# Twenty days before the draft: who do you want the Bulls to take at 2?



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

This poll asks who do you want the Bulls to select, not who do you believe the Bulls will select. 

I'm curious to see how this changes over the next three weeks. 

Please post your pick as well as vote in the poll.

You're welcome to state that you would pick "x" player but don't believe they'll be available. 




My pick: Roy


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

My vote is for Aldridge... I think his back to the basket game and soft touch on the interior are pretty underrated commodities. Plus, he can still D it up.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Twenty days before the draft: who do want the Bulls to take at 2?*

Andrea Bargnani, and at least in my mind, he's starting to pull away from the pack. 

I think he's a perfect fit for our team and has the best chance of anyone in this draft of becoming a 20+ ppg scorer within 2-3 seasons. We desperately need a 20+ ppg scorer if our championship dreams are to be taken seriously.

I think when the dust clears, though, he'll be wearing a Raptors uniform.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

I want a player that has a post game so I am going with Aldridge. I like both Andrea and Roy but I am going with need here.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

At #2, I want him to take some unknown bumpkin from some obscure junior college who turns out to be the next Scottie Pippen (except not a small forward).

That way:

1. We have a top 50 all-time player

2. We stop hearing this ridiculous droning about Pax holding us back by "playing it safe."


----------



## nanokooshball (Jan 22, 2005)

I don't see where playing it safe comes from. I mean he did take a chance on Gordon, an undersized SG with the #3 pick when we had Jamal Crawford, who he then traded away.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

1a. Aldridge
1b. Bargnani

I voted for Aldridge in the poll mainly because I don't feel I have seen enough of Bargnani to say with certainty that I prefer one over the other.


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

I think Bargnani would be better for the Bulls. He's not a banger from the 3rd hand scouting reports everyone reads, but he's produced in a league more competitive than the NCAA.. so that should count for something.

I am still worried about Aldridge's knee, or whatever it was, that he injurd his freshman year.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

in my mind, even if he takes a couple of years to develop, i gotta think pax is going with the big with upside, meaning aldridge which i'm cool with. thomas is a little small (his potential is scary though), in my view, bargnani has a higher "flop" potential, and roy *would* be playing it safe, imo. a risk pick *would* be rudy gay, a guy with superstar potential but not mature enough to know how to realize it. it then would become scott skiles' job to help it to flourish.

i think the individual workouts will tell everything pax needs to know; also since reading that he was "open for trades" if someone approached, a deal with portland might not be that far fetched. i'm not a big randolph fan, but his 20 and 10 would be what the doctor ordered, if it can be determined HIS HEAD IS RIGHT.

i happen to think skiles is a good coach; championship coach? i'm not so sure but a good coach. he won't coddle players nor should he...is he the right coach for rudy gay? calhoun at uconn wasn't a coddler either; but those are my 1-1a picks.

i do agree that the vet bigs might be/is the wisest way to go, and gamble on potential in the draft, particularly when the consensus indicates there's no clear cut favorite guy, and there's no urgency to bring in a draft pick to have an immediate impact.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Andrea Bargnani would be my pick. 

Rudy Gay would be my 2nd choice.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Brandon Roy. Excellent prospect, great fit and should make the Bulls better from day 1.

This said, I won't complain if it's Bargnani or Aldridge. I'm guessing that the adjustment period will be longer for these guys. 

Any of the 3 COULD turn out to be outstanding NBA players.

I'd also stay open to trading the pick.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

transplant said:


> Brandon Roy. Excellent prospect, great fit and should make the Bulls better from day 1.
> 
> This said, I won't complain if it's Bargnani or Aldridge. I'm guessing that the adjustment period will be longer for these guys.
> 
> ...


Gay, then Roy in my book.

Address the bigs need via trade or FA.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Gay, then Roy in my book.
> 
> Address the bigs need via trade or FA.


I like Roy better, but I'm on board with the general concept, as I have stated elsewhere.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I like Roy better, but I'm on board with the general concept, as I have stated elsewhere.


Roy would be a solid pick.

Given how the Bulls like to play 3 guards at the same time, he'd be better suited than anyone we have now to guard their SF.

It just seems obvious to me that we need athleticism and height. Gay at 6'9" would be our 3rd tallest player who'd get minutes.

I also think that picking either of the two are really safe picks.


----------



## Ventura (Aug 9, 2005)

Aldridge at #2, Brewer at #16 and then sign Nene.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I also think that picking either of the two are really safe picks.












Is it safe?...Is it safe?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

transplant said:


> Brandon Roy. Excellent prospect, great fit and should make the Bulls better from day 1.
> 
> This said, I won't complain if it's Bargnani or Aldridge. I'm guessing that the adjustment period will be longer for these guys.
> 
> ...


i agree.

i voted roy. and would be perfectly happy with bargnani. aldridge has never been that high on my list.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

1. Bargnani (though I think he'll be gone)
2. Thomas
3. Roy

I'm not particularly high on Aldridge or Gay.


----------



## taurus515th (Oct 13, 2005)

i would chose either Shelden Williams or Brandon Roy


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

taurus515th said:


> i would chose either Shelden Williams or Brandon Roy


Sheldon at #2? Well, at least that is outside the box and not "safe."


----------



## taurus515th (Oct 13, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Sheldon at #2? Well, at least that is outside the box and not "safe."


he is very underrated and if u look at the players experts chose picks 1-4 in the draft from 1998 to now none of them have made it to the finals or semi conference finals except k-mart and darko and none of the those players have rings yet so i would not go with someone who experts feel is the best but somone who fits ur team.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

It's interesting to me that Aldridge is running away with this. I think of all the purported 5-6 best players, he's got the best chance of being a bust, and I could actually see him taking a huge slide on draft day if the Bulls and Toronto take a pass. I think O'Bryant would go ahead of him and maybe even the fast rising Saer Sene.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Is it safe?...Is it safe?



One of my all time favorite scenes!! Good one, TB.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> It's interesting to me that Aldridge is running away with this. I think of all the purported 5-6 best players, he's got the best chance of being a bust, and I could actually see him taking a huge slide on draft day if the Bulls and Toronto take a pass. I think O'Bryant would go ahead of him and maybe even the fast rising Saer Sene.


I don't know about O'Bryant or Sene going before Aldridge, but I agree with you on the rest of your post.

I was high on him early, but have lost faith.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

Oh yeah, my pick. Right now, I'm at 

1a Bargnani
1b Thomas
3 Roy
4 Aldridge
5 Morrison

I think we'll get a contributor no matter what.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

taurus515th said:


> he is very underrated and if u look at the players experts chose picks 1-4 in the draft from 1998 to now none of them have made it to the finals or semi conference finals except k-mart and darko and none of the those players have rings yet so i would not go with someone who experts feel is the best but somone who fits ur team.



You might end up being a genius on this. Williams is still young and I think he may surprise a lot of people.


----------



## MKazz (Jun 22, 2003)

While I'm certain he won't get picked by us because he simply couldn't be a worse fit for our team, I'll gladly go on the record as saying Morrison will win rookie of the year - and for that reason I'm going to say that even though he doesn't fit at all, I'd still want the Bulls to take the best available player Adam Morrison.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> It's interesting to me that Aldridge is running away with this. I think of all the purported 5-6 best players, he's got the best chance of being a bust, and I could actually see him taking a huge slide on draft day if the Bulls and Toronto take a pass. I think O'Bryant would go ahead of him and maybe even the fast rising Saer Sene.


 Perhaps,

but he's also the most logical choice. Aldridge is the only selection that plays a traditional interior game. He's also the largest and most physically developed of the group. If you were drafting strictly on need, you'd come away with Aldridge. I would be happy if the Bulls selected him. . . still want Roy though, I think he's too special to pass.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

MKazz said:


> While I'm certain he won't get picked by us because he simply couldn't be a worse fit for our team, I'll gladly go on the record as saying Morrison will win rookie of the year - and for that reason I'm going to say that even though he doesn't fit at all, I'd still want the Bulls to take the best available player Adam Morrison.


 Here. Here.

Dood scores like Ricardo Montabon on a cruise ship. This is a fun draft.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

How I see it right now:

1. Thomas
2. Bargnani
3. Roy
4. Aldridge
5. Gay
6. Morrison

I'd be extremely happy with 1, 2 or 3. I'm a little scared of Aldridge, and he'd actually rate below Gay and Morrison for me were it not for our depth at the 3 and our lack of size up front. I'm rooting for Thomas, Bargnani or Roy.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

I'm not sure who I want between Aldridge, Bargnani, and Thomas.

With Aldridge, I like his all around skillset, and he has good size, and seems like a solid athlete. Has a back to the basket and face up game, rebounds, blocks shots. I dislike his demeanor. I think he'll be good, and could be a a 15,10, 2, and 2 guy who you still wish would give you more, but he also could end up like Chris Mihm.

Thomas, I like his athleticicsm and demeanor. I don't feel like those of us on the outside have a great read on his skill level. I was thinking that he could be somewhat like Kenyon Martin if his jumpshot was legit, but now with the claims of him having handles whatnot, which I only saw an inkling of that time he took the ball coast to coast against Duke, who knows. If he really does have the abilty to put the ball on and a decent shot, I think he might be the best prospect, though I think it might take him a year or two.

Bargnani, I like his skills, and his size. I don't know about him because I don't know if he is more like Nowitzki or Radman at the next level, and it doesn't seem like he is worth much on D. He could be a special weapon offensively, and he would work well in the Bulls offense.

I wouldn't complain about any of the 3. I'm against going for Roy unless theres a big trade in the works involving Gordon thats bringing in a good big, or an all-star caliber wing player. I don't see using the #2 overall pick on a guy who would just be part of a 3 guard rotation.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I don't know about O'Bryant or Sene going before Aldridge, but I agree with you on the rest of your post.
> 
> I was high on him early, but have lost faith.


This is not a challenge...truly a question (as goofy as you are, I actually respect your opinion...I'm a terrible judge of character). 

What turned you against Aldridge? Sounds like it had to be post NCAA tourney. I've heard some experts opine that his jib ain't all it should be, but I have enough confidence in Paxson that, if he takes Aldridge, Aldridge's jib is salvageable.

Just askin'?


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Bargnani, I agree with ScottMay, Toronto will pick him. 

2. TT
3. Roy. I can actually see pax taking Roy if Bargnani is taken. It's a 50/50 chance now and obviously he has moved ahead or Aldridge on my list. 
4. Aldridge. 

The only change from my list is Roy has moved ahead of Aldridge and is neck-in-neck with TT.


----------



## butr (Mar 23, 2004)

Interesting to see some of you on the Bargnani bandwagon.

I think the Bargnani to Toronto thing may be overblown. Given that BC is looking to trade down or out, it is not a foregone conclusion that he's destined for Toronto.

I think Bryan will be comfortable with someone else, further down.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

I voted for Aldridge.
I'd be interested in hearing others explain why they think his value has fallen in the last month.
Did he shrink in size? Did he stumble in some exhibition?
The guy has proven he can rebound and shoot from short range (the range centers tend to play at).
He was considered an outstanding defensive player in college. Has something changed?
Maybe he just has a bad PR machine -- hasn't posted highlight dunk movies on the web. 

Anyway, my guess is that Toronto has good sense and drafts Aldridge, so my draft order would be

2. Bargnani (only if he deigns to try out with the Bulls)
3. Roy (a good fit for the Bulls, even if he's not the BPA)
4. Morrison (probably the best player in the draft -- but has a serious disease)
5. Gay (hard to see how he fits on the Bulls, but will please dunkaholics, and thats worth something)
.
.
.
10. Thomas


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

Theres no chance that Sene and O'Bryant go higher than Aldridge. O'Bryant could indeed be taken before, but not Sene.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Bargnani


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

go all international with bargnani and sefolosha.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

I voted for Gay. You can't go wrong with UCONN.


----------



## ChiSox (Jun 9, 2004)

I want Tyrus Thomas. I believe Thomas will be special. Next year he will be just as good as Ben Wallace in shot blocking. He will have to add some strenght but he is just so dare explosive. Plus, I have read he can dribble and shoot. Skilled, explosive player like this don't come around too often. People say he is only 6'9" in shoes??? I don't care how tall he is, hell one of the best pf of my era, Charles Barkley was only 6'4".


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

I'd still take Bargnani if he's there at #2. Thomas would be second and he's slipped a bit im my eyes. I'd like him to stop talking and start playing. I want to see how he works out these next 10 days to see if he really does have a competetive fire in him or if he shy's away from the comp. in an effort not to damage his stock.

After that, it'd be Gay and Roy with Aldridge and Morrison bringing up the rear.

At 16? Sene if he's there. If not, go with the best big guard there.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

I'm still on the Aldridge train, but he doesn't stand out over the other candidates. Everyone at the top of the draft should be a pretty good player, but no one stands out as special. That being the case, I like Aldridge's overall game and he fits our needs best. 

There's still a lot of shuffling left before draft time, though.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

ChiSox said:


> I want Tyrus Thomas. I believe Thomas will be special. Next year he will be just as good as Ben Wallace in shot blocking. He will have to add some strenght but he is just so dare explosive. Plus, I have read he can dribble and shoot. Skilled, explosive player like this don't come around too often. People say he is only 6'9" in shoes??? I don't care how tall he is, hell one of the best pf of my era, Charles Barkley was only 6'4".


Obviously, you may be right. My problem isn't with height. 6-9 at PF works well enough for me. 215lbs on the other hand, causes me some concern. What's more, he looks like he doesn't have the shoulders to get much past 225 and his legs are skinnier than Barbaro's. Net, is he really a NBA PF? A SF? A tweener? Lastly, he played one year in college and didn't dominate until a stretch in the tourney.

I know. No guts, no glory.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

transplant said:


> Obviously, you may be right. My problem isn't with height. 6-9 at PF works well enough for me. 215lbs on the other hand, causes me some concern. What's more, he looks like he doesn't have the shoulders to get much past 225 and his legs are skinnier than Barbaro's. Net, is he really a NBA PF? A SF? A tweener? Lastly, he played one year in college and didn't dominate until a stretch in the tourney.
> 
> I know. No guts, no glory.


I think he's a power forward. Chris Bosh is listed at 230, Kevin Garnett at 220. Those guys have an inch or two on Thomas, but they're the same body type. With his explosiveness I don't see it being a problem.

And while we're on the subject of the big guys - LaMarcus Aldridge has played 2 years in college and hasn't dominated. Thomas' offensive game is raw, but he scored more points a minute than Aldridge did last year.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

transplant said:


> This is not a challenge...truly a question (as goofy as you are, I actually respect your opinion...I'm a terrible judge of character).
> 
> What turned you against Aldridge? Sounds like it had to be post NCAA tourney. I've heard some experts opine that his jib ain't all it should be, but I have enough confidence in Paxson that, if he takes Aldridge, Aldridge's jib is salvageable.
> 
> Just askin'?


LOL. Now I know how Sam feels when he answers the Ask Sam Smith questions.

Its not like I suddenly think LaMarcus is going to be a bust. I guess it is mostly an intangible thing -- the questions about his desire and commitment, etc. That, and I was mostly a fan of his because he fit a need for a strong interior presence. Even so, I don't see him as something special down there, and think that the long term answer for a strong interior presence will be better obtained through trade, FA this summer or next, or through the 2007 draft.

I don't want to spend this #2 pick on an interior presence we have to "settle for" because he is the best big interior presence on the board. I'd rather fill the roster with someone who is going to be a long term contributer, and fill the need as best as can be with our other options.

If I thought Aldridge was a long term stud, I'd still be on board. Instead, I see him as a good, but not great C or F/C. Therefore, I am in BPA mode. My first choice remains taking a big and using him to trade down for Roy + a vet who fills a need (a banging center or a big guard). If we can't tade down, I like Thomas and Bargnani as keepers over Aldridge because i see them as a more versatile piece of our bigs rotation while we look for the long term answer for a big inside banger.


----------



## laso (Jul 24, 2002)

Bargnani, but we won't get him...


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Am i the only one to notice that there doesnt seem to be much Aldridge buzz out there. I mean we hear about Roy, Morrison, Bangnani, and even Thomas but i cant remember hearing anything about Aldridge except that he will not workout against anyone. Has anyone heard anything.

david


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

jbulls said:


> Thomas' offensive game is raw, but he scored more points a minute than Aldridge did last year.


What do you take from that stat in making your read on how their offensive skills will translate to the NBA? It means little to me when I take into account comparing their skillsets, so I'm wondering what it tells you.


----------



## FanOfAll8472 (Jun 28, 2003)

Aldridge. I wouldn't mind Thomas or Roy at all. I've never seen Bargnani play before (though if he is as offensively talented as people claim him to be, I would seriously consider him over Aldridge).


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Bargnani of course. I see my vote tied it up at 21 for both him and Aldridge. O'Bryant would be nice to get at 16, but he won't be there.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Bargnani or Aldridge.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Any one of Aldridge, Bargnani or Thomas and I'm happy. I'd still advocate Aldridge if he's on the board, though.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

giusd said:


> Am i the only one to notice that there doesnt seem to be much Aldridge buzz out there. I mean we hear about Roy, Morrison, Bangnani, and even Thomas but i cant remember hearing anything about Aldridge except that he will not workout against anyone. Has anyone heard anything.
> 
> david


Yeah, I've thought that too. Curious as to why myself. When are the Measurements done?
Has Aldridge actually worked out for anyone yet?


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

To be honest, I'm still having a hard time making up my mind. I actually think there's a good chance that all of Bargnani, Thomas, and Aldridge are overrated, and won't end up being appreciable difference makers in the NBA. As is, there are serious questions marks about all three. 

Interestingly enough, as far as a proven track record of performance, Bargnani actually has the other two beat hands down, IMO. It's just a question of whether or not we can get him in for a workout. (And actually, if he has difficulties getting over here, I'd like to see Paxson fly out to Italy to get an up-close look at him).

LaMarcus Aldridge seems to have Eddy Curry-itis, and with all the goofy information coming out about Tyrus Thomas, I'm not really sure what player I can expect from him anymore. More and more, he seems like Josh Smith. 

With all the confusion surrounding those three, it actually makes Brandon Roy appeal to me. Aside from being labeled a 'safe pick', I can actually see him becoming a top 5 SG (think Ray Allen level), and, without a FA addition, possibly the best player on our team by the end of this season. 

If Thomas measures out at 6'9 or so, and has added a little muscle, I actually think he might be my favorite though. For one, he seems to have a great drive and motor and hence, be a PaxSkiles kinda guy, would compliment the style of defense that we like to play, and if his offense is as good as its rumoured to be, I could really see him thriving in our pick n' roll offense, and finishing off a lot of them Amare style, which would help negate the post offense he wouldn't be able to provide for us. 

With the addition of a big center, and perhaps Drew Gooden via a heavily frontloaded contract, I think he'd help fill out our frontcourt quite well. 

No one's a clear cut favorite at this point though.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

rosenthall said:


> LaMarcus Aldridge seems to have Eddy Curry-itis,


I don't know where all of this came from. He averaged 15pts, 9reb, and 2 blocks per game while only putting up 10 shots. From everything I have read, his attitude is just fine and he works very hard off the court (not a workout warrior ala Horace, but a very solid workout guy).

He is a great defender, which should transfer over to the NBA as long as he adds some bulk. He is an above average passer and has good handles for a low post guy. He is fundamentally sound offensively and defensively. He has some NBA ready offensive moves as well as can hit the midrange shot, important for a good scoring big man.

My largest knock on him is in getting good low post position, which is probably more an indication of a lack of bulk/strength more than anything.

People see his passive demeanor and zone defenses denying him the ball as huge negatives on the guy. I don't think he'll come out and dominate (I see 12ppg and 7rpg as a likely scenerio if he played for us), but I think he will be a very good player with all-star potential down the road as he polishes his frame and game.


----------



## smARTmouf (Jul 16, 2002)

I'm waiting on some sort of information from a LaMarcus workout.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

smARTmouf said:


> I'm waiting on some sort of information from a LaMarcus workout.


True. Is he even working out? If so, are just individual workouts? I assume won't workout outside the top 4 picks. I have heard nothing about this guy. We've been hearing about the other top prospects.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Babble-On said:


> What do you take from that stat in making your read on how their offensive skills will translate to the NBA? It means little to me when I take into account comparing their skillsets, so I'm wondering what it tells you.


It doesn't mean a ton. I'm not suggesting that Thomas' offensive game is as refined as Aldridge's - it isn't. I bring up the points per minute stat because I'm not sure I buy into the general view of Aldridge as the safe pick and Thomas as the high risk/high potential pick. It concerns me that Aldridge didn't dominate in college and I don't see him as all that safe a pick.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

jbulls said:


> It doesn't mean a ton. I'm not suggesting that Thomas' offensive game is as refined as Aldridge's - it isn't. I bring up the points per minute stat because I'm not sure I buy into the general view of Aldridge as the safe pick and Thomas as the high risk/high potential pick. It concerns me that Aldridge didn't dominate in college and I don't see him as all that safe a pick.


Cool, I understand now, and agree with you to an extent. Aldridge not being a dominant force is a concern to an extent, and I think his lack of a dominant personality will probably be what keeps him from being a potential star. However, I think the same could be said for a number of guys who while not superstars, are valuable bigs, like Channing Frye. I also think he was in a bad situation with the teammates/system he played in, and that if he was on a team that made him more of a focal point, he'd have come closer to being dominant. 

I think he'll be a good, solid player who will score from the post, rebound and provide a shotblocking presence, and I think he's the only guy who has shown that he has the skills to be that sort of guy who'll be a standout in all three of those big man categories, and that is something the Bulls have lacked, even when Curry and Davis were here.

If you're not gonna be satisfied with a guy unless he becomes 'the man', he probably ain't the guy for you. But, I'm not sure the other two end up being that guy either, though I think they have more potential to be at that level.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> I don't know where all of this came from. He averaged 15pts, 9reb, and 2 blocks per game while only putting up 10 shots. From everything I have read, his attitude is just fine and he works very hard off the court (not a workout warrior ala Horace, but a very solid workout guy).
> 
> He is a great defender, which should transfer over to the NBA as long as he adds some bulk. He is an above average passer and has good handles for a low post guy. He is fundamentally sound offensively and defensively. He has some NBA ready offensive moves as well as can hit the midrange shot, important for a good scoring big man.
> 
> ...



Well, when I used the term 'Eddy Curry-itis', I was referring more to his propensity to fade in and out of games, overall lack of intensity, and a tendency to let lesser talent get the best of him. (Like his 2 point game against Baylor, 5 point game against Missouri, and the two stinkers he threw up against Texas A&M).



For what it's worth, I wasn't an Eddy Curry hater, either. I thought he was good for the team, and even though I don't think he was a Jordanesque workout warrior, I thought he did what the coaches asked of him, and actually did much more to improve upon his weaknesses than Tyson Chandler ever has. I also thought he was an easy going, go-with-the-flow guy who was content to do what his natural gifts allowed him to do, take what his teammates gave him, and leave it at that. Not that there's anything morally wrong with that, but it seemed like a mental roadblock that put (and still puts) a real ceiling on what kind of player he'll be. 

I know it's not apples-to-apples with LaMarcus and Eddy, but when he plays, the complacency that he tends to display throughout a game sometimes kind of reminds me of Eddy, which makes me kind of nervous. And I'm not making those observations because he's not overly emotional when he's on the court either, but more just the way he can phase himself out of games sometimes.

I don't disagree with anything you said in your post, and you actually seem like you've watched him more than I have, so who knows, you might be right (and I hope you are, since there's a good chance we might draft him........and you seem to have very refined basketball opinions), but stuff like that is sort of a red flag to me, since I don't think it's something you can really coach into or out of a player.

And I'd imagine that LaMarcus is a good teammate (as I imagine Eddy Curry was as well), and is very coachable (ditto Eddy), and puts in good time in the gym during the offseason. I actually think he'd fit in pretty well, and I'm not against drafting him, it's just that he seems to have some mental habits during the game that me think twice about him.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

Bargnani, Nocioni, Gordonini, Kirkioni and someone big and nasty


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Bulls96 said:


> Bargnani, Nocioni, Gordonini, Kirkioni and someone big and nasty


Would that 5th guy be Bigbadoni?


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Well, my pick barnone was Thomas, but that was before the "SF" talk...

If that IS the case...Aldridge all the way


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

For #2:
1. Bargnani
2. Gay
3. Roy
4. Thomas
5. Aldridge


For #16:
1. O'Bryant
2. Simmons
3. Carney
4. Sefolosha
5. Sene
:yes:


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Would that 5th guy be Bigbadoni?


I am not sure pal… Bigbadoni is very hard to find .

May be by trading TC for Simmonetti/Sheldonini or Patrichelli we could get
at least something close...or may be we should wait another year for better opportunity.


----------



## Cyanobacteria (Jun 25, 2002)

I voted Bargnani, but figure he goes #1 as the most likely scenario. I always wonder about the guys that shoot up the draft boards from 2 weekends of tourney games (read Roy and Thomas) or especially a weekend of scrimmages and raw data at a draft camp where the worst players have the most to prove. None of the players listed would surprise me though Gay or Morrison would lead me to believe a trade is coming. With that said I'm still actually leaning towards Morrison after Bargnani, then Roy, Aldridge, Thomas. It might be because I haven't seen enough of Bargnani yet to dislike him enough to move him down. :biggrin: 

That sounds a lot like my political views over the last decade or so as well. Can't seem to find anybody I like.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

Nice retro...


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

A quality bump. I'm surprised there were so few for Roy. I thought the big debate at the time was Roy or TT.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

I voted for Gay at the time, which would have been a hell of a choice in comparison to Tyrus who I WAS admittedly excited about. 

Roy was THE pick, though.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

transplant said:


> Brandon Roy. Excellent prospect, great fit and should make the Bulls better from day 1.
> 
> This said, I won't complain if it's Bargnani or Aldridge. I'm guessing that the adjustment period will be longer for these guys.
> 
> ...


Brilliant! You should have been a scout.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

I voted Aldridge in post #2... though I was thinking he'd have more of a back to the basket game...


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

I voted for Bargs, as I was buying into the Dirk-type hype....but I also figured he'd be gone. So since he was gone, I was wanting Rudy Gay or Tyrus Thomas. Gay was the guy I liked the most, but Tyrus fit more of a need since he was a PF. I didn't want Aldridge or Roy at all lol.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

I cant believe that I was one of only 4 to vote for Gay, I think a lot of people did not vote for Roy because honestly nobody really saw much of Roy in college.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

My draft board as I remember it:

Aldridge
Bargnani (although I had very little time spent watching him)
Gay
Roy
Williams
Thomas
Carney
Morrison


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

I voted for Bargnani and my draft picks were:

1.Bargnani
2.Cedric Simmons 
3.Shelden Williams
4.Patrick O’Bryant


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

I also wanted Redick with our 2nd pick, but he went too soon. Dookie and all, I thought his shooting would be great. He hasn't done anything the few times I've seen him play, and the last few times I saw Orlando play, he didn't lol. 

My draft board:
Bargnani
Gay and Tyrus


2nd pick:
Redick
Carney
Brewer


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Bulls96 said:


> I voted for Bargnani and my draft picks were:
> 
> 1.Bargnani
> 2.Cedric Simmons
> ...


LOL Wow, no offense but thank GOD you werent in charge of drafting jk.

My top 5 where

1. Gay
2. Aldrige
3. Morrison
4. Roy
5. Brewer


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> LOL Wow, no offense but thank GOD you werent in charge of drafting jk.
> 
> My top 5 where
> 
> ...


I know, nobody is perfect  ...I just wanted draft a big nasty looking player if Bargnani will not be available.

But, I will not hesitate to trade or get rid of “failed samples”, as soon as test is over.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

Tyrus' badness 'helped' us get Rose, so lets just go with it.


----------

