# Possible inside info on the pick.... ROSE!



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Found this on youtube.



> I'm from lake bluff illinois and grew up with john paxsons son ryan. direct quote i got from mr paxson last night at a graduation party for a family friend "I think derrick will be just like jason kidd, but better because of his athleticism. So I really really like what I see in rose. But I'll tell you one thing, mike beasley will win rookie of the year, but derrick will be better long term." Bulls WILL draft D Rose.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNwgnlOQLig

Of course you never know whether an internet post has any merit. But this kid has done a little homework and made up a good story if it's not true. 

1. Paxson does live there, I have met him there.
2. That is his son's name.
3. That is the right date for the local graduation, and he says it quite casually.
4. He calls him Mr. Paxson, I've never heard a basketball poster say that.

I think this is good info.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Interesting.

It'd be a little surprising that Paxson would be talking about draft picks at a graduation party, considering how secretive he has been lately about front office decisions.

I suppose I'd believe it if Paxson were just throwing out the positives of each player. Such as, "Beasley is more NBA ready scoring wise, but Rose will probably excel in his natural NBA position better." Put that way, it's actually pretty consistent with what Pax has said publicly already.

Regardless of whether this is true or not, I've been about 95% convinced for a while now that Rose is our pick. Knowing how Pax values guard play and our need to stay athletic/up-tempo, along w/ hiring Vinny D as coach, not to mention his affinity for high character, this continues to say Derrick Rose all the way. 

For icing on the cake, you have:

- Ticket sales, as Rose is the hometown favorite
- Paxson might have to fear for his life if he bypassed Rose (there are some crazy people out there!)


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

5. I recognize the last name, it's not a common last name and Lake Bluff is a small town. Most likely the younger brother of a girl I knew, and she would not lie about anything.



yodurk said:


> Regardless of whether this is true or not, I've been about 95% convinced for a while now that Rose is our pick.


Me too, but confirmation never hurts.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

For your sakes you'd better hope he's right 'cause I've heard from close sources Beasley doesn't wanna play in Chicago.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Dre™ said:


> For your sakes you'd better hope he's right 'cause I've heard from close sources Beasley doesn't wanna play in Chicago.


Fine by us!


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

yodurk said:


> Regardless of whether this is true or not, I've been about 95% convinced for a while now that Rose is our pick. Knowing how Pax values guard play and our need to stay athletic/up-tempo, along w/ hiring Vinny D as coach, not to mention his affinity for high character, this continues to say Derrick Rose all the way.
> 
> For icing on the cake, you have:
> 
> ...


To add:

During the season Pax repeatedly said he wanted to upgrade point guard play.

After hiring Del *****, which has the city very uneasy, if Pax doesn't take Rose who is insanely preferred in Chicago - the fans will revolt and there will be a widespread public outcry.

Del ***** was hired to develop current players and specifically mentioned Thabo, Thomas and Noah during his press conference.

Reinsdorf's interview with D'Antoni included discussions of how to utilize Drew Gooden.

Its a mortal lock that the Bulls take Rose unless something goes horribly and unpredictably wrong during his visit. EVERYTHING points to Rose. Nothing points to Beasley.  And I say this as one of the evidently few fans that prefers Beasley.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> To add:
> 
> During the season Pax repeatedly said he wanted to upgrade point guard play.
> 
> ...



Ron Cey --

Always good to hear you chime in, bro. I've been curious about your thoughts on Vinny Del ***** as coach. I recall you saying a long time ago that you'd be in favor of a younger, energetic coach over a "proven" coach, even if not as experienced. 

I'm a bit surprised to hear your favoritism for Beasley, but nobody can really fault that. Most [rational] Bulls fans believe we can't go wrong with either one. You're right though, there would be mass rioting if we bypassed Rose.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

That's interesting. Going forward, assuming the young guys work out that is, if we draft Rose, we'd have Rose, Thabs, Deng, Tyrus and Lucy, all 23 or under. That's a pretty good group of young guys, with plenty of defense and athleticism. If you could add Chase Budinger in there next year if he doesn't go pro this year as our scorer, that'd be a nice top 6.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> That's interesting. Going forward, assuming the young guys work out that is, if we draft Rose, we'd have Rose, Thabs, Deng, Tyrus and Lucy, all 23 or under. That's a pretty good group of young guys, with plenty of defense and athleticism. If you could add Chase Budinger in there next year if he doesn't go pro this year as our scorer, that'd be a nice top 6.


I like Budinger but I actually like Bill Walker better than Chase and I dont any GM should draft a white SG in the first round lol jk.


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

It's actually still being debated as to who the Bulls will pick? My money has been on Rose from the start and it's still there.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

why the hell is Paxson talking about this at a graduation party? :laugh:

if that's true why don't he just announce to espn he's picking Rose.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

liekomgj4ck said:


> why the hell is Paxson talking about this at a graduation party? :laugh:
> 
> if that's true why don't he just announce to espn he's picking Rose.


Pax is such a blabber mouth and then he gets worked up when stuff leaks out to the media. Pax knows kids go on these websites and post this stuff and he wants to test the media to see if it gets out.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> To add:
> 
> During the season Pax repeatedly said he wanted to upgrade point guard play.
> 
> ...


I mean, all of your reasoning sounds good and lawyerly and stuff 

But if the Del ***** hiring shows us anything, its that Pax is either

1) feeling his oats and just thumbing his nose at all the experts and their expectations

2) feeling a little desperate and willing to take some rather large risks in order to turn things around for this team.

Either scenario means that there is NO way anybody is a mortal lock before he brings them in to look at them. 

If Beasley is the one who stands out, shakes all the doubts about his seriousness, etc., Pax'll take him. 

Which is the way it should be. 

That being said, I think he goes with Rose to bring balance and true "position" players to the team. 

But I'm in no way convinced.

However, the youtube comment almost had me convinced.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

I think people are over thinking this whole draft pick, its pretty obvious that Derrick Rose will be the first name called on draft night and after all the measurements and workouts some of the experts expect Rose to be #1 even if the Bulls werent drafting #1. 

Pax's coaching search has made the Bulls look incompetent and like I said before the only reason we arent the NBA's laughing stock right now is because we do have the #1 pick, No WAY does Pax screw this up by not taking Derrick Rose who not only is the hometown favorite but more *IMPORTANTLY *the most talented player in the draft.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

spongyfungy said:


> Pax is such a blabber mouth and then he gets worked up when stuff leaks out to the media. Pax knows kids go on these websites and post this stuff and he wants to test the media to see if it gets out.


There's a very very fine line between what was posted and what Paxson has already said publicly to the media (i.e. the obvious selling points of each player). If he's simply repeating things that he's already said, which appears more likely IMO, then I don't see how this constitutes a blabber mouth. Paxson really hasn't been blabbering much of anything to be quite honest; ever since the Eddy Curry fiasco he's seemed pretty sleuth-like to me. All you get from him anymore are empty statements that point out the obvious.


----------



## 68topls (Mar 29, 2008)

we need mayo...


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

yodurk said:


> Ron Cey --
> 
> Always good to hear you chime in, bro. I've been curious about your thoughts on Vinny Del ***** as coach. I recall you saying a long time ago that you'd be in favor of a younger, energetic coach over a "proven" coach, even if not as experienced.


I was more interested in Dwane Casey than Del *****. But I'm perfectly fine with the Vinny hire. I did want to go in a completely different direction with the coaching hire. I considered the experienced coaches available like Johnson, D'Antoni, and Carlisle to be absolute poison. I was strongly opposed to hiring any of them.

I'm uneasy about Del *****, admittedly, because I know nothing about him. But the things that were *said* at the press conference sounded like a recitation of what I'd been advocating this team needed by way of a coach and approach. Now we'll see how it translates into actions.



> I'm a bit surprised to hear your favoritism for Beasley, but nobody can really fault that. Most [rational] Bulls fans believe we can't go wrong with either one. You're right though, there would be mass rioting if we bypassed Rose.


I think Rose is a tantalizing talent, but overrated due to a number of things:

(a) He's local. I do think this explains, in part, the overwhelming support he's getting in the Chicago market. If you look at national polls, most NBA followers consider it a much closer call.

(b) He got more national exposure, so fans have seen more of him.

(c) Due to the recent emergence of Paul and Williams, there is a false perception that the NBA is becoming "a point guard's league." Its not. Point is clearly an important position, but its no more important today than it was 5, 10 or 20 years ago. People see Williams and Paul and think Rose will do that for the Bulls. I don't think he's got the team-orientied playmaking skills of either. I think he'll be a fine NBA point and a clear upgrade for Chicago when drafted, but fans are talking about this guy like he's the Dwight Howard of point guards and that he's going to be an elite, dominant NBA player. I don't think he will be. 

I prefer Beasley because I consider them equal prospects and, given that, I believe Beasley provides the more important need for the Bulls - a legitimate, #1 go-to scoring option. He's an absolute offensive machine and will be a dominant scorer in the NBA. 

But I don't even think about it much. The pick will be Rose.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I think Rose is a tantalizing talent, but overrated due to a number of things:
> 
> (a) He's local. I do think this explains, in part, the overwhelming support he's getting in the Chicago market. If you look at national polls, most NBA followers consider it a much closer call.
> 
> ...


Fair points. The only reason I'd give a second thought toward Beasley is because he does provide a legit #1 scorer type of ability, even if he's not the true post scorer as many have billed him.

However, I still feel that Rose is the "harder to find" type of guy, and also the sort of player who will really help Tyrus Thomas and Joakim Noah emerge. I think it'd be a mistake to give up on either of them this early, given how much we've invested (especially in Tyrus' case). I think drafting Beasley would be throwing Tyrus' Bulls career down the toilet, whereas Rose would enhance it considerably. 

Also, if we're still serious about consolidating talent (which I surely hope we are, as we're still 10-12 players deep), I hope that sooner or later we can trade for a #1 type of scorer. It may be a tall proposition, but I think it's more likely than trading for an all-star PG!


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Beasley was a scoring machine in college largely due to size/strength advantage, that he simply won't have in the NBA. If he plays PF in the NBA, he'll be at a size disadvantage unless he grows a lot, so he simply won't be a scoring machine at the next level. SF, he has a chance, but not at PF. Then you get to his defense, which isn't good. That's why you take Rose.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

It will be Rose


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Beasley was a scoring machine in college largely due to size/strength advantage, that he simply won't have in the NBA. If he plays PF in the NBA, he'll be at a size disadvantage unless he grows a lot, so he simply won't be a scoring machine at the next level. SF, he has a chance, but not at PF. Then you get to his defense, which isn't good. That's why you take Rose.


Beasley and Rose are only 19, they will probably grow.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

I said grow a lot, not just grow period. In order for him to have a size advantage, as he did in college usually, he'll have to grow a lot, as in 3-4 inches. Right now he have less length than guys like Tyrus Thomas, but has some bulk advantage, and his bulk advantage, if there is any against most PFs, will be minimal. As soon as I saw he was only 6'7" or w/e, that told me SF would be his best fit. He's not like Tyrus with the extremely long arms and insane vertical, so he doesn't have as much length. If you could combine Tyrus and Beasley though, you'd have one heck of a player lol.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

liekomgj4ck said:


> Beasley and Rose are only 19, they will probably grow.


I really don't think you can draft a guy based on the assumption that he'll grow.

Some guys continue to grow at age 20 (as Tyrus is rumored to). Others hit their peak at age 16...and others at age 18. Some never grow again after that.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Beasley was a scoring machine in college largely due to size/strength advantage, that he simply won't have in the NBA. If he plays PF in the NBA, he'll be at a size disadvantage unless he grows a lot, so he simply won't be a scoring machine at the next level. SF, he has a chance, but not at PF. Then you get to his defense, which isn't good. That's why you take Rose.


Beasley, in shoes and with standing reach, measures out to be an average sized NBA power forward. And his strength measurements and weight were very, very good in Orlando. He's not going to be an abnormally tall PF like Duncan, Bosh or Garnett, but those guys are the exceptions. 

Yes, he won't have a height advantage (strength, he'll be just fine). But he'll have the advantage that really makes him a great prospect - absurd skills. His handle, first step, outside shooting ability and array of inside moves and the ability to finish with either hand is what will continue to allow him to score elitely in the NBA. Give him a couple of years and then just go ahead and lock him in as a top 10 scorer every year. 

His offense is fine. The main concern with Beasley, as you point out, is his defense.


----------



## Case (Dec 17, 2007)

liekomgj4ck said:


> Beasley and Rose are only 19, they will probably grow.


I don't know why so many people say this. How many of us continued to get taller after age 19? I think I reached my current height at around age 15 or 16.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Case said:


> I don't know why so many people say this. How many of us continued to get taller after age 19? I think I reached my current height at around age 15 or 16.


Its mostly wishful thinking... but some guys, like the aforementioned (different thread) Pippen... and others like Kevin Garnett and Tyson Chandler... were taller at 22-23 than they were at 18-19.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Case said:


> I don't know why so many people say this. How many of us continued to get taller after age 19? I think I reached my current height at around age 15 or 16.


Me too, I thought I was going to be tall.:whatever: Should've worked on my ball handling more.


----------



## Case (Dec 17, 2007)

Hustle said:


> Found this on youtube.
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNwgnlOQLig
> ...


I haven't watched the link (youtube is blocked at my office), but this sounds (suspiciously) like the "I know a guy who talked to JR at a high school basketball game about Deng and Gordon" rumor.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

I have confirmed that this person does live in Pax's neighborhood. So take it for what it's worth. It is an upscale neighborhood and I find it unlikely that the person would put his reputation out there given the up bringing, but you never know.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

yodurk said:


> I really don't think you can draft a guy based on the assumption that he'll grow.
> 
> Some guys continue to grow at age 20 (as Tyrus is rumored to). Others hit their peak at age 16...and others at age 18. Some never grow again after that.


I'm with you, I wouldn't be drafting on speculation they might grow. 

However, you can take a wrist xray and figure out whether someone will continue to grow and how much growing they have left. Unless the draft prospects are willing to do that, then I wouldn't risk it.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

A forward line of Beasley and Deng is intriguing ....backed by Tyrus Thomas 

You wonder whether Kirk , Ben and Gooden gets you TMac and Carl Landry 

Does Nocioni get you TJ Ford ? 

*

Noah 
Beasley 
Deng 
McGrady
Ford 

bench

Gray 
Thomas 
Landry 
Sefolosha
Duhon ( to be brought back ) 

Simmons
Hughes

*

I like that team


----------



## Case (Dec 17, 2007)

^ Which is why either pick will greatly improve the team. I'm a Rose-guy at this point, but I can see why Beasley would be a great selection, too.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Case said:


> ^ Which is why either pick will greatly improve the team. I'm a Rose-guy at this point, but I can see why Beasley would be a great selection, too.


I agree.

I'm sold on Rose, but I can't help but wonder how Beasley would do as well. 

Even if Beasley isn't a true post option, I still have to fantasize what a forward combo of Deng & Beasley could do together, with Tyrus Thomas backing them up (Beasley can shift between slots). That's one of the top 3 forward tandems in the league easily, right? You're talking 40+ points per game and at least 15 rebounds between Deng/Beasley alone. 

If that were the move, that leaves Thabo & Noah to put their defense and team-oriented passing skills to work. I'd still like Gordon as the 6th man to be our #3 scorer. 

That means we'd want to dump Nocioni, Hinrich, and Gooden onto some suckerr...I mean, net ourselves a PG. Easier said than done though, which is why I like Rose. Good PG's are just hard to find, and I feel like Rose has "it".


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

I like Rose better than Beasley largely because Beasley very well could be the next Derrick Coleman or Stromile Swift. Now admittedly, Swift was less skilled than Beasley (by a lot) and Coleman was the Tin Man of the 90s NBA, so I'm not as wary about picking Beasley. Rose, however, screams competitor to me, and he has a distinct size and strength advantage at his position.

Second, I'm a big advocate of choosing three to four guys to build around. Give them 4 or 5 years together. If they don't win a title, break them up, and perhaps keep the strongest or second strongest player. Well, Hinrich, Deng, Gordon, and Nocioni were our 4 "guys". They've been together for four years and seemingly peaked at a hard-fought second round exit. Whereas, Tyrus, Noah, and Thabo have only been together for two years, so I'm willing to give them more time to grow.

Also, Pax is off on his comparison. The one person who I see when I see Derrick Rose, and nobody can convince me otherwise of this, is Gary Payton. And I truly believe that Tyrus has the innate athletic ability and skills to be Rose's Kemp. Surround those two guys with a bruising 7-footer and a couple of wing scorers, and you are good to go. 

I have a rather detailed plan that will probably be liked by absolutely no one, but I truly feel that this plan would help us be competitive in the first two years of Rose's career and then a legit contender as Rose gets into his third, fourth, and fifth years. 

I'm too lazy to post it right now, but I will later.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

T.Shock said:


> I like Rose better than Beasley largely because Beasley very well could be the next Derrick Coleman or Stromile Swift. Now admittedly, Swift was less skilled than Beasley (by a lot) and Coleman was the Tin Man of the 90s NBA, so I'm not as wary about picking Beasley. Rose, however, screams competitor to me, and he has a distinct size and strength advantage at his position.
> 
> Second, I'm a big advocate of choosing three to four guys to build around. Give them 4 or 5 years together. If they don't win a title, break them up, and perhaps keep the strongest or second strongest player. Well, Hinrich, Deng, Gordon, and Nocioni were our 4 "guys". They've been together for four years and seemingly peaked at a hard-fought second round exit. Whereas, Tyrus, Noah, and Thabo have only been together for two years, so I'm willing to give them more time to grow.
> 
> ...


I want to hear your plan!


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

T.Shock said:


> The one person who I see when I see Derrick Rose, and nobody can convince me otherwise of this, is Gary Payton. And I truly believe that Tyrus has the innate athletic ability and skills to be Rose's Kemp. Surround those two guys with a bruising 7-footer and a couple of wing scorers, and you are good to go.


Gary Payton is a fair comparison for Rose, skill-wise. Rose is a more explosive athlete than Payton ever was, but I see the similarities with the drive-and-kick ability and defensive instincts. The Glove is a tough standard to match defensively though. 

Tyrus does play a little like Kemp (beyond just the dunking aspects), but Kemp had a strength advantage that Tyrus doesn't have. Maybe that's not your point -- regardless, I generally agree with you. My worry in drafting Beasley is that Tyrus gets thrown out the wayside, when I really think Tyrus is ready to be a major contributor. Del ***** seems ready to play Tyrus some heavy minutes, and my statistical projection of Tyrus puts him in the ballpark of 14 ppg, 8 reb, 2.5 blocks for the upcoming season. He'll only get better as his body fills out. In drafting Rose, it really just means we've given up on Hinrich, which I'm fine with. I'm not ready to give up on Tyrus.

It's funny, I think Tyrus Thomas might be the one Bulls player most directly affected by who we draft. Beasley would really hinder Tyrus, whereas Rose would really enhance it.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

T.Shock said:


> Second, I'm a big advocate of choosing three to four guys to build around. Give them 4 or 5 years together. If they don't win a title, break them up, and perhaps keep the strongest or second strongest player. Well, Hinrich, Deng, Gordon, and Nocioni were our 4 "guys". They've been together for four years and seemingly peaked at a hard-fought second round exit. Whereas, Tyrus, Noah, and Thabo have only been together for two years, so I'm willing to give them more time to grow.



The problem with this approach is you're never going to win a title if you just keep rotating a group of guys from age 22-27.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

It sounds like to me Pax was speaking in general tones and the listener intuited that we were picking Rose. It's not like he came out and screameed we're taking Rose. Maybe we are maybe we aren't, I imagine a lot of it will have to do with the workouts that just started.

ACE


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

T.Shock said:


> I like Rose better than Beasley largely because Beasley very well could be the next Derrick Coleman or Stromile Swift. *Now admittedly, Swift was less skilled than Beasley (by a lot)*


Then why are you comparing them? They aren't anything alike. At all. 

I think Derrick Rose might be the next Shaun Livingston, except he's shorter, stronger, faster and less creative with the ball and there's no evidence he'll sustain a career ending injury due to fragility.



> and Coleman was the Tin Man of the 90s NBA, so I'm not as wary about picking Beasley.


Again, then why the comparison? Talent-wise, yes. But thats a compliment to Beasley. A big compliment. Coleman should have been elite. 



> Rose, however, screams competitor to me, and he has a distinct size and strength advantage at his position.


What does Beasley scream? I've rarely seen a collegiate player of his talent play with as much intensity. That guy gets after it.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

I brought up the Coleman comparisons a month or so ago ...and I think that's what Beasley projects to - what Derrick Coleman should have been 

I'm wavering on Rose and I'm trending more toward Michael Beasley who I'm coming around to the idea that he is perfectly balanced ( long term ) with Joakim Noah , Luol Deng and Tyrus Thomas upfront 

But if we take Beasley #1 ..then I want 

1. To swap Nocioni for TJ Ford 

2. To package Hinrich,Gooden and Cedric Simmons for Jermaine O'Neal and #11 - where we take Russell Westbrook. 

3. To send Larry Hughes to the Knicks for Quentin Richardson 

4. To resign Duhon

This gives us :

*

O'Neal 
Thomas
Deng
Richardson
Ford

Gordon - 6th 

bench

Noah
Beasley
Sefolosha
Westbrook
Duhon

*

Ultimately , within 2 seasons , - it gives us a core of 

*

Noah
Beasley
Thomas
Deng
Gordon
Westbrook
Sefolosha
Ford

*

That's scary good mix of pure scorers in Beasley and Gordon with Deng an ideal 2nd or 3rd banana - with a genuine point in Ford and then the defensive anchors in Noah, Thomas, Sefolosha and Westbrook - upfront and on the perimeter - all of whom balance out the defensive inadequacies of Gordon and say Beasley 

Real pace and length too with that mix not to mention that it could develop as one of the best rebounding teams in the league


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Quentin Richardson is not good...


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Dornado said:


> Quentin Richardson is not good...



No kidding 

But you wouldn't swap him for Larry Hughes ?

I like Q as he gives us better rebounding and shooting than Hughes + he can post 

Hughes is a slasher who can put defensive pressure on the press when he feels like doing so and also who has some handle ....we already have one of those that costs $10M less and who needs some playing time . 

His name is Thabo Sefolosha 

Plus Hughes and Q cancel each other out in dollars and terms under length of contract

Plus ..New York has shooter / jackers ...Crawford and Robinson at the back . Marbury will likely be traded . A guy like Hughes who can create some offense for himself and slash from the wing is something the Knicks don't have . He actually is not a bad fit for the Knicks and D'Antoni


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Hughes for Q would be a no brainer for the Bulls,IMO. Equally as good or bad I guess, but Q is a better fit. If we take Beasley which I doubt, Nocioni for Ford would be sweet for both teams. I'm sketchy on JO, but if he stayed healthy then I like that move too. But that's a big if, and I really came around to Drew last year.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Hughes is simply a better player at this point... Quentin Richardson is definitely the superior rebounder, but even shooting the basketball they're essentially equivalent at this point...


----------



## 68topls (Mar 29, 2008)

Look at who we have over paid already (hinrich / nocioni) and who are looking to get over paid (gordan / Deng). none of those four players are worth what they are getting paid or what they wand to get paid. We need to do exactly what the celtics did and start shipping players out for 2 or 3 people who are proven players. Preferably some combination of three of the following: O'neal, Gilbert, jamison, josh smith, marion, or bonzi wells. If not, we need to start dropping dead weight like nocioni and hinrick and decide which power forward(s) / center is worth keeping. Draft the best talent in the draft which is oj mayo, trade away gordan and deng in sign and trade deals and get two veterans that can compliment and oj mayo / hughes in the back court. 



SausageKingofChicago said:


> I brought up the Coleman comparisons a month or so ago ...and I think that's what Beasley projects to - what Derrick Coleman should have been
> 
> I'm wavering on Rose and I'm trending more toward Michael Beasley who I'm coming around to the idea that he is perfectly balanced ( long term ) with Joakim Noah , Luol Deng and Tyrus Thomas upfront
> 
> ...


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Dornado said:


> Hughes is simply a better player at this point... Quentin Richardson is definitely the superior rebounder, but even shooting the basketball they're essentially equivalent at this point...


I have to disagree, Q is a much better long range shooter. But he's not good at getting his own shot. Being on a team oriented team with a good point like Rose should help him to shoot a much better percentage. Like he did in PHeonix.

I really just dont like Hughes next to Rose, Thabo, or Deng. Between 1-3 you need at least one guy who can hit the longball with consistency.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> Then why are you comparing them? They aren't anything alike. At all.
> 
> I think Derrick Rose might be the next Shaun Livingston, except he's shorter, stronger, faster and less creative with the ball and there's no evidence he'll sustain a career ending injury due to fragility.
> 
> ...


I'm comparing them because Beasley could easily become the next Derrick Coleman. Beasley looks like he has a heart. Coleman put up 20 and 10 his first couple of seasons too, got that big contract, and promptly quit. Beasley had supposed "character issues" just like Coleman did. This just screams repeat of the 1990 Draft. Plus, Beasley is a good post scorer, but whereas Rose has a decisive physical advantage at his position, Beasley is simply average. 

Love the sarcasm by the way. My point was, that Beasley could easily be Swift or Coleman very easily. Rose has no comparison. Listen, you like Beasley, we get that, and if they picked Beasley I wouldn't be devastated, but Beasley seems to have bust potential, Rose doesn't. 

And I really don't want to post my plan now, because Ron Cey will most surely reply with a sarcastic jab, and I really don't need to get into an interwebs brawl.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

T.Shock said:


> I'm comparing them because Beasley could easily become the next Derrick Coleman. Beasley looks like he has a heart. Coleman put up 20 and 10 his first couple of seasons too, got that big contract, and promptly quit. Beasley had supposed "character issues" just like Coleman did. This just screams repeat of the 1990 Draft. Plus, Beasley is a good post scorer, but whereas Rose has a decisive physical advantage at his position, Beasley is simply average.
> 
> Love the sarcasm by the way. *My point was, that Beasley could easily be Swift or Coleman very easily. Rose has no comparison.*


I understand how you can say he could be Coleman because at least they have comparable skill sets. How could he be Swift though? Beasley has hyper-developed ball-handling and shooting skills. Swift was a raw athlete. Explain your comparison. 

The Shaun Livingston line is intended to point out how off base it is to compare Swift and Beasley. It wasn't intended to be sarcastic, it was intended to be illustrative. If you think the comparison is valid, explain it. Because I'm not seeing it. At all. 



> Listen, you like Beasley, we get that, and if they picked Beasley I wouldn't be devastated, but Beasley seems to have bust potential, Rose doesn't.


Its interesting to me that you believe the more developed player has the bigger bust potential. Why is that? Is it because of the stories about Beasley's immaturity while in high school? What is it about him that makes you think he could bust. I assume it is mental. 



> And I really don't want to post my plan now, because Ron Cey will most surely reply with a sarcastic jab, and I really don't need to get into an interwebs brawl.


I will reply with questions if I don't understand and will disagree with it if I disagree. You don't want to post your plan because you don't want to see my response to it?


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

:boxing:

:biggrin:


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

T.Shock said:


> I'm comparing them because Beasley could easily become the next Derrick Coleman. Beasley looks like he has a heart. Coleman put up 20 and 10 his first couple of seasons too, got that big contract, and promptly quit. Beasley had supposed "character issues" just like Coleman did. This just screams repeat of the 1990 Draft. Plus, Beasley is a good post scorer, but whereas Rose has a decisive physical advantage at his position, Beasley is simply average.


Beasley's character issues stem from five high schools in four years. Not at his lack of work ethic or motivation towards the game of basketball.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> I understand how you can say he could be Coleman because at least they have comparable skill sets. How could he be Swift though? Beasley has hyper-developed ball-handling and shooting skills. Swift was a raw athlete. Explain your comparison.


Perhaps I should've explained it better. The comparison I was trying to make between Beasley and Swift was that Swift could've been an All-Star power forward but never developed any kind of NBA move. Beasley's skill set looks great against Missouri, etc., but he didn't exactly light the world on fire in the post against good competition. That Kansas game that everybody raves about, he did most of his damage on jump shots. I'm sorry, but unless Beasley can develop a go-to post move, I don't want a big guy that shoots 45% from the field even if he averages 20 and 10. Plus, we just burned a #2 pick on Tyrus. Do we really want to give Tyrus two years and tell him he's a bust.



Ron Cey said:


> The Shaun Livingston line is intended to point out how off base it is to compare Swift and Beasley. It wasn't intended to be sarcastic, it was intended to be illustrative. If you think the comparison is valid, explain it. Because I'm not seeing it. At all.


Don't patronize me. It certainly didn't feel like it was meant to be illustrative. More like demeaning. 



Ron Cey said:


> Its interesting to me that you believe the more developed player has the bigger bust potential. Why is that? Is it because of the stories about Beasley's immaturity while in high school? What is it about him that makes you think he could bust. I assume it is mental.


It does have something to do with Beasley's mentality or at least the mentality he's conveyed, but it is also because even if Rose doesn't end up being the next Jason Kidd or Gary Payton, he'll still be a quality starter. Guards picked high rarely bust "as hard" as big men taken high. I'm sure there are examples that dispute that point, but the larger trend is that big guys have a harder time fulfilling their potential than guards. 



Ron Cey said:


> I will reply with questions if I don't understand and will disagree with it if I disagree. You don't want to post your plan because you don't want to see my response to it?


It was a joke.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Rhyder said:


> Beasley's character issues stem from five high schools in four years. Not at his lack of work ethic or motivation towards the game of basketball.


I disagree. Beasley has developed a reputation as somewhat of a goofball. Which is fine. And it could be a fair or unfair rep, but I don't really want to take a chance on a guy that may spend more time goofing off than working on his game. People don't really change all that much. You want to stay a kid, you stay a kid. Lord knows I did. And it doesn't seem like Beasley is a bad guy, just immature. But those kind of mindset tend to have an impact on all aspects of your life. If Beasley can play PS3 up until 30 minutes before the game and then suddenly "turn it on" then more power to him. But if he can't, then he'll struggle. 

Listen, I'd be fine with either one. I feel like Rose's game transitions better to the NBA, plus he'll have a definitive size and strength advantage at his position. Beasley will be a fine player I'm sure, but I don't think he'll ever be the "best player" on a title team. I think Rose will. But if Beasley's name is called, I won't curse John Paxson. He'll just have to build a different team.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

T.Shock said:


> Perhaps I should've explained it better. The comparison I was trying to make between Beasley and Swift was that Swift could've been an All-Star power forward but never developed any kind of NBA move.


It isn't that Swift didn't develop "a move". Its that he didn't develop his skills. Period. Beasley's skill set is already EXTREMELY advanced for a draft prospect. He's as polished an offensive product as you are going to see coming out of college.

Swift could jump high and run fast. Still can. But he never added to it. 



> Beasley's skill set looks great against Missouri, etc., but he didn't exactly light the world on fire in the post against good competition. That Kansas game that everybody raves about, he did most of his damage on jump shots.


Beasley isn't a pure post scorer. If that is what you are trying to advance, I completely agree with you. He's an inside/outside threat who primarily creates from the elbow with his insanely fast first step and ball-handling ability for a man his size. Regardless of where his move starts, it ends at the rim a lot.



> I'm sorry, but unless Beasley can develop a go-to post move, I don't want a big guy that shoots 45% from the field even if he averages 20 and 10.


Beasley has a plethora of moves in the post and can finish with either hand. I don't know what you want. A "signature move" or something? And he shot .532 in college. Hell, Luol Deng doesn't even play inside and he shoots above that 45% figure you noted. 



> Plus, we just burned a #2 pick on Tyrus. Do we really want to give Tyrus two years and tell him he's a bust.


The cuss word that follows isn't to be mean, its for emphasis: I don't give a flying **** about Tyrus Thomas or Kirk Hinrich or whoever might become expendable when it comes to using this pick. Period. 



> Don't patronize me. It certainly didn't feel like it was meant to be illustrative. More like demeaning.


I can't control how things make you "feel". I'm just telling you - as the guy who wrote it - what it was intended to convey. 



> It does have something to do with Beasley's mentality or at least the mentality he's conveyed, but it is also because even if Rose doesn't end up being the next Jason Kidd or Gary Payton, he'll still be a quality starter. Guards picked high rarely bust "as hard" as big men taken high. I'm sure there are examples that dispute that point, but the larger trend is that big guys have a harder time fulfilling their potential than guards.


That may or may not be true. Antonio Daniels and Shawn Respert come to mind. Courtney Alexander. I'm sure the list is pretty long for guards too. Beasley isn't a big lumbering stiff who will be drafted too high and bust. He's a strong, agile, mid-sized, inside/outside, highly skilled scoring machine. Frankly, his type doesn't come along very often - nor does Rose's type - so its kind of hard to give either a bust ranking by position, in my opinion. 



> It was a joke.


I'm not funny though.


----------



## 4putt (May 21, 2008)

T.Shock said:


> I disagree. Beasley has developed a reputation as somewhat of a goofball. Which is fine. And it could be a fair or unfair rep, but I don't really want to take a chance on a guy that may spend more time goofing off than working on his game. People don't really change all that much. You want to stay a kid, you stay a kid. Lord knows I did. And it doesn't seem like Beasley is a bad guy, just immature. But those kind of mindset tend to have an impact on all aspects of your life. If Beasley can play PS3 up until 30 minutes before the game and then suddenly "turn it on" then more power to him. But if he can't, then he'll struggle.
> 
> Listen, I'd be fine with either one. I feel like Rose's game transitions better to the NBA, plus he'll have a definitive size and strength advantage at his position. Beasley will be a fine player I'm sure, but I don't think he'll ever be the "best player" on a title team. I think Rose will. But if Beasley's name is called, I won't curse John Paxson. He'll just have to build a different team.


i want to find out what PS3 game he was playing the summer before his freshman year... because he must have put on 20lbs of solid muscle playing it

the fact is that he put in relentless work in the weight room http://inside.kstatesports.com/mbb/home.html (strength and conditioning video)... and there are equivalent stories of him shooting late into the night, having keys to the gym and even coming back from road games and shooting for hours afterward... please explain to me how if he lacks "basketball focus", he is so prodigious at rebounding (the one thing no "selfish player" has the drive to pursue)

the facts are, on the court he is relentless, focused and dominant... off the court and on his own time, he's a nineteen-year-old with a goofy (and highly marketable) sense of humor http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/video/videopage?videoId=3448998


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Man, the pro-Beasley crowd, sure seems to pick and choose what parts of my posts they address. I agree that Beasley is a lot further along than Swift was, but I watched a decent number of Beasley games this year, and I don't see how his game automatically translates to 20-10 as a 4 man. Is he a great scorer? Sure. But he isn't going to come in and command and double team in the post. His defense is suspect. But again, I LIKE BEASLEY. He'll be a good player, but I just don't see him ever being "the guy" for a championship team. 

And again, Beasley can score in the post against guys smaller than him and probably slower as well. He's giving up 2 to 3 inches against most PFs. I don't care if he can put up 20 against Udonis Haslem. Can he put up 20 against Kevin Garnett? Or Tim Duncan? Granted, not many people can, but if we're passing on Rose, I need to see something that shows me that he's going to be a post scorer, and if faced with a guy three inches taller than him, not just head out and shoot 18-footers all game. 

Eh. Alexander, Respert, and those other guys were low lottery picks. Respert was picked 8th or 9th. Alexander went in the teens. I'm talking about Top 5 guys. From 1995-2005 and top 5 picks...

2005: Bogut(probably a bust), M. Williams, D. Williams, C. Paul, R. Felton
2004: Howard, Okafor, Gordon, Livingston, Harris (bad example)
2003: James, Darko, Melo, Bosh, Wade
2002: Yao, Jay Williams, Dunleavy, Gooden, Tskitishivilli
2001: Brown, Chandler, Gasol, Curry, Richardson
2000: we'll just skip this one because nobody from this class ever made a true impact
1999: Brand, Francis, Davis, Odom, Bender
1998: Olowakandi, Bibby, LaFrentz, Jamison, Carter
1997: Duncan, Van Horn, Billups, Daniels, Battie
1996: Iverson, Camby, Abdur-Rahim, Allen, Marbury

So essentially we've had 23 PFs/Cs drafted in the Top 5. Out of those 23:

BUSTS: Bogut, Darko, Tskitishvilli, Brown, Bender, Olowakandi, LaFrentz, Battie(8)
AVERAGE: Okafor, Gooden, Curry, Jamison, Van Horn, Abdur-Rahim(6)
ALL-STARS: Yao, Bosh, Brand, Odom(4)
HOFs: Duncan, Howard(probably)(2)

As for guards, we've had 18 guards drafted in the top 5. Out of those 18:

BUSTS: Jay Williams, Shaun Livingston(probably), Daniels(3)
AVERAGE: Felton, Gordon, Harris(3)
ALL-STARS: Williams, Francis, Davis, Richardson, Bibby, Carter, Billups, Allen, Marbury(9)
HOFs: Paul(probably), Wade(probably), Iverson(3)

12 out of 18 guards drafted in the Top 5 were at least All-Star level players. While only 6 out of 23 big men were (apologies to Jamison or Shareef if they made an All-Star team). 

At the end of the day, Beasley may end up being an all-time great, but the chances are it won't be as a dominant big man. (And I make this comment largely because the big reason people want Beasley is because it addresses our need for "post scoring"). I think Beasley is going to be a great scorer and perhaps a great rebounder and not much else. I think Rose has the ability to score, help other people score, play shut-down defense, rebound well for his position, and run a team.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Anyways,

IF WE DRAFT ROSE:

*Trade #1*
_Bulls send:_
Drew Gooden(7,100,000)
Cedric Simmons(1,742,760)

_Bulls receive:_
Mike Miller(9,000,000)

Memphis dumps Miller for an expiring contract in Gooden and a project in Simmons. I'd throw in a 2nd round pick if need be, but I think this is a fair deal for both sides. Memphis has a ton of guards and no big men to speak of. Gooden helps bridge the gap between the Darko era and the whoever hell they pick this year era.

*Trade #2*
_Bulls send:_
Kirk Hinrich(10,000,000)
2009 2nd Round Pick

_Bulls receive:_
Corey Maggette(re-signed 4 years, 42.8 million)

Bulls pick up a legit starting 2-guard who can put up 20+ a game and the Clippers get a starting PG. Obviously, I'd upgrade the pick if the Clips won't bite, but Maggette is gone regardless, so they might as well get something for him and Hinrich is a pretty good consolation prize.

*Trade #3*
_Bulls send:_
Ben Gordon(S&T)
Andres Nocioni(8,000,000)

_Bulls receive:_
Andrew Bogut(6,150,000)
Bobby Simmons(9,125,000)
2009 2nd Round Pick

Gordon sounds like he's on his way out and the Bulls pick up a legit 7-footer to help out Tyrus down low. We take Simmons back to make the deal work and to probably make the contracts work since Gordon would be BYC. A third team may need to be involved, and I'm not happy about giving up Gordon and Nocioni to pick up Bogut, but Simmons (when healthy) is a better defender than Nocioni and we'd already be stacked at guard with Rose, Hughes, Maggette, and Sefolosha.


*THE LINEUP*
PG-Derrick Rose
SG-Corey Maggette
SF-Luol Deng(re-signed)
PF-Tyrus Thomas
C-Andrew Bogut

BENCH: Thabo Sefolosha, Mike Miller, Joakim Noah
DEEP BENCH: Veteran PG, Larry Hughes, Aaron Gray

We're overloaded with swingmen after the Maggette and Miller deals so I'd like to get a legit 7-footer down low to help battle with some of the big men in the East. Bogut is decent enough and can score some down low. The idea would be to eventually replace Maggette and Miller with younger guards, but the long-term core would be: Rose, Deng, Tyrus, and Thabo.

IF WE DRAFT BEASLEY:

*Trade #1*
_Bulls send:_
Ben Gordon(S&T)
Andres Nocioni(8,000,000)

_Bulls receive:_
Michael Redd(15,100,000)

The Bucks aren't going anywhere and I can't believe Skiles will want somebody who doesn't play that great of defense. The Bucks pick up a 3 in Nocioni (which they desperately need) and another scorer in Gordon. A third team would most likely need to be involved to make the salaries match (BYC) and I'd be glad to give said team a 2nd rounder for their troubles.

*Trade #2*
_Bulls send:_
Thabo Sefolosha(1,900,000)

_Bulls receive:_
#11 Pick(D.J. Augustin)

The Pacers still have Tinsley under contract and the Pacers desperately need guard help now. The reason I'd be comfortable with dealing away Thabo is because Augustin would eventually be groomed to take over the point from Hinrich and Hinrich would take over for Thabo (in the above scenario) as the combo guard off the bench.

*Trade #3*
_Bulls send: _
Drew Gooden(7,100,000)

_Bulls receive:_
Brendan Haywood(5,500,000)
Filler

Gooden is an expiring and the Wiz could lose Jamison. Plus, I know they love Blatche in D.C. and Haywood has kinda worn out his welcome. Haywood gives us a legit C who can defend the bigger post guys in the East and score here and there as well.

*THE LINEUP*
PG-Kirk Hinrich
SG-Michael Redd
SF-Luol Deng
PF-Michael Beasley
C-Brendan Haywood

BENCH: D.J. Augustin, Tyrus Thomas, Joakim Noah
DEEP BENCH: Veteran Guard, Larry Hughes, Aaron Gray

If Beasley develops into a legit 20-10 every night and can hold his own on defense then I think this team could be better down the road unless Redd departs when his contract runs out in which case we'd have Deng, Beasley and that's it. 

Either way, I think we'd be good to go.


----------

