# Sam Smith : Bulls should deal No. 2 pick for Sonics' Allen



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

> And in a version of the old switcheroo I proposed earlier this season, here's the master blueprint for the Bulls to win the Eastern Conference next season. (And if you've been watching the conference finals, it may not take that much.)
> 
> But now this plan takes on a different dimension with the Bulls having the No. 2 pick in the draft. There are many who believe the Bulls should take Brandon Roy, the University of Washington shooting guard. And it makes sense, assuming he is the defensive big guard the Bulls want.
> 
> ...


http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...mith,1,6441224.column?coll=cs-bulls-headlines


----------



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

Sam is on crack. Freeking dumbest idea yet. You give up 2, 16 and it's got being something better than Sweetney to get another 2 guard that will cut Ben's time in half. Ben Gordon and Allen in the same backcourt at the same time, yeahhh right. If you lose your cap space, both picks, you better come away with a big man, considering that is the biggest need we have. 

I like Ray Allen but the value isn't there for the Bulls. It would almost be like trading away 2 future allstar players to shed Ron Mercer and be left with Jalen and his deal.


----------



## Ghost (Jun 21, 2002)

I don't think the sonics would ever do that deal, because there aren't many "Superstar quality players" in this draft. The only ones I see are Marcus Williams and Brandon Roy.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Ray Allen is a little girl


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

He's also 31. Only player I do that kind of deal for is Kobe.


----------



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

Ghost said:


> I don't think the sonics would ever do that deal, because there aren't many "Superstar quality players" in this draft. The only ones I see are Marcus Williams and Brandon Roy.


I gotta ask, when did Allen become a supestar? Don't you have to win something to be a superstar?


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

I think I would rather sleep on a bed with a quilt adorned with Mike Sweetney's unwashed jockstraps from every practise and every game of the season ...rather than trade #2 for Raylette 

But hey..that's just me


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

If Ray was say 25 I'd be all for it. He's a great shooter and a class act, but as previously stated, we already are pretty stocked up on guards. With the current conditions, I definitely wouldn't go for that trade, as much as I like Allen.


----------



## mg06 (Apr 9, 2006)

L.O.B said:


> I gotta ask, when did Allen become a supestar? Don't you have to win something to be a superstar?


Exactly, that's why Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Patrick Ewing, Dominique Wilkins, Gary Payton and others are not superstars...
.
.
.
right?...
.
.
.
right?...
.
.
.
NOT!!!


----------



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

mg06 said:


> Exactly, that's why Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Patrick Ewing, Dominique Wilkins, Gary Payton and others are not superstars...
> .
> .
> .
> ...


Are you saying that Allen is in their league as a player? I like Allen's game but what does he do other than shoot the ball well compared to his peers?


----------



## beaniemac (May 4, 2006)

dsouljah9 said:


> He's also 31. Only player I do that kind of deal for is Kobe.


I wouldn't mind doing that kind of deal for a player like paul pierce either. since he's only 28. but if they are insistant on getting a big guard via trade, I say the bulls go after maggette as was mentioned earlier on this board.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

L.O.B said:


> Sam is on crack.


 :biggrin:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Only in combination with another consolidation trade to bring us an all-star level big man as well. 

We were one Ray Allen/PP trade away from getting to the Eastern Conference Finals going into last offseason, IMO. Now, we’re two trades away, and one of those has to be for always hard to land big man.


----------



## Plush4life (May 26, 2006)

no.2 plus sweetney for ray? 
'I would absolutely do it!!! < But thats cause he has been my 'main"main"' man for awhile

What are you getting ?18-20 pts a game plus leadership, for a solid 4...maybe 6-7 more years.

This is just because Ray Allen is one of my favorites. Class act, Amazing shooter, great leader!!!

Need to win to be a superstar? What do you need to win? A playoff game? Allen was loyal to milwaukee till they traded him. 

You must be speaking of a championship..well then.. mcgrady, garnett, Carmelo, Iverson, lebron arent superstars either then....

As much as I love Ray, wouldnt be the BEST move for the bulls, maybe R.Lewis (unless hes free) and their draft pick..?

p.s I just watched Wade sprawl on the floor for attention..again.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Given his adverse reaction to playing defense, Allen is only a mild upgrade over gordon, and after next season, he may not be an upgrade at all.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Sonics get screwed in this deal. If the Sonics were in salary cap hell, it'd be another story. 

Plus it makes resigning the young guys more difficult for the Bulls.


----------



## Mark_R (May 1, 2006)

I'd like to see if there is a way we could pry Swift from the Sonics if a deal were to go down.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Pippenatorade: Chicago should deal Sam Smith for one of the cast members of "The Ringer"


----------



## animalthugism (Aug 23, 2005)

My main dislikes to a deal like this is whether or not Allen could buy-in to a Skilesatorian type system where much will be demanded of him


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

we don't even NEEEEED ray allen...this is why I wish Sam Smith would just relocate..tha majority of his column's are HORRID at best


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

How long before the next Garnett proposal???  Or better yet, how about Chandler, Gordon, Deng, Duhon & the 2 first round picks for Kenyon Martin!
:rofl:



Scroll down to see a rare photo showing Sam Smith hard at work searching for new trade ideas!


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Bulls4Life said:


> How long before the next Garnett proposal???  Or better yet, how about Chandler, Gordon, Deng, Duhon & the 2 first round picks for Kenyon Martin!
> :rofl:
> 
> 
> ...


You have to admire Sam. Who else gets paid so much to look at NBA rosters without regard to the CBA and yell out trade ideas. He's like a kid who never stopped walking around saying stuff like "I'll give you two Jerome Walton rookies for a Roger Clemens gold card" and now he's getting paid. 

Logical conclusion? Sam Smith married the daughter of one of the Tribune's board members.


----------



## Jello Biafra (Jan 6, 2006)

2 pick only for Allen. Draft a big with 16 (S. Williams, Splitter, O'Bryant, Armstrong, Davis, Augustine). Sign Pryzbilla/Nazr. That would improve the Bulls.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I actually like Ray Allen. But I wouldn't do that trade.

What is so difficult to understand about needing to walk away from this draft/free agency with size? To me, this seems an elementary concept. 

It is, in part, why drafting Brandon Roy would be a mistake. The closest thing I'm willing to support that doesn't ideally fit a team need is taking a flyer on Gay since he is so long, athletic and has such an incredible physical upside. But thats it. And even that is draft option #4 in my book. 

And we need size that we can control - not whatever size simply happens to be available at pick #16. 

I'm flabergasted by all the theories and proposals that have us taking a guard, trading down to take a guard, or trading directly for a veteran guard. It is a "in an ideal world our roster would have this" type of need. Not a critical need. Size and athleticism are the critical needs. 

If we walk away from this draft with Brandon Roy, Ray Allen, Jason Richardson or any other such nonsense as the primary asset, I'm going to break something, slash Paxson's tires, and go on a 3 day bender.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> What is so difficult to understand about needing to walk away from this draft/free agency with size? To me, this seems an elementary concept.
> It is, in part, why drafting Brandon Roy would be a mistake. The closest thing I'm willing to support that doesn't ideally fit a team need is taking a flyer on Gay since he is so long, athletic and has such an incredible physical upside. But thats it. And even that is draft option #4 in my book.
> *And we need size that we can control - not whatever size simply happens to be available at pick #16. * I'm flabergasted by all the theories and proposals that have us taking a guard, trading down to take a guard, or trading directly for a veteran guard. It is a "in an ideal world our roster would have this" type of need. Not a critical need. Size and athleticism are the critical needs.
> 
> If we walk away from this draft with Brandon Roy, Ray Allen, Jason Richardson or any other such nonsense as the primary asset, I'm going to break something, slash Paxson's tires, and go on a 3 day bender.


could you repost this in all caps so the "pundits" with several thousand posts can read and digest this? there is NO GUARD to be reasonably acquired that will help the bull more than quality bigs. it seems there are those who'd like to go the opposite of this direction, which in the most sane of observations, would be a total regression. 

fortunately for all fans concerned, i don't think pax has any intention of going with a guard with the #2 pick; allen, roy, iverson and any other guard in the immediate vicinity will be acquired AFTER a big player is acquired, by any means necessary. and for those who don't believe; i'll state this with confidence; bargnani *will not* be a bull. succinctly put, he's too much of an unknown quantity for the bull to gamble, and pax hasn't given any indications he's ready to be a gambler in this particular draft, and i don't blame him. in other words, if it's not your pitch, don't try to swing for the fences; get on base and drive someone home.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Why on earth would the Sonics do this deal? They've got players on the end of their bench who are better than whoever would be at number 2.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

futuristxen said:


> Why on earth would the Sonics do this deal? They've got players on the end of their bench who are better than whoever would be at number 2.


Hard to believe they only won 35 games.


----------



## Jello Biafra (Jan 6, 2006)

Ron Cey said:


> I actually like Ray Allen. But I wouldn't do that trade.
> 
> What is so difficult to understand about needing to walk away from this draft/free agency with size? To me, this seems an elementary concept.
> 
> ...


Boris Diaw plays center for the 3rd best team in the league. Spread the floor. Drive and kick. Up tempo. Shoot well. The new solution. Get guys who can play ball. Portland needed size in '84 too.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Jello Biafra said:


> Boris Diaw plays center for the 3rd best team in the league. Spread the floor. Drive and kick. Up tempo. Shoot well. The new solution. Get guys who can play ball. Portland needed size in '84 too.


I hear ya. But the thing is, we already have Ben Gordon who can spread the floor, drive and kick, go up tempo, and shoot well. We don't lack for these things.

As for Phoenix, I don't consider them to be the 3rd best team in the league and I don't want to emulate their style of play. Their style of play is Steve Nash - who is unique. You can't just plug in anyone to the point and make that system work. You take him off that team, and they might not make the playoffs and they definitely get beat in Round 1. 

No guards. Not for the #2 pick, be it used or traded.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Ron Cey said:


> I actually like Ray Allen. But I wouldn't do that trade.
> 
> What is so difficult to understand about needing to walk away from this draft/free agency with size? To me, this seems an elementary concept.
> 
> ...


Completely agree with your post here, Ron. It's fantasy GM'ing gone haywire. Or, as Phil Jackson may put it, way too much mental masturbation.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Jello Biafra said:


> Portland needed size in '84 too.


And Jello, this is of course a good point. But Roy ain't that guy, I doubt. And Allen/Richardson/other shooting guard ain't either, I'm certain. 

Gay, on the other hand, might be (not Jordanesque obviously, but a "wow" player). That is why I back him as an option at #2.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

futuristxen said:


> Why on earth would the Sonics do this deal? They've got players on the end of their bench who are better than whoever would be at number 2.


LMAO

um...like WHO!?


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Ron Cey said:


> I actually like Ray Allen. But I wouldn't do that trade.
> 
> What is so difficult to understand about needing to walk away from this draft/free agency with size? To me, this seems an elementary concept.
> 
> ...


POST OF THE YEAR!


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

The ROY said:


> POST OF THE YEAR!


Thanks. I'd like to clarify one point though. The 3 day bender would most likely *precede* the breaking of things and slashing of Paxson's tires. Not the other way around.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The Bulls need size at the 2 as well.

Need #1 is a competent big man. (hopefully all-star or close to all-star level if the #2 pick is used)
Need #2 is an all-star or close to all-star level NBA starting two guard.

If you don't think you can get #1 done with the #2 pick in the draft, and you think Roy or Gay can fulfill #2, I have no problem with going that route.

Consolidate or use Cap Space to get a big man. If Thomas is a big, athletic 3 (ala Josh Smith) then it really comes down to Aldridge for our beef in the paint player if we're going the draft route anyway, and I'm not really impressed with him.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> The Bulls need size at the 2 as well.
> 
> Need #1 is a competent big man. (hopefully all-star or close to all-star level if the #2 pick is used)
> Need #2 is an all-star or close to all-star level NBA starting two guard.
> ...


With the caveat that I think we had the same needs in 2004, I agree that we need an all-star or near all-star big man, and we need an all-star or near all-star tall 2 guard, who is a ballhawk on D.

Like you, I don't care how we do it -- draft, trade, FA. Just do it.


----------



## TRON (Feb 29, 2004)

you guys have a great young backcourt, but it's time to all that consolidate talent....
(Duhon, Gordon, Hienrich, Deng, Nocioni)

Hienrich, Allen, Nocioni = much more balanced backcourt IMO


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

it's funny...cuz any other year in the draft...roy probably wouldn't even be top 10.......

why EXACTLY do we need an allstar guard when we potentially have two on the roster already?

we need size...size and MORE size...

Chandler/Songalia/Allen/Sweetney/Schencher = TELLS U EXACTLY WHERE U NEED TO AIM YOUR PICKS AND FA MONEY


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The ROY said:


> we need size...size and MORE size...


At the 2 as well.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> At the 2 as well.


I agree....but a #2 pick for a postion that isn't SUFFERING? I wouldn't do it.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> With the caveat that I think we had the same needs in 2004, I agree that we need an all-star or near all-star big man, and we need an all-star or near all-star tall 2 guard, who is a ballhawk on D.


We agree.

I also think it would be a poor decision to trade Ben Gordon, who isn't the all-league 2 guard that is described above, he’s merely good to very good, for scrap.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> We agree.


Man, that felt good.

:cowboy:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Man, that felt good.
> 
> :cowboy:


So happy together....


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

(written by Flo & Eddie -- later regulars of Frank Zappa's bands).


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Just to play the devil's advocate, I don't think it's like completely ridiculous to advocate taking a guard. I don't want Ray Allen given his age and salary, but for the right guy I wouldn't be opposed.

Why?

None of the bigs who look to be available at #2 appear to be sure things. And in free agency there are several guys who appear to fill our need for bigs... to some extent at least. Chandler's going nowhere, and Songaila probably isn't either. We sign up Pryzbilla and Gooden or Harrington to significant contracts and we're looking at most of the need filled. Those guys don't look like stars or anything, but given the uncertainty about the potential draft picks, it's not clear we're passing up stars there. So if the Bulls really fall in love with one of the smaller guys, then they've got a fallback plan. They just better be sure they're right and they don't pass up a good big for a good little.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> Hard to believe they only won 35 games.


That's how bad this draft is.
I was less saying how great the sonics bench is, and more saying how crap the second pick of his draft is. If you're lucky the guy won't be a complete bust, but the smart money is on whoever it is, never justifying a number 2 pick. Marcus Fizer is better than whoever they end up picking. That's the kind of draft this is.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Oh and it'd be retarded for the Bulls to draft a big guy just because when there are plenty of better big men on the free agent market this summer. This draft has decent two guards with size that the Bulls should be trading down to get. If you draft a two, and then trade Gordon for an all-star level big(like an Illgauskas) then you've done better than simply taking Aldridge. Anyone that thinks the Bulls would just get a two and then stop isn't giving Paxson much credit.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> Marcus Fizer is better than whoever they end up picking. That's the kind of draft this is.


Wow, an NBDL player is better than the 2nd pick in the draft? We better trade that pick for Nick Collison right away!


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

rwj333 said:


> Wow, an NBDL player is better than the 2nd pick in the draft? We better trade that pick for Nick Collison right away!


dude STAY saying dumb ish.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

The ROY said:


> dude STAY saying dumb ish.


I've read this sentence 5 times and I still don't know what it means.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> That's how bad this draft is.
> I was less saying how great the sonics bench is, and more saying how crap the second pick of his draft is. If you're lucky the guy won't be a complete bust, but the smart money is on whoever it is, never justifying a number 2 pick. Marcus Fizer is better than whoever they end up picking. That's the kind of draft this is.


Okay, just looking at the prospects involved, how could this draft possibly be worse that the 2000 draft, if that's what you're saying. Darius Miles? Stromile Swift? Marcus Fizer? I see no prospects in this draft that putrid, and I'm not speaking in hindsight.


----------



## Ragingbull33 (Apr 10, 2005)

i just dont get it, it is widely known that sam smith has zero basketball knowlegde and yet the tribune continues to pay his salary, it is one of the biggest mysteries ever, he is a complete moron.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I agree raging Bull, I keep saying they should fire Smith and hire me! I'd even take a lower salary.

On the draft, with the #2 pick in the 2007 NBA draft, the Chicago Bulls select, the BEST PLAYER AVAILABLE. With a #2 pick you ALWAYS go best player available, doing anything less would be idiotic. Obviously you might slightly weight big men a little more since they ARE a need. But if Pax thinks Roy is the next Jason Richardson & Aldridge is the next Joe Smith he would be foolish as hell to take Aldridge just because we need size. I don't think that is the case and I firmly expect that we will land one of Aldridge, Thomas, or Bargnani with the #2 pick. Still, I will leave that up to Pax's discretion. He has done pretty well in the draft so far and if he doesn't select a big I have to believe there is a good reason. It's true I would be frowning if he picked Morrison but maybe he will be better than I expect? In any case....best player available..say it with me.

At 16 we can gamble for what we need. If we took a big at 2 we can go for a big guard. If we take a sg at 2 we can go after a big at 16. Or, if we see a player we really like that plays ANY position still on the board we should absolutely draft him. Remember guys we have a lot of options in free agency this year too so don't freak out if we somehow don't add size in the draft.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> I agree raging Bull, I keep saying they should fire Smith and hire me! I'd even take a lower salary.
> 
> On the draft, with the #2 pick in the 2007 NBA draft, the Chicago Bulls select, the BEST PLAYER AVAILABLE. With a #2 pick you ALWAYS go best player available, doing anything less would be idiotic. Obviously you might slightly weight big men a little more since they ARE a need. But if Pax thinks Roy is the next Jason Richardson & Aldridge is the next Joe Smith he would be foolish as hell to take Aldridge just because we need size. I don't think that is the case and I firmly expect that we will land one of Aldridge, Thomas, or Bargnani with the #2 pick. Still, I will leave that up to Pax's discretion. He has done pretty well in the draft so far and if he doesn't select a big I have to believe there is a good reason. It's true I would be frowning if he picked Morrison but maybe he will be better than I expect? In any case....best player available..say it with me.


Atlanta was picking the best player available when they chose Marvin Williams.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> Just to play the devil's advocate, I don't think it's like completely ridiculous to advocate taking a guard. I don't want Ray Allen given his age and salary, but for the right guy I wouldn't be opposed.
> 
> Why?
> 
> None of the bigs who look to be available at #2 appear to be sure things. And in free agency there are several guys who appear to fill our need for bigs... to some extent at least. Chandler's going nowhere, and Songaila probably isn't either. We sign up Pryzbilla and Gooden or Harrington to significant contracts and we're looking at most of the need filled. Those guys don't look like stars or anything, but given the uncertainty about the potential draft picks, it's not clear we're passing up stars there. So if the Bulls really fall in love with one of the smaller guys, then they've got a fallback plan. They just better be sure they're right and they don't pass up a good big for a good little.


The only problem with that otherwise sound theory is that these players play on other teams and getting the desired mix of bigs through free agency is a risk. Gooden and Nene, for example, are restricted. 

I'm positive the Bulls will get solid size in free agency. But I don't know if they can get the best *mix of size* in free agency alone. Now, if they pick their preferred big in the draft, they then have more flexibility in free agency to match the right kind of size with the post-draft roster. 

I've always said that I trust Paxson with his draft picks and that I'll reserve judgment until I see them play. I've developed this theory by being completely wrong about both Gordon and Hinrich. 

But I'm not sure I'll be able to keep that level headed approach if we walk out of this draft with a 2 guard as the primary acquisition. The #2 pick must be used on a big or traded to acquire a big. (As I've noted, my only exception to this is Gay since he has the physical tools to be elite - and he is tall and athletic)

More size in the backcourt is a need. I agree. But its a need that borders on a luxury. Conversely, the interior is a desperate need and #2 pick gives the Bulls great flexibility and largely unhindered choice in selecting the type of player they want to fill that need. Free agency is an encumbered process.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> Atlanta was picking the best player available when they chose Marvin Williams.



AND? The Bulls scouting staff isn't the Hawks scouting staff. Besides, who knows how good Williams could be in a couple years? I think everyone knows he is a project.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> The only problem with that otherwise sound theory is that these players play on other teams and getting the desired mix of bigs through free agency is a risk. Gooden and Nene, for example, are restricted.
> 
> I'm positive the Bulls will get solid size in free agency. But I don't know if they can get the best *mix of size* in free agency alone. Now, if they pick their preferred big in the draft, they then have more flexibility in free agency to match the right kind of size with the post-draft roster.
> 
> ...


Let's pick Sam Bowie over Michael Jordan.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Let's pick Sam Bowie over Michael Jordan.


Thats a valid point, though something of an oversimplification based on one extreme example that took place 22 years ago. 

In any event, Brandon Roy quite simply isn't Michael Jordan (I refer to him since he's the only pure 2 guard we could theoretically draft at #2). He doesn't have the physical tools to ever be an elite player in that mold. Could he be a very good player in the Kirk Hinrich mold? Maybe make a couple Allstar teams? Sure. 

But we already have a backcourt with guys like that. 

And, please remember that I've carved out a "Rudy Gay Exception" to my demand that a big be acquired with the pick or by trading the pick. If a guy has the physical tools to be elite, like Gay does, its reasonable to select him and sacrifice filling an obvious team need.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> I agree raging Bull, I keep saying they should fire Smith and hire me! I'd even take a lower salary.
> 
> On the draft, with the #2 pick in the 2007 NBA draft, the Chicago Bulls select, the BEST PLAYER AVAILABLE. With a #2 pick you ALWAYS go best player available, doing anything less would be idiotic. Obviously you might slightly weight big men a little more since they ARE a need. But if Pax thinks Roy is the next Jason Richardson & Aldridge is the next Joe Smith he would be foolish as hell to take Aldridge just because we need size. I don't think that is the case and I firmly expect that we will land one of Aldridge, Thomas, or Bargnani with the #2 pick. Still, I will leave that up to Pax's discretion. He has done pretty well in the draft so far and if he doesn't select a big I have to believe there is a good reason. It's true I would be frowning if he picked Morrison but maybe he will be better than I expect? In any case....best player available..say it with me.
> 
> At 16 we can gamble for what we need. If we took a big at 2 we can go for a big guard. If we take a sg at 2 we can go after a big at 16. Or, if we see a player we really like that plays ANY position still on the board we should absolutely draft him. Remember guys we have a lot of options in free agency this year too so don't freak out if we somehow don't add size in the draft.


Nice logic and follows my thought process too.

Some may view this reasoning as a cop out, but we (most of us) don't have access to all the information regarding private workouts, interviews, and the like.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> Nice logic and follows my thought process too.
> 
> Some may view this reasoning as a cop out, but we (most of us) don't have access to all the information regarding private workouts, interviews, and the like.



I definitley don't think it is a cop out. Ask 30 of 30 NBA gm's whether they should fill a position of need or pick the BPA with a high lottery pick and I guarantee you 30 will tell you BPA. Sure, Jordan being passed over for need has changed the way people pick high in the draft but it is a reality right now.

And your right, I haven't seen Aldridge play in every game, I haven't seen hardly any of Bargnani and nothing of Thomas before the NCAA tourney. Scouts are watching these guys constantly. Analyzing measurements, stats, their mechanics, tapes of their games, tendencies, personailty, jib, etc... They should have a MUCH better read on who is worthwhile and who isn't than I would just from seeing a little of x player. Thats why it is really difficult to decide who the Bulls should pick, we aren't privy to a lot of information, some of it inside, some of it readily available but the purview of scouts. I wish I was an NBA scout, not a much better job in this world for an NBA fan, any teams looking for a guy to send to uzbekestan or whatever give me a call!


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> AND? The Bulls scouting staff isn't the Hawks scouting staff. Besides, who knows how good Williams could be in a couple years? I think everyone knows he is a project.


I'm just arguing that it's not always true that you must take the best player available. Marvin Williams could still turn out to be a great player, but the Hawks still made a clear mistake in not taking one of the PGs. They were 3 deep at SF and chose another one. It's an extreme example, but still.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> The only problem with that otherwise sound theory is that these players play on other teams and getting the desired mix of bigs through free agency is a risk. Gooden and Nene, for example, are restricted.
> 
> I'm positive the Bulls will get solid size in free agency. But I don't know if they can get the best *mix of size* in free agency alone. Now, if they pick their preferred big in the draft, they then have more flexibility in free agency to match the right kind of size with the post-draft roster.


That sums up why Paxson needs to go big in this draft pretty perfectly. To walk out on draft night without a big man would leave him in a desperate position. Other teams and agents would notice and it would make it much harder to get a fair deal for Nene or Gooden, one of whom we would certainly have to sign. Paxson simply can't make choices in the draft contingent on signing a restricted free agent because there's no guarantee that he actually gets him. Both the Cavs and the Nuggets are winning teams that won't let an asset leave for free.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> I'm just arguing that it's not always true that you must take the best player available. Marvin Williams could still turn out to be a great player, but the Hawks still made a clear mistake in not taking one of the PGs. They were 3 deep at SF and chose another one. It's an extreme example, but still.



Hindsight is always 20/20, obviously taking Chris Paul would have been the smart move. Still, I do think you have to draft who you think the best player available is regardless of need. Heck, maybe Williams will end up being like KG in a couple of years vindicating their pick, who knows?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> Hindsight is always 20/20, obviously taking Chris Paul would have been the smart move. *Still, I do think you have to draft who you think the best player available is regardless of need.*


I don't think it can be applied so concretely. Need must be taken into consideration in certain scenarios. I believe this draft, with these prospects, and the Bulls' current team needs has created one such scenario.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I don't think it can be applied so concretely. Need must be taken into consideration in certain scenarios. I believe this draft, with these prospects, and the Bulls' current team needs has created one such scenario.



I think it is pretty concrete when it is a top 5 pick. Obviously you might weight the big men a little more favorably since that IS a prevailing team need but yuo still go with best available. I think we are fortunate that some of the top prospects happen to be big men this year.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> I don't think it can be applied so concretely. Need must be taken into consideration in certain scenarios. I believe this draft, with these prospects, and the Bulls' current team needs has created one such scenario.


What was funny about Atlanta's pick last year, at least to me, was the Paul was clearly the best player on the board AND he filled their most desperate need, but they went with Marvin anyway. I was a huge Paul fan from the first time I saw him as a frosh at Wake Forest, though. You never know, though. Marvin looked like the real deal for brief flashes.

I'm higher than the Penguin on Brandon Roy, but I only viewed him as a candidate to be picked if we slipped down to 4 or 5. I don't expect Aldridge or Thomas to be superstars, but I like them both and think they'll be very good. Gay does have the high ceiling and could pull a Vince Carter once he gets to the NBA, and Morrison and Roy should be solid starters for whoever gets them. Still don't feel comfortable making a critique of Bargnani, though he does look like a great athlete for his size, with a nice touch. I don't think anyone in this draft is a one-of-a-kind talent like Wade or pre-injury Amare, so I'm not worried about drafting for need this year.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ViciousFlogging said:


> I'm higher than the Penguin on Brandon Roy, but I only viewed him as a candidate to be picked if we slipped down to 4 or 5.


Perhaps I should clarify. My "Brandon Roy or a trade for a shooting guard would be a disaster" position is based in part on the fact that we do have the #2 pick. 

If we had the 4th or 5th pick, and the 3 bigs were all gone, I may have very well supported a Brandon Roy pick. But, considering we do have the #2 and the opportunity to draft one of Aldridge, Thomas, or Bargs, Brandon Roy isn't an option. 

The only way he (or a trade) becomes an option is if Paxson looks at the bigs and says "Yeesh, these guys stink". Thing is, that won't happen. And Brandon Roy simply isn't good enough to make Paxson forget about his real team need.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I don't think it can be applied so concretely. Need must be taken into consideration in certain scenarios. I believe this draft, with these prospects, and the Bulls' current team needs has created one such scenario.


This is very true, but let's define things a little more. Talent being equal, of course you take the guy at the need position. But how much talent should we give up to fill a need.

And in the case of the guys in this draft, how much talent disparity is there? Suppose Roy is Kirk Hinrich as a two guard, who are Thomas, Bargnani, and Aldridge?


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Perhaps I should clarify. My "Brandon Roy or a trade for a shooting guard would be a disaster" position is based in part on the fact that we do have the #2 pick.
> 
> If we had the 4th or 5th pick, and the 3 bigs were all gone, I may have very well supported a Brandon Roy pick. But, considering we do have the #2 and the opportunity to draft one of Aldridge, Thomas, or Bargs, Brandon Roy isn't an option.
> 
> The only way he (or a trade) becomes an option is if Paxson looks at the bigs and says "Yeesh, these guys stink". Thing is, that won't happen. And Brandon Roy simply isn't good enough to make Paxson forget about his real team need.


And in this scenario I thought you rated Rudy Gay over Brandon4Roy

Hey..I just got post #69 in this thread! Phew! Touch Wood


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

All I'm saying is:

we have two well known needs this offseason -- the D lockdown tall guard and the competent center.


We have three ways to fill those needs:

The draft, at 2 and 16 (or trades of those picks)
The FA market
Trade


I don't care how we fill those needs, as long as they are filled. If we draft a guard at #2 as part of an overall plan to fill our needs, great. If we draft a big at #2 as part of a plan, great. Whatever we do with the second pick, we just better be in a position to fill our other needs as part of the plan.

Get it done. That is all I ask.

We still have the Knicks' '07 pick to put the cherry on top, but most of the sundae needs to be in place this summer.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> All I'm saying is:
> 
> we have two well known needs this offseason -- the D lockdown tall guard and the competent center.
> 
> ...


We have a 4th need: consistent go-to scorer. Someone who can score > 17 PPG.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> This is very true, but let's define things a little more. Talent being equal, of course you take the guy at the need position. But how much talent should we give up to fill a need.
> 
> And in the case of the guys in this draft, how much talent disparity is there? Suppose Roy is Kirk Hinrich as a two guard, *who are Thomas, Bargnani, and Aldridge?*


I don't know who they are. Thats for the teams drafting them to decide. None of them is a no-brainer homerun pick.

What I do know is that I don't see a significant talent disparity between Roy and those guys, but I do see a significant need disparity.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> *And in this scenario I thought you rated Rudy Gay over Brandon4Roy*
> 
> Hey..I just got post #69 in this thread! Phew! Touch Wood


I do. I rate Gay over Roy in every standard draft scenario.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> All I'm saying is:
> 
> we have two well known needs this offseason -- the D lockdown tall guard and the competent center.
> 
> ...


Thats part of the thing with my opinion, Tom. I don't care if the big guard "need" gets filled this summer or later. I'm not even convinced it really is a need. And if it is a need, I don't consider it so critical that its even part of the equation in considering what to do with the first pick.

#16? Yeah, there's the place to talk about it.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> I do. I rate Gay over Roy in every standard draft scenario.


Fair enough 

There is no denying that he is probably the best athlete in the draft ..even though Thomas and Carney have to be mighty close 

The guy has plenty of skill too

He has a genuine chance for studsville 

However.... as much as I recognise and admire his athleticism and skillset the way he shirked from the spotlight when his team need him throughout the season ( and particularly in the tourney ) bothered me 

And it wasn't about having a so so game , in a big game , it was about seriously running away from the responsibility 

He didn't want it and that bothers me


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

rwj333 said:


> Okay, just looking at the prospects involved, how could this draft possibly be worse that the 2000 draft, if that's what you're saying. Darius Miles? Stromile Swift? Marcus Fizer? I see no prospects in this draft that putrid, and I'm not speaking in hindsight.


Are you serious? Darius Miles had more potential than anyone in this draft. Marcus Fizer was more dominant in college than Aldridge. And Swift=Tyrus Thomas. Mike Miller> Gonzaga White Dude; Chris Mihm>Lamarcus Aldridge; Jamal Crawford---there's not one in this draft; Pryzbilla>every big man in the lottery of this draft. Kenyon Martin>>>>>>anyone in the lottery of this draft. Dermarr Johnson=All the guards in this draft, athletic freaks with well rounded games who don't know how to use their skills.

The best players in this draft like the last draft will be taken in the mid-to late first round.

Look at this stretch of the 2000 Draft:
C Jason Collier, Georgia Tech
Traded to Houston
16. Sacramento Kings
SF Hidayet Turkoglu, Turkey
17. Seattle SuperSonics
SF Desmond Mason, Okla. State
18. L.A. Clippers
SG Quentin Richardson, DePaul
19. Charlotte Hornets
PF Jamaal Magloire, Kentucky
20. Philadelphia 76ers
PG Speedy Claxton, Hofstra
21. Toronto Raptors
SF Morris Peterson, Michigan State

This is so much like the 2000 draft it's not even funny. Right down to the Bulls having two picks again. Paxson needs to avoid Krause's mistake, and package the picks now for something semi-decent. Like if you traded the number 2 pick for Magloire, you'd be cooking.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

I really could care less if those players were better High School or College basketball players than what we are getting in this year crop. What matters is what they accomplish when they hit the Big Leagues...


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> Are you serious? Darius Miles had more potential than anyone in this draft. Marcus Fizer was more dominant in college than Aldridge. And Swift=Tyrus Thomas. Mike Miller> Gonzaga White Dude; Chris Mihm>Lamarcus Aldridge; Jamal Crawford---there's not one in this draft; Pryzbilla>every big man in the lottery of this draft. Kenyon Martin>>>>>>anyone in the lottery of this draft. Dermarr Johnson=All the guards in this draft, athletic freaks with well rounded games who don't know how to use their skills.
> 
> The best players in this draft like the last draft will be taken in the mid-to late first round.
> 
> ...


There's no way to prove it conclusively, but I don't believe this draft is as bad as you say. Tyrus Thomas is similar to Stromile Swift, but with a burning work ethic and collegiate success. Brandon Roy is similar to Jamal Crawford, but a better defender, rebounder, and scorer. Rudy Gay is similar to Darius Miles, except he can actually shoot. The Mike Miller/Adam Morrison comparison is decent, except Adam Morrison averaged 28 points last year while Miller averaged 14 in his best season. Etc.

This draft certainly doesn't compare to the 2003 or 2004 drafts (which were two of the most loaded drafts ever) and lacks a true superstar, but in terms of total talent it's not that bad. Anyway, I suppose we should bump this thread next year?


----------

