# Have we all forgotten? We need bigs.



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

We need bigs...rebounding, post play, shotblock, interior defense. I don't care what Brandon Roy's vertical is or how tall. We ALREADY have a point guard and a shooting guard on our 41 win team. They are NOT the problem at this point on time. We need to get Tyson some help on the inside. Talk of Morrison and Roy is fruitless IMHO.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

I agree

Sometimes it feels like people on here didn't watch us last season, in the playoffs and in the PREVIOUS year's playoffs. Two series would could have won if we had some real bigmen that played BIG.


----------



## animalthugism (Aug 23, 2005)

Lou,

You act like the Bulls only way to acquire size is through the draft!!! YOu also forget about the other thing on the shopping list which is a big guard... You have yet to offer suggestions regarding what FA guard the Bulls could look to w/o overpaying them AND making sure they'd be a good fit under our current system... If the Bulls decided to look at Roy or Gay at no. 2 we'll have SEVERAL options to pursue a big, not to mention the #16 pick as well to add depth..

So, calm down.. It may not be in our best interest to go big at #2 because of the viable options that exist...

I almost prefer going the FA route for a big, because they're already experienced and we won't have to 'wait' for their full development.. Why not improve your team as quick as you can??? By adding a player like Roy for example, you have someone ready to contribute NOW and you are filling a NEED at the same time....


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The Bulls were #3 in the NBA in rebounds as a team.

What the bulls need is players who can exploit mismatches and players who don't solely rely on shooting the 3 (or close to 3 range).


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

I agree with lougehrig. Don't draft a guard.


----------



## animalthugism (Aug 23, 2005)

Good point DaBullz, we were at a huge disadvantage in free throw attempts last year, and we could sorely use a 'slasher' who would complement Gordon and Hinrich tremendously... I'm not saying a rookie will come in and get the benefit of the doubt on foul calls, but it'll keep the defense honest..

Supporters of drafting a big at #2 make it seem like 'we' (guys who would rather get a swing man) are coming out of left field with these ideas, but in reality this may be the most viable option for the voids Pax is looking to fill... I don't see anything wrong with a rotation like:

Hinrich/Duhon
Gordon/Roy
Noc/Deng
Chandler/Songaila/Sweetney
Pryz, Nene, or Mohammed/Allen

Plus add another big man at #16 whoever that may be and Pax has fulfilled his need of acquiring more size WITHOUT making trades that damage our manueverability in the next few years....

My question for all those supporting drafting a big at #2 is where will Pax look to add that big guard? Not at #16 because even Brewer will be off the board by then!!!


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

#16...Maurice Ager...6"5, 202lbs, athletic, scorer and slasher.

back-up SG problem....solved


----------



## animalthugism (Aug 23, 2005)

I like Brown over Ager (If Pax goes that route)... Same height (I think they are both closer to 6'4), but I think Ager has hit his ceiling... Brown is the superior athlete, local product, and plays with a ton of desire... Needless to say, both of those guys will be missed by Mr. Izzo!


----------



## laso (Jul 24, 2002)

Let me simplify it for you... We have two needs going into this draft: First we need one big interior who can play alongside Chandler and protect the paint, defend the boards and not be too stiff on offense. Second, we need one big guard, to play alongside Hinrich and/or Gordon and can prevent us from being killed every time we play a tall SG, but also can score himself.

That being said, I don't buy the argument that we need to draft a big at all cost. If the big you're looking at is soft, or million miles from being ready, but you have a real good tall wing player: DRAFT THE WING PLAYER! That's at least one of your two needs adressed.

And you'll have to figure out later how to get that big guy.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

The ROY said:


> #16...Maurice Ager...6"5, 202lbs, athletic, scorer and slasher.
> 
> back-up SG problem....solved


Aldridge: big man problem...not solved.
Bargnani: big man problem...not solved.
Thomas: big man problem...not solved.


Whether we draft a F/C with #2 or a guard with #2, we need to fill out the front line with a 5 or a 4/5, whether through trade or FA. No matter WHO we draft at #2, we need to go big in FA or through trade.

So the bogeyman of "Our Biggest Need Is a Center," while true, is a red herring when it comes to what we do with the #2 pick. The bigs available, alone, aren't going to make our front line what it needs to be.

We need to address the size issue, overall, in the offseason, and have the front line rock solid by next summer, and the 2007 draft.

But we need to make the team better as a whole this year. Clearly, our biggest need is in the front line. We also need a big guard. 

We have four ways to make the team better: The #2 pick, the #16 pick, trades or FA (and of course the picks can be part of a trade).

Lets not be myopic in any one avenue of improving and filling our needs.


----------



## italianBBlover (Mar 5, 2003)

animalthugism said:


> Chandler/Songaila/Sweetney
> Pryz, Nene, or Mohammed/Allen


How many points will score all these 6 players *together* ? 10 ? 15 ? 

Putting at 4 Chandler and at 5 Pryzbilla would be an offensive suicide IMO ...


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I say take Aldridge #2 if he's there, if not, then take Rudy Gay.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

I want Aldridge. I think he'll be Bosh-like, at worst Bosh-_lite_. Hh's not billed as a "banger", but people forget that big men who grab 8-10 rebounds a game, and block 1.5-2.0 blocks a game aren't always "bangers". I don't it will be a stretch to see Aldridge to put up 17,9, and 2 in his second year, with the potential to improve. That's worth a #2 pick IMO.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Aldridge: big man problem...not solved.
> Bargnani: big man problem...not solved.
> Thomas: big man problem...not solved.
> 
> ...


Unfortunately those players aren't in free agency. The only FA I see with a high ceiling is Wilcox, who still may be a bust. I see SEA putting up quite a fight to keep him too.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Electric Slim said:


> I want Aldridge. I think he'll be Bosh-like, at worst Bosh-_lite_. Hh's not billed as a "banger", but people forget that big men who grab 8-10 rebounds a game, and block 1.5-2.0 blocks a game aren't always "bangers". I don't it will be a stretch to see Aldridge to put up 17,9, and 2 in his second year, with the potential to improve. That's worth a #2 pick IMO.


I think he'll average atleast 16 ppg his rookie year...he's too talented offensively NOT to..

Can u imagine if we got Arn Tellem to convince Ben Wallace to come to chicago also?

C Wallace / Chandler
F Aldridge / FA
F Deng / Nocioni
G Gordon / #16
G Hinrich / Duhon


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

It will probably be more than a decade before the Bulls get a chance to draft this high in the lottery again.

They should, and I think will, take the best player available. Thank God there is no way that person is a point guard. Unfortunately two or three of the top 6 players are small forwards, which is also not an spot that needs strengthening. But if one of them is the BPA, I say take him.

That said, it may very well be that one of the two big men in the top 6, Aldrich or Bargnani, is the BPA. So maybe everyone can be happy.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

lougehrig said:


> We need bigs...rebounding, post play, shotblock, interior defense. I don't care what Brandon Roy's vertical is or how tall. We ALREADY have a point guard and a shooting guard on our 41 win team. They are NOT the problem at this point on time. We need to get Tyson some help on the inside. Talk of Morrison and Roy is fruitless IMHO.



Im gonna tell you what my 60 yr old uncle told me at the barbershop last week when I gave the same passionate speech .

There was a team quite some time ago that needed a bigman and wanted one so badly they passed on a great guard because they already had a good guard on the team . That team was Portland .That great guard was Mj ...the good guard was clyde the glyde .... and the bigman was sam bowie and the rest was history. Now get out of the chair so I can get my haircut and get on over to off track betting.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

TRUTHHURTS said:


> Im gonna tell you what my 60 yr old uncle told me at the barbershop last week when I gave the same passionate speech .
> 
> There was a team quite some time ago that needed a bigman and wanted one so badly they passed on a great guard because they already had a good guard on the team . That team was Portland .That great guard was Mj ...the good guard was clyde the glyde .... and the bigman was sam bowie and the rest was history. Now get out of the chair so I can get my haircut and get on over to off track betting.


So you think we should take Morrison #2?


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

sloth said:


> So you think we should take Morrison #2?


you take the best player regardless of position and then you figure it out as you go along.No one has solidified their position on the squad longterm except Tyson and thats only due to a momentary brainfreeze by Pax. 

The next season is basically a tryout in which if you wann be a Bull in 08 you need to claim your spot with your play. The Bulls have holes and in the end it comes down to Kirk or ben and Deng or Noce .U then use the losers to plug the holes at the other positions .


----------



## Plush4life (May 26, 2006)

> Sometimes it feels like people on here didn't watch us last season, in the playoffs and in the PREVIOUS year's playoffs. Two series would could have won if we had some real bigmen that played BIG.


Actually I think the people who suggest not drafting Aldridge and Thomas ARE the ones that watch the bulls...and the rest of the nba..and college. 

Who are these 'real' big men? Do you mean real as in 'that guy is really big'? You must have not watched LA and TT play, because they arent real big men.

Morrison
Roy
Gay
Trade
Simpkins*


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Plush4life said:


> Actually I think the people who suggest not drafting Aldridge and Thomas ARE the ones that watch the bulls...and the rest of the nba..and college.
> 
> Who are these 'real' big men? Do you mean real as in 'that guy is really big'? You must have not watched LA and TT play, because they arent real big men.
> 
> ...


No, I said this is a team that WOULD have went further if we had REAL big's. That doesn't necessarily mean Rookies, but better BIGMEN than malik allen, othella harrington, antonio davis, tyson chandler, LUKE SCHENCER

How is Aldridge not a real big? 15ppg, 9rpg & 2bpg...how is Tyrus not a real big? 13ppg, 9rpg, 3bpg...In situations where they weren't even #1 options...please...

Gay isn't proven, he HIDES on the court

Roy is a good guard, but not great, only overhyped because of this weak class

Morrison can shoot, but is he sure? no, would I trade Deng or Noc to take a chance on the kid? HELL no

This is one of those times where u draft a NEED.....

Play the Krause roll if you want to and draft at spots you already have covered...

The league knows our weakness..but obviously some of you fans don't


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

I think The Roy hit on a point we are all forgetting:


In this draft: There is no obvious superstar or clear BPA. In other words, when all things are equal, you draft the need over the luxury.

Morrison, Roy, Gay, Williams
Aldridge, Bargnani, Thomas

Tell me who is clearly the BPA at 2?

Honestly, not your favorite guy..............the answer when I honestly look at it, it could be any of these guys or none of them.

If we put these guys in next years crop would any of them be considered top 10? Maybe, but maybe not. Top 5 not likely.

I won't be upset with Roy, though disappointed we couldn't trade with portland and pick him up at 4.

I do think Aldridge, Thomas and Bargnani will provide something more than we have on this team int he frontcourt.

A number of people are still counting on Chandler to be more than a defensive presence for 25 minutes a game. I don't see it happening this off-season. Having your first child will throw you off-track for atleast 3 months.......I mean that in a positive way for fatherhood. 

the real problem is that none of the FA prospects give us that much more than what we have in Chandler. 

The problem I have with drafting Roy is that you then MUST trade Ben because he is not going to stay after his rookie contract. He does not want to be a 6th man forever. Also, if you plan on keeping Hinrich, Gordon, duhon and Roy.........you are essentially grabbing a #2 draft pick and giving 10 - 15 minutes of play time.

Finally, you can argue that passing on Roy would be a mistake, but please stop with the rediculous remarks that passing on him may be a Michael Jordan/Sam Bowie situation or Paul Pierce situation.

I don't have the desire to throw out other situations but:

Jermaine O'Neal went #17, Garnet went # - Joe Smith #1 (and best BPA that year?), Amare Stoudamire #9.......and so on.


My point is that unless it were LeBron James, Tim Duncan, Yao Ming.......no one is the OBVIOUS BPA.

Everyone acts as though jordan was the OBVIOUS BPA.......that wasn't true. That's what the draft is all about.....taking a chance you are drafting the BPA.

I've heard it said by many GM's in almost every sport. No one's a sure bet because anyone can get injured (See Len Bias and Jay William's for examples of injury or drugs ruinging that), underperform (see Joe Smith, Michael Oliwakandi).....AND when two players have similar potenital, you tkae the NEED position over the positiion you already have filled well.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

PREACCCCCCCH chi!


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

For those of you quoting stats saying they get so many rebounds, points, blocks etc per game, that doesn't mean crap about HOW they play. A good example is when a guard at 6'6" gets 10 rebounds in a game. Just because a forward or center gets a lot of rebounds, does NOT mean they play big by any means. It just means they go for the ball, which you can do at ANY size or position. To say otherwise is ludicrous. I definitely agree that you take the BPA (which for the guy who said "Best BPA" stands for Best Player Available, so you don't have to say best BPA lol). I personally think that Morrison is probably the "best" player in the draft right now. He's by far the most proven commodity, BUT there's a question of how his game transfers over to the NBA. Guys are a lot bigger, faster, stronger, more athletic, etc etc. His game might not be that great due to his lack of speed, and bigger lengthier guys with the ability to block his shot guarding him. He would spread the D out due to his presence on the 3 point arc, but that's about it most likely in the NBA. Bargnani would do that, as well as give us another player like Chandler defensively who is long, athletic, can block shots and rebound, but he can score better. Roy might give us a bigger guard, but why do we need that? Deng could probably cover most of the bigger 2s. In my opinion you take any superstar if one is there, regardless of position (see Drexler and Jordan...2 superstars could've been on same team). I don't see a superstar that is a sure thing in this draft though. Therefore we just gotta go with the BPA at #2, which could be a SG, SF, PF/C. I guess I'd rank them as Bargnani, Morrison, Gay, Thomas, Roy. The first 2 are above the rest, not sure of the order of the next 3. Bargnani has the highest ceiling, with Morrison having the least amount of room to improve (due to being more developed already). 

I definitely do NOT go for the quick fix either, which I heard some people clamoring for. You go for a player who will be the best once it's all said and done. You don't just take a guy who is good now, but won't ever be great, while passing on a guy that could be great, but needs some time to develop. In Free Agency you rarely get a star in his prime, who isn't overpaid outrageously. THAT is why you draft. Stars in their prime are rarely let go by their teams, unless there is a problem or a huge price tag attached.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

McBulls said:


> It will probably be more than a decade before the Bulls get a chance to draft this high in the lottery again.


Don't forget that we get NY's pick next year too if they suck it up again. Granted #2 is really high, but we have a very good chance to be drafting in the lottery again next year :clap:


----------



## TheDarkPrince (May 13, 2006)

I agree that we need bigs imo both picks should be bigs and nothing else.I'm shocked at how fast people forget that we got put out the playoffs 2 years in a row because we lacked size.We don't need another SF Noc and Deng are both young and will get better.We don't need any more outside shooting Kirk,Ben,Noc are all solid long rang shooters.We don't need a guy who can jump out the gym but can't doing anthing else.We are a team that can go with any team in the league until they relize that they are bigger then we are.Remember how much faster we looked against the Wiz last year?Until they started to pound us inside with thier bigs and no disrepect to them but thier bigs aren't that great.Same thing was true with the Heat,we ran circles around them until they started to make are ball handlers shoot jumpers every time.The lack of inside scoring killed us against the Heat.


----------



## nybullsfan (Aug 12, 2005)

i know i did not forget i either want aldridge, thomas, or bargnanai at #2 (in that order) or brewer collins ager fernanadez at #16 (in that other as well)


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

TheDarkPrince said:


> I agree that we need bigs imo both picks should be bigs and nothing else.I'm shocked at how fast people forget that we got put out the playoffs 2 years in a row because we lacked size.We don't need another SF Noc and Deng are both young and will get better.We don't need any more outside shooting Kirk,Ben,Noc are all solid long rang shooters.We don't need a guy who can jump out the gym but can't doing anthing else.We are a team that can go with any team in the league until they relize that they are bigger then we are.Remember how much faster we looked against the Wiz last year?Until they started to pound us inside with thier bigs and no disrepect to them but thier bigs aren't that great.Same thing was true with the Heat,we ran circles around them until they started to make are ball handlers shoot jumpers every time.The lack of inside scoring killed us against the Heat.


You have a point, BUT, I think a lot of people are wanting a big guard to defend James, which I can see (though I don't really agree it's worth a #2 pick). Also a slasher guard or SF would collapse the D, get the opposing Bigs in foul trouble, etc. You don't have to be big to get the job done. Look at Dallas, they aren't "big". They have slashers, big guys who can handle the ball and shoot outside, good quick guards, and tenacious D that collapses on Shaq and makes him pass the ball. We already have most of that except Dirk lol. That's why I want Bargnani. Sure the rest of our guys could probably be upgraded some, but we have at least somewhat compareable guys with good upside at every position except a Dirk-type player. It really depends on what type of team Pax/Skiles wants to have. That's why I say I'm fine with whoever they take (as long as Bargs isn't on the board still lol).


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

What if we add Ben Wallace and do a sign & trade of Duhon & Sweets for Gooden? Then we have an interior defensive presence and an up and coming post player. We could use the #2 pick to select Roy, Gay, or even Thomas. I don't worry much about Roy being the 1st player off of the bench in a 3 guard rotation with Hinrich & Gordon. Duhon got a lot of minutes last year and I would have no problem with Roy taking those minutes, I dout Gordon would either.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> What if we add Ben Wallace and do a sign & trade of Duhon & Sweets for Gooden? Then we have an interior defensive presence and an up and coming post player. We could use the #2 pick to select Roy, Gay, or even Thomas. I don't worry much about Roy being the 1st player off of the bench in a 3 guard rotation with Hinrich & Gordon. Duhon got a lot of minutes last year and I would have no problem with Roy taking those minutes, I dout Gordon would either.


Plus we could still add another big, like Hilton Armstrong at 16, or O'Bryant, should he happen to fall.

ace, what you are describing is just about the perfect offseason, IMO. I would be thrilled if we could pull all that off.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Plus we could still add another big, like Hilton Armstrong at 16, or O'Bryant, should he happen to fall.
> 
> ace, what you are describing is just about the perfect offseason, IMO. I would be thrilled if we could pull all that off.



Yeah it's my dream offseason too. I didn't use to care much for Gooden quite frankly but watching him this year in the playoffs he is clearly growing as a player and has a nice post game. I think this route would be imminently possible too. Gooden can be had Cleveland probably can't afford to pay him what he wants, they will surely want something back and Duhon would be a perfect fit for them and they may have some use for Sweetney as well (which should allow us to dump about 6mil in salary!). So, sign & trade Gooden a contract starting around 6-7 mil, Sign Wallace to a deal that starts at 12 mil (Will Detroit or any other team really pay more than that? I don't think so). Draft Roy, Thomas, whoever Pax thinks is the BPA. Draft a good player at 16, I am not enamored with Amrstrong at all, but Brewer, Simmons if he drops, Shefolosha, maybe even James Augustine or sene, draft who you like there, call it an offseason and you have a pretty damn nice team to compete with next season.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

TheDarkPrince said:


> I agree that we need bigs imo both picks should be bigs and nothing else.I'm shocked at how fast people forget that we got put out the playoffs 2 years in a row because we lacked size.We don't need another SF Noc and Deng are both young and will get better.We don't need any more outside shooting Kirk,Ben,Noc are all solid long rang shooters.We don't need a guy who can jump out the gym but can't doing anthing else.We are a team that can go with any team in the league until they relize that they are bigger then we are.Remember how much faster we looked against the Wiz last year?Until they started to pound us inside with thier bigs and no disrepect to them but thier bigs aren't that great.Same thing was true with the Heat,we ran circles around them until they started to make are ball handlers shoot jumpers every time.The lack of inside scoring killed us against the Heat.


PREACHHH


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> What if we add Ben Wallace and do a sign & trade of Duhon & Sweets for Gooden? Then we have an interior defensive presence and an up and coming post player. We could use the #2 pick to select Roy, Gay, or even Thomas. I don't worry much about Roy being the 1st player off of the bench in a 3 guard rotation with Hinrich & Gordon. Duhon got a lot of minutes last year and I would have no problem with Roy taking those minutes, I dout Gordon would either.


I disagree because I think Gordon and Roy WOULD have a problem giving up minutes to eachother. I'd be willing to bet that Paxson/Skiles view Roy as the 2-Guard they'd RATHER have, and I could see why, he's the perfect compliment to Hinrich.

Roy being selected #2, and coming off the bench? I can't see him being happy, same as Gordon coming off the bench for a rookie.

If they draft Roy, I could see Gordon being moved by the deadline. We'd all love to have them in a 3-guard rotation but I just don't think it would work.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Why not trade Hinrich? When Gordon is guarding point guards, he is every bit as good defensively as Hinrich, he just can't guard the two's as good. We are going to be kicking ourselves if we trade Gordon, he already is better than both Hinrich and Roy, and he'll be better in the future as well. I'm not opposed to starting both Hinrich and Gordon, but Gordon is the one guy on this team you don't want to trade, unless its for a Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett, Tim Duncan level player.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Plus we could still add another big, like Hilton Armstrong at 16, or O'Bryant, should he happen to fall.
> 
> ace, what you are describing is just about the perfect offseason, IMO. I would be thrilled if we could pull all that off.



Ugggh TB. 


We already have Hilton Armstrong in Chandler and sadly CHandler brings more. It's almost a certainty that O'Bryant will be gone. though he'd be great at 16.

I must be one of the few who doesn't want Ben Wallace. On Detroit he is huge. We are not Detroit. If we can't cover for Chandler, how are we gonna cover for Wallace? Wallace's cost is no where near what he brings at this point in his career. This wallace thing reminds me of the obsession with Peja that many had.

The reality is that it is MUCH easier to find a good shooting guard, than it is to find a good to better than average C/PF. That's why Aldridge is such a perfect fit.....and this coming from a guy who would take Bargnani before him. That's also why Nene is the perfect FA big man this off-season....Cause he can play C/PF. Undersized Power forwards are all over the NCAA. 

The only reason we are wowed by Thomas is because he was a man among college guys and his athleticism makes us believe he can jump over everyone (without ever being called for a foul).

SG - At 16 yes, at 2 No. At 4 maybe.

Again, we only need to cover 15-25 minutes of Guard play. We currently need to cover 60+ minutes of front court play. A quality FA will give us 30-36 of that. A John Salmons would easily give us 25 mintues of solid guard play.

Again, Roy is not bringing us SUPERSTAR play, Everyone raves about his very solid and well rounded game. Superstar? At 2 we're grabbing a 6th man......

The irony is Thomas is the biggest risk V Reward guy and Paxson is torn between him and the safest risk v reward guy in Roy. I say split the difference and draft either Aldridge or Bargnani.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

sloth said:


> Why not trade Hinrich? When Gordon is guarding point guards, he is every bit as good defensively as Hinrich, he just can't guard the two's as good. We are going to be kicking ourselves if we trade Gordon, he already is better than both Hinrich and Roy, and he'll be better in the future as well. I'm not opposed to starting both Hinrich and Gordon, but Gordon is the one guy on this team you don't want to trade, unless its for a Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett, Tim Duncan level player.


I think in Pax/Skiles eyes, Hinrich is as untradeable as it gets. They love that kid & I'm sure they'll do whatever they can to make him a career Bull.

I honestly wouldn't wanna see Hinrich traded though, he's perfect in Chicago. But at the same time, I'd hate for Gordon to be traded also.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

The ROY said:


> I disagree because I think Gordon and Roy WOULD have a problem giving up minutes to eachother. I'd be willing to bet that Paxson/Skiles view Roy as the 2-Guard they'd RATHER have, and I could see why, he's the perfect compliment to Hinrich.
> 
> Roy being selected #2, and coming off the bench? I can't see him being happy, same as Gordon coming off the bench for a rookie.
> 
> If they draft Roy, I could see Gordon being moved by the deadline. We'd all love to have them in a 3-guard rotation but I just don't think it would work.



I guess I don't see much of a problem because Duhon would be dealt which would free up a lot of guard minutes for Roy so Roys pt likely wouldn't cut into Gordon's or Hinrichs, maybe a couple of minutes each if Roy is quite good. Roy would be happy as hell because he would be on a team that will definitley be making the playoffs and being competetive in his rookie season!

True Gordon could be moved if Roy is drafted but who knows what they might get for him? I definitley don't see it as a foregone conclusion.


I don't see how anyone could not want Wallace, the guy just changes things on the defensive end and would anchor our interior defense and mentor our younger players like Chandler until he becomes an expiring contract or a retirement. There is something about Aldridge I don't like and I can't quite put my finger on it. He was definitley underutilized at Texas and should flourish on a team that can get him the ball and let him go to work in the post. Something about him just troubles me for some reason. Besides, Toronto may end up taking him #1 anyway. Thats what I would do if I was serious about resigning Bosh.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

The ROY said:


> I disagree because I think Gordon and Roy WOULD have a problem giving up minutes to eachother. I'd be willing to bet that Paxson/Skiles view Roy as the 2-Guard they'd RATHER have, and I could see why, he's the perfect compliment to Hinrich.
> 
> Roy being selected #2, and coming off the bench? I can't see him being happy, same as Gordon coming off the bench for a rookie.
> 
> If they draft Roy, I could see Gordon being moved by the deadline. We'd all love to have them in a 3-guard rotation but I just don't think it would work.


You know what wouldn't work either, long term? Playing Gordon at the 2 guard without having a decent ball handling big guard to play next to him at times. If Chris Duhon were 6'4", we'd be set. But he's not. Kirk Hinrich may do a solid job against Dwyane Wade, but Dwyane is only one inch taller than Kirk (even according to official predraft measurements). When Kirk tries to stop a Vince Carter or a Stephen Jackson, we often find ourselves getting shreaded by a big swingman. Jersey is another team we have a difficult time handling for this reason too. We need a big defensive guard, but it's got to be somebody we can put Ben Gordon on the floor WITH as opposed to benching him against such teams. 

Roy and Brewer are players that can help cement Gordon as a lifelong Bull, not ship him out of town.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

ace20004u said:


> Yeah it's my dream offseason too. I didn't use to care much for Gooden quite frankly but watching him this year in the playoffs he is clearly growing as a player and has a nice post game. I think this route would be imminently possible too. Gooden can be had Cleveland probably can't afford to pay him what he wants, they will surely want something back and Duhon would be a perfect fit for them and they may have some use for Sweetney as well (which should allow us to dump about 6mil in salary!). So, sign & trade Gooden a contract starting around 6-7 mil, Sign Wallace to a deal that starts at 12 mil (Will Detroit or any other team really pay more than that? I don't think so). Draft Roy, Thomas, whoever Pax thinks is the BPA. Draft a good player at 16, I am not enamored with Amrstrong at all, but Brewer, Simmons if he drops, Shefolosha, maybe even James Augustine or sene, draft who you like there, call it an offseason and you have a pretty damn nice team to compete with next season.



This is a plan that covers all the bases and I could definitely live with. It would be nice to see every need addressed. It makes us better immediately without sacrificing long-term growth.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Roy and Brewer are players that can help cement Gordon as a lifelong Bull, not ship him out of town.


Right on! :wordyo:


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> I guess I don't see much of a problem because Duhon would be dealt which would free up a lot of guard minutes for Roy so Roys pt likely wouldn't cut into Gordon's or Hinrichs, maybe a couple of minutes each if Roy is quite good. Roy would be happy as hell because he would be on a team that will definitley be making the playoffs and being competetive in his rookie season!
> 
> True Gordon could be moved if Roy is drafted but who knows what they might get for him? I definitley don't see it as a foregone conclusion.


If Roy & Gordon wouldn't have a problem with the 3-guard rotation, I'm all for that line-up. I'd still prefer Aldridge with the #2 pick though.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

The ROY said:


> If Roy & Gordon wouldn't have a problem with the 3-guard rotation, I'm all for that line-up. I'd still prefer Aldridge with the #2 pick though.


Given that scenario, who would you want #2 if Aldrdidge is picked #1? I want Pax to go bpa for #2 regardless.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Don't you guys think that Deng could come in and cover a big SG? He's even listed as a F-G on the roster, he's what, 6'9"? He's pretty damn athletic, so why not just take a guy like Bargs or whoever is BPA and when Hinrich and Gordon can't guard a star SG, bring in Deng to guard him. His size, length, athleticism might make problems for the other team's star SG. In that scenario, you could have him guard the SG, bring in Bargnani and Chandler as SF and PF, get a C in FA, and have Gordon or Hinrich as the G on the floor at that time. That'd be a pretty athletic lineup, that should be able to score pretty well (even Chandler due to being back at PF...btw, you notice his FG% this year was the best of his career, and his RPG was 2nd highest?) Or you could have Gordon or Hinrich at PG, Deng, Nocioni, Bargnani and Chandler back at Center. I'd prefer not to take Wallace, due to his age and his salary would hinder our ability to resign our young guys.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Don't you guys think that Deng could come in and cover a big SG? He's even listed as a F-G on the roster, he's what, 6'9"? He's pretty damn athletic, so why not just take a guy like Bargs or whoever is BPA and when Hinrich and Gordon can't guard a star SG, bring in Deng to guard him. His size, length, athleticism might make problems for the other team's star SG. In that scenario, you could have him guard the SG, bring in Bargnani and Chandler as SF and PF, get a C in FA, and have Gordon or Hinrich as the G on the floor at that time. That'd be a pretty athletic lineup, that should be able to score pretty well (even Chandler due to being back at PF...btw, you notice his FG% this year was the best of his career, and his RPG was 2nd highest?) Or you could have Gordon or Hinrich at PG, Deng, Nocioni, Bargnani and Chandler back at Center. I'd prefer not to take Wallace, due to his age and his salary would hinder our ability to resign our young guys.


Thats a nice thought but Deng hasn't shown the footspeed or lateral quickness to stay in front of the Lebrons & Kobes of the world. And I don't think signing Wallace would hinder the Bulls ability to resign our own guys. You can go over the cap to sign your own free agents and even with Wallace's salary in the mix we shouldn't have to go TOO much over the cap to keep everyone we want.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

ace20004u said:


> Thats a nice thought but Deng hasn't shown the footspeed or lateral quickness to stay in front of the Lebrons & Kobes of the world. And I don't think signing Wallace would hinder the Bulls ability to resign our own guys. You can go over the cap to sign your own free agents and even with Wallace's salary in the mix we shouldn't have to go TOO much over the cap to keep everyone we want.


Most of the games I've seen lately he looked pretty quick and athletic, but he wasn't guarding a guard either, so that makes a difference. The size advantage would make up for some of the lack of speed if he would be able to block them from behind once he's beat....this is all speculation of course. The thing about Wallace is that they can go over the cap, but WILL they?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Most of the games I've seen lately he looked pretty quick and athletic, but he wasn't guarding a guard either, so that makes a difference. The size advantage would make up for some of the lack of speed if he would be able to block them from behind once he's beat....this is all speculation of course. The thing about Wallace is that they can go over the cap, but WILL they?


Deng definitley has some advantages too but I just haven't seen the footspeed or lateral quickness to stick the guys we need him to stick. Maybe that develops? he IS still young.
I think they will go over the cap at some point in time, you almost have to if you want to be one of the upper echelon teams which is what we are shooting for. Besides, I don't think we will have to go over the cap by MUCH to resign our players and have Wallace here.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

ace20004u said:


> Deng definitley has some advantages too but I just haven't seen the footspeed or lateral quickness to stick the guys we need him to stick. Maybe that develops? he IS still young.
> I think they will go over the cap at some point in time, you almost have to if you want to be one of the upper echelon teams which is what we are shooting for. Besides, I don't think we will have to go over the cap by MUCH to resign our players and have Wallace here.


I'm sure that some of it would develop over time as he gets more experience and older. I know that I personally was a late bloomer. In my early 20s even though I was only about 1/10 as active as I was in high school (played every sport) I was bigger, faster, stronger and more coordinated. I even developed a left handed hook shot from nowhere. I couldn't do anything left handed in high school very well, but in a pickup game when I was 20 surprised myself with it lol. My reasoning in sharing that is he might be a late bloomer type like that where he could get considerably quicker, stronger, more athletic just due to getting older. As for the salary cap, I don't really know the details in how all that works. Not 100% sure how the luxury tax works either.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Not 100% sure how the luxury tax works either.


Here is a pretty good primer on the LT, from Larry ****.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#16


If you really want to get deep, here is a paper from my man, my main man, Dan Rosenbaum.

http://www.uncg.edu/eco/rosenbaum/luxurytax1.pdf


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Here is a pretty good primer on the LT, from Larry ****.
> 
> http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#16
> 
> ...


Thanks my man! Was an econ major in college, so I like this sort of stuff. :cheers:


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> Given that scenario, who would you want #2 if Aldrdidge is picked #1? I want Pax to go bpa for #2 regardless.


Problem is, who's the BPA? Depending on your team and needs, any of the top 6 could be the best availible.

If Aldridge isn't there, I'd want to trade.

And as far as that 'Deng guarding SG's' talk, he has enough problems defending quicker SF's.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

The ROY said:


> Problem is, who's the BPA? Depending on your team and needs, any of the top 6 could be the best availible.
> 
> If Aldridge isn't there, I'd want to trade.
> 
> And as far as that 'Deng guarding SG's' talk, he has enough problems defending quicker SF's.


Well, we all have our personal favorites on who the bpa is, but the Bulls have a lot more access and resources than we do so I am guessing Pax has a much better idea at this point than myself, even thuough I do have my own little draft board.

I think, if the bpa is very close to another player and that other player also fills a need for us then we pick that player. If however, there is a lot of distance in their abilities we go with the bpa and then do whatever we need to do with him, keep, trade, etc. 

I do think most years, this year included, there will be 1-3 players that are bpa's and at the highest level and then there is everybody else, one or two of which may end up being the Arenas or Ben Wallace of the draft.


----------



## Plush4life (May 26, 2006)

> How is Aldridge not a real big? 15ppg, 9rpg & 2bpg...how is Tyrus not a real big? 13ppg, 9rpg, 3bpg...In situations where they weren't even #1 options...please...


If college numbers were everything, there would be no point of scouts and jj reddick would be a top 5 pick.

You think those numbers prove they can play in the nba..check this out buddy

86-87 Vanderbilt 30.4 59.9 0.0 61.8 8.7 1.5 2.1 2.1 0.4 17.4
87-88 Vanderbilt 32.7 63.4 0.0 67.3 10.1 2.6 2.1 2.4 0.4 18.3

Hmm..this player put up over 18 pts, over 2 blocks, and 10 boards a game his senior year. Sounds like somone who turned into a player who can take a team to the next level.....oh...no..wait..




These numbers belong to will perdue!!!

CHECK AND MATE


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

OK

Regardless, a BIG will be drafted #2 by Chicago. I'll put MONEY on it. Since the Maglore/Villanueva trade will possibly go down, Bargnani will wind up in TO. Which leaves us with 6"11, F/C LaMarcus Aldridge.

Hinrich/Gordon/Deng/Nocioni/Aldridge = Future of the LEAGUE


----------



## BDMcGee (May 12, 2006)

I really think that the Bulls should select Brandon Roy #2 overall. Yes the Bulls need size, but I think people are taking too much of a shortsighted view on improving the team. I really don't like the big-men in this draft very much. Bargnani is probably the best one with the highest ceiling but look at how all of the recent Europeans compared to Dirk have panned out. Why can't the Bulls take a bigger guard, which they desperately need instead of a big-man? Anyone who watches the Bulls closely can see that their backcourt is too small to play together full-time. Kirk does an admirable job on opposing team's big two-guards, but he's simply not big enough to guard them consistently. The Bulls get abused by bigger guards such as Kobe Bryant, Richard Hamilton, Vince Carter, Paul Pierce, and Michael Redd. Those guys either go right over the top of the Bulls guards or they abuse Gordon, Hinrich, and Duhon in the post causing them to get in foul trouble. That's why Brandon Roy would make sense. He has the necessary size to guard the big two-guards, yet also put pressure on them when they're on defense due to his great slashing ability. 

Honestly, I would prefer that the Bulls wait until next year to address their big-man situation. I wouldn't mind them bringing in some solid role players through free agency or trade, but I wouldn't mortgage the future on a player like Ben Wallace. He's good, but his value is overrated. Yes he's a great rebounder and sound defender, but he also can't score and shoots about 40% from the free-throw line. We already have that in a 7-footer in Tyson Chandler so why sign a clone that is 6'9? Looking at the draft next year, they aren't calling it the big-man draft for nothing. Greg Oden, Yi Jianlian, Joakim Noah, Josh McRoberts, etc., etc. They're are going to be tons of talented big-men next year and the Bulls can swap picks with the Knicks so they would be assured of getting a good one. I just think they should wait until next year to get their big-man of the future. Yeah, we would have to be tortured watching our porous front-line for another season, but the Bulls are a young team. They have a wide window to contend. They shouldn't go for the quick fix. Roy should be the pick at #2.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

McGee I agree with you except for the Ben Wallace part. Big Ben is a monster who could help the Bulls immensely. He is an intimidator, in a league short on intimidators.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> McGee I agree with you except for the Ben Wallace part. Big Ben is a monster who could help the Bulls immensely. He is an intimidator, in a league short on intimidators.



Agreed. What is important to me in considering Wallace is that the intangibles he brings to a team are nearly as important as his quantifiable contributions. He gives a team definition. An identity. I would assume opposing guards give much more thought to slashing through the lane when Big Ben is back there than they would to Tyson Chandler. That type of contribution to a team may not show up on paper anywhere besides the W/L column.


----------



## BDMcGee (May 12, 2006)

jnrjr79 said:


> Agreed. What is important to me in considering Wallace is that the intangibles he brings to a team are nearly as important as his quantifiable contributions. He gives a team definition. An identity. I would assume opposing guards give much more thought to slashing through the lane when Big Ben is back there than they would to Tyson Chandler. That type of contribution to a team may not show up on paper anywhere besides the W/L column.


These things are true, but does he really fit on this team? He's a big-man with small hands and virtually no offensive skills. We already have that with Tyson. I know Wallace is better than Tyson but is he really worth breaking the bank open for this summer? He's a good player but to me he simply doesn't have the impact on the game that you would want in a superstar. He's a black hole offensively and he's one of the worst free-throw shooters in NBA history. He makes Shaq look like Reggie Miller on the line. The Bulls don't need another big-man with no offensive skills. They need to get taller, more athletic and more talented on the front-line. Wallace would help in the second aspect but not the rest. If we wouldn't have wasted 60 million on Tyson last summer I could see the point in getting him, but not right now.


----------



## dogra (Nov 12, 2003)

I would MUCH RATHER draft Bargnani or Aldridge with the #2 pick and then try to trade up to get a player like Brewer who, barring some measurement surprise, would appear to have better size and a better wingspan than Roy anyway.

It also seems to me that a player like Brewer would be more willing to play third banana to Kirk and Ben than Roy would.

Plus we'd have a big who could score and defend a little.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

BDMcGee said:


> These things are true, but does he really fit on this team? He's a big-man with small hands and virtually no offensive skills. We already have that with Tyson. I know Wallace is better than Tyson but is he really worth breaking the bank open for this summer? He's a good player but to me he simply doesn't have the impact on the game that you would want in a superstar. He's a black hole offensively and he's one of the worst free-throw shooters in NBA history. He makes Shaq look like Reggie Miller on the line. The Bulls don't need another big-man with no offensive skills. They need to get taller, more athletic and more talented on the front-line. Wallace would help in the second aspect but not the rest. If we wouldn't have wasted 60 million on Tyson last summer I could see the point in getting him, but not right now.


Great post.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

dogra said:


> I would MUCH RATHER draft Bargnani or Aldridge with the #2 pick and then try to trade up to get a player like Brewer who, barring some measurement surprise, would appear to have better size and a better wingspan than Roy anyway.
> 
> It also seems to me that a player like Brewer would be more willing to play third banana to Kirk and Ben than Roy would.
> 
> Plus we'd have a big who could score and defend a little.


I agree. Better to take Bargnani at 2 and get whoever we can at 16 to fill the other needs, or trade up to get one if possible.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

The ROY said:


> OK
> 
> Regardless, a BIG will be drafted #2 by Chicago. I'll put MONEY on it. Since the Maglore/Villanueva trade will possibly go down, Bargnani will wind up in TO. Which leaves us with 6"11, F/C LaMarcus Aldridge.
> 
> Hinrich/Gordon/Deng/Nocioni/Aldridge = Future of the LEAGUE


Don't forget Kevin Durant in 07.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> Don't forget Kevin Durant in 07.



Also, Let's remember that last year at this time were weren't talking about the following players in this draft:

Bargnani, Thomas, Roy, Morrison, Noah and need I go on...?

Point is that there are always guys who come out of the woodworks to become "gotta considers".



As for drafting Roy - Only if Bargnani and Aldridge are off the board. At 16 you have a grat chance of finding a guy who can give you 20+ minutes a game at SG......not to mention FA (Salmons, Johnson).

To honestly think Roy is gonna stop Kobe or Lebron is is hilarious. Nobody stops those guys but themselves, their teammates and/or their Coaches/GM's. Also, I watched (as I'm sure many of you did) Deng hang in very well with LeBron. 

As for the notion that drafting Roy keeps Gordon here for life.............I guess that means you think Hinrich will leave. OR you believe that Roy is gonna be a rotational guy getting 25 minutes a game. In that case, I'd suggest he's not as valauble as we think. 

Hinrich is gonna play 36 each night. Gordon wants (thinks he deserves, etc..) to play 36 minutes a night. That leaves our guy Roy playing 24. It also puts coaches fav "Duhon" on the bench for playing the right way and being selfless????????? I don't see it. I think Roy is a one way ticket for Gordon to be traded. I wouldn't mind as I think he is one of the few Bulls with a good amount of trade value, but still, I love seeing him in a Bulls uni hitting 3's and playing hard.

Is Aldridge the next Bosh? Who knows. Is he the next Chandler? Not likely, he's already better than him all around. He immediately becomes our best front court player (as would Bargnani, and you could argue Thomas would be as well). That's how bad our frontcourt really is. As for the notioni we can bank on two FA big men, nothing is certain in FA. So, while I'm hopeful players will want to come here, that's not a guarantee. Just ask Krause..............sometimes it isn't all about the money.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

BDMcGee said:


> Honestly, I would prefer that the Bulls wait until next year to address their big-man situation. They shouldn't go for the quick fix. Roy should be the pick at #2.


SMH

What's the point in WAITING to go to the next level when we can do it NOW?

I don't have a problem with Roy, but we need BIG's, BOTTOM line.

If Roy was a NEXT LEVEL SG, then I wouldn't have a problem.

We need a BIG more than another good guard.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

The Krakken said:


> Don't forget Kevin Durant in 07.


don't remind me!!

Durant = THE FUTURE


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

One additional thought on Roy as the number 2 pick.

Everyone applauds his well rounded game, but agrees he's not superstaresque.


Ummmm, isn't that what Aldridge is already as a big man, with the real potential to be a superstar?

Seriously, the only knock on Aldridge is he didn't blow up teams (but I watched enough games to know he could've and might have is he was more selfish and didn't play with two of the worst and most selfish guards in the NCAA.

His game is very well rounded. He's like Roy actually. Not alot of holes in his overall game. He's not gonna come in and dominate, but he will certainly come in and contribute. That's much ahrder for a Big man, than a guard in the NBA.

SO again in my eyes, both players bring equal things, but ALDRIDGE gives us something we are so desperate for that most of us were claiming "draft two bigs and sign two bigs in FA" all season.

AND waiting for next year is never a good optioni, especially when you are banking on another team sucking. Too many things can occur. No one predicted the Knicks would finish with the 2nd worst record last year at this time. And if they do ro we luck into the #1, is it Oden (based on potential) or is it Durant? And NEVER forget, BIGS always have a inflated trade value because they are so hard to find.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

If Paxson drafts Roy, I'd have to question every pick he makes in the future.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

sloth said:


> If Paxson drafts Roy, I'd have to question every pick he makes in the future.


I agree to an extent

I think we all know Roy is a good player. But Ben Gordon doesn't HURT us enough to have to draft another guard with the #2 pick. Not only could we use the #16 pick to get a SG, but we can also move up or look for one in free agency.

It's not a GIVEN that Gooden, Nene, Wilcox or Pryzbilla will be able to be brought in. The only one that seems certain at this point is Nazr and that addition won't change MUCH for our team.

Not only does bringing in a player like Aldridge or Bargnani give you a young big with more UPSIDE than the FA classes big's, but it also POSSIBLY gives us a future star or atleast something close to it.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

chifaninca said:


> One additional thought on Roy as the number 2 pick.
> 
> Everyone applauds his well rounded game, but agrees he's not superstaresque.
> 
> ...


PREACH!


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

The ROY said:


> I agree to an extent
> 
> I think we all know Roy is a good player. But Ben Gordon doesn't HURT us enough to have to draft another guard with the #2 pick. Not only could we use the #16 pick to get a SG, but we can also move up or look for one in free agency.
> 
> ...


Yeah, the hype of Roy on this board got out of hand on this board. People were still bitter that Wade developed into a star, that they are labeling Roy the next Wade, blah blah blah, Roy can be solid, but there are other do everything guards in the league like JR Smith that aren't dominant forces in the league. I'd rather take Ronnie Brewer than Brandon Roy, and Brewer might be available at 16, or at the very least if we trade up a few spots. 

I think Paxson will draft Reddick at 16 if we take Aldridge #2, and if no one major slips. People will say, oh no, not Reddick, but if Reddick proves he can score off the dribble in the workout, I think you have to take the NCAA player of the year in both awards at 16. If he is just a spot up shooter, we could use a guy that hits nearly every open shot too. Reddick seems like a good pick at 16 if Brewer or Simmons doesn't fall.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

sloth said:


> Yeah, the hype of Roy on this board got out of hand on this board. People were still bitter that Wade developed into a star, that they are labeling Roy the next Wade, blah blah blah, Roy can be solid, but there are other do everything guards in the league like JR Smith that aren't dominant forces in the league. I'd rather take Ronnie Brewer than Brandon Roy, and Brewer might be available at 16, or at the very least if we trade up a few spots.
> 
> I think Paxson will draft Reddick at 16 if we take Aldridge #2, and if no one major slips. People will say, oh no, not Reddick, but if Reddick proves he can score off the dribble in the workout, I think you have to take the NCAA player of the year in both awards at 16. If he is just a spot up shooter, we could use a guy that hits nearly every open shot too. Reddick seems like a good pick at 16 if Brewer or Simmons doesn't fall.


I agree with the hype being crazy. There is no "wow" factor to Roy's game, he's just a solid, all-around good guard. He's gonna help some team's definintely, but this is still a weak draft & it's making him look ALOT better than he really is.

I don't think Reddick slides to #16. Utah, Orlando or Houston are all talking about taking him if he falls. Houston being the latest to be "wowed" by his game @ a recent workout.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

The ROY said:


> I agree with the hype being crazy. There is no "wow" factor to Roy's game, he's just a solid, all-around good guard. He's gonna help some team's definintely, but this is still a weak draft & it's making him look ALOT better than he really is.
> 
> I don't think Reddick slides to #16. Utah, Orlando or Houston are all talking about taking him if he falls. Houston being the latest to be "wowed" by his game @ a recent workout.


Orlando is the main one that worries me. I think Houston would take Brewer, Carney, or Williams over him. I think Sene is Utah's pick. And Reddick is a Paxson type guy, and the top player in college basketball, I know people loathe Reddick for whatever reason, but come on, the best guy in college basketball at 16, SIXTEEN. If Reddick's there, I think he should be our pick unless like someone falls majorly.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Problem with reddick is, he doesn't fill a need. 6"4, doesn't play defense and is only good at shooting and free-throws.

Problem is, we need an athletic sg, who can handle the ball and guard star 2guards. I'd rather have Maurice Ager, athletic, can score like crazy & has the potential to be a lockdown defender.

I like Reddick though, but Orlando or Houston would be PERFECT for him.


----------



## BDMcGee (May 12, 2006)

sloth said:


> Yeah, the hype of Roy on this board got out of hand on this board. People were still bitter that Wade developed into a star, that they are labeling Roy the next Wade, blah blah blah, Roy can be solid, but there are other do everything guards in the league like JR Smith that aren't dominant forces in the league. I'd rather take Ronnie Brewer than Brandon Roy, and Brewer might be available at 16, or at the very least if we trade up a few spots.
> 
> I think Paxson will draft Reddick at 16 if we take Aldridge #2, and if no one major slips. People will say, oh no, not Reddick, but if Reddick proves he can score off the dribble in the workout, I think you have to take the NCAA player of the year in both awards at 16. If he is just a spot up shooter, we could use a guy that hits nearly every open shot too. Reddick seems like a good pick at 16 if Brewer or Simmons doesn't fall.


Brandon Roy is not overhyped. He may not be a spectacular athlete, but he can ball better than 99% of the other players in this draft. He will be much better than J.R. Smith. Smith never went to college and has a bad attitude. Roy stayed all four years and has a much better feel and understanding of the game than Smith will ever have. Taking Brewer over Roy is ridiculous. Ronnie will be a solid defender in the league, but not much more. His shot is ugly and he only shot 43% from the field last season. He'll never be the type of scorer Roy is and he's only an inch taller anyways.

How can you say we should take Redick at #16? What does he do that Ben Gordon doesn't already do 10 times better? Redick will be a one-dimensional spot-up shooter in the NBA. He's undersized and doesn't have the foot-speed to guard anyone. At least Gordon is athletic and can create his own shot sometimes. It makes no sense how some people don't think we should take Roy but would like to see Redick taken at #16.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

BDMcGee said:


> How can you say we should take Redick at #16?


That would be what I refer to as a "luxury pick". A team in our position can afford to make a luxury pick at #16, but not at #2. 

Roy, at #2, is a luxury pick.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

sloth said:


> Yeah, the hype of Roy on this board got out of hand on this board. People were still bitter that Wade developed into a star, that they are labeling Roy the next Wade, blah blah blah, Roy can be solid, but there are other do everything guards in the league like JR Smith that aren't dominant forces in the league. I'd rather take Ronnie Brewer than Brandon Roy, and Brewer might be available at 16, or at the very least if we trade up a few spots.
> 
> I think Paxson will draft Reddick at 16 if we take Aldridge #2, and if no one major slips. People will say, oh no, not Reddick, but if Reddick proves he can score off the dribble in the workout, I think you have to take the NCAA player of the year in both awards at 16. If he is just a spot up shooter, we could use a guy that hits nearly every open shot too. Reddick seems like a good pick at 16 if Brewer or Simmons doesn't fall.


"Do everything guards like JR Smith"?!?!?


----------



## BDMcGee (May 12, 2006)

The ROY said:


> SMH
> 
> What's the point in WAITING to go to the next level when we can do it NOW?
> 
> ...


This is the flawed thinking that many of us Bulls fans have had. We've been looking for quick fixes instead of trying to make this team special. I think we all agree that we want the Bulls to be championship contenders. The thing is, in order to do that you need stars. Brandon Roy will be a star in the NBA. He doesn't wow you with athleticism, but he's plenty athletic enough and can get his own shot whenever he wants. He could be a 20-plus point per game scorer if he so desires. Yes, we need size, but is either Tyrus Thomas or LaMarcus Aldridge really the answer to our problems? I don't think so. Thomas is a freak, but he's only 218 pounds. That's not big enough to play inside in the NBA. Aldridge is solid, but not spectacular. He'll be a solid 15-17 point per game scorer, but nothing special. If the Bulls rack up on good, but not great big-men, they won't be good enough to be championship contenders. Sure they'll win 45-50 games every year, but they won't be talented enough to contend for the title. Detroit is the only team in recent memory who has been able to win with primarily role players. They did a great job, but that's not the blueprint the Bulls should follow. You need stars to win. The only big-man in this draft I see that could become a star is Bargnani. If he's on the board they should take him, but they'll be screwed if they reach for Thomas or Aldridge at #2.


----------



## BDMcGee (May 12, 2006)

Ron Cey said:


> That would be what I refer to as a "luxury pick". A team in our position can afford to make a luxury pick at #16, but not at #2.
> 
> Roy, at #2, is a luxury pick.


I kind of understand where you're getting at, but I still have to disagree. What's wrong with taking one of the top-3 best players in the draft at #2? I know Roy wouldn't even be a top-5 pick in most drafts, but this is a weaker draft and I can't find many players better than him. He would be an upgrade of over Ben Gordon and would give this team a playmaker. He can get his own shot whenever he wants and can find open teammates when defenses collapse on him. He can consistently take over games, which no other current Bull can do. It's just sad how most people listen to scouts' jargon about "how he doesn't have the upside, or isn't that athletic, or doesn't wow you with any one thing." There have been a lot of great players who haven't been freakishly athletic. Roy will be another. Roy makes sense because he brings a dimension the Bulls need and currently don't have. Redick makes no sense because he doesn't. With his lack of athleticism and defensive ability it's hard to believe he would even make the Bulls rotation. It would be a wasted pick if they took him at #16.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

BDMcGee said:


> I kind of understand where you're getting at, but I still have to disagree. What's wrong with taking one of the top-3 best players in the draft at #2? I know Roy wouldn't even be a top-5 pick in most drafts, but this is a weaker draft and I can't find many players better than him. He would be an upgrade of over Ben Gordon and would give this team a playmaker. He can get his own shot whenever he wants and can find open teammates when defenses collapse on him. He can consistently take over games, which no other current Bull can do. It's just sad how most people listen to scouts' jargon about "how he doesn't have the upside, or isn't that athletic, or doesn't wow you with any one thing." There have been a lot of great players who haven't been freakishly athletic. Roy will be another. Roy makes sense because he brings a dimension the Bulls need and currently don't have. Redick makes no sense because he doesn't. With his lack of athleticism and defensive ability it's hard to believe he would even make the Bulls rotation. It would be a wasted pick if they took him at #16.


Roy is good. No doubt. Can't say he's "an upgrade over Ben Gordon" though. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. Thats kind of the point. 

"Maybe so, maybe not" can't really be said about the bigs when asking if they are an upgrade over what we have now. They are. It would be difficult not to be. 

Roy is a luxury. He is not a need. 

As for Reddick, I don't advocate drafting him at #16. I'm just not worried about it. If the Bulls draft him, they've added the luxury of another backcourt scorer. He doesn't fill a need, I agree. 

But I can live with not filling needs at #16. 

Not at #2. 

Not when the Bulls have arguably the worst 4/5 rotation in the NBA. 

Especially not when no player in the top 6 has really distinguished himself above the others.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

I suppose Roy wouldn't be a bad choice, but if the Bulls do indeed take him, Ben Gordon better be on the next flight out of town to net us a quality big man. Last thing I want to hear with Roy is the words "3 guard rotation." If you take a guy at #2, he should be a 35-min-per-game starter without the need for a quality backup at his position.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Ron Cey said:


> Roy is a luxury. He is not a need.


BINGO.

All this "Roy will be a star" talk is a bit far-fetched. Me and the MAJORITY of Bulls fans wanting a big out of this draft isn't flawed thinking, it's REAL TALK. Bargnani, Thomas & Aldridge got just as much potential as Roy, if not MUCH more. How exactly have we been going for quick fixes? If that was the case, Pax would have already traded some of our young guys for a superstar. What Riley did with Shaq was a QUICK fix, right now it's not looking like the smartest of moves either. Even Cuban entertained the Shaq for Dirk talks and I'm pretty sure he's quite happy right now that he didn't.

If you honestly think Roy is the player that's taking this team to the NEXT level, I'd have to say, your thinking is a bit more "flawed" than others. He's a good player, a great fit as a bull, but at #2 he really isn't a NEED, more like a WANT for some of you. Getting a good productive big in FA this year isn't a given, neither is relying on a 2007 lotto pick from NY.

@ #2, we have a chance of grabbing 1 of 3 BIG's, all of whom could possibly become special players and be major contributors (sooner or later) to a team on the rise in an area where we SORELY lack. You don't pass that up for another Guard, one's who's good but not GREAT at anything.

I don't know about you all, but getting exposed TWO years straight because of our lack of size is FRUSTRATING as hell to watch. Especially when our Guards and SF's are the ONLY reason we were even in position to win those two series.


----------



## BDMcGee (May 12, 2006)

Ron Cey said:


> Roy is good. No doubt. Can't say he's "an upgrade over Ben Gordon" though. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. Thats kind of the point.
> 
> "Maybe so, maybe not" can't really be said about the bigs when asking if they are an upgrade over what we have now. They are. It would be difficult not to be.
> 
> ...


Roy is an upgrade over Ben Gordon. I have no doubt about that in my mind. I've loved Ben Gordon since he was at UConn, and I despised Roy's Washington team as I'm a diehard Arizona fan, but Roy will be better long-term. Their talent is equal, but Roy has better size, is a better all-around player, and has a better feel for the game. 

I'm tired of going through this again. Yes, the top big-men in this draft are better than the ones we have. So what? That's not saying much. With the exception of Bargnani, there's nothing special about the big-men in this draft. I can't see Tyrus Thomas or LaMarcus Aldridge being that much better than Eddy Curry and the Bulls were good with Curry, but not great. In order to contend you need to be great. You need stars, go-to players, etc. The Bulls need to address that at some point. If we took Thomas or Aldridge we would be better but we would still have no go-to guy and no size in the backcourt. At least Roy would give us some size and a bonafide go-to guy. I don't want this team to be like the Memphis Grizzlies. They have a ton of solid players. They're stacked at every position and are a good team. But they can't get to the next level because they lack star-power, play-makers, go-to guys, etc. The Bulls would suffer the same fate if they simply choose to fill a need instead of taking the best players available.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

BDMcGee said:


> I'm tired of going through this again. Yes, the top big-men in this draft are better than the ones we have. So what? That's not saying much. With the exception of Bargnani, there's nothing special about the big-men in this draft. I can't see Tyrus Thomas or LaMarcus Aldridge being that much better than Eddy Curry and the Bulls were good with Curry, but not great. In order to contend you need to be great. You need stars, go-to players, etc. The Bulls need to address that at some point. If we took Thomas or Aldridge we would be better but we would still have no go-to guy and no size in the backcourt. At least Roy would give us some size and a bonafide go-to guy. I don't want this team to be like the Memphis Grizzlies. They have a ton of solid players. They're stacked at every position and are a good team. But they can't get to the next level because they lack star-power, play-makers, go-to guys, etc. The Bulls would suffer the same fate if they simply choose to fill a need instead of taking the best players available.


The question still remains, is he the BEST availible though? You seem to have it made up that if we can't get Roy, we won't get size in the backcourt from ANYWHERE ELSE. That's simply not the case. Gordon doesn't make plays? Gordon's not a go-to player? Gordon lacks star power? What is this whole "Roy will be our go-to guy and lead us to glory" mentality I'm hearing? There's a possiblity Ronnie Brewer would be a better PLAYER and fit in Chicago.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Roy is an upgrade over Ben Gordon. I have no doubt about that in my mind. I've loved Ben Gordon since he was at UConn, and I despised Roy's Washington team as I'm a diehard Arizona fan, but Roy will be better long-term. Their talent is equal, but Roy has better size, is a better all-around player, and has a better feel for the game.


When I read that, I read "marginally better". That isn't good enough of a reason to take him #2 over a big man when we already have Ben Gordon in place. Not to me, anyway. 



> I'm tired of going through this again.


Then don't. :wink: 



> Yes, the top big-men in this draft are better than the ones we have. So what?


The "so what" is that it will improve the team in an area of far more pressing need for improvement. 



> That's not saying much. With the exception of Bargnani, there's nothing special about the big-men in this draft.


I don't agree with that. Aldridge has the fundamentals, the talent, and the athleticism to be a very good big man. Very good. 

Thomas has the sheer athleticism to be elite. Assuming he develops him game. 



> I can't see Tyrus Thomas or LaMarcus Aldridge being that much better than Eddy Curry and the Bulls were good with Curry, but not great.


They'd have to hurt the team to not be better than Curry. 



> In order to contend you need to be great. You need stars, go-to players, etc. The Bulls need to address that at some point.


I agree with this to an extent. Though I think there are a couple of potential "star" level players on this team right now. 

Of course, I have no idea what this has to do with Brandon Roy. 



> If we took Thomas or Aldridge we would be better but we would still have no go-to guy and no size in the backcourt.


Ben Gordon is becoming, and often is, a go-to-guy. I don't really care about the size issue that much. It needs to be addressed at some point, but as a luxury, not a dire need. I disagree with Paxson on this point. 



> At least Roy would give us some size and a bonafide go-to guy.


The former is true. The latter is theoretical.



> I don't want this team to be like the Memphis Grizzlies. They have a ton of solid players. They're stacked at every position and are a good team. But they can't get to the next level because they lack star-power, play-makers, go-to guys, etc. The Bulls would suffer the same fate if they simply choose to fill a need instead of taking the best players available.


Were the "best player available" significantly better than the "need" players, I'd agree with you. But that isn't the case this year. Not in my opinion. Hence my very strong desire that Brandon Roy not be taken with the #2 pick.

If the Bulls want to take a flyer on the guy that can be the "star" then Gay or Thomas is where its at.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

The ROY said:


> The question still remains, is he the BEST availible though


The question still remains, which one of Bargnani, Aldridge or Thomas has us set for our big man of the future.


From what I've seen, the answer is they each have some positive qualities, but ultimately, none of the above, especially with Thomas and Bargnani, who are definitely more 4 than 5 in the NBA (and Thomas even sees himself as more 3 than 4), which pushes Tyson even further into the uncomfortabe position (for us) of him at center.


I understand that our greatest need is for a center. No question. However, taking a guy at #2 just because he is big doesn't make any sense, if he doesn't look to be a long term impact player for your team. Better to take a project center at 16, sign a big guy FA or two, and look to 2007 to draft a high quality big.


If we draft and keep any of the top 3 bigs, we need to trade Tyson. While that may seem an appealing prospect to some after last season, I think 

1.it would be a long term mistake, since I see him making a return to form with a better offseason, and hopefully, a return to PF, and 

2. it is next to impossible, if we want value in return. He just signed an immense contract, and last year has his marketability pretty damn low for the time being.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> When I read that, I read "marginally better". That isn't good enough of a reason to take him #2 over a big man when we already have Ben Gordon in place. Not to me, anyway.


When you say Ben Gordon is "in place," do you really think Skiles and Paxson are comfortable with him as their full time 2 guard? Do you think he and Hinrich are going to be the big minute-getters of the next 5-6 years? I don't think those two are comfortable with that, and the general discomfort comes from Gordon's size and his defensive abilities, or lack thereof. Ben is getting better, but to be a championship level 2-guard at 6-2 or 6-3, you have to play Joe Dumars defense. Ben isn't there yet.

A versatile guard like Roy (or maybe Brewer) can help cement Gordon as a future Bull, not necessarily allow the team to trade him. Both Roy and Brewer seem like perfect fits to get spot minutes at 1, 2, and 3. Both could guard bigger guards or even swingmen in a pinch. Gordon would be able to continue guarding point guards and playing off the ball some on offense. Hinrich, meanwhile, could split his time between guarding point guards and shooting guards, which would hopefully tax him a little less. 

This is EXACTLY the type of player we need to KEEP Ben Gordon on this roster. Right now, he seems to be "in place" for only the time being.


----------



## BDMcGee (May 12, 2006)

The ROY said:


> BINGO.
> 
> All this "Roy will be a star" talk is a bit far-fetched. Me and the MAJORITY of Bulls fans wanting a big out of this draft isn't flawed thinking, it's REAL TALK. Bargnani, Thomas & Aldridge got just as much potential as Roy, if not MUCH more. How exactly have we been going for quick fixes? If that was the case, Pax would have already traded some of our young guys for a superstar. What Riley did with Shaq was a QUICK fix, right now it's not looking like the smartest of moves either. Even Cuban entertained the Shaq for Dirk talks and I'm pretty sure he's quite happy right now that he didn't.
> 
> ...


You may think Roy being a star is far-fetched, but have you really seen him play much or at all? Or are you basing your opinion on what scouts have said about him. If you watched Roy play this year, you would know that he's special. He's not the most exciting player out there, but the only guys as good as him were Redick and Morrison and he's a more complete player than they are. Contrary to what most scouts believe, he has more than enough athleticism to become a star in the NBA.

I never said the Bulls have gone for quick fixes. I said Bulls fans are looking for the quick fix by wanting to take inferior big-men. I've liked what Paxson has done building for the future and not looking for the quick fix. I don't know why you thought I thought otherwise. You're wrong if you think Thomas and Aldridge have as much or more potential than Roy. Thomas might have as much, but that's only if he puts on another 25-30 pounds. Are you sure he's going to do that? You can't be, no one is. LaMarcus Aldridge is a talent, but there's something missing with him. How can you shoot 2-14 in an elite eight game, when you're a 6'11 post player? I don't know what's wrong with him, but he should be better than he is. Bargnani is the only player you mentioned who could be special. I wouldn't disagree with them taking him, but he might not be on the board.

I understand why you're frustrated with our lack of size. I am too, but don't be lured into wanting to go for need over the best talent/player available. If Pax and Skiles feel that Roy is the best player on the board, they should take him regardless of what people might think.


----------



## BDMcGee (May 12, 2006)

Ron Cey said:


> When I read that, I read "marginally better". That isn't good enough of a reason to take him #2 over a big man when we already have Ben Gordon in place. Not to me, anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ben Gordon is the go-to guy? That's news to me. He averaged 16.9 points per game on 42% shooting. That doesn't sound like a go-to guy to me. If he was the go-to guy, where was he when we couldn't score against the Heat? I disagree that the size issue isn't a big deal. It is a big deal when your point guard is forced to guard 6'6-6'7 players every night because your shooting guard can't. I think that's a big reason why Kirk's shooting percentages are so low and he runs out of gas so much, because he has the toughest defensive assignment nightly. That's why Roy would make sense.


----------



## BDMcGee (May 12, 2006)

The ROY said:


> The question still remains, is he the BEST availible though? You seem to have it made up that if we can't get Roy, we won't get size in the backcourt from ANYWHERE ELSE. That's simply not the case. Gordon doesn't make plays? Gordon's not a go-to player? Gordon lacks star power? What is this whole "Roy will be our go-to guy and lead us to glory" mentality I'm hearing? There's a possiblity Ronnie Brewer would be a better PLAYER and fit in Chicago.


No way Brewer would be a better player or fit in chicago than Roy.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

BDMcGee said:


> You may think Roy being a star is far-fetched, but have you really seen him play much or at all? Or are you basing your opinion on what scouts have said about him. If you watched Roy play this year, you would know that he's special. He's not the most exciting player out there, but the only guys as good as him were Redick and Morrison and he's a more complete player than they are. Contrary to what most scouts believe, he has more than enough athleticism to become a star in the NBA.
> 
> I never said the Bulls have gone for quick fixes. I said Bulls fans are looking for the quick fix by wanting to take inferior big-men. I've liked what Paxson has done building for the future and not looking for the quick fix. I don't know why you thought I thought otherwise. You're wrong if you think Thomas and Aldridge have as much or more potential than Roy. Thomas might have as much, but that's only if he puts on another 25-30 pounds. Are you sure he's going to do that? You can't be, no one is. LaMarcus Aldridge is a talent, but there's something missing with him. How can you shoot 2-14 in an elite eight game, when you're a 6'11 post player? I don't know what's wrong with him, but he should be better than he is. Bargnani is the only player you mentioned who could be special. I wouldn't disagree with them taking him, but he might not be on the board.
> 
> I understand why you're frustrated with our lack of size. I am too, but don't be lured into wanting to go for need over the best talent/player available. If Pax and Skiles feel that Roy is the best player on the board, they should take him regardless of what people might think.


I've seen Roy play PLENTY, and I don't see "STAR" what-so-ever. There's no 'wow' factor to his game at all, shane battier @ the 2-guard is the best description of that kid. I see a good player who'd be the perfect fit for Chicago but @ #2? He isn't that pressing of a need. We aren't hurting in the backcourt that much to take another guard @ #2 in hopes of some '3-guard' rotation where everyone will be happy, that simply isn't going to happen.

I'm not really worried about it though, cause I don't think he'll be taken by us anyway.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

BDMcGee said:


> No way Brewer would be a better player or fit in chicago than Roy.


Have any reasoning to back that statement up?

Both would be good fits but the kid Brewer can guard 1-3, can play 1-3 and is a better ballhandler than Roy.

Grabbing one of the top 3 big's @ #2 and trading down for brewer sounds alot better than drafting Roy #2 and grabbing Sene, Cedric Simmons or Alexander Johnson @ #16.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Are Jerry Stackhouse and Josh Howard replacements for Jason Terry?

Cause I think that's the template we should be looking at.

Ben Gordon = Jason Terry
Kirk Hinrich/Luol Deng/Brandon Roy = Devin Harris/Josh Howard/Jerry Stackhouse

Maybe not a perfect comparison, but I think it's pretty comparable.

The downside is that it leaves Duhon somewhere south of the PT he deserves, but I think it's pretty well decided by everyone that that's going to happen anyway. All three of those guys are better than him.

Maybe Duhon and the #16 pick lets us acquire a solid big man. Maybe that and something else lets us move up far enough in the draft to land one of the bigger guys. If Morrison, Roy, Bargnani, and Aldridge go 1-4, where does Thomas end up?

The Hawks are supposedly going to take Sheldon at #5. Though maybe they'd take Thomas if he's still on the board.

The TWolves at #6 give all appearances of being in double-secret win-now mode. Think they want Tyrus Thomas? I sure as hell don't. At the same time, they could really use a skilled PG who can come in and contribute immediately. 

The Sonics at #7- I read an article today saying they might trade out of the draft for cash and an 07 pick. I'm not sure I'd give up our unprotected 07 pick, but there might be something worth discussing there too. 

Like I said in the other thread, I've got some concerns about Thomas, but I'm not saying I want no part of him. If he slips down to 6 or 7 (or we could snag Sheldon there), it looks entirely possible we could swing a reasonable deal there.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> When you say Ben Gordon is "in place," do you really think Skiles and Paxson are comfortable with him as their full time 2 guard? Do you think he and Hinrich are going to be the big minute-getters of the next 5-6 years? I don't think those two are comfortable with that, and the general discomfort comes from Gordon's size and his defensive abilities, or lack thereof. Ben is getting better, but to be a championship level 2-guard at 6-2 or 6-3, you have to play Joe Dumars defense. Ben isn't there yet.
> 
> A versatile guard like Roy (or maybe Brewer) can help cement Gordon as a future Bull, not necessarily allow the team to trade him. Both Roy and Brewer seem like perfect fits to get spot minutes at 1, 2, and 3. Both could guard bigger guards or even swingmen in a pinch. Gordon would be able to continue guarding point guards and playing off the ball some on offense. Hinrich, meanwhile, could split his time between guarding point guards and shooting guards, which would hopefully tax him a little less.
> 
> This is EXACTLY the type of player we need to KEEP Ben Gordon on this roster. Right now, he seems to be "in place" for only the time being.


No offense intended DMD, but I find this completely illogical. Here is why:

(1) If Roy is drafted at the #2 spot, and he's as good as you guys say, Gordon is gone. He'll either be traded immediately, or he'll be traded before he's re-signed. 

(2) If Roy isn't as good as Gordon, and he becomes the versatile 3rd guard role player that the Bulls need, then he wasn't worth the #2 pick in the draft. 

(3) The Bulls need a *rotational * player to cement Gordon as a future Bull. A John Salmons via free agency. A Ronnie Brewer with a lesser pick. A Michael Pietrus. 

There are several ways drafting Roy becomes a good move: (a) He becomes God; (b) He simply becomes as good as Gordon and Gordon is then traded for a Big superior to Thomas/Aldridge/Bargnani; or (c) the Bulls get lucky, the 3 guard rotation works, doesn't force one of them to leave via free agency, and the Bulls get surprise value for bigs at #16 and exectly who they want in free agency.

I don't like the odds of any of those. I will decry drafting Roy as a huge mistake until I'm proven to be the draft idiot that I probably am.


----------



## BDMcGee (May 12, 2006)

The ROY said:


> I've seen Roy play PLENTY, and I don't see "STAR" what-so-ever. There's no 'wow' factor to his game at all, shane battier @ the 2-guard is the best description of that kid. I see a good player who'd be the perfect fit for Chicago but @ #2? He isn't that pressing of a need. We aren't hurting in the backcourt that much to take another guard @ #2 in hopes of some '3-guard' rotation where everyone will be happy, that simply isn't going to happen.
> 
> I'm not really worried about it though, cause I don't think he'll be taken by us anyway.


Comparing Roy to Shane Battier is funny. Brandon isn't a spectacular athlete, but he's much quicker and explosive than Battier. I also can't remember Shane ever being able to create his own shot, which Roy can do at will.

Regarding you're second statement, don't get your hopes up cause you could be setting yourself up for disappointment. Looking at how Pax and Skiles have drafted in the past, I would say it's a great chance that they'll take Roy. It looks like the only other guy they're considering is Tyrus Thomas. How they both workout for the Bulls will be huge.


----------



## BDMcGee (May 12, 2006)

The ROY said:


> Have any reasoning to back that statement up?
> 
> Both would be good fits but the kid Brewer can guard 1-3, can play 1-3 and is a better ballhandler than Roy.
> 
> Grabbing one of the top 3 big's @ #2 and trading down for brewer sounds alot better than drafting Roy #2 and grabbing Sene, Cedric Simmons or Alexander Johnson @ #16.


Where should I begin? Brewer is a good player, but he has a questionable passion for the game. He doesn't bring it every night. If you saw Arkansas's first round tournament loss to Bucknell you'd know what I was talking about. His jump-shot is just flat-out ugly. It's unlikely that he'll be able to shoot from the outside consistently in the NBA. He's not really a big scorer. He took a lot of shots and scored a lot but he's not a pure scorer and he only shot 43% from the floor. Roy shot 50%. Yeah, Brewer is versatile and can play all three perimeter positions but so can Roy. The only thing I agree with you about is that Brewer is a better ball handler. Other than that though, he has nothing on Roy.

Regarding your second statement. It may sound good to you, but it may not to Paxson and Skiles.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> No offense intended DMD, but I find this completely illogical. Here is why:
> 
> (1) If Roy is drafted at the #2 spot, and he's as good as you guys say, Gordon is gone. He'll either be traded immediately, or he'll be traded before he's re-signed.
> 
> ...


Ron, unfortunately, the flip side is also true.

Drafting one of the top bigs in this draft becomes a good move: (a) if we get Bargnani or Thomas and Tyson suddenly figures out how to be effective at center; (b) we manage to trade Tyson for an effective center; (c) an Aldridge/Chandler front court is a lot more exciting than the one I am envisioning. Mostly those scenarios leave me at the same place as the secon half of your (c), hoping for surprise value for even more bigs at #16, and hoping we get a vet center AND a big guard in FA.

I don't much like any of those odds either.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I also don't necessarily agree that the addition of Roy makes the subtraction of Gordon a foregone conclusion.


----------



## different_13 (Aug 30, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> The Sonics at #7- I read an article today saying they might trade out of the draft for cash and an 07 pick. I'm not sure I'd give up our unprotected 07 pick, but there might be something worth discussing there too.


sonics are at 10, tis boston at 7.

btw, if you draft aldridge, where do you play him? backing the 4 and 5 (behind Chandler and.. Przybilia respectively) ? i was just wondering if he can start atm, due to his strength problems.. (well, problems.. - he says he's weaker than chris bosh, who most people regard as a finesse player right?)

i just thought he'd be better of backing both positions at the start of the year until he develops both physically and skillwise. 

but that just depends on what happens of course.


getting the seattle pick would be a very good (and relatively easy) thing to do, as they aren't particularly intent on holding onto it. you could try a package of #16 and your first next year (if you have one, it'd be mid twenties or so right? ((not the knicks pick obviously)

then you'd be sure to draft someone useful - Simmons, Brewer, maybe Carney, even O'Bryant.. (or Shelden Williams if he's available)


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Ron, unfortunately, the flip side is also true.
> 
> Drafting one of the top bigs in this draft becomes a good move: (a) if we get Bargnani or Thomas and Tyson suddenly figures out how to be effective at center; (b) we manage to trade Tyson for an effective center; (c) an Aldridge/Chandler front court is a lot more exciting than the one I am envisioning. Mostly those scenarios leave me at the same place as the secon half of your (c), hoping for surprise value for even more bigs at #16, and hoping we get a vet center AND a big guard in FA.
> 
> I don't much like any of those odds either.


Leave it to a lawyer to intelligently flip my own argument against me. I hate you and The Grateful Dead. 

On to the post:

(a) First of all, my preference is Aldridge. If he's available and drafted, this issue is negated. Second, I'm confident that the Bulls can get "a" big man need in free agency. But I think the Bulls need two bigs. Thats why I don't want to leave it entirely up to free agency. Nazr, Pryz or another center will be had in free agency. This is a contingency that doesn't frighten me. 

(b) See free agency discussion in (a) as well as the "drafting Aldridge" discussion. And I think Tyson can play the 5 in some matchups. 

(c) I like an Aldridge/Chandler frontcourt. Though its quite likely that Chandler becomes the back up 4/5 in a big man rotation in any event. We know Gordon is starter quality. The same cannot be said for Chandler anymore. 

In other words, I don't think these things need to happen the way you have described them for the drafting of a big at #2 to be successful.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I also don't necessarily agree that the addition of Roy makes the subtraction of Gordon a foregone conclusion.


It probably won't be a foregone conclusion in the short term*, but long-term, doesn't it almost have to be? 

* the prospect of going through 2006-2007 with lots of vexed discussion of which guard should be getting how many minutes as we watch Joel Przybilla and Tyson Chandler kick balls out of bounds every other play makes me physically ill.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> It probably won't be a foregone conclusion in the short term*, but long-term, doesn't it almost have to be?
> 
> * the prospect of going through 2006-2007 with lots of vexed discussion of which guard should be getting how many minutes as we watch Joel Przybilla and Tyson Chandler kick balls out of bounds every other play makes me physically ill.


Well said.


----------



## BDMcGee (May 12, 2006)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Ron, unfortunately, the flip side is also true.
> 
> Drafting one of the top bigs in this draft becomes a good move: (a) if we get Bargnani or Thomas and Tyson suddenly figures out how to be effective at center; (b) we manage to trade Tyson for an effective center; (c) an Aldridge/Chandler front court is a lot more exciting than the one I am envisioning. Mostly those scenarios leave me at the same place as the secon half of your (c), hoping for surprise value for even more bigs at #16, and hoping we get a vet center AND a big guard in FA.
> 
> I don't much like any of those odds either.


Good post. I think we all have to agree that the Bulls can't solve all of their problems in this draft. If they go big with their first pick they'll still be too small in the backcourt, and if they go small with their first pick, they wouldn't have helped their front-line enough. They just have to choose what they want more. I just think they should take whoever they believe the best player is, regardless of position.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

If the past is any guide to the future, then it's virtually certain that the player Paxson drafts first this year will have good jib.
The players he has picked in drafts or free agency in the past have had above average jib:
Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Duhon, Nocioni, Basden, Allen, Songaila, Pargo, Livingston

Like it or not, Paxson has not had a brain transplant, so this year's top pick will have the most jib of the players available. 
Jib rankings :

1. Roy
2. Morrison
3. Gay
4. Aldridge
5. Bargnani (depends on shaky scouting)
6. Thomas

Since the 3 big men in the top six compare quite unfavorably to the 3 wings/guards, Paxson will be irresistably drawn to the latter after he meets most of them this week.

The front line will just have to be fixed with lower picks and free agents.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> Are Jerry Stackhouse and Josh Howard replacements for Jason Terry?
> 
> Cause I think that's the template we should be looking at.
> 
> ...


That's not a bad comparison, however we're talking about a #2 pick. I like Josh Howard and the current version of Jerry Stackhouse, but not enough to take them with the 2nd pick in the draft.


----------



## ChiSox (Jun 9, 2004)

I believe Aldridge is the number one pick on Paxson's board. I believe is very skilled and would have put up 20pts a night if they would have passed him the ball. Bigs, with his skill level don't come around too ofter. He scored 15pts a game and is very smooth with the ball. This is a weak overall draft but to me the top 5/6 picks aren't weak. All year people talked about him being the top player in the draft. Why has everyone changed their mind?

Roy is very good player and reminds me of Mitch Richmond from back in the day. I don't believe Roy is a Kobe, T Mac type of talent. I believe Roy and Aldridge rate about the same, so you have to pick height as the deciding factor.


----------



## BDMcGee (May 12, 2006)

McBulls said:


> If the past is any guide to the future, then it's virtually certain that the player Paxson drafts first this year will have good jib.
> The players he has picked in drafts or free agency in the past have had above average jib:
> Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Duhon, Nocioni, Basden, Allen, Songaila, Pargo, Livingston
> 
> ...


Tell me what jib is and how it's calculated. I agree with you though, looking at how Pax has drafted in the past Roy and Morrison are probably at the top of his list. He loves tough, seasoned players, with great intangibles and both of them have those qualities. It doesn't make sense to take Morrison when they already have Deng and Nocioni. But looking at their size in the backcourt and looking at what Gordon and Hinrich lack, it makes a ton of sense to get Roy. I honestly feel that he'll be the pick at #2.


----------



## BDMcGee (May 12, 2006)

ChiSox said:


> I believe Aldridge is the number one pick on Paxson's board. I believe is very skilled and would have put up 20pts a night if they would have passed him the ball. Bigs, with his skill level don't come around too ofter. He scored 15pts a game and is very smooth with the ball. This is a weak overall draft but to me the top 5/6 picks aren't weak. All year people talked about him being the top player in the draft. Why has everyone changed their mind?
> 
> Roy is very good player and reminds me of Mitch Richmond from back in the day. I don't believe Roy is a Kobe, T Mac type of talent. I believe Roy and Aldridge rate about the same, so you have to pick height as the deciding factor.


I like your logic, but I think it's flawed. LaMarcus Aldridge has all of the talent you could possibly ask for in a big-man. I'm not disputing that. But there's something missing with him. He didn't dominate against competition he was supposed to dominate. He struggled all year against teams who were physical with him. I don't agree with some scouts who feel he's soft, but he just lacks something, maybe a killer instinct necessary to become great. I know he played with shoot-first guards at Texas, but you can't blame them for everything. Also everyone has changed their mind about him due to his 2-14 shooting performance against LSU in the elite eight. Players considered to be potential #1 picks DO NOT play like that in such a big game. Considering how talented he is and the fact that he's a near 7-footer, that was a pathetic performance. Can't blame the Texas guards for that showing.

I agree that Roy won't be a Kobe, T-Mac type of player. But he could be one of the second-tier shooting guards like Ray Allen, Manu Ginobili, or Paul Pierce. That's still pretty good. I disagree that Aldridge and Roy rate the same. They're equal in talent, but Roy has much better intangibles, namely toughness. He'll be the better pro.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

How in the hell is Paul Pierce 2nd tier?

Your logic is flawed


----------



## BDMcGee (May 12, 2006)

The ROY said:


> How in the hell is Paul Pierce 2nd tier?
> 
> Your logic is flawed


I don't think that he's an all-NBA first team type of guy like Lebron or Kobe, but maybe that thinking is flawed. I'm not going to argue with you anymore though because it's like talking to a brick wall.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

BDMcGee said:


> I don't think that he's an all-NBA first team type of guy like Lebron or Kobe, but maybe that thinking is flawed. I'm not going to argue with you though because it's like talking to a brick wall.


SMH..

sure

quit with the "holier than thou" mess man...your opinion isn't GREATER than anyone elses

oh and i coulda swore lebron was a SF


----------



## BDMcGee (May 12, 2006)

The ROY said:


> SMH..
> 
> sure
> 
> ...


I never said my opinion was greater than anyone elses. I just say what I believe. Just calm down man. It's just a message board.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

BDMcGee said:


> Tell me what jib is and how it's calculated. I agree with you though, looking at how Pax has drafted in the past Roy and Morrison are probably at the top of his list. He loves tough, seasoned players, with great intangibles and both of them have those qualities.


Tough, seasoned, great intangibles... There's no way to quantify jib, but if you had to pick one stat, I guess it would be charges taken. Other stats might be injuries played through, screens fought through, complaints not made, pics set, excuses ignored, fingerpointing avoided, etc.


----------



## BDMcGee (May 12, 2006)

McBulls said:


> Tough, seasoned, great intangibles... There's no way to quantify jib, but if you had to pick one stat, I guess it would be charges taken. Other stats might be injuries played through, screens fought through, complaints not made, pics set, excuses ignored, fingerpointing avoided, etc.


Interesting. I've never heard of anything like that before. The players Skiles likes definitely have those characteristics.


----------



## ChiSox (Jun 9, 2004)

BDMcGee said:


> I like your logic, but I think it's flawed. LaMarcus Aldridge has all of the talent you could possibly ask for in a big-man. I'm not disputing that. But there's something missing with him. He didn't dominate against competition he was supposed to dominate. He struggled all year against teams who were physical with him. I don't agree with some scouts who feel he's soft, but he just lacks something, maybe a killer instinct necessary to become great. I know he played with shoot-first guards at Texas, but you can't blame them for everything. Also everyone has changed their mind about him due to his 2-14 shooting performance against LSU in the elite eight. Players considered to be potential #1 picks DO NOT play like that in such a big game. Considering how talented he is and the fact that he's a near 7-footer, that was a pathetic performance. Can't blame the Texas guards for that showing.
> 
> I agree that Roy won't be a Kobe, T-Mac type of player. But he could be one of the second-tier shooting guards like Ray Allen, Manu Ginobili, or Paul Pierce. That's still pretty good. I disagree that Aldridge and Roy rate the same. They're equal in talent, but Roy has much better intangibles, namely toughness. He'll be the better pro.




I can't say I watched a ton of Aldridge's games but anytime you are one of the top players in college ball, you are on the court and don't touch the ball for 10 minute on the offensive end it make you think, something is wrong. I will give you, Aldridge had a bad game against LSU. Let's not forget he is only a Sophmore. 

Roy is more seasoned because he was a Senior. He is supposed to be. If you give Aldridge a point guard who likes to pass, he would have easily put up twenty points a game. The only easy baskets he had were on the offensive rebounds put backs. 

Compare Roy stat to Aldridge when he was a sophmore and there isn't a comparison. Aldridge has skills, he reminds me of Bosh when he was in college. 

The only player I would possibly take ahead of Aldridge is T Thomas. Thomas has it. I believe he will be a star in the league. He reminds me of a more agressive Ak47.


----------



## ChiSox (Jun 9, 2004)

The ROY said:


> How in the hell is Paul Pierce 2nd tier?
> 
> Your logic is flawed


ROY I believe Kobe, Duncan and couple others are top tier players. If you only can get "yours" then you aren't top tier. Pierce is a stud but he doesn't make the people around him better so I have to say he is 2nd tier.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Shaq's a NON-factor againt the mav's big's...are they that good? no but they're doing their job

We could of WON that series had we had some DECENT big's

We must not forget, we NEED bigs


----------



## TheDarkPrince (May 13, 2006)

ChiSox said:


> ROY I believe Kobe, Duncan and couple others are top tier players. If you only can get "yours" then you aren't top tier. Pierce is a stud but he doesn't make the people around him better so I have to say he is 2nd tier.


Well doesn't that mean that Kobe is 2 tier because he hardly makes his teammates better.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

TheDarkPrince said:


> Well doesn't that mean that Kobe is 2 tier because he hardly makes his teammates better.


PREACH!

But ya know what

I did a bit of research on all the big's pax has drafted since he's been our GM :

Matt Bonner & Mario Austin

HE's 3-0 when it comes to little guys, 2-1 when it comes to SF's (remember tommie smith?) and 0-2 when it comes to bigs

he passed up Zaza Pachulia for those two....

maybe this is why he's leaning towards roy :biggrin:


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

ChiSox said:


> I can't say I watched a ton of Aldridge's games but anytime you are one of the top players in college ball, you are on the court and don't touch the ball for 10 minute on the offensive end it make you think, something is wrong. I will give you, Aldridge had a bad game against LSU. Let's not forget he is only a Sophmore.
> 
> Roy is more seasoned because he was a Senior. He is supposed to be. If you give Aldridge a point guard who likes to pass, he would have easily put up twenty points a game. The only easy baskets he had were on the offensive rebounds put backs.
> 
> ...


Finally common sense sets in. ALdridge was a sophomore. Playing on a guard oriented team. With guards who were among the most selfish I had ever seen.

Go back to Tim Duncans sophomore season at Wake. Guess what....you'll find a few eggs that were laid by him that season.

Aldridge is no timma...but he's no will purdue either.


----------



## taurus515th (Oct 13, 2005)

im now on the LaMarcus Aldridge bandwagon. I really think that the Brandon Roy thing was a rumors and not true. lol. i was looking for big men with post moves that the bulls should get but there aint that many. the only ones that are are not tradeable like tim duncan, shaq, elton brand, and some others. the only ones i c available are Jemaine O'neal and Nene. 

Well come on Paxson get LaMarcus Aldridge or Shelden Williams with the #2 pick.


----------



## K-Dub (Jun 26, 2005)

I'd be extremely happy with either Aldridge or Roy since we should bring in a big man such as Nene or Pryzbilla to man to be our Center. Aldridge brings us the inside scoring and height up front we so desperately need. However, Roy brings us that big guard and that perimeter defender we so desperately need. And if the Knicks suck it up next year, we have a great chance to pick up yet another sizeable big man. :biggrin:


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

taurus515th said:


> im now on the LaMarcus Aldridge bandwagon. I really think that the Brandon Roy thing was a rumors and not true. lol. i was looking for big men with post moves that the bulls should get but there aint that many. the only ones that are are not tradeable like tim duncan, shaq, elton brand, and some others. the only ones i c available are Jemaine O'neal and Nene.
> 
> Well come on Paxson get LaMarcus Aldridge or Shelden Williams with the #2 pick.


Shelden with the #2!?!?!?


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

Let's look at why the Lakers may want the #2. Bucher says for Lamarcus Aldridge. A big. The heat traded Odom and the gang for Shaq and now they are in the finals. 

I'd hate to be a team that consists of a bunch of intriguing swingmen and short guards. Fun to watch? yep. Will go anywhere? Doubt it.


----------

