# Duhon being shopped?



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Options at the point include Chris Duhon, who is reportedly aggressively being shopped but just signed an RFA offer sheet last summer


Draftexpress on Toronto's needs.

This just caught me off guard, anyone have anymore info on this. Something hopefully more credible too.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Unless your name is Kirk Hinrich, you are probably being shopped. Sorry Othella Harrington fans.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> Unless your name is Kirk Hinrich, you are probably being shopped. *Sorry Othella Harrington fans.*


Say it ain't so!


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Paxson said he's shopping Tyson Chandler on the radio yesterday also.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

I expected Duhon to be included in any trade package that we try, just the being aggresively shopped caught me off guard.

It no doubt adds some spice to the Prigioni discussion.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Hey pax - call Cleveland. Du for LeBron.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

I would expect, if he is shopping him, that the guard he picks up at #16 has some sort of pg skills.

I'd miss duhon in chicago, he compliments the core incredibly well. But sometimes you have to sacrafice to make the team better.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Paxson said he's shopping Tyson Chandler on the radio yesterday also.


With Tyson gone the chance of picking Tyrus rises.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

step said:


> With Tyson gone the chance of picking Tyrus rises.


yep...like I said yesterday

I think he'd rather keep his version of tyson, rather than Jerry's lol


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

The ROY said:


> Paxson said he's shopping Tyson Chandler on the radio yesterday also.


Z/Pavlovic for Gordon/Chandler works salary wise. Gives the Bulls a big guard at the 2 who can shoot and play tough foul prone defense(high jib factor!) and a true center to pair with Tyrus Thomas. The only thing you really miss is Ben Gordon's clutch shooting.

Not sure I could manage a year of watching Tyson Chandler drop passes from Lebron James, but I guess he'd be a good backup until his contract ran out.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> I think he'd rather keep his version of tyson, rather than Jerry's lol


Then comes the question of why resign him at all let alone to the ridiculous contract that he has now.
Anyways you don't need to answer that, I'd rather keep this thread on track.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

futuristxen said:


> Z/Pavlovic for Gordon/Chandler works salary wise. Gives the Bulls a big guard at the 2 who can shoot and play tough foul prone defense(high jib factor!) and a true center to pair with Tyrus Thomas. The only thing you really miss is Ben Gordon's clutch shooting.
> 
> Not sure I could manage a year of watching Tyson Chandler drop passes from Lebron James, but I guess he'd be a good backup until his contract ran out.


Gordon to Cleveland?! ughhhh, no thanks

We're not trying to help Cleveland get a ring even quicker


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

step said:


> Then comes the question of why resign him at all let alone to the ridiculous contract that he has now.


that's true though.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I found their take on what the Bulls are doing to be well...ummm..interesting, I guess? :

#2- Chicago Bulls

Will Consider: Andrea Bargnani, Tyrus Thomas, Adam Morrison, Rudy Gay, Brandon Roy

After coming full-circle and making the playoffs two years in a row, the future is now for the Baby Bulls and the next goal should be to advance another round in the NBA playoffs with the excellent young core John Paxson and Scott Skiles have developed. 

Potential smokescreens that have been going around the NBA ever since their stint in the playoffs ended say that Adam Morrison is the player that Paxson and Skiles covet the most, but that’s somewhat hard to believe when looking at the makeup of their current roster. 

LaMarcus Aldridge is the player that makes the most sense, and the Bulls would certainly snatch him up if the Raptors somehow decided to pass on him. With Aldridge off the board in this projection, Andrea Bargnani becomes the next best option. The thing the Bulls are lacking the most at the moment is point production from their big men, as Tyson Chandler’s incredibly disappointing 5.3 point per game average just isn’t going to cut it next to Mike Sweetney and Othella Harrington. This is precisely the reason why Tyrus Thomas seems unlikely here, as he’s more of a defender and rebounder like Chandler and appears furthest away from being able to contribute immediately on a potential laden team that has finally grown up. Bargnani is the best offensive player the Bulls will find here in terms of the bigs, and he should be able to create quite a few mismatches with his ability to space the floor with his perimeter shooting and drive to the basket with his excellent ball-handling skills and first step. 

If the Bulls have their heart set on drafting Aldridge, most NBA people seem to think that a package involving either Chris Duhon or the #16 pick along with their own lottery selection will get the job done, although this might be too high of a price to pay in a draft where any one of five players could go #1.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

when did pax say "chandler is being shopped"? it wasn't on the score interview. was it on espn? 

what exactly did he say?


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

mizenkay said:


> when did pax say "chandler is being shopped"? it wasn't on the score interview. was it on espn?
> 
> what exactly did he say?


taken from transplant's post in the radio updates thread



> Interesting interview. A couple key takeaways:
> 
> - Chandler will be shopped. Paxson defended his signing of Chandler not so much as signing a cornerstone-type player, but as keeping an "asset" that could have value around the league.
> 
> Anyway, that's my initial take.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

thanks *ROY*, i didn't take that as "he will be shopped" just he is a valuable asset to have.

i think pax will give chandler the summer and early season to prove himself. and i hope he does.

as far as mr. big shot goes, seriously, if we can bolster the backcourt with a bigger 2 guard and move kirk back to the point full time where he would be MOST effective, then duhon may in fact be the odd man out.

a backcourt of hinrich/gordon/roy would be great.

i wouldn't expect roy to start as a rookie. and with skiles, that has to be earned anyway.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

I'd be shocked if the Bulls shop Chandler after such a bad season.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but Duhon can't be moved prior to august 15th (without his permission) and he can't be traded to Toronto at all. After August 15th, he can be traded outright. One question I have is: after the 15th of August, can he be traded to Toronto? 

I would think a short list of teams that might be interested in Duhon would be Toronto, Atlanta, Cleveland and maybe the Lakers. With Toronto, I would think a swap of Du for Peterson might work out well for both teams. Atlanta I'm not sure anything could be done. At #5 they're poised to get a pretty good point if they don't mess it up again. (Ya'd think they'd learn that they really need a point guard more than anything and they keep drafting these 2's and 3's!). Cleveland? I don't know what would work there. Maybe some sort of a sign and trade with Gooden? Trade Du straight-up for the 25th pick? Eh. The Lakers have nothing we'd really need. I understand they've got a pretty good 2-guard who's a pretty good defender, but other than that - nothin.

I wouldn't be adverse to trading Duhon, but he's almost the ideal rotational point guard. Won't complain about minutes. Runs a good offense. Very good on the ball defender. Takes care of the ball/makes generally good decisions. Poor shooter, but if you have him out there with a capable scorer or two he'll find them and give them good looks. If you trade him as part of a package deal, you'd better get something pretty damned good back.


----------



## Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! (Jun 10, 2003)

futuristxen said:


> Z/Pavlovic for Gordon/Chandler works salary wise. Gives the Bulls a big guard at the 2 who can shoot and play tough foul prone defense(high jib factor!) and a true center to pair with Tyrus Thomas. The only thing you really miss is Ben Gordon's clutch shooting.
> 
> Not sure I could manage a year of watching Tyson Chandler drop passes from Lebron James, but I guess he'd be a good backup until his contract ran out.


That has got to be one of the absolute WORST trade proposals ever comptemplated. Pax ought to be tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a supersonic plane to China if he even gave a single thought about pulling this trigger. 

Honestly, Z and Ty balance each other out. I woundn't do it, but I can at least imagine weighing the pros and cons of dealing the 2, straight up. But on top of this, to give the Cavs Ben Gordon for absolute crap?? C'mon, you are practically making them championship contenders for an entire generation, assuming LeBron reups with them.And then also cosignig us to the mediocratic dustbin, to boot..


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! said:


> That has got to be one of the absolute WORST trade proposals ever comptemplated. Pax ought to be tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a supersonic plane to China if he even gave a single thought about pulling this trigger.
> 
> Honestly, Z and Ty balance each other out. I woundn't do it, but I can at least imagine weighing the pros and cons of dealing the 2, straight up. But on top of this, to give the Cavs Ben Gordon for absolute crap?? C'mon, you are practically making them championship contenders for an entire generation, assuming LeBron reups with them.And then also cosignig us to the mediocratic dustbin, to boot..


I tend to agree. Chandler & Z's worth is relatively similar. Adding in Gordon makes it a deal breaker. Maybe Chandler and a second rounder for Z at most.


----------



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

How much value does a player have that has just come off back surgery? I can't imagine Duhon's value is all that high at the current time.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

I was wondering the same thing about the back surgery hurting his value. It's reported that it went fine and he should be back to normal, so idk. I can see Duhon being traded, but Chandler's presence as a shot blocker, and his potential if he could move back to the #4 makes him untradeable in my opinion. Duhon and Deng are the only ones I see as tradeable, acceptable losses. I consider the rest of the young guys to be the core of the team. BTW, the way I read that comment on Chandler doesn't mean he's being shopped....I see it as he's an asset that could be used in a trade, but nowhere does that indicate to me that he's on the market.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> I was wondering the same thing about the back surgery hurting his value. It's reported that it went fine and he should be back to normal, so idk. I can see Duhon being traded, but Chandler's presence as a shot blocker, and his potential if he could move back to the #4 makes him untradeable in my opinion. Duhon and Deng are the only ones I see as tradeable, acceptable losses. I consider the rest of the young guys to be the core of the team. BTW, the way I read that comment on Chandler doesn't mean he's being shopped....I see it as he's an asset that could be used in a trade, but nowhere does that indicate to me that he's on the market.



Ok, I've had enough. 

I would trade Chandler even up for Z in a heartbeat. Why? Until Chandler is 42 years old people on this board are going to continue to say what "potential" Chandler has and if only he would move back to the 4 position will he demonstrate how good he can be, etc., etc., blah, blah, blah. 

Has it not registered on people that when Chandler was on the market last year not one team in the league showed any interest in this bozo? This was before Pax made the incredible blunder of signing him to a 6 year/$6 million deal and before he fumbled and fouled his way through yet another NBA season. Why would anyone think he is such a great prize now?

If we had Z he could give us 2 to 3 decent years until we developed a big man to take his place. He would also get us to the next level. Do you think Chandler can get us to the next level? Look, I did not intend to make this another Chandler bashing post. We have had plenty of them. But when I keep on hearing the same myths about Chandler's potential I am ready to drink a gallon of Drano and be done with it. 

To be perfectly frank, I have reservations about making any commitment to Z also. I think the Bulls would be better served in getting Gooden. I always liked his game and think he is underrated. I also think the Cavs would not match a good offer because they think they are covered with Marshall and Verajao at the 4.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

charlietyra said:


> Ok, I've had enough.
> 
> I would trade Chandler even up for Z in a heartbeat. Why? Until Chandler is 42 years old people on this board are going to continue to say what "potential" Chandler has and if only he would move back to the 4 position will he demonstrate how good he can be, etc., etc., blah, blah, blah.
> 
> ...


Well, when he's mentioned in regards to a tool like Z, I'll go with a young guy with potential like Chandler, over a guy with none, who is 31 years old already, every time. Gooden would make a lot more sense, but why give the Cavs more good players? They're pretty good already, and if we give them good young role players to support James, it's just a matter of time till they're winning championships at our expense. Can Tyson take us to the next level....sure! If we still had Curry, we'd have went past the first round this year, and our young guys just keep getting better. Now if we take a guy like Bargnani who will give us some more scoring in our bigs, and allow us to utilize the athleticism of everyone on the team, including Chandler, I see that as a team capable of going deep into the playoffs, and we can get another scorer or a true center at 16 still. I have a lot of expectations out of our current Baby Bullz and don't wanna see any more traded (at least not the starters, Duhon and Deng could go if we get the right guys for them).


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

The ROY said:


> taken from transplant's post in the radio updates thread


Uh, just to be clear, that was my takeaway from what Paxson said, not what he said. Y'know, like "reading between the lines." Last I looked, the SCORE didn't have the interview up on their site. For the record, I do not consider myself to be a "reliable source."

When Chandler's name came up, Paxson didn't talk about him like he did about Hinrich, Gordon, Deng or Nocioni. He didn't talk ability or production. He talked about an asset. In defending the Chandler signing, he didn't talk about Chandler as being a cornerstone of the franchise, only that he didn't want to let Chandler get away for nothing. He talked about how maintaining assets is important when trying to engineer trades.

As for Duhon, Paxson didn't say much, if anything. From past interviews, Paxson loves Duhon. I mean like, what a jib on that kid. However, I'd be shocked (just my opinion) if the Bulls start the season with both Duhon and Gordon. I believe that Paxson is determined to obtain a SG with some size who is good enough to warrant at least 20 mpg and save Hinrich the draining task of always guarding SGs. Paxson understands that Gordon is a special player, despite the fact that he's a SG in a PG's body and a defensive liability when guarding big guards. He knows that Duhon HELPS you win games, but Gordon WINS you games. If Gordon is traded, it will be a big-time trade. If Paxson gets his big guard and keeps Gordon (and Hinrich), which is the most likely scenario, Duhon figures to get Pargo-type minutes. At $3MM, this doesn't make much sense.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

the score does have the interview online now, i posted it in the radio update thread.

my takeway, like i said, was that chandler is an asset and after the deal with "the other guy, uh, curry", pax really had no choice but to do that contract.

one thing pax emphasized, i felt, was that they were _"very aware"_ of the need to get kirk back to the point full time vis a vis, the discussion for the need for a big 2 guard.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> the score does have the interview online now, i posted it in the radio update thread.
> 
> my takeway, like i said, was that chandler is an asset and after the deal with "the other guy, uh, curry", pax really had no choice but to do that contract.
> 
> one thing pax emphasized, i felt, was that they were _"very aware"_ of the need to get kirk back to the point full time vis a vis, the discussion for the need for a big 2 guard.


Can't thank you enough, Miz. I was looking in the Score Audibles section.

Just took another listen. No doubt that the big guard is an offseason priority, and if Paxson succeeds, Duhon, Gordon or Hinrich (likely in that order) needs to go elsewhere.

Here's the Chandler quote that struck me. "The money that we paid Tyson, it was done, I've said over and over again, that I didn't want to be sitting here today him having played his 5th year and losing him as an asset...a guy we could potentially move, use in any way." Later, "We still have him (Chandler) as an asset to help us get better."

Maybe it's just me, but this isn't how you talk about a player you believe is a cornerstone of your franchise.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

If we're really looking to move Duhon, which should be considerably harder after back surgery, BTW, does that mean we might really be considering Mr. Brandon Roy with the 2nd pick? 

(DMD drools a little bit on his keyboard).

In all seriousness, this surprises me. Isn't Duhon a quintessential Skaxon guy?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> If we're really looking to move Duhon, which should be considerably harder after back surgery, BTW, does that mean we might really be considering Mr. Brandon Roy with the 2nd pick?
> 
> (DMD drools a little bit on his keyboard).
> 
> In all seriousness, this surprises me. Isn't Duhon a quintessential Skaxon guy?


Maybe Skaxon woke up and figured out we need talent to go with the role players he's assembled.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

transplant said:


> Can't thank you enough, Miz. I was looking in the Score Audibles section.
> 
> Just took another listen. No doubt that the big guard is an offseason priority, and if Paxson succeeds, Duhon, Gordon or Hinrich (likely in that order) needs to go elsewhere.
> 
> ...


I agree that it doesn't sound like he's sold on Tyson, but does see him as a valuable player, either on the team or to trade. Now is it just a question of who values him more? The bulls or a potential trading partner?


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

DaBullz said:


> Maybe Skaxon woke up and figured out we need talent to go with the role players he's assembled.


I read somewhere that he isn't targeting just Bigs, that you need to take the best player available, so maybe that is an indication of Roy or Gay or someone good in the draft, that plays a position of strength on the team already?? After some more research, I still say that Bargnani is my #1 choice, but maybe Gay should be #2 instead of the other 2 big guys, Aldridge and Thomas. As for Roy, not sold on him, we already have a stud SG in Gordon, and Roy is only 6'5" and not a tremendous athlete so I don't see how he'd be much of an upgrade, if any.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

transplant said:


> Uh, just to be clear, that was my takeaway from what Paxson said, not what he said. Y'know, like "reading between the lines." Last I looked, the SCORE didn't have the interview up on their site. For the record, I do not consider myself to be a "reliable source."


um...

ok


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> If we're really looking to move Duhon, which should be considerably harder after back surgery, BTW, does that mean we might really be considering Mr. Brandon Roy with the 2nd pick?
> 
> (DMD drools a little bit on his keyboard).
> 
> In all seriousness, this surprises me. Isn't Duhon a quintessential Skaxon guy?


no offense..but i don't think pax is dumb enough to take roy with the #2 pick...


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> I agree that it doesn't sound like he's sold on Tyson, but does see him as a valuable player, either on the team or to trade. Now is it just a question of who values him more? The bulls or a potential trading partner?


Fair questions. 

Part of the answer may be found in comparing how highly PaxSkiles value players versus how the rest of the league's GMs value Bulls' players. Though there are a lot of jokes about it on this board, it's likely true that PaxSkiles value what has come to be known here as "jib" more highly than most. PaxSkiles also place a high value on defensive willingness and ability (two different things). Tim Thomas is as good an example as you can find. While I doubt TT will get anything near a max contract, PaxSkiles didn't want him at any price.

Hinrich is the Golden Boy and for good reason. He's got the right size and skills for a PG, is very consistent, plays D like a madman and has all the jib anyone could want. For PaxSkiles to entertain a trade, someone whoul need to value Hinrich even more than they do. Not likely.

Deng and Nocioni are close to Hinrich in terms of D, jib and consistency. Deng has the size. Nocioni doesn't. Nocioni has the outside shot. Deng doesn't. Neither is an athletic marvel. Still, PaxSkiles love these guys...probably more than other GMs. Doubtful trade prospects.

Gordon is an interesting case. He's an undeniable talent. PaxSkiles won't deny it, nor would other NBA GMs. Bad size for his position (SG), and while a willing defender, he can't hold his own with other SGs. As is the case with many shooter/scorers, consistency is a problem. He's a stud, but a flawed stud. Jib? Good, not great. I mean, he had the audacity to claim that the Skiles' offense wasn't getting him enough scoring opportunities...a little to much me in that one. PaxSkiles value Gordon highly and won't be fleeced. Still, I can see where some NBA GM out there may value Gordon more than PaxSkiles.

Chandler is the Bulls only athletic big. Not consistent and a certifiable offensive mess. Works very hard when on the court, but jib is questionable given his regression over last offseason. He just didn't seem to work hard to improve and PaxSkiles can't quite relate to that sort of behavior. It's not what they'd've done in similar circumstances and creates a lack of trust. PaxSkiles may value Chandler lower than other NBA GMs. They won't give him away, but they'll listen.

Though Duhon is not a core player, he deserves a mention here. He's the equal of Hinrich...except for size and talent. That's a big "except." Duhon's got jib out the ying-yang. Despite his stature, is a willing and talented defender. Effort and D is consistent, even if his shot isn't. PaxSkiles LOVE this guy. In a perfect world, he's their ideal backup PG. This said, here's an example of where even though PaxSDkiles may value a player morte than other GMs, the player is likely to be moved. If PaxSkiles get the big guard they want and keep Gordon, it becomes a simple matter of math. There won't be enough minutes for Duhon. PaxSkiles will weep uncontrolably for a while, but they'll trade him.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

The ROY said:


> um...
> 
> ok


 :laugh:


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> If we're really looking to move Duhon, which should be considerably harder after back surgery, BTW, does that mean we might really be considering Mr. Brandon Roy with the 2nd pick?
> 
> (DMD drools a little bit on his keyboard).
> 
> In all seriousness, this surprises me. Isn't Duhon a quintessential Skaxon guy?


I hope it's true. If we could deal Duhon for an okay big like Chris Mihm I'd do it in a heartbeat. I like Du, but the reality is that there are only substantial minutes to be had for 3 guards on this team. I think trading Duhon for Mihm (and the Lakers NEED a point guard, need to develop Andrew Bynum, and had to be encouraged by Kwame Brown's performance late in the season), signing Al Harrington or Drew Gooden and drafting Brandon Roy would be pretty darn smart. Then we could go with somebody out of the Hilton Armstrong/Shelden Williams/Cedric Simmons group with the 16th pick.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Roy's not gettin drafted @ #2..let it go


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

The ROY said:


> Roy's not gettin drafted @ #2..let it go


Roy's at #4 and #7 in the Draft Express and NBADraft.net mocks. Tyrus Thomas is at 7 and 4, respectively. It's completely within the realm of possibility that Roy could move up and go top 3 if he has great workouts. You might not think he's good value at 2, but the idea that there's no way he'll get drafted there if Paxson really likes him is just stupid. How far can Paxson trade down if Portland's going to grab him at 4?


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

NO way we'll take a guard with the NY pick...

none


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

The ROY said:


> NO way we'll take a guard with the NY pick...
> 
> none


Thank you John Paxson.

I agree that we probably won't, but making concrete assertions about the draft isn't the smartest thing to do. It's an inexact science and there are always a bunch of surprises. You never know.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

jbulls said:


> Thank you John Paxson.


no problem, young lad


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

jbulls said:


> I hope it's true. If we could deal Duhon for an okay big like Chris Mihm I'd do it in a heartbeat. I like Du, but the reality is that there are only substantial minutes to be had for 3 guards on this team. I think trading Duhon for Mihm (and the Lakers NEED a point guard, need to develop Andrew Bynum, and had to be encouraged by Kwame Brown's performance late in the season), signing Al Harrington or Drew Gooden and drafting Brandon Roy would be pretty darn smart. Then we could go with somebody out of the Hilton Armstrong/Shelden Williams/Cedric Simmons group with the 16th pick.


Except if Roy turns out to be Shane Battier as an SG and either Thomas or Bargnani bust out into major stars. Then we'd just look damn stupid.

I see a lot of posts here, mostly in regard to other teams, that they can't wait for a player to develop and need a vet. But my take on the draft is pretty different. I think most players who are really going to be top echelon players don't need a lot of time. Maybe a year, and typically it's pretty evident right away when a guy is going to be very good. Obviously a guy like Elton Brand is a lot better than when he came into the league, but he was still pretty good immediately.

Even guys straight from high school like Kobe and Amare were very good by their second year. Vince Carter famously complained about the Raptors drafting Chris Bosh, but he averaged 17 and 9 in his second year. Point is, if a guy is going to be good, it's not like we'll have to wait around forever for it. I actually can't think of any really good players that didn't become really good really quick. I'm sure there are a few, but just off the top of my head I'm not finding many. And the ones I do are guys who were picked much later or not at all (Ben Wallace, Manu, etc). Usually guys at the top of the draft pan out quickly or don't become stars. I can think of Chauncy Billups as maybe the exception to this rule, but it seems much more common for a guy to get it going quickly than to take several years.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Except if Roy turns out to be Shane Battier as an SG and either Thomas or Bargnani bust out into major stars. Then we'd just look damn stupid.
> 
> I see a lot of posts here, mostly in regard to other teams, that they can't wait for a player to develop and need a vet. But my take on the draft is pretty different. I think most players who are really going to be top echelon players don't need a lot of time. Maybe a year, and typically it's pretty evident right away when a guy is going to be very good. Obviously a guy like Elton Brand is a lot better than when he came into the league, but he was still pretty good immediately.
> 
> Even guys straight from high school like Kobe and Amare were very good by their second year. Vince Carter famously complained about the Raptors drafting Chris Bosh, but he averaged 17 and 9 in his second year. Point is, if a guy is going to be good, it's not like we'll have to wait around forever for it. I actually can't think of any really good players that didn't become really good really quick. I'm sure there are a few, but just off the top of my head I'm not finding many. And the ones I do are guys who were picked much later or not at all (Ben Wallace, Manu, etc). Usually guys at the top of the draft pan out quickly or don't become stars. I can think of Chauncy Billups as maybe the exception to this rule, but it seems much more common for a guy to get it going quickly than to take several years.


On the topic of Chauncey Billups, John Hollinger wrote a very interesting article for ESPN Insider called "The Second Draft." His point was that, in the past, a team could usually tell whether a player was good or not by his third year because most players spent 4 years in college and by 25 were a finished product. However, when players started coming out of high school, this rule changed. Some players struggled or were stuck behind veterans and thus were not finished products after 3 years. Smart teams could take advantage of this by trading or signing for these players in a sort of second draft-- Jermaine O'Neal and Boris Diaw are two examples of players who weren't immediately good, but were acquired by smart teams and blossomed. Drew Gooden is another example of a player who was traded twice within his first two years and eventually found his niche. 

(I'm not truly addressing or refuting your point. I actually agree with you-- what I posted is more of a complement to your post.)


----------



## NeTs15VC (Aug 16, 2005)

I heard Duhon for Mihm trade, forgot where the link is, can anyone help me out?


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

transplant said:


> Fair questions.
> 
> Part of the answer may be found in comparing how highly PaxSkiles value players versus how the rest of the league's GMs value Bulls' players. Though there are a lot of jokes about it on this board, it's likely true that PaxSkiles value what has come to be known here as "jib" more highly than most. PaxSkiles also place a high value on defensive willingness and ability (two different things). Tim Thomas is as good an example as you can find. While I doubt TT will get anything near a max contract, PaxSkiles didn't want him at any price.
> 
> ...


OK, I'm new here. What exactly is JIB? Nice post btw, but I couldn't follow it all due to not knowing what JIB is. lol


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> OK, I'm new here. What exactly is JIB? Nice post btw, but I couldn't follow it all due to not knowing what JIB is. lol


JIB means not wearing your hair in rows, having your shirt tucked in, and turning off your cell phone in the locker room.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

I really think that Duhon should have a lot more value than some people might think.

Look at the number of NBA teams that have nothing that resembles a competent PG.I figure that between a third and one half of the teams in the NBa don't have a pg that is better than Duhon.That may seem sad to many of you,but I think it's an accurate statement.It also seems to me that Duhon plays better when he gets more minutes so if you gave him starters' minutes I believe he'd likely start to shoot more consistently and if Duhon could shoot consistently he'd be an upper tier pointguard who would greatly improve lots of teams like Cleveland,Atlanta,Memphis,the Lakers etc.

Then you look at the market.You have Jason Terry,Mike James(player option),Speedy Claxton,Sam Cassell and Bobby Jackson in free agency.Aside from Duhon you have Brevin Knight available at the right price through trade.I like Speedy Claxton a lot as a backup,but I don't think he's necessarily better than Duhon and Chris doesn't have the same flaws that Speedy does(too many turnovers and too much looking for his own shot IMO).Then the best PG's available in the draft are Marcus Williams and Kyle Lowry.People are saying that the Hawks may take Williams with the 5th pick and personally I don't believe he is going to be as good as Duhon is now.Any way you look at it there are perhaps a dozen or more teams that need a pg and not more three or maybe four better pgs available.In fact it's possible that Terry,Cassell and CLaxton all return to their current teams


----------



## Mark_R (May 1, 2006)

If Pax really fell in love with Brandon Roy, wouldn't it be within the realm of possibility for him to trade down and grab him at four or five? I could easily see Portland or Atlanta giving up their pick, and their second rounder to draft a couple spots higher. Portland to land Morrison ahead of the Bobcats (although that could fail if Bick really loves Roy, too...) 

There will be some quality (Euro) talent at the top of the second round who may have signing issues or guys that will fall for whatever reason. Happens all the time.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

If pax wastes the pick on ROY (not that he's a bad player, but.....), then he better hit a home run for gordon, or he's gonna look like the last of the ***-holes.

Another poster summed up my feelings on Roy exactly. When I see him, I get feelings of Shane Battier all over again. And we'd look foolish replacing Gordon with the SG equivalent of Battier.


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

The Krakken said:


> If pax wastes the pick on ROY (not that he's a bad player, but.....), then he better hit a home run for gordon, or he's gonna look like the last of the ***-holes.
> 
> Another poster summed up my feelings on Roy exactly. When I see him, I get feelings of Shane Battier all over again. And we'd look foolish replacing Gordon with the SG equivalent of Battier.


I see a player with a Battier _mentality_, but with better athleticism, court vision and a much bigger chance of becoming a star in the league. By mentality, I mean a player who constantly works hard to be better, and a player who will get his teammates involved.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> And we'd look foolish *replacing Gordon* with the SG equivalent of Battier.


People are getting ahead of themselves, drafting Roy doesn't automatically mean we're trading Gordon.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

step said:


> People are getting ahead of themselves, drafting Roy doesn't automatically mean we're trading Gordon.


Production from the wings is not our biggest problem. So if we draft another guard, it had better be an upgrade, and we had better be shipping out the replaced player.

Or else its Marcus Fizer all over again.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Production from the wings is not our biggest problem. So if we draft another guard, it had better be an upgrade, and we had better be shipping out the replaced player.


Look at our guard rotation, who do we have to turn to when Gordon is having an off night. Pargo, that's enough said right there.
Then there is the issue of Duhon and his back, an area which usually plagues players throughout their career, just take a look at McGrady. Then there is the rumours that we're shopping him, who do we have as the replacement, Pargo yet again.

Roy is also capable of running the point, which makes him a valuable backup not only to Goron but Hinrich aswell.


> Or else its Marcus Fizer all over again.


Only if you're the biggest Pargo fan on the planet.


----------



## smARTmouf (Jul 16, 2002)

I do not want to draft a BACK UP @ 2

It's quite simple IMO.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> I do not want to draft a BACK UP @ 2
> 
> It's quite simple IMO.


As opposed to a backup at the 4 or if you push it, 5.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

step said:


> Look at our guard rotation, who do we have to turn to when Gordon is having an off night. Pargo, that's enough said right there.
> Then there is the issue of Duhon and his back, an area which usually plagues players throughout their career, just take a look at McGrady. Then there is the rumours that we're shopping him, who do we have as the replacement, Pargo yet again.


Upgrading pargo can be done in FA....or is it a foregone conclusion that we HAVE to ONLY target big in FA this summer?



> Roy is also capable of running the point, which makes him a valuable backup not only to Goron but Hinrich aswell.


But who says he's okay being a backup? And who says he'll fit here? And who says ANY of the FA big men will sign here after the draft? And who says the NY 07 pick will be worth anything? It could be #15 and we could be #16 making the pick worthless. I'm in the camp that you need to hit as big a HR as possible with a top 3 pick. If he isn't, then you don't draft him.

The last 4 times we tried to do anything else other than that with those high picks, we ended up with: Fizer, Crawford, Curry, Chandler. Ugh.....

Reguarding FA and NBA draft '07, there's an old saying about counting chickens before they hatch.



> Only if you're the biggest Pargo fan on the planet.


I'm actually in the "Pargo makes me reach for sharp objects" club.....in fact, I'm the only member enrolled twice.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

step said:


> As opposed to a backup at the 4 or if you push it, 5.


I'm with SmartMouf. I'll also add that unless we are CERTAIN of this guys superstar potential, then its just as risky to take him because he's "safe" when he's not needed NEARLY as bad as the guys on the frontline. IMHO, the only guys that have superstar potential in this draft are:

Gay
Bargnani
Thomas
.
.
.
Roy
Morrison
Aldridge

*In that order* and with that gap there intentionally to show the separation in RAW talent that makes the potential evident.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Upgrading pargo can be done in FA....or is it a foregone conclusion that we HAVE to ONLY target big in FA this summer?


It's not a forgone conclusion, but have you seen the FA class in terms of 2 guards? The total amount available can be counted on one hand. Most of those are most likely going to stay with their teams and have bigger roles than they would have here.


> And who says ANY of the FA big men will sign here after the draft?


If we're unable to sign any FA then we're in for a whole lot of trouble. No matter who we draft, we're screwed. 


> And who says the NY 07 pick will be worth anything?


Never even mentioned anything regarding 07, so why bring it up.


> I'm in the camp that you need to hit as big a HR as possible with a top 3 pick. If he isn't, then you don't draft him.


And who's to say he isn't one? Everyone is after a superstar like Wade, but even he wasn't labeled one in the draft.


> The last 4 times we tried to do anything else other than that with those high picks, we ended up with: Fizer, Crawford, Curry, Chandler. Ugh.....


So all of Paxson's draftee's were attempts at hitting a home run, ok then. 


> Reguarding FA and NBA draft '07, there's an old saying about counting chickens before they hatch.


Again if we're unable to sign any worthwhile FA's or fill the void via a trade, we're royally screwed no matter who we draft.


> I'll also add that unless we are CERTAIN of this guys superstar potential, then its just as risky to take him because he's "safe" when he's not needed NEARLY as bad as the guys on the frontline.


We could draft Thomas, Bargnani or Aldridge just because of our glaring need and miss out on the next Wade type player of the draft. And noone is certain of anyones superstar potential, because there are no sure picks in this draft.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> JIB means not wearing your hair in rows, having your shirt tucked in, and turning off your cell phone in the locker room.


oh, stop it.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

step said:


> It's not a forgone conclusion, but have you seen the FA class in terms of 2 guards? The total amount available can be counted on one hand. Most of those are most likely going to stay with their teams and have bigger roles than they would have here.


The same COULD be said of the bigs.



> If we're unable to sign any FA then we're in for a whole lot of trouble. No matter who we draft, we're screwed.


So why damn us even further? There are degrees of being screwed..... 



> Never even mentioned anything regarding 07, so why bring it up.


Because the prevailing argument, even if you didn't make it seems to be that we can address our needs for big man TALENT in next years draft, while we are just looking for stopgaps in FA this season.



> And who's to say he isn't one? Everyone is after a superstar like Wade, but even he wasn't labeled one in the draft.


I see little in common between Wade and Roy, even though people keep trying to make that connection. I'm not saying he isn't one. I'm saying he's a longer shot to become one.



> So all of Paxson's draftee's were attempts at hitting a home run, ok then.


Paxson has only had one pick in the top 3....and IMHO, considering the players available, it was in fact a home run. Don't know where the rest of his picks affect my statement since I clarified with "top 3".... 



> [Again if we're unable to sign any worthwhile FA's or fill the void via a trade, we're royally screwed no matter who we draft.


And again, there are varying degrees of screwed.



> We could draft Thomas, Bargnani or Aldridge just because of our glaring need and miss out on the next Wade type player of the draft. And noone is certain of anyones superstar potential, because there are no sure picks in this draft.


Who says there are any wade type players in this draft? And who says its Roy? Again, despite peoples insistence on making that connection, the only connection I see between them is that Roy is a SG coming out of college after a couple years of seasoning. But then, the same could be said of Allen Ray. :raised_ey


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Can someone name the teams that Duhan would start as a PG. I mean we are talking about trading him and our 16th pick for like the 5th or 6th pick. Dont get me wrong i like having Duhan on the bulls and he is a very solid backup point guard but he is a career backup PG. If a team is going to trade away Brandon Roy for the 16 pick and Duhan then i would expect that Duhan is part of the trade to be a strarter and i just dont see who he could start for.

david


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

giusd said:


> Can someone name the teams that Duhan would start as a PG. I mean we are talking about trading him and our 16th pick for like the 5th or 6th pick. Dont get me wrong i like having Duhan on the bulls and he is a very solid backup point guard but he is a career backup PG. If a team is going to trade away Brandon Roy for the 16 pick and Duhan then i would expect that Duhan is part of the trade to be a strarter and i just dont see who he could start for.
> 
> david


I think he'd make a great deal of sense for some teams, and is a nice little player. I like Duhon as a third guard - just not on a team like ours where the two starters are 6' 2'' and 6' 3''. I think Duhon for Chris Mihm makes a world of sense for the Lakers and the Bulls. I think he could help Toronto. Possibly Houston. Atlanta. New York. Maybe Cleveland. In the right situation he's valuable as an Eric Snow or Derek Fisher type player.

I don't think Duhon plus the 16th pick moves you up to the mid lottery though. That's a little nutty.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

Cleveland fan here. Do you guys not view Duhon as a starting quality point guard? He's obviously better than what we have right now (Eric Snow's lack of shooting ability kills us), but is he best suited off the bench? I haven't seen him play very much. Are there any players that you would compare him to, as far as style and quality of game?


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Brandname said:


> Cleveland fan here. Do you guys not view Duhon as a starting quality point guard? He's obviously better than what we have right now (Eric Snow's lack of shooting ability kills us), but is he best suited off the bench? I haven't seen him play very much. Are there any players that you would compare him to, as far as style and quality of game?


he's probably a BETTER version of eric snow..and he can hit the 3.....great young floor general...makes smart decisions...reall good defender too


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

The ROY said:


> he's probably a BETTER version of eric snow..and he can hit the 3.....great young floor general...makes smart decisions...reall good defender too


Is he good enough to be a full time starter?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Brandname said:


> Is he good enough to be a full time starter?



absolutely. Pairing him with Lebron would only make him better too. He is really good at running the offense and distributing the ball, a solid defender, if there is any knock on him it would be his shot but that has improved greatly too.

I think Duhon would start for Cleveland, Toronto assuming they don't re-up Mike James, and probably 2 or 3 other teams I can't think of off the top of my head.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

He's the only bulls guard that takes it to the hole without getting his layups blocked 75% of the time.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> JIB means not wearing your hair in rows, having your shirt tucked in, and turning off your cell phone in the locker room.


This being the problem with "jib". 

Some define it this way as a means to insult management's rumored dictatorial style and harshly limiting player preferences grounded in a fear of individuality. Others define it as a complimentary term referring to dedicated, two-way, tough, hard working, intelligent, unselfish team basketball having nothing to do with appearance or bootlicky-ness. 

So, when reading a post using the term "jib" one must consider the poster in determining how the term is being used.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> This being the problem with "jib".
> 
> Some define it this way as a means to insult management's rumored dictatorial style and harshly limiting player preferences grounded in a fear of individuality. Others define it as a complimentary term referring to dedicated, two-way, tough, hard working, intelligent, unselfish team basketball having nothing to do with appearance or bootlicky-ness.
> 
> So, when reading a post using the term "jib" one must consider the poster in determining how the term is being used.


Those things I mentioned are absolute fact and true. They set the tone for what "jib" as we have defined it has become.

You might also consider WHO it was that came up with the term jib in the first place before it was co-opted.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Those things I mentioned are absolute fact and true. They set the tone for what "jib" as we have defined it has become.
> 
> You might also consider WHO it was that came up with the term jib in the first place before it was co-opted.


Your definition is fine, has a rich and storied history on the board, and is grounded in the origins of "jib's" use just as you have described. 

I just know some of us use the term differently. The poster asked what it means. It means different things to different people on this board.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> Your definition is fine, has a rich and storied history on the board, and is grounded in the origins of "jib's" use just as you have described.
> 
> I just know some of us use the term differently. The poster asked what it means. It means different things to different people on this board.



I absolutely agree with this. For me, JIB is exactly as Ron "The Penguin" Cey described it. I also acknowledge that there is another connotation frequently used on this board. There's no "right way" to define it.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong here, but Duhon can't be moved prior to august 15th (without his permission) and he can't be traded to Toronto at all. After August 15th, he can be traded outright. One question I have is: after the 15th of August, can he be traded to Toronto?


I've just been skimming this thread again, and I came upon this post, which I missed the first time around. This is what trade checker says right now when you try to trade Duhon. Let's also consider that the kid just had back surgery. He's not too easy to trade right now, folks.


----------

