# John Paxson, bring on the freaks....



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

athletic freaks that is, this offseason. I think Chicago needs an overhaul in the size/athleticism department. No surprise here. The roster is chock full of 'grinder' types, guys who basically get it done with average or below average athletic ability and/or size. Don't get me wrong, every roster should have some. But play any team in West, Washington on the road, Detroit, Cleveland, you get the picture. What sticks out to me is how much these teams have better size and athleticism than the Bulls. The Bulls keep games close based on heart, hustle, and defense. But we need something more... so time to change things.

*Draft:*
Rodney Carney or Rudy Gay in that order. Slasher/finisher to compliment our current team. Morrison, Aldrige, Roy are more of the same type of player we already have on this team. We don't need more jumpshooters and below the rim players. I would consider Tyrus Thomas if he's available as well.

Best bigman available with our second first rounder. Hilton Armstrong, Patrick O'Bryant, Shelden Williams. Basically another body to spell and Tyson and....

*Free agency:*
Make a play for Chris Wilcox. He's quietly getting major minutes in SEA. Has been showing a nice outside jumper and improving back to the basket game. Seattle is already committed to 40+ million so they might be reluctant to match.

If not Wilcox, make a play for Drew Gooden. Perhaps the Kansas connection will re-emerge.

Imagine a fast break with Carney and Wilcox on the wings. Drool.


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

superdave said:


> athletic freaks that is, this offseason. I think Chicago needs an overhaul in the size/athleticism department. No surprise here. The roster is chock full of 'grinder' types, guys who basically get it done with average or below average athletic ability and/or size. Don't get me wrong, every roster should have some. But play any team in West, Washington on the road, Detroit, Cleveland, you get the picture. What sticks out to me is how much these teams have better size and athleticism than the Bulls. The Bulls keep games close based on heart, hustle, and defense. But we need something more... so time to change things.
> 
> *Draft:*
> Rodney Carney or Rudy Gay in that order. Slasher/finisher to compliment our current team. Morrison, Aldrige, Roy are more of the same type of player we already have on this team. We don't need more jumpshooters and below the rim players. I would consider Tyrus Thomas if he's available as well.
> ...


I think the immortal superdave is on to something. I'd certainly be happy if we came away with this plan fulfilled after this summer.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

The only guy I'm sure that I would want Pax to draft is Carney. He has superstar potential written all over him.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

I'd be fine with a Carney & Armstrong/O'Bryant/Williams/Splitter draft, assuming Pax isn't sold on Aldridge, Bargnani, or Thomas or they are already off the board.

I'm not too high on Gay only because PG and SF are our strongest position, and I don't think we should duplicate that position (unless a trade is already lined up). Carney is quick enough to guard NBA SGs, but I think Gay would do about as well at the 2 as Deng.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Rhyder said:


> I'd be fine with a Carney & Armstrong/O'Bryant/Williams/Splitter draft, assuming Pax isn't sold on Aldridge, Bargnani, or Thomas or they are already off the board.
> 
> I'm not too high on Gay only because PG and SF are our strongest position, and I don't think we should duplicate that position (unless a trade is already lined up). Carney is quick enough to guard NBA SGs, but I think Gay would do about as well at the 2 as Deng.


Admittedly, I only saw about 5 or 6 games of both Memphis and UCONN this season, but based on what I saw, I really don't understand why people think that Carney can play the 2 but Gay can't.

I'm not picking on you, Rhyder, the vast majority of folks seem to agree with you. But to me, Gay is more skilled than Carney and just as good an athlete. If Carney can be a 2, so can Gay.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Admittedly, I only saw about 5 or 6 games of both Memphis and UCONN this season, but based on what I saw, I really don't understand why people think that Carney can play the 2 but Gay can't.
> 
> I'm not picking on you, Rhyder, the vast majority of folks seem to agree with you. But to me, Gay is more skilled than Carney and just as good an athlete. If Carney can be a 2, so can Gay.


They're both extremely gifted athletically, but I don't believe that is the issue. Carney is much faster at shuffling his feet (lateral footspeed) and accelerates much faster than does Gay--in my observations.

Even if you rate them exactly the same athletically, Carney has the much more developed perimeter shot which would naturally make him more capable of playing the two-guard offensively.

I most definately could be wrong, but the pre-draft camp tests should clear some confusion regarding issues such as these.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

I agree with superdave. In my mind, our priorities should be size and athleticism at the wing, and skill and athleticism (x2) in the post. Brandon Roy has been brought up, but he's a below the rim player in my eyes. Not what we're looking for.

As far as the Carney/Gay comparison, I would say Carney is a better outside shooter and a better ballhandler. Therefore, he's more capable of playing the 2.


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

Carney and Wilcox????


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

*Paging HKF, paging HKF.... (and other college bball gurus)*

From the games that I saw, I think Gay has the better jumper of the two. In fact, its a thing of beauty to watch. I just think that Carney has the all important 'first step' and will be a better finisher at the rim.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

superdave said:


> *Paging HKF, paging HKF.... (and other college bball gurus)*
> 
> From the games that I saw, I think Gay has the better jumper of the two. In fact, its a thing of beauty to watch. I just think that Carney has the all important 'first step' and will be a better finisher at the rim.


Gay has a better mid-range game, but past Carney is leaps and bounds better outside of about 18 feet. I also think Carney will be the better defender at a NBA level, but that is just projection.


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

I would love to get Wilcox, but I have a feeling Seattle will do everything in their power to keep him, because he has really been playing well for them this season, and they desperately need a guy like him on the low post.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

VS.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Admittedly, I only saw about 5 or 6 games of both Memphis and UCONN this season, but based on what I saw, I really don't understand why people think that Carney can play the 2 but Gay can't.
> 
> I'm not picking on you, Rhyder, the vast majority of folks seem to agree with you. But to me, Gay is more skilled than Carney and just as good an athlete. If Carney can be a 2, so can Gay.


I think Gay can play the two for stretches (much like Deng) but he's not going to be a 2 long term. We're talking about a guy who's already an extremely long 6'9'' as a sophomore in college. I can't think of many 6'9'' guys in the NBA who play great D against 2's. Gay did a nice job on Roy for stretches in the Sweet 16, but I think once he fills out a little bit being a full time shooting guard is going to be a lot to ask of him.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

superdave said:


> athletic freaks that is, this offseason. I think Chicago needs an overhaul in the size/athleticism department. No surprise here. The roster is chock full of 'grinder' types, guys who basically get it done with average or below average athletic ability and/or size. Don't get me wrong, every roster should have some. But play any team in West, Washington on the road, Detroit, Cleveland, you get the picture. What sticks out to me is how much these teams have better size and athleticism than the Bulls. The Bulls keep games close based on heart, hustle, and defense. But we need something more... so time to change things.
> 
> *Draft:*
> Rodney Carney or Rudy Gay in that order. Slasher/finisher to compliment our current team. Morrison, Aldrige, Roy are more of the same type of player we already have on this team. We don't need more jumpshooters and below the rim players. I would consider Tyrus Thomas if he's available as well.
> ...


The Wilcox idea is a good one. I haven't seen him play much in Seattle, but how much difference is there really between Wilcox and Nene? 

I agree we need athletes, but I like Roy better than Gay or Carney and I feel he's a little underrated athletically. That said, it's looking more and more like getting Roy is going to require using the NY pick, and I'm not sure that's wise.


----------



## Fizer Fanatic (Jun 20, 2002)

I agree with the general conclusion, we want a tall athlete who can play SG and 1-2 athletic post player(s). However, I rate the athletic post player(s) as most important of the two needs. We can get by w/ Gordon or Hinrich starting at the 2 much easier than we can get by w/ someone like Songalia, Sweetney or Othella Harrington starting at the 4 IMO. I guess if we get our athletic starting 4 via free-agency, it might be ok to go small w/ our first lotto pick. But at the time of the draft, we don't yet know who we'll get via free-agency. Therefore, to be sure to get a talented/athletic big, I'd rather go big w/ the first lotto pick (Aldridge/Noah/Thomas/Barnani), then hope Carney/Roy/Brewer/Collins is there late in the lotto (or maybe trade for a much later pick to nab James White while taking another big guy late in the lotto if someone like O'Bryant or Noah is still available there). If we get Gooden/Wilcox/Al Harrington/Nene/Pryzbilla in free agency, then that's a very nice bonus to go w/ the high lottery big(s). With Kirk and Gordon, SG isn't a huge need in my opinion, although some bench size & athleticism would be much welcomed there.

Of course, none of that addresses leadership, which is another thing that we're supposedly going to try to address in the off-season. Personally, I think athleticism, size and post play are bigger issues than leadership.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Fizer Fanatic said:


> I agree with the general conclusion, we want a tall athlete who can play SG and 1-2 athletic post player(s). However, I rate the athletic post player(s) as most important of the two needs. We can get by w/ Gordon or Hinrich starting at the 2 much easier than we can get by w/ someone like Songalia, Sweetney or Othella Harrington starting at the 4 IMO. I guess if we get our athletic starting 4 via free-agency, it might be ok to go small w/ our first lotto pick. But at the time of the draft, we don't yet know who we'll get via free-agency. Therefore, to be sure to get a talented/athletic big, I'd rather go big w/ the first lotto pick (Aldridge/Noah/Thomas/Barnani), then hope Carney/Roy/Brewer/Collins is there late in the lotto (or maybe trade for a much later pick to nab James White while taking another big guy late in the lotto if someone like O'Bryant or Noah is still available there). If we get Gooden/Wilcox/Al Harrington/Nene/Pryzbilla in free agency, then that's a very nice bonus to go w/ the high lottery big(s). With Kirk and Gordon, SG isn't a huge need in my opinion, although some bench size & athleticism would be much welcomed there.
> 
> Of course, none of that addresses leadership, which is another thing that we're supposedly going to try to address in the off-season. Personally, I think athleticism, size and post play are bigger issues than leadership.


The problem with this plan is that it's predicated on the idea that one of the high lottery bigs is fairly developed as an offensive post threat. I'm not sure that's the case.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

jbulls said:


> The problem with this plan is that it's predicated on the idea that one of the high lottery bigs is fairly developed as an offensive post threat. I'm not sure that's the case.


Even though he is not a low post guy, Bargnani seems to make more and more sense based on everything I've read and the little I've seen--although I'm going to have to trust the Bulls scouting department on this one.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Out of context the title of this thread is damn near as funny as "Who wants to sex Mutumbo?"...


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Not addressing anyone in particular, but basketball is a game where the smartest player is usually the winner, not the longest/fastest/tallest. I'm not against the "freaks", but rather arguing that we need "freaks" with a head for basketball. Plenty of the greatest players in the history of the NBA have been relatively average in their physical dimensions........ their knowledge of the game and ability to out-think their opponents was the difference.

I don't want anymore Eddy's or Jamal's, who not only have the physical tools to drool over, but also drool over everything else in the process.


----------



## Fizer Fanatic (Jun 20, 2002)

jbulls said:


> The problem with this plan is that it's predicated on the idea that one of the high lottery bigs is fairly developed as an offensive post threat. I'm not sure that's the case.


I'd argue that Aldridge can already do a lot offensively in the post and has improved a great deal in the past year (he's my #1 choice). If Bargnani is anything remotely close to Gasol or Dirk, we could be very well off to pick him. Noah grew a lot late in high school and is developing quickly as a post player, seems to have lots of talent & potential. Thomas is also an attractive option. You can't teach height & athletic ability, they seem to have it and we seem to need it. Let the coaches develop them.

I'm also not sure that them being a developed offensive post threat is a requirement. Heck, any of them are probably already as good as what we've got in that regard. If they're tall, athletic, can catch, jump & dunk, they'd be a great asset for us to have offensively even if they didn't have post moves or a jump shot. And Chandler should be better able to avoid foul trouble if he gets some help defensively inside.

If we can get one of these bigs for development and still get a free-agent big, we could be in really good shape inside again. The Knicks trade really hurt our interior talent, this off-season is the time to rectify that situation.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Wynn said:


> Not addressing anyone in particular, but basketball is a game where the smartest player is usually the winner, not the longest/fastest/tallest. I'm not against the "freaks", but rather arguing that we need "freaks" with a head for basketball. Plenty of the greatest players in the history of the NBA have been relatively average in their physical dimensions........ their knowledge of the game and ability to out-think their opponents was the difference.
> 
> I don't want anymore Eddy's or Jamal's, who not only have the physical tools to drool over, but also drool over everything else in the process.


I agree with this in general. However, I don't want to watch any more games where Duhon or Hinrich end up defending someone nearly a foot taller and 50 lbs heavier than they are, while our center is six inches shorter or 50 pounds lighter than their counterpart.

We need a large front line player who can throw their weight around and change the image of the Bulls in the minds of referees from a bunch of energetic munchkins to tough defensive minded Detroit-like defenders. Ben Wallace would be nice. Or more realistically Prizbilla.

After we take care of bulking up the front line, then we can add a one or two of tomorrows Jordans (or Eddie Robinsons).


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

McBulls said:


> I agree with this in general. However, I don't want to watch any more games where Duhon or Hinrich end up defending someone nearly a foot taller and 50 lbs heavier than they are, while our center is six inches shorter or 50 pounds lighter than their counterpart.
> 
> We need a large front line player who can throw their weight around and change the image of the Bulls in the minds of referees from a bunch of energetic munchkins to tough defensive minded Detroit-like defenders. Ben Wallace would be nice. Or more realistically Prizbilla.


Great post and I agree about the referees. The Bulls need to change from a jumpshooting team to one where they are willing to drive the lane, draw contact/fouls, and finish. That element is sorely missing from this team... as is size defensively.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

jbulls said:


> Out of context the title of this thread is damn near as funny as "Who wants to sex Mutumbo?"...


"Super Freaks" has been running through my mind ever since I spotted the thread title. 

Sigh.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I do not know how much it would take to grab Nene, and what the status of his knee is. But I'd be happy with an offseason like this: 

Nene and Gooden
Nene and Pryz, and if we can Wilcox
Gooden, Pryz, and Nazr

with drafting --> NYK: Aldridge or Carney/Roy, Chicago: Best player at the position we did not get w/the NYK pick


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

superdave said:


> Great post and I agree about the referees. The Bulls need to change from a jumpshooting team to one where they are willing to drive the lane, draw contact/fouls, and finish. That element is sorely missing from this team... as is size defensively.


See, here's the thing. He's not as athletic as Carney or Gay, but Roy is far more aggressive as a penetrator than either of those two guys. He's very crafty about finishing, and he makes adjustments in the air in the lane, which no Bull has done since the Jordan era. I think he will get to the free throw line more than Carney or Gay too. Roy is not a skywalker, but he's a very good athlete. I see him in the athletic class of a Ray Allen or a Ginobili. 

To those who haven't seen him play, check out the scouting report on draftcity:

Roy is not a skywalker, but he's a very good athlete. I see him in the athletic class of a Ray Allen or a Ginobili.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> See, here's the thing. He's not as athletic as Carney or Gay, but Roy is far more aggressive as a penetrator than either of those two guys. He's very crafty about finishing, and he makes adjustments in the air in the lane, which no Bull has done since the Jordan era. I think he will get to the free throw line more than Carney or Gay too. Roy is not a skywalker, but he's a very good athlete. I see him in the athletic class of a Ray Allen or a Ginobili.
> 
> To those who haven't seen him play, check out the scouting report on draftcity:
> 
> Roy is not a skywalker, but he's a very good athlete. I see him in the athletic class of a Ray Allen or a Ginobili.


I'm with you DMD. I think Roy is a very good athlete. He reminds me a little of Luol Deng in that a) he was ranked highly enough as a high schooler that the NBA draft was a realistic possibility and b) he's not extremely fluid so people think he's not athletic enough to be an impact player on the next level.

I think Roy is a fantastic basketball player. I'm not totally sure that he's worth a top 2 or 3 pick but I think he's way better than Rodney Carney. We're talking about a shooting guard who's shot 56 and 51 percent from the floor the last two years and 40 percent from three this year. Carney might have him in a dunk contest - but that's it. Rodney's shot 44 and 41 percent from the floor the last two years, and that's with a healthy amount of dunks. 

Roy's not going to win any dunk contests but I don't think he's a slouch as an athlete at all. Roy is the surest thing in this draft by a wide margin. I can understand people liking Gay better than Roy, Gay's a rare athlete, although I don't. But Roy's head and shoulders above every other 2 in the draft IMO - he took an extremely weak Washington team to the sweet 16 this year with virtually no help.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Fizer Fanatic said:


> I'd argue that Aldridge can already do a lot offensively in the post and has improved a great deal in the past year (he's my #1 choice). If Bargnani is anything remotely close to Gasol or Dirk, we could be very well off to pick him. Noah grew a lot late in high school and is developing quickly as a post player, seems to have lots of talent & potential. Thomas is also an attractive option. You can't teach height & athletic ability, they seem to have it and we seem to need it. Let the coaches develop them.
> 
> I'm also not sure that them being a developed offensive post threat is a requirement. Heck, any of them are probably already as good as what we've got in that regard. If they're tall, athletic, can catch, jump & dunk, they'd be a great asset for us to have offensively even if they didn't have post moves or a jump shot. And Chandler should be better able to avoid foul trouble if he gets some help defensively inside.
> 
> If we can get one of these bigs for development and still get a free-agent big, we could be in really good shape inside again. The Knicks trade really hurt our interior talent, this off-season is the time to rectify that situation.


I like all three guys, it wouldn't sure of they all turned out to be good pro's. I'm just not sure that any of them is ready to be a guy who's a high percentage bet in the post just yet.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

I agree.

Its time to finally shift the focus away from big time college players who have played in the big games and know how to play the right way to focusing on acquiring NBA players.

Wilcox has been a force for the Sonics. My only concern with him is that he only turned it on during the 2nd half of his contract year.... but he is on a new team and all so that could be it.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> I agree.
> 
> Its time to finally shift the focus away from big time college players who have played in the big games and know how to play the right way to focusing on acquiring NBA players.
> 
> Wilcox has been a force for the Sonics. My only concern with him is that he only turned it on during the 2nd half of his contract year.... but he is on a new team and all so that could be it.


Chris Wilcox was a big time college player who played in the big games. These things are not mutually exclusive. There is no reason to shift focus "away" from one thing or "toward" another. 

Paxson can get athleticism without sacrificing basketball IQ. For example, if Noah comes out he has a healthy dose of both. Scouting reports on Tyrus Thomas claim a strength of his is basketball IQ. 

In any event, I agree about Wilcox. He's averaging 14 and 7 in 29 minutes since going to Seattle. I wouldn't say he's been a "force" but he has been good and is showing some promise.

He's the poster child for not trashing the possibilities of the upcoming free agency class since several of them are still young and developing. This whole season folks repeatedly invoked his name specifically to chastise the potential benefits of free agency and cap flexibility.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Chris Wilcox was a big time college player who played in the big games.


Yah yah, ok, back to using "jib" I guess.

The focus should shift from jib to freaks. Talent over jib, IMO. 

We need a NBA level athleticism/size 2 guard and center. If it came between a jibby undersized dive for loose balls player vs a freak with less jib at this point, Paxson needs to go with the freak.



> These things are not mutually exclusive. There is no reason to shift focus "away" from one thing or "toward" another.


I think there is a reason..... the Bulls are a losing team.



> Paxson can get athleticism without sacrificing basketball IQ. For example, if Noah comes out he has a healthy dose of both. Scouting reports on Tyrus Thomas claim a strength of his is basketball IQ.


Its tough to get all NBA talent and jib in the same player... those guys are superstars. We just need some competent guys that can physically hang with their man, attack the rim and play above the rim. I don't care if he has a massive ego or scowls at the coach every now and then.



> He's the poster child for not trashing the possibilities of the upcoming free agency class since several of them are still young and developing.
> 
> This whole season folks repeatedly invoked his name specifically to chastise the potential benefits of free agency and cap flexibility.


Let's see if the Bulls get him with our Cap Space, he produces here and the team gets better before you start cashing in those chips.

There are plenty of guys that can put together a 1/2 season when its contract time. And I still doubt that Wilcox will get us back to 47 wins and 3rd best in the East.. or that he’s the type of player that is worth a 3 year Cap Space building plan.

All that matters is the Bulls getting back to 47 wins/3 rd best team in the east… and hopefully much better than that.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I agree with Ron. Of course the Bulls need to get more size and more athleticism. Its a given. But it is no use to us to get some guy who can jump out of the gym, but lacks skills or lacks the ability to execute the plays that are called.

The stuff about being "jibby" and "scowling at the coach" is a complete red herring in the context of this discussion, IMO.

Basketball IQ and athleticism are _not_ mutually exclusive and both are mandatory requirements to fill needs, especially if the goal is to get back to the top.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I agree with Ron. Of course the Bulls need to get more size and more athleticism. Its a given. But it is no use to us to get some guy who can jump out of the gym, but lacks skills or lacks the ability to execute the plays that are called.
> 
> The stuff about being "jibby" and "scowling at the coach" is a *complete red herring* in the context of this discussion, IMO.
> 
> Basketball IQ and athleticism are _not_ mutually exclusive and both are mandatory requirements to fill needs, especially if the goal is to get back to the top.



A red, rotten herring, I might add. 

We've got one space cadet in Tyson. We don't need another. We need more intelligence, toughness and skill on the floor.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

Talent vs. Jib vs. IQ vs. "scowling at the coach" are not mutually exclusive attributes. Nor do they have to other worldly in all areas. Of course, a basketball genius who has a 45 inch vertical is going to be a superstar. 

I think we need more athleticism, no doubt. But, we don't need to get the most athletic guy out there to get better. We can get an above average athlete with average to above average basketball IQ and if he fits a particular need that we have....presto...we get better. 

There are varying degrees of intelligence and athleticism. It's not an "all or nothing" thing.

Having said all that, Toni Kukoc was a pretty jibby guy, with below average athleticsm, and a basketball IQ that was other worldly. K4e, it was toni's mind you were attracted to, huh? :biggrin:


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

I agree that we shouldn't automatically take the best athlete out there. Now is definitely not the time to start assembling a team based on shuttle runs and vertical leaps without taking into account intelligence, how the person plays basketball and how they fit into the overall concept. We already had ERob here. (Anyway, I think we get out-sized more than we get out-athleted, anyway.) There are certain guys that end up on the Knicks ongoing real-life fantasy squad, and certain guys that end up on the Spurs. We want to be the Spurs. In our position, WWSD? I think the Spurs would probably take Brandon Roy, but that's just a hunch. We don't need the next Darius Miles (no offense DMD) or ERob, and if there's one of those it probably isn't Brandon Roy. It might be Rudy Gay. 

(Does anyone else mentally pronounce Brandon's name like Patrick Roy, by the way? Every time. Brandon Wa. LOL)


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Philomath said:


> I agree that we shouldn't automatically take the best athlete out there. Now is definitely not the time to start assembling a team based on shuttle runs and vertical leaps without taking into account intelligence, how the person plays basketball and how they fit into the overall concept. We already had ERob here. (Anyway, I think we get out-sized more than we get out-athleted, anyway.) There are certain guys that end up on the Knicks ongoing real-life fantasy squad, and certain guys that end up on the Spurs. We want to be the Spurs. In our position, WWSD? I think the Spurs would probably take Brandon Roy, but that's just a hunch. We don't need the next Darius Miles (no offense DMD) or ERob, and if there's one of those it probably isn't Brandon Roy. It might be Rudy Gay.
> 
> (Does anyone else mentally pronounce Brandon's name like Patrick Roy, by the way? Every time. Brandon Wa. LOL)


I'm high on Roy, but I'm also intrigued by Carey, either Brewer (particularly Ronnie), and to a lesser extent Mardy Collins and Maurice Ager. Rudy Gay looks like the antithesis of clutch. I haven't heard a thing about him having bad jib, but we can probably find an impressive athlete who doesn't lack mental toughness.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> We just need some competent guys that can physically hang with their man, attack the rim and play above the rim. I don't care if he has a massive ego or scowls at the coach every now and then.


This is an ok approach if you're only setting your sights on hovering around the 50 win mark and being first or second round fodder for the really good teams, like the Grizz have been or the Hornets were for a number of years. If you're thinking about actually trying to win something though, you need to get a guy that has some mix of top talent and his head screwed on straight.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

badfish said:


> Having said all that, Toni Kukoc was a pretty jibby guy, with below average athleticsm, and a basketball IQ that was other worldly.


6'11" player that can play point guard?

Seems like a freak.

Certainly not undersized. Not a hustle player or stout defender. Smokes. Would not fit in on these Bulls.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> 6'11" player that can play point guard?
> 
> Seems like a freak.
> 
> Certainly not undersized. Not a hustle player or stout defender. Smokes. Would not fit in on these Bulls.


I think he would. Songaila does. Having read Kukoc's thoughts on team basketball a month or so ago, I think he'd fit in just fine with these Bulls, floor burns or no.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

*Q*



kukoc4ever said:


> 6'11" player that can play point guard?
> 
> Seems like a freak.
> 
> Certainly not undersized. Not a hustle player or stout defender. Smokes. Would not fit in on these Bulls.


Wow. Maybe I actually have a higher opinion of Kukoc than you do. Imagine that. I think kuckoc is the type of player that is so smart, he would fit on ANY team. He's that good. See, I place, perhaps, a too high importance on basketball IQ and its impact on team success.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Wilcox goes for 26/24 tonight. Mercy.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

superdave said:


> Wilcox goes for 26/24 tonight. Mercy.


The young man has made himself some money this last few weeks.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

badfish said:


> Talent vs. Jib vs. IQ vs. "scowling at the coach" are not mutually exclusive attributes. Nor do they have to other worldly in all areas. Of course, a basketball genius who has a 45 inch vertical is going to be a superstar.
> 
> I think we need more athleticism, no doubt. But, we don't need to get the most athletic guy out there to get better. We can get an above average athlete with average to above average basketball IQ and if he fits a particular need that we have....presto...we get better.
> 
> ...


Hi basketball IQ, above average athleticism? Too bad it's not a fit for the Bulls...Adam Morrison is "Presto!"

Aldridge is pretty jib to me, as is Rudy Gay (though not a need player). One thing, though: Sweets' game against the Pacers is so much of a tease of what he's capable of. He reminds me of Elton Brand with less of a high post game. Sweets seems to have a pretty high basketball IQ; he just needs that conditioning.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> The young man has made himself some money this last few weeks.


I'd say he's been in the same career predicament as Jermaine O'Neal had been in -- waiting until he had the opportunity to be a starting PF to finally show his skills.

Wilcox may become an all-star next year if he gets to be featured as a starting PF (such as his current team, the Sonics). He was a highly touted prospect out of Maryland as a sophomore with a game not unlike Amare's. Funny that he was the player selected just before Amare. His NBA comparison on nbadraft.net was pre-injury Antonio McDyess. Good for him to finally get out of Elton Brand's shadow.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

TwinkieTowers said:


> I'd say he's been in the same career predicament as Jermaine O'Neal had been in -- waiting until he had the opportunity to be a starting PF to finally show his skills.
> 
> Wilcox may become an all-star next year if he gets to be featured as a starting PF (such as his current team, the Sonics). He was a highly touted prospect out of Maryland as a sophomore with a game not unlike Amare's. Funny that he was the player selected just before Amare. His NBA comparison on nbadraft.net was pre-injury Antonio McDyess. Good for him to finally get out of Elton Brand's shadow.


Wilcox managed to secure something of bad jib/slacker/lousy teammate rep in LA. Tough situation backing up Brand, and the Clips love Kaman, who's much more of a natural 5 than Wilcox. Wilcox started at the beginning of the 04-05 season, and was pretty darn good - though he managed to piss off Dunleavy and get a bunch of DNP-CD's by year's end. He's a risk, an athlete with questionable work ethic. 14 and 7 with Seattle is nice, but he put up those numbers with the Clips and about a month later was glued to the bench. At an MLE deal I'd give him a shot, but he's no sure thing.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I think we should probably draft two bigs. I am hoping for a Sheldon Williams, Bargnani (if Pax likes him), Aldridge, Thomas, or Davis type duo. I think we should go after John Salmons in the offseason he has some atheleticism, is a combo guard, and should come very reasonably.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

I watched a replay (thank you NBA Broadband) of some of the Seattle game last night. Wilcox looked great. He scored in a variety of different ways: jumpers, layups, putbacks, dunks. He really looked like a stud. He really could be a big help for us, Superdave, and I think his athleticism would really add a new component to our team. 

I know it's the end of his contract year, but we should all also remember that this is not the only stretch Wilcox has played good ball. I hope Skiles and Paxson remember him shredding us in early 2004 when Brand was out with an injury. Wilcox usually produced well when Brand was out for a lengthy stretch, but otherwise he got burried behind Elton. 

Of course, at this point, Wilcox should be harder to acquire than either Gooden or Harrington. He's been a great fit in Seattle, and they aren't going to want to let him go. I'm thinking it might take 8-9 per year to even make Seattle think about releasing him, and I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't enough. Free agency sure works for some players. Chris is going to be a very rich man very soon.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> I watched a replay (thank you NBA Broadband) of some of the Seattle game last night. Wilcox looked great. He scored in a variety of different ways: jumpers, layups, putbacks, dunks. He really looked like a stud. He really could be a big help for us, Superdave, and I think his athleticism would really add a new component to our team.
> 
> I know it's the end of his contract year, but we should all also remember that this is not the only stretch Wilcox has played good ball. I hope Skiles and Paxson remember him shredding us in early 2004 when Brand was out with an injury. Wilcox usually produced well when Brand was out for a lengthy stretch, but otherwise he got burried behind Elton.
> 
> Of course, at this point, Wilcox should be harder to acquire than either Gooden or Harrington. He's been a great fit in Seattle, and they aren't going to want to let him go. I'm thinking it might take 8-9 per year to even make Seattle think about releasing him, and I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't enough. Free agency sure works for some players. Chris is going to be a very rich man very soon.


I like Wilcox quite a bit, he's got upside and the bulk and size to log minutes at the 5 if need be. I wonder if he could be had for Kwame Brown money - 3 years 21 million dollars. The Sonics might not want to let him go but they're notoriously cheap and have a bunch of other young bigs they like - Robert Swift, Nick Collison and Johan Petro. If they do commit a bunch of money to Wilcox I wonder if they'd be more inclined to deal Swift or Petro. Seattle also has one of my favorite end of the bench bigs in the league in Mikki Moore who's generally available every off season.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Of course, at this point, Wilcox should be harder to acquire than either Gooden or Harrington. He's been a great fit in Seattle, and they aren't going to want to let him go. I'm thinking it might take 8-9 per year to even make Seattle think about releasing him, and I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't enough. Free agency sure works for some players. Chris is going to be a very rich man very soon.


Rather than trying to outbid them, we should seek a S&T? We could put out the word that we'd go hard at him with our abundance of cap space and offer them something along the lines of Sweetney and our pick? I really haven't bothered to look into a trade proposal, but given that Seattle is usually hesistant in parting with money, maybe, just maybe we could scare them into this.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

jbulls said:


> I like Wilcox quite a bit, he's got upside and the bulk and size to log minutes at the 5 if need be. I wonder if he could be had for Kwame Brown money - 3 years 21 million dollars. The Sonics might not want to let him go but they're notoriously cheap and have a bunch of other young bigs they like - Robert Swift, Nick Collison and Johan Petro. If they do commit a bunch of money to Wilcox I wonder if they'd be more inclined to deal Swift or Petro. Seattle also has one of my favorite end of the bench bigs in the league in Mikki Moore who's generally available every off season.


Well, Seattle doesn't have any other free agents that they have to sign this offseason. In terms of long terms deals, they'll be paying a bit too much for Watson and Wilkins for a while, but they're both useful at least. Ray is obviously getting paid a lot, but he can still really play. Rashard shocked everyone by saying he's thinking of opting out after next year, but if Seattle is willing to give Wilcox a big payday, the timing might not even be so bad.

I think he'd be very hard to pry away -- for reasonable money.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

step said:


> Rather than trying to outbid them, we should seek a S&T? We could put out the word that we'd go hard at him with our abundance of cap space and offer them something along the lines of Sweetney and our pick? I really haven't bothered to look into a trade proposal, but given that Seattle is usually hesistant in parting with money, maybe, just maybe we could scare them into this.


I wonder what we could offer them. Seattle's roster is pretty well balanced. They've got a couple of decent young point guards in Luke Ridnour and Earl Watson. With Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis the 2 and 3 spots are spoken for. Damien Wilkins is an okay swingman off the bench. And they have three or four promising young bigs. I'm surprised their record is as bad as it is, although according to John Hollinger they're the worst defensive team in the history of the NBA.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

step said:


> Rather than trying to outbid them, we should seek a S&T? We could put out the word that we'd go hard at him with our abundance of cap space and offer them something along the lines of Sweetney and our pick? I really haven't bothered to look into a trade proposal, but given that Seattle is usually hesistant in parting with money, maybe, just maybe we could scare them into this.


That's not a bad idea. I'm not sure if it would be enough, but it would be a decent offer at least. One thing that will hamper S&T offers is that I've read quotes from Wilcox saying he's happy in Seattle.

I think we'll be able to get Gooden outright if we want. With the recent signing of Marshall and the administration's love for Anderson Varajao, I think Cleveland won't match a decent offer for Drew.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Well, Seattle doesn't have any other free agents that they have to sign this offseason. In terms of long terms deals, they'll be paying a bit too much for Watson and Wilkins for a while, but they're both useful at least. Ray is obviously getting paid a lot, but he can still really play. Rashard shocked everyone by saying he's thinking of opting out after next year, but if Seattle is willing to give Wilcox a big payday, the timing might not even be so bad.
> 
> I think he'd be very hard to pry away -- for reasonable money.


You may be right. They did offer Radmanovic a pretty big deal last off-season, I suppose they could offer Wilcox something comparable. That might be a little rich for my blood. If that's the case it makes me wonder if Petro or Swift couldn't be had for the right price.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> I've read quotes from Wilcox saying he's happy in Seattle.


I think he's happy that he's finally getting some playing time.



> I think we'll be able to get Gooden outright if we want. With the recent signing of Marshall and the administration's love for Anderson Varajao, I think Cleveland won't match a decent offer for Drew.


I would still explore trade scenarios on big men, but I wouldn't mind Gooden in the end. I just feel we could do better with what we have and I'd be more confident in spending the money on Wilcox rather than Gooden.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> I watched a replay (thank you NBA Broadband) of some of the Seattle game last night. Wilcox looked great. He scored in a variety of different ways: jumpers, layups, putbacks, dunks. He really looked like a stud. He really could be a big help for us, Superdave, and I think his athleticism would really add a new component to our team.
> 
> I know it's the end of his contract year, but we should all also remember that this is not the only stretch Wilcox has played good ball. I hope Skiles and Paxson remember him shredding us in early 2004 when Brand was out with an injury. Wilcox usually produced well when Brand was out for a lengthy stretch, but otherwise he got burried behind Elton.
> 
> Of course, at this point, Wilcox should be harder to acquire than either Gooden or Harrington. He's been a great fit in Seattle, and they aren't going to want to let him go. I'm thinking it might take 8-9 per year to even make Seattle think about releasing him, and I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't enough. Free agency sure works for some players. Chris is going to be a very rich man very soon.


Like others have said, he's probably making himself good money with this stretch of games. I like what someone else said about the Jermaine O'Neal syndrome. He's finally getting the minutes to show his skills.

I'd rather have Wilcox over Gooden. IMO Gooden will probably be exposed a bit minus Lebron. Wilcox isn't playing with much around him and basically creating the offense for himself. However, like you said DMD its going to take more cash to get Wilcox out of Seattle than Gooden in Cleveland.

Gawd, this is shaping up to be a fun offseason. Money to spend, two draft picks, some nice young players already in place... with a playoff chase to boot.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> If that's the case it makes me wonder if Petro or Swift couldn't be had for the right price.


I don't think these guys would be available for anything but the Knicks pick plus more. They're on their rookie contracts, very cheap ones at that and are locked up for quite a while. It would have to be quite a tempting offer for them to consider it, maybe in a couple of years when they actually have to start thinking about extending them.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

superdave said:


> Like others have said, he's probably making himself good money with this stretch of games. I like what someone else said about the Jermaine O'Neal syndrome. He's finally getting the minutes to show his skills.
> 
> I'd rather have Wilcox over Gooden. IMO Gooden will probably be exposed a bit minus Lebron. Wilcox isn't playing with much around him and basically creating the offense for himself. However, like you said DMD its going to take more cash to get Wilcox out of Seattle than Gooden in Cleveland.
> 
> Gawd, this is shaping up to be a fun offseason. Money to spend, two draft picks, some nice young players already in place... with a playoff chase to boot.


And no DNA tests!

(probably)


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

I'd like to suggest to the mods that the title of this thread replaces "jib central" as the board slogan.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I don't think we'll go after Wilcox. If we had any interest, I'd think we would have heard _something_ about it given that he was being shopped around the league for most of the year.

Maybe Wilcox has just figured it out, but maybe he's just getting a free run to go out and play. Within any organized system (such as the Bulls run), he's always seemed to have a hard time fitting in. I heard back in Maryland, Lonny Baxter pretty much told him what to do every time down the court. I dunno, maybe he's got it figured out, but he doesn't look like the sort of guy we typically target.


----------



## Jorbroni (Nov 24, 2004)

I think this man is our future.








:banana: :cheers:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

jbulls said:


> I'd like to suggest to the mods that the title of this thread replaces "jib central" as the board slogan.


Bring on the Freaks!










http://xroads.virginia.edu/~MA02/freed/Barnum/freaks.html


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Bring on the Freaks!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 :biggrin: 

I think we have to go bearded lady with the Knicks pick and look for some kind of exotic midget with ours. If the Wild Man of Borneo is still available mid first round he's worth a look. I'm not as high on Jo Jo the Dog Faced boy as some people though.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

honestly. we need this guy:










not only does he hammer nails into his head, he also swallows lightbulbs. talk about jib and freak coming together in some crazy cosmic way. unreal!




:laugh:


but seriously. we need more athleticism, yes. but we need basketball players. everybody does.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> honestly. we need this guy:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ick...just ICK Miz!!!

Gooden may not be quite the athlete that Wilcox is, but I do have some hope that he's got breakout potential as well, especially when he gets out of the shadow of LeBron. I don't expect stardom out of him, but I wouldn't be surprised if put in a starting role, he could average the 14.4 and 9.2 he did with Cleveland last year. The Cavs have such a terrible lack of 3 point shooting that bringing in players like Marshall (and Jones) was necessary. I think the strategy has worked, especially considering they've righted the ship without Larry Hughes. Gooden is expendable for Cleveland, and we can get him, but we'll have to slightly overpay to do it.

I agree with MikeDC that Wilcox does not seem like a PaxSkiles guy. I'm not sure if that's because his primary asset is his athleticism, or whether it's the fact that he isn't regarded as having the highest basketball IQ, or the dreadlocks...I'm not sure what it is. We haven't heard about Pax inquiring about him before, but we know he's looked into both Gooden and Harrington. Of those three guys, it seems like Harrington is the most jibby (and the most productive...and unrestricted). Too bad he really plays like a tweener instead of a true 4.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

jbulls said:


> :biggrin:
> 
> I think we have to go bearded lady with the Knicks pick and look for some kind of exotic midget with ours. If the Wild Man of Borneo is still available mid first round he's worth a look. I'm not as high on Jo Jo the Dog Faced boy as some people though.


"must spread around blah blah"

Maybe JoJo will be available in the second round? We could possibly work out a trade for a future second. I just really like his jib. Rarely, and I mean almost never, licks himself where dogs are want to lick themselves.....


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> I agree with MikeDC that Wilcox does not seem like a PaxSkiles guy. I'm not sure if that's because his primary asset is his athleticism, or whether it's the fact that he isn't regarded as having the highest basketball IQ, or the dreadlocks...I'm not sure what it is. We haven't heard about Pax inquiring about him before, but we know he's looked into both Gooden and Harrington. Of those three guys, it seems like Harrington is the most jibby (and the most productive...and unrestricted). Too bad he really plays like a tweener instead of a true 4.


That's exactly the point of why I started this thread. I think its time Paxson looks outside of the typical prototypical player he's loaded this roster with, what I called the high-effort grinder types. In the Pistons example, its time to add a Sheed. More of these grinders is only going to guarantee a first round playoff exit each and every year. Time for Pax to roll the dice.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

superdave said:


> That's exactly the point of why I started this thread. I think its time Paxson looks outside of the typical prototypical player he's loaded this roster with, what I called the high-effort grinder types. In the Pistons example, its time to add a Sheed. More of these grinders is only going to guarantee a first round playoff exit each and every year. Time for Pax to roll the dice.


I'm not sure that Wallace and Wilcox is a good comparison given that Sheed's basketball IQ is rather high, and Wilcox is thought to be lacking upstairs, but I agree that we need to get longer and more athletic. If you build the team around hard working guys like we're starting to and have a good coaching staff (I think we have that too) I would imagine you can get the talented enigmatic guys to fall in line. Worked with Dennis Rodman and, to a lesser extent, the late Bison Dele in the 90's...


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

superdave said:


> That's exactly the point of why I started this thread. I think its time Paxson looks outside of the typical prototypical player he's loaded this roster with, what I called the high-effort grinder types. In the Pistons example, its time to add a Sheed. More of these grinders is only going to guarantee a first round playoff exit each and every year. Time for Pax to roll the dice.


I agree with you to a point.
I still think we need a solid large guard and a solid big as our roster is inbalanced, and I think our pick and our second free agent we sign should be aimed at that. This would mean in two years we would be a solid 45-50 win team (with abit of improvement from our current core)

Roll the dice on next years pick for sure and depending where the N.Y pick lands, roll it on that too.
(If it's the 4-5 range draft Roy, which I wouldn't consider rolling the dice)
And roll the dice abit on our primary free agent. (Nene for instance)

If you look at the top 4 teams, the contenders, they would still win 45-50 games if their top player missed a large chunk of the season.


----------

