a viable and dangerous backcourt rotation (plenty of minutes) for kirk, gordon _and_ roy. it may be duhon who is ultimately the odd man out in the situation. 

going into the draft/offseason pax has been very clear about what the bulls need. size and athleticism and a bigger 2 guard. pax is obviously very high on him if they are scheduling his workout so uncle jerry can watch.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*

For the record, my preference in order are: 1. Tyrus Thomas, 2. Bargnani, and 3. Roy.

But I really don't understand why we can't keep Gordon AND draft Brandon Roy. Nocioni is more effective at PF, is he not? Undersized, yes, but still more effective (I believe the stats back this up, and I know it's something I've noticed). So then we have 5 guys (Hinrich, Duhon, Gordon, Roy, and Deng) splitting minutes between our 3 perimeter positions. That's an AVERAGE of nearly 29 minutes for each guy, and I expect Duhon to play substantially less than that which leaves even more minutes for the others to play.

Size is more of a priority, IMO, but keeping both Roy and Gordon on board gives us a tremendously talented and versatile team of guards and wings. Plenty of depth and playing time to go around. Either way is fine by me.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



yodurk said:


> Nocioni is more effective at PF, is he not? Undersized, yes, but still more effective (I believe the stats back this up, and I know it's something I've noticed).


(He's more effective as a 4 in terms of counterpart production, but we're worse off as a team when he plays there.)

http://www.82games.com/0506/05CHI10C.HTM


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



ScottMay said:


> (He's more effective as a 4 in terms of counterpart production, but we're worse off as a team when he plays there.)
> 
> http://www.82games.com/0506/05CHI10C.HTM


Our 14-6 record to end the season with Noc playing quite a bit at PF tends to refute that claim.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*

If we draft Roy, don't keep Gordon around because the PT storyline will be worked endlessly by the Chicago media to the detriment of the team.

Kill the storyline now.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



Wynn said:


> Our 14-6 record to end the season with Noc playing quite a bit at PF tends to refute that claim.


Maybe for that 20-game stretch (most of it against Eastern Conference also-rans), playing Noce at the 4 was a net positive. Over the course of an 82-game season, it wasn't.

(Then again, for the entirety of Noce's career, the team has played significantly better with him off the floor as opposed to on, so maybe the 3/4 thing doesn't matter).


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*

LMAO, here we go again.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



ScottMay said:


> Maybe for that 20-game stretch (most of it against Eastern Conference also-rans), playing Noce at the 4 was a net positive. Over the course of an 82-game season, it wasn't.
> 
> (Then again, for the entirety of Noce's career, the team has played significantly better with him off the floor as opposed to on, so maybe the 3/4 thing doesn't matter).


I'm just going by gut feeling, informed only by personal observation, but I have to agree. Overall, Noc is a better fit as a big, strong 3 than as an undersized 4. And I expect him to continue to improve in that regard.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



ScottMay said:


> Maybe for that 20-game stretch *(most of it against Eastern Conference also-rans)*, playing Noce at the 4 was a net positive.


Not true.

When you see people referring to 14-6 to close out the season, I think you are confusing which 20 games are being discussed. This includes the playoffs. Therefore, 7 of those 20 games were against the Eastern Conference Champs. 

2 of those games were against Orlando, who was the hottest team in the NBA besides us and was definitely playing playoff caliber basketball at that point.

1 game was against Washington - playoff team.

1 game was against New Jersy - playoff team.

1 game was against Indiana - playoff team.

So thats 12 of 20 against legit competition, with the others being teams like Boston, New Orleans, Philly and Atlanta. If you did a "strength of schedule" based on these 20 games, it would be pretty darn tough.

Anyway, I'm just disputing the notion that the last 20 games of the season weren't a difficult stretch of scheduling. It was difficult. I agree with you that Noc is primarily a 3 and should be played primarily as a 3.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*

I have a hard time envisioning Brandon Roy being better than Bonzi Wells, IMHO... and Bonzi early on in his career gave young Kobe lots of troubles playing both ways.

Does adding a Bonzi Wells type player put this team into the ECF?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



superdave said:


> I have a hard time envisioning Brandon Roy being better than Bonzi Wells, IMHO... and Bonzi early on in his career gave young Kobe lots of troubles playing both ways.
> 
> Does adding a Bonzi Wells type player put this team into the ECF?


I don't know if I see the Bonzi comparison exactly, but the answer as per Roy is it depends on what we do to get a vet big, a project big at 16 and next year's draft in the deep big man draft.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



DaBullz said:


> Nobody can be sure that the knicks pick next season will be top 10. Who knows, maybe Thomas leads the team to 41 wins and something like the 16th pick.
> 
> Speaking of 41 wins, I think we all hope the bulls do no worse from now on. That translates to a lot of #16 picks from now on.
> 
> ...


Great post.

Toronto may be double clutching after hearing that the Bulls invited Roy back to meet the owner. He fits their needs much better than the Bulls. Could be we're looking at a head fake by Paxson in a play for Aldridge.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



Ron Cey said:


> Not true.
> 
> When you see people referring to 14-6 to close out the season, I think you are confusing which 20 games are being discussed. This includes the playoffs. Therefore, 7 of those 20 games were against the Eastern Conference Champs.
> 
> ...


Thanks for clarifying which 20 games was talking about. I think you're right.

I also think Noc is better suited for the 3, but our total lack of effective bigs made a nice hole for Noc to fill last season. Too bad we waited so late to try it more often. I think the reason I felt we were more effective with Noc playing the 4 was that at least we were able to put an effective player at that position.

I guess you go with the Phoenix plan, and put your best 5 players on the floor, regardless of traditional positions.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



Wynn said:


> I also think Noc is better suited for the 3, but our total lack of effective bigs made a nice hole for Noc to fill last season. Too bad we waited so late to try it more often. I think the reason I felt we were more effective with Noc playing the 4 was that at least we were able to put an effective player at that position.
> 
> I guess you go with the Phoenix plan, and put your best 5 players on the floor, regardless of traditional positions.


I personally like Nocioni at the 4 because he's just so damn hard to match up with for opposing PF's, and he won't back down defensively either so he won't be a liability. Maybe Antoine Walker and Udonis Haslem aren't the ideal measuring sticks, but Nocioni really had his way with these guys in the playoffs. He played good defense and just abused them on the offensive end. 

I know, I don't want my PF to be 6'7 in a perfect world, but my idea is that we have Nocioni and Chandler splitting the majority of PF minutes, so there's a nice balance there (big vs small, skill vs not skilled). I could certainly be wrong about it's effectiveness though, I'm not afraid to admit it.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



McBulls said:


> Great post.
> 
> Toronto may be double clutching after hearing that the Bulls invited Roy back to meet the owner. He fits their needs much better than the Bulls. Could be we're looking at a head fake by Paxson in a play for Aldridge.


Here's my take on trading down for Roy. Right now, I don't think it's possible. That may change. 

Lets say Roy really is our guy. Well, here are the players that I think each team might want most in the top 5:

Toronto: Bargnani
Chicacgo: Roy
Charlotte: Gay
Portland: Morrison
Atlanta: Aldridge

After that, it's anybody's guess. I guess we could risk it and trade all the way down to six with the TWolves to see if they want Gay or someone else, but that leaves a lot of teams with the opportunity to snatch up Roy in between. 

Basically, if you think the guy is going to work out for your team, take him where you are. Don't play games with the future of your franchise. I'd love it if we could trade down for Roy, but I'd hate it if we tried and failed. Besides, what is Portland, Atlanta, Charlotte, or Minnesota going to give us that we really want that is worth missing out on "our guy" for if Brandon really is that guy?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



Darius Miles Davis said:


> Here's my take on trading down for Roy. Right now, I don't think it's possible. That may change.
> 
> Lets say Roy really is our guy. Well, here are the players that I think each team might want most in the top 5:
> 
> ...


You wouldn't want to gamble at all. You'd prearrange the deal on draft day, knowing that you can close the deal for the player(s) you want.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



DaBullz said:


> You wouldn't want to gamble at all. You'd prearrange the deal on draft day, knowing that you can close the deal for the player(s) you want.


Yeah, but you can't always pull that off. A Mihm for Crawford trade really didn't make too much sense for Cleveland. We really hoodwinked them on that one. Usually you have to trade down at least two spots, but how can you really know who the team or teams between your old pick and your new pick are going to take, especially if someone is jumping over them to steal "their guy" away? Maybe they then trade down with someone else, who jumps up and grabs "your guy."

The only way to guarantee "your guy" is to take him with your pick and not trade down. Hey, if we're able to trade down and draft Roy, I'll be overjoyed, but your right, the circumstances would have to be just right where Paxson would really have to know that his plan was just about failsafe.


----------



## greekbullsfan (Oct 26, 2003)

*Brandon Roy*

is this dude so good?the new wade?has anybody seen him playing?i do not remember him in the ncca tournament,any video clips available or a scouting report,is it true Pax has lost his minds with this kid?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Brandon Roy*

i am going to now MERGE this into one of the other three Roy threads we have.

thanks.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: Brandon Roy*



greekbullsfan said:


> is this dude so good?the new wade?has anybody seen him playing?i do not remember him in the ncca tournament,any video clips available or a scouting report,is it true Pax has lost his minds with this kid?


lol he's nowhere near as good as wade...

but in this draft...he's the best guard period...so he's gonna get some praise...


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*



Darius Miles Davis said:


> Here's my take on trading down for Roy. Right now, I don't think it's possible. That may change.
> 
> Lets say Roy really is our guy. Well, here are the players that I think each team might want most in the top 5:
> 
> ...


Repeat the Clippers / Bobcats trade from 2004. Clippers had the 2nd pick overall, but didn't want to take Okafor, who was a consensus top 2 selection at the time. The Clipps really wanted Shawn Livingston. So they moved down two spots, took Livingston at number 4, and picked up an additional 2nd rounder + dumped Drobnak's salary in the process. 

Now, they were probably 99% certain Paxson wasn't going to take Livingston at number 3, but it was still pretty risky because some other team that liked Livingston could have traded up with us and taken him at 3. If that happened, the Clipps would have screwed themselves over. 

Trade down with Portland at number 4, pick up one of their later picks (30, 31). Try and dump Sweetney's contract if you can. Tell Portland we'll only trade down with them if they pick one of Morrison, Gay, or Aldridge at number 2. This leaves us with our choice of Thomas or Roy at pick 4. I'm almost certain Charlotte passes on Thomas, and if I had to guess I'd say they would prefer Morrison or Gay ahead of Roy. 

IF we wanted to move down and take Roy, Portland would be our best chance of getting it done. Worst case is Charlotte takes Roy #3, and we end up with Thomas at #4, which wouldn't be so bad considering he was a strong candidate at number 2 anyway, plus we get an extra pick around 30 to snatch up a James Augustine, Paul Davis, or SG prospect who falls (James White? Thabo?).


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*

Will Roy be better than this guy? 

17 ppg, 4.5 rbnds per game.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Sam Smith: Roy atop Bulls' List*

http://www.dimemag.com/feature.asp?id=2365



> His team was the subject of an ESPN reality show (“The Season”) for part of the year, yet University of Washington guard and soon-to-be lottery pick Brandon Roy was still under the radar for most of his senior campaign. Despite averaging 20 points, five boards and four assists a game and copping Pac-10 Player of the Year award (as well as being a Dime “What’s My Name?” in issue No. 23), Roy still didn’t get a lot of press east of the Rocky Mountains. That all changed during the NCAA tournament. After dropping 20-plus points against Utah State, Illinois and UConn, Roy became a household name for anyone with a bracket and a few bucks riding on their office pool, not to mention NBA scouts.
> 
> *“I approached the tournament with a chip on my shoulder,” Roy says. “I wanted the world to take notice.”*
> 
> With his projected draft position floating somewhere between late first-round and late-lottery before the Big Dance, Roy’s stock shot up after the Huskies’ postseason run. *“I’ve heard a lot of good things, like I have a chance to be one of the first guards taken,” Roy says. “The scouts were impressed with my all-around game.”*


----------

