# OK, rate the Bulls draft night



## Aesop (Jun 1, 2003)

Of course, trades count. The Bulls get Thomas, Sefolosha, Khryapa. Some second round picks are sacrificed.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Totally and utterly incomplete.

If I had to vote now, I'd say a B, but this could be anywhere from an A to a D when it's all said and done. I doubt this turns out to be an F no matter how you look at it.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

We got good players, so C, but we passed on a future hall of famer.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Could have realistically come out of this draft with either Lamarcus Aldrige and Brandon Roy , Adam Morrison and Rudy Gay, Saer Sene and Rodney Carney or Brewer. 

Thomas and Thabo is a good but not great draft. I would rate this draft a C+ to low B.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

I gave it an A. This draft had ZERO post players. Given that, Pax added what we needed. Length, athletism and motor. No one is going to want to play us. 



sloth said:


> We got good players, so C, but we passed on a future hall of famer.


Reddick?


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

getting TT was a A++++++
Tradeing up for Thabo and passing over berwer and carney was a D-----..

im not even going to vote cause it would be a C or B and that makes TT look like a bad pick...


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

bulls said:


> getting TT was a A++++++
> Tradeing up for Thabo and passing over berwer and carney was a D-----..
> 
> im not even going to vote cause it would be a C or B and that makes TT look like a bad pick...


If Paxson thinks Thabo is better than Carney and Brewer I think we have to trust him... 


GRADE: A


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> I gave it an A. This draft had ZERO post players. Given that, Pax added what we needed. Length, athletism and motor. No one is going to want to play us.
> 
> 
> 
> Reddick?


Morrison, Reddicks gonna be pretty good, but Morrison was the guy we should have picked.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

HAWK23 said:


> If Paxson thinks Thabo is better than Carney and Brewer I think we have to trust him...
> 
> 
> GRADE: A


Agree 

But I can't really grade it right now as to be honest I know nothing about Thabo ( from having watched him ) only the rep

Given Pax's draft record you got to give him the benefit of the doubt 

I'm pumped we got Thomas though


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

I went with an A cause we got who Pax wanted, and they have potential to help a lot. There were no good post players to be had, so it's acceptable I guess. I should've went B though, cause as someone else said, we could've pulled off 2 of the big 6 pretty easily IMO.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

I'll rate it three years from now. :banana:


----------



## melo4life (Jun 5, 2006)

im not a bulls fan but they had an awesome trade night, and to have tyrus thomas that will help u guys a lot


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

sloth said:


> Morrison, Reddicks gonna be pretty good, but Morrison was the guy we should have picked.


Both of those guys were among the tops of my picks. Morrison simply doesn't fit our team's strategy, nor does Redick. That said, not everyone has to fit the team's style. You have to have scorers to go with all that D.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Both of those guys were among the tops of my picks. Morrison simply doesn't fit our team's strategy, nor does Redick. That said, not everyone has to fit the team's style. You have to have scorers to go with all that D.


Morrison was the right pick to make, because basically

Best Case: Larry Bird
Worse Case: Antoine Walker.


----------



## OziBull (Nov 7, 2004)

LOL future hall of famer BOLD very *BOLD* statement


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

sloth said:


> Morrison was the right pick to make, because basically
> 
> Best Case: Larry Bird
> Worse Case: Antoine Walker.


And he doesn't even attempt to play defense.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

yodurk said:


> Totally and utterly incomplete.
> 
> If I had to vote now, I'd say a B, but this could be anywhere from an A to a D when it's all said and done. I doubt this turns out to be an F no matter how you look at it.




i couldn't have said it any better.

first you have to see if there will be any trades including these players, or trades that include players that are expendable, now with these players we have. then you have to wait and see how tyrus turns out, how aldridge turns out, etc...


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*i gave pax an A!*

grading just on the moves he made _tonight_, i can't see it any other way. he maneuvered, got both his guys, and addressed the length and athleticism mantra.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

sloth said:


> Morrison was the right pick to make, because basically
> 
> Best Case: Larry Bird
> Worse Case: Antoine Walker.



morrison will never have even a semblence of birds ability to create for others. or even walker's ability, for that matter.

and morrison will never be half the rebounder that bird was. 

and morrison probably won't be as clutch as bird. probably.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Basically why Paxson gets a C, did we get good players? Yes, some very good players. Do I think Paxson took the best players available? No, although Thabo was the right choice, Marcus Williams was the only guy left on the board that was better, and it could have just made a mess taking him since both Hinrich and Gordon are and will be better than him, so Thabo made a lot of sense, although I wanted Sene....I did break the news of Sene going to Seattle 10 as a possibility a few weeks ago, but everything I saw leading up to today, said Seattle wants one of Foye or Brewer, and obviously that was just a smoke screen. I like the Thabo pick. Did I have to listen to music to calm down because I didn't like the picks....yes. So C.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

paxman said:


> morrison will never have even a semblence of birds ability to create for others. or even walker's ability, for that matter.
> 
> and morrison will never be half the rebounder that bird was.
> 
> and morrison probably won't be as clutch as bird. probably.


The main point in the comparison is that he's a player with a good arsenal of scoring weapons. Another good comparison for him, is like a small forward version of Ben Gordon, but better from midrange, worse from 3 pt land, and worse defensively. Overall, I think a scoring tandem of Gordon and Morrison was the way to go, but oh well, Thomas is sufficient enough, hopefully he works hard and improves. I want to see the draft in a review at seasons end as an A, with Thomas and Thabo being on the All Rookie First Team, and Thomas as rookie of the year.


----------



## Bullsky (Jun 11, 2006)

johnston797 said:


> I gave it an A. This draft had ZERO post players. Given that, Pax added what we needed. Length, athletism and motor. No one is going to want to play us.


I agree so much. Based on what was available, we did well. I thought the trade we did was boring, but not necessarily stupid. Tyras and Thabo will fit well with the Bulls, IMO. Did we address all of our needs? No. Did we address needs that could be addressed via draft? Yes. Plus, im not giving up on Thabo. I think he could be better than Brewer and Carney.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

sloth said:


> The main point in the comparison is that he's a player with a good arsenal of scoring weapons. Another good comparison for him, is like a small forward version of Ben Gordon, but better from midrange, worse from 3 pt land, and worse defensively. Overall, I think a scoring tandem of Gordon and Morrison was the way to go, but oh well, Thomas is sufficient enough, hopefully he works hard and improves. I want to see the draft in a review at seasons end as an A, with Thomas and Thabo being on the All Rookie First Team, and Thomas as rookie of the year.


ok, but to say that his best case scenario is bird, is to think that he possibly COULD be like bird. 
the only reason you choose bird as a model, is because he's white. and morrison's game looks nothing like bird's. not the rebounding. not the passing. not the team defense. not the long bombs. not the clutch.

what i'm trying to say, is that you overrate morrison, since he does only one thing. score. so, so far i see an angry glen robinson.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

paxman said:


> ok, but to say that his best case scenario is bird, is to think that he possibly COULD be like bird.
> the only reason you choose bird as a model, is because he's white. and morrison's game looks nothing like bird's. not the rebounding. not the passing. not the team defense. not the long bombs. not the clutch.
> 
> what i'm trying to say, is that you overrate morrison, since he does only one thing. score.


Like I said, morrison is more of a small forward version of Gordon, just with a better midrange game, but worse from the outside. As far as the Bird/Walker comparison, its hard to compare Morrison to anyone really, but the point is a hall of famer small forward with a good arsenal of offesive skills is best case, and fringe allstar with good offensive weapons like Walker as worse case. Its hard to make a good comparison for Morrison. A mesh of Gordon/Bird/Walker will get you something close to a comparison, he's pretty unique.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

I gave him a *B*...but thats on paper...


----------



## BullSoxChicagosFinest (Oct 22, 2005)

I would've liked Morrison. Don't care who he is compared, care that he brings points. In Pax's press quote he admits that TT is a project. Defense is important and that can be a strength with TT, but I don't see him helping immediately or being any better than Tyson next year. With the progress in past years combined with the cap space and now this pick we got from a trade, this was supposed to be an impact year and we draft for years from now.

Agree that this is still incomplete though. Hell, who knows what trades are still on the table.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I would give him an A-


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

Not good grades from Sportsline and CNNSI. I would give us a B+.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

I voted "B". The Thomas pick was fine (and the Aldridge trade just curious for its uselessness), but I have no idea why he chose Sefolosha over Brewer. That one might come back to hurt the Bulls. 

Maybe Pax's year with Ron Brewer Sr. wasn't all sweetmeats and nosegays.


----------



## nybullsfan (Aug 12, 2005)

i give him a B tyrus thomas should be real good but can he play pf full time lets hope so. i dont know nothing about Thabo but i hear hes an excellent defender that can shoot some cant go wrong there. my grade probably would be higher if i had more info on Thabo but time will tell, for all we know he can be better than carney or brewer while at the same time he cuold be worse.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

El Chapu said:


> Not good grades from Sportsline





Sportsline said:


> I don't know Mr. Sefolosha from the stranger next door, but did the Bulls, who traded up for this pick (swapping the No. 16 pick, a 2007 second-round pick and cash), really believe he wouldn't be there for them at No. 16? Once, Peja Stojakovic was drafted when I was younger and I laughed at the scrawny kid walking up to the podium. I was a fool. Maybe this will be a similar situation, but Thabo has to prove it first. F


Can't say this grade concerns me too much.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

If Tyrus can't play powerforward full time, this draft will be a F/D borderline grade imo. If we ended up just drafting a guy that is a smallforward, than Tyrus wasn't the best smallforward in the draft by any stretch of the imagination. Thabo's a very solid pick though. Too many question marks about Tyrus though, he may or may not pan out. He should be able to get some muscle if we work on him some in the weight room, hopefully he is a workout warrior, and works hard.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> Can't say this grade concerns me too much.


Yeah, really. Nobody wanted him, even though Utah would have taken him according to reports, and Mike D'Antoni said the Suns were trying to trade up to get him, but when the Bulls picked him, they pulled out of the draft completely.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Maybe Pax's year with Ron Brewer Sr. wasn't all sweetmeats and nosegays.


I have no idea what you're talking about, but I agree.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

B- or C+. I love love love the Thabo pick from everything I've heard. I think Thomas can be a terrific SF, but only an average-to-good PF that simply doesn't match with Chandler. At PF, I can't envision him being better than Kenyon Martin from two years ago. Thomas will probably be a better rebounder... I guess we'll see.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> Can't say this grade concerns me too much.


Jay Bilas: The best perimeter defender in the draft. 
Fran Frischilla called him a steal.

I'm glad Sportsline did their homework. Shouldn't you watch videos of the players before you grade the draft. A quote of "I wouldn't know Thabo from a stranger" really doesn't give your argument much merit. 

Ronnie Brewer reminds me of Reece Gaines. Thabo reminds me of Larry Hughes without the headaches. I gave Paxson an A-. Thomas is a nice pick, but a little bit scary. With our cap room and these assets, my guess is we will field the best defensive team and deepest team in the East next year.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

El Chapu said:


> Not good grades from Sportsline and CNNSI. I would give us a B+.


Sportsline gives Pax a C- for the Thomas pick and an F for Sefalosha.

CNNSI calls this the one of the worst drafts ever. It's tough to call it a good draft for us, considering this kind of review.

On the other hand, any draft where you get one of the top 6 expected draftees and another guy who should be at least as good as Basden means it can't be an F.

I agree with those who say it's too early to tell. Gosh, I hope Thomas turns out to be an out and out stud instead of Jerome Williams revisited and proves me wrong.

At this point, assuming I have to give a grade, it's a D.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

T.Shock said:


> Ronnie Brewer reminds me of Reece Gaines. Thabo reminds me of Larry Hughes without the headaches.


Man, you're running a draft fever of about a buck-twenty right now.



> my guess is we will field the best defensive team and deepest team in the East next year.


We were the best defensive team in the east before the draft and free agency anyway.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

T.Shock said:


> Jay Bilas: The best perimeter defender in the draft.
> Fran Frischilla called him a steal.
> 
> I'm glad Sportsline did their homework. Shouldn't you watch videos of the players before you grade the draft. A quote of "I wouldn't know Thabo from a stranger" really doesn't give your argument much merit.
> ...


Nice one, T. Shock. Larry Hughes is actually a pretty excellent comparison that I hadn't considered. Both are extremely skinny, not great shooters, and terrific ball-handlers and defenders.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> Man, you're running a draft fever of about a buck-twenty right now.
> 
> 
> 
> We were the best defensive team in the east before the draft and free agency anyway.


I'm just calling 'em like I see 'em. Hell, I could be wrong. Thomas may end up being a worthless sack of crap that can jump out of the gym and can't do anything else. Thabo may end up being a complete dud and lack any real value. Sometimes I hate this board. You get too excited about anything and "you're drinking the Kool-Aid". I think Thomas has enough offensive skills and can put on about 15 pds of muscle and become a damn good starting PF, I saw Ronnie Brewe and thought Reece Gaines. I saw Thabo (albeit briefly) and saw Larry Hughes. Everybody else seems to hate it. Maybe I should join in, just so I don't look stupid if they don't pan out.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

T.Shock said:


> I'm just calling 'em like I see 'em. Hell, I could be wrong. Thomas may end up being a worthless sack of crap that can jump out of the gym and can't do anything else. Thabo may end up being a complete dud and lack any real value. Sometimes I hate this board. You get too excited about anything and "you're drinking the Kool-Aid". I think Thomas has enough offensive skills and can put on about 15 pds of muscle and become a damn good starting PF, I saw Ronnie Brewe and thought Reece Gaines. I saw Thabo (albeit briefly) and saw Larry Hughes. Everybody else seems to hate it. Maybe I should join in, just so I don't look stupid if they don't pan out.


I guess there's a good basis for a statistical linking of Brewer and Gaines, but athletically, Brewer is in a different universe. I don't expect he'll spend the summer eating donuts and lose his speed, agility, and strength, but maybe I'm wrong.

I don't disagree with you about Thomas. He could become the best player of this class and maybe even next year's class, too. But his offense is very, very raw, and he needs to pack on the bulk really, really soon if he's going to be a 4.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Sportsline gives Pax a C- for the Thomas pick and an F for Sefalosha.


They better hope that Ronnie Brewer or Rodney Carney turn out to be *a lot* better than Thabo Sefalosha. Giving an F implies that it was clearly the wrong decision, and hindsight will have nothing to do with it when we look back and see Thabo be a complete bust. Like I said, they better hope that it's not even close. 

It's also odd to me that a consensus pick for the number two would get a C- grade. 

Sorry but it's hard to take Sportsline serious with those grades and the reasoning behind them.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> I guess there's a good basis for a statistical linking of Brewer and Gaines, but athletically, Brewer is in a different universe. I don't expect he'll spend the summer eating donuts and lose his speed, agility, and strength, but maybe I'm wrong.
> 
> I don't disagree with you about Thomas. He could become the best player of this class and maybe even next year's class, too. But his offense is very, very raw, and he needs to pack on the bulk really, really soon if he's going to be a 4.


I saw a decent amount of Brewer at Arkansas and nothing really stood out except his athleticism. Plenty of athletes in the NBA just don't make it. The clincher for me came during the tournament against Bucknell. He was the most athletic guy on the court, but couldn't put together a good game against a bunch of short, slow white guys. If anything, I say him and Thabo end up having similar careers. Thabo just seems different to me. In all the footage I've seen of him, he's doing something game-changing. A key steal. A good pass. And Thomas is raw. But he's not Chandler raw. Thomas can handle the ball, shoot the mid-range J, and you know catch the ball. All pluses in my book.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Sir Patchwork said:


> They better hope that Ronnie Brewer or Rodney Carney turn out to be *a lot* better than Thabo Sefalosha. Giving an F implies that it was clearly the wrong decision, and hindsight will have nothing to do with it when we look back and see Thabo be a complete bust. Like I said, they better hope that it's not even close.
> 
> It's also odd to me that a consensus pick for the number two would get a C- grade.
> 
> Sorry but it's hard to take Sportsline serious with those grades and the reasoning behind them.


Well said. It's ridiculous that we could get a C- for Thomas. A lot of people had him ranked as THE best prospect, and we got him at #4. We picked up a 23 year old former 1st rounder with potential for a future 2nd rounder. Both of those should get good grades. Add to that Sefalosha who it was well known we wanted bad, and was the big defensive SG that we were looking for, and is supposed to be pretty special. Hard to see how we could get an F for someone that all the mocks had us taking anyway lol. As far as I can see the only bad thing we did was give up 2 2nd rounders, which to me aren't hardly worth crap, especially when you already have a young, deep team. :cheers:


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Before the draft, my ideal draft would have been (assuming Bargnani went #1) Aldridge and Carney. It is somewhat disheartening that those were the players drafted with the original Bulls picks.

That said, Paxson definately went out and got his guys. I'm guessing Paxson made Thomas a promise that he would take him contigent on the fact that he canceled his workout with Charlotte, so all of that make a whole lot of sense in hindsight. I hadn't realized Utah was so high on Sefolosha until the ESPN crew said that Philadelphia ruined Utah and Chicago's hopes, so giving up a second rounder to ensure you get the guy you are targeting seems like a good move as well.

I can't say this was an A draft, but both trades seem reasonable, and I think Khryapa is definately an underrated role player (DaBullz should like him better than Songaila).

I'll have to give Pax an overall grade of B. Mild disappointment with the Thomas pick and mild disappointment with the Sefolosha pick (although I've never seen the guy play outside of a few clips). Both trades were good in my book. Paxson definately had a plan and executed it.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Sportsline gives Pax a C- for the Thomas pick and an F for Sefalosha.
> 
> CNNSI calls this the one of the worst drafts ever. It's tough to call it a good draft for us, considering this kind of review.
> 
> ...


From what I've seen of Thabe and read and heard about him, I'm willing to give an A for getting him at 16 (or 13, depending on how you look at it).

The TT draft at 2 gets raised to a C for me, solely because he was able to trade down to get him, saving $1.5M in salary owed. If we are going to take him, may as well get him cheaper.

Averages to a B.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> WINNER: Chicago Bulls
> Chicago wanted some size and some athletes and it got them in 6-9 Tyrus Thomas out of LSU, Portland's 6-9 Viktor Khryapa and 6-7 Thabo Sefolosha of Switzerland.
> 
> The Bulls basically decided that Thomas and LaMarcus Aldridge were equals and then smartly got Portland to give them a decent bench guy (Khryapa) to make the decision for them. That's good draft management. In reality, Thomas has better potential because he is such a breath-taking athlete who has received minimal coaching.


yahoo.com


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

GB said:


> yahoo.com



I don't think they decided that Aldridge & Thomas were equal, I think they saw an opportunity to bilk Portland out of an assett.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> I don't think they decided that Aldridge & Thomas were equal, I think they saw an opportunity to bilk Portland out of an assett.


Honestly, I think Krappo was a throw-in. The biggest impact from the Bulls' perspective was getting TT for a lot less money.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Honestly, I think Krappo was a throw-in. The biggest impact from the Bulls' perspective was getting TT for a lot less money.



I agree to an extent, Khryapa is actually a pretty good ballplayer and will help the Bulls...don't underestimate the guy.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I still don't see why Portland traded up for Aldridge though, they should have taken Morrison at 2...but they'll find out in a few years, they were basically a team with every need to fill, so a player like Morrison makes sense as the pick. At the very least, they built their team around sucking so they get Greg Oden.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

I like the draft because Pax went out and made happen what he wanted to happen. He didn't have a passive draft, and he took risks. The "not proactive" and "conservative" criticisms of him don't hold water anymore.

As to how the players will turn out, I'm hopeful, but of course nobody really knows.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> In reality, Thomas has better potential because he is such a breath-taking athlete *who has received minimal coaching.*


'nough said.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Honestly, I think Krappo was a throw-in. The biggest impact from the Bulls' perspective was getting TT for a lot less money.


i honestly can't see how you can think he is a throw in when paxson himself said that he has been watching this kid since the year he was drafted. He is no throw in...


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> I like the draft because Pax went out and made happen what he wanted to happen. He didn't have a passive draft, and he took risks. The "not proactive" and "conservative" criticisms of him don't hold water anymore.
> 
> As to how the players will turn out, I'm hopeful, but of course nobody really knows.


_exactly._ he picked up the phone. OMG! HE PICKED UP THE PHONE!!!!


:smilewink


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Sportsline gives Pax a C- for the Thomas pick and an F for Sefalosha.


:laugh: So you found the one bad grade, eh? 



> CNNSI calls this the one of the worst drafts ever. It's tough to call it a good draft for us, considering this kind of review.


You conveniently left out the fact that CNNSI graded the draft an A- for the Bulls. This grade is consistent with the experts on ESPN last night, as well as Andy Katz on ESPN Radio this morning. Fox Sports gives the Bulls a straight up A. Dan Wetzel, Yahoo's basketball columnist, rated the Bulls as 1 of the 3 winners of the draft.



> On the other hand, any draft where you get one of the top 6 expected draftees and another guy who should be at least as good as Basden means it can't be an F.
> 
> I agree with those who say it's too early to tell. Gosh, I hope Thomas turns out to be an out and out stud instead of Jerome Williams revisited and proves me wrong.


Jerome Williams. That's funny.



> At this point, assuming I have to give a grade, it's a D.


Fire Pax now!!!!!


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Well, onto FA.

This will be the slow part of the offseason.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

Pax is only saying he was "torn" between Tyrus/Aldridge as to not make Portland look bad. He never wanted Aldridge.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Pax gets an unequivocable "A". I'm not understanding the hand-wringing that I've read in the draft thread and other places over trading Aldridge and a second rounder for Thomas and Khryapa. I know that there is a split between opinions over Aldridge and Thomas. I'm of the opinion that Thomas is going to become a far better player than Aldridge. So Pax came out ahead there. The second for Khryapa is again a plus for the Bulls. Khryapa is a good player. His addition gives Skiles another player to put on the floor who can match up or create a mis-match. He's smart. A pretty good defender and shooter and he's long. I've also got to wonder: are the Bulls really going to miss a couple of second round picks over the next few seasons? Really? They have zero value as far as the Bulls are concerned because they'd never make the team anyway.

On Sefolosha - again, Pax got the best player and a guy they wanted. It's not like he was some sort of unknown quantity. Read the press conference at Bulls.com. Pax had gone to Italy to see him personally and I know Ivaka Duncan has been over there on multiple occasions to scout him. Maybe the moaning about not getting Brewer or Carney are founded - maybe they aren't. I'm just amazed by how quickly some people are to dismiss this pick simply because they know nothing about him (both in the press and on this site). The guy can play.

What the Bulls did last night was to address almost all of their deficiencies and the one need they didn't address (size in the front-court), this free agent class is full of guys who will fill that need. It's a given that whomever the Bulls target (Pryz, Nene, Nazr, Wallace, etc) that there will be those who'll complain about it even though any one of those guys would fill that need.

I'm just not seeing how Pax could have done _better_ than he did last night. For that, he get's the "A" above.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> On Sefolosha - again, Pax got the best player and a guy they wanted. It's not like he was some sort of unknown quantity. Read the press conference at Bulls.com. Pax had gone to Italy to see him personally and I know Ivaka Duncan has been over there on multiple occasions to scout him. Maybe the moaning about not getting Brewer or Carney are founded - maybe they aren't. *I'm just amazed by how quickly some people are to dismiss this pick simply because they know nothing about him (both in the press and on this site).* The guy can play.


are those the same people that voted for bargnani as the bull first pick?


----------



## Qwerty123 (May 31, 2002)

C

Thomas and Sefolosha was the most disappointing (realistic) scenario I could envision at the start of the night, and that's what happened. I wanted Aldridge and Brewer, which makes Pax's trades that much more disappointing to me. Pax obviously wanted these guys and got them, so I can't be too harsh. And at least he addressed our needs, though not with the players I was hoping for.


----------



## o.iatlhawksfan (Mar 3, 2006)

I think ESPN has gotten to ya'll about Tyrus, kind of like last season with Marvin let me tell you ESPN likes to push the gun a little bit. I still think Tyrus will be a bust, but i love the Thabo pick he looks live a solid prospect he can make an immediate impact for you guys.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

color me curious. could the folks who gave pax a *D* or an *F* please articulate why you think he failed so miserably.

not that i'm a glutton for punishment, but i am just a bit incredulous. i mean does the sportsline review have any real bearing in actual life?

thanks.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

The negative reactions to this draft are laughable. Including one person who joins the "Fire Paxson Club" after our first pick. 

I have not heard an ill word spoke about the Bulls' draft from the Media (nationally and locally). HOWEVER, some of our fans are complaining because they didn't get their boo. 

For the people decrying the fact that we didn't get a "back to the basket" type player...who would we have got that would fit that bill in the draft???

The 2006-2007 Chicago Bulls season is not predicated on only teh draft. It is a combination of the draft AND Free Agency.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> color me curious. could the folks who gave pax a *D* or an *F* please articulate why you think he failed so miserably.
> 
> not that i'm a glutton for punishment, but i am just a bit incredulous. i mean does the sportsline review have any real bearing in actual life?
> 
> thanks.


Thats what I am thinking too, doesn't make any sense. And Sportsline is notoriously bad for it's coverage of sports of all things. They may have given us a bad grade but everyone else is giving us A's and such...I tend to agree far more with those. I don't see how this draft can be considered a failure. I guess there are a lot of folks who think Tyrus will be a bust (I fail to see how personally) and don't know much about Thabo so don't understand how Pax could have pegged him instead of Brewer, Simmons, Williams...


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

One thing people should keep in mind is that Pax did say that a certain player raised a "red flag". So maybe their "favorite player" was the one with the Red Flag.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

grading drafts the day after is entirely for fun and obviously means little. but if the people who voted D or F are seriously angry or whatever...then that is pretty hilarious.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

remlover said:


> One thing people should keep in mind is that Pax did say that a certain player raised a "red flag". So maybe their "favorite player" was the one with the Red Flag.


I wonder who it was that raised the red flag, but how do we know it was a red flag, it could have been blue? I'm pretty sure it wasn't Aldridge, Thomas, or Bargnani, probaly not Morrison either.  Brandon Roy maybe?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I don't know how people can not like the Thabo pick, Phoenix likes him, so that means he has to be good, they're good talent evaulators. They were trying to move up to 10 to get up to take him. It was interesting to see that Thabo would of been Utah's 3rd option, it seemed like a sure thing that one of Sene or Reddick would be there, but oh well, they don't even get their 3rd option .


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

sloth said:


> I wonder who it was that raised the red flag, but how do we know it was a red flag, it could have been blue? I'm pretty sure it wasn't Aldridge, Thomas, or Bargnani, probaly not Morrison either. Brandon Roy maybe?



I wonder if maybe it was Ronnie Brewer or Cedric Simmons....I had both of them rated just above Sefolosha on my draft board.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> color me curious. could the folks who gave pax a *D* or an *F* please articulate why you think he failed so miserably.
> 
> not that i'm a glutton for punishment, but i am just a bit incredulous. i mean does the sportsline review have any real bearing in actual life?
> 
> thanks.



Do you really think the guy who STILL has the Fire Paxson Club in his signature is going to give his draft anything higher than a D?

And I can almost guarantee you who one of the two F's is from...


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

I am a little disgusted that people are actually rating it an F. Pax did what he needed to do. There were NO back to the basket post up post players worth taking where we picked in the draft at all. So you go for length and athleticism, which was our 2 other needs, and we got 2 guys who are exactly that, plus picking up a 23 year old former first rounder that fits the team (basically for free). Neither of these guys that Pax picked were my first choices, but I think it's a good fit and throw in our new Ruskie and it's worthy of an A or at least a B. The thing I was the most disappointed in was that they didn't try to trade up to take Gay. That guy is a highlight reel just waiting to be played. I thought that someone's trade proposal on this board to trade 2 and 16 for 4 and 7 was a pretty good deal, but apparently Portland wouldn't go for that. I would've even thrown in Duhon or someone. Take Thomas at 4, and Gay at 8. Chance to get 2 very explosive players that way who could both turn into superstars potentially. The way it worked out we're less likely to have stars, but we're deeper and more rounded overall. (I personally would've taken Morrison at #2)


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

I'm giving the Bulls' draft a very biased A.

Morrison had become my guy the last couple of days knowing that Thomas was the most likely choice. Watching Wade tear up every team he played against in the playoffs -- hobbled, healthy, bad ankle, bad back -- made me believe that Morrison's skill level and killer instinct would have helped bump the Bulls over the 50 win mark and possibly into the Eastern Conference Finals.

That said, I think the Bulls is the best team for Thomas to develop his basketball skill in. Skiles uses a simple offensive system (according to him) that helps players not think too hard and keep their focus on fundamentals and effort. Thomas will find out that he will have an actual role right away in games because of the confidence Skiles puts in players who work hard. I truly believe that Thomas could have similar numbers to Dwight Howard's rookie season numbers.

I really have no informed thought on Sefolosha. If his role next season is to be the defensive stopper and transition specialist then I will probably be happy.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

espn hotlist survey says!

Which team had the best NBA draft?

*Bulls 47%*
Grizzlies 14%
TrailBlazers 34%
Jazz 5%

total votes: 45,079




heh.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Dick's grades.

Time to give some grades out …

A: Chicago, Portland, New Jersey, Memphis, Utah, Charlotte.

A-: Orlando, Minnesota.

B+: Toronto, Cleveland.

B: Atlanta, New Orleans/Oklahoma City.

C: Golden State, Seattle, Washington.

D: New York. 

While Andrea Bargnani went No. 1 to Toronto, I feel Tyrus Thomas will be a special player. I rated Thomas as the best prospect in this draft. Just look at his performance in the last few minutes of the Duke game. He is young and will grow and improve. I really like what Chicago did in getting Thomas in a deal with Portland adding Victor Khryapa. John Paxson, Scott Skiles and Co. also got Thabo Sefolosha to help out.

And for good measure

There were a handful of noteworthy second-round picks that impressed me. Houston got a sleeper in Steve Novak at No. 32; the 6-10 player from Marquette hit 47 percent of 3-pointers last season. I liked Paul Davis to the Clippers at No. 34. Craig Smith went to the Timberwolves at No. 36. Utah got Dee Brown and Paul Millsap (the nation's leading rebounder) with back-to-back picks.

Like I said, we should have gotten 30 and 31 in the Portland trade, and taken Steve Novak and Paul Davis.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> espn hotlist survey says!
> 
> Which team had the best NBA draft?
> 
> ...


Well, sure. We got a D. The Griz a D-. The other two teams checked in at F+.

Personally, I gave it an A.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> From what I've seen of Thabe and read and heard about him, I'm willing to give an A for getting him at 16 (or 13, depending on how you look at it).
> 
> The TT draft at 2 gets raised to a C for me, solely because he was able to trade down to get him, saving $1.5M in salary owed. If we are going to take him, may as well get him cheaper.
> 
> *Averages to a B.*


B = Paxson should be fired? :whoknows: 

 

I gave him a B, as well. Though I think that is a positive thing, as opposed to grounds for termination of employment.

B because I wanted Aldridge as 1a and Thomas as 1b. I also had Brewer as my ideal for the 16th pick. 

It appears that Paxson could have gotten Aldridge and Brewer, but specifically chose not to. Therefore, I can't give him an A. But the guys he got were right behind the guys I wanted in an ideal world. Therefore, compared to my opinions Paxson had a near miss. But he has proven to be far superior to me at evaluating draft talent time and time again. I trust his decisions and feel good about the draft. 

Since I'm poking fun at you a little, TomB, I'd note that though you wanted Roy, Paxson passed on Roy but agressively moved to get a guy that worked out head to head against Roy. Maybe Thabo gives you what you were looking for.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Since I'm poking fun at you a little, TomB, I'd note that though you wanted Roy, Paxson passed on Roy but agressively moved to get a guy that worked out head to head against Roy. Maybe Thabo gives you what you were looking for.


You know how things sometimes pan out when you grade on a curve. I would have given Pax a D on the TT pick, but I bumped him up for trading down and saving money.

I think Thabo will give us a lot of what Roy would have, except perhaps some of the slashing.

Truthfully, I am less harsh about Pax taking TT than I was a week ago. He does seem intense in a good way, and the true bigs in this draft all seem to lack fire, and are all question marks. However, he did not address our biggest, most glaring need, and the FA class isn't all that exciting either. That is why I wanted a guard at 2 and a project center at 16. We would at least have another tall guy next to Tyson.

On the other hand, all the project centers ended up climbing into the late lottery, so I guess Pax knew what he was doing.


Heck, I made my bed and have to lie in it. I said if TT was the pick, I'd join the Fire Pax club until he proved me wrong.

Now its just wait and see.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Heck, I made my bed and have to lie in it. I said if TT was the pick, I'd join the Fire Pax club until he proved me wrong.
> 
> Now its just wait and see.


Judgment before evidence? Not very lawyerly of you, Tom.


----------



## arcade_rida (Jun 23, 2003)

Since long before the draft, I've been saying that Tyrus Thomas is the second coming of Stromile Swift. This is not a good thing. Since the Bulls drafted Thomas, I've been trying to comfort myself with the knowledge that Thomas seems like a much harder worker than Swift, and therefore might have a more successful NBA career. 

Indeed, having thought about this non-stop for two days, I've decided that I'm happy with our selection of Tyrus Thomas (if only because I fully trust Paxson). 

But, getting back onto the topic of this thread, I've thought of a far better comparison for Thomas. Apologies if this has already been brought up before, but doesn't Thomas have some potential to be like a young Antonio McDyess? Hear me out: 

Thomas' college stats: 12.3ppg, 9.2rpg, 1.3apg, 1.0spg, 3.1bpg, 1.8tpg, .608 FG%, .657 FT% 
McDyess' college stats: 13.9ppg, 10.2rpg, 0.6apg, 0.8spg, 2.0bpg, 2.4tpg, .512 FG%, .667 FT% (sophomore statistics) 

Both players are approximately 6'9", although I'd probably give an extra inch in the height department to McDyess. McDyess also has a thicker frame (currently weighing 245lb), although when he entered the league some sources list him at just 220lb. Therefore their heights/weights are very similar. 

In terms of their athleticism, I'd argue that McDyess was the stronger player of the two, but Thomas has time to work on that over the coming months/years. Both players were tremendous leapers, especially for their size, with great quickness (remember, I'm talking about McDyess pre-injuries here). 

As for their skill sets, well before his injuries McDyess got the majority of his points off alley-oops and put-backs. It was only after his injury that he learned to expand his game out to mid-range. I expect Thomas will score most of his points in a similar manner to a young McDyess. 

Defensively, both are excellent shot-blockers and very solid rebounders (although neither are the second coming of Ben Wallace in either department). McDyess was known far more for his defense than his offense when he entered the league. 

Now for the interesting part; as I'm sure most of you are aware, McDyess was a tremendous player in his first few years in the league, averaging 17.8ppg and 8.8rpg over his first six seasons. His peak probably came in 1998/99 when he averaged 21.2ppg and 10.6rpg for a poor Nuggets team. More realistically for Tyrus Thomas, we should look at McDyess' lone season in Phoenix when he averaged good-but-not-great averages of 15.1ppg, 7.6rpg and 2.3bpg (his career high), while featuring on numerous highlight-reels after finishing off Jason Kidd-fed alley-oop dunks. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Thomas will have the same kind of career. I'm just illustrating the two players' similarities and the type of career that Thomas _could_ possibly have


----------



## Cyanobacteria (Jun 25, 2002)

I'd grade the players 3 years from now. Here's why Pax gets an A from me now: He had extra future 2nd rounders in his pocket. He didn't settle for Joe Schmo from Shaky State U, class of 2007. He utilized his assets, turned them into the players he wanted from this year's prospects, plus a 22nd overall guy he's had his eye on (from a stronger draft?). He _manufactured_ a 22nd overall out of the Curry deal. Nice.

3 years from now we can evaluate the players and re-evaluate Pax's eye for potential _and drive_ in prospects, but simply for the execution Pax gets the A from me.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

I'm changing my grade. He gets an A for now.


----------

