# Official 2009 Bulls Draft thread



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

OK ..so while I said this draft was stinky - I would be prepared tp concede that this is a draft of "fit/system" players 

For our mid first rounder my jury is still out , however , for a late first rounder and 2nd rounder - the guys that impressed me in the last day or two are 

Jonny Flynn ( Syracuse )- PG a crossover that makes your eyes pop and loves to throw it around and create but with some more discipline has the physical attributes and the skills to be a serious NBA point guard

Dionte Christmas ( Temple ) - SG quite possibly the quickest release on a J I have seen in College Hoops all year..just ridiculous. He can shoot ...but the thing that will hold him back is that he has a weak left hand when he drives and he should use it . Still , I think he's definately late first round material

Jeff Pendergraph ( Arizona State )- PF fundamentally very sound , and a guy that doesn't shy away from mixing it up p inside. Good hands and quick finisher who doesn't bring the ball down before he goes back up. Can catch and finish in the same motion on the move with good use of the body to protect the ball. OK size but not spectacular....just regular

Byron Eaton ( OSU ) There may be quicker point guards but what makes this guy interesting is he is wide base ( he's a tank ) and he is a genuine leader - the guy that won the game and just took it away from Tennessee. That crossover on their final score and the barrelling drive into the much bigger ( and celebrated ) Tyler Smith was massive 


Guys who will be in our slot (likely) but who I definately don't want 

Dejuan Blair . Touch isn't good enough against physically weaker competition and coasts too much for my liking when the game was in the balance ...conditioning will be a concern at the next level. I'm thinking Big Baby best and Tractor Traylor worse

Tyler Smith. Just seems to lack urgency/intensity at times and just a bit so/so for my liking. I'm not sure what his single defining NBA skill is. Pass


----------



## Nu_Omega (Nov 27, 2006)

Mid 1st round - Cole Aldrich : A mobile big who's a good rebounder and shoot the ball, needa work on his post game more, he will be a nice replacement once Miller comes off the books in 2010 while we move Noah to the PF position.

Late 1st round - Evan Turner or Chase Budinger: The former is a stat filler that can be a triple double threat given the right system, not sure about his shooting touches though as i see him as more a slasher tpye of player. The latter is a good pop and shoot player that i wouldn't have having as a role player, something like a Dequan Cook type of player. Both Turner and Budinger have legit size too and can play SF if need be.

2nd Round - Phyco T: Huslte player that gave his best, he might not have the best skills to make it big in the league but for a second rounder i can't complain.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Chase Budinger. Been wanting him in Chicago for a few years now.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

These are a couple of guys who I have had a very close eye on, I'm not going to bring up the obvious guys like Hill or Thabeet, Griffin etc but I will bring up a few names that you have heard before.

1. Demar Derozan - Could be the steal of the draft, started the season kinda on the weak side but since he has been hitting a consistent 15 footer the Trojans are on a 6 game winning streak. SOLID NBA prospect with ELITE level athleticism, not a very fast player but decent enough speed to build on, when he hits his jump shot hes a top 3 prospect. Good re bounder but has no confidence in his 3 point shot at all. Best Case scenario hes a Tracy McGrady without a 3 point shot, worst case hes Gerald Green. Kinda reminds me a bit of Rudy Gay and Thad Young. Not a very good ball handler but this will probably the determining factor if Derozan ends up being great or not. 

2. Larry Sanders VCU - If you guys think Tyrus Thomas is an impressive shot blocker wait until you see Larry Sanders in the NBA. I dont know if hes planning on coming out this year but if he does he could be a late first rounder to early second round pick this year. He's 6'10 but with an un believable 7-7 wing span! That is just ridiculous. Raw player offensively but the man is a walking No Fly zone in the paint, if he sticks around 1 more year in college hes a lottery pick next year. He is what people wanted Saer Sene to be if he only knew what the hell a basketball even was.

3. BJ Mullens - I would lean more towards calling him a bit of a freshman disappointment, NBA talent better than most in body when compared to other freshman centers, good skill set and worlds of potential but just dint put it all together. I dont see him going top 10, he might even slip as far as the Bulls second first round pick if still there I would consider taking him.

4. Darren Collison UCLA PG- Love to have this kid as Derrick's long term backup.

5. Chase Budinger - Love what he does, NBA body, Good skill set but lack of really good speed kills even the most accomplished NCAA player. If hes there at the Bulls second first round pick then hes a safe pick and he does have some skills. 

6. DeJuan Blair - People have him going in the lottery but I'm betting on him taking a HUGE slide to the second round, If only this guy was 6'9 - 6'10 he would easily be a top 3 pick. But I'm guessing come combine time he will probably be listed at 6'6- 6'7 with shoes, nobody is going to draft him in the top 20. Like others have said nobody wants to draft the next Micheal Sweetney or Tractor Trailer BUT if hes there say very late in the first round... why not this guy would instantly be our strongest player, hes a beast.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

If Gordon leaves. My guy would be *Stephen Curry*. I like to see him come off the bench for us and light up opponents second unit. He's a good backup to Salmons at SG.

I mean Curry is very similar to Gordon in their ability to score. Curry will definitely be able to replace Gordon as a 3 point shooter. Plus, he's cheaper and is willing to come off the bench and possibly won't mind to play off the ball (just like he did in the last tourney when he had Jason Richards; a very good off the ball player actually).

Another guy I like is *Chase Budinger*. I don't think he's going to be a star. But, I don't think he's going to do too bad either. I think he's going to be a good third option guy. He also has the skill set which complements Derrick's game (moving off the ball, finishing the break, hitting the open shot, catching some oops, passing the ball).

I'm quiet happy with our current group of bigs (Miller, Noah, Tyrus Thomas, Tim Thomas, and Gray). So I'm not going to be worry about drafting bigs. I don't think we'll have chance to grab the premium bigs such as Griffin, Hill, Thabeet either. I'm not sold on Mullen. Blair don't have much use for us. However, *Greg Monroe* is an intriguing talent. Maybe Pax can invite him to a workout to see what this kid is all about if he decides to enter the draft.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

UConn's Jeff Adrien impresses me and who I would definately have on my list in the late first round 

I like the comparison to Jason Maxiell..in that like Maxiell he is plenty strong and agressive . 6'7 height will keep him in the late first round

But he should be a definate maybe


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

The only question I would have is will Curry be able to get his shot off at the next level? I dont view him as a backup to Salmons, I would think that Curry HAS to be a PG at the next level, he lacks even Ben Gordon size. If hes there at the Bulls second first round pick then you really arent risking much since his upside as a scorer is valuable at the spot he would be available at.


----------



## BullsBaller (Oct 6, 2002)

> The only question I would have is will Curry be able to get his shot off at the next level?


Have you seen his release? He'll be able to get it off. This kid will easily be able to fit into his role on an NBA team being the son of an NBA player and having a high BBall IQ. I see him as a smaller/poorer version of Reggie Miller being able to quickly run thru and around screens to get a shot off just as the defender finally closes in. 

I don't think the Bulls are going to draft him however b/c they have already made the mistake of having small SG's. Having small SG's is ok (look at Detroit of the 80's/90's), but they must be able to play defense. A nice quality about Curry is he can play both guard spots, but I don't think he will be able to play the D required of him at the 2 spot. Gordon I think will be gone and they will keep Kirk to take over those minutes. It'll be Rose and Salmons with Kirk splitting minutes between the 1 & 2. Also, I think having another young PG would be a waste of a pick b/c he won't get the minutes. This is what happened to Thabo. Rose is our guy! Let's not hurt the kids confidence by drafting someone at his position.

The Bulls need to draft players that Rose would complement the most. They should look for role players b/c they have a top 5 PG in Rose with a a #3 option in Salmons or Deng (we will see). All they need is the #2 option, like Bosh. With Rose, Salmons or Deng, excellent role players, and a large market it'll be much easier for Bosh to want to sign. He'll be that last piece to be a top team in the East.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> The only question I would have is will Curry be able to get his shot off at the next level? I dont view him as a backup to Salmons, I would think that Curry HAS to be a PG at the next level, he lacks even Ben Gordon size. If hes there at the Bulls second first round pick then you really arent risking much since his upside as a scorer is valuable at the spot he would be available at.


Curry will never be as stocky as Gordon. But, I think Curry is a little taller than Ben Gordon, no? Anyway, Curry is not JJ Reddick. Reddick is taller than both Curry and Gordon, but that really doesn't mean anything. Speed and quickness is more important in this league. Curry has the speed and quickness to survive in this league. Plus he has a good enough handle to do more than just shooting 3s. But, his ability to hit those 3s will be valuable for us. Especially when Gordon leaves. We don't have a reliable 3 point shooter outside of Gordon. We need to replace that because Derrick's ability to drive and kick out is something we want to capitalize on.

I think he's worth the try at late lottery to mid first.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

RSP83 said:


> Curry will never be as stocky as Gordon. But, I think Curry is a little taller than Ben Gordon, no? Anyway, Curry is not JJ Reddick. Reddick is taller than both Curry and Gordon, but that really doesn't mean anything. Speed and quickness is more important in this league. Curry has the speed and quickness to survive in this league. Plus he has a good enough handle to do more than just shooting 3s. But, his ability to hit those 3s will be valuable for us. Especially when Gordon leaves. We don't have a reliable 3 point shooter outside of Gordon. We need to replace that because Derrick's ability to drive and kick out is something we want to capitalize on.
> 
> I think he's worth the try at late lottery to mid first.


Curry is listed at a generous 6'3 but I think hes closer to 6'1. I agree that speed is a much more important factor than just height but Curry isn't considered to have blazing speed either. Very smart kid and would probably be a very good pro in the right system but I dont even know what kind of system we will be running next year with a new coach.

Is he a top 15 pick hmmm I dont know some mock draft's out there even have him going very late in the first round. People also have to remember that the NBA 3 is not the same as the NCAA 3 so to think that he will continue to be this prolific of a 3 point shooter at the next level is a bit of a stretch. 

But if it came down to Curry or DeRozan you better believe I'm taking DeRozan.


----------



## BullFan16 (Jun 2, 2003)

How do you guys feel about Hansborough or Ogilvy?

I think Ty Lawson could be a great pickup as a backup to Derrick, but i'd wanna keep my eye on damien james and sam young


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

BullFan16 said:


> How do you guys feel about Hansborough or Ogilvy?
> 
> I think Ty Lawson could be a great pickup as a backup to Derrick, but i'd wanna keep my eye on damien james and sam young


Both Hansborough and Ogilvy are projected to be VERY late first rounders to even second rounders. 

Hansborough just doesnt have the size or speed to really make him a top notch NBA prospect, I mean I love his hustle and how hard he plays but lets be honest here the NBA is about talent and skill, I just dont think Hansborough has what it takes to be an impact player in the NBA but I do think he can be a decent player. 

Ogilvy doesnt have great size for a 5 but he does have some pretty decent skills at the position, doesnt project to be anything more than a serviceable big man. 

I like James more than Young, James gets a lot elevation on his jump shots and can finish around the basket really well but one thing that really sticks out is his robotic like release on his jump shot, like I said before he gets good elevation on his shots but it takes him a A LONG time to release the ball which could be a problem at the next level when taller and longer guys guard him, a release point that slow is easy pickings for a block. 

15 points 9 rebounds 1 blk 1 stl the man is an all around good player but I dont think he will be much of a good offensive player at the next level.


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

I would have to also look at the European prospects(as well as who actually comes out) before making any decision on who to draft...


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

dsouljah9 said:


> I would have to also look at the European prospects(as well as who actually comes out) before making any decision on who to draft...


Not many hot euro names being thrown out for this year, I think the best known Euro is Rubio who i dont think is even declaring this year but other than him the only other projected first rounder is Omri Casspi.


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> Not many hot euro names being thrown out for this year, I think the best known Euro is Rubio who i dont think is even declaring this year but other than him the only other projected first rounder is Omri Casspi.


I've noticed that as well, just thinking that someone that we haven't heard of will make a late run on the charts and into the first round. As for Casspi,I've heard that he has attitude problems and want no part of him...:nada:


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

dsouljah9 said:


> I've noticed that as well, just thinking that someone that we haven't heard of will make a late run on the charts and into the first round. As for Casspi,I've heard that he has attitude problems and want no part of him...:nada:


I guess Brandon Jennings can be considered a Euro prospect since he is playing over there.


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

_Well_ Jennings _is_ American, so I really don't count him as a Euro prospect. He can ball though, but I doubt he lasts all the way to our pick. And, if he did, you would certainly have to get rid of Kirk or Ben. A team with him and Rose on it would be scary though...


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

dsouljah9 said:


> _Well_ Jennings _is_ American, so I really don't count him as a Euro prospect. He can ball though, but I doubt he lasts all the way to our pick. And, if he did, you would certainly have to get rid of Kirk or Ben. A team with him and Rose on it would be scary though...


Yeah we all know hes American but I wonder how much of the Euro game has rubbed off on him if any.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

Backcourt of Rose and Jennings don't make sense to me. they are too similar.

I think we should select a 2 and a 3. Insurance if Gordon leave and Deng can't recover from injury.

SG prospect I like: Stephen Curry, Demar Derozan and Chase Budinger
SF prospect I like: Earl Clark

I think with the higher pick we should select Earl Clark. And use the second 1st round pick (from Thunders) to select a SG, maybe Budinger.


----------



## Nu_Omega (Nov 27, 2006)

RSP83 said:


> Backcourt of Rose and Jennings don't make sense to me. they are too similar.
> 
> I think we should select a 2 and a 3. Insurance if Gordon leave and Deng can't recover from injury.
> 
> ...


I agreed on drafting a 2 but i'm sure about drafting another 3. Deng is here to stay no matter what and even if he doesn't be back to his best, Salmons can take his place if need be. 

I'm more worried about getting another big as Miller window of opportunity is smaller than Salmons and IMO Tyrus is not likely to be someone to reply on if we want to be contenders. I'm ok with having Noah as the complimentary player to the the 4 or 5 and thus would love to see Pax draft another legit big to replace Miller or Tyrus in the long run.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

Nu_Omega said:


> I agreed on drafting a 2 but i'm sure about drafting another 3. Deng is here to stay no matter what and even if he doesn't be back to his best, Salmons can take his place if need be.
> 
> I'm more worried about getting another big as Miller window of opportunity is smaller than Salmons and IMO Tyrus is not likely to be someone to reply on if we want to be contenders. I'm ok with having Noah as the complimentary player to the the 4 or 5 and thus would love to see Pax draft another legit big to replace Miller or Tyrus in the long run.


I think Miller have a couple of years left. But of course I'm also assuming that we'll sign Bosh in 2010. I think rotation of Bosh, Noah, Thomas, and Miller (assuming we retain his service for PJ Brown type role) is solid.

Outside of Blake Griffin, Jordan Hill, and Thabeet, I don't think there are bigs that are must have. But I'm not a draft expert so I don't know.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Cole Aldrich had somewhat of a coming out party last night with 13 points 20 rebounds 10 blocks lol wow! Hes the first person to have a triple double with Blocks since Shaq and the last player to get a triple double in the tournament since Dwayne Wade. If he comes out this year he makes the big class a bit stronger.


----------



## BullsBaller (Oct 6, 2002)

Stephen Curry is on ESPN 2 right now. If the Bulls are looking for a small guard to come off the bench and replace BG's shooting ability, then Curry is there guy. Pax picks high character guys, so this could happen. Curry as opposed to BG would be more inclined to accept a 6th man role. His ability to play the PG would also allow the Bulls to deal Hinrich. However, if they draft him and get rid of Kirk then I think the Bulls are back to square 1 when it comes to having the PG in Rose guarding the other teams SG. Kirk has had to do this the last couple seasons b/c of BG and I think it has hurt his PG ability in games that he had to guard the other teams best player. I know we have Salmons, but do we really want Rose to guard the SG when Curry and him are in the game together? We need to get better on defense, not move farther back. How is Curry at defense and is he even coming out this year? If we can trade Kirk for a defensive minded SG/SF, the I'd be inclined to drafting Curry.


----------



## Nu_Omega (Nov 27, 2006)

I'm all for draftung Cole Aldrich, he's been my target for a while now but at the way he's playing at the moment, i'm pretty sure he is beyond our reach come draft time.

Not to nickpick or to be arse but why would we want Stephen Curry when we've already been bashing our small backcourt all the while. We don't need to replace BG with another BG do we? eace:


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

stephen curry is too small, too weak, and too slow to be anything other than a bench player at the pro level. he'd do well to stay another year, presumably his senior year, get stronger, and maybe have a role similar to jj redick.

seeing how redick was far more accomplished than curry and how his career has gone, it's beyond me how anyone can watch stephen and think he's going to experience success at the pro level. even moreso, that he could remotely replace gordon as anything for the bulls is entirely beyond comprehension.

the college game has deteriorated as a developing ground for college athletes; i'm of the opinion the college game needs to resist hyping HS'ers as potential pros, particularly after one year (yes, i'm referring to the holidays, evans', and warren's) and let their games develop longer. their worth to the nba is much greater than having them come to the league underdeveloped, hurt the pro game by raggedy and raw skills, struggle mightily with the change in physical play, amount of games and upgrage in competition every night.

no one seems to acknowledge that for all blake griffin is doing this season, he's doing it against teens. i believe he'll be a fine pro in time, but he's a man amongst boys; in the nba he'll just be another man, and his smarts, skills, stamina and desire will be tested unlike anything he's experienced. i expect to see him struggle quite like micheal beasley has; and when you realize he's going to be a project as the consensus #1, what does that bode for the rest of those prospects?

if curry gets good advice from papa dell, he'll tell him there's no rush to the nba; it'll be there when he's ready, and right now he's not.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

I'm not worried at all about Rose's long term ability on defense, he has all the skills and tools to be a great defender but right now hes playing defense like a rookie and it doesn't help that his coach knows nothing on how to teach him how to play defense. 

With better coaching and a year under his belt I think Rose will be able to guard 1 and 2's well.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> I'm not worried at all about Rose's long term ability on defense, he has all the skills and tools to be a great defender but right now hes playing defense like a rookie and it doesn't help that his coach knows nothing on how to teach him how to play defense.
> 
> With better coaching and a year under his belt I think Rose will be able to guard 1 and 2's well.


i'm inclined to believe a more experienced coach would've sat rose a lot more than VDN has for his transgressions on defense. i'm not a fan of the team's defensive philosophy, but by the same token an experienced/better coach like mike d'antoni would have the bulls looking as sieve-like as they do now. i've read where avery johnson would've been a good choice, but his micro-managerial style would've been equally as frustrating to watch as the defensive style i'm witnessing now; in other words,

be careful what you wish for.

in general, rookies struggle with D more because of the level of talent they face nightly, the lack of knowledge of the league, the speed of the game, and the basketball IQ of players at that level, NOT necessarily the coaching. i do tend to believe rose has enough physical ability to be a good defender, but the team D philosophy needs an overhaul along with rose gaining more experience with opposing player strengths and weaknesses. i'm also of the opinion VDN wasn't as horrible a choice as some want to believe due to the fact that the team needed a coach who could be directed to play noah, thomas AND rose a ton, so the organization would have a better idea of how to move forward and who to move forward with. imo, that couldn't have been achieved with an "experienced" coach. 2 years down the road, should VDN and the team improve collectively, the bulls will have a decent and cheap coach, beholding to them for the opportunity and one who the player's are comfortable with. if they don't, they can always, always, find a retread.


btw, wasn't this supposed to be the "draft thread"?


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> i'm inclined to believe a more experienced coach would've sat rose a lot more than VDN has for his transgressions on defense. i'm not a fan of the team's defensive philosophy, but by the same token an experienced/better coach like mike d'antoni would have the bulls looking as sieve-like as they do now. i've read where avery johnson would've been a good choice, but his micro-managerial style would've been equally as frustrating to watch as the defensive style i'm witnessing now; in other words,
> 
> be careful what you wish for.


Its your opinion but I doubt ANY coach would play Rose under 35 minutes a game. I believe a better coach would have made Rose a bit better on defense pretty much dismissing the need to bench him. 



> in general, rookies struggle with D more because of the level of talent they face nightly, the lack of knowledge of the league, the speed of the game, and the basketball IQ of players at that level, NOT necessarily the coaching.


Isn't it the coaches job to kinda help him understand some of those points you mentioned? I don't think Rose is overwhelmed by the speed of the game, he is without a doubt one of the fastest players in the entire league, what drives me crazy is that the mistakes he makes on defense are not caused by lack of speed, size or hustle but simple mistakes like letting your man pass by you expecting that the help defense is there when its not, those are mistakes that should be corrected in practice, there is NO defensive philosophy on this team! I cant believe that Pax has allowed this to go on for this long.




> i do tend to believe rose has enough physical ability to be a good defender, but the team D philosophy needs an overhaul along with rose gaining more experience with opposing player strengths and weaknesses. i'm also of the opinion VDN wasn't as horrible a choice as some want to believe due to the fact that the team needed a coach who could be directed to play noah, thomas AND rose a ton, so the organization would have a better idea of how to move forward and who to move forward with. imo, that couldn't have been achieved with an "experienced" coach. 2 years down the road, should VDN and the team improve collectively, the bulls will have a decent and cheap coach, beholding to them for the opportunity and one who the player's are comfortable with. if they don't, they can always, always, find a retread.


You like fall back on this notion that if we had a more experienced coach that guys like Rose, Noah and Thomas would not get the burn they are getting, WHO else would have played in their place if say we had D'Antoni or Johnson here? Aaron Gray over Noah? An injured Kirk Hinrich over Rose? I'm not trying to be insulting at all when I say that I think anyone who thinks that a coach would have played Hinrich over Rose is nuts! Common sense Rose gives you the best chance at winning. 

But yes this thread was about the draft...

so how bout that Demar Derozan?


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> so how bout that Demar Derozan?


stay in school.....


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> stephen curry is too small, too weak, and too slow to be anything other than a bench player at the pro level. he'd do well to stay another year, presumably his senior year, get stronger, and maybe have a role similar to jj redick.
> 
> seeing how redick was far more accomplished than curry and how his career has gone, it's beyond me how anyone can watch stephen and think he's going to experience success at the pro level. even moreso, that he could remotely replace gordon as anything for the bulls is entirely beyond comprehension.
> 
> ...


Curry is definitely not a must draft player. But, I think Curry is going to have a place in the league. The JJ Reddick comparison get thrown out a lot when discussing about Curry. I think Curry is a different player. Curry's other parts of the game outside of shooting (passing, ball handling, creating) is actually more developed than Reddick's at the same age. And Curry is quicker and much more crafty than Reddick. So, Reddick's career was considered to be far more accomplished than Curry's just because Reddick was in a much better team? Despite playing in one of the toughest conference in the country, Duke were also one of the best team in the country which features some of the country's best talent. Compare that to Davidson's situation.

Curry might never reach Ben Gordon level of production. Because Gordon despite being undersized he is also physically very strong (probably the strongest among players shorter than 6'3"). But, I think that if Daniel Gibson can do something in the league than Curry can definitely do the same. I was throwing Curry's name into this thread because he is a possible candidate if we are looking for a cheaper replacement for Gordon. Curry might not necessarily reach more than 50% of Gordon's production in his rookie year, but I think he'll be able to do the role we always wanted Gordon to do: sixth man scorer, 3 point specialist, move off the ball, differ to Derrick Rose. But, yes, defensively our backcourt will remain weak. Curry don't really bring much defense to the table. But, we really don't know much about Curry's defensive capability, because he's always asked to concentrate almost 100% on scoring. If we end up with him, my only hope is that he'll show better effort on defense more than Gordon ever showed during his career with the Bulls. With a lesser scoring role, maybe Curry can focus on improving his defense. Physically he does look weak. This is probably my biggest concern about Curry. But, he's going to be my sleeper pick.

I do feel that we need to release Ben Gordon this off season. And hopefully we can find the perfect replacement through the draft. We should take the best SG talent available. The problem is I don't know who is the best SG talent in this year's draft. I think most of the SG available in this year draft will be more like 2nd tier talent: *Gerald Henderson*, *Demar Derozan*, *Terrence Williams*, *Stephen Curry*, *Chase Budinger*, *Wayne Ellington*.

- Henderson is an interesting talent but I don't think he'll be available with our pick.
- Demar Derozan I really don't know much about him other than his athletic ability. I heard he can't shoot. At the same time Rose is also still developing his shot. So I don't want a backcourt with suspect shooting ability.
- I like Terrence Williams because I think he has the potential to be a very good SG defender in this league and his offensive game is solid.
- Chase Budinger is athletic and seems like a good complementary player to put alongside Derrick Rose.
- Wayne Ellington I want no part. One dimensional.

Outside of Henderson, I don't think others worth lottery pick. Maybe Derozan, but like I said, he's probably couple of years away from becoming a real threat offensively in the league. So maybe we should use our first pick on a non-SG.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

Oh I forgot about James Harden. I think his stock is going to go down a few level. But IMO he's a poor man's Brandon Roy. Good at everything, but not great at one thing. Plus he's also undersized for a pure SG. About 6'4". I don't think he's our guy either. I like Henderson more. Anyway we probably don't even have chance to select any of them.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

imo, curry isn't as good as reddick or gibson. he's probably the equal of them as far as strictly shooting the ball goes, but that's it. and from that standpoint, neither of them are as good as gordon. further, they both played against far superior competition AND were/are bigger and stronger. curry may very well be crafty, and he'll need a ton of craftiness to succeed. i frankly don't see him being much more than jannero pargo lite, if that. i've been wrong before, though.

it's hard for me to predict who and where guys will go; this draft is one of the most unpredictable i can remember. i do like henderson, and he seems like a paxson type. his pops was a pro as well, though i'll admit jr. is a bit more athletic than his old man was. i wouldn't mind seeing him picked by the bulls if it goes that way. harden (too slow), budinger (please...) et al....are all reaches of the first magnitude.

what's more likely to happen is an unheard of player get drafted and because of the non-hype, actually have more game than he was allowed to show in college; and example would be the terrance williams (who, i'll admit i haven't seen a ton of) kid or his teammate, earl clark.

i would prefer, all things being equal, that gordon remain with the bulls. hoping to get a pick that'll replace him way down the road, is more of a setback to the immediate future than it would be for the next season or two, given the nature of rookies in today's nba; meaning i don't see ANY rookie next season having an impact in the league in their first season or two. i suppose someone will have to be ROY, but i'd imagine that'll be the player who goes to the worst team, has no hindrance for playing time, and as such puts up decent numbers.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> stay in school.....


I agree but as a selfish Bulls fan I think him coming out this year is the only shot we would get at him. The knock on him was his jump shot but he found his jump shot over the past 7 games and its no surprise that USC made a great run during this period.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> But if it came down to Curry or DeRozan you better believe I'm taking DeRozan.


All day, and twice on sundays.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> i'm inclined to believe a more experienced coach would've sat rose a lot more than VDN has for his transgressions on defense. i'm not a fan of the team's defensive philosophy, but by the same token an experienced/better coach like mike d'antoni would have the bulls looking as sieve-like as they do now. i've read where avery johnson would've been a good choice, but his micro-managerial style would've been equally as frustrating to watch as the defensive style i'm witnessing now; in other words,
> 
> be careful what you wish for.


I agree, though I'd add that there's no way that Pax would allow the coach to sit Rose. He's clearly made it a mandate to develop him as quickly as possible, for better or for worse, through as many minutes as he can handle. Its probably one of the reasons, why Avery wasn't Pax's choice.



> in general, rookies struggle with D more because of the level of talent they face nightly, the lack of knowledge of the league, the speed of the game, and the basketball IQ of players at that level, NOT necessarily the coaching. i do tend to believe rose has enough physical ability to be a good defender, but the team D philosophy needs an overhaul along with rose gaining more experience with opposing player strengths and weaknesses. i'm also of the opinion VDN wasn't as horrible a choice as some want to believe due to the fact that the team needed a coach who could be directed to play noah, thomas AND rose a ton, so the organization would have a better idea of how to move forward and who to move forward with. imo, that couldn't have been achieved with an "experienced" coach. 2 years down the road, should VDN and the team improve collectively, the bulls will have a decent and cheap coach, beholding to them for the opportunity and one who the player's are comfortable with. if they don't, they can always, always, find a retread.


I agree with this. THough I'm not quite yet ready to disband my "fire Vinny club". My problem lies with his late-game decision making , and offensive philosophy, and right now, though there's been some improvement in the former, there hasn't been much in the latter.



> btw, wasn't this supposed to be the "draft thread"?


Yup.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

> I think most of the SG available in this year draft will be more like 2nd tier talent: *Gerald Henderson*, *Demar Derozan*, *Terrence Williams*, *Stephen Curry*, *Chase Budinger*, *Wayne Ellington*.
> 
> - Henderson is an interesting talent but I don't think he'll be available with our pick.
> - Demar Derozan I really don't know much about him other than his athletic ability. I heard he can't shoot. At the same time Rose is also still developing his shot. So I don't want a backcourt with suspect shooting ability.
> ...


Your assesment of DeRozan is way off. He's far and away the most TALENTED of the Guards in this class, and he's a FIRST tier talent. Until recently, he's been playing like a second tier player, and certainly there have been Guards who if the season were taken as a whole, have had better season's than him. But NONE of them have the type of NBA level talent he does. If he's there, you simply MUST....and I do mean MUST take him. From 2011 onward, our backcourt would be far and away the most feared in the NBA.

The only thing that would give me pause is if Cole Aldrich were available as well........


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

RSP83 said:


> Oh I forgot about James Harden. I think his stock is going to go down a few level. But IMO he's a poor man's Brandon Roy. Good at everything, but not great at one thing. Plus he's also undersized for a pure SG. About 6'4". I don't think he's our guy either. I like Henderson more. Anyway we probably don't even have chance to select any of them.


Harden doesn't pass the eyeball test to me. I think he's going to struggle against alot of NBA SG's. He was bottled up rather easily the last 3 or 4 games he played in, when it mattered. That doesn't translate to the bigger, faster NBA.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> I agree but as a selfish Bulls fan I think him coming out this year is the only shot we would get at him. The knock on him was his jump shot but he found his jump shot over the past 7 games and its no surprise that USC made a great run during this period.


Which is why I'm BEGGING him to come out. PLEASE come out, Mr. DeRozan.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> I agree with this. THough I'm not quite yet ready to disband my "fire Vinny club". My problem lies with his late-game decision making , and offensive philosophy, and right now, though there's been some improvement in the former, there hasn't been much in the latter.


i hate to keep up with the derailing of the "draft thread" but re: late game decision making; he's been bad, no doubt BUT, rookie coach bad, not "i have no business being a coach bad". however, it doesn't appear to me that the offensive philosophy is damaging the bulls; they look like they can score just fine. i think there are plenty of statistical data to support this.

i only WISH the bulls showed the offensive punch they've shown under VDN with skiles' defensive stratagies. my problem with VDN is the defensive idea of switching ALL screens, bringing the guard underneath the big and at the same time creating WAY too much space for penetration. why the big doesn't just drop back and allow the guard through is a mystery to me; it seems like as soon as the big jumps up strong he's on an island with a far quicker player handling the ball (read: mismatch) with a target being the opposing big who's been switched to by a guard (another mismatch). inexperienced frontcourt players are too slow to rotate and there's generally any number of good looks created by simple basketball plays. good teams will destroy such a half court philosophy, and over the course of this season, it's been exploited by not only the good teams, the bad ones as well.

and now, back to our regularly scheduled thread.......eace:


and yes, i'll agree i'd take derozan over curry on any days left over.


EDIT;



> Which is why I'm BEGGING him to come out. PLEASE come out, Mr. DeRozan.


he's nowhere near ready, and is a bust in training after one year, 25+ college games. i've seen way too many of his type to change this opinion. another year, quite possibly; but it took until the tournament for him to show anything outside of him being a decent freshman. what can he do in the next year to two that will change that? getting bigger and stronger, and improving his range will only improve his stock. if he comes out in the mid-teens to twenties, sure the bulls (or somebody else) can gamble that he'll "develop" but, frankly watching potential develop, as in the case of a tyrus thomas is as maddening as it is to watch a player who just flat out stinks.

i hope derozan's advisors advise him to stay another year OR 2.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> i hate to keep up with the derailing of the "draft thread" but re: late game decision making; he's been bad, no doubt BUT, rookie coach bad, not "i have no business being a coach bad". however, it doesn't appear to me that the offensive philosophy is damaging the bulls; they look like they can score just fine. i think there are plenty of statistical data to support this.


There's scoring and then there's putting pressure on the defense. As decent as we have been offensively, we could be so much better if we ran something similar to what NOH runs.



> only WISH the bulls showed the offensive punch they've shown under VDN with skiles' defensive stratagies. my problem with VDN is the defensive idea of switching ALL screens, bringing the guard underneath the big and at the same time creating WAY too much space for penetration. why the big doesn't just drop back and allow the guard through is a mystery to me; it seems like as soon as the big jumps up strong he's on an island with a far quicker player handling the ball (read: mismatch) with a target being the opposing big who's been switched to by a guard (another mismatch). inexperienced frontcourt players are too slow to rotate and there's generally any number of good looks created by simple basketball plays. good teams will destroy such a half court philosophy, and over the course of this season, it's been exploited by not only the good teams, the bad ones as well.


My biggest problem with how they play the screen and roll is that the big man doesn't aggressively trap the ballhandler. He needs to step WAY out on that screen and force the ball handler away from the basket.



> and now, back to our regularly scheduled thread.......eace:
> 
> 
> Ok, Ok, I quit.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> he's nowhere near ready, and is a bust in training after one year, 25+ college games. i've seen way too many of his type to change this opinion. another year, quite possibly; but it took until the tournament for him to show anything outside of him being a decent freshman. what can he do in the next year to two that will change that? getting bigger and stronger, and improving his range will only improve his stock. if he comes out in the mid-teens to twenties, sure the bulls (or somebody else) can gamble that he'll "develop" but, frankly watching potential develop, as in the case of a tyrus thomas is as maddening as it is to watch a player who just flat out stinks.
> 
> i hope derozan's advisors advise him to stay another year OR 2.


Oh come on you where all up on Tyrus Thomas who was WAYYYYYYY WAYYY WAYYYY less ready for the NBA than Demar Derozan lol. Demar started playing well from day one, was he a world beater No but a very consistent Freshman who TURNED it on 6 games before the Tournament.

Hes got NBA size and a decent jump shot already, that right there makes him more ready for the NBA than a Tyrus Thomas.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

What about trade the pick? package it with either Gordon (S&T) or Hinrich for I don't know...


----------



## BullsBaller (Oct 6, 2002)

I'd prefer not to pick another Dukie. I am a Duke fan, but the Bulls don't seem to have very good luck with players from that school. 

DeRozan is not experienced enough to be worth the Bulls picking him. He'll probably turn out to be a good player b/c of his size/athleticism, but that is years in the making. He is not OJ Mayo and the Bulls need a rookie with some type of experience, not another "potential" talent. They need to be moving forward, not moving backwards by drafting "potential".

NBADRAFT.NET has the Bulls taking DeJuan Blair with the #15 pick and Terrence Williams with the #24. This site is never correct, but I'd be more than happy if we netted these two players. Blair would give us some thickness down low for the PF spot, similar to what Big Baby does for the Celtics and T. Williams would give us that properly sized super athletic SG we have needed to help guard the top SG's of the league. If the Bulls play up tempo and push the ball up court like Kirk did against the Pistons tonight, then I think Williams could be the recipient of some nice alley oops by Rose & Hinrich. Plus he has 4 years of playing within a successful college system on his resume.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

BullsBaller said:


> I'd prefer not to pick another Dukie. I am a Duke fan, but the Bulls don't seem to have very good luck with players from that school.
> 
> DeRozan is not experienced enough to be worth the Bulls picking him. He'll probably turn out to be a good player b/c of his size/athleticism, but that is years in the making. He is not OJ Mayo and the Bulls need a rookie with some type of experience, not another "potential" talent. They need to be moving forward, not moving backwards by drafting "potential".
> 
> NBADRAFT.NET has the Bulls taking DeJuan Blair with the #15 pick and Terrence Williams with the #24. This site is never correct, but I'd be more than happy if we netted these two players. Blair would give us some thickness down low for the PF spot, similar to what Big Baby does for the Celtics and T. Williams would give us that properly sized super athletic SG we have needed to help guard the top SG's of the league. If the Bulls play up tempo and push the ball up court like Kirk did against the Pistons tonight, then I think Williams could be the recipient of some nice alley oops by Rose & Hinrich. Plus he has 4 years of of playing within a successful college system on his resume.


Wow you would rather have a 6'6 center than a legit 6'6 Shooting Guard with an NBA skill set?


----------



## BullsBaller (Oct 6, 2002)

> Wow you would rather have a 6'6 center than a legit 6'6 Shooting Guard with an NBA skill set?


Neither one of those players I mentioned would be starting. They are simply pieces that the Bulls have been missing and can come off the bench to play somewhere between 15-25 minutes. Having an active bench with young legs is especially important in playoff time (refer to Celtics last year) and I just don't think DeRozan with a year of college would have enough experience to be an effective bench player in the playoffs. It is much different than regular season and DeRozan I think would get lost out there. 

Blair is listed as a PF on draft boards, but regardless, yes, I would rather have a 6'6" C than a 6'6" SG with an NBA skill set in DeRozan b/c the Bulls on that draft board also got Terrence Williams. Why would you get 2 super athletic 6'6" SG's? 

The Bulls need to be done drafting "potential" and start drafting or acquring thru trades, players who can come in right away and fit in with their system. Look how hard it has been for Thomas and Noah. Noah played until his junior year on one of the best college teams in history and he still has had times of being lost out there. This is from an energy player who just has to rebound/block in order to be considered effective. How effective do you think a SG with 1 year of college on a Tim Floyd team would be if he has to do more difficult things than rebound/block? For instance, playing against the Wades, James, and Bryants of the league.


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

it'd be down with derozan but i doubt he'll last when the bulls can choose.

mullens would be a nice project to have in the sleeves.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Oh come on you where all up on Tyrus Thomas who was WAYYYYYYY WAYYY WAYYYY less ready for the NBA than Demar Derozan lol. Demar started playing well from day one, was he a world beater No but a very consistent Freshman who TURNED it on 6 games before the Tournament.
> 
> Hes got NBA size and a decent jump shot already, that right there makes him more ready for the NBA than a Tyrus Thomas.


and rightfully so.....wasn't thomas frosh of the year in he SEC? didn't thomas help lead his team to the final four? didn't thomas manhandle lamarcus aldridge in the tournament?

what can we say demar did?

i'm not against the kid whatsoever, and as a matter a fact all things being equal, i WOULD have said thomas wasn't ready for the nba either; but he came out showed well in the workouts and here we are. i'm not saying the bulls shouldn't draft derozan, IF he comes out, i'm saying he's not ready; his game is nowhere near nba level. his "talent" may be but not his game. there is a distinct difference in understanding how to apply one's talent to the nba game and having the mental capacity to do that nightly; something tyrus is JUST now learning after 3 years of sometime spotty, sometime piss-poor, and sometimes spectacular play.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

i like the idea of trading down the #15 pick with the kings for their #26 and #31 picks giving us #24, #26, #31 and #45

I don't see any value for the Bulls in the lottery or even until the late first round outside of Blake Griffin

So....

At #24 I like Arizona State's Jeff Pendergraph who should be there

At #26 I take Temple's Dionte Christmas who will be there

At #31 I take UCLA's Darren Collison if is there which I am not sure he will be ( this year's Du )

At #45 I take UConn's Jeff Adrien if he is there which I am not sure he will be 

4 seniors . Yikes.

Of course I reserve the right to change my mind and amend


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> and rightfully so.....wasn't thomas frosh of the year in he SEC? didn't thomas help lead his team to the final four? didn't thomas manhandle lamarcus aldridge in the tournament?
> 
> what can we say demar did?
> 
> i'm not against the kid whatsoever, and as a matter a fact all things being equal, i WOULD have said thomas wasn't ready for the nba either; but he came out showed well in the workouts and here we are. i'm not saying the bulls shouldn't draft derozan, IF he comes out, i'm saying he's not ready; his game is nowhere near nba level. his "talent" may be but not his game. there is a distinct difference in understanding how to apply one's talent to the nba game and having the mental capacity to do that nightly; something tyrus is JUST now learning after 3 years of sometime spotty, sometime piss-poor, and sometimes spectacular play.


I dont care if Tyrus Thomas won player of the year that year, we are talking about Demar Derozan in terms of his skill set and body all of which are better at this point than Tyrus was when he was a freshman. Just because Tyrus outplayed Aldridge in the tournament it dint make him a better player than Aldridge. 

Its very rare that you get NBA ready talent right out the draft, the whole point of the draft is that your supplementing your team with young and good talent that god forbid you have to develop! If everyone took your advice and only declare for the draft when they are ready for the NBA you would have only 3-4 guys declare ever year and most likely have very weak drafts. Was Durant NBA ready, no but it dint change the fact that hes turned into a great player and why risk playing another year in college and possibly have a serious injury? People said Elton Brand wasnt ready for the NBA when he declared and he turned out fine in his first year. For every Lebron James and Dwight Howard who where ready for the NBA since grade school your going to have more guys who could use more seasoning in College but still declaring early for the draft doesn't destroy their NBA careers. 

Could Demar Derozan be a bust of course but It would most likely have to do with him just not being that good, I don't know what else he can gain from the NCAA playing against 6'2 shooting guards and dunking on 6'8 centers.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Its very rare that you get NBA ready talent right out the draft, the whole point of the draft is that your supplementing your team with young and good talent that god forbid you have to develop! If everyone took your advice and only declare for the draft when they are ready for the NBA you would have only 3-4 guys declare ever year and most likely have very weak drafts. Was Durant NBA ready, no but it dint change the fact that hes turned into a great player and why risk playing another year in college and possibly have a serious injury? People said Elton Brand wasnt ready for the NBA when he declared and he turned out fine in his first year. For every Lebron James and Dwight Howard who where ready for the NBA since grade school your going to have more guys who could use more seasoning in College but still declaring early for the draft doesn't destroy their NBA careers.
> 
> Could Demar Derozan be a bust of course but It would most likely have to do with him just not being that good, I don't know what else he can gain from the NCAA playing against 6'2 shooting guards and dunking on 6'8 centers.


you're right it is rare that you get nba ready talent right from the draft, which is precisely why i stated he ain't ready. as far as you believing players can and should "develop" seems to me you could don't have the patience for that, otherwise you wouldn't be stating your disbelief that thomas has, can and will develop, even though he wasn't ready either.

further, derozan could a) gain an outside shot; b) strengthen his fundamentals; c) win something in the nc2a; d) get stronger; and i could go on but none of those will he obtain as quickly while a) playing 82 games against the best in the world; b) fighting for playing time against seasoned vets or sitting on the bench waiting for playing time; c) worse yet, sitting on the bench for a losing team and playing for a coach that won't LET him play due to... d) adapting to the politics of the business of basketball, and i could go on here but why? 

i'm not railing on derozan as a talent, just that seeing him NOT dominate at the college level and believing that he's a lock for the pro game is just more a risk than i believe a lot of gm's will take. i know someone will draft him and i've been wrong before but hell, i saw harold "baby jordan" miner at USC who was a whole helluva lot better than derozan and the pros broke his azz down so fast it made his head swim. i look at a kid like gerald green, who's virtually hanging by a thread because he doesn't know the game and hasn't gone to a team that will invest enough into him and i suspect a similar fate awaits the baby faced derozan should he turn pro after this year.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> you're right it is rare that you get nba ready talent right from the draft, which is precisely why i stated he ain't ready. as far as you believing players can and should "develop" seems to me you could don't have the patience for that, otherwise you wouldn't be stating your disbelief that thomas has, can and will develop, even though he wasn't ready either.


My problems with Thomas have not changed and even though hes going out and occasionally getting his 15 and 10 nights hes still such a flawed basketball player that I really hope he gets moved in the off season while his trade value is still somewhat good. I believe that Demar at this point has more skills than Thomas so I would be more patient with Derozan if we have to develop him.



> further, derozan could a) gain an outside shot; b) strengthen his fundamentals; c) win something in the nc2a; d) get stronger; and i could go on but none of those will he obtain as quickly while a) playing 82 games against the best in the world; b) fighting for playing time against seasoned vets or sitting on the bench waiting for playing time; c) worse yet, sitting on the bench for a losing team and playing for a coach that won't LET him play due to... d) adapting to the politics of the business of basketball, and i could go on here but why?


I can kinda agree with your first one but the NCAA 3 is still not the same as an NBA one so I would still rather have him shooting an NBA 3 than spending another year hitting the NCAA 3. I agree with b, C is meaningless and I agree with D (getting stronger) but the only way that's going to happen is in an NBA strength program not in college, Derrick Rose dint start lifting weights until he arrived with the Bulls. 



> i'm not railing on derozan as a talent, just that seeing him NOT dominate at the college level and believing that he's a lock for the pro game is just more a risk than i believe a lot of gm's will take. i know someone will draft him and i've been wrong before but hell, i saw harold "baby jordan" miner at USC who was a whole helluva lot better than derozan and the pros broke his azz down so fast it made his head swim. i look at a kid like gerald green, who's virtually hanging by a thread because he doesn't know the game and hasn't gone to a team that will invest enough into him and i suspect a similar fate awaits the baby faced derozan should he turn pro after this year.


In a previous thread I said at best Derozan could be a T-Mac (healthy one) without a 3 point shot or at worst he would be a Gerald Green, if hes available where the Bulls are going to pick I would take that risk.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

My draft board of guys starting at guys who might likely be available at our first pick. If we go big with our first pick, I'd prefer we go small with our second.

Chase Budinger, Arizona, SG/SF
Patrick Patterson, Kentucky, PF
Craig Brackens, Iowa State, PF/SF
BJ Mullens, Ohio State, C
----
Willie Warren, Oklahoma, SG
Wayne Ellington, North Carolina, SG
----
AJ Ogilvy, Vanderbilt, C
Jeff Pendergraph, Arizona, PF
Tyler Hansbrough, North Carolina, PF
Josh Heytvelt, Gonzaga, PF/C
Marcus Thornton, LSU, SG
Dionte Christmas, Temple, SG
----
Taj Gibson, USC, PF
Leo Lyons, Missouri, PF
Damion James, Texas, SF/SG
James Johson, Wake Forest, SF
Josh Shipp, UCLA, SG
Tyreke Evans, Memphis, SG
Dante Cunningham, Villanova, SF


----------



## Merk (May 24, 2006)

Rhyder said:


> My draft board of guys starting at guys who might likely be available at our first pick. If we go big with our first pick, I'd prefer we go small with our second.
> 
> Chase Budinger, Arizona, SG/SF
> Patrick Patterson, Kentucky, PF
> ...



I think he would be a great fit here


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Rhyder said:


> My draft board of guys starting at guys who might likely be available at our first pick. If we go big with our first pick, I'd prefer we go small with our second.
> 
> Chase Budinger, Arizona, SG/SF
> BJ Mullens, Ohio State, C
> Wayne Ellington, North Carolina, SG


Those are 3 guys I would really like to get. As a Tarheel fan, I've always thought that Wayne Ellington would look good in a Bulls' uniform, and last night he looked great again and won MVP honors. I'd be real happy if they let Gordon walk and Ellington teamed with Hinrich and Salmons at the 2. 

Budinger is my favorite player in the draft though, by far (other than Griffin who we have zero chance at if we make the playoffs) although his defense alarms me. The dude can flat out play though, shooting 3s, driving the paint, etc. The right coach could turn him into an all-star IMO. 

Mullens has great size and athleticism, and the sky is really the limit. Not quite Dwight Howard-type of potential, but he may be the next best thing IF he works hard and packs on some bulk and stuff. 

Cole Aldrich is another. He has good size, skill and bball IQ and I think he could turn into a quality C, in the Brad Miller mold, but much more athletic. I'm hoping for one of those 4, and after the combine and all maybe a few more will pop out.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Here's a random thought:

Let's say hypothetically the Timberwolves win the #1 pick. They have pretty good odds. Obviously Blake Griffin goes #1 no matter what. So, what happens to Kevin Love and/or Al Jefferson?

There is absolutely no chance the Timberwolves hang onto 3 stud big men, right? 

Can we muster up a package for Big Al or K-Love? Or do they trade the #1 pick for a star-level player?


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

yodurk said:


> Here's a random thought:
> 
> Let's say hypothetically the Timberwolves win the #1 pick. They have pretty good odds. Obviously Blake Griffin goes #1 no matter what. So, what happens to Kevin Love and/or Al Jefferson?
> 
> ...


I was going to start a thread on the this very topic if the T-Wolves did indeed win the Lottery but since the topic has just come up its a very good question. My first thought would be that the T-wolves would try to make Griffin a 3 which IMO could work but also has the makings of a major blunder. That being said I do think the Wolves would give it a shot with Griff at the 3 for at least one season and if it doesn't look like a good long term solution they will probably move either Love or AL. 

A good question would be who do they find more expendable, Love or Big Jeff? With how screwed up financially some teams are I would guess that Jefferson would be more expendable because of his contract.

Can the Bulls muster up a package for Big Al hmmm it would probably take Noah, Hinrich and draft picks, T-Wolves would consider this because Noah would be a decent 5 off the bench whenever Love gets a rest and Hinrich would be their starting 1 who brings some stability to the position and they could probably pick up a decent 2 or 3 via their extra draft picks.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

That would be my best guess -- that is, Minny would trade Al Jefferson. Several good reasons to do so:

1) The Wolves are a small market team
2) Big Al is on a very hefty salary for the next 5 years
3) Big Al has been a loser his entire career
4) Big Al is coming off a major injury

I guess that would mean Love becomes their starting center, w/ Griffin as their PF. 

I imagine the Wolves are desperate for a starting quality PG. We know they like Hinrich. I would offer Hinrich, draft picks, and one other piece (Deng? Salmons? Tyrus?). Maybe try and get Mike Miller back in return for talent and salary balancing, who would be a good shooter for Rose.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

T-Wolves have expressed their interest in Kirk Hinrich in the past. So I think if it is a possibility then it has to start with Hinrich.

Then an expiring contract. Because if T-Wolves is indeed in financial trouble, then they want cap relief. I guess that means either Tim Thomas or Jerome James's contract.

And they want to get another big in return. They probably want both Tyrus and Noah if possible. But, I say we push for Noah only.

The thing about T-Wolves is they're actually have a lot of cap space going into 2010. So, I'm not sure if they really have to dump Big Al, a proven 20-10 player. If they end up with Griffin, I think Love is the odd man out. Because Griffin IMO complements Big Al better with his all-around game and height (6'11", Big Al is probably closer to 6'9").

If we indeed end up looking to trade for whoever is available between Big Al and Love, we'd probably have to take Cardinal's contract (which isn't too bad since it expires in 2010).

A dream deal for me is probably:

Big Al + Mike Miller for Hinrich + Tim Thomas + Noah

but are they really that desperate? Hinrich + Deng is fine with me too.


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

Despite his knee injury, there's no way the Wolves trade Jefferson even if they get #1...


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Kevin Love would be nice


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

dsouljah9 said:


> Despite his knee injury, there's no way the Wolves trade Jefferson even if they get #1...


I don't know -- as I said above, it's not just the knee injury. Al has never shown himself to be a winner. He seems to have Elton Brand/Jamal Crawford syndrome (so far at least). I believe this can and will change with a better backcourt like Rose and Gordon. But from the Wolves perspective, it's that plus his huge salary.

Will be interesting to see at the least. I'm kinda pulling for this to happen, since I'd really like to see Griffin end up on a Western Conference team anyways, and we can really benefit from this. 

Hinrich is almost a no-brainer for a starting trade piece; maybe draft picks if they want them. The bigger question is who else. I could definitely see Noah being someone they'd like (i.e. a defensive big who won't need touches). If they aren't sold on Corey Brewer anymore, maybe we use Salmons to sweeten the pot and try to get Brewer back in return. Brewer will at least help our defense I imagine.


----------



## Nu_Omega (Nov 27, 2006)

We don't have what it takes to bring Big Al to Chi-town.

It's like trading Rose + Kirk for Spencer Hawes, Noce and Udrih.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Nu_Omega said:


> We don't have what it takes to bring Big Al to Chi-town.
> 
> It's like trading Rose + Kirk for Spencer Hawes, Noce and Udrih.


Not that you're wrong necessarily, but how in the world do we have a chance at trading for Bosh if we can't even land Big Al? IMO, Bosh is a better player, far more versatile; better shooter, ballhandler, passer. Is it only because Bosh is on the last year of his deal?

The bottom line is, the Wolves need a PG desperately. Where else can they realistically get a good, young, well-rounded, starter quality PG? PG's of that quality don't get traded in this league very often. Their best shot is either Hinrich, or settle for the aging/questionable PG types like Bibby, Baron, etc. Maybe Ray Felton, but Hinrich is better than Felton IMO.


----------



## Merk (May 24, 2006)

What are peoples thoughts on Meeks?

I've seen him ranked as high as top 5 pick to as low as early 20's


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Merk said:


> What are peoples thoughts on Meeks?
> 
> I've seen him ranked as high as top 5 pick to as low as early 20's


Is he coming out?

He's one of the best pure shooters, and think he would be a great pickup. For years, I think our team has been short on shooters. We have Gordon, Salmons, Kirk, and Tim Thomas if you wanted to consider him that.

Lose Gordon, and we're getting sort of desperate. We absolutely need another shooter with one of our three picks IMO, else we'll start to see Rose getting heavily trapped. Luckily, there are a few good options in this year's draft both in the first and second rounds.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

Rhyder said:


> Is he coming out?
> 
> He's one of the best pure shooters, and think he would be a great pickup. For years, I think our team has been short on shooters. We have Gordon, Salmons, Kirk, and Tim Thomas if you wanted to consider him that.
> 
> Lose Gordon, and we're getting sort of desperate. We absolutely need another shooter with one of our three picks IMO, else we'll start to see Rose getting heavily trapped. Luckily, there are a few good options in this year's draft both in the first and second rounds.


He didn't hire an agent, so maybe, maybe not.

Shooters are a good idea.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Not that you're wrong necessarily, but how in the world do we have a chance at trading for Bosh if we can't even land Big Al? IMO, Bosh is a better player, far more versatile; better shooter, ballhandler, passer. Is it only because Bosh is on the last year of his deal?


Different situation. Rumors said Bosh is thinking of leaving Toronto and if this is true Toronto is possibly looking for something in return instead of letting him go for nothing to FA.

On the other hand I have never heard anything about Big Al wanting out or McHale shopping him.

Talent-wise, it is almost impossible to put together a reasonable package based on what we have to acquire talent of Bosh calibre. But because of the situation, Bosh is hinting leaving for FA in 2010, it's a different story. We know what kind of deal brought Gasol to LA last year. So, who knows?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I don't really follow college basketball anymore, so I've never even heard of Jodie Meeks. Seriously, where did this guy come from? This guy can really fill it up...23 ppg and pretty good shooting percentages. Looks like this might be the dreaded good stats on a bad team though.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Whilst not a particularly strong draft this will be a heavily sought after draft ( to get picks ) if there is an ability to dump contracts and get help

If we keep our picks I'm liking Ellington, Pendergraph and Adrien

If you can trade out with Tyrus and filler for a Bosh or an Amare then you do it


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

*Bulls to draft at 16 and 26*

http://basketball.realgm.com/src_wi...0090417/ties_broken_for_2009_nba_draft_order/



> Five ties among teams that finished the 2008-09 NBA regular season with identical records were broken today through random drawings to help determine the order of selection for the 2009 NBA Draft, which will be held on Thursday, June 25 at The WaMu Theater at Madison Square Garden in New York City.
> 
> The drawings were conducted earlier today in New York City at the Board of Governors meeting by Stu Jackson, NBA Executive Vice President, Basketball Operations.
> 
> ...


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Bulls to draft at 16 and 26*

It's only fair that we win this tie breaker. After all, Philly did screw us out of the #6 seed!

I think the #16 pick is a reasonable spot to pick up a decent player. Even though it's a weak draft, we can at least pick up a "niche" player. Maybe a rugged defensive rebounder to help fill that deficiency.


----------



## Jermaniac Fan (Jul 27, 2003)

*Re: Bulls to draft at 16 and 26*

Who knows if Tyreke Evans will be still available at 16th pick..


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

*Re: Bulls to draft at 16 and 26*

According to draft.net, he will be be and we will be selecting him at 16...


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

*Re: Bulls to draft at 16 and 26*

What do the Bulls need Evans for?


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

*Re: Bulls to draft at 16 and 26*



HB said:


> What do the Bulls need Evans for?


The early mock drafts are usually crap. They don't pay attention to the teams, they just put best player available for each draft slot. It's after the lottery when they begin making sense with their mock draft.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Bulls to draft at 16 and 26*

I don't know jack about Tyreke Evans, but his stats look mighty good from a freshman (on both ends of the floor). 17 ppg on 45 FG%, in only 29 minutes? Plus 2.1 steals? 6'6 shooting guard? What's not to like about that! On paper he looks like he should be a top 7 player in this weak draft.


----------



## nybullsfan (Aug 12, 2005)

*Re: Bulls to draft at 16 and 26*

What do you guys think of the idea of moving both picks to possibly get into the lottery?


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

*Re: Bulls to draft at 16 and 26*



nybullsfan said:


> What do you guys think of the idea of moving both picks to possibly get into the lottery?


Would depend what position, but not a big fan. There isn't a prospect that really impresses me. I hope we trade them along with Deng and another player for Bosh or Amar'e or something like that.


----------



## PD (Sep 10, 2004)

*Re: Bulls to draft at 16 and 26*



P to the Wee said:


> Would depend what position, but not a big fan. There isn't a prospect that really impresses me. I hope we trade them along with Deng and another player for Bosh or Amar'e or something like that.


That would be my hope. The value of Tyrus is very high now if we want something good back.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

*Re: Bulls to draft at 16 and 26*

I wouldn't mind getting the best wing available... SF or SG back-up is something we're struggling with right now. With the later pick, I pick the most rugged PF/C I can find. Am all for packaging the picks in a trade up or for another player. How long to we have Miller and Salmons signed for?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

*Re: Bulls to draft at 16 and 26*

Evans has no use on the Bulls because he's a ball hogging, ball dominating guard. Rose on this team makes Evans a no-go. You need a Budinger/Terrence Williams type player. Williams shot needs work, but he does everything else well. Personally I think the Bulls should trade the picks and try to get in next year's draft. That class is loaded.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: Bulls to draft at 16 and 26*

Budinger or Ellington works for me and if we have to package both picks to get them then that's fine 

We can get our meathead interior defender via free agency if we give Brian Skinner a call

Bring back Benji and AzzaGray

Summer's done


----------



## Jermaniac Fan (Jul 27, 2003)

*Re: Bulls to draft at 16 and 26*

Ellington would propably be a pretty useful player for Bulls. Evans (16th) + Ellington (26th) would be fantastic.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

*Re: Bulls to draft at 16 and 26*

Budinger and/or Ellington, along with Mullens. That's my wish list, has been for a long time now...been a fan or Budinger and Ellington for some time, and a super-athletic 7 footer is always nice.


----------



## Lets_Play_2 (Jan 22, 2004)

*Re: Bulls to draft at 16 and 26*

Don't be too surprised if deals occur for draft picks something along the lines of:

1) Lottery pick this year, in exchange for pick #16 and say, $1 to $2 mil, with an option for the Bulls to switch 1st round picks in next year's draft, but with the Bulls also having a $1 to $2 mil obligation next year if they decide to do so (switch picks next year).

Now, image what this means if the Bulls pull this type of trade off with two (2) different teams, with one trade for pick 16, and the other for pick 26.

Sounds crazy, but it's becoming increasingly possible.

Why, you ask. Pay attention to this last week's news on the Hicks Sports Group. Doesn't directly affect any NBA teams - just MLB (Texas Rangers) and the NHL (Dallas Stars). But it sure does create an indirect effect.

It's all about the money.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

*Bulls official draft thread*

If there is one already made, mods could you merge this with the existing one?

Ok we have two picks this summer. Lets talk about who we think it will be and why. Also discuss any potential trades either being discussed or trades we want to see happen. 

Lets also make up some mocks!


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Thanks Narek! :champagne::greatjob:


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

*Re: Bulls to draft at 16 and 26*



Wynn said:


> I wouldn't mind getting the best wing available... SF or SG back-up is something we're struggling with right now. With the later pick, I pick the most rugged PF/C I can find. Am all for packaging the picks in a trade up or for another player. How long to we have Miller and Salmons signed for?


That is the way I feel. Get a SG/SF and then get a rugged PF/C. It would also be ideal if we could package them for a player.


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

i want derozan and mullens

derozan will probably be gone. 

so mullen and the best guard available.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Mullens is not even as skilled as Aaron Gray right now. He's a huge project.

Lol and I am looking at your sig pic Bendeng, and thinking Brad Miller is definitely a character.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

OMG Mullens is WAY more talented than the White Panther lol.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Mullens only skill as of now is being able to dunk. Thats all he showed at OSU


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

HB said:


> Mullens only skill as of now is being able to dunk. Thats all he showed at OSU


As opposed to Aaron Gray who cant do much but stand in the way lol. 

I'm not high on Mullens but man the guy can run laps around Gray with one leg.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

I have changed my mind after seeing how we were outmuscled in this series against Boston 

After giving him a pasting in the tourney I would take a risk and go with Dejuan Blair at #16 and bring in another big guy interior defender type like Brian Skinner that can keep the offensive rebounders out and help close down the interior 

Miller, Skinner, and Blair give us enough bulk that complements Noah and Thomas's quicks 

At the #26 pick .. I would probably be inclined to take a project like Jrue Holiday if he's there.. if not a pure shooter like Dionte Christmas is my next in line 

This is all assuming we bring back Ben Gordon and keep the current team in tact 

*

Noah
Thomas
Deng
Gordon
Rose

bench

6th : Salmons
7th : Hinrich
8th : Miller 
9th : Skinner

One more time around the block 

Hunter 

Project Minutes 

Blair
Holiday

Break glass in case of emergency

Jerome James
Tim Thomas

Thanks for the memories 

Gray
Roberson 

*


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> I have changed my mind after seeing how we were outmuscled in this series against Boston
> 
> After giving him a pasting in the tourney I would take a risk and go with Dejuan Blair at #16 and bring in another big guy interior defender type like Brian Skinner that can keep the offensive rebounders out and help close down the interior
> 
> ...


After watching Perkins and Baby davis do whatever they wanted against the Bulls I thought the same thing you did. That being said I just cant imagine Blair going in the first round, maybe a late first rounder but I dont know of too many teams willing to spend a mid pick on a 6'6 300 pound PF, if hes there at the Bulls second first rounder I say go for it but not at 16. 

I have a few concerns about the draft.

1. If the Bulls dont re sign Ben Gordon how will it affect the drafting, does that mean the Bulls will go on some crazy idea and try to draft Curry?

2. Will they be drafting for need or BPA? Sure we need a scoring 4 or 5 but what if a really good talent like Johny Flyn is available? Do we just pass up on him for a need or do we draft him in hopes of packaging him in a trade?

3. Will the Bulls with a new GM be bolder and try to make a big time trade?

4. Will they stay away from Hansborough?

5. Will the Bull's try to move up in the draft for a specific player?


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> After watching Perkins and Baby davis do whatever they wanted against the Bulls I thought the same thing you did. That being said I just cant imagine Blair going in the first round, maybe a late first rounder but I dont know of too many teams willing to spend a mid pick on a 6'6 300 pound PF, if hes there at the Bulls second first rounder I say go for it but not at 16.
> 
> I have a few concerns about the draft.
> 
> ...


I've mentioned the Curry scenario earlier in this thread or some other thread. IMO, he's worth a try to replace Gordon. He's nowhere near Gordon physically. But, clutch and shooting ability, I have to say very very very close. The only difference is Curry is not yet tested professionally. But of course, we have to see what talent is available at our pick. And like you said what type of trade we can get using combination of our pick and asset. I'm sort of hoping TWolves gets a high pick and draft either Griffin or Thabeet. That would make Love available. And they like Hinrich. Maybe we can work something out.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Curry's gone before the Bulls pick. Blair's a good fit. Not your ideal low post option, but he'll rebound like a beast.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

As I've said before, I'd target Budinger as an athletic wing that can shoot the 3 at #16 (trade up if necessary, $$$). Then again, I'd try to trade up from 26 and take Mullens....a big body that can move...something we don't currently have. And if Gordon walks, I'd try to get Wayne Ellington....another pure shooter...to replace him. I want absolutely no part of Dejuan Blair. YUCK! Same with Hansbrough. I want no part of short post players. Especially Hansbrough. As a Tarheel fan, I love him as a player and all, but he has no business in the NBA...he gets stuffed all the time in college by runts.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

I dont think they pass on Hansbrough at 26, unless they pick a big ahead him. You know paxson likes players that played for successful college teams. Cant get any more successful that the tarheels. 

We need a big with one pick, even if they wont play much now. We need to groom them for Miller leaving in two years. 

The second pick needs to be a SG/SF that can shoot. 

As the draft gets closer, I will talk more about who I want here.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

I think its pretty obvious that a scoring 4-5 is greatly needed but most teams have the same need also lol. Its not a very strong draft for Bigs either so unless the Bulls are looking to trade into the top 5 or 10 picks I honestly see them trading both picks. 

Heck maybe Omer Asik will show some promise overseas next season but the man hasn't played one game since being drafted.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Hansbrough hits that 18-20 foot shot more consistently than Thomas and Noah. At 26, he's really not a bad pick.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

HB said:


> Hansbrough hits that 18-20 foot shot more consistently than Thomas and Noah. At 26, he's really not a bad pick.


You can find some 6'11 20 year old Euro to possibly do that for you at 26 also. Why draft another undersized 4 with no real skill set?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

26 is hit or miss, very few gems around that area. This is a poor draft. I can't even think of any 6'11 Euro players that fit that role. Hansbrough brings something to the table, he's a better shooter than most bigs on the Bulls roster right now.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> You can find some 6'11 20 year old Euro to possibly do that for you at 26 also. Why draft another undersized 4 with no real skill set?


People said the same thing about Boozer (and glen davis).

Anyways when i look at the PF's in this draft Hansborough probably fits the role we need the best. He would be good in the pick and roll or pick and pop with D-Rose. He also provides the stength and toughness we badly need out of that position and I am sure nobody will question his work ethic. He might not start for us but I think he could give us 10-20 valuable minutes every night. 
I would actually like to move up earlier in the second round, and take collison if he is available. My Ideal offseason would be to let Gordon go, try and trade Deng, draft the best overall shooting guard with our 16th pick (or Mullens). Then take Blair or Hansbourough, and then Collison in the second. That way we would have an established core group Bench included when the 2010 free agency comes around. Depending on the development of this draft class and TT. We would know what to do with Hinrich/Salmons and TT and have plenty of money to go after a guy like Bosh.

When 2010-11 comes around our roster would look like this ( not counting whatever we could get back for Deng)

1.)Rose/collison
2.)2009 draft/hinrich/ or 2010 free agent.
3.)Salmons (or 2010 free agent)(maybe Deng if we have to hold onto him)
4.)Bosh/TT/(Blair/Hansborough)
5.)Noah (free agent/2010 draft)

Now I know that lineup has a bunch of question marks but it gives us a ton of flexibility and is very reasonable. By getting rid of Deng(if possible) and Gordon it allows us to be able to go for multiple free agents. Also by taking three solid playes at the 1,2, and 4 it lets us evaluate three young players at the positions that are most crucial for our future major decisions we will have to make.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

If we dont take hansbrough at 26. I say we take Jemain Taylor with the 26th pick. The kid has height at the SG position and flat out score! 

He could give us insurance in case Gordon does not resign. 

The 16th pick, I dont know yet. 

Of course opinions will change as we get closer to the draft.


----------



## Merk (May 24, 2006)

I have a tough time figuring out what Blair is going to be on this level

Some games he reminds me of A.Mason others D.Fortson


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Merk said:


> I have a tough time figuring out what Blair is going to be on this level
> 
> Some games he reminds me of A.Mason others D.Fortson


I just listened to bullsbeat and Blair can defend, but cannot be relied upon to score, we need both.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> I have changed my mind after seeing how we were outmuscled in this series against Boston
> 
> After giving him a pasting in the tourney I would take a risk and go with Dejuan Blair at #16 and bring in another big guy interior defender type like Brian Skinner that can keep the offensive rebounders out and help close down the interior


I'd rather roll the dice on Gani Lawal if you wanted to take a chance on a guy to plug up the middle. Even if Lawal doesn't become an asset on offense, he'll still be a defensive/rebounding oriented third or fourth big off the bench. Blair has way greater bust potential and less upside than does Lawal in my book.

Big Man Draft board (tier based)

---
Blake Griffin
---
Jordan Hill
Hasheem Thabeet
---
Patrick Patterson
James Johnson
BJ Mullens
---
Gani Lawal
Tyler Hansbrough
DeJuan Blair
---
Jeff Pendergraph
Taj Gibson
Leo Lyons
Michael Washington
Josh Heytvelt


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Merk said:


> I have a tough time figuring out what Blair is going to be on this level
> 
> Some games he reminds me of A.Mason others D.Fortson


Wow Merk, props on the Anthony Mason reference. Haven't heard that name in a while.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

superdave said:


> Wow Merk, props on the Anthony Mason reference. Haven't heard that name in a while.


Can Blair handle the rock like Anthony Mason? Mason was a guard-quality ball handler, and I've never seen another 280 pound guy handle the rock how he did. Or a "power 3" as Tim Floyd used to say (can't believe I'm quoting Floyd, ugh).


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

I don't think we have any choice but to Roll the Dice with a Big like Mullens. 

You can't teach height or athletic ability, and he has both. He's clearly the most TALENTED big in this draft after Blake Griffin, if you are looking strictly at physical abilities.

The biggest knock on him is that he appears to lack desire. If that's the case, you RUN RUN RUN away from him, but otherwise, you draft him.....and you get a competent big man coach in here for him and Noah, pronto. 

Can't someone pay David Robinson to come up here and teach our bigs a thing or two? Or Robert Parish (who actually played for the bulls)? Or Moses Malone (is he still alive?)......


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> definite*ly* maybe


Great movie!!!:10:


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

The Krakken said:


> I don't think we have any choice but to Roll the Dice with a Big like Mullens.
> 
> You can't teach height or athletic ability, and he has both. He's clearly the most TALENTED big in this draft after Blake Griffin, if you are looking strictly at physical abilities.
> 
> ...


That's exactly how I see it. Mullens, especially if he's around at 26, is a no brainer. Someone without the drive to improve is a wasted pick though, so you'd have to investigate that first.

I've thought of Olujuwan, who I believe works with post guys in the offseason at times, and also The Admiral to come in and work with him if we got him as well. Thought we should've done that back with Tyson Chandler and Eddie Curry, and now again with Noah and Tyrus.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

I am not sold on Mullens. We need someone who can help us now.What will he bring that we dont already have with Aaron? 

With the 26th pick, I am still in favor of a player like Jermain Taylor. The only obstacle I see in drafting Taylor is he does not come from a successful program. This is not a slam on Central Florida, but Pax has been consistent, drafting from big time programs.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

truebluefan said:


> I am not sold on Mullens. We need someone who can help us now.What will he bring that we dont already have with Aaron?
> 
> With the 26th pick, I am still in favor of a player like Jermain Taylor. The only obstacle I see in drafting Taylor is he does not come from a successful program. This is not a slam on Central Florida, but Pax has been consistent, drafting from big time programs.


There are very few guys that will help us "now". So you draft the guy that will have the highest ceiling, and a reasonable chance to reach it. And why exactly do we need to "win now"? Our core players are all early 20s, other than Kirk who is late mid/late 20s. Grow the team together. The only old guys on the team are Miller (already one foot in the retirement home) and Salmons (29 and short time remaining on contract).

I just looked up Jermaine Taylor, and I can tell you this much. I have no interest in another undersized SG.


----------



## andras (Mar 19, 2003)

up! :bump:

I think you draft the most valuable prospect you can use on your team (based on talent and team needs). there's no use in drafting a real raw guy with tons of potential if you don't develop him. OTOH I'm not really with TBF on the immediate help-argument. like DBB's saying, there's not much significant immediate help to be found in this draft. for immediate help you go to your current roster, and trades, FA's

anyway, I can't say I've seen any of these prospects play. but based on reports and clips, I'd consider these 2 guys very interesting picks (realistically still on the board when we pick):
- #16: BJ Mullens. we mostly need inside offense, and an extra wing player (assuming ben bolts). this draft is said to be big on pg talent, but I don't see the use in drafting a pg rookie. I believe it makes more sense to have a more veteran backup. the most valuable and intriguing prospect to me seems to be BJ Mullens: position of need (center) + if he pans out he looks like a good fit next to Noah or Tyrus. At first he'd be used as our 4th big after Noah, Tyrus and Miller (yes, that is the Gray role. maybe mullens won't give us much more at first, but at least here we can hope he becomes a real nba player
- #26: Terrence Williams. apparently his shot needs improvement. complementary to rose you need good outside shooting. so Terrence should really work on this area. on the short term he could already be serviceable as a backup to salmons and deng: good defense, good size and good passing


----------



## BullsBaller (Oct 6, 2002)

Posted by Caseyrh
"Now I know that lineup has a bunch of question marks but it gives us a ton of flexibility and is very reasonable. *By getting rid of Deng(if possible) and Gordon it allows us to be able to go for multiple free agents.* Also by taking three solid playes at the 1,2, and 4 it lets us evaluate three young players at the positions that are most crucial for our future major decisions we will have to make."

A big fan of Deng, but I think that is exactly what we need to do. I would really like to s&t Gordon (no reason to waste him by letting him walk) and trade Deng for an expiring. I don't think it is going to occur, but it would be nice if we could send these 2 for a contract like McGrady's. If it were to happen, the Bulls would have roughly $34 million to work with in 2010. Due to the progressing economic situation they could sign a player just as good as Deng for less. Also, by drafting 3 rookies we could have some cheap young legs coming off the bench to use in the playoffs in 2009/2010. These along with Miller/Hinrich would be our energy guys. This is much like what the Celtics did last year. Odds are in our favor that at least 1 of these 3 rookies would increase their trade value in 09/10. Package that rookie with TT to get *Bosh*/Stoudemire/L. Aldrige, then sign someone like T. Outlaw at the least and Joe Johnson at the very best, and a big vet backup C like Milicic or Haywood. The Bulls could possibly have enough to resign McGrady if he is willing to sign for cheap and is decently healthy. After getting paid 20 mill a year you would think he would be willing. 

*2009 Draft *
My picks are based on the holes this current Bulls team has. There weaknesses this season were size/thickness down low and defense which every championship team has to have. Too bad for LA!
T. Williams (Replace Salmons in 3-4 yrs + phenomenal athlete/defender+4 yrs. college yet only 21)
D. Blair (Bulls' version of Big Baby accept even stronger+amazing offensive rebounder)
Side Note: Is it just me or are a lot of short PFs really good at Off. Rebounding?
Toney Douglas (Poor man's version of BG but an excellent defender. ACC Defensive Player of the Year. Small/Pest similar to Hinrich)

*2009 Roster*
Rose, Hinrich, Douglas
McGrady (If Healthy), Hinrich, Salmons, Douglas
Salmons, McGrady, T. Williams
TT, Blair, Tim Thomas
Noah, Miller

*2010 Roster* (Based on Worst Case Scenario-Outlaw instead of Joe Johnson)
Rose, Hinrich 
Salmons, Hinrich, T. Williams
T. Outlaw, T. Williams, McGrady
Bosh, Blair, O. Asik
Noah, Haywood
2010 Draft Pick


----------



## Latifovic (Apr 16, 2009)

Bulls traded guard Thabo Sefolosha to the Oklahoma City Thunder for a *2009 first-round draft pick*.

Oklahoma have 3 pick, and I dont get it, is it protected or not?


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

Latifovic said:


> Bulls traded guard Thabo Sefolosha to the Oklahoma City Thunder for a *2009 first-round draft pick*.
> 
> Oklahoma have 3 pick, and I dont get it, is it protected or not?


We get the 26th pick this year from them. It's a first rounder that they got in a deal from another team at one point or another, though I don't remember which...


----------



## Merk (May 24, 2006)

What are peoples thoughts on PG Patrick Mills?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

The big the Bulls need is not in this draft. Its best they trade out of the draft or better yet go with the BPA, which most likely will be a 2 or 3. Dont be caught up with the whole you need a low post scorer and then pick a guy who might not get any burn. Blair came in at 6'5 in the measurements, he's not an uber athlete and his low post game needs work. He's going to have a hard time scoring against more athletic 4's.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

HB said:


> The big the Bulls need is not in this draft. Its best they trade out of the draft or better yet go with the BPA, which most likely will be a 2 or 3. Dont be caught up with the whole you need a low post scorer and then pick a guy who might not get any burn. Blair came in at 6'5 in the measurements, he's not an uber athlete and his low post game needs work. He's going to have a hard time scoring against more athletic 4's.


LMAO, I knew he'd be short as hell. I wouldn't even take him in the 2nd round after seeing that for sure.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

No surprise that Blair is 6'6 with shoes but he does have a good wingspan at 7'2 which is about 1 inch longer than Millsap's reach.

Well well, look at Mr. Hansbrough he really improved his stock with those measurements, 6'9 with shoes good wing span and standing reach.

Blake Griffin I guess is a T-Rex with disappointing wingspan and reach still hes by far the best player lol.

BJ Mullens has legit size and length. 

Earl Clark is just a freak, 6'10 9'1 standing reach lol.


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> No surprise that Blair is 6'6 with shoes but he does have a good wingspan at 7'2 which is about 1 inch longer than Millsap's reach.
> 
> Well well, look at Mr. Hansbrough he really improved his stock with those measurements, 6'9 with shoes good wing span and standing reach.
> 
> ...


Not surprised with Blair's measurements at all. Looking at him in college, you could see he was 6'7" at best or shorter, which is pretty tall in the real world, but short in basketball.

Tyler coming in at 6'9" in shoes is surprising...


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Where are these measurements? Last year I had some site with them all in spreadsheet, but haven't seen any sites yet this year.


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

Here ya go.

http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-draft-measurements/


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Organized Chaos said:


> Here ya go.
> 
> http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-draft-measurements/


Thanks


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> Tyler coming in at 6'9" in shoes is surprising...


Indeed it is, still he needs to add about 20 pounds of muscle to play 4 in the NBA, I'm actually very interested in seeing how he does in all the drills.


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

> Indeed it is, still he needs to add about 20 pounds of muscle to play 4 in the NBA, I'm actually very interested in seeing how he does in all the drills.


I have this feeling that he will end up a Bull...:uhoh:


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

What the hay???

*Bulls like the looks of Syracuse's Jonny Flynn*


> "I couldn't understand why they would bring me in either," Flynn said at the NBA predraft camp at Attack Athletics, confirming the Tribune's report of his Sunday workout. "But *they said there are times they wish to move Derrick [Rose] off the ball*. When they said that to me, it fell into place."


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

That has been known for a while now and I wouldn't be surprised if the Bulls take him at 16.


----------



## Merk (May 24, 2006)

dsouljah9 said:


> That has been known for a while now and I wouldn't be surprised if the Bulls take him at 16.


We would have to take him IMO because if he falls to 16 I would imagine he would be the best player on the board by a good margin considering most places dont have him getting out of the top 10 let alone the lotto


If he's not there I want Mullens at 16 and P.Mills at 26


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

> If he's not there I want Mullens at 16 and P.Mills at 26


uke:


----------



## Merk (May 24, 2006)

> Another player who really seems to have helped himself at the combine was UNC's Tyler Hansbrough. He has been knocked for being too short to play in the NBA, but he measured over 6-8 in socks, had a solid 6-foot-11 wingspan and a standing reach that was an inch taller than Blake Griffin's. While Hansbrough isn't the explosive athlete that Griffin is, he isn't terrible, either.
> 
> I hear the Bulls are looking at him as high as No. 16.


http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draf...?columnist=ford_chad&page=InsiderNotes-090601


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Pick Tyler Hansbrough at 16. The Bulls wont regret it.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

At 16 Hell No!


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

if the hinrich to wolves deal gets done,

i want
6# derozan
16# mullens
26# hansbrough


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

BenDengGo said:


> if the hinrich to wolves deal gets done,
> 
> i want
> 6# derozan
> ...


Hard to imagine the Wolves giving the #6 pick for Hinrich, especially if Jennings is still on the board.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Hard to imagine the Wolves giving the #6 pick for Hinrich, especially if Jennings is still on the board.


why? there isn't an nba ready point guard in the draft. furthermore, is there really even a starting quality guard at 6 this draft?..... jennings struggled mightily against euro competition; hinrich's stability, defensive prescence and overall skill makes the wolves better in the short and long run. he's small, and his flashiness won't fly in the nba; sebastian telfair was/is flashy too; and now they're looking for his replacement. if the wolves are wise, they get the solid starter in hinrich and draft the project like jennings or a bigger 2 like ellington or henderson at 18.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

If we had 6, 16 and 26, and lost Hinrich but resigned Gordon, I'd have to go with:

6. Budinger
16. Mullens
26. Ellington, Ruoff, Hansbrough

There isn't anyone in this draft I really like that is highly touted aside from Griffin, at least none that I've seen a lot of so far.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> why? there isn't an nba ready point guard in the draft. furthermore, is there really even a starting quality guard at 6 this draft?..... jennings struggled mightily against euro competition; hinrich's stability, defensive prescence and overall skill makes the wolves better in the short and long run. he's small, and his flashiness won't fly in the nba; sebastian telfair was/is flashy too; and now they're looking for his replacement. if the wolves are wise, they get the solid starter in hinrich and draft the project like jennings or a bigger 2 like ellington or henderson at 18.


Well with Hinrich I dont see the wolves doing anything anyway's, Hinrich is the better player but this team is about 3-4 years from being any good, Hinrich is a good short term answer for a team on the brink of getting into the playoff's but for the long run you got to go with Jennings potential over Hinrich.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Well with Hinrich I dont see the wolves doing anything anyway's, Hinrich is the better player but this team is about 3-4 years from being any good, Hinrich is a good short term answer for a team on the brink of getting into the playoff's but for the long run you got to go with Jennings potential over Hinrich.


here's the thing; "short term".....what does that mean? hinrich's only got 3-4 years to play? 3-4 years is a lifetime of nba competition. if the wolves (or any other nba franchise) is hoping to draft a player that they'll want to pair with someone 3-4 years down the road, they ALWAYS be in a "looking" mode. 3-4 years IS long term. coaches, gm's and players don't even last 3-4 years in many instances.

i'm reading arguments that hinrich, an average player (to which i'd agree) "kills" their 2010 chances. well, that might be true but unless they break the bank and overpay, a below average team hoping to sign a big name FA is a risky move; if they don't get him, they're screwed. if they have hinrich, maybe they don't get a big name FA, but a second tier guy who'll complement an already developing pair of bigs who're being fed by a willing passer in hinrich. 

i don't know if the wolves do it or not; maybe they believe tyreke evans is their guy; they passed on oj mayo (who's better than anybody in this draft too), so who knows what they're thinking.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> here's the thing; "short term".....what does that mean? hinrich's only got 3-4 years to play? 3-4 years is a lifetime of nba competition. if the wolves (or any other nba franchise) is hoping to draft a player that they'll want to pair with someone 3-4 years down the road, they ALWAYS be in a "looking" mode. 3-4 years IS long term. coaches, gm's and players don't even last 3-4 years in many instances.


I dint say Hinrich has 3-4 years to play, I said the T-Wolves are about 3-4 years away from being a contender in the West. All I'm saying is with Hinrich your going to get 13 and 5 with decent defense but the T-Wolves will still suck, at least with Jennings his potential is so much higher than a Kirk Hinrich that maybe its worth the risk to take a shot at Jennings and see if he pans out. 



> i'm reading arguments that hinrich, an average player (to which i'd agree) "kills" their 2010 chances. well, that might be true but unless they break the bank and overpay, a below average team hoping to sign a big name FA is a risky move; if they don't get him, they're screwed. if they have hinrich, maybe they don't get a big name FA, but a second tier guy who'll complement an already developing pair of bigs who're being fed by a willing passer in hinrich.


I'm assuming your talking about the T-Wolves and I agree with what your saying but I can also understand if the Wolves decide to go with Jennings. Its not like Kirk Hinrich is a once in a while player, heck they could wait to sign Duhon if they are looking for a decent play maker for Al and Love.



> i don't know if the wolves do it or not; maybe they believe tyreke evans is their guy; they passed on oj mayo (who's better than anybody in this draft too), so who knows what they're thinking.


Who knows, they might even take Curry who has some play making potential, god knows they need a ton of help at both the 1 and 2.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Here is some new stuff on Blair and a couple of other prospects I have the Bulls being interested in.

1. Blair - Surprised me a lot with his reach and wingspan which are longer than Millsaps and I thought he was doing great by losing about 20 pounds and I had his stock going up after the drills I think his stock is about the same. I wonder what was his percentage before losing the weight was ,25%? 277 lbs thats a big boy.

NBA comparison thus far.

Paul Millsap 6'7, 7'1 wing, 8'9 standing, standing vert *28.5* , MAX 32.5, 15 bench, 11 agility, 3.3 sprint 9.7%
Dejuan Blair 6'6, *7.2* wing, *8'10* standing, Standing 26, Max 33, *18*, 11 agility, 3.4 Body fat *12%*

Numbers are very close to Millsap's but Millsap has a better standing vert which is good for a post player.

2. BJ Mullens - Raised his stock IMO, very good reach, legit 7'1 with shoes, good size at 260 (not great though), above average verts but his agility and speed are surprisingly right there with Joakim Noah when he was drilled, not bad for a guy who is about 30 pounds bigger than Noah at the time. 9'3 standing reach for Mullens.

Comparison hes a little bit quicker and athletic than Chris Kaman when he was measured, but they both have close numbers. 

3. Budinger - Good vert, good speed, struggled a bit agility wise but overall came in at a legit 6'7.

Not too many people had the "Joe Alexander OMFG numbers" but a few stood out, Blake wowed, Flynn was very good and a couple of others had noticeable numbers but everyone pretty much measured average.


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

Tyreke Evans is my favorite player in this draft, but it's highly unlikely we can make a deal for him(I don't think he drops to 6). For the 16 and 26 spot, I would love James Johnson and Terrence Williams.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

James Johnson looks like a poor mans Lebron James, hes got the freak body like Lebron at the 3, hes 6'8 260! Very good all around game, 15 ppg 8rbs 2 ast 1 blk 1 stl in college and had an impressive sprint speed, he had the same time as Jonny Flynn and was faster than Earl Clark.

I think this guy will be the steal of the draft, he seems to not know how good he can be.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

P to the Wee said:


> Tyreke Evans is my favorite player in this draft


DX version of Tyreke's best-case scenario is Larry Hughes. and your take?


----------

