# LSU coach: Bulls will draft Thomas



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

> *THE RIGHT CALL:* While Florida's basketball stars are staying in school, LSU forward Tyrus Thomas bolted from Baton Rouge after just one season in the program. But LSU coach John Brady said he's not mad at the redshirt freshman for not sticking around.
> 
> "Chicago has convinced me and him that if he's sitting there at No. 2 (overall in the NBA draft), they're going to take him," Brady said. "So he made the right decision."
> http://www.arsnonline.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=3023


http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/story.asp?id=195732





> *LSU coach: Bulls will draft Thomas* By Mike McGraw
> Daily Herald Sports Writer
> Posted Saturday, June 03, 2006
> 
> ...





> The Toronto Raptors have the No. 1 pick in the June 28 draft. Brady said he hasn’t heard from <st1:city><st1lace>Toronto</st1lace></st1:city> in regard to Thomas, but said he thinks the Chicago Bulls are very interested in the former LSU star.


orginal article : http://www.2theadvocate.com/sports/lsu/featured/2918666.html


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

These two comments don't exactly say the same thing:



> "_*Chicago has convinced me and him*_ that if he's sitting there at No. 2 (overall in the NBA draft), they're going to take him"


&



> “If he’s sitting at No. 2, _*I think*_ Chicago will take him,” Brady said, echoing the sentiment of many NBA observers.


I'm not buying that it's a done deal just yet.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Chicago hasn't even worked out their main candidates for the #2 pick yet, I'm sure Pax hasn't decided completely who he's taking. Let alone the LSU coach would know. I think he's just saying that Tyrus fits the current team of Chicago Bulls, and could easily see us liking him. I mean, just think what a huge impact the measurements could have on Thomas' outcome. If he's 6'10, his stock remains high...if he's more like 6'8, his stock will certainly drop.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

:rock:


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

The ROY said:


> :rock:


Seems like The ROY and I are the only one crazy about Tyrus Thomas in a Bulls uniform. I hope Brady's comments turn out to be correct. My mind races thinking of the possibilities with TT on our roster.


----------



## MurcieUno (Dec 16, 2004)

Considering the bulls lack some core athleticism and size.... I think that TTjr. is the way to go. I hope these reports are true.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

Journalism at it's best.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

I read he's only 6'8'' 215-220lb.


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

I read he controls the weather.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

LegoHat said:


> I read he controls the weather.


Funniest thing I've read all day.


----------



## l2owen (Apr 24, 2006)

finding offensive threats is always easy . but weakside defender-monsters that dominate the paint do not. tyrus thomas defense , if it becomes what we all hope, will bring chicago to an elite level of defensive teams. we all know that is vital for winning championships, even though its not the only way . but tyrus's strengths play in harmony with what the bulls are good at .i expect that this teaming could definitely bring lots of positives for both sides.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Ok, this is the reason I'm not sold on him. If we need a PF or C to get to the next level, why take a 6'9" beanpole to be our banger? Simply doesn't make sense. I love his athleticism if he were a SF, but he's not, so he doesn't fit the bill to me. I guess it's possible he could both grow and fill out and be that, but idk. I wouldn't be mad if they took him, but he's just not my first choice.


----------



## l2owen (Apr 24, 2006)

tyrus is two years younger than aldridge and already showing a higher ceiling and more potential based on his raw skills alone. if he pans out, he has the potential to be a far higher impact player than aldridge, because athletically speaking tyrus is a monster at his position. he will be an elite level athelete at the nba level, the biggest concern is his mental development. he has loads of time to put on weight, hes 210 + now at only 19 years of age. in two or three years he will easily be able to hold another 20+ pounds of muscle, but at 19 sometimes its just not genetically/phsically possible to hold that much weight. men are able to bulk up/ increase muscle mass more easily in their 20s than their teens. tyrus can be a monster if developed right ... if picking on potential he would definitely go over aldridge, pending that raptors pick bargani as their number one.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Ok, this is the reason I'm not sold on him. If we need a PF or C to get to the next level, why take a 6'9" beanpole to be our banger? Simply doesn't make sense. I love his athleticism if he were a SF, but he's not, so he doesn't fit the bill to me. I guess it's possible he could both grow and fill out and be that, but idk. I wouldn't be mad if they took him, but he's just not my first choice.


Aldridge isn't exactly a banger either. Outside of O'Bryant (who would be a HUGE reach at #2) nobody in this draft is. I don't think we should hold that against Thomas.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

It's gonna come down to measurements and workouts. Measurements Thomas can't really change (the stretching machinemight get him an extra half inch I guess.

As for his workouts - He's showing an attitude and not wanting to do much for anyone. Paxson can't be stupid enough to promise anyone anything (see Douby's supposed promise).

If we had kept Eddy Curry and let Chandler walk I'd be clamoring for Thomas.....But we didn't. The best of what Thomas brings is the best of what Chandler brings. I can see Thomas having the same problems that Chandler has had with foul trouble and being outmuscled every night. 

Offense in the post is not easy to find - Cause outside of Eddy Curry we haven't had offense from the post in a while.

This argument is the same as the one for the SG. What kind of player do you want, Do you need cause you don't have a similar one on your roster and who can fill that.

If you draft Thomas....You must be willing to offer the max to Nene to have him play center. That is still a very weak Frontcourt offensively. 

Thomas better wow some people with his "unseen offensive skills". If he doesn't he could easily slip to 7.

Big gamble for a guy that did nothing till the last 15 games of the season...........oh wait, that does sound exactly like Tyson Chandler.


----------



## Plush4life (May 26, 2006)

I feel like Hooper telling the fisherman in JAWS there is too many guys in the boat. "Ah ha...they're all gonna die"

If JERRY KRAUSE WAS THE MAN...tyrus thomas would be our guy. But hes not, thank god!

IN PAXSON WE TRUST


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Plush4life said:


> I feel like Hooper telling the fisherman in JAWS there is too many guys in the boat. "Ah ha...they're all gonna die"
> 
> If JERRY KRAUSE WAS THE MAN...tyrus thomas would be our guy. But hes not, thank god!
> 
> IN PAXSON WE TRUST


1. Full Article about Thomas's coach saying he "THINKS" the bulls are gonna draft Thomas. C'mon now, who REALLY does that?

2. Full Article about Thomas's career in Chicago Papers. Where's everyone else's Bio?

3. Chad Ford stated WAYY before the lotto that Paxson loves Thomas & that Skiles pictured him with the core.

4. Sam Smith saying he THINKS from what he's heard from the Bulls staff that Thomas is their guy.

5. Thomas running around Miami saying The Bulls are taking him?

6. His AGENTS (before the lotto) saying The Bulls have heavy interest in their client.

Let's be serious people, it would be naive to think that Randy's training this kid and isn't giving Paxson the '411' on his workouts. At this point in time, I'd be SHOCKED if Thomas weren't a Chicago Bull by Draft Day BECAUSE of the reports we're hearing damn near DAILY now. Something sounds set in stone to me. I'm not just saying this because I want the kid, but if this we're going on for ANY other pick for us, I'd pretty much draw the same conclusions.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> As for his workouts - He's showing an attitude and not wanting to do much for anyone. Paxson can't be stupid enough to promise anyone anything


What's even worse, it doesn't seem to be his doing imo. He's following the advice given by his agents, who are undeniably dumber than George Bush. If he doesn't wow the top 3, he's going to be lucky to be picked at 7.



> I can see Thomas having the same problems that Chandler has had with foul trouble and being outmuscled every night.


Until he gains the much needed weight, I can't see him getting any meaningful minutes at all. He'll be our version of Darko until he gains 20 or so pounds.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

step said:


> Until he gains the much needed weight, I can't see him getting any meaningful minutes at all. He'll be our version of Darko until he gains 20 or so pounds.


That just WON'T happen.

I don't seem to remember bigger PF's outmuscling him ANY time last season.

It won't be as big of a deal as some of ya'll make it seem. He'll gain weight before the season obviously and he'll contribute.

If Tyson can guard SHAQ, Tyrus can get "meaningful" minutes at PF next season.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> 5. Thomas running around Miami saying The Bulls are taking him?


Could be more crap being spurted out by his agents.


> 1. Full Article about Thomas's coach saying he "THINKS" the bulls are gonna draft Thomas. C'mon now, who REALLY does that?


With the way he was going on about how a close knit group his college team was, it seems that he's hoping moreso than thinking.


> 4. Sam Smith saying he THINKS from what he's heard from the Bulls staff that Thomas is their guy.


Are you willing to bet your house on the word from any journalist, let alone one that thinks we'd be better off trading Gordon and the #2 for Ray Allen.


> 6. His AGENTS (before the lotto) saying The Bulls have heavy interest in their client.


Given our needs and the state of the pick prior to the lottery, how is being interested in one of the top 3 bigs in the draft anything noteworthy?


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

The ROY said:


> 1. Full Article about Thomas's coach saying he "THINKS" the bulls are gonna draft Thomas. C'mon now, who REALLY does that?
> 
> 2. Full Article about Thomas's career in Chicago Papers. Where's everyone else's Bio?
> 
> ...


You write the most obvious scenario. I think you can add to the above that Toronto is probably not interested in taking Thomas with the number one pick. It seems like the Bulls are only making a half-effort to hide their intentions. Though, the possibility remains that this could be a smoke screen, the unanimity from the media feels exactly like it did when we drafted Williams with the number 2 pick.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

step said:


> Could be more crap being spurted out by his agents.
> 
> With the way he was going on about how a close knit group his college team was, it seems that he's hoping moreso than thinking.
> 
> ...


I don't seem to recall them saying he had "heavy" interest from anywhere else.

I won't bet ANYTHING on the words from a journalist, but OBVIOUSLY they know more than us. Which is why I'll take their word before some poster.

As far as him "hoping", who wouldn't hope to be drafted by a playoff team that fits his strengths? Like I said, they know alot more than we do on this matter. The Bulls have the insider on Thomas and it's QUITE obvious. They aren't hiding it very well.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

And let us NOT forget about Paxson only truely speaking about Thomas SINCE the lotto.

It's written all over the wall.

The kid will be a Bull.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> I don't seem to remember bigger PF's outmuscling him ANY time last season.


So he'll be able to contain the 250+ pound forwards with ease then. Sign me up.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

step said:


> So he'll be able to contain the 250+ pound forwards with ease then. Sign me up.


I didn't say with "ease" but I don't think it'll be as difficult as some of ya'll are making it out to be.

Why would I worry about this kid's weight at this point in time? We don't know what steps he's made to gain weight or truely even know his real measurements.

That's not my concern right now.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Why would I worry about this kid's weight at this point in time? We don't know what steps he's made to gain weight or truely even know his real measurements.


That isn't an excuse to dismiss it and given the measurements put on players prior to the draft, they may often be wrong but they're usually within reason. 6'9" at 215 pounds is alot to be concerned about. 
Nobody knows if his body can actually gain much weight at all, he could end up like Chandler, struggling to gain weight let alone keeping it.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

O'Bryant would be a better defensive player on the Bulls than Thomas, whats the point of Chandler and Ty? Two off the ball defenders, both will get outpowered by the guy their defending. O'Bryant is the best fit for us in this draft, if we can somehow move up to like 5-8 to take O'Bryant, I'd be happy. Then you take Thomas and O'Bryant.

Imagine that.

PG-kirk hinrich
sg-ben gordon
sf-andres nocioni/luol deng
pf-tyrus thomas/malik allen
c- patrick o'bryant/tyson chandler

try to use sweetney and duhon to move up from 16 to draft o'bryant. i think that would work, and would allow us not to have to sign ben wallace.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

I just want to start off by saying i am in the lets draft Thomas camp but also i trust Paxson's decissions on the draft so if he drafts Aldridge, Roy, what ever i will suport that.

Now if Thomas is really 6'8" and 215 i think that would be a problem but i have seen him on TV and he looks alot bigger than 6'8" and i would not be surprised if he is closer to 6'10" and a reach of close to 7'. If that is the case he will be our pick IMHO. 

Also i do like that his coach like the idea of skiles being thomas' coach and says Thomas really likes to be chalanged. That is the tude that allows players to get better.

But lets say pax could trade down and get Aldridge or O'Bryant and then Roy. I would be OK with that but still Thomas and brewer or Carney sound good too.

david


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

giusd said:


> I just want to start off by saying i am in the lets draft Thomas camp but also i trust Paxson's decissions on the draft so if he drafts Aldridge, Roy, what ever i will suport that.
> 
> Now if Thomas is really 6'8" and 215 i think that would be a problem but i have seen him on TV and he looks alot bigger than 6'8" and i would not be surprised if he is closer to 6'10" and a reach of close to 7'. If that is the case he will be our pick IMHO.
> 
> ...


Yeah, see the problem with this draft, as we know over and over again, is that there is no sure fire superstar. Carney, Reddick, Morrisson, Aldridge, O'Bryant, Roy, Bargnani, or Gay could all end up being the best player in this draft, I think all of them should become solid players at the very least, except maybe Bargnani (I haven't watched a lot of him, thats why, nothing on his skill)....it should be interesting, just because no ones a sure fire superstar, doesn't mean none of them will become a superstar, we have the #2 pick, so were in a good position. All of the guys I posted above are pretty unique from each other, and all have certain qualities that would make you think they could be the best player in the draft, Morrisson can score at will, Reddick is one of the best shooters to come out of college in awhile, Thomas is an athletic freak, Aldridge and O'Bryant have an alright offensive game, and really good defensive games, Carney has amazing speed, Gay good athleticism, Roy is a good mix for a shooting guard, et cetera. Should be interesting.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

sloth said:


> Yeah, see the problem with this draft, as we know over and over again, is that there is no sure fire superstar.


I would have to say that a "sure fire superstar" comes along every 5-10 years. Even looking back to the phenomenal 2003 draft, LeBron was the only can't miss prospect. People had doubts about Melo, Wade, Bosh, Hinrich, Kaman, etc. And most people thought Darko was a low-risk prospect, and look how he worked out for Detroit. 

This draft does, however, have several guys who might be stars at some point. Rudy Gay, Bargnani, Tyrus Thomas, and Morrison all strike me as potential all-stars. Aldridge and Roy seem like locks to be a decent players but don't have the upside to be all-stars.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

yodurk said:


> I would have to say that a "sure fire superstar" comes along every 5-10 years. Even looking back to the phenomenal 2003 draft, LeBron was the only can't miss prospect. People had doubts about Melo, Wade, Bosh, Hinrich, Kaman, etc. And most people thought Darko was a low-risk prospect, and look how he worked out for Detroit.
> 
> This draft does, however, have several guys who might be stars at some point. Rudy Gay, Bargnani, Tyrus Thomas, and Morrison all strike me as potential all-stars. Aldridge and Roy seem like locks to be a decent players but don't have the upside to be all-stars.


Yeah, I remember, I was in the minority in thinking that Wade was a sure fire superstar. I got yelled at for suggesting trading Crawford and Hinrich for Wade after the draft..........but I was Wade's biggest supporter on this board when he was coming out of college....soooo...


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

step said:


> That isn't an excuse to dismiss it and given the measurements put on players prior to the draft, they may often be wrong but they're usually within reason. 6'9" at 215 pounds is alot to be concerned about.
> Nobody knows if his body can actually gain much weight at all, he could end up like Chandler, struggling to gain weight let alone keeping it.


How many end up like Chandler though? He may be the only player in the last 5 years I've heard of having that difficult of a time gaining weight AND keeping it on.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

I don't see why we can't add Thomas and Nene. You'd have four post guys who can do completely different things...

Chandler-shotblocker
Nene-back to the basket game, bulk
Songalia-pick and roll, jump shooter
Tyrus-long, athletic, good on the ball defender and great hands

Along with Hinrich, Duhon, Gordon, ?, Nocioni, and Deng. That is a hell of a top ten.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I agree with this. It is a very interesting possibility, actually.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

T.Shock said:


> I don't see why we can't add Thomas and Nene. You'd have four post guys who can do completely different things...
> 
> Chandler-shotblocker
> Nene-back to the basket game, bulk
> ...



I've said it before.....If we draft Thomas, I'll be fine with it as long as Paxson is handing Nene a blank check to become a Bull. It's not because Nene is a supersar and deserves it, it's because Nene is the only one who can be a solid C and PF. He's also more athletic and mobile than otehr options. I'm concerned that Toronto may make a big run at Nene as well.

One other though on Thomas being the guy - In my best devil's advocate voice:

If I'm paxson and I know that Toronto wants to trade out of the spot, I'm letting it sound like I want a guy at 2 that no one else besides us (till 7 is in need of). That way, no one trades up to 1 with Toronto, to steal the guy I really want. I'm not saying Thomas isn't the guy, just that I'd be surprised if Paxson hadn't learned a little gamesmanship in the past few years.


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

I just hope the situation in Denver with Kenyon Martin isn't as serious as it's made out to be, cause if they're letting Kenyon go, then Nene isn't going anywhere. Nene has been my no. 1 free agent target for a while now, and we better not lose him by trying to lowball Denver...


----------



## J-City (Feb 20, 2003)

The more I think about it, the more I like T.T. at #2

And the more I read everyone's "concerns", the more laughable they become...

Height: 6'8", 6'9", 6'10"... who cares, he has a huge wingspan and (cliche coming) can jump out of the gym. How tall is Charles Barkley? MoFo dominated.

Weight: For those worried about his "banging ability", he's 19 yrs old. What did you weigh in at at 19yrs of age and what did you weigh at 25. He can easily add a good 25-30 pounds in a couple years, no problem.

Pull the trigger PAX


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

LegoHat said:


> I just hope the situation in Denver with Kenyon Martin isn't as serious as it's made out to be, cause if they're letting Kenyon go, then Nene isn't going anywhere. Nene has been my no. 1 free agent target for a while now, and we better not lose him by trying to lowball Denver...


My understanding is that Denver wants to dump Martin, so that means they'll want to keep Nene. Even if they don't dump Martin, they'll be reluctant to let Nene go without getting something in a sign and trade.

The only way the Bulls get him without trading a valuable asset is if Denver judges that Nene's main asset (quickness) has been compromised by knee surgery -- which it very well might be. In that case the Bulls should pass.

The Bulls need a center, not another power forward who will reluctantly agree to play the position occasionally. Przybilla and Nazr are the only uninjured, unold, unrestricted free agent centers on the market. Take your pick. Presumably the Bulls will make a play for each of them. Otherwise, they will have to endure another year or more without having even a mediocre player at that position. And that would be unwise and unnecessary.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Presumably the Bulls will make a play for each of them. Otherwise, they will have to endure another year or more without having even a mediocre player at that position. And that would be unwise and unnecessary.


I'd rather endure another painful season of being small than having either of them on the books for a substantial amount of time. No point in throwing away our money on guys who are mediocre at best just because we have to, especially if it won't get us anywhere.

I really hope Paxson uses FA as a last resort, outside of paying Ben Wallace a tonne of money and toying fate with Nene, there isn't anyone else. Unfortunately that does include the likes of Wilcox and Gooden, players who would also struggle trying to man the middle, not to mention take even more valuable minutes away from Nocioni.


----------



## mgolding (Jul 20, 2002)

sloth said:


> Yeah, I remember, I was in the majority in thinking that Wade was a sure fire superstar. I got yelled at for suggesting trading Crawford and Hinrich for Wade after the draft..........but I was Wade's biggest supporter on this board when he was coming out of college....soooo...


Well congratulations. Why dont you give yourself another big pat on the back? I would hope after over 15 thousand posts you wold have have got a few things right. It blows me away how much people bring up how once upon a time they made a prediction that was right. Its like there's a constant search for times to bring up "that time I said Jordan was going to be a star when he was 10 years old playing frisby at the park." 

"I was wades biggest supporter." Well, I thought Darko was going to be pretty good. Does that mean whenever I have an opinion on player yours has more strength because once upon a time you said wade was going to be good?


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

mgolding said:


> Well congratulations. Why dont you give yourself another big pat on the back? I would hope after over 15 thousand posts you wold have have got a few things right. It blows me away how much people bring up how once upon a time they made a prediction that was right. Its like there's a constant search for times to bring up "that time I said Jordan was going to be a star when he was 10 years old playing frisby at the park."
> 
> "I was wades biggest supporter." Well, I thought Darko was going to be pretty good. Does that mean whenever I have an opinion on player yours has more strength because once upon a time you said wade was going to be good?


To be fair, I doubt all 15,000 of sloth's posts have been predictions.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

yodurk said:


> I would have to say that a "sure fire superstar" comes along every 5-10 years. Even looking back to the phenomenal 2003 draft, LeBron was the only can't miss prospect. People had doubts about Melo, Wade, Bosh, Hinrich, Kaman, etc. And most people thought Darko was a low-risk prospect, and look how he worked out for Detroit.
> 
> This draft does, however, have several guys who might be stars at some point. Rudy Gay, Bargnani, Tyrus Thomas, and Morrison all strike me as potential all-stars. Aldridge and Roy seem like locks to be a decent players but don't have the upside to be all-stars.


 If my memory serves, Melo was also considered a sure-fire superstah. He was one of the better college players I've ever seen: played point (at times) with impeccable handles; shot consistently with range; had a developed body that hinted that he may be able to play the four; hell of a scorer and team leader. I remember there was a substantial fraction of posters who thought he should be selected in front of Lebron. I remember his hype being in the realm of camp-Duncan territory.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

J-City said:


> The more I think about it, the more I like T.T. at #2
> 
> And the more I read everyone's "concerns", the more laughable they become...
> 
> ...


Perhaps it would be better to just disagree with other people's opinions, rather than calling their concerns "laughable."

[edit: i had to edit this tom, i think you know why!]


----------



## TheDarkPrince (May 13, 2006)

J-City said:


> The more I think about it, the more I like T.T. at #2
> 
> And the more I read everyone's "concerns", the more laughable they become...
> 
> ...


One problem with that Barkley was in the 250/270 weight range most of his career.Thomas while he may have a lot of up side that doesn't mean he will ever live up to his potential and to me he seems like a bit of a gamble at #2.IMO I would prefer Aldrige simple because I think his game is more polished now then Thomas and wil have a better transfer from the college game to the NBA.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

McBulls said:


> My understanding is that Denver wants to dump Martin, so that means they'll want to keep Nene. Even if they don't dump Martin, they'll be reluctant to let Nene go without getting something in a sign and trade.
> 
> The only way the Bulls get him without trading a valuable asset is if Denver judges that Nene's main asset (quickness) has been compromised by knee surgery -- which it very well might be. In that case the Bulls should pass.
> 
> The Bulls need a center, not another power forward who will reluctantly agree to play the position occasionally. Przybilla and Nazr are the only uninjured, unold, unrestricted free agent centers on the market. Take your pick. Presumably the Bulls will make a play for each of them. Otherwise, they will have to endure another year or more without having even a mediocre player at that position. And that would be unwise and unnecessary.


I don't doubt that Denver wants to dump Martin, but who will they dump him to? MAYBE to the Knicks I guess, but even Isiah can't be that dumb.

If Nene wants to sign an offer sheet for Chandler-sized money, he has that right. Then it's up to Denver to match or decline. I think they'd really have a tough time matching that with the salaries they are already paying. Melo is up for a max extension, Camby makes around $8-9M if I recall, Andre Miller makes big bucks, and of course Kenyon is making well over $10M I believe. I have a hard time seeing Denver being able to afford another $8-9M per year. They're a small market team.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

yodurk said:


> I don't doubt that Denver wants to dump Martin, but who will they dump him to? MAYBE to the Knicks I guess, but even Isiah can't be that dumb.
> 
> If Nene wants to sign an offer sheet for Chandler-sized money, he has that right. Then it's up to Denver to match or decline. I think they'd really have a tough time matching that with the salaries they are already paying. Melo is up for a max extension, Camby makes around $8-9M if I recall, Andre Miller makes big bucks, and of course Kenyon is making well over $10M I believe. I have a hard time seeing Denver being able to afford another $8-9M per year. They're a small market team.



I remember reading on HoopsHype a few weeks ago that Carmelo was lobbying for Nuggets' management to resign Nene. It strikes me that the Nugs cannot afford to antagonize their star player. If that is the case, and KMart gets moved, it will not be easy getting Nene to sign for the Bulls.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

J-City said:


> Height: 6'8", 6'9", 6'10"... who cares, he has a huge wingspan and (cliche coming) can jump out of the gym. How tall is Charles Barkley? MoFo dominated.


Like the other reply to this post, he was playing at a very heavy weight. Plus, the guy could back into his defender until the shot clock runs out. The recent five second rule was actually sometimes dubbed the "Charles Barkley Rule". His effectiveness would probably be reduced somewhat had this rule been implemented during his career.



J-City said:


> Weight: For those worried about his "banging ability", he's 19 yrs old. What did you weigh in at at 19yrs of age and what did you weigh at 25. He can easily add a good 25-30 pounds in a couple years, no problem.


Possibly, but sometimes I think of Tyson, Jamal Crawford, Darius Miles, Tracy McGrady, etc. when I see Tyrus Thomas. Plus, he doesn't have the jumpshot or range like Reggie Miller or T-Mac or the stamina like Richard Hamilton that he can get away with being too skinny. Thomas is still a small forward, in my opinion, who is best suited to be developed like a Josh Smith or Gerald Wallace.


----------



## BULLS23 (Apr 13, 2003)

TwinkieTowers said:


> Possibly, but sometimes I think of Tyson, Jamal Crawford, Darius Miles, Tracy McGrady, etc. when I see Tyrus Thomas. Plus, he doesn't have the jumpshot or range like Reggie Miller or T-Mac or the stamina like Richard Hamilton that he can get away with being too skinny. Thomas is still a small forward, in my opinion, who is best suited to be developed like a Josh Smith or Gerald Wallace.



These are my sentiments exactly . . . I think that Thomas is one of those people who have skinny genes. Of course I can't know what his folks look like or how his body will handle more weight training and bulking up. However, I'm one of those people that can't put on OR keep weight (I've had pretty much the same body type since I was 19 - I'm 26 now). I went through a time of pretty rigorus training from 19 - 22, and I've never been able to bulk up, however, I did get noticably stronger. I worry that Thomas is more like this than someone who will miraculously gain 30 pounds of muscle in a few years (unless he's on the Victor Conte plan). IMHO, I see him as a Marion-like SF who can play PF in the right situation . . . Not our nightly answer to our lack of post effectiveness.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

i split the irrelevant pip'trix discussion and moved it up to OT.

please discuss tyrus thomas here.

thanks.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Tyrus Thomas...ok.

Was pip'trix a fan of Tyrus Thomas?

KIDDING KIDDING


----------



## Tommyo22 (Jun 5, 2006)

Why are so many people in love with Thomas? In my opinion, he is a Theo Ratliff clone (maybe an inch or two shorter). I would not use a 2nd pick on a short Theo Ratliff. I would trade the pick and a player (you pick em) for Garnett. Then use the 16th pick to replace the player you traded and bank on the Knicks sucking again next year, and pickup another key piece to the puzzle with their first round pick.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Tommyo22 said:


> Why are so many people in love with Thomas? In my opinion, he is a Theo Ratliff clone (maybe an inch or two shorter). I would not use a 2nd pick on a short Theo Ratliff. I would trade the pick and a player (you pick em) for Garnett. Then use the 16th pick to replace the player you traded and bank on the Knicks sucking again next year, and pickup another key piece to the puzzle with their first round pick.


The kid is nothing like Theo Ratliff besides blocking shots LOL

C'mon man....


----------



## Tommyo22 (Jun 5, 2006)

The ROY said:


> The kid is nothing like Theo Ratliff besides blocking shots LOL
> 
> C'mon man....



You're right. He's nothing like Theo. Theo put up arguable better numbers in his last year of school.

Thomas put up 12.3 pts, 9.2 rebounds, and 3.1 blocks
Ratliff put up 14.4 pts, 7.5 rebounds, and 5.1 blocks.

I don't have anything against the guy, other than I don't think the Bulls should blow a 2nd pick on a player who has very high potential to be a big bust. I just want to know why so many people out there like the kid. This kinda reminds me of the hype surrounding Stromile Swift after his good showing his last year in school. The only diffirence is Stromile had more skills and size than Thomas. Stromile lacked the drive.

There really isn't a player in this draft worth taking high. However, someone has to go second.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?p=3630246&conly=#post3630246

Read the last page of this thread..it's a HUGE article on Thomas's working out and how he's improving his game. The KEY thing about the article is, he said he's always been a SF and that he was playing out of position at LSU. Randy said he has alot more offensive skills than he got more offensive skills than advertised. This is an interesting article but left me thinking we should go in a different direction.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Also read that last page on some more quotes I posted from Insider. Randy says he doesn't know how the Bulls could pass up on him. They also say Chicago has been keeping close tabs on his workout.

Even if I've been feeling a bit indifferent on those "SF" comments, it SOUNDS like he's a lock to be a Bull from that article.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Story on TYRUS THOMAS coming up on channel 7 in a few minutes


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

They showed him in the GYM and said he was the player the bulls had their eye on. He did a few dunks and hit a few 20 footers consistently. He also said he'd love to play for the bulls but he just wants to play basketball and help wherever he goes.

C'mon ya'll....This has to be the most OBVIOUS pick I've seen SINCE Paxson's been here. He's drafting that kid. A 2 minute segment on channel 7?!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The ROY said:


> They showed him in the GYM and said he was the player the bulls had their eye on. He did a few dunks and hit a few 20 footers consistently. He also said he'd love to play for the bulls but he just wants to play basketball and help wherever he goes.
> 
> C'mon ya'll....This has to be the most OBVIOUS pick I've seen SINCE Paxson's been here. He's drafting that kid. A 2 minute segment on channel 7?!


Sounds like his jumper is right up there with Fizer's and Chandler's


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Sounds like his jumper is right up there with Fizer's and Chandler's


sure


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Sounds like his jumper is right up there with Fizer's and Chandler's


LOL. But I actually saw Chandler hit the college three during games. 

BTW The Roy, is TT back at the top of your wishlist?


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

El Chapu said:


> LOL. But I actually saw Chandler hit the college three during games.
> 
> BTW The Roy, is TT back at the top of your wishlist?


after reading that tyrus article, i've been leaning towards trading out of the draft myself.

but, after reading insider and seeing that segment on channel 7, he's gonna be in chicago, regardless.


----------



## Fizer Fanatic (Jun 20, 2002)

The ROY said:


> http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?p=3630246&conly=#post3630246
> 
> Read the last page of this thread..it's a HUGE article on Thomas's working out and how he's improving his game. The KEY thing about the article is, he said he's always been a SF and that he was playing out of position at LSU. Randy said he has alot more offensive skills than he got more offensive skills than advertised. This is an interesting article but left me thinking we should go in a different direction.


That's interesting. I guess it's good that he has some SF skills, but it might be bad if we end up with Deng, Noc and TT wanting to play SF and SF only. However, I don't think that'd be the case. If TT ends up being a SF, then it could be ok, as Noc and Deng have more than just a little bit of PF skills to them and having TT at SF would help make up for being small at PF. Given his age, Deng could gain some weight over time and has already played PF in college. Noc played well at PF at the end of the year. Both are good rebounders. I'm starting to think best player available makes more sense all the time.

And after reading about Morrison's workout on DraftExpress, I've even gotten over the "goodness of fit" size/athleticism hurdles enough to consider Morrison as a possible Bull, too. Morrison, Nocioni and Deng could be a great small front-court against the many weaker offensive post teams (those without Shaq or Duncan). And they could make a heck of a 3 man rotation if one of Deng/Noc can be a full time PF. Morrison and TT seemingly have the commitment/drive/love of the game that Pax seems to seek in his draft picks. If Aldridge had that, I'd think he'd have to be our 1st option given that one day he could grow up to be a legitimate center.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

I'd take Thomas if he is capable of shutting down Lebron. But that's about it.


----------



## realbullsfaninLA (Jan 8, 2003)

Nobody is "shutting down Lebron". But if his bball I.Q. match is drive and work ethic, he must be considered. 

I am intrigued that Roy's workout was rescheduled so that Reinsdorf could attend. It wouldn't surprise me if we keep the #2, and get another high pick via trade (Chandler). I know conventional wisdom says that we need to get more vets and not younger, but free agency could land us two post players who fit that description.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Tyrus is probably still at the top of my list (although Bargnani is a very close #2, and might be my #1 if Tyrus doesn't prove something in workouts). But I'm a bit concerned about his measurements. If he's closer to 6'10, he's money. If he's more like 6'8, I don't want him any more. We don't need a Bo Outlaw on our team.


----------



## Charlotte_______ (May 18, 2003)

LegoHat said:


> These two comments don't exactly say the same thing:
> 
> "Chicago has convinced me and him that if he's sitting there at No. 2 (overall in the NBA draft), they're going to take him"
> 
> ...


This is the exact same thing I thought too.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

realbullsfaninLA said:


> Nobody is "shutting down Lebron". But if his bball I.Q. match is drive and work ethic, he must be considered.
> 
> I am intrigued that Roy's workout was rescheduled so that Reinsdorf could attend. It wouldn't surprise me if we keep the #2, and get another high pick via trade (Chandler). I know conventional wisdom says that we need to get more vets and not younger, but free agency could land us two post players who fit that description.


I could see us drafting a big (probably Thomas) with number two then trading chandler + #16 for Roy..

Then you could just replace Chandler with Pryzbilla defensively and on the blocks...Thomas would also make up for some of the blocks and rebounds...

G Hinrich / Duhon
G Gordon / Roy
F Deng / Nocioni
F Thomas / Sweetney
C Pryzbilla

On top of that we could still grab Ben Wallace. That team would be a contender.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

The ROY said:


> I could see us drafting a big (probably Thomas) with number two then trading chandler + #16 for Roy..
> 
> Then you could just replace Chandler with Pryzbilla defensively and on the blocks...Thomas would also make up for some of the blocks and rebounds...
> 
> ...


 But how do we get Roy by giving up Chandler and the #16? We need either #4 or #6 and I don't think Portland or Minnesota is giving away their pick for the package you mentioned. Besides, both those teams are over the cap meaning we have to take back salary. What players do they want to dump on us?

EDIT: Unless you're suggesting ATL will trade with us.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> EDIT: Unless you're suggesting ATL will trade with us.


The #5 pick for Chandler and the #16... do it now!
If only we could be so lucky.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

The ROY said:


> They showed him in the GYM and said he was the player the bulls had their eye on. He did a few dunks and hit a few 20 footers consistently. He also said he'd love to play for the bulls but he just wants to play basketball and help wherever he goes.
> 
> C'mon ya'll....This has to be the most OBVIOUS pick I've seen SINCE Paxson's been here. He's drafting that kid. A 2 minute segment on channel 7?!


 I think it's because the Tyrus camp sent out this press release : http://www.sportsfeatures.com/index.php?section=pp&action=show&id=31253

and the chicago media went


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

step said:


> The #5 pick for Chandler and the #16... do it now!
> If only we could be so lucky.


I was thinking the same deal but dont posted since I thought they would consider Chandler dead value. But its interesting, nontheless. 
And (I know guys, dont hate me...) maybe if you throw Duhon (they also need someone that comes close to being a pure PG), it could be an interesting deal.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> I was thinking the same deal but dont posted since I thought they would consider Chandler dead value.


They were one of the few teams interested in him before, not sure now but I can actually see him being quite useful there. They'd get the quality PG they need, defensive big which also is needed and they still have alot of capspace to play with to sign anyone else they wish. Works out quite well for them from this perspective.


> And (I know guys, dont hate me...) maybe if you throw Duhon (they also need someone that comes close to being a pure PG), it could be an interesting deal.


It would require Duhon no matter what, but I was just having fun enjoying ROY's proposed trade that I didn't bother looking at it.

This trade would be great for us, we walk away with both Roy and Aldridge/Thomas and an extra $10M in cap space.

Sorry, but I have to do this...
I'd personally looking at Wallace (Przybilla as the backup choice if Wallace is after crazy amounts of money), Gooden (if we go with Thomas) with Butler, Mbenga as two bigs I'd like to get and try to develop.

Wallace, Sweets, Butler
Aldridge, Mbenga, Allen (Noc would most likely start, but is on the wing for "roster" purposes)
Deng, Nocioni
Gordon, Roy
Hinrich, _____
Don't have a set backup PG in mind, Jay Williams and Prigioni are the only ones that come to mind now, but we could always find a temp and look to fill it next offseason (Barbosa).

I like the idea ROY.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Why trade Chandler when his value is at an all-time low? In a consolidation trade definately, but not just to move up in the draft.


----------

