# the Rlucas perfect draft



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Get ready, most of you arent going to like this

We get lucky and are picking 1 or 2. We trade our first pick (lets assume its #2 plus our second round picks numbers 32 and 39 to utah for their 3 first round picks, 14, 16 and 21

With our picks we take in order

JR Smith 6-5 inch shooting guard
Johan Petro 6-11 inch PF/C
Luca Bogdanovic 6-10 SF

Utah will trade up to not take who most people think they will. They will take Andris Biendrinns at #2 which will shock the draft. THe word on this kid, think Dirk offensively and Kirilenko defensively. To go with Harpring, GG and Pavlovic, the PF they need

What do the Bulls get? 3 young players who will get out in the open floor and spread the court. JR Smith is a great shooter with a ton of range and the ability to get to the hoop and finish with thunder. A little out of control right now. Will spend the year behind JC, who will take the Bulls one year tender

Johan Petro. This is a kid who is costing himself by coming out this year. next year, he is a top 5 pick. This year, middle of the first round. Think Jermaine Oneal body and athletic ability. Offensively he is a bit raw. but he is 6-11 and growing and is 235 lbs. Built like a rock. 18 years old. And freaky athletic ability. I have seen a ton of this kid and he is very good. Interestingly, he is a better passer at his height then 99% of the NBA. Thats something we can use

Luca Bogdanovic. 6-10. Can play a little point forward. Has major league range. Can shoot the 3 (shot over 60% in his league). Some say he is the next Peja. I wouldnt go that far. But he is this years Aleksander Pavlovic. He will instantly come in and spread the court, give us size and athletic ability at the 3 and a 3rd ball handler in the pinch. He might start for the Bulls next year if no SF comes in

The point of this 2 of these 3 kids will turn into front line players. And next year, they will bolster the bench. For instance, the difference in terms of ceiling between Petro and Okafor is slim to none. In fact, id say Petros ceiling is higher. Smith has a huge ceiling. And now that we have some guys who can start (Kirk, JC, Curry, Chandler) these kids will be brought in along the right way.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

I'm on board with this plan...

But I'm sure all of you knew that a long time ago


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

You are absolutely right. I do not like that. Not at all.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Basghetti80</b>!
> You are absolutely right. I do not like that. Not at all.


of course you dont, you only like 4 year college players or deng.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Basghetti80</b>!
> You are absolutely right. I do not like that. Not at all.


We know who you are in love with and it makes sense to be in love with those guys...

However, this team needs pieces...

1 Okafor or Deng does not equal those 3 guys...

With one of them we win what 30 games next year maybe?

With these 3, we can develop them and still win close to 30, I'd say more like 27-28.
With the talent in this draft, I much rather be drafting at 14, 16, 21 and 25, than 1, 32, and 39.


We also get a shot at drafting the next sure thing since Lebron next year, and we have a lot of young talent.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

i really like Okafor, but I can say with a straightface that Petro might be a better player in 2-3 years.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> i really like Okafor, but I can say with a straightface that Petro might be a better player in 2-3 years.


Isn't Petro a true Center as well? If so that makes him an intriguing prospect. 

Where do you see him being picked rlucas? In the middle of the first.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

The answer to having too many raw recruits is not to add more raw recruits. Doing so will result in the following (not mutually exclusive) possibilities.

1. As we have seen, just the fact of not having an experienced and functional team makes it take longer and become more difficult to develop young players. There is a critical mass beyond which having too many young players has a poisonous effect.

2. Continued and massive losing (as happens when you have too many raw recruits) will force a team to give up on its plans prematurely. This makes it more likely a desperation trade will be made, and desperation trades are often bad.

3. Continued and massive losing (as happens when you have too many raw recruits) destroys player trade value, thus making it even more likely that your desperation trades will be bad.

---------------

In other words, this is in all likelihood a strategy for failure.

What we really need to do is commit ourselves to having no more than five project players. At this point in their careers, Curry, Chandler, and Hinrich are three of those guys. Adding three 1st round picks instead of 1 would be a step in the wrong direction.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> Isn't Petro a true Center as well? If so that makes him an intriguing prospect.
> ...


I am not sure I would call Petro a true center. Next year, he was a lock for the top 5. But he didnt get a huge amount of PT with Pau this year. he probably goes 12-20. 

What I will say is this. He is 6-11 235 with zero body fat. He can guard 2 spots in the NBA easily. We need that. He is very active and his J is getting better. He really reminds me of Jermaine Oneal. One thing about him, he is a great passer. 

I think this kid is a star. But it will take him some time. Backing up Chandler and curry for a couple of years would be a great way for him to learn and be brought along the right way


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> The answer to having too many raw recruits is not to add more raw recruits. Doing so will result in the following (not mutually exclusive) possibilities.
> 
> 1. As we have seen, just the fact of not having an experienced and functional team makes it take longer and become more difficult to develop young players. There is a critical mass beyond which having too many young players has a poisonous effect.
> ...


the thought process is that Curry and Hinrich wont be "projects" next year. Also, we need depth and talent in the worst way. We can get that through the draft.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> I am not sure I would call Petro a true center. Next year, he was a lock for the top 5. But he didnt get a huge amount of PT with Pau this year. he probably goes 12-20.
> ...


*Introducing Johan Petro...*


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Get ready, most of you arent going to like this
> 
> We get lucky and are picking 1 or 2. We trade our first pick (lets assume its #2 plus our second round picks numbers 32 and 39 to utah for their 3 first round picks, 14, 16 and 21
> ...


I'm all for it rlucas. The only problem is that if JR Smith is gone before 14, I'm not sure I like the plan anymore. I might take Luke Jackson with one of the two later first round picks. I've heard of Petro but haven't seen him play, so I can't say. As for Bogdanovic, I do like him too.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> *Introducing Johan Petro...*


That could be Jerome Moiso. Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> the thought process is that Curry and Hinrich wont be "projects" next year. Also, we need depth and talent in the worst way. We can get that through the draft.


what makes you think they'll go from where they were this year to "not projects" in one offseason? Didn't we already fall for that one last summer? 

Your lack of faith in Skiles and Pax to know their elbows from their arses, much less properly develop NBA players, seems to contradict this line of thinking that adding 20-year-old depth is the way to go. Curry and Craw and Kirk aren't going to spring forth next season as grizzled vets.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> what makes you think they'll go from where they were this year to "not projects" in one offseason? Didn't we already fall for that one last summer?
> ...



I wouldnt call Crawford or Kirk projects now. They are decent to good players. Neither guy will get much better, but you can go to war with them, in certain roles (off the bench preferably)

Curry is a bit of a project, defensively and on the boards. Offensively he isnt.

Chandler is a project still but one who might be the best of our bunch. 

We arent going to be good next year. Its a pipe dream to think so. So why not add talent to a talent deprived team? Talent wins in the NBA. Petro and Bogdanovic have been pros for years. Smith has huge upside


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> the thought process is that Curry and Hinrich wont be "projects" next year. Also, we need depth and talent in the worst way. We can get that through the draft.


But see, they still will be in most senses of the word.

Kirk was solid this year, but as you've pointed out he'd be doing less on most teams. He'll be a 24 year old PG with 1 year of experience. Yes, he's a good 24 year old PG with 1 year of experience, but from the broader perspective he's inexperienced (a fact that really showed at the end of games) and still not really approaching his prime as an NBA player. He'll improve in those situations, but it won't happen overnight. Next year he's still too inexperienced to count on.

Curry is still a project next year. Yeah he's got 3 seasons under his belt, but he'll only be 22.

http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=1181570#post1181570

is where I kind of start laying out my thought process on this. I think Curry and Hinrich will be on the cusp of things next year, but I think it'll be unfair to ask them to suddenly not be projects anymore, especially when bringing in a bunch of totally young kids will exacerbate every amount of inexperience all of them show.

We need to put the talent we have in a position to grow, not undercut them.

Alternatively, if we think the young talent we have now (Curry, Chandler, Hinrich) is never going to be top talent (and this is aimed mainly at Chandler and Curry), isn't the wise thing to do to move them? If Curry especially doesn't hit it big, the plan is flawed no matter what.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

Here's Petro next to Andris Biedrins...


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

> of course you dont, you only like 4 year college players or deng.


First of all don't get mad because I do not agree with you. Also this statement is not true. It is not that I do not like these young kids all three you mentioned could be solid players eventually. However with a team that as is has Curry,Chandler, and Crawford along with Hinrich being developed I don't see how adding 3 more players to be developed helps things. You said that talent wins in this league but so does experience. You can't just keeping adding project after project over and over. At some point you choose a certain number of guys to develop and then surround them with proven NBA talent and go to work. You can't have 6 or more projects on one team. I have said several times and I will say it again. If we get a top 3 pick you choose either Okafor or Deng(Emeka #1 or #2, Deng #3 and maybe #2 if Okafor goes #1). Then trade off Chandler for NBA players not draft picks. Build around Kirk,Eddy, and Emeka(or Deng). Those 3 surrounded by proven NBA talent is the way to go.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Basghetti80</b>!
> 
> 
> First of all don't get mad because I do not agree with you. Also this statement is not true. It is not that I do not like these young kids all three you mentioned could be solid players eventually. However with a team that as is has Curry,Chandler, and Crawford along with Hinrich being developed I don't see how adding 3 more players to be developed helps things. You said that talent wins in this league but so does experience. You can't just keeping adding project after project over and over. At some point you choose a certain number of guys to develop and then surround them with proven NBA talent and go to work. You can't have 6 or more projects on one team. I have said several times and I will say it again. If we get a top 3 pick you choose either Okafor or Deng(Emeka #1 or #2, Deng #3 and maybe #2 if Okafor goes #1). Then trade off Chandler for NBA players not draft picks. Build around Kirk,Eddy, and Emeka(or Deng). Those 3 surrounded by proven NBA talent is the way to go.


except it will take us 5 years to surround our "projects" with proven talent. No one has any desire in our trash and we are captied for the forseeable future. So why not surround our talent with more young, hungry talent? There isnt a formula in the NBA to win. Teams have done it with vets and teams have done it with youth. This is a way to deepen the bench. None of these kids would be put under the same microscope that any of our previous draft picks were. They would be coming in like Kirk did, an expected backup. And they might surprise. But i can tell you that Petro has the same upside Emeka does. JR Smith has the same upside as Deng and Smith, almost. And Luca has the same upside as Childress. So why not go down to take these kids and know they are going to be 7-10 guys next year with little to no expectations.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I disagree with the last 2 picks. Going off NBA DRAFT.NET what is left with those picks I would go as follows.

14. JR Smith
16. Sergei Monya
21. Rafael Araujo


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> except it will take us 5 years to surround our "projects" with proven talent. No one has any desire in our trash and we are captied for the forseeable future. So why not surround our talent with more young, hungry talent? There isnt a formula in the NBA to win. Teams have done it with vets and teams have done it with youth. This is a way to deepen the bench. None of these kids would be put under the same microscope that any of our previous draft picks were. They would be coming in like Kirk did, an expected backup. And they might surprise. But i can tell you that Petro has the same upside Emeka does. JR Smith has the same upside as Deng and Smith, almost. And Luca has the same upside as Childress. So why not go down to take these kids and know they are going to be 7-10 guys next year with little to no expectations.


it could take 5 years to get the proven talent, but the 3Cs have demonstrated that it could take nearly that long to wait on young talent to learn how to win on this level. The 3Cs have made a fair amount of individual progress but still can't win, and they're about to go into years 4 and 5. How would it be any different to add not one, not two, but THREE more young guys? half of our active roster would be under the age of 24 and three of them would have no experience, while the other 3 would have only losing experience. And let's remember that the 3Cs weren't really under a microscope when they first came in as far as immediately being expected to contribute. none of them got consistent minutes in their first year until the season was a total wash (and Crawford didn't even play much at that point when he was a rook).

I'm sorry but I can't see how that environment could breed success.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Thank you VF. I feel better knowing that I am not alone in not wanting 7-9 projects on a team a one time.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

Some of you guys act like there is a Chumps to Champs button Pax has to hit and everything will be ok...

As of right now we suck...

We're in a division next year with Detroit, Milwaukee, Indiana, and Cleveland, so basically we will be last place in that division for at least the next 2 years...so let's just face the fact that losing is what is going to happen for the next couple of seasons.

We don't have any money to sign a TMac nor the pieces to trade for a TMac unless we want to give up the farm and basically be in a situation where we have a star with nothing around it.

Our only hope is to build through the draft and grow from within with what we already have.

This year I think we're in a better position with picks, 14, 16, 21 than we are with 1, 32, 39. 2 out of those 3 mid first rounders have a good chance at being stars.

We chose to rebuild when we gave up Rose and Yell for basically nothing, so let's just rebuild and we can start by having a hell of a draft.

A draft of Deng, maybe Varejao at 32, maybe Duhon at 40 is not better than Smith, Bogdanovic, and Petro.

Plain and simple.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Basghetti80</b>!
> Thank you VF. I feel better knowing that I am not alone in not wanting 7-9 projects on a team a one time.


Is every young player a "project"?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> it could take 5 years to get the proven talent, but the 3Cs have demonstrated that it could take nearly that long to wait on young talent to learn how to win on this level. The 3Cs have made a fair amount of individual progress but still can't win, and they're about to go into years 4 and 5. How would it be any different to add not one, not two, but THREE more young guys? half of our active roster would be under the age of 24 and three of them would have no experience, while the other 3 would have only losing experience. And let's remember that the 3Cs weren't really under a microscope when they first came in as far as immediately being expected to contribute. none of them got consistent minutes in their first year until the season was a total wash (and Crawford didn't even play much at that point when he was a rook).
> ...


But what choice do we have mate? I mean, we dont have cap space? We have aging, no good vets with huge contracts that no one wants. We have young players that may have some value in some cases (Kirk and Curry) but wont be traded and a young player with no value (in Chandler) that the GM is trying to trade. So what else can we do to establish a bench and add talent to this roster. 

Trade Kirk and Chandler is one way to go about it. Or Deal Curry. But we dont have tradable assets and we dont have the ability to go out and get FAs. So are we going to get talent from the NBDL? Nah, we tried that already. So why not the draft? Again, people can call these players projects, but does anyone really know? What I do know is that they all have upside and with some work, can be players for us next year. Personally Id rather have Bogdanovic learning the 3 then Dupree and Petro over Shirley. WOuldnt you?


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Guys, the danger in adding more projects to this team is in the Bulls losing their fanbase. We've been sold on 'potential' for 5 seasons now. Internet sports addicts like us aren't going anywhere, but if we continue to tank for 3 seasons let's just say the Ice Cream guy might start droning out the ESPN radio broadcasts.

Paxson is looking for 2-3 guys who can contribute right away next season. This through the draft, free agency and trades. No other way to look at it.


----------



## RugbyBull (Jan 28, 2004)

*alternatives*

to address a second scenario, what if we end up with the #2 and Atlanta lucks into the #3? We could trade

#2 Howard
and our first second rounder

to atlanta for

#3 Deng
#17 Petro?

I can see atl giving up their second 1st to get howard, a local guy they want to build around. But personally, if we do draft 2, i'd like to take howard (somewhat the consensus highest potential guy, right?) and get Sato and Huertas in the 2nd round.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Tell me why adding 3 rookies is worse than adding 1. Please explain this one to me. Did anyone say these guys had to play big minutes. Why not give a great prospect some good minutes (24-30) or i guess you just want Linton Johnson, Rick Brunson, or Ronald Dupree to be playing big minutes. Get real.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> Guys, the danger in adding more projects to this team is in the Bulls losing their fanbase. We've been sold on 'potential' for 5 seasons now. Internet sports addicts like us aren't going anywhere, but if we continue to tank for 3 seasons let's just say the Ice Cream guy might start droning out the ESPN radio broadcasts.
> 
> Paxson is looking for 2-3 guys who can contribute right away next season. This through the draft, free agency and trades. No other way to look at it.


But in the draft, there is no sure things. I know the common wisdom is that a kid can go to college and we can expect him to contribute right away. I am sure the Magic were thinking the same thing when they took Reece Gaines last year only to watch him fail. College to the pros is far from certain. 

We might have an MLE this year. But even that looks shaky right now. We dont have cap flexibility, and outside of Kirk and Curry, who on our roster has value? Sure I think you could trade Kirk and Chandler and turn that into Bender and Harrington, but Kirk is untradable. 

So how do we add talent to this team? For better or for worse, the draft is the only way I see how. We can go after a guy like Macijauskas. But what certainty do we have that he wont fail? What certainty do we have that hed even want to come to this mess? 

The fact is, we lost the most tradable asset we have in Jamal. We are stuck either losing him for nothing or signing him and going with him. People talk about sign and trades like its an easy thing to do. First off, Jamal would have to want to go to a certain team, Then that team would have to have something we would want. And then that team would have to have cap space because of BYC issues. And if that team has capspace, why would they want to deal with us anyway? The point is, we just dont have talent

As for the fan base. I am afraid, I agree. But regardless of what the Bulls do, its going to be way down next year. Adding Tmac or Pierce, which are pipedreams, doesnt change that. I can tell you GS didnt renew their box. Neither did GE Capital. Thats just 2 companies with huge amounts of cash flow to throw at this. The season ticket waiting list is all but dried up. And frankly the club has worn out its welcome. Maybe only Kobe could change that. Right now the club needs something new. But I can say one thing, it doesnt help playing with plodders and grinders. If we are going to lose, why not lose with young exciting players. Sure, the Bulls would get beat by the Kings, but id rather lose watching Kirk throw a lob to JR Smith. Or Petro hitting Curry for a nice layup or Bogdanovic swishing a 3 then our walk it up, dribble for 20 seconds and force a bad shot halfcourt sets. Young players can be exciting. Particularly ones who understand team ball. JR Smith would have to learn. But I can tell you the other 2 kids from Europe, understand the concept of playing in a system that requires passing, backcuts, and movement off the ball. Novel concepts indeed for this club over the past 5 years. And no NBDL player is going to give you that


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> But what choice do we have mate? I mean, we dont have cap space? We have aging, no good vets with huge contracts that no one wants. We have young players that may have some value in some cases (Kirk and Curry) but wont be traded and a young player with no value (in Chandler) that the GM is trying to trade. So what else can we do to establish a bench and add talent to this roster.
> ...


I haven't seen the guys enough to have a fully informed opinion. I just go on what is said here and the usual draft sites. In theory, having all kinds of talent filling out our bench sounds good. But given how difficult it's been to bring along 2 (or 3 if you count Craw) young players at once, I just don't see the prudence in bringing in 3 more at the same time when our other young players still have a long way to go before they start doing anything worthwhile. 

I tend to think that drafting Okafor and getting the best possible veteran with the MLE, if possible, is the best plan. He's young and hasn't hit his ceiling, but he's got the kind of game and the kind of attitude to come in and help this team start to win a few more games right away. Deng to a far lesser extent could do the same thing and he's nowhere near his ceiling. These might be baby steps, but that's something. I just think adding 3 players who will probably need some grooming of their own will add to the quagmire we're in and if our recent history is any indication, there's no certainty that it'll get better with time. 

If we're out of position to grab one of those guys, I'd be more willing to roll the dice on a stable of young players, but the catch is that our pick might not have the value to do it anymore if it's not top 2-3.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Golden Bull 23</b>!
> Tell me why adding 3 rookies is worse than adding 1. Please explain this one to me. Did anyone say these guys had to play big minutes. Why not give a great prospect some good minutes (24-30) or i guess you just want Linton Johnson, Rick Brunson, or Ronald Dupree to be playing big minutes. Get real.


Thank you.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> I haven't seen the guys enough to have a fully informed opinion. I just go on what is said here and the usual draft sites. In theory, having all kinds of talent filling out our bench sounds good. But given how difficult it's been to bring along 2 (or 3 if you count Craw) young players at once, I just don't see the prudence in bringing in 3 more at the same time when our other young players still have a long way to go before they start doing anything worthwhile.
> ...


quality counter Flog. I like Okafor and Deng and Smith a ton as well. Wont be sad to see any of those guys picked. But i can also say for certain that none of those guys's Celing is much higher then Petro, SMith or Luca. Hence trading down. I also think that the 3 kids I picked actually help us in massive areas of need. We need wing help in the worst way. SMith and Luca provide bench support in that area. We need outside shooting in the worst way, we get that in Smith and Luca. We need a backup 5 and a big man who can actually pass, Petro provides that. I dont think any of these kids are immediate impact types in the way we think of Lebron or Wade or Carmello. But in 2-3 years, any of these kids might emerge as the star for the draft. And I dont see how we have a chance at the playoffs next year. Call this a move for 2 years down the line


----------



## Thorgal (Feb 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> We also get a shot at drafting the next sure thing since Lebron next year, and we have a lot of young talent.



Who's The One....?


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

I will agree that the idea of having 3 talented first rounders filling out our bench is far more appealing than bringing in guys like Lint, Dupree and Shirley. I don't know if it would work out long term, but it would be a net increase in talent at the very least.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Thorgal</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Who's The One....?


Nemanja Aleksandrov. Everyone in the NBA has annoited him as the next big thing. And he is a sure thing. I have been fortunate to see him 4 or 5 over the past 2 years. He might have a Lebron like impact on the NBA.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> I will agree that the idea of having 3 talented first rounders filling out our bench is far more appealing than bringing in guys like Lint, Dupree and Shirley. I don't know if it would work out long term, but it would be a net increase in talent at the very least.


and maybe give Pax some flexibility in terms of who he can deal going forward since none of these guys will have big contracts


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

I think Chandler and Jamal can bring in solid veterans(not superstars but solid nonetheless) to help mix with Kirk,Curry and Deng. For instance lets say we draft Deng. You then could move Crawford for something like Daniels and Potapenko and then Chandler and Erob and JYD for something like Jones,future pick.

Hinrich,Daniels
Jones,Macijauskas
Deng
Thomas,Davis
Curry,Potapenko

Throw in MLE and maybe add a Morris Peterson or someone and we will be substanially better. Not to mention our second round picks.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Basghetti80</b>!
> I think Chandler and Jamal can bring in solid veterans(not superstars but solid nonetheless) to help mix with Kirk,Curry and Deng. For instance lets say we draft Deng. You then could move Crawford for something like Daniels and Potapenko and then Chandler and Erob and JYD for something like Jones,future pick.
> 
> Hinrich,Daniels
> ...


about a week ago you blasted me for not being on subject and then you 100% ignore a fact. You cant trade Jamal. Its fantasy land. The opportunity has passed. But I suppose you can wish for that.

And Chandler at this point gets you pretty much nothing. In fact, I think Chandler is going to be our biggest surprise next year. Right now, the old adage of buy low and sell high applies to him. He is at the bottom of his valuation. And I for one am not ready to watch him go and become a star somewhere else


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Basghetti80</b>!
> I think Chandler and Jamal can bring in solid veterans(not superstars but solid nonetheless) to help mix with Kirk,Curry and Deng. For instance lets say we draft Deng. You then could move Crawford for something like Daniels and Potapenko and then Chandler and Erob and JYD for something like Jones,future pick.
> 
> Hinrich,Daniels
> ...


I guess Deng and Macijauskas aren't projects....

BTW, how many games does that team win? 27, 28?


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

we all have our favorites and our own feelings about players. there's no need to get too riled up about it, is there?

edit: should have posted this in the other thread...oh well.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

I'm in for the 3 picks trade , though I don't think we'd have to give 32 and 39 (NJ-Rockets trade 7 for 13,18 and 24)

but my perfect picks r different:

14 - JR Smith
16 - Kris Humphries
21 - Luke Jackson

Other options depending on availability:
Kosta Perovic,Kirk Snyder.

I agree Binderis might turnout the stud of this draft.


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

Ok, first and foremost I give this thread a 10 for content. This is actually a post worth discussing.

I furthermore give it a 3 for discussion. In two pages, there were maybe 5 posts that was meaningful, intelligently written and didn't have any barbs thrown at another poster. Step up your game people, for the sake of the children. Granted, I just contributed too but I'm hoping I somehow influence other people reading this thread to stay on-topic and bring up relevant thoughts. Anyways, back on topic. 

I'll say right now, right here I really like this way of thinking. Fundamentally, I agree with rlucas.

Let's look at our roster from the end of last year, and list the young, talented players.

Tyson Chandler, Jamal Crawford, Eddy Curry, Kirk Hinrich, Marcus Fizer, Chris Jefferies, Jannero Pargo

Now, let's wittle that down a little. Fizer won't be back, and Crawford seems iffy. So let's ignore them.

After we do that, let's take out the guys who most likely will never play more than 10 to 15 minutes a game for our team even in the most optimistic mindset. Bye Jeffries and Pargo.

That leaves us with Chandler, Curry and Hinrich. Chandler is iffy because he somes to be one of those guys who gets injured often, whether due to poor conditioning or just due to his body type. So let's just exclude him because you really don't know with Chandler.

We end up with Curry and Hinrich.

Now, there are a lot of teams that don't even have two talented young players. New York doesn't, and they made the playoffs. Arguably the Kings don't, and they made the playoffs.

However, both teams have something we don't. Multi-talented veteran players. We simply do not have those. We have bad contract one dimensional veterans. 

Our team is suffering. There is no easy fix. We are handicapped by having awful veterans, and we are handicapped by a lack of talent. This team doesn't make the playoffs next year unless we resign Crawford and the collective unit of Hinrich, Crawford and Curry plays at an almost unattainably high level all season. 

This team also has no future. The Chicago Bulls are in one of the worst positions any team is facing right now. 

We can go about our reconstruction two ways--we can keep moving youth who's value comes from their potential moreso than production for more one dimensional veterans (maybe two dimensional if we get lucky) and end up with a team of more Jerome Williams, more Antonio Davis, a team of Aaron McKies and Malik Roses.

That team probably could make the playoffs, which would seem to make a lot of you happy.

Or, we could throw the towel in for a year. We could stop looking for the immediate impact and look for talented, tall, hard working young players who want to be taught to excel and will make this team better 2-3 years from now. I don't want to be the Knicks, a team that will make the playoffs for the next 3 or 4 years but facing the grim fact that I have a better chance of winning MVP of the NBA than the Knicks do of seriously competing for a championship.

We need to replenish the talent in Chicago. We need to stop our insistence on adding veterans. We need to add young talent, and we need to properly develop them.

In this facet, I completely agree with rlucas.


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

I separated this from my above reply because people tend to ignore long posts.

Anyways, back to the specific deal. 

I think the #2 pick in the draft for the 14, 16 and 21 wouldn't be maximizing the worth of a #2 pick. Mid 1st round draft picks are very out of favor. A #2 pick commands an Elton Brand type player.

So while I fundamentally agree, why not the 14, 16 and Pavlovic? While I'd trade #2 for AK in a heart beat and I know every other poster on this board probably would to, I think it's pretty easy to fathom Utah rejecting that trade. But Utah does have some nice talent on that team already. Why didn't you address a deal where players are involved too rlucas?

That is a serious question... I want to know why you would rather have Utah's three draft picks instead of a combination of draft picks and players. Are you sour on Utah's talent base? Then how about 14, 16 and a future first?


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

Isn´t that Sofoklis Schortsanitis(no. 15) standing besides Petro in that picture???


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>LegoHat</b>!
> Isn´t that Sofoklis Schortsanitis(no. 15) standing besides Petro in that picture???


Yep...


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>LegoHat</b>!
> Isn´t that Sofoklis Schortsanitis(no. 15) standing besides Petro in that picture???


It sure is mate


----------



## curry_52 (Jul 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Get ready, most of you arent going to like this
> 
> We get lucky and are picking 1 or 2. We trade our first pick (lets assume its #2 plus our second round picks numbers 32 and 39 to utah for their 3 first round picks, 14, 16 and 21
> ...


I think it is an original plan but one that will never happen under the current circumstances. Pax trading down and grabbing 3 "projects"? We must win NEXT season. By WIN I mean playoffs, and I can say with a straight face that the Bulls have a shot at them next season.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> I can say with a straight face that the Bulls have a shot at them next season.


I can say with a straight face we don't...

We're in a division with Indiana, Milwaukee, Detroit, and Cleveland.

There's 4 playoff teams there, then there's Miami, New Jersey, New York, I think Philly will be in the mix, Toronto, and if TMac is back Orlando will be in the mix, this past year was a fluke.


----------



## curry_52 (Jul 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> I can say with a straight face we don't...
> ...


WE can compete with Philly, New York, Toronto and Orlando. WE must wait until the draft and the rest of the offseason. I will stay positive until then, at least.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> And Chandler at this point gets you pretty much nothing. In fact, I think Chandler is going to be our biggest surprise next year. Right now, the old adage of buy low and sell high applies to him. He is at the bottom of his valuation. And I for one am not ready to watch him go and become a star somewhere else


thank you so much for saying this.buy low sell high is the practice of a good bizman.

okafor/deng isnt a MJ,a kobe,tmac type of player{and they wont do what LJames has} they are more like at best brand type.so do we all remember how many wins brand got us? 17 and 15 WOW so adding a player like that doesnt do alot right away,so either way we are looking at another crap season so why not try something new?

i love JR,i dont think he will come in and take us to the playoffs next yr but nither will okafor/deng and JR has more of what we need right now after all didnt we bring in AD and JYD to back up EC TC along with adding revbounds?

however if we can get JR and okafor/deng then im all for that.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>airety</b>!
> 
> We need to replenish the talent in Chicago. We need to stop our insistence on adding veterans. We need to add young talent, and we need to properly develop them.


No point adding young talent if we can't or don't create an environment for them to succeed, which the Bulls don't have. For young talent to succeed, you need quality veterans. I think that is a proven fact.


----------



## Philo (Feb 13, 2003)

Keep the pick, keep Crawford, keep Chandler, and lets see what happens. If there really is a problem with the fanbase, and I'm sorry, it will take another 10-20 years of losing to reduce it to the NBA average(MJ my friends, there are billions of Bulls fans around the world because of this man), trade the pick for an established veteran. Patience is a virtue my friends, and I hope some of you are still around here when this team is making a splash in the playoffs a couple of years from now.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

In the original plan, rlucas suggests we pick J.R. Smith, Petro and Bogdanovic. This idea has some merit, but I would do if a few things happened.

1. Petro and Bogdanovic stayed in Europe for another season or two. This means J.R. Smith is the only one from the draft on the roster. Petro could be good insurance for Chandler if his back doesn't hold up. So basically if you could stagger the arrival of the young players then I believe that is better than all 3 being on the roster, along with Hinrich, Chandler, Curry, Crawford maybe Pargo and a 2nd rounder.

2. If we have picks 1 or 2, I wouldn't do this. 3rd Pick I still probably wouldn't. Picks 5 or 6 I would consider it a bit more closely.


----------



## sTiLLaFaN42 (Sep 1, 2002)

*Benny the Bull* , good point on the possibility of Johan and Luka staying in Europe to get more seasoning. If that we're the case, this deal becomes much more attractive.

*rlucas*, you described Johan as a Jeramaine O'Neal type, as far as his body. I remember when you first mentioned Johan last summer on RealGM. Back then, you described him as an Amare like player. Jermaine is athletic, but I wouldn't put him in the same class as Amare because of Amare's combination of quickness, leaping ability, as well as strength/mass. Three questions for you:

1a) Do you project Johan as more Amare or Jermaine athletically?
1b) Do you project Johan as more Amare or Jermaine skill-wise?

2) What's the likelihood of Johan entering this draft this summer?

3) I saw Luka at the Nike Hoops summit. Would you say that Radmanovic is a good comparison?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>sTiLLaFaN42</b>!
> *Benny the Bull* , good point on the possibility of Johan and Luka staying in Europe to get more seasoning. If that we're the case, this deal becomes much more attractive.
> 
> *rlucas*, you described Johan as a Jeramaine O'Neal type, as far as his body. I remember when you first mentioned Johan last summer on RealGM. Back then, you described him as an Amare like player. Jermaine is athletic, but I wouldn't put him in the same class as Amare because of Amare's combination of quickness, leaping ability, as well as strength/mass. Three questions for you:
> ...


He is athletic but no one is Amare like athletic. I think he is Jermaine Oneal Athletic however and at the same age must stronger. Skill wise, at the same age, about the same as both. He is a better passer then either right now. He has nice footwork around the basket. He will be a good player quicker then Jermaine but will not have Amares impact. But at 16, still a major catch. I can envision a scenario quite easily where this kid becomes a better player then either of our current bigs. He is just fundamentally better then either


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>airety</b>!
> We need to replenish the talent in Chicago. We need to stop our insistence on adding veterans. We need to add young talent, and we need to properly develop them.


Airety that was a compelling post, but I think I have to disagree and really the disagreement boils down to the quote above. After watching us flop around for three years, waste talent, fail to develop it, and give up prematurely on it, the conclusion I've reached is that we need haven't had the right environment to develop young players in.

By adding veterans, I want to be clear that it's understood I don't mean over the hill players like Davis and Pippen. I mean guys in the age 26-30 range who still have gas in the tank but who know how to play the game and can somewhat carry the load instead of forcing more than a fair amount of it on kids who aren't ready for it. I'd add that a player a year or two younger than this (but not 3 or 4 years younger like Curry and Chandler!) but with a few good years of NBA experience under their belts would also be a help to the team from that perspective.

In my opinion, the right environment would consist of mostly those guys on the team. I could even settle for more projects if we had more of those guys, but we don't.

Bottom line is, we need this to make the right environment.

We also need teachers that I have absolute confidence in; guys who set the right tone and who command respect in the John Wooden sense and not the stereotype tyrannical high-school football coach sense. For example, I don't know if David Stern was just pulling everyone's dick when he said he thought Pat Riley would coach again, but if it were true, I'd offer him the sun and the moon to come here. 

Why? Because it answers completely questions of "who's right" about work and discipline and who's getting it and who's not. We've been going back and forth on that for several years now, and I think those kinds of questions are counterproductive. If we had a guy who's a proven winner as a coach, who's proven he knows good players, who's proven he can take even "headcase" players like Lamar Odom, Tyrone Hill, and Rafer Alston and make them focus, then we would have some certainty that the organization is creating the right teaching environment and that, if we see problems, we know who's to blame.


----------



## Philo (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> We also need teachers that I have absolute confidence in; guys who set the right tone and who command respect in the John Wooden sense and not the stereotype tyrannical high-school football coach sense. For example, I don't know if David Stern was just pulling everyone's dick when he said he thought Pat Riley would coach again, but if it were true, I'd offer him the sun and the moon to come here.



Hopefully Pax is scouting potential head coaches, as well as the players in the upcoming draft. If Skiles fail, this team needs the next big thing in the head coach department. No more recycled junk. Anybody have a clue on who the next great NBA coach might be? College, NBA Assistant, Overseas(Interesting option).


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Philo</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully Pax is scouting potential head coaches, as well as the players in the upcoming draft. If Skiles fail, this team needs the next big thing in the head coach department. No more recycled junk. Anybody have a clue on who the next great NBA coach might be? College, NBA Assistant, Overseas(Interesting option).


2 names come to mind in terms of the next big head coach

Bill Laimbeer
Avery Johnson


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> 2 names come to mind in terms of the next big head coach
> ...


For sure on both, too. I'd also like to add Donnie Nelson as a third who I'd die to have.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> For sure on both, too. I'd also like to add Donnie Nelson as a third who I'd die to have.


damn, how did i forget Donnie Nelson? He would be my first choice as a head coach today. He almost beat dream team in the Sydney Olympics as the head coach to lithuania, i believe it was.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

<b>DRAFT QUESTION:</b>
Do NBA teams match up potential draftees against current NBA players anymore in pre-draft workouts? Seems like this never happens anymore. If anything, teams will line up 2-3 potential draftees in workouts against each other.. but even this is a rarety these days.

The reason I bring this up is because, as legend has it, Kobe Bryant abused Jerry Stackhouse in a 1-on-1 matchup before the draft. I'm thinking can we tape up eRob's knees and have him go against Josh Smith? How about eRob against a Deng or Iguodala? Or Lint Johnson versus a Kirk snyder or Romain Sato?

In the least it'd give us a better view of where these guys are at. Just a thought.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> <b>DRAFT QUESTION:</b>
> Do NBA teams match up potential draftees against current NBA players anymore in pre-draft workouts? Seems like this never happens anymore. If anything, teams will line up 2-3 potential draftees in workouts against each other.. but even this is a rarety these days.
> 
> ...


The Bulls did that with Tyson Chandler and Marcus Fizer. The year before they allowed Magliore and Mihm and to go at it and that matchup was so famous in that Magliore destroyed him that the Bulls soured on Mihm very quickly


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> The Bulls did that with Tyson Chandler and Marcus Fizer. The year before they allowed Magliore and Mihm and to go at it and that matchup was so famous in that Magliore destroyed him that the Bulls soured on Mihm very quickly


Very, very cool. I remember that Swift did quite well against Mihm as well, but I think that was regular season versus a pre-draft workout. Anyways, especially with high schoolers this would serve as a good test to see where these guys are at.


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> By adding veterans, I want to be clear that it's understood I don't mean over the hill players like Davis and Pippen. I mean guys in the age 26-30 range who still have gas in the tank but who know how to play the game and can somewhat carry the load instead of forcing more than a fair amount of it on kids who aren't ready for it.


I agree with you... however when looking at the facts as far as who we have added in the past four years, it wasn't pretty.

Veterans we've added:

Charles Oakley
Corie Blount
Antonio Davis
Jerome Williams
Jalen Rose
Donyell Marshall
Travis Best
Rick Brunson
Eddie Robinson (?)
Kevin Ollie


With the exception of E-Rob, none of those players really fit your mold. OK, maybe Jalen and Donyell do... but they were both two dimensional players (Jalen passing/shooting, Donyell scoring/rebounding.) 

The fact of the matter is, and this is the fact that all NBA teams face, is that you don't win championships in free agency. Can you win a championship through trades?

No team has. Sacramento is good, but they haven't won anything. LA technically won through a trade, but that was a draft night deal for Kobe. Chicago didn't win because of trades, they won because of the draft. Same for San Antonio. And Houston.

Now, to add on to this, how many impact 26-30 year olds have been moved around the league that would be a good fit for the Bulls? Mike Miller, sure. Rip Hamilton? I guess so. 

Other than that, you have Artest and Brand, both guys we shipped out after they had proved something. That's it really... of course, I'm not talking about guys like Jermaine O'Neal who were traded for before they had done much. 

You do NOT build a team through free agency, and you really don't build one through trades either. That simply fills in the pieces. But this isn't baseball- you need to draft talent and develop talent to win the big games.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>airety</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree with you... however when looking at the facts as far as who we have added in the past four years, it wasn't pretty.
> ...


The Lakers got Shaq through free agency. That's three championships, and maybe more...

Yes, I know it's rare, but it has happened.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> The Lakers got Shaq through free agency. That's three championships, and maybe more...
> ...


But they drafted Kobe (using Divac), Fisher, George, Medvedenko, Rush (on the current team) and others. In fact, some of the Laker picks were at the end of the draft in places where no one would ever think you get pieces


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>airety</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree with you... however when looking at the facts as far as who we have added in the past four years, it wasn't pretty.
> ...


Well, isn't that kind of proving my point? 

We haven't really taken the approach I favor, and we've performed the best when we came closest to taking it.



> The fact of the matter is, and this is the fact that all NBA teams face, is that you don't win championships in free agency. Can you win a championship through trades?
> 
> No team has. Sacramento is good, but they haven't won anything. LA technically won through a trade, but that was a draft night deal for Kobe. Chicago didn't win because of trades, they won because of the draft. Same for San Antonio. And Houston.


Points taken, but I don't think it's as clear as you suggest.

First, the whole argument rests on a sort of backward looking assumption that I'm not sure holds. It certainly won't if Sacramento, Detroit, or Indiana when this year, and with all the CBA changes it becomes kind of dangerous to base an analysis over what a team did 15 years ago.

Second, the Lakers clearly won on free agency as much as anything else by getting Shaq. The Rockets second championship came with Drexler helping out Hakeem, didn't it? And the Bulls second threepeat would have been pretty hard to do without Rodman.

More importantly, really what you seem to be getting at is that the ultra-star players, the kind that really can lead a franchise to a championship, those typically come through the draft. Well, of course, because if a team gets one, they won't willingly give him up. MJ, Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, those guys are the cornerstones.

But when you realize that, it kind of undercuts the build through the draft argument. "Bulding through the draft" doesn't win you the championship just because you acquire a lot of good players and let them grow. It lets you win a championship by helping you win the lottery.

To labor the point, if Cleveland wins the title in a couple of years, it will assuredly be largely because they had the good fortune to draft LeBron. That's building through the draft, I suppose, but it's not like they were studiously finding gems with mid and late-round picks that turned into stars. They just got lucky and hit the jackpot with the #1 overall pick.

You have to seperate building from lucking into a windfall.



> Now, to add on to this, how many impact 26-30 year olds have been moved around the league that would be a good fit for the Bulls? Mike Miller, sure. Rip Hamilton? I guess so.
> 
> Other than that, you have Artest and Brand, both guys we shipped out after they had proved something. That's it really... of course, I'm not talking about guys like Jermaine O'Neal who were traded for before they had done much.
> 
> You do NOT build a team through free agency, and you really don't build one through trades either. That simply fills in the pieces. But this isn't baseball- you need to draft talent and develop talent to win the big games.


First, I don't think you can eliminate every exception and then say that your rule is proven . The real way to succeeding in this league is to be exceptionally lucky. Of course you want to "build through the draft" and make good moves everywhere, but the real differences in this league, where so few players are on the court, is via exceptions. 

Get a Jermaine O'Neal and you turn your whole franchise around. Or a LeBron in the draft, or a Shaq via free agency or a Rasheed and Ben Wallace in trades. After a while, you see that the really good teams are the ones that manage, by any number of ways, to get the really top talents.

Second, lets turn this back to an analysis of the Bulls. I'm not arguing that we should give up on anyone I think will will be like a Shaq or a Duncan. Nor do I expect an Antoine Walker, for example, to suddenly show up and start playing like Duncan. What I'm saying is that our cornerstone, if we have one at all, is Curry and he's already in place. Unfortunately, it'll take at least a couple more seasons before he takes off like he could. Hinrich and Crawford also constitute pretty strong players we've drafted, although they're obviously not at that level of potential. Chandler, I'm willing to move because he conjures up the spectre of Ralph Sampson way too easily. 

Further, we aren't going to draft a kid at 15 and 20 in this draft who becomes a star, I don't think. and perhaps worse, the opportunity cost of doing so could be to cause us to give up on Curry, who really may be a franchise talent. If we come out and stink it up next year, the temptation to trade a Curry, or a Kirk, will become even greater than it was this year, and it will put Curry's development in an even more untenable position.

The bottom line is I don't know that there are any players in this draft that can be the kind of cornerstone players who can help us win a championship. At least, I don't know that they help us much more than someone we could acquire with the pick and with FA money they would free up.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

Going back to rlucas original plan, guys such as J.R. Smith and Petro, if he's in the draft, may actually not be available when Utah picks, if they are as good as advertised.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Benny the Bull</b>!
> Going back to rlucas original plan, guys such as J.R. Smith and Petro, if he's in the draft, may actually not be available when Utah picks, if they are as good as advertised.


Petro will have an issue because he doesnt get a ton of pt for Pau and wont be able to work out for NBA teams because the french season ends after the draft. 

JR Smith could very likely go ahead of 14


----------



## Professor (Jun 6, 2002)

Rlucas - Petro and Bogdanovic don't seem to be showing up as first rounders in the mock drafts, at least not yet. For example, NBAdraft.net has Bogdanovic in the second round and doesn't even mention Petro. You noted that Petro won't be available for workouts due to his team's participation in postseason play. Any chance these two might never make it to the first round, allowing the Bulls to snag them at #32 and #39?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Professor</b>!
> Rlucas - Petro and Bogdanovic don't seem to be showing up as first rounders in the mock drafts, at least not yet. For example, NBAdraft.net has Bogdanovic in the second round and doesn't even mention Petro. You noted that Petro won't be available for workouts due to his team's participation in postseason play. Any chance these two might never make it to the first round, allowing the Bulls to snag them at #32 and #39?


Look at draftcity's mock....


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Professor</b>!
> Rlucas - Petro and Bogdanovic don't seem to be showing up as first rounders in the mock drafts, at least not yet. For example, NBAdraft.net has Bogdanovic in the second round and doesn't even mention Petro. You noted that Petro won't be available for workouts due to his team's participation in postseason play. Any chance these two might never make it to the first round, allowing the Bulls to snag them at #32 and #39?


Hello Prof

If Petro enters and I hear he will, there is no way he lasts until round 2. I think most people are shocked that he is considering coming out this year. He hasnt played a ton this year and most people were thinking he would be a top 5 pick next year. So an opportunity to grab a top 5 player in the middle of the first round might be coming

Luca might last too round 2 but I kind of doubt it. 6-10 Point forwards with this kids ability to shoot and move just dont last long in the draft. He is a better prospect then everyones favorite, Luke Jackson


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Now if I were to say that Andre Igoudala would last til #14, would it make more sense?


----------

