# dunleavy



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...s-020606nbacamp.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines

Each year at the NBA predraft camp, a buzz develops about certain players who impress with their performance.

This year there's a buzz about a player who isn't even in attendance—Duke swingman Mike Dunleavy.

He's expected to be a lottery pick if he remains in the NBA draft June 26, but the buzz for Dunleavy is one of mystery: Will the junior, who has not hired an agent, pull out of the draft by the June 19 deadline?

Read this for what it's worth, but Dunleavy is coming to Chicago this weekend for the league-mandated physical exam. He's also scheduled to appear at a Saturday media session to which the league brings only expected lottery picks.

Also read this for what it's worth, but Bulls general manager Jerry Krause laughs when asked if he's comfortable with the fact that the Bulls have yet to schedule a workout with Dunleavy.

"We've seen so much of Duke over the last three years that I'm very comfortable," Krause said.

Dunleavy has yet to work out for any team. It is traditionally Krause's policy not to draft a player unless he has worked him out privately.

"A workout with him would mean very little," Krause said. "The workout would be more for the [strength coach] Al Vermeil testing and psychological testing. That's of more importance than the stuff on the floor. We know what those [Duke] guys can do. We've seen them under every possible circumstance."

Nevertheless, the Bulls are scheduled to work out Dunleavy's teammate, Jay Williams, next Thursday and Friday.

Dunleavy's draft status and workout availability could become an issue if the rumors surrounding Williams continue to heat up. The Clippers, who own the eighth and 12th selections, and the Warriors, who pick third, are exploring what it would take to trade up for the Duke point guard.

If that happens the Bulls might be forced to consider Dunleavy. Some management figures remain convinced Yao Ming is a poor fit for a defensively challenged team that is built around Tyson Chandler and Eddy Curry.

Virginia coach Pete Gillen, who waged many Atlantic Coast Conference battles against Duke, said the 6-foot-9-inch, 220-pound Dunleavy is a special player.

"He really knows how to play and is very difficult to guard," Gillen said, adding that he had no idea of Dunleavy's future plans. "He can shoot it deep or off the dribble and can post up. He has to get stronger but I think he'll be a very good pro."

Well here is a name that we havent brought up for a while. Dunleavy. GS wants williams. A trade of dunleavy and a good player from GS works for me!


----------



## Sep (Jun 5, 2002)

Okay, either I'm mixed up, or K.C. Johnson's mixed up. Dunleavy really isn't going to travel and work out for anybody, because he's still in school. The Bulls would have to travel down there to do the workout, which I had heard was in the plans.

K.C. also says that Bulls typically don't draft players they don't work out. I've read that Krause usually doesn't work out players who he's scouted extensively, a sentiment which seems to be conveyed by his quote, "We've seen so much of Duke over the last three years that I'm very comfortable", and "a workout with him would mean very little."

I might be misreading the tone of the piece, but it seems like K.C.'s trying to stir up a "Why have the Bulls not looked harder at this tremendous prospect?" story. Very int-e-resting. Now that I think about, isn't it K.C. who chose to quote Jamal Crawford as saying that Dunleavy was the guy he'd take if he could have anyone in this draft (obviously Jamal didn't like the idea of sharing the ball with J-Will - he has since changed his stance, at least according to the paper). Is K.C. Johnson taking tips from Sam Smith about how to lobby for his agenda in his column?

I don't think Krause is leaving any stone unturned. I'm sure we're taking as long a look at Dunleavy as any other team.


----------



## Songcycle (May 29, 2002)

Minor correction Sep, Krause won't draft a player he hasn't met with, not worked out. Evidence, Karl Malone was not drafted because he wouldn't meet with the Bulls so we picked Oakley. (technically we picked Keith Lee and traded for Oakley, but we picked Oakley). Malone was a known talent, but for that sort of activity, he fell to 13th.


----------



## BullsNews (Jun 7, 2002)

Screw Dunleavy. Tayshaun Prince will be a MUCH better NBA player, trust me.

Prince is the Jamal Magloire of this year's draft. Everyone (except for me) had Magloire going in the 2nd round, because he played for Tubby Smith at Kentucky, where team ball and DEFENSE are the most important things. Magloire only averaged 12 pts and 9 reb as a Senior, but look at the centers taken in the first round of the 2000 draft:

#7 Mihm
#9 Przybilla
#15 Jason Collier
#18 Magloire
#24 Bags
#26 Tsakalidis

If you had to take one of these players right now, it would obviously be Magloire.

2 years from now, we'll be saying the same thing about Prince vs Dunleavy, both Jeffries, and the Euro's.


----------



## Songcycle (May 29, 2002)

It has been said that Magliores roughing up of Mihm in a Bull's workout was a major reason we passed on Mihm. Check out Charlotte's draft history, they draft as good as anybody in the NBA.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

I used to like Prince when I first saw him as an underclassmen, but I cooled off on the guy last season. He seems too soft. 

I have no clue why most folks are so impressed with Dunleavy. I've seen him a few times and he doesn't look too special. He'll be a good player though no doubt. 

Prince would be a good pick with our first 2nd rounder.


----------



## BullsNews (Jun 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by *Songcycle *
> It has been said that Magliores roughing up of Mihm in a Bull's workout was a major reason we passed on Mihm. Check out Charlotte's draft history, they draft as good as anybody in the NBA.


Very true, Songcycle- I remember that when word got out that Magloire had abused Mihm, most Bulls fans thought it was just a case of the Bulls trying to drive down Mihm's draft value so we could get him to fall to us at #4. Except for me, of course, because I had seen Magloire play for 4 years and I knew that he was one tough SOB.

Unfortunately, this situation is the same- after the workouts, there is no way in hell that Prince will fall to us at the top of the 2nd round. I just hope that Krause finds a way to land Tay, he'll be the perfect Point Forward for the Triangle- he's Kukoc on offense, but he is a MUCH better defender than Toni ever was.


----------



## BullsNews (Jun 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by *SALO *
> I used to like Prince when I first saw him as an underclassmen, but I cooled off on the guy last season. He seems too soft.
> 
> I have no clue why most folks are so impressed with Dunleavy. I've seen him a few times and he doesn't look too special. He'll be a good player though no doubt.
> ...


Soft? I must disagree, Prince was Kentucky's leading rebounder this season, and he also led the team in blocked shots. And Kentucky played the toughest schedule in the NCAA last season.

But it's OK- nobody believed me about Magloire, and it's the same deal with Prince. I don't mind, I like being able to look back and say "I was right, you were wrong, nanny nanny boo boo".


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

I think the official stance is Krause will not draft a player he has never seen play in person. I think I read a quote from Hassel where he said his selection by the Bulls took him by complete surprise because he had never had any contact with their organization.

K.C. seems to be a little bit off key, but his track record has shown that when he writes an article like this it usually means something. Earlier this year I sent an email to him critical of the way he pulled a Sam Smith and woite about the Rose/Artest trade before it had gone down. I came to find out the next morning that it had actually happened. I don't think anybody here believes drafting Dunleavy is that improbable and K.C. is the best beat writer in town....


----------



## Sep (Jun 5, 2002)

> Originally posted by *Songcycle *
> Minor correction Sep, Krause won't draft a player he hasn't met with, not worked out. Evidence, Karl Malone was not drafted because he wouldn't meet with the Bulls so we picked Oakley. (technically we picked Keith Lee and traded for Oakley, but we picked Oakley). Malone was a known talent, but for that sort of activity, he fell to 13th.


Exactly my point, Songcycle - I heard the same thing as you, but K.C. Johnson claims that he won't draft a player he hasn't worked out.


----------



## HJHJR (May 30, 2002)

Dunleavy finally has cleared the air in terms of who he would prefer to see draft him. Previously it was believed that he was trying to manipulate the draft so that he and his father could end up in Memphis together. 

*Dunleavy Jr. still weighing options* 
By Mike McGraw Daily Herald Sports Writer 
Posted on June 07, 2002 
The internal debate continues. Even when Mike Dunleavy thought he had a grip on whether his son should stay in the NBA Draft, his opinion turned out to be wrong. 

"I actually told him this weekend that he should go back to school if he's struggling with the idea that much," Dunleavy said Thursday while watching the NBA's predraft camp at Moody Bible Institute. "And he said no. He just wasn't sure yet. He's just weighing everything. He said, 'I'll figure it out.'æ" 

The Bulls and every other team with a selection in the June 26 draft will be affected by the decision. Mike Dunleavy Jr., a 6-foot-9 forward from Duke, has declared for the draft, but has not hired an agent. He has until June 19 to decide whether to turn pro or return to school for his senior season. His father thinks the debate will continue right until the deadline. 

Dunleavy and Connecticut's Caron Butler are likely the two players the Bulls might consider taking instead of Duke guard Jay Williams with the No. 2 pick - assuming Chinese center Yao Ming is chosen first by Houston. 

One NBA personnel director whose team has a top-five pick says he doesn't think Dunleavy would be chosen any lower than No. 3. Golden State has the third pick and Memphis No. 4. 

"That's what I hear," said Dunleavy Sr. "We went into it thinking he would be a top-five pick and I don't think he gets to five. But I don't know." 

_Dunleavy's father said the teams at the top of the draft are not holding up the decision. His son is not trying to avoid getting picked by the Bulls or Golden State, for example. 

"He's struggling with the idea of passing up his senior year," said Dunleavy Sr. "It really doesn't have anything to do with the teams. The teams that could pick him are all good places, good teams. So it's just whether he stays or not." 

There has been speculation that if Dunleavy is chosen by Memphis at No. 4, he would be coached by his father. Dunleavy Sr. has been head coach of the Lakers, Milwaukee and Portland. In Los Angeles, he was hired by Jerry West, who now heads the Grizzlies' basketball operations. 

"I don't think it's an issue," said Dunleavy Sr. "We look at it like, 'If it happens, it happens.'"_ 

Dunleavy did say he is interested in another NBA coaching job and thinks he would enjoy coaching his son. 

"Either way, it's tough," he said. "If you're coaching against him, you've got to try and stop him. If you're coaching him, you're trying to help him. I would rather try to help him as opposed to stop him." 

Dunleavy Jr.'s draft stock is high because he is so versatile. He can shoot from the outside, handle the ball and is tall enough to help around the basket, though he'll need to get stronger to compete in the NBA. 

"I'm biased, but I love him because he plays the game the way you're supposed to play the game," his father said. "He's a totally unselfish player. He plays all facets of the game. He'll continue to get better and bigger, I think." 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

If Dunleavy would welcome the opportunity to play for the Bulls, he likely becomes the Bulls alternative to Jay Williams should Houston's negotiations with Ming go south and Williams is snatched up with the first pick. 

Not a bad alternative, when you think about it. With Robinson's questionable health status, Mike Jr. becomes an instant solution. And if ERob is healthy and ready to go, a rotation at the swing positions of Rose, Robinson and Dunleavy would be very effective given the differences in each player's game. Of course, a Dunleavy selection would signal a committment to Jamal at the point and would make Best's resigning imperative.

As for the "workout" issue, what Krause really cares about, especially when it comes to a player he's scouted extensively and perhaps for a number of years, is having this individual submit to a physical, take the psychological test, and spend the rest of the time engaging in lots of general "get to know you" type of conversation. That's all that occured during Ming's so called "private workout" with the Bulls. There weren't any on court drills or one on one scrimmages. So when Krause says, "A workout with him would mean very little," The workout would be more for the [strength coach] Al Vermeil testing and psychological testing. That's of more importance than the stuff on the floor. We know what those [Duke] guys can do. We've seen them under every possible circumstance," he means just that. Krause is first and foremost a character guy. If he can't get a handle on what makes a player tick then its extremely unlikely that he'll draft that player.


----------



## Songcycle (May 29, 2002)

This is good news in my book. Though I sincerely doubt Houston will pass on Ming, having Dunleavy as a possible alternate to Jay Williams leaves me worry free on draft day. If we select him, he will help us in many ways and make his teammates better players.


----------



## Songcycle (May 29, 2002)

One thing that just struck me about psychological testing is that even if we don't draft the player being tested, it can give us an insight as to how to defeat that player on the court.


----------



## HJHJR (May 30, 2002)

If Dunleavy stays in the draft his presence may very well force the Chinese to back off on their demands with Ming. I'll bet you Mike Jr. never thought he'd have such an impact on international relations!

Here's the deal. The Chinese are being obstinate and bullheaded with Houston because until now they've honestly believed that if Houston won't take Ming, Chicago certainly will. In fact, I sometimes believe that the Chinese would prefer Ming go to Chicago more than they would want to see him become the overall #1 pick.

Now Mike Dunleavy enters the picture. His spokesman father states that his son would not have a problem being selected by any of the teams at the top of the draft, including Chicago and Golden State.

That makes it "Oh, Oh" time for the Chinese. Dunleavy now becomes a viable alternative for the Bulls to select should Jay Williams be grabbed up with the first pick.

Now it's not such a lock that the Bulls will draft Ming if Houston decides to move in another direction. That would make Yao available to GS, who although they've got a significant Chinese population base, have shown little or no interest in Yao Ming. If Williams is gone I truly believe the Warriors will select Wagner and hope he can get the job done at PG. And that would make Ming available to either Memphis or Denver. And what would the Chinese do then? Do they pull Ming and effectively eliminate their countrymen from ever being considered seriously by an NBA team again? Or do they allow Ming to labor in relative obscurity in either Memphis or Denver?

You see? Dunleavy's presence in the draft significantly diminishes any leverage the Chinese think they have right now with Houston. If 6/19 comes and goes and Mike Jr hasn't pulled out of the draft you'll see the Chinese soften their position with Houston significantly.

Now, where does all this leave the Bulls and Jerry Krause? In a very, very delicate position, as a matter of fact. Consider this:
Krause wants Jay Williams. The only way he gets to draft Jay Williams is if Houston keeps its pick and drafts Ming.
If at any time Krause gives an indication that he will draft Dunleavy and not Ming if Williams is gone, you can bet that Houston and GS will work out a deal that lands the Warriors Jay Williams at #1 while the Rockets would still select Ming with the third overall pick. So as far as the rest of the league is concerned Krause has to give the impression that if Ming falls to the Bulls, Krause just might take him with the #2 pick. At the same time he wants the Chinese to believe that Dunleavy may be his choice if Williams is gone and he has to choose between Yao and Mike Jr. If the Chinese truly believe that Chicago may pass on Yao, negotiations between them and Houston should improve considerably, especially after 6/19 presuming Dunleavy hasn't withdrawn from the draft.

Now, this is all just speculation on my part. But if JWill is the player Jerry lusts for, either to keep or package as part of a blockbuster trade, then he's going to have to do a masterful job of sending mixed signals via his own remarks or through press leaks between now and 6/26. The bottom line for all of us is, don't believe _anything_ you hear or read about the Bulls draft plans, or any other team's plans for that matter. It's simply impossible to separate smokescreens from the truth at this time of year.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

i too think that is exactly whats going on in Houston. China thinks they have the upper hand. They really want Ming to be drafted #1 but also want ming to be in Chicago. I thought it was very smart of JK to talk the way he did about dunleavy. Especially since he hasnt had him in for a workout. And yes hjh, it could get very interesting by the 19th. I look for china and houston to not really solve anything until just about then. 

As for dunleavy the player. I like him. He is my next choice to have on the bulls. I like prince also and I am really surprised that he is projected a low first round pick if not a high second. I just love dunleavys game. He has it all. Defense, offense, range. He is unselfish which is exactly what this team needs if williams is traded. Hes smart. I think he can step in and help the bulls. I really do. I wouldnt be against a trade with GS. Now that being said, if some one wants williams that drafted prince in the first round. I would not object to a trade to get prince either but the player included had better be well worth the trade.


----------



## HJHJR (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by *NCBullsFan *
> TrueBlueFan, Songcycle, and HJHJR:
> 
> What is you see in Dunleavy? He can shoot (although he is as bad as Jay Williams at the free throw line), but like BullsNews mentioned, so can Prince, but he's a late first rounder or early second rounder.
> ...


NC,
In my younger days I played alot of 16" softball in Chicago. The teams I played for were generally less athletic and older than most of our opponents. Now, I'm not talking about rec ball. This was big time city softball where considerable sums of money changed hands and the stakes were always high.

Anyhow, to make a long story short, my doddering old fart teamates and I regularly beat our young stud opponents' brains in, game after game. We did it with savy and guile. We won because we knew how to play the game better than any of our opponents did. Believe me, if we would have tried to compete with our opponents in track and field events we'd have been blown away.

My point is that you just can't put a value on basketball instincts and court savy because those qualities are priceless. Dunleavy has those qualities in abundance. He's already a gifted athlete...maybe not world class, but a fine athlete nonetheless. When you combine whatever physical skills God has bestowed on him with a superior basketball intellect, plain and simple you've got a player who knows how to win. He may not put up tremendous stats, but you'll seldom see him out of position or confused on the court. You'll see him get a "read" on his teamates' tendancies faster and more accurately than other players. You know, Isiah Thomas once said that if Larry Bird was black he'd be just another average ballplayer. I hope Thomas was limiting his opinions to Bird's physical attributes, because what made him great wasn't how fast he could run or how high he could jump. What made Larry great was his basketball intellect and an extraordinary will to win, to excel and be the best he could possibly be.

Everybody's caught up in "measureables" these days. I don't deny their importance, but unless these wonderful physical attributes are harnessed and guided by instinct and intelligence you'll end up watching a very athletic team that never figures out how to win consistently.

Anyhow, that's my take on Mike Jr. I like the whole package. And I love watching intelligent basketball much more than two hours of high flyin' acrobatics that don't count for anymore points than a simple layup. Most of all, I love watching winning basketball, and Dunleavy, in my book, knows what it takes to win.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

I have said that I would love to see Prince with our first second rd. pick (or Grizzard if he falls and if we pick and keep Jay Williams). I would love to have a draft of:

2) Jay Williams
30) Tayshaun Prince (or Rod Grizzard)
44) Lenny Cooke

Wow, think of the Future:


Not in starting order:

PG - Williams and Crawford, Rose
SG - Crawford, Rose, Hassell, Cooke 
SF - Rose, Robinson, Prince
PF - Chandler, Fizer
C - Curry, Bagaric

Maybe we pick up Cisse as FA

We need another C/PF but we would be solid, if not spectacular in two years.


This is realistic in my opinion......


Go Bulls


----------



## Johnjo (Jun 4, 2002)

how does dunleavy even come close to being considered our number 1 pick. i mean mike frickin dunleavy. there is nothing special about him. he'll be nothing more than a mediocre player. why the hell would you pass on jwill or butler or wagner for dunleavy. simple. you wouldnt. end of conversation.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by *Johnjo *
> how does dunleavy even come close to being considered our number 1 pick. i mean mike frickin dunleavy. there is nothing special about him. he'll be nothing more than a mediocre player. why the hell would you pass on jwill or butler or wagner for dunleavy. simple. you wouldnt. end of conversation.


Johnjo. I dont think anyone here said anything about Dunleavy being our #1 pick. Talk is we draft williams and some team wants williams bad enough would include dunleavy and a very good player in the trade.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

HJHJR:

Yes, watching Duke over the years, I do agree that they have had the smartest, most mentally tough player in the last decade. 

But his name was Shane Battier - not Mike Dunleavy.

Battier is not more physically gifted than Dunleavy, but he more than made up for it by playing a much more intellectual, much more mature game than Dunleavy.

Rather than constantly complaining to the referees (sometimes while the play is still going on), Battier would figure out what he needed to do to be able to guard the opposing team's center or power forward (or shooting guard or small forward), regardless of how big they were. He would never allow himself to be taken out of a game like Wilcox and Jeffries did to Dunleavy. He would have understood those player's tendencies and adjusted his game accordingly. I never saw Dunleavy making those adjustments.

Battier was able to do whatever was needed because he understands the game so well. Dunleavy showed very little of that understanding.

Yes, Dunleavy is a coach's son, and that is why eveyone raves about his basketball intellect. But one thing that has always puzzled me is why is Dunleavy so thin and weak. Yes, I know he had a growth spurt, but come on this guy grew up around NBA players all of his life. He say how big they were. And how big he wasn't. Why wasn't he putting time in the weight room from an early age? Either it is because he is not that hard of a worker, he is not smart enough to realize that strength will matter, or he is not capable of adding weight and strength. I am not too fond of any of those scenarios.

And HJHJR, I umpired hundreds of rec league softball games (not 16'') when I was going through college and understanding the game will go a long way in overcoming physical skills. But where is the evidence that he has that basketball intellect or especially that mental toughness?

I have seen a couple dozen Duke games over the past couple of years, and the difference between this year's team and last year's team is that this year's team was not as mentally tough or as smart as last year's team. Duhon played smarter this year, Boozer was much more consistent, and Ewing and Jones picked up their games as the season dragged on. The difference was that Dunleavy was not able to make the jump from complimentary player to star player. Yes, he scored, but that was about all. He was not able to make those plays that separate the really good teams from the great teams.

Mike Dunleavy is no Shane Battier.

A lot of this criticism could go towards JWill as well, but JWill plays a different position than Battier, so it is much harder to compare. It was just so plainly evident this year that Dunleavy was not the "little things" player that Battier was. The only place that Dunleavy was comparable to Battier was the box score.


----------



## Songcycle (May 29, 2002)

There is little I can add to what has been said, but one good reason for Dunleavy not having higher assist totals is that Duke basically had 2 point guards in Williams and Duhon.


----------



## HJHJR (May 30, 2002)

NC,
I would never dispute your take on Battier. I have a huge amount of respect for him as a consumate basketball player.

However, when it comes to comparing Battier and Dunleavy, all I can say is "Viva la Difference."

I love Battier as a player, and I feel likewise about Dunleavy. Sure, there's a difference in the way the two of them conduct themselves on the court. And I'll grant you that Shane so far has demonstrated a lot more maturity and dicipline than Mike. But personally, I like to see some genuine passion on the court. Maybe thats why I'm also a Wally fan. Mike has plenty of passion.

I'm not going to go back over my reasons for liking Dunleavy. I don't think there's any chance I could change your mind. And having seen him play so often in person, I certainly respect your opinion on the matter. Unfortunately, Shane isn't eligible to be drafted this year, so depending on how things fall the Bulls may have no choice but to settle for ol' Mike.


----------



## Songcycle (May 29, 2002)

NCBullsFan, I do envy your ability to see some great college basketball year after year. When you mention complaining to the referees, 2 players came to mind. Jerry Sloan and Danny Ainge. Loved Sloan and hated Ainge. Simple reasoning, one was a Bull and the other wasn't. Sloan was a master of drawing offensive fouls as mastered in acting class. If I was cheering for the opponent, I would have been ticked. They both could moan and groan on court. It is that kind of passion and giving everything you've got that made me love him. In the NBA there is gobs of talent, and it is the little things like extra effort, desire, smarts and passion that makes the difference between winning and losing. I was watching a Duke game from last year on ESPN classic and watched Dunleavy on a fast break down the middle know exactly where he and his teammates were, commit enough so the defender concentrated on him and beautifully dished the ball off to a teammate who had a clear path to the basket. It is that kind of play that makes me love him.
As for Prince, he very well could excel in the NBA. Dunleavy will be busting his butt to do whatever it takes to win and help make his teammates smarter players in the process. Dunleavy may well be somebody I personally wouldn't like, but I don't worry about these things in sports. It is the thrill of the competition that entices me.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Songcycle:

I think Dunleavy has above average basketball smarts, but I think he is given a lot of undeserved credit in that area due to being the son of a famous head coach. With his length and quickness and basketball smarts, I was continually surprised how ineffective he was on defense whenever Duke was playing teams with good big men. He never seemed to really learn how to play bigger guys.

I also see Dunleavy as more of a complainer (even though Duke probably is my favorite college team) rather than the cocky and passionate SOB-type (Wally, Scott Skiles, Danny Ainge). I see his mental toughness as a really big question mark. When things aren't going good for him, I would really worry about him disappearing. I would really worry about how he will handle getting beat five times in a row on defense. Will he buckle down, learn, and try harder? Or will he get flustered and have to be taken out of the game? Right now, I would bet on the latter.


----------



## Jammer (May 28, 2002)

NCBullsFan:

You make a lot of intelligent and insightful posts.

Like everyone on this board, we will occasionally have difference of opinion.

For all the points that you make about Dunleavy, I have to say that overall, I disagree.

I thought that as a team, Duke this past season didn't have much talent EXCEPT for Jay Williams and Dunleavy.

I think that Dunleavy is a better ball player. And someone who makes his teammates better. You don't have to repeat your comments from the ten previous posts you've made on this subject, I, and probably the others on this board, are familiar with you reasoning. We simply disagree in what we see.

Most guys come into the NBA skill deficient.

Players can't dribble. Dunleavy handles a ball like a point guard already.

Players can't use their weaker hand.

Dunleavy can shoot with either hand. He doesn't use his left that much in games right now, but watching him knock down shots during warmups, I am certain that within the next two years that will be part of his game repertoire, and he will be unguardable once he is a two handed shooter.

Players don't know how to move without the ball.

Dunleavy is a master decoy, screener and passer. That he had little talent to work with at Duke, and I mean little talent, is not his fault. Put him on the floor with Curry and Chandler and he will shine.

He is an excellent defender, and great help defender. I know you don't think so. If everyone agreed, teams wouldn't make as many bad draft choices as they do. 

He is a good shooter, who I think will get better.

Anyway, Mike D. Jr. would be a great addition. And he could learn behind Hassell and Rose. And there would not be a need to trade Fizer, since Marcus would be a muscle power forward to complement Chandler in certain match-ups.

Well, my take on Dunleavy.


----------



## Jammer (May 28, 2002)

I'm saying offensively, that Dunleavy will make Curry, Chandler, Crawford and Hassell better than they have shown. He will allow them to realize their full potential, at whatever state that is, because that is the type of player Dunleavy is.

And that is very rare.

Although he is not as quick or strong, Dunleavy is the first player, in 25 years, to remind me of John Havlicek.


----------



## Shadows (Jun 8, 2002)

Ok i havent been readin alot of the previous posts so hopefully this wasent posted already.

Dunleavy the player- If anyone thinks Mike Dunleavy will be a superstar in the NBA your joking. At best Mike will become a very similar player as Wally Szerbiak. There is no point of drafting Dunleavy with the 2nd pick( Even if he tears up the bulls camp and the bulls are high on him there simply is no point). There better off trading for Wally and signing JWILL

there lineup would be

JWILL
Rose
Wally
Curry
Chandler

Thats a lineup that will do serious damage in the future 

as for who they can trade to get Wally- Crawford-best-Robinson pick 2 put them in a package with a future 2nd round pick. Thats more then enough for the Wolves.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by *Junkie101 *
> Ok i havent been readin alot of the previous posts so hopefully this wasent posted already.
> 
> Dunleavy the player- If anyone thinks Mike Dunleavy will be a superstar in the NBA your joking. At best Mike will become a very similar player as Wally Szerbiak. There is no point of drafting Dunleavy with the 2nd pick( Even if he tears up the bulls camp and the bulls are high on him there simply is no point). There better off trading for Wally and signing JWILL
> ...


thats way too much over pay for Szczerbiak. He doesnt make that much in salary. Crawford and E rob make 4 times as much as he does. Minny would have to send back filler and i dont think they would. Now, on other bulls boards there has been talk of fizer and crawford. No pick. If minny will do that we dont know.


----------



## Shadows (Jun 8, 2002)

> thats way too much over pay for Szczerbiak. He doesnt make that much in salary. Crawford and E rob make 4 times as much as he does. Minny would have to send back filler and i dont think they would. Now, on other bulls boards there has been talk of fizer and crawford. No pick. If minny will do that we dont know.


He will make that much in salary when is contract is up. 
How many years does he have left in the minny deal.
Im thinking they have to pay him at lest 8 mill a year.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

he has next year left on his contract and a qualifying offer from minny the year after that.


----------



## Jammer (May 28, 2002)

1. Don't assume that ERob will be fully recovered. This is an UNKNOWN.

2. You can say whatever Dunleavy is, or isn't, I say he's better than Rick Fox, for example, Trent Hassell, Jamal Crawford, and Travis Best. So, whether you like or don't like Mike D. Jr., I'm really not able to say what he will be, but I do stand by my opinion that he's better than Fox, Crawford, Hassell and Best.


----------



## Jammer (May 28, 2002)

Right now. Today.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by *Jammer *
> NCBullsFan:
> 
> You make a lot of intelligent and insightful posts.
> ...


Glad to see you here, Jammer, and I am sorry for my ten posts saying bad things about Dunleavy. But you have to have that many posts and then some arguing the other position.

To argue for Dunleavy by arguing that "Duke this past season didn't have much talent EXCEPT for Jay Williams and Dunleavy" is just one iota less incredible than someone arguing that New Jersey is sure to come back and beat the Lakers after going down 3-0.

Can you ever in the history of college basketball find me a team that had a third best player (I would argue second) who was projected to be drafted #27, a fourth best player who was projected to be drafted #7 next year, a fifth best player who was projected to be drafted #35 next year, and a sixth player who is the 70th best in his class?

http://www.nbadraft.net

You may not like NBADRAFT.NET, but man, this argument of yours is beyond belief. A credible argument could be made that Duke this year had the most talented 3-6 players in the history of college basketball. I would not make that argument, and I do agree that at least Duhon is overrated at this point, but arguing that they are the best in the history of college basketball is a lot closer to being true than arguing that this group lacks talent. Boozer shot like 70% this year. That was just incredible.

Find me one iota of objective evidence that supports your argument that this team lacks talent.

Please step back from this discussion a moment to think about what you are saying. You are so hellbent on arguing that Dunleavy is a great player that you are willing to make arguments that by any objective criteria are absurd. Doesn't that make you think that maybe, just maybe Dunleavy is the one who might be a bit overrated? Isn't that at least possible?


----------



## Jammer (May 28, 2002)

NCBullsFan:

I see you don't want to agree to disagree, by bringing up our differing assessments of Mike D., Jr. again. I'm not going to continue to reiterate points that I've made, time will tell.

Besides that, I am disappointed at your ignorance of the history of college basketball teams. The comments that you make about the second, third, fourth, fifth best player, etc. are strong evidence of your lack of history of many great teams.

Rather than waste my time dispelling what a little research would show you, I'll use one team as an example. 

UCLA 1969

Starters:

Center, Lew Alcindor, 1969 #1 pick, 6 time NBA MVP

Power Forward, Sydney Wicks, 1971 #2 pick, 4 time NBA All-Star (averaged 22+ ppg and 11 rpg his first four NBA seasons, and sophmore Wicks was better than sophmore Chris Webber was for Michigan)

Shooting Guard, Lucious Allen, 1969 #3 pick, NBA All-star

Small Forward, Curtis Rowe, 1971 #11 pick, NBA All-star

Point Guard, John Vallely, 1970 #14 pick

Their bench was good.

But that is the greatest college basketball team, by far, to ever be assembled, with four future NBA All-stars in the starting lineup.

Other teams that you might want to check out are UCLA 1964-65, Ohio State 1960, Indiana 1976 ( a #1, #3, #7 or 9 and I think #11 pick), UCLA 1973 (a #1 and #2 pick in the starting lineup, and another top ten pick (Jamal Wilkes) who slipped to #11 because he refused to play for anyone but a California team, and several other (top 30 picks);UCLA 1975 (a #2 and #3 pick, plus some others). Anyway, Kentucky had some great teams in the 1970's (many high picks), as well as early 1950's (a #1 and #3 pick on their undefeated 1953 team, as well as many other high picks). 

Anyway, so much for a short history lesson.

As far as the talent issue for Duke, I wrote a lengthy analysis of the Duke team twice (once about two to three weeks ago, once about 3 months ago on the RealGM boards, which received overall concurrence from other posters. I'm not going to reiterate that, or post the link. It supports my statement.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by *Jammer *
> NCBullsFan:
> 
> I see you don't want to agree to disagree, by bringing up our differing assessments of Mike D., Jr. again. I'm not going to continue to reiterate points that I've made, time will tell.
> ...


Thanks for the history lesson. The 1969 UCLA team without question had a better 3-6 than 2002 Duke and most of those other teams probably as well. So you were right, but I said that I would not make the argument that they were the best. The argument that I was willing to stand by in the original post was that Duke's 3-6 (while not the best) is closer to being the best in the history of college basketball than being a group that lacks talent.

It was interesting that not a single one of your examples came after the mid-1970s. To argue that Duke's 3-6 lacked talent, you have to be saying something like "there were 20 teams from 2001-2002 who had more talent at the 3-6 positions than Duke." It would be amazing if you could even find 10. 

Seriously, unless Duke's 3-6 was not in the top 50, they should have been head and shoulders above every other team in college basketball with two top-5 picks, one in the frontcourt and one in the backcourt.

Looking through the posts of RealGM, I noticed the thread you were mentioning. Your "overall concurrence from other posters" consisted of just three posters: (1) me, who obviously doesn't agree with your assessment, (2) maraboustork42, who took exception with your assessments of Duhon and Jones and said nothing positive about your overall assessment, and (3) Cramer, a Maryland fan who liked your assessment but still argued with your take on Boozer. You couldn't even completely win over a Maryland fan. Does that tell you something?

Your definition of "overall concurrence" definitely differs from mine.

Jammer, I have never said that Dunleavy will not be a good player. I see him as a shorter Toni Kukoc who probably won't be able to force mismatches at the PF position like Toni did in his prime (Dunleavy is shorter and PFs are bigger). I think he might have a little more "basketball intellect" than Toni, but Toni was a pretty smart ballplayer as well. I think he will have the same limitations on defense that Toni did, although Toni was not quite as bad on defense as people made him out to be. I don't see either Toni or Dunleavy having the mental toughness of a Larry Bird/Scott Skiles/John Stockton. They both seem too easily distracted by missed calls. Mid to late lottery in this year's draft seems about right to me for Dunleavy. If he would have come out in 2000, then I think he would be a top-5 pick, maybe even a #1.


----------



## DickieHurtz (May 28, 2002)

NCBullsFan,
Congratulations! You are the winner of this week's "Relentless Thread Killer" award. I don't think I've ever seen someone take on _every_ poster in a thread whose opinion differed from his own before. You are truly on a mission from God when it comes to Mike Dunleavy. This kind of obsessive behavior would serve you well should you choose a career with the IRS! :yes:


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

NC, nothing wrong with a good debate. Mutual respect and being civil. Real talk instead of name calling. Very nice reading!


----------



## Wishbone (Jun 10, 2002)

there's been a lot of talk here about just how good Dunleavy is (or isn't)... one thought that strikes me though -- if dunleavy does infact become a bull in the offseason, what are we to expect from him??

what kind of contribution is Dunleavy going to make to the Bulls team in his rookie year and beyond?


Will he be used primarily as a shooter, or would he operate more as a playmaker, passer?
where can he best fit into the Bulls scheme -- to get the most use out of his talents, and the talents of our other players (Rose and Craw in particular)


----------



## DickieHurtz (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by *Wishbone *
> there's been a lot of talk here about just how good Dunleavy is (or isn't)... one thought that strikes me though -- if dunleavy does infact become a bull in the offseason, what are we to expect from him??
> 
> what kind of contribution is Dunleavy going to make to the Bulls team in his rookie year and beyond?
> ...


Man, thats a great question.

The way I see it, if Dunleavy's the choice he'd immediately go into a three man rotation at the swing positions (SG and SF) with Robinson and Rose. Hassell unfortunately loses minutes and becomes more of a specialist, perhaps a defensive stopper when needed. 

Crawford and a resigned Best hold down the PG position. 

Chandler and Curry start at PF and Center respectively. The big problem is who's going to back them up. Fizer and Bags are a terrible rebounding combination. And neither one will go down in history as a defensive stopper either. If one or the other was a monster rebounder/defender, we'd be much better off. Unfortunately that happens to be the worst part of both of their games. Krause has got to find some help in this area. I wouldn't be surprised to see Krause offer Fizer in combination with a future first round pick to try and acquire the player we need.


----------



## Jammer (May 28, 2002)

Well, at least the talk is back on Dunleavy.

I had the energy to do a little checking, and I make the following corrections to my UCLA 1969 post. My memory is far from perfect.

John Vallely was the starting point guard, and he was a 1970 # 14 pick. Henry Bibby actually started from 1970 to 1972, and then played for the Knicks championship team, but he was a (gulp) # 62 pick. Other players from UCLa's 1969 team were (they already had a 1, 2, 3, 11 and 14) went #35 , 58, 85 and 90 when they came out. 

For Indiana 1976, Kent Benson was a 1, Scott May a 2, Quinn Buckner a 7 and Bobby WIlkerson a 11.

And on UCLA 1973, Bill Walton was a 1 and Dave Myers a (GULP) 2.


----------

