# Big week for prospects at the Berto Center



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

> The Bulls revealed the names of 22 draft prospects that will be visiting the Berto Center during the next four days.
> 
> Monday's session is scheduled to include Arizona forward Chase Budinger, Israel forward Omri Casspi, USC forward Taj Gibson and Duke guard Gerald Henderson.
> 
> On Wednesday, Pitt power forward DeJuan Blair, Notre Dame forward Luke Harangody, Georgia Tech forward Gani Lawal and Gonzaga forward Josh Heytvelt are among the players expected to attend.


http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=299048&src=150


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/predraft_09.html - the complete list.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Taj Gibson has really long arms... I wouldn't mind taking a chance on him late in the draft.

I fear Dejuan Blair...


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

No Hansbrough?


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Good Hope said:


> No Hansbrough?


Not mentioned, is he? Hmmm.

Sam Smith has more on the workouts here: http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/smith_090608.html and no Hansbrough mentioned either. He does you can't necessarily tell who the Bulls are interested in by they people who are at the workout. There were group workouts elsewhere last week.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Blair has athritic knees, its possible he could drop to 26. Gibson's really athletic. Hansbrough's moving up, honestly wouldnt be shocked if the Bulls took him at 16.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

They listed a few guys I like there. 

Chase Budinger (athletic wing that can shoot and finish at the rim)
BJ Mullens (great size/athleticism)
Alex Ruoff (great shooter if Gordon walks)
Josh Heytvelt (good size/athleticism and outside shooter)

I either don't like, or don't know enough about the rest.


----------



## girllovesthegame (Nov 3, 2005)

It appears that Hansbrough has worked out for Chicago already according to this quote he gave at his Hornets workout on Friday.



> Q: Who else have you worked out for so far?
> A: Chicago. And I have about six or seven more workouts to go.



http://neworleanshornetsblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/hornets-draft-workouts-day-1.html


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> They listed a few guys I like there.
> 
> Chase Budinger (athletic wing that can shoot and finish at the rim)
> BJ Mullens (great size/athleticism)
> ...


So, as per usual... of the prospects, you prefer the pasty white variety...


I want Mullens, but I'm an OSU alum, so I'm a little biased.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I truly believe the Bulls will draft based on Best Player Available. 

Despite what GMs like to say, this is rarely the case. GMs definitely look at their roster holes and look to fill those holes thru the draft.

In the Bulls case, I can't say we have any glaring holes for next season. Rose, Hinrich, Salmons, Deng, Tyrus, Noah, Miller. That's all 5 positions covered pretty much. (Yeah, we need a post scorer, what else is new)

So, BPA it shall be, and that usually ends up being a small guy. Often it's a PG who can score but isn't very special otherwise (not a bad way to replace BG). It also tends to be wing players. Very rarely big men. I haven't seen much of Budinger, but this guy seems legit. Good size, athletic ability, passes the ball well, and can shoot. Seems like a great fit for D-Rose.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Interview with one of the young men at teh Berto Center today - Gerald Henderson: http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/henderson_090608.html?rss=true.

He's got the same agent as Derrick Rose - BJ Armstrong.


----------



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

Is there any way we can get Tyreke Evans?


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> In the Bulls case, I can't say we have any glaring holes for next season. Rose, Hinrich, Salmons, Deng, Tyrus, Noah, Miller. That's all 5 positions covered pretty much. (Yeah, we need a post scorer, what else is new)


The holes may not be glaring but if the Bulls think that Salmons, Thomas and Noah are the future they have another thing coming, not saying that those names should be replaced but its not like any of those 3 are locks for the next 5+ years. Thomas has potential but is such a flawed player that looking at another 4 would not be a bad idea, Noah is average at best and Salmons isnt a long term solution.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Damn no James Johnson...


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Dornado said:


> So, as per usual... of the prospects, you prefer the pasty white variety...
> 
> 
> I want Mullens, but I'm an OSU alum, so I'm a little biased.


No, I prefer the best player that isn't a cocky POS or a thug. If they happen to be white, fine with me. I just listed off the ones I had seen play enough to make my own opinion on, and that I liked. Guys like Hansbrough and Blair are 2 I'm real familiar with and want no part of...notice one is white? 

The reason I want Mullens is because I've seen him get to the rim and finish, and I think that's ideal with Rose running the team. Some legit size and finishing ability at C. Ruoff is a great shooter, as I said, which we'll need if Gordon is canned as he should be. Chase is everthing Dung should be and more. And Heytvelt is, as I said, a big with athleticism and an outside shot, and is a projected 2nd rounder along with Ruoff. So you got 2 guys that we could get in the 2nd via buying a pick probably, and 2 guys that are projected NEAR our picks. I'm looking at reasonably-slotted players, that fit needs and have size/athleticism.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> The holes may not be glaring but if the Bulls think that Salmons, Thomas and Noah are the future they have another thing coming, not saying that those names should be replaced but its not like any of those 3 are locks for the next 5+ years. Thomas has potential but is such a flawed player that looking at another 4 would not be a bad idea, Noah is average at best and Salmons isnt a long term solution.


It still makes sense to go BPA, no? Even if those three aren't "the answer" at their positions, does anybody expect us to grab someone who'll be better at 16 or 26? Especially when you factor in that you get to go through the entire process of finding one's place in the league all over again...

I dunno. I'm good with BPA.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

thebizkit69u said:


> The holes may not be glaring but if the Bulls think that Salmons, Thomas and Noah are the future they have another thing coming, not saying that those names should be replaced but its not like any of those 3 are locks for the next 5+ years. Thomas has potential but is such a flawed player that looking at another 4 would not be a bad idea, Noah is average at best and Salmons isnt a long term solution.


I agree with that, though I bet we're stuck with at least one for a long time (Noah). But that's why I pointed out the guys I did. A big 2/3 to replace Salmons in Budinger, a 4/5 with an outside shot to compete with Tyrus at the 4 in Heytvelt, a big athletic 5 in Mullens to hopefully replace Noah, and a shooter 2 to replace Gordon if he leaves. But according to Dornado they're just the pasty white variety and that's why I like em.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

King Joseus said:


> It still makes sense to go BPA, no? Even if those three aren't "the answer" at their positions, does anybody expect us to grab someone who'll be better at 16 or 26? Especially when you factor in that you get to go through the entire process of finding one's place in the league all over again...
> 
> I dunno. I'm good with BPA.


As am I......


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

King Joseus said:


> It still makes sense to go BPA, no? Even if those three aren't "the answer" at their positions, does anybody expect us to grab someone who'll be better at 16 or 26? Especially when you factor in that you get to go through the entire process of finding one's place in the league all over again...
> 
> I dunno. I'm good with BPA.


I not going to argue BPA, I like BPA but what if that BPA is a point guard? Thats where I start having second thoughts, as much as I like Johny Flynn I dont want him because Derrick Rose is the future and is a damn good PG already.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

> Here's a story on Casspi:
> 
> If at least one NBA mock draft is on the money, Omri Casspi's visit to the Berto Center on Monday won't be his last.
> 
> Casspi, a native of Israel who played professionally for Maccabi Tel Aviv the last two seasons, is taking his second shot at making the NBA. The small forward, who measured 6-7 without shoes in the official predraft measurements, withdrew before the draft when no team would guarantee taking him in the first round.





> ''In Europe, we work more on fundamentals [than in the NBA],'' Casspi said. ''Here the guys are really athletic, fast and strong. So it's different, but I've been playing overseas with a lot of Americans, a lot of NBA guys. So I feel comfortable playing both sides.''
> 
> Former Illini guard and NBA veteran Dee Brown was a teammate of Casspi last season in Tel Aviv. Will Bynum of the Detroit Pistons, who starred at Crane, played with Casspi in Israel in 2006-07.
> 
> ''I asked them about the draft process and the NBA,'' Casspi said. ''Now I know what I'm going through, and I feel good. Most of my game is one-on-one penetration, so I feel comfortable even more here than in Europe. The most important thing for me is that I can help a team by coming in as a rookie and [playing]. I'm trying to find the right team, so I can keep progressing and improving my game.''


http://www.suntimes.com/sports/basketball/bulls/1613026,CST-SPT-bull09.article


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

girllovesthegame said:


> It appears that Hansbrough has worked out for Chicago already according to this quote he gave at his Hornets workout on Friday.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Appreciate it.

I thought it was weird he wouldn't be coming. If he's there, the Bulls take him.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> I not going to argue BPA, I like BPA but what if that BPA is a point guard? Thats where I start having second thoughts, as much as I like Johny Flynn I dont want him because Derrick Rose is the future and is a damn good PG already.


My opinion: take him and make decisions later.

I don't normally prescribe to the BPA mentality (in the sense of blindly taking the BPA without regard to position), as I believe fit is important. However, it's not like any PG we end up taking will steal time from Rose, and as someone else stated we certainly won't find anyone better than Noah or Tyrus at the big men positions.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Flynn wont even be in the 16 range. He's a top 12 pick.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

yodurk said:


> My opinion: take him and make decisions later.
> 
> I don't normally prescribe to the BPA mentality (in the sense of blindly taking the BPA without regard to position), as I believe fit is important. However, it's not like any PG we end up taking will steal time from Rose, and as someone else stated we certainly won't find anyone better than Noah or Tyrus at the big men positions.


It just doesnt make any sense to draft a PG in the first round, the Bulls can easily find a decent backup via Free Agency or an undrafted FA.

I would not say that there aren't potential players in the draft that could be better than Noah and Thomas, BJ Mullens right now is a guy who is much more talented than Noah and actually has a bigger body so hes a guy to look into and Thomas is all potential and not much else.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

thebizkit69u said:


> It just doesnt make any sense to draft a PG in the first round, the Bulls can easily find a decent backup via Free Agency or an undrafted FA.
> 
> I would not say that there aren't potential players in the draft that could be better than Noah and Thomas, BJ Mullens right now is a guy who is much more talented than Noah and actually has a bigger body so hes a guy to look into and Thomas is all potential and not much else.


I agree, though if Kirk is traded, I'd be looking at Ty Lawson at #26 if he's available. #26 is close enough to 2nd round to be irrelevant as a 1st. But if Kirk isn't traded (which I hope since I think he's the defender and can back up both positions) then PG is out completely. Unless you're going to take one and force a team to give you something more valuable for him.

Mullens I'd definitely take over Noah, as you mentioned. He has more talent on O and the legit size to actually play the position. Noah plays like he's about 6'2". Thomas is more than just potential though. He's shown the foundation of a strong game, and is already great at a few aspects. I'd be content with him as our 4 for the future and Rose as our 1....the rest of the roster needs redone....keeping Kirk as the backup at the 1-2 and maybe Noah as the backup at the 4-5. So I'd look for a SG, SF and C in this draft. No undersized PF trying to play C crap (Noah) or another runt PG with a SG skill-set (Gordon), or SF with the athleticism and shooting range of a C (Dung).


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Noah plays like he's about 6'2".


11.3 rebounds and 2 blocks per 36 minutes played. What the hell are you talking about?


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Chase Budinger talks:

http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/budinger_090609.html


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Dornado said:


> 11.3 rebounds and 2 blocks per 36 minutes played. What the hell are you talking about?


Watch a game. You might learn something.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

narek said:


> Chase Budinger talks:
> 
> http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/budinger_090609.html


Damn he looks GOOOODDDD in Bulls' gear. Lets hope he wears it for the next decade!

And what Matt Lloyd said is what I've been saying all along. Budinger's size and shooting will be great with Rose at the point, not to mention the transition scoring which he didn't mention. Screw Henderson...damn worthless Dookie.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Damn he looks GOOOODDDD in Bulls' gear. Lets hope he wears it for the next decade!
> 
> And what Matt Lloyd said is what I've been saying all along. Budinger's size and shooting will be great with Rose at the point, not to mention the transition scoring which he didn't mention. Screw Henderson...damn worthless Dookie.


watch a game......YOU might learn something......


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

DaBabyBullz said:


> I agree, though if Kirk is traded, I'd be looking at Ty Lawson at #26 if he's available. #26 is close enough to 2nd round to be irrelevant as a 1st. But if Kirk isn't traded (which I hope since I think he's the defender and can back up both positions) then PG is out completely. Unless you're going to take one and force a team to give you something more valuable for him.
> 
> Mullens I'd definitely take over Noah, as you mentioned. He has more talent on O and the legit size to actually play the position. Noah plays like he's about 6'2". Thomas is more than just potential though. He's shown the foundation of a strong game, and is already great at a few aspects. I'd be content with him as our 4 for the future and Rose as our 1....the rest of the roster needs redone....keeping Kirk as the backup at the 1-2 and maybe Noah as the backup at the 4-5. So I'd look for a SG, SF and C in this draft. No undersized PF trying to play C crap (Noah) or another runt PG with a SG skill-set (Gordon), or SF with the athleticism and shooting range of a C (Dung).


Lawson is before 26. Mullens has never done or shown anything to warrant being considered a better player than Noah. Noah not only was a winner in college, he's proven that he's a very serviceable big man, the type you need to win. Lol at playing like he's 6'2, he's one of the main reasons the Bulls were competitive in the Celtics series.

I think Budinger's a really good pick, he's just so damn inconsistent. He does look good when he's shooting though, even if its off, its a thing of beauty. Silky smooth player.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Damn he looks GOOOODDDD in Bulls' gear. Lets hope he wears it for the next decade!
> 
> And what Matt Lloyd said is what I've been saying all along. Budinger's size and shooting will be great with Rose at the point, not to mention the transition scoring which he didn't mention. Screw Henderson...damn worthless Dookie.


Budinger would be my guy at 16 if James Johnson and BJ Mullens are gone. I think Johnson will be the steal of the draft and has potential to be a star at the next level, his size is already NBA size and he does alot of things well but not great, if the Bulls can develop some of those good skill set's into great ones or even very good ones, Johnson would be a huge steal at 16. 

Mullens believe it or not is one of the highest potential Centers in a long time, the guy has crazy talent that needs to be worked on, his offensive skill set just blows away anything we have at the 4 or 5 currently. 

Henderson I really like, I know you dont like him but hes got an NBA body and a strong game but he does suffer from Duke'itis, he disappears for stretches in games. 

As for Budinger I have said it many times hes a Brent Barry/Thunder Dan clone, I dont think Budinger has the ball handling ability's that Barry had but hes right there with his mid range game and athleticism.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

frankly, i'm not feeling the "budinger" love.....two straight years he was opting to go pro and when nobody was feeling him, he got "chased" back to college. he didn't lead his team anywhere, disappeared often, and two other players surpassed him in the arizona pecking order.

just last year (and almost each year) joe alexander was touted as another "so and so" (same type player); now milwaukee's questioning whether he was an nba talent. alexander, however, WAS the leader of his west virginia team (and did better than the arizona team last year if i remember correctly); budinger, not so much. lastly, he'll be hard pressed to get minutes in chicago anyway, that is to say UNLESS the bulls intend on moving deng (which i doubt) in the offseason, and even then salmons is deserving of the bulk of minutes at the 3.

i think the bulls will say no to budinger unless their choices are reduced to him as a limited option.

mullens and budinger bulls? naaaaah........


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Watch a game. You might learn something.


Like learn that you're way off-base in your assessment of Noah? Yes, he'd probably learn that.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Watch a game. You might learn something.


One of us watched every summer league game, every pre-season game, 82 regular season games and 7 playoff games... and we both know it wasn't you...


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> frankly, i'm not feeling the "budinger" love.....two straight years he was opting to go pro and when nobody was feeling him, he got "chased" back to college. he didn't lead his team anywhere, disappeared often, and two other players surpassed him in the arizona pecking order.
> 
> just last year (and almost each year) joe alexander was touted as another "so and so" (same type player); now milwaukee's questioning whether he was an nba talent. alexander, however, WAS the leader of his west virginia team (and did better than the arizona team last year if i remember correctly); budinger, not so much. lastly, he'll be hard pressed to get minutes in chicago anyway, that is to say UNLESS the bulls intend on moving deng (which i doubt) in the offseason, and even then salmons is deserving of the bulk of minutes at the 3.
> 
> ...


Outside of BabyBullz I dont see much of this Budinger love your talking about. That being said I'm fine with Budinger if hes the best option at 16 and by the looks of it hes a guy that at the least you know what your going to get out of, in a draft so full of uncertainty I can live with drafting Budinger who I know has the skill set to play in the NBA and play for a long time. Hes got all the tools that made Brent Barry a 10+ year vet, now if Budinger can stay healthy for a longer period of time than Barry did I can easily see Budinger average better numbers than Brent Barry's. 

I would not compare Budinger to Alexanders situation, Alexander was not on most peoples radar until he had that AMAZING draft combine outing, Alexander blew people away, Budinger is a guy.

Bulls would be lucky if Mullens is around, hes got so much talent at the 5 offensively that it would be a dumb move to skip over him (Unless James Johnson is still around), obviously he needs to work on a post game but hes got great hands and is a rare athlete at the 5.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Watch Noah's defensive stance. He literally plays like he's 6'2" at best. Maybe more like 5'6". It's ridiculous. He showed me enough towards the end of the year to make me change my mind in wanting him off the team, no matter what thoguh. I still don't see him as the answer at C though, and never will. He's simply not big enough. He got abused by Perkins and others. 

As for Budinger vs Joe Alexander, I don't see where Alexander comes into this equation. I'd trade Deng and 26 for 8 and Alexander in a heartbeat if the Yucks would go for it. Alexander is on a cheap deal and has an outrageous ceiling. Dung is being paid 1000 times his worth and isn't worth a crap lately. 

As for Mullens, as bizkit said, he has great potential and already finishes better than any big on our roster, and has legit size. 

So my wish list remains unchanged.

16. Budinger SG/SF
26. Mullens C (trade up if necessary)

buy 2 2nd rounders
Alex Ruoff SG
Josh Heytvelt PF/C


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

I'm a really big fan of going after the best big available with the #16. There are way too many good rotation or potential guards to be had around the #26, but options are slim with big men that late. Big men that might be available at the #16:

Mullens C
Johnson PF/SF
Clark SF/PF
----------
Hansbrough PF
Blair PF

If the top tier is gone, then BPA could be realistic over the second tier I have listed. Out of the guards having a good chance at possibly being available at #26:

Lawson PG
Maynor PG
Budinger SG/SF
Thornton SG
Ellington SG

A Mullens or Johnson + Lawson or Maynor draft, and I am extremely happy this season.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Rhyder said:


> I'm a really big fan of going after the best big available with the #16. There are way too many good rotation or potential guards to be had around the #26, but options are slim with big men that late. Big men that might be available at the #16:
> 
> Mullens C
> Johnson PF/SF
> ...


I don't think a 6'5" PF (which is what Blair is) is worth taking in the 1st, but I would love to get Mullens. Hansbrough gets blocked too much to be worth a mid-1st as well...maybe at 26. I haven't seen the other 2 play enough to comment, although I do like what I read about Earl Clark, other than the 3/4 tweener bit.

As for your guards, it is really dumb to burn a 1st on a <6' PG when we already have 2 starting-caliber PGs, and one of them is going to be a superstar and is only 20 years old. Only way that makes the least bit of sense is if it's Lawson at 26 and Kirk is traded....I'd MUCH prefer keeping Kirk since he can play D, has better size, and can play both the 1 & 2. Budinger has zero chance of being there at 26 IMO. The league is going more towards his type of players, so he'll go sooner than expected....I won't be surprised if he and Mullens are both gone by 16, but I'm hoping we can get at least one of those 2. Ellington I really like as well, and from where I've seen him projected he should be available. He isn't much different than Alex Ruoff though IMO, who is projected around 45. All I know about Thornton is he's short. 

So of those you listed, the only ones I'd be interested in would be Mullens, Budinger and Ellington. No PGs or undersized PFs....or even SGs for that matter, which is what Thornton is at <6'3". Just my take on it. I am sick of undersized/unathletic players.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> I don't think a 6'5" PF (which is what Blair is) is worth taking in the 1st, but I would love to get Mullens. Hansbrough gets blocked too much to be worth a mid-1st as well...maybe at 26. I haven't seen the other 2 play enough to comment, although I do like what I read about Earl Clark, other than the 3/4 tweener bit.


That is why I had two tiers for the big men, with Hansbrough and Blair in the second tier. I wouldn't be opposed to taking BPA with our first pick, but primarily only if Mullens, Johnson, and Clark are all gone.



> As for your guards, it is really dumb to burn a 1st on a <6' PG when we already have 2 starting-caliber PGs, and one of them is going to be a superstar and is only 20 years old. Only way that makes the least bit of sense is if it's Lawson at 26 and Kirk is traded....I'd MUCH prefer keeping Kirk since he can play D, has better size, and can play both the 1 & 2. Budinger has zero chance of being there at 26 IMO. The league is going more towards his type of players, so he'll go sooner than expected....I won't be surprised if he and Mullens are both gone by 16, but I'm hoping we can get at least one of those 2. Ellington I really like as well, and from where I've seen him projected he should be available. He isn't much different than Alex Ruoff though IMO, who is projected around 45. All I know about Thornton is he's short.
> 
> So of those you listed, the only ones I'd be interested in would be Mullens, Budinger and Ellington. No PGs or undersized PFs....or even SGs for that matter, which is what Thornton is at <6'3". Just my take on it. I am sick of undersized/unathletic players.


The second pick all depends on what you wanted to do with your team. If your plan is to try and get the most value for Kirk or let Gordon walk, then you almost need to draft a PG or SG. If your plan is to make Salmons your starter and trade Deng, then picking up a wing would make sense. Although I'm not a big fan of any pure wing players slated to go at the end of the first round.

As for the height issue, Thornton is only 1.5" shorter than Ellington, is a much better defender, and a more complete offensive player. Ellington is probably a bit better pure shooter, but not by much, and he doesn't offer much in the way of handles. I don't dislike Ellington, I just prefer Thorton over him. We definitely need more shooters on our team, especially if we lose/trade Kirk or Gordon.

I think both Lawson and Maynor have real potential in the league, so selecting those guys over some of the others I have listed is more from a value or BPA perspective, not because PG is a glaring need. PGs also typically command more in trade value than do SGs or SFs.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Rhyder said:


> That is why I had two tiers for the big men, with Hansbrough and Blair in the second tier. I wouldn't be opposed to taking BPA with our first pick, but primarily only if Mullens, Johnson, and Clark are all gone.


My point was simply that I'd definitely take a G/F like Budinger at 16 over a PF like Blair or Hansbrough. In other words, BPA, at a reasonable need position. That would rule out PG of course. I personally view SG, SF and C as our biggest needs. My reasoning is that Tyrus and Noah can both be PFs, and we really don't have a C on the roster IMO (unless you count Ole Man Miller). Deng isn't worth mentioning the last 2 years at SF. Salmons is older and nothing special. Gordon might walk and isn't a complete player anyway. 



> The second pick all depends on what you wanted to do with your team. If your plan is to try and get the most value for Kirk or let Gordon walk, then you almost need to draft a PG or SG. If your plan is to make Salmons your starter and trade Deng, then picking up a wing would make sense. Although I'm not a big fan of any pure wing players slated to go at the end of the first round.


I agree, but I look at both picks that way. If I was running the team, the only player that would have a lock on his position is Rose. Personally I'd love to get a big guard that can shoot and finish like Budinger, and a legit C that can run and finish like Mullens. Neither would have to play for a year or 2, as we already have Salmons and Deng at SG/SF and Noah at C, so Mullens being a project is not a problem at all. This team is NOT in win-now mode as everyone seems to think. Rose isn't anywhere near his prime and Tyrus and Joakim aren't in theirs yet either. The 2-3 are big ? at this time anyway. Wayne Ellington is just a clutch shooter, so kinda like Gordon. At #26 I'd be ok with that. I've just always liked his shooting. 



> As for the height issue, Thornton is only 1.5" shorter than Ellington, is a much better defender, and a more complete offensive player. Ellington is probably a bit better pure shooter, but not by much, and he doesn't offer much in the way of handles. I don't dislike Ellington, I just prefer Thorton over him. We definitely need more shooters on our team, especially if we lose/trade Kirk or Gordon.


Well, like I said, I haven't seen Thornton enough, but I don't like a 6'2 3/4" SG. That's another Ben Gordon who will always be posted up by bigger SGs like Vince Carter. 



> I think both Lawson and Maynor have real potential in the league, so selecting those guys over some of the others I have listed is more from a value or BPA perspective, not because PG is a glaring need. PGs also typically command more in trade value than do SGs or SFs.


If Kirk is traded, Lawson would be a worthwhile pickup. He's a 1-man fast break, and would be good to have as a backup to Derrick to keep the offensive scheme workable with 2 different PGs. Don't know Maynor at all, but he has decent size even if he has relatively short arms.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

I like Blair as a bruiser type PF we are lacking on this team. #16 is far too high of a reach to grab him (yes, I don't think he's a lottery pick). I might be fine with him at #26. Despite his height, I think he can contribute in this league. His size and other measurement is comparable to Craig Smith (also 6'5"-ish based on this measurement) but have bigger wingspan. And Smith is my Blair's worst case scenario. Blair I think will be able to score like Smith (about 8-10 ppg) but grab more rebounds (at least 6 rpg as a rookie with 9 rpg potential in the future). Although those numbers aren't eye-popping, what I like about him is that he has the making of a solid backup PF who can complement star PF and provide the element of power to our thin and more finesse front court. I think a player like him can just fit with our current group of big men or star big man we are looking to acquire (Bosh or Amare).

Hansbrough is nice, but I see him more of a scorer than a banger. That mentality I think will make it difficult for him to adjust to his new role in the league. I feel that it will take some time for him to make an impact. On the other hand, Blair has more natural dirty worker instinct. I think he'll be able to find his place in the game faster (he doesn't need the ball and just focus on doing what he's good at). And that's why I think Blair can make an impact sooner and a better bruiser type PF than Hansbrough. I mean it's not like we're expecting one of them to one day produce 20-10.

As for the 16th pick, I really don't know what to decide. BJ Mullens I guess is worth the gamble considering his potential. Brad Miller can tutor him for a year, Brad has good track record in dealing with young bigs (Hawes, Thompson, Noah, Thomas). Another guy would be Terrence Williams, but I'm also not sure on him. He just seems to be a solid versatile athletic two-way SG who is most likely available at #16. Chase would be ok too, but not at #16.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

RSP83 said:


> As for the 16th pick, I really don't know what to decide. BJ Mullens I guess is worth the gamble considering his potential. Brad Miller can tutor him for a year, Brad has good track record in dealing with young bigs (Hawes, Thompson, Noah, Thomas). Another guy would be Terrence Williams, but I'm also not sure on him. He just seems to be a solid versatile athletic two-way SG who is most likely available at #16. Chase would be ok too, but not at #16.


I really don't understand the hype around Terrence Willams or Gerald Henderson. I can see the argument to picking up Teague, Flynn, or Curry should one of them slip down to #16, but I really see few players other than good role players available by that point.

Harden is the only can't miss guard in this draft. Evans, Curry & Derozan all should have promising careers, but they all have bust potential as well.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> I really don't understand the hype around Terrence Willams or Gerald Henderson. I can see the argument to picking up Teague, Flynn, or Curry should one of them slip down to #16, but I really see few players other than good role players available by that point.


that's exactly how I feel too. I also really don't see any obvious NBA star potential in many of the players. The PGs are particularly the most solid compare to other positions (Rubio, Curry, Evans, Flynn, Holiday, Jennings, Lawson, Maynor, Teague, Collison). But would we pick a PG at #16 while we already have Rose? I think grabbing a PG at #26 would make more sense which would probably end up being Collison. I'm also hoping one of the bigs between James Johnson (hopefully fall off the lottery), Dejuan Blair, BJ Mullens will still be available at #16.

I guess my best scenario would be:
#16 - James Johnson (poor man's Horford)
#26 - Darren Collison (solid backup PG)

I also like Blair though. I just think that he fills our need for a banger/dirty work type big.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

DeJuan Blair talks after his Berto Center workout:

http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/blair_090611.html


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Sam Smith writes about the prospects:



> Though I asked Blair if he was working so hard now and got his weight down, why didn’t he do that in college. He seemed honest about it, at least.
> 
> “I did not have the drive I have right now during the season off the court like I did on the court,” he said. “I’m working harder. I’m more disciplined, eating right, doing everything I can.”
> 
> ...


http://blogs.bulls.com/chicago_bull...e-blair-and-harangody-and-have-decisions.html


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

That last quote really sealed the deal for me. I definitely do not want him. Losing 40 lbs now, showing he was too lazy to do it before it was time for the pay-day, AND 2 knee surgeries? How many red flags do you need? 

6'5". 
Fat/lazy. 
Bad knees.
HELL NO!


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> That last quote really sealed the deal for me. I definitely do not want him. Losing 40 lbs now, showing he was too lazy to do it before it was time for the pay-day, AND 2 knee surgeries? How many red flags do you need?
> 
> 6'5".
> Fat/lazy.
> ...


It just boggles my mind that this guy is a projected lottery pick lol, I mean really? Dont get me wrong I like the kid and I would like to have him on the Bulls are a LATE LATE first round draft pick or second rounder but I find it hard to believe that an NBA GM with a top 15 pick would take the guy. His upside inst even that good.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

while his "upside" might not be that great, GM's are usually more concerned with production over potential.

he played on a final four team, dominated the paint in one of the strongest (if not the strongest) conferences in the country. maybe in a stronger draft year he might have fallen further, but against the likes of unknowns like mullens who "might" turn out to be "decent", i'll take a guy who's going to get after it like charles oakley and be a prescence on the interior and can be penciled in for 10 boards a game from the moment he steps on the court.

can't say that i've seen very many prospects that has been said about outside of griffin.

lastly, as far as being motivated by money to get in shape, that's a bad thing? how is not being effective in a weak league, not starting for a team that needed an inside prescence, but still only managing 20 minutes a game a preferred prospect?..... cause he's healthy? seems to me the same ish was said about eddy curry....and money didn't motivate him.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

BULLHITTER said:


> lastly, as far as being motivated by money to get in shape, that's a bad thing? how is not being effective in a weak league, not starting for a team that needed an inside prescence, but still only managing 20 minutes a game a preferred prospect?..... cause he's healthy? seems to me the same ish was said about eddy curry....and money didn't motivate him.


Yes, it's a very bad thing to wait for the payday to finally care enough to get in shape. His "job" for years has been basketball, and he was too lazy to get in shape? Disgusting. He'll be another Eddy Curry, who I thought of when reading about Blair losing the weight. 

And the reason I'd rather take Mullens is because he's a C and I see that as a bigger need than PF by a mile for starters. Not only because I like Tyrus more than Noah, but also because they both could play PF alongside Mullens. Secondly, he has a high ceiling...Blair doesn't even have one. Blair will never be anything special at all, and Mullens could be. Yes, I know he's a very risky pick, but unless going with a small like Budinger, you're not going to get a better prospect that late in this crappy draft. So my "love affair" with Mullens is based as much on being unimpressed with other bigs in this draft as it is with his overall size/athleticism.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

RSP83 said:


> that's exactly how I feel too. I also really don't see any obvious NBA star potential in many of the players. The PGs are particularly the most solid compare to other positions (Rubio, Curry, Evans, Flynn, Holiday, Jennings, Lawson, Maynor, Teague, Collison). But would we pick a PG at #16 while we already have Rose? I think grabbing a PG at #26 would make more sense which would probably end up being Collison. I'm also hoping one of the bigs between James Johnson (hopefully fall off the lottery), Dejuan Blair, BJ Mullens will still be available at #16.
> 
> I guess my best scenario would be:
> #16 - James Johnson (poor man's Horford)
> ...


I'm warming up more and more to Johnson over Mullens.

#16 Johnson
#26 Lawson

...looks more and more appealing assuming no one else slated higher takes a significant slip.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Rhyder said:


> I'm warming up more and more to Johnson over Mullens.
> 
> #16 Johnson
> #26 Lawson
> ...


Johnson is my guy but I doubt he will be there at 16.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Wayne Ellington talks to Bulls.com about his tryout:

http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/ellington_090615.html


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

I wouldn't be too upset with Ellington at either pick, and I'd really like him at 26. I'd rate him as #3 on my wish list behind Budinger and Mullens.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> while his "upside" might not be that great, GM's are usually more concerned with production over potential.
> 
> he played on a final four team, dominated the paint in one of the strongest (if not the strongest) conferences in the country. maybe in a stronger draft year he might have fallen further, but against the likes of unknowns like mullens who "might" turn out to be "decent", i'll take a guy who's going to get after it like charles oakley and be a prescence on the interior and can be penciled in for 10 boards a game from the moment he steps on the court.
> 
> can't say that i've seen very many prospects that has been said about outside of griffin.


You must love Hansborough then. Oh wait... I forgot Hansborough sucks for some unknown reason. wink wink.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> You must love Hansborough then. Oh wait... I forgot Hansborough sucks for some unknown reason. wink wink.


i'd take hansborough six ways to sunday before mullens. even at 6'8, tyler would make bj perform one on him. mullens has no resume, he has no track record, he has no endorsement of coaches. everything is "he might". if he falls to 26, and the bulls want to gamble, i say whatever. but at 16, picking someone who has shown he can play is a wiser decision, one i beleive the bulls will adhere to.

i'd take blair before either.

wink wink.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

I am just wondering... that if you want


> a player that played on a final four team, dominated the paint in one of the strongest (if not the strongest) conferences in the country. maybe in a stronger draft year he might have fallen further, but against the likes of unknowns like mullens who "might" turn out to be "decent", i'll take a guy who's going to get after it like charles oakley and be a prescence on the interior and can be penciled in for 10 boards a game from the moment he steps on the court.


why would you be so against Hansborough?
oh yeah I remember... because he is a


> *white* stiff with nothing to bring to the nba


*Personal Attack*


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

caseyrh said:


> I am just wondering... that if you want
> would you be so against Hansborough?
> oh yeah I remember... because he is a
> 
> I can't stand morons like you.


You're not the only one. But according to one mod, he has a good posting history so he's not a troll as I correctly stated he was.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> You're not the only one. But according to one mod, he has a good posting history so he's not a troll as I correctly stated he was.


I wonder if that mod still thinks he has a good posting history.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

caseyrh said:


> I wonder if that mod still thinks he has a good posting history.


I'm sure he does. It was in response to nearly identical remarks as this.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

I am just wondering... that if you want 


> Quote:
> a player that played on a final four team, dominated the paint in one of the strongest (if not the strongest) conferences in the country. maybe in a stronger draft year he might have fallen further, but against the likes of unknowns like mullens who "might" turn out to be "decent", i'll take a guy who's going to get after it like charles oakley and be a prescence on the interior and can be penciled in for 10 boards a game from the moment he steps on the court.


would you be so against Hansborough?
oh yeah I remember... because he is a 
would you be so against Hansborough?
oh yeah I remember... because he is a 


> Quote:
> white stiff with nothing to bring to the nba


I can't stand edit like you. 

of course you don't; you're attempting to frame me by my assertions about a player i think stinks; this fundamental difference of opinion has given you the belief that i'm a moron. that's cool; i learn more and more daily by participating in message boards that cyberspace is full of people of all types of intelligence and lack thereof; i push people's button's cause they take this ish seriously, and i don't. imo, that makes them the moron, cause at the end of the day if mullens and hansborough end up as hall of famers it don't affect me in the least.


BUT AT THIS POINT IN TIME......mullens ain't s**t, and neither of you two experts have put forth a claim that's even worth debating. budinger either. however, as far as hansborough is concerned, he's a far more accomplished player than mullens ever allowed himself to be, and if the bulls have worked out TH and feel he's a decent prospect at 16 (assuming someone they prefer isn't still on the board), i suspect he'll be a decent role player who'll play hard. that's what his history has shown and physical limitations excluded, that's probably what'll make his name in the league. him being white is wholly, completely, and totally irrelevant. he's light years beyond mullens now and in the immediate future

i PREFER blair, he's more what the bulls need; i PREFER some others, many in fact over a player who has no resume, weak workouts, and damning faint praise by the real experts who evaluate talent.

not some internet youtube scouts.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

Your logic is horrible. Fist of all in my original post just last night, I was describing Hansborough as our long-term backup PF to which you said he would be a "white stiff with no future in the NBA" (discussing him as a backup) Just a few hours later you are saying " I suspect he'll be a decent role player who'll play hard." Which one is it? And how come if you agree with me that he would be a decent role player then why would you knock me for wanting him as a roleplayer?
Then you basically described Hansborough to the tee as to exactly what you think the Bulls need (when discussing Blair). Why are you tripping all over yourself and trying to backpedal. Why don't you just come clean and admit that you do not like white basketball players? 

You are the same guy who claimed an ahletic sophmore who was a first team all-american, somehow did not apply his athleticism in-game. Face it you, you have no idea what you are talking about and your opinions are all over the place, and conflicting with other opinions you have. You just talk... but have no idea what you are saying or why.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

if given a choice between 3 "white stiffs", i'll take hansborough.:rofl2:



> Then you basically described Hansborough to the tee as to exactly what you think the Bulls need (when discussing Blair). Why are you tripping all over yourself and trying to backpedal. Why don't you just come clean and admit that you do not like white basketball players


imo, blair IS better than hansborough..... let's see....i suspect you are white, how's about i admit just that i don't like you.....:groucho:



> You are the same guy who claimed an ahletic sophmore who was a first team all-american, somehow did not apply his athleticism in-game. Face it you, you have no idea what you are talking about and your opinions are all over the place, and conflicting with other opinions you have. You just talk... but have no idea what you are saying or why.


are you going back to harden? hold on now, if you're gonna switch races on me.....:rules:

harden's style is deliberate, slow and methodical; some scouts liken him to paul pierce, frankly, i haven't seen that. but his disappearing act in the nc2a's had me believing that as the comp goes up, harden's effectiveness goes down. time will tell. who knows?.....it's quite possible, based on his style of game, that he'll be a "black stiff".......are you happy now?


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> if given a choice between 3 "white stiffs", i'll take hansborough.:rofl2:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Watch the personal attacks - Dornado. You never addressed your flip-flopping (because you can't defend it) You really have no clue what you are talking about you have proved it multiple times. All you do is talk in circles and make ridiculous comments that you can't back up with anything other than your worthless opinion. You continue to make racist comments and try to pass them off as jokes. I am curious to see if the moderators ever *properly* address this.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

If you want to address Dornado's moderation, send him a PM

-jnr


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

caseyrh said:


> Dornado:
> Really?
> That is what you decide to address?
> You ignore the racial stereotypes, the continued derogatory terms concerning white athletes. But edit my use of the word moron. So when I am talking *Bulls basketball* and mention 10 players who I would like to be the future of the bulls 3 of whom happen to be white. It is cool for someone to isolate only the three white players and call them "white stiffs". But for me to then call that person a moron is the greater wrong?


Well, he is the one who defended his racist comments before, so no surprise there.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Fist of all in my original post just last night, I was describing Hansborough as our long-term backup PF to which you said he would be a "white stiff with no future in the NBA" (discussing him as a backup)



*wherever* youu believe i wrote that, it wasn't in *this* thread; in trying so hard to make your opinions relevant, i think you've lost track of some of the inane comments you hope to shape others' opinions with. i'm not, nor have i been a fan of hansborough. he was abused by blake griffin in the nc2a championship; that doesn't bode well for him doing much more than being a "stiff with no future" until he plays. regardless of what you believe i meant before, that is my belief about hansborough. if he's the bulls pick, i'll live with him and afford him the opportunity to succeed a POY and nc2a champ deserves. mullens? eh.......not so much. hoping he'll be a solid big man in another 3-4 years is a waste of (my)time; way too many things happen to nba franchises to expect anything out of such a project that far up the road. second round, like gray? ok; late pick 26? ok. but 16? get something useful, not something that you'll need to give nbdl experience to before he can even practice. maybe that's harsh, but outside of seeing him dunk on high schoolers, and hearing the "he's got soft hands", spizzle, what else you got? 64% shooter? he wasn't even an *offensive option* for OSU.i won't even bother checking his shot attempts, which i'm sure will support my assertion. translated, putbacks and dunks; same as the bulls have now, only with less experience.
and as far as his "accomplishments" goes, none of them did him much good at the OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY; he couldn't crack the starting lineup.



> Just a few hours later you are saying " I suspect he'll be a decent role player who'll play hard." Which one is it? And how come if you agree with me that he would be a decent role player then why would you knock me for wanting him as a roleplayer?


where was the knock on you? if i stated hansborough was a "white stiff", what's that got to do with you?



> Then you basically described Hansborough to the tee as to exactly what you think the Bulls need (when discussing Blair). Why are you tripping all over yourself and trying to backpedal. Why don't you just come clean and admit that you do not like white basketball players?


you really should focus on posting your opinion about basketball. i prefer blair, and i am of the opinion the bulls do too.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Dornado said:


> One of us watched every summer league game, every pre-season game, 82 regular season games and 7 playoff games... and we both know it wasn't you...


:laugh:......


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> *wherever* youu believe i wrote that...
> 
> where was the knock on you? if i stated hansborough was a "white stiff", what's that got to do with you?


There is no confusion as to whether or not you said it. Lets not pretend like i am making this up here is your quote:



BULLHITTER said:


> i "imagine" that team would be one of the worst in the nba for god knows how long......
> 
> the losing would infect whatever good characteristics any of them had, leading to selfish play, disgruntled youngsters who don't know how to win at the nba level, and quickly and soon afterward players like rose and bosh, going to the press begging for a trade. there'd be virtually no chance free agents would consider playing in chicago, further infecting a diseased and incurable franchise. that would leave the bulls with a team of budinger, hansborough, and mullens. white stiffs with nothing to bring to the nba but hustle and heart. given mullens and budinger's questionable work ethic, i "imagine" that team could challenge for the nba's worst record for wins in a season at 9. then i "imagine" jerry reinsdorf would quickly fire the managerial group et al to save whatever money he can for such a disatrous turn of events by such a inexplicably clueless management decision.
> 
> then i "imagine" i wake up and realize it was just a stupid idea i read on the internet.


That is the last i am going to discuss this. The moderators clearly couldn't care less about racial comments as long as they are only directed at white people. However, I am truly sorry for offending anyone on this board with my usage of the horribly derogatory term moron.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

caseyrh said:


> Dornado:
> Really?
> That is what you decide to address?
> You ignore the racial stereotypes, the continued derogatory terms concerning white athletes. But edit my use of the word moron. So when I am talking *Bulls basketball* and mention 10 players who I would like to be the future of the bulls 3 of whom happen to be white. It is cool for someone to isolate only the three white players and call them "white stiffs". But for me to then call that person a moron is the greater wrong?


Casey, I'm going to edit the direct personal attacks when I see them... argue the point, but stay away from the name-calling... 

Bullhitter may be towing a line, but I guess I didn't find "white stiff" to be that offensive overall... the nuances of conversation are harder to edit out than the obvious attacks, but if it continues down a line of race-based argument I'll be happy to lock the thread.

If you have any questions or want to take issue with my approach, PM me and I'm all ears.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> he wasn't even an *offensive option* for OSU.i won't even bother checking his shot attempts, which i'm sure will support my assertion. translated, putbacks and dunks; same as the bulls have now, only with less experience.
> and as far as his "accomplishments" goes, none of them did him much good at the OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY; he couldn't crack the starting lineup.


Ohio State hasn't been half bad lately, for the record... not making an immediate impact for the Buckeyes is a worry, but not all that damning overall, in my opinion.


Of course, I went to Ohio State...


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Ohio State hasn't been half bad lately, for the record... *not making an immediate impact for the Buckeyes is a worry,* but not all that damning overall, in my opinion.
> 
> 
> Of course, I went to Ohio State...


exactly; an upper echelon program, a highly rated big man from HS, and he couldn't start? but now he's ready for pro ball?

something's wrong with that picture....

as far as my "quote" goes......imo, those 3 players wouldn't help bosh and rose even make the playoffs, and it has nothing much to do with the fact that they're white; they'd be stiffs regardless.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> exactly; an upper echelon program, a highly rated big man from HS, and he couldn't start? but now he's ready for pro ball?
> 
> something's wrong with that picture....
> 
> as far as my "quote" goes......imo, those 3 players wouldn't help bosh and rose even make the playoffs, and it has nothing much to do with the fact that they're white; they'd be stiffs regardless.


I am not going to get into the racial thing again, it is ridiculous. But please explain how they are "stiffs"? And not as a group but individually. Instead of just writing off players with bachanded remarks, why don't you actually use some facts, stats, or a well thought out opinion to justify your claim? And keep in mind that all three of those guys were going to be long-term valuable *backup* players in my initial post that started this whole thing. I would like to know how one of the most accomplished college basketball players of all time who despite what people claim is average size and athleticism at his position in the NBA, will be unable to be a back-up power forward in the NBA? I would also like for you to justify writing off Mullens and Buddinger as back-up NBA players.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

As I see it, Mullens could bust, but I'd be shocked if Budinger and even Hansbrough (who I don't want at all really) will bust. I think anyone who drafts Budinger is going to get a shooter and rebounder, without good D. And that's what is expected. With Tyler, you're getting a garbage man who gets by on being physical and hustling, which is what he'd be drafted for. Mullens you'd draft on potential that he'd be a star 7 footer eventually, but might bust....as every player might bust.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

But at that same time, some of the others mentioned, like Blair, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they bust. So when I said Mullens could bust, sure he could since he's risky, but at least his size and athletic ability translates. Hansbrough's doesn't, and Blair's doesn't either, plus he has issues on top of being short and fat with bad knees.


----------

