# What does your (Bulls) draft board look like?



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Obviously it's early, but I've made my first cut at rating out the big man draft prospects, and what I see is something like this:

* 1 (tie) Oden, Durant*
_ ----------------------- Lots of distance_
* 3 Horford*
_ ----------------------- Little distance_
* 4 (tie) Wright, Noah, Hansbrough, Splitter*
_ ----------------------- Lots off distance_
* 8 (tie) Jason Smith, Hibbert*
_ ----------------------- Little distance_
* 10 (tie) Hawes, Gray, Yi, Fazekas*

So that's 13 guys, and we're likely to draft 13 or higher. Plus you figure in a few guys like Brewer, Law, and Thornton might work their way up the board, so even if a couple guys fall out and return to school, someone will be there. Maybe one of the guys I've got rated higher than where we actually pick.

Obviously these are sort of rough rankings. At this point I don't see that it's worth breaking the ties. I mean, obviously, based on size, I'd probably take a guy like Noah or Splitter over Hansbrough, but I think I might well take Hansbrough on my overall opinion of him as a quality player than reach on Hibbert or Hawes just because they're seven feet tall.. 

I do think, however, that there's a pretty significant drop off after the top 7. I'm pretty comfortable that all of those guys will be good pro players at the very least. Starting with #8 and moving down, I think they're all potentially good players but all potential busts as well. A guy like Smith or Fazekas, to me, could be a Brad Miller or Jamaal Magloire type you find later in the draft, and a guy like Hawes could just plain not be that good.

I view Oden and Durant as pretty much sure things to be very good players. Horford is probably a sure thing to at least be a starting quality player within a year, though I don't know how good he ultimately becomes.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

*Re: What's your draft board look like?*

I'd like to see Paxson package and move the pick for a suitable veteran unless theres a can't miss prospect out there.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: What's your draft board look like?*

You don't have Brewer as a top 13 pick? 

Its a bit out of character for me to be as ignorant as I currently am about the NBA draft. I didn't watch hardly any college ball this year and don't know jack about the international prospects. So take it for what its worth, but I always sort of figured Brewer would go in the 8-10 range.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

*Re: What's your draft board look like?*

Mike, everyone on your list except Durant is a big man. He doesn't belong on your list. 

Durant is a pure SF and would have more success playing SG than PF for his first 3/4 seasons.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: What's your draft board look like?*

No, Brewer should go in that range, but I was only looking at the big guys. Sorry, I should have clarified that, but I guess I'm looking from a very Bulls-centric position. Brewer would be a pretty strange fit for us, but which big guy do we pass on to take him?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: What's your draft board look like?*



cpawfan said:


> Mike, everyone on your list except Durant is a big man. He doesn't belong on your list.
> 
> Durant is a pure SF and would have more success playing SG than PF for his first 3/4 seasons.


He's good enough that I take him (even for the Bulls) and don't worry about it.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: What's your draft board look like?*

1. Oden
2. Durant
3-X. Trade It


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: What's your draft board look like?*



MikeDC said:


> No, Brewer should go in that range, but I was only looking at the big guys. Sorry, I should have clarified that, but I guess I'm looking from a very Bulls-centric position. Brewer would be a pretty strange fit for us, but which big guy do we pass on to take him?


Sorry. Gotcha. I'm not advocating that Chicago draft Brewer.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: What's your draft board look like?*



ScottMay said:


> 1. Oden
> 2. Durant
> 3-X. Trade It


This is pretty much my thought, but I do think Hawes could be a good fit in Chicago.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: What's your draft board look like?*

Brewer, on the other hand, doesn't appear obviously good enough to me that I just take him and worry about the fit consequences later. I think if I were to rate him out (which I just did) I'd have him tied up in the 10th place group. 

I think he's a lower risk proposition than most of those guys, but he's a lower reward proposition for us when you consider that our needs don't include any more 6'9" Ethiopians. Actually, that's not fair to Tyrus Thomas, who looks positively Shaqesque compared to Brewer. I think if he were available when we pick, but I though I could trade down and get a guy like Smith or Hibbert or Yi and maybe something else, I'd probably do it.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Who do we get in a trade?


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

*Re: What's your draft board look like?*

1. Oden
2. Durant
3. B. Wright or Horford
4. Trade it - 
Trade Options:
a) A draft pick for next year. Hopefully unprotected, but would give us two picks to dangle either at the deadline or nearing the draft
b) Trade the pick for a Vet. Going to be hard to do this due since we don't have the contracts to match it. 

*Question for the Cap Gurus:* At draft time, will our FA's be off our cap number and thus free up capspace to acquire a player on draft day? 

Also, does Noce, a RFA, have a cap number against him sort of like a rookie having a cap hold till he he signed or the rights are given up?

Thanks.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: What's your draft board look like?*



theanimal23 said:


> *Question for the Cap Gurus:* At draft time, will our FA's be off our cap number and thus free up capspace to acquire a player on draft day?
> 
> Also, does Noce, a RFA, have a cap number against him sort of like a rookie having a cap hold till he he signed or the rights are given up?
> 
> Thanks.


No and yes. In fact, even UFAs like Brown have a cap hold, and they can't be signed/traded until free agency starts.

Getting back to the trade idea, that leaves









available for adding to the draft pick. Duhon, Khyrapa, Griffin, Thabo. 

Unless someone is thinking we should trade one of our core guys along with the pick.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> Who do we get in a trade?


We need size, and we need scoring inside. Depends on whose available. 

There are surprises most season, so we cannot preemptively declare that theres no one we can trade for.


----------



## kamego (Dec 29, 2003)

As a piston fan I would be happy to see the Bulls take Splitter as I don't think he will leave Europe and he really hasn't done a lot there anyways.

The top two for the Bulls really though are no questions. After that I think Hibbert and Hawes would really help the center postion down the road.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Soulful Sides said:


> We need size, and we need scoring inside. Depends on whose available.
> 
> There are surprises most season, so we cannot preemptively declare that theres no one we can trade for.


I wasnt, merely asking for speculation. Based on the facts at hand, I'm sure we could trade for someone, but it's pretty unclear it's someone we want.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I don't know who we would trade for though. Thats the hard part. Maybe the Bobcats would part with May? But do we really want him?

I also like Hawes, Yi, and Hibbert. But, I'm not sure how SURE of a thing those guys are. If Pax works all these guys out and feels that the 3 I just mentioned are not worth it, or isn't the answer, he is going to make a trade to move up or out of the draft. 

I'll prolly be content with whoever we get as long as he is the best big man at that spot. But, I won't be happy if Pax had could have done a trade that would have allowed a more significant improvement to the team.

My Board Updated
1. Oden
2. Durant
3. B. Wright/Horford
4. B. Wright/Horford
5. Yi
6. Hawes
7. Hibbert
8. Splitter
9. McRoberts?
10. Herbert Hill? That guy who was sneaking into the first round. Might not be a bad choice if we can grab by moving up with our two second rounders.

I have Yi ahead of Hawes for now just by what I have read and Chad Ford saying he could be the 3rd best player. Not sure if he will be as good as advertised. He would be nice to have on our Pick N Rolls since he can drive and hit the J.

Hawes from what I read is a perfect fit for us. But, for those of you who have seen him play (b/c I haven't), how does he look rebounding and speed wise? I feel that he is another Eddy Curry, but not as large. I liked Eddy, and wouldn't mind Hawes, but I think a lot of us are really hoping we get a huge impact player in a deep draft. 

This week is huge as Minny and Philly play NYK. Sac and Ptl need to start winning too.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Alright. I'll rank 13 and assume we can't trade to move up, down, our out even though I think that's the most likely outcome if there's not a big man to our liking available when our number is called. I'll assume that J. Wright, Conley, and Lopez are going back to school but everyone else will be in the draft.

1. Oden
2. Durrant
3. B. Wright
4. Horford
5. Yi
6. Hawes
7. Noah
8. Hibbert
9. Brewer
10. Green
11. Splitter
12. Chase Budinger
13. Ty Lawson

I've previously said that Splitter is too much of a reach in the Bulls range to draft but this exercise made me change my tune. While I think trading down several spots to get him would be more realistic, drafting him 6 or 7 spots higher than he's currently projected doesn't seem like that big a deal to me since the Bulls are in such a unique situation as a deep contending team with young players at every position but C. Furthermore, I think there's a decent chance his stock improves between now and the draft making it less of a reach. I think you have to take Brewer and Green ahead of him though (and Lawson not to mention guys like Thorton or Young ahead of bigs like McRoberts) because there's too big of a gap in talent. You just have to let the player be an excellent bench player in limited minutes for the time being and then trade him or the guy ahead of him a year or two down the line.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

Actually Hawes is a weak rebounder according to the scouting report at DraftExpress. He has averaged about six boards a game.

Based on my predictions on how the rest of the season pans out it is likely that the Bulls will draft from 11-13. Perhaps lower if the Knicks sneak into the playoffs (very doable if you have seen Indy and Orlando play recently). In fact I would say the Knicks have a 50/50 chance of making it into the playoffs.

I expect Splitter, McRoberts, Smith, Gray, Gasol and Fazekas to be available among the big guys at 11-13. In fact, Splitter and McRoberts may actually go sooner depending on workouts. However, assuming they are available I would go for Splitter as he has the length and mobility to fit the Bulls needs the best at this time. He doesn't look like star material to me but the Bulls are desperate for a legitimate back-up to Ben who can bang with the big guys. Plus he has pro experience and is definitely not a stiff. 

I also like McRoberts, unlike 98% of the posters on this board. This kid can really play. His skill set is pretty amazing. I think the fact that he plays for Duke is the kiss of death for people on this board.

It is somewhat unfortunate that Brewer had such a good showing during the past week. Otherwise I thought he could have survived until 11-13 and the Bulls would have been able to pick him off. He is so talented I would have drafted him notwithstanding the need for a big guy. I would then have traded our two second rounders and enough cash to get a low first round pick (from Phoenix perhaps) to get Gray or perhaps Gasol. 

The wild card to me is Jason Smith. I have not seen him play but his scouting report would indicate he has talent. However, it appears that he does most of his damage from the outside and may not be a good fit for the Bulls.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

kamego said:


> As a piston fan I would be happy to see the Bulls take Splitter as I don't think he will leave Europe and he really hasn't done a lot there anyways.
> 
> The top two for the Bulls really though are no questions. After that I think Hibbert and Hawes would really help the center postion down the road.


From what I've heard, Splitter has some buyout issues but nothing that can't be overcome. He put his name in the draft three separate times so I it seems pretty reasonable to assume that he wants to play in the NBA. With that in mind, I can't see why he'd hesitate to playoff contender with gaping hole at backup C. It's pretty much the ideal situation for him. 

Splitter hasn't been a star in Europe but the only imports who were are older players like Manu, Nocioni, or perhaps some of the guys Toronto signed this past offseason. Compared to players like Darko or Tskishvili, Splitter is quite experienced and proven even if he doesn't have a huge upside. Compared to the NCAA, in the Euroleagues, prospects are competing against grown men in their prime, many of whom are fringe NBA quality players so 11 and 6 in 24 minutes compares reasonably well to someone like Noah who's averaging 12 and 8.5 in 26 minutes against inferior competition.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> Who do we get in a trade?


Very hard to say. I think Seattle could be a good trading partner. 

I'm very high on Nick Collison fitting our team well. But I've read that he has BYC issues that might make him difficult to acquire, though admittedly I know nothing of BYC restrictions or how they apply to trades involving draft picks.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I'd be very happy to replace PJ with Splitter. Tiago might be a young PJ without the Jumpshot. He's 22?, and plays solid D and rebounds well. He would be a great backup to Wallace. Post offense will still be a question, but I bring this up: How badly do we need post-offense IF Tyrus could become the answer to our needs. A guy like Splitter would be perfectly fine for us. Same could go for Hibbert. We would need a guy who can just play solid D, rebound, and finish when set up perfectly at the 5 position. Someone not Tysonesque on offense, or Eddyish on defense. Someone who can do both at an average rate IF Tyrus becomes the Kemp/Amare I really really hope he potentially could become.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Very hard to say. I think Seattle could be a good trading partner.
> 
> I'm very high on Nick Collison fitting our team well. But I've read that he has BYC issues that might make him difficult to acquire, though admittedly I know nothing of BYC restrictions or how they apply to trades involving draft picks.


I like this idea, but don't know what contracts we can send out to make this deal work. If only we could do a deal such as Collison + Seattle's pick for Duhon + NYK pick + 2nd rounders. Not that Seattle would take that deal, but you guys have an idea of what I'm aiming for.

Maybe Thabo would have to be used instead of Duhon. At our spot, we could go Brewer if he is available if we pick up Collison. Or still take another big, get rid of PJ, keep Malik for the deep end of the bench, and use the MLE on a PG/SG.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Very hard to say. I think Seattle could be a good trading partner.
> 
> I'm very high on Nick Collison fitting our team well. But I've read that he has BYC issues that might make him difficult to acquire, though admittedly I know nothing of BYC restrictions or how they apply to trades involving draft picks.


Collison isn't BYC, actually. He signed an extension of his rookie contract, which triggers poison pill provisions -- which also can make it difficult to trade him.

With PPP, his trade value is the average salary for all years remaining on his rookie contract and/or years left on the extension.

Hinrich's situation is similar.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

charlietyra said:


> Based on my predictions on how the rest of the season pans out it is likely that the Bulls will draft from 11-13. Perhaps lower if the Knicks sneak into the playoffs (very doable if you have seen Indy and Orlando play recently). In fact I would say the Knicks have a 50/50 chance of making it into the playoffs.


It'd take a 5-4 finish from the Knicks and a 2-6 finish from the Magic (who are 5-5 in their last 10) just for a tie. That would also require the Pacers to go no better than 4-5. Certainly it's possible but as good a chance of it happening as not? I don't see how you can put their odds at much more than 10%.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Collison isn't BYC, actually. He signed an extension of his rookie contract, which triggers poison pill provisions -- which also can make it difficult to trade him.
> 
> With PPP, his trade value is the average salary for all years remaining on his rookie contract and/or years left on the extension.
> 
> Hinrich's situation is similar.


When it comes to lottery picks, how do they work in matching salaries? 

For example, can we just trade the pick for Collison? I've never understood how picks play into balancing salaries.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> When it comes to lottery picks, how do they work in matching salaries?
> 
> For example, can we just trade the pick for Collison? I've never understood how picks play into balancing salaries.


Its my understanding that a draft pick (or a drafted, unsigned player) has a trade value of $0.

So, the draft pick has value in terms of the amount of benefit going to a team, but the pick itself has no value when considering salary matching for CBA compliant trade purposes.

In other words, we'd have to send bodies under contract back to Seattle that match salary as figured under the poison pill provision. A draft pick (or picks) can be included by either side to make the deal attractive -- and very well may be the ultimate key to the deal -- but the contracts changing hands still have to otherwise comply with CBA matching rules.

Capologists? Do I have it right?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Its my understanding that a draft pick (or a drafted, unsigned player) has a trade value of $0.
> 
> So, the draft pick has value in terms of the amount of benefit going to a team, but the pick itself has no value when considering salary matching for CBA compliant trade purposes.
> 
> ...


Wow. Really? At first glance giving it no real thought, that seems kind of a stupid way of doing things if you ask me.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Furthermore, I think there's a decent chance his stock improves between now and the draft making it less of a reach. I think you have to take Brewer and Green ahead of him though (and Lawson not to mention guys like Thorton or Young ahead of bigs like McRoberts) because there's too big of a gap in talent. You just have to let the player be an excellent bench player in limited minutes for the time being and then trade him or the guy ahead of him a year or two down the line.


I absolutely hate this line of thinking. Off the top of my head I can't think of a single instance where this strategy worked for any team. On the other hand, the Bulls are a prime example where taking a duplicate player (Fizer/Brand) blocked the rookie from developing and ultimately depressed his value. In theory, it might be a good idea to eventually trade the player ahead of the rookie, however, we're talking specifically about Hinrich, Gordon, and Deng. I'd rather hang on to them and take my chances with whatever big is on the board at that time. The talent gap, if there is one, will not be great enough to cancel the "need" factor.

As far as my draft board, I wouldn't even entertain the notion of drafting a plyer below 6'10":

1. Oden
2. Durant
3. Wright
4. Jianlian
5. Noah
6. McRoberts
7. Hawes
8. Splitter
9. Hibbert
10. Horford

Unfortunately, in many cases, I have not seen each of these players and can only make judgments based on scouting reports. Obviously, the list is subject to change as more information becomes available.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

At our pick (currently 10-12)my current preferences:

1. Oden
2. Durrant
3. B. Wright
4. Horford
5. Yi
6. Hawes
7. Hibbert
8. Noah
9. Brewer
10. Splitter
11. McRoberts
12. Green
13. Trade down


I'd also advocate trading our two 2's for one of phoenix's late firsts for Gasol, Hill or Visser.

I'd be least happy with Green, Noah and trade down.


----------



## PD (Sep 10, 2004)

There may be a team wanting to trade their pick for our pick and Duhon. In that case, we could possibly take Horford or Wright or Hawes.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I know this sounds outrageous, but how much do you think Portland liked Victor? Because as I remember, the trade went down as: Aldridge for Tyrus, but we threw in a 2nd rounder to get Victor. You would we would have gotten Victor from going down two spots and allowing the Blazers to get their man WITHOUT us having to throw in a second rounder. But he started for them last year. 

Now say the draft order goes as: Portland, Philly, NYK. Can we move up ahead of Philly, who is either drafting a Big or a PG by offering Victor? Is it farfetched? I know Portland needs a SF more than anything. Philly isn't likely to pick one due to Iggy, Carney, and Korver.

I don't know how much value Duhon gives you, unless you are trading up a few spots with a team like the Bucks that has a need at PG. The Bucks again would want to get a SF for that to happen. Duhon might be of value to a team like Philly too. He would give them a very solid backup. But I don't see Duhon being traded. He is very good value for his salary.

My best bet is use our two second rounders and cash to get a late 1st rounder from whomever (likely Phx or Philly). Use both 1st rounders to move up a few spots.


----------



## kamego (Dec 29, 2003)

JeremyB0001 said:


> From what I've heard, Splitter has some buyout issues but nothing that can't be overcome. He put his name in the draft three separate times so I it seems pretty reasonable to assume that he wants to play in the NBA. With that in mind, I can't see why he'd hesitate to playoff contender with gaping hole at backup C. It's pretty much the ideal situation for him.
> 
> Splitter hasn't been a star in Europe but the only imports who were are older players like Manu, Nocioni, or perhaps some of the guys Toronto signed this past offseason. Compared to players like Darko or Tskishvili, Splitter is quite experienced and proven even if he doesn't have a huge upside. Compared to the NCAA, in the Euroleagues, prospects are competing against grown men in their prime, many of whom are fringe NBA quality players so 11 and 6 in 24 minutes compares reasonably well to someone like Noah who's averaging 12 and 8.5 in 26 minutes against inferior competition.


The problem I have is that he lacks shooting confidence and he isn't quick or a good jumper. He has trouble because of his small hands in the post. He is a big guy but he is no sure thing to be an offensive presence yet. I think Hibbert has much more upside right now but I can see why you like Splitter as he does have great size and a good motor.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

no point in the oden, wright, horford, noah, durant talk...

1. Hawes (best scoring C in this draft)
2. Splitter (much better offensively than most of you think, WONDERFUL passer & defensively may be only 2nd in this draft to Oden)
3. Hibbert (slow but effective, does everything u want a center to do)
4. Jianlian (he's a PF and I don't want to take away from Tyrus's time, I'd be alot higher on him if he played C)

that's about it for me


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Frankensteiner said:


> I absolutely hate this line of thinking. Off the top of my head I can't think of a single instance where this strategy worked for any team. On the other hand, the Bulls are a prime example where taking a duplicate player (Fizer/Brand) blocked the rookie from developing and ultimately depressed his value. In theory, it might be a good idea to eventually trade the player ahead of the rookie, however, we're talking specifically about Hinrich, Gordon, and Deng. I'd rather hang on to them and take my chances with whatever big is on the board at that time. The talent gap, if there is one, will not be great enough to cancel the "need" factor.
> 
> As far as my draft board, I wouldn't even entertain the notion of drafting a plyer below 6'10":
> 
> ...


Well it's a difficult exercise that can be fun but isn't all that realistic. If the Bulls landed say Brewer, he probably plays ahead of Thabo and gets 15 MPG (of course then Thabo's development/value is stunted). The problem is that if we land at 11 you just can't take a player like Hill there who's on the first round bubble. If the only realistic option is to draft a 5, then the Bulls have no choice but to trade if one of the 7 bigs + Durrant or _perhaps_ McRoberts or Splitter. 

Generally, a team will never use a lottery pick to take a player more than 3 or 5 spots higher than he would otherwise be drafted. There are exceptions such as Araujo or Tragen Langdon but they're rare and usually work out terribly. Right now the NY pick is tied for 10th and Splitter and McRoberts seem to be in the late teens to mid twenties range, so it all depends on who stays in school, how workouts go, and where the pick ends up.

Something to keep in mind is that history would suggested that by passing up a G/F drafted in the lottery (Green, Brewer) in favor of a big drafted in the late teens or twenties, we're probably passing up an average to above average starter in favor of a backup/rotation C. In that scenario, if we can't acquire something good in return for moving down, my inclination is that we're better off moving out of the draft entirely unless we're completely in love with Splitter or McRoberts.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

The ROY said:


> no point in the oden, wright, horford, noah, durant talk...


Hey, don't discount the 1% chance. If you told me I had a 1 in 100 chance of being fatally struck by a car crossing the street tomorrow or winning $10 million dollars in the lottery, I wouldn't shrug either off.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

PD said:


> There may be a team wanting to trade their pick for our pick and Duhon. In that case, we could possibly take Horford or Wright or Hawes.


LOL, for just DUHON and a pick? don't think so


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

Noone intruiged by the 7-3 265, Hasheem Thabeet?

I think physical capability wise he is close to Hibbert. They are both relatively slow, Thabeet probably isn't as strong yet, or doesn't have the offensive moves either. But, i think Thabeet will be the better defensive player, in the mold of Mutombo. Im not saying, he will be as good, but i think he hasn't enough mobility, size and length to be a major shot blocker and fast break starter on our team.

Im saying his someone we'd have to bring in and have a close look at if we're going to look and potentially draft Hibbert also.

Noone interested?


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I hope there is no need for this thread after May 22nd  

It'd be nice if we had an official Greg Oden is a Bull thread starting that night.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> Very hard to say. I think Seattle could be a good trading partner.
> 
> I'm very high on Nick Collison fitting our team well. But I've read that he has BYC issues that might make him difficult to acquire, though admittedly I know nothing of BYC restrictions or how they apply to trades involving draft picks.


I don't think there's a great fit out there on the trade market but that doesn't mean it's not the best way too go. I can see a lot of guys who have a flaw but would still be perfectly useful: Collison (poison pill, undersized to play the 5), May (injury problems, undersized), Wilcox (a bit undersized, attitude problems, contract issues), Pachulia (may not be available though ATL needs a point and likely won't have a first roudner), Gooden (contract probably doesn't work, shoots mostly jumpers, may not be available), Darko (likely unavailable, might not have the contracts to make the extension he'd need to be signed to).


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Collison isn't BYC, actually. He signed an extension of his rookie contract, which triggers poison pill provisions -- which also can make it difficult to trade him.
> 
> With PPP, his trade value is the average salary for all years remaining on his rookie contract and/or years left on the extension.
> 
> Hinrich's situation is similar.


The remaining years on his rookie contract is this season where he was paid $2.5M

This value swaps out with the $2M'ish in the first year value of an #8 to #10 pick 

Under the old CBA ( from memory ) BYC worked along the lines of that the incoming club had to assume full face value of the contract - but the outgoing club could only assume /accept half its value or 120% of the value of the last year's salary on the expiring contract 

In any which way , we would have Nick Collison coming to us at say $5.75M - which means we would have to shed $4.3M in salary (75% of Collison's incoming salary )

Seattle could only accept $2M'ish in salary which is our draft pick - say $1.9M 

We would have to park Viktor Kyhrappa ( earnning $1.9M next season ) and a signed 2nd round draft pick ( say our #44 for say $500K )that would get us to the $4.3M of salary that we need to part with

Maybe Orlando could be a destination as they will have the cap room to absorb 

In return we would receive Orlando's #39 and #45( unsigned ) Seattle would also need to include their #31 ( unsigned ) for swapping Nick Collison for say a #8 to #10 pick.

That's the rough financial framework of how a deal could work ( I think )

* So .. Chicago gets Collison , #31 , #39 and #45 from this draft in exchange for #8 to #10 , Viktor Khyrappa and #44

Seatlle gets #8 to #10 in exchange for Nick Collison and #31 

Orlando gets Viktor Khyrappa and #44 ( signed to make the Collison deal work ) in exchange for #39 and #45

Because of players needing to be signed after July 1st to make the salaries work the deal would need to be pre-arranged prior to draft night so that teams could select the players that are required for their trading partners

*


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

COllison??/ COllison, Kirk's old buddy?


Sorry, we have TT and I'd rather resign Nocioni than give up a real chance for a real center and only get back Collison. COllison and Swift or Collison and Sene, I'd listen, but still be hard pressed for it as I think they are all weak and don't really improve us where we need improvement.

Our opportunity for the right trade expired at the trade deadline this year.

Keep the pick - take best player 6'10 and taller at NY pick and then get Gasol or Visser or Herbert Hill with a trade up using the two 2nds.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Anyway assuming no trade is done 

1. Oden
2. Durant
3. Wright
4. Horford
5. Noah 
6. Hibbert
7. Hawes

Trade down 

8. McRoberts
9. Splitter 
10. Gasol
11. Visser


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

chifaninca said:


> COllison??/ COllison, Kirk's old buddy?
> 
> 
> Sorry, we have TT and I'd rather resign Nocioni than give up a real chance for a real center and only get back Collison. COllison and Swift or Collison and Sene, I'd listen, but still be hard pressed for it as I think they are all weak and don't really improve us where we need improvement.
> ...


I'd probably rather have a run at Hibbert in the #8 to #10 range or maybe even take McRoberts

I was just outlining a deal that may be able to work 

I like Nick though and he's a 6'10 F/C that could play the Center spot on this team . A guy that can play some post and that also excels in the pick and roll 

I was just sayin


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I don't think there's a great fit out there on the trade market but that doesn't mean it's not the best way too go. I can see a lot of guys who have a flaw but would still be perfectly useful: Collison (poison pill, undersized to play the 5), May (injury problems, undersized), Wilcox (a bit undersized, attitude problems, contract issues), Pachulia (may not be available though ATL needs a point and likely won't have a first roudner), Gooden (contract probably doesn't work, shoots mostly jumpers, may not be available), Darko (likely unavailable, might not have the contracts to make the extension he'd need to be signed to).


I've wracked my brain a little on this trade issue. Perhaps it's draft fever for the dreaded p-word, but I don't see any of these players as being better than what we would likely get in the lottery. At this point, I have confidence in Paxson's ability to identify a solid if unspectacular contributor at our draft spot.

If Milwaukee happens to get one of the top two spots, I would be interested to see what happens to their frontcourt. Villanueva would be an interesting name were he to become available.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

kulaz3000 said:


> Noone intruiged by the 7-3 265, Hasheem Thabeet?
> 
> I think physical capability wise he is close to Hibbert. They are both relatively slow, Thabeet probably isn't as strong yet, or doesn't have the offensive moves either. But, i think Thabeet will be the better defensive player, in the mold of Mutombo. Im not saying, he will be as good, but i think he hasn't enough mobility, size and length to be a major shot blocker and fast break starter on our team.
> 
> ...


He's garbage...no way i'd take him with a lotto pick...he needs atleast two more years in school...his a blocking machine but that's about it...his b-ball iq maybe one of the lowest i've ever witnessed

plus, he reportedly, he's staying in school


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Hey, don't discount the 1% chance. If you told me I had a 1 in 100 chance of being fatally struck by a car crossing the street tomorrow or winning $10 million dollars in the lottery, I wouldn't shrug either off.


there is a chance, but that chance is so slim that it's not even worth discussing IMO.

i'd rather focus on what's in front of us and that's the 8-14th pick in the draft


----------



## ChiSox (Jun 9, 2004)

I know the Bulls need a center. I know there are a lot of talented bigs in the draft but I hope we don't pass up a All Star caliber player trying to fill a need. I believe Brewer and Green will be in a NBA All star game, so I don't take a average to slightly above average center i.e. Hibbert over them. I do take a big with allstar potential over a Brewer and Green. Anyway here is my list...
1. Oden
2. Durrant
3. B. Wright
4. Horford
5. Yi
6. Noah
7. Brewer
8. J. Wright
9. Green
10. Hawes
11. Hibbert
12. Conley
13. Budinger
14. Ty Lawson
15. Splitter


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

SMH

Yeah, Green & Brewer are great wings but we have one of the BEST wing tandems in the NBA. It would be a mistake drafting them to BECOME Bulls. Now if they were drafted & traded, I have no problems with that.

Deng needs as MANY minutes a possible. Green nor Brewer aren't gonna steal minutes from Deng and Pax is too in love with Noc to push him further on the depth chart for more wings.

It's not happening


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

My understanding is that unsigned RFAs do put a cap hold on the team, but if the Bulls renounce them the cap hold is lifted. The cap hold is pretty onerous, too. PJ Brown's might be on the order of $10M or even more. Nocioni's is a significant amount, too.

The king of sausages is correct about the poison pill provision. It was in effect THIS season for Hinrich and Collison, and is not a factor in the PPP form once their new contracts take effect over the summer. However, I think they are both BYC, which does foul things up when doing the CBA $$$ calculations.

That's how I understand it.

I doubt Seattle wants to deal Collison in any case.

*30. How much do free agents count against their team's salary cap?
*
The free agent amount depends on the player's previous salary and what kind of free agent he is: 
<table style="background-color: rgb(204, 204, 204);" border="1"> <tbody> <tr> <td style="vertical-align: middle;">*Kind of free agent*</td> <td style="vertical-align: middle;">*Previous salary*</td> <td>*Free agent amount
*</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="vertical-align: middle;">Any
</td> <td style="vertical-align: middle;">Minimum salary
</td> <td style="vertical-align: top;">Portion of minimum salary not reimbursed
by the league (see question number 11)
</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="vertical-align: middle;">Larry Bird, except when coming off rookie scale contract</td> <td style="vertical-align: middle;">At least the average salary</td> <td>150% of his previous salary*</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="vertical-align: middle;">Larry Bird, except when coming off rookie scale contract 
</td> <td style="vertical-align: middle;">Below the average salary</td> <td>200% of his previous salary*</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="vertical-align: middle;">Larry Bird, following the fourth season of his rookie
scale contract
</td> <td style="vertical-align: middle;">At least the average salary
</td> <td style="vertical-align: middle;">250% of his previous salary*
</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="vertical-align: middle;">Larry Bird, following the fourth season of his rookie
scale contract</td> <td style="vertical-align: middle;">Below the average salary</td> <td>300% of his previous salary*</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="vertical-align: middle;">Larry Bird, following the third season of his rookie
scale contract</td> <td style="vertical-align: middle;">Any</td> <td style="vertical-align: top;">The maximum salary the team can pay
the player using the Bird exception</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="vertical-align: middle;">Early Bird, following the second season of his rookie
scale contract
</td> <td style="vertical-align: middle;">Any</td> <td>The maximum salary the team can pay
the player using the Early Bird exception</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="vertical-align: middle;">Early Bird (all others)
</td> <td style="vertical-align: middle;">Any
</td> <td style="vertical-align: top;">130% of his previous salary*
</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="vertical-align: middle;">Non-Bird</td> <td style="vertical-align: middle;">Any</td> <td>120% of his previous salary*</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> 
* Not to exceed the player's maximum salary, based on years of service (see question number 11). If the difference in salary between the last two seasons of the player's contract exceeded $4 million, then the percentage is based on the average salary in the last two seasons of the contract.

A restricted free agent counts against his team's salary cap by the greatest of:

His free agent amount (as defined in the table above)
The amount of his qualifying offer (see question number 36)
The first year salary from any offer sheet the player signs with another team (see question number 36)
Here's an example of how to use this chart: Let's say a player who made $5 million during the previous season becomes an Early-Bird free agent, and is not coming off the second season of his rookie scale contract. According to this chart, the player's free agent amount is 130% of his previous salary. So $6.5 million is included in his team's team salary while he is a free agent. 
See question number 41 for more information on rookie "scale" contracts, question number 33 for information on renouncing players, and question number 36 for information on restricted free agency.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Frankensteiner said:


> I've wracked my brain a little on this trade issue. Perhaps it's draft fever for the dreaded p-word, but I don't see any of these players as being better than what we would likely get in the lottery. At this point, I have confidence in Paxson's ability to identify a solid if unspectacular contributor at our draft spot.
> 
> If Milwaukee happens to get one of the top two spots, I would be interested to see what happens to their frontcourt. Villanueva would be an interesting name were he to become available.


I think I agree in theory. Players like May and Collison were drafted in the late lottery and their value now seems almost unreasonably high simply because they're solid big men, perhaps so much so that our pick alone wouldn't be enough to pry them lose. It seems likely that you get better bang for your buck keeping the pick and drafting a big. However, most draft boards right now are showing a large dropoff between the lottery big men and Splitter/McRoberts (though as I've said I'm a big Splitter fan and there's still time for players to rise) and the track record for bigs taken late is not very good. 

I think the Bucks are definitely the most interesting team in the lottery right now if you're a Bulls fan. They're seeming set at the PF/C meaning that at the least they're likely to pass on one of the big men we're after and even better they might be willing to part with one of their bigs.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Let's assume for a minutes a guy like Collison is available. I think that's realistic assuming we don't get lucky with the ping pong balls. To me, trading depends on who's there at our pick. I think it's fairly obvious we would prefer the top 7 guys or so to a Collison type... Oden, Durant, Horford, Wright, Noah, Splitter, Hansbrough I have a hard time seeing their downside as worse than Collison's upside. Hansbrough's the only one I'd question, I think, simply because he's only 6'9".

When we start talking about the other guys, I do't think I know enough to make a decision on guys like Yi or Hawes. They seem like they may have a good chance of paying off nicely, though they're riskier propositions than the guys above them. Hibbert and Gray I have a feel that if they're solid, it'll still take a couple years, and they don't have the upside the other guys might. Guys like Smith and Fazekas might pay off better, but at this point they're probably bigger bust risks too. 

So all in all, my gut reaction is probably to seek a trade only if those top 7 guys plus maybe Yi and Hawes are off the board. That's based on the idea that

1) I expect all of those guys have a decent chance to be comparable to that type of guy given a year or so to get up to speed, and have a chance to be better in a couple years. (I'd say in general that the experience factor is a little overrated. On a team like the Bulls, at least, I expect that if a rookie will ever be a contributor, they are very likely to be contributing be the end of the first year).

2) We'd have to give up Duhon at the very least, and perhaps more to get it done. 

Thus, we'd be trading for what, exactly? A player we expect might be as good as in a year anyway, plus depth, for a guy on a bigger contract? Doesn't make sense unless we really end up falling a couple spots an/or not liking one of the guys who looks to be on the board then.

Regarding Collison specifically, you're pretty clone on what it'd take Sausage King. His $2.5M salary is what counts for Seattle taking back salary, but his "incoming" salary to us would be about $6.25M. That means it would take Duhon + any two of Khyrapa, Thabo or Griffin to get the deal done without playing at draft pick signing tricks. That seems like a pretty steep price.

If the trade were actually consumated at the end of July after the draft pick were signed, Collison would no longer by "poison pill", he'd still be BYC, so it'd still be difficult.

Here's two names that occurred to me.
Chris Kamen- Anyone think that, with the Clippers being mediocre, they might be willing to unload him?


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I doubt Kaman is available. But even if he was, two things need to be brought up:
1. We don't have the contracts to get it done and 
2. If we did, do you think we would go after Kaman due to his contract? It seems like the Bulls want to avoid adding extra salary either for the luxury tax or for the reason of "losing flexiblity in the future".

The losing flexiblity in the future doesn't make much sense to me as we won't be a player in FA for years. We'll be a team using the MLE or making moves by trades. It does however have an impact on Lux Tax. Thats a different thing.

Kaman would be a great fit here, but I don't see the Clippers making him available, or us wanting to get him even if he was.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

You're right about Kamen.. I actually meant to delete that line but forgot to. If we'd struggle to make the contracts work with Collison, doing it with Kamen, who makes more, will prove even more difficult.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Does anyone think it is possible to land Jackie Butler using Victor and a 2nd?


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

GROUP A
1. Oden
2. Durant

GROUP B
3. Wright
4a Noah
4b Horford

GROUP C
6a Hibbert
6b Hawes
8. Splitter

GROUP D
9. Thornton
10. Jianlian
11. Jeff Green
12. Thad Young
13. McRoberts


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

If I couldn't get Oden, Durant, Wright, Jainlain, Hawes or Hibbert standing pat, I would either look to move up, trade the pick for a player, or trade down.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

*Re: What's your draft board look like?*

1. Oden

2. Durant

3. Horford
4. Hawes
5. Noah
6. Hibbert

7. Wright
8. Splitter
9. McRoberts
10. Gasol?
11. Yi?

12. Brewer
13. Belinelli

First off, I'd much rather have Oden than Durant. There's a big jump between 1 and 2 for me.

Durant is a special case. We don't need another 3 on our roster, but he might be an NBA scoring champion in three years.

Horford, Hawes, Hibbert, Noah, and Hibbert are the crew of big men that we might have some of shot at. I don't know if any will drop to where we will be drafting, but it's possible. I prefer Horford, with his NBA body (I believe he will be able to play center), solid work ethic, and all around game. Next, I prefer Hawes, who has the offensive upside to fit perfectly next to Thomas, but will he be strong enough to hold his place in the next few years? He's got major upside. I like Noah for the Bulls because I think he would be the leader of the team by year two. He's the kind of vocal personality we could use. Plus, he's versatile and tall enough to play the five, but he might not score 15 points a game in any year of his career. Hibbert has great offensive upside, and he's huge, but he's clearly a step slower than the other three. I could see him sticking in Skiles's doghouse for a while.

Now to the next group. Wright might well be no taller than 6' 9". He's definitely not an NBA center in any case, and unlike a lot of other people, I don't see him as a sure-fire star. He's not on my A list, or even my B list. I don't think he's right for us. 

I've seen Splitter play a few times, and I've never been that impressed, but I can't say we couldn't use a tough nosed 7 footer. McRoberts is highly skilled but hasn't achieved much with that skill level. That's something you couldn't say about Hinrich, Deng, Gordon, or Thomas while they were in college. I don't know if he fits with our mental makeup, but he's got the size and skill set we could use. Right now, I'd say he will be one of the players we will definitely consider. Yi and Gasol, eh, what do I know -- I haven't seen them play.

After those guys, maybe we'd consider a guy who could score off the bench. 

Beyond that, I guess we could see how Gray and Fazekas and other centers or 4/5 types compete at workouts.

Let's hope Connoly reconsiders and enters the draft. Green, Brewer, Young, and a few others also might be able to move up and be taken before our pick.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Not to take this thread off topic, but, to take this thread off topic. I'm not sayinng, I'm just saying. 

Would you guys have the balls to take Mike Conley? I'm not going to lie: he looks to me like an all-star in the making. He can do everything. Runs the team as well as score. His defense is just rediculous; both in terms of steals and staying in front of his man. 

There's obviously no open spot that Conley would fill on the roster. But if you think he's going to be an all-star, do you just pick him anyway? I'm guessing Conley, along with Cory Brewer, are going to be selected higher than the eigth/ninth pick and the Bulls' easy-trade range, so this is probably a dead issue.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

such sweet thunder said:


> Not to take this thread off topic, but, to take this thread off topic. I'm not sayinng, I'm just saying.
> 
> Would you guys have the balls to take Mike Conley? I'm not going to lie: he looks to me like an all-star in the making. He can do everything. Runs the team as well as score. His defense is just rediculous; both in terms of steals and staying in front of his man.
> 
> There's obviously no open spot that Conley would fill on the roster. But if you think he's going to be an all-star, do you just pick him anyway? I'm guessing Conley, along with Cory Brewer, are going to be selected higher than the eigth/ninth pick and the Bulls' easy-trade range, so this is probably a dead issue.


I have a raging fat for Mike Conley the 2 

Alas if you love someone set them free.

Atlanta is where he should be


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> I have a raging fat for Mike Conley the 2
> 
> Alas if you love someone set them free.
> 
> Atlanta is where he should be



:lol: :lol: :lol: 

Atlanta's best hope would be: 1) Landing Oden 2) Offering the Max to Billups

That would put them in the playoffs ASAP, and Oden for sure would bring some fans to the arena, maybe lol. 

I agree, he would look great there, but they don't have a pick if it isn't top 3.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

such sweet thunder said:


> Not to take this thread off topic, but, to take this thread off topic. I'm not sayinng, I'm just saying.
> 
> Would you guys have the balls to take Mike Conley? I'm not going to lie: he looks to me like an all-star in the making. He can do everything. Runs the team as well as score. His defense is just rediculous; both in terms of steals and staying in front of his man.
> 
> There's obviously no open spot that Conley would fill on the roster. But if you think he's going to be an all-star, do you just pick him anyway? I'm guessing Conley, along with Cory Brewer, are going to be selected higher than the eigth/ninth pick and the Bulls' easy-trade range, so this is probably a dead issue.


I think Conley has a chance at being a very good player, but I don't see NBA All Star potential on him. I think of him more in the Raymond Felton, Sebastion Telfair, Marcus Banks, Rajon Rondo mold than Chris Paul or Deron Williams.

I think he could be a lottery pick, mainly because he is the best pure point. However, I could see him slipping out of the lottery just as easily. He would probably best be served staying another year or two in school where he can improve his skills and improve his draft stock. However, it's hard to ignore all the media attention he got this season and most likely will not experience again assuming Oden declares.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> Atlanta's best hope would be: 1) Landing Oden 2) Offering the Max to Billups
> 
> ...


Via nbdadraft.net:

Atlanta receives Indiana's 2007 first-round pick. (Al Harrington trade 082206) (Top 10 protected in 2007, top 8 in 2008, top 5 in 2009, and unprotected in 2010).

Meaning that Atlanta has Indiana's pick, provided Indiana doesn't win a lottery selection. The Al Harrington trade is looking like it has the potential to be a landslide in favor of Atlanta.

FJ: I think you're dead on balls right. Conley would change the complexion of a team like Atlanta. I'd put the over/under for games that Conley would add to their record at 10-12 games.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Most of the Guys I have here I believe have a shot at being available when the Bulls pick, So you wont see any Oden, Durant, Wright etc. My picks for the Bulls are. 

1, Corey Brewer- This guy is a better version of Thabo, hes longer and taller and is better defensively. This kid can honestly develop into something special, with his size and great defensive instincts all hes missing is some polish offensively. But drafting this guy probably means getting rid of Thabo. Guy is probably the closest thing to Pippen out there in a while.

2. Thaddeus Young - Yes I'm a bit inlove with perimeter guys right now, but honestly this kid if he comes out now can be stolen at around the spot we are picking, 2 years from know or even 1 year from now hes a top 3-6 pick. If the Bulls dont sign Nocioni back then this guy can come in for Deng and honestly be a scoring optiong from the get go, what I like most about him is that he can be that cut to the basket get a pass from Ben Wallace and finish with a dunk player. Automatically becomes the most athletic player on our team. 

3. Roy Hibbert - Makes Ben Wallace look like a Midget, Will do one thing good and probably only one thing and thats defend. Hes not a great rebounder for his size wich is probably why hes not a top 5 pick, but he will not get pushed around in the paint and will not give up his possitioning like Ben Wallace. A much better upgrade over PJ Brown defensively. Can you imagine a front court of Hibbert and Darko if signed? 

4. Yi JianLian - 50/50 shot this kid drops to the Bulls, it all depends on how his workouts go. The guy has a nice game, will it work for him in the NBA when bigger faster players are on him? I dunno, the guy really has a 50/50 shot of being very good or being a bust. From the video clips ive seen of him, the guy doesnt post up instead he runs to the post and takes a shot, that can lead to a lot of offensive fouls in the NBA especially when hes a rookie and alot of his success will depend on if hes mentally suited to have growing pains and struggle at the NBA level. But I like his potential and The Bulls are one of only a handfull of teams that can honestly take a risk of drafting this kid.. Think Detroit/Darko. 

5. Josh McRoberts - Hes one of those guys that you would like to draft because hes smart enough to get a grasp of any NBA offense and honestly he can be the Bulls post Point Guard. Bulls need more bigs who can pass well out of the paint, Ben Wallace and McRoberts together on the floor would really open up shots for the perimeter guys. Guy has a lot of potential and maybe a coach like Skiles can get the most out of him, but who knows.

6. Trade Up try to get a shot at some of the bigger guys. 

7. Trade down try to get some extra picks, maybe a 2007 draft pick improve your chances of getting some all world talents like Rose, Mayo, Gordon, Beasley next year.

8.Nick Fazekas - One thing the Bulls really suck at is getting scoring out of their post players. Nick will be a guy who can come off the bench and get you some points, we dont have that post up player who can move it back 15-20 feet and take a shot and actually make it on a consistent basis. Nick would be a very good pick if hes still in the second round.

9. Trade the pick for a decent player who can contribute right away.

10. Hasheem Thabeet - Physicall specimine, I think his size is just something you cant look past, but hes so damn slow and looks like he really doesnt want to play hard 90% of the time. I like what he could turn into, but then going after guys 7'2 and up either ends up with getting a guy who is a game changer or getting a guy who will only be in the NBA for 2-3 years.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

GROUP A
1. Oden
2. Durant

GROUP B
3. Wright
4. Horford

GROUP C
5. Hawes

Group D
6. Hibbert
7. Noah
8. Jialian (who knows, impressive size/mobility)
X. Conley, Lawson

GROUP E
9. Splitter
10. Arthur
11. Brewer

Group F
12. Green
13. Thorton
14. TYoung
15. Smith
16. McRoberts


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> It'd take a 5-4 finish from the Knicks and a 2-6 finish from the Magic (who are 5-5 in their last 10) just for a tie. That would also require the Pacers to go no better than 4-5. Certainly it's possible but as good a chance of it happening as not? I don't see how you can put their odds at much more than 10%.


The Knicks play Philly, Minny and the Bucks in a row. These are three games they can win. Philly seems to be the toughest matchup but the Knicks are rested and at home. 

I saw the TWolves play at home yesterday against the Cavs and they looked pathetic. At the end of the game Wittman told reporters that his team basically didn't show up for the game. Garnett was also extremely frustrated at his teammates. To expect the TWolves to go on the road and beat the Knicks will be a tall order. I think the Wolves are done for the season.

Also, I believe the Knicks own the tiebreaker against the Magic. The Magic looked terrible last week against that same crummy Minny team. IMO I think the Knicks have a decent shot at the playoffs.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Assuming we want a late lottery big man, I guess its (in my own order of preference, based on who is likely left at 10 or 11) Thabeet, Splitter, Hibbert, McRoberts.



Oden, Durant and Horford are my favorites, but they'll be long gone. I'm not much of a Noah fan, but he'll be gone too. Also have my doubts on Yi. Seems to me to be an overly tall 3 more than someone who will develop enough bulk to play 4, let alone 5 in the NBA. My doubts aside, he'll be gone as well.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I love McRoberts skill set, but its his mental "strength" that worries me. I feel that he is weak mentally and it prevents him from playing well. That is why I loved the Tyrus pick, albeit Raw, you knew his demeanor would make him give it 110% all the time.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> GROUP A
> 1. Oden
> 2. Durant
> 
> ...


IMO this is the most realistic breakdown of the lottery I have seen on this board. Except I would flip Splitter and Jianlian. Splitter belongs in Group D
and Jianlian in Group C. Brewer, who you forgot, belongs in Group C. 

What this means is that if the Bulls finish 11-13, the most likely scenario is Splitter or McRoberts. Yes, I would prefer Oden or Durant, but at 11-13 I would be happy with either at this point.

Another scenario is that Pax/Sklies falls in love with Thornton and he is there at 11-13. In that case they make a play for Gasol, Visser, Gray or Hill via trade to get a 23-30 draft pick. A wild card could be Jason Smith depending on his workouts. I can see him as a possible late lottery pick if he surprises. IMO he could be the O'Bryant or Armstrong of this year's draft.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

charlietyra said:


> The Knicks play Philly, Minny and the Bucks in a row. These are three games they can win. Philly seems to be the toughest matchup but the Knicks are rested and at home.
> 
> I saw the TWolves play at home yesterday against the Cavs and they looked pathetic. At the end of the game Wittman told reporters that his team basically didn't show up for the game. Garnett was also extremely frustrated at his teammates. To expect the TWolves to go on the road and beat the Knicks will be a tall order. I think the Wolves are done for the season.
> 
> Also, I believe the Knicks own the tiebreaker against the Magic. The Magic looked terrible last week against that same crummy Minny team. IMO I think the Knicks have a decent shot at the playoffs.


Looking at their schedule I think the Knicks have a decent shot at 4 or 5 wins. The harder part is expecting the Magic to win only two games when they have games at home against Memphis, Boston, Toronto and on the road against Milwaukee and Philly. I realize they've been terribly recently but to assume the odds of them going 2-6 are the same as the Knicks going 5-4 we have to assume that the Knicks are a .450 or .500 team whereas the Magic are a basically a .250 team (worst in the league). Orlando has done something to win at a .460 clip this season and 5 of their last 9, while the Knicks must have won at a lesser clip and shouldn't be a better team without several of their best players missing. Maybe 10% was a little low but I wouldn't go above 20%.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

theanimal23 said:


> I love McRoberts skill set, but its his mental "strength" that worries me. I feel that he is weak mentally and it prevents him from playing well. That is why I loved the Tyrus pick, albeit Raw, you knew his demeanor would make him give it 110% all the time.


Ehh, I would not be so sure about Tyrus metal strength either, this is a kid who doesnt take any type of criticism well and does say some very stupid things. McRoberts may not have the killer instict that Tyrus has, but hes light years smarter then Tyrus.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Is there a correlation between intelligence and productivity?


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

TripleDouble said:


> Is there a correlation between intelligence and productivity?


Well I should have said basketball IQ. I think basketball IQ is very importantant.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> Is there a correlation between intelligence and productivity?


Yes. Most often, there is.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

thebizkit69u said:


> Ehh, I would not be so sure about Tyrus metal strength either, this is a kid who doesnt take any type of criticism well and does say some very stupid things. *McRoberts may not have the killer instict that Tyrus has*, but hes light years smarter then Tyrus.


What I bolded, is prolly what I should have said. It is what I meant. Tyrus told McRoberts before the Duke LSU game last year that he was going to take away his soul. Walton mentioned it during the Cavs Bulls game. Tyrus thinks he is the best player. He's up there with Duncan, Dirk, etc. We all know he isn't, but he believes in himself. McRoberts doesn't. When I watch McRoberts play, I feel that he has confidence issues. He doesn't have faith in himself to make plays. Sure, he won't be the head honcho here, but I don't want him to have a Duhon-esqe confidence level where you pass up an open 3 b/c you have on confidence.

I rather take a slightly less talented player but one who gives it 110% and has faith that he is a basketball player than one who has the mental toughness of a Tim Thomas or Glenn Robinson.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

theanimal23 said:


> What I bolded, is prolly what I should have said. It is what I meant. Tyrus told McRoberts before the Duke LSU game last year that he was going to take away his soul. Walton mentioned it during the Cavs Bulls game. Tyrus thinks he is the best player. He's up there with Duncan, Dirk, etc. We all know he isn't, but he believes in himself. McRoberts doesn't. When I watch McRoberts play, I feel that he has confidence issues. He doesn't have faith in himself to make plays. Sure, he won't be the head honcho here, but I don't want him to have a Duhon-esqe confidence level where you pass up an open 3 b/c you have on confidence.
> 
> I rather take a slightly less talented player but one who gives it 110% and has faith that he is a basketball player than one who has the mental toughness of a Tim Thomas or Glenn Robinson.


But like I posted before I think Chicago is a nice fit for McRoberts, I think Skiles is a coach that will get the most out of players who are willing to buy into his method of coaching, I mean just look at Tyrus Thomas early in the season he wanted it his way and wanted to be the man right away, Skiles brought him back to earth and now hes a contributer, maybe Skiles can turn McRoberts into a very good pro.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> What I bolded, is prolly what I should have said. It is what I meant. Tyrus told McRoberts before the Duke LSU game last year that he was going to take away his soul. Walton mentioned it during the Cavs Bulls game. Tyrus thinks he is the best player. He's up there with Duncan, Dirk, etc. We all know he isn't, but he believes in himself. McRoberts doesn't. When I watch McRoberts play, I feel that he has confidence issues. He doesn't have faith in himself to make plays. Sure, he won't be the head honcho here, but I don't want him to have a Duhon-esqe confidence level where you pass up an open 3 b/c you have on confidence.
> 
> I rather take a slightly less talented player but one who gives it 110% and has faith that he is a basketball player than one who has the mental toughness of a Tim Thomas or Glenn Robinson.


I understand your point very well and don't disagree with you in principle. However, as to McRoberts I wouldn't write him off as a "loser" because of confidence issues.

Because Duke had such a poor year (for them) McRobert's stock is way undervalued IMO. My feeling is that once teams work him out his stock will climb and that he may even go in the top ten- beyond the Bulls' reach. In some ways he reminds me of a somewhat bigger, but less athletic version of Boris Diaw. (I believe DraftExpress sees him as a less athletic version of Chris Webber). In either case, it is obvious that his skill set for a big man is exceptional. You may recall that a lot of teams had a concern regarding Diaw's seemingly laid back attitude which is why he was not a lottery pick. That is the same reason why Atlanta gave up on him.

Bottom line is that IMO if you put McRoberts in the right situation his skills will translate very well on the NBA level. Moreover, I think he is plenty athletic. He can dribble and pass better than any big man in college. He is also a good rebounder and can explode to the basket (although he is not a highlight type of guy). I would say the weakest part of his game is his outside shot. As indicated, he may not have the make-up to take over a game but, if he were, he would certainly not be available in the late lottery where the Bulls will probably pick.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

charlietyra said:


> Bottom line is that IMO if you put McRoberts in the right situation his skills will translate very well on the NBA level. Moreover, I think he is plenty athletic. He can dribble and pass better than any big man in college. He is also a good rebounder and can explode to the basket (although he is not a highlight type of guy). I would say the weakest part of his game is his outside shot. As indicated, he may not have the make-up to take over a game but, if he were, he would certainly not be available in the late lottery where the Bulls will probably pick.


 And I think thats what the Bulls should really go after, remember guys this is a pick that really is given, its not a make or break franchise changing pick, but it is one that can really help us out for next year. McRoberts has skills that no other big man in this years draft posses, but I really love the kids passing, I think passing is such an underrated skill in the NBA. At his size his passing ability will really help out the other players around him.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

charlietyra said:


> IMO this is the most realistic breakdown of the lottery I have seen on this board. Except I would flip Splitter and Jianlian. Splitter belongs in Group D
> and Jianlian in Group C. Brewer, who you forgot, belongs in Group C.
> 
> What this means is that if the Bulls finish 11-13, the most likely scenario is Splitter or McRoberts. Yes, I would prefer Oden or Durant, but at 11-13 I would be happy with either at this point.
> ...


This was done with a Bulls only perspective in mind. My assumptions are that we need a big or a guy who can put the ball in the basket (preferably, both). I wouldn't draft Brewer to fight Nocioni and Thabo for minutes (unless getting rid of Nocioni is the plan). I'd rather take a project big or one of the more offense-oriented wings. Brewer is a great player, and he very well could be selected above where we pick. I hope he does, because that would open up more options for us.

Splitter was #4 on my draft board last season (behind Noah, Aldridge, and Bargnani), and my opinion has only improved on him. He has size, plays defense, a good rebounder, and can put the ball in the basket in the post.

Jianlian, I really don't like. He's extremely creative against the slowest of competition, but I don't see that game translating well to the NBA. One of his greatest assets, dribbling ability for a 7 footer, will likely be negated in the NBA. While he has good handles, I don't see him breaking down guys with any regularity. He's a good shooter, but nowhere close to a Dirk type shooter in that he can release a shot from virtually any body angle and have a high liklihood of going in. He only has range out to about 17 feet, is a twig, and does not look like he can add a lot more weight to that frame. To me, Jianlian is Bargnani light. All that said, I'd be willing to take a flier on him assuming the other guys listed above him are gone.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Oden/Durant
Noah
Horford
Wright

...

Hawes
Hibbert



Realistically speaking, I'd absolutely love it if we could grab Al Horford. I didn't understand the obsession with him until I saw him play in the tournament. If he weren't on such a stacked Florida team, the guy would be mentioned in the same breath as Durant/Wright, rather than just "one of those Florida lottery guys". He's got real inside game, real actual inside the paint type of game. He reminds me of LaMarcus Aldridge's level of play in college, except smoother. Noah is the better defender, but Horford plays good defense as well. He's got great size and good athleticism, good basketball IQ and doesn't have glaring deficiencies. I'd be interested in trading up for him, and Paxson has been known to swing deals to move up or down a few picks.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Billy D said that Horford has the highest basketball IQ of all the players he has ever coached.

I don't know if he can play Center, that will depend on draft measurements, but I love the kids game. He is very refined in the post, nice handles for a big man, intelligent, hard-nosed defender, and a very good passer. He has the frame to add another 15 pounds which will put him in the 250-260 range. 

Does anyone think Pax would move a core player + pick to grab his guy (*cough* Ben Gordon *cough*)? Not saying if I would or would not do this, just curious to know if people think this would be a possibility.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Showtyme said:


> Realistically speaking, I'd absolutely love it if we could grab Al Horford. I didn't understand the obsession with him until I saw him play in the tournament. If he weren't on such a stacked Florida team, the guy would be mentioned in the same breath as Durant/Wright, rather than just "one of those Florida lottery guys". He's got real inside game, real actual inside the paint type of game. He reminds me of LaMarcus Aldridge's level of play in college, except smoother. Noah is the better defender, but Horford plays good defense as well. He's got great size and good athleticism, good basketball IQ and doesn't have glaring deficiencies. I'd be interested in trading up for him, and Paxson has been known to swing deals to move up or down a few picks.


Horford reminds me more of a lesser shot blocking little better passing version of Okafor.

I really don't understand the comparison to Aldridge either. Aldridge was a much better man defender, had a jump shot, and had a variety of post moves, and relied more on finesse. Horford is more of a power player, a better weak side defender, and probably a better passer. Despite being a power player, I understand the thinking that Horford plays smoother. Aldridge does play very mechanical.

Really, the only thing similar I see about them is their body types and shot blocking.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

SMH

McRoberts is a bum.

One thing I've learned about Pax when it comes to drafting is, you either have to have extremely high self confidence in your abilities or you would of had to had been a WINNER in (overseas or in college), McRoberts has/was neither. He showed last season that when Reddick & Shelden were targets, they couldn't depend on him and THIS season was even WORSE with him being the #1 option. On top of that he couldn't even COMMAND double-teams this entire season to take some pressure off of Paulus & rookie Gerald Henderson.

He's soft and has no heart. He won't be a bull and I'm not worried about it.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Does anyone think Pax would move a core player + pick to grab his guy (*cough* Ben Gordon *cough*)? Not saying if I would or would not do this, just curious to know if people think this would be a possibility.


i suppose a better question is does anyone think pax can replace 21 ppg with their first round pick?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> Billy D said that Horford has the highest basketball IQ of all the players he has ever coached.
> 
> I don't know if he can play Center, that will depend on draft measurements, but I love the kids game. He is very refined in the post, nice handles for a big man, intelligent, hard-nosed defender, and a very good passer. He has the frame to add another 15 pounds which will put him in the 250-260 range.
> 
> Does anyone think Pax would move a core player + pick to grab his guy (*cough* Ben Gordon *cough*)? Not saying if I would or would not do this, just curious to know if people think this would be a possibility.


Horford is my favorite player in this draft not named Oden or Durant. however, I wouldn't trade a lottery pick + Ben Gordon just to move up to draft him.

Oden or Durant -- yeah, I'd do it.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Horford is my favorite player in this draft not named Oden or Durant. however, I wouldn't trade a lottery pick + Ben Gordon just to move up to draft him.
> 
> Oden or Durant -- yeah, I'd do it.


I agree with you regarding Horford, and not using Ben G. for a trade. 

I don't see Horford dropping out of the top 5.

Out of curosity, who would everyone pick if we got the 3rd pick? Does anyone think B. Wright will become an absolute beast? Who would you go here? Horford, Wright, Noah, Hawes, Yi?


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

1. Durant/Oden...tied. Durant is better, Oden fills a need....
3. Brandon Wright
4. Al Horford
5. Hawes
6. Hibbert
7. best big guy available unless a small is significantly better


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

theanimal23 said:


> I agree with you regarding Horford, and not using Ben G. for a trade.
> 
> I don't see Horford dropping out of the top 5.
> 
> Out of curosity, who would everyone pick if we got the 3rd pick? Does anyone think B. Wright will become an absolute beast? Who would you go here? Horford, Wright, Noah, Hawes, Yi?


Wright is without a doubt my #3 choice. I think he could turn into a real stud, as I've said on here numerous times. Tyrus with offense. He also has really good hands....couldn't believe a grab he made late in the season....had 3 guys around him, a guard still passed it in there, and somehow he came away with the ball and scored...even though there were 2 or 3 sets of hands right by his trying to steal the ball. Those 2 in the paint in 3 years would be dominant I think, and we'd be one heck of a fast breaking team with them there as well.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Wright is without a doubt my #3 choice. I think he could turn into a real stud, as I've said on here numerous times. Tyrus with offense. He also has really good hands....couldn't believe a grab he made late in the season....had 3 guys around him, a guard still passed it in there, and somehow he came away with the ball and scored...even though there were 2 or 3 sets of hands right by his trying to steal the ball. Those 2 in the paint in 3 years would be dominant I think, and we'd be one heck of a fast breaking team with them there as well.


I like him. He drops down my list though because we already have a Tyrus.


----------



## laso (Jul 24, 2002)

GROUP A (If we get lucky and get a top 3 pick)
1. Oden
2. Durant
3. Horford

GROUP B (I'm assuming the knicks pick would be 8 or higher)
4. Noah - Probably will not be available
5. Hawes - Probably not available
6. Splitter
7. Jialian
8. Hibbert
9. Wright - Probably not available
10. Conley
11. Brewer
12. TYoung
13. McRoberts
14. Green


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

I'm not that smart on draft stuff, particularly at this time of year. I watched some NCAA regular season games and lots of tourney games. On Euro league players, I only know what I've read, and most of it's from this board. I've read some stuff on DraftExpress.com and NBADraft.net. On those sites, Hibbard has moved up a lot, probably out of our range. Those two sites are "split on Splitter," with DraftExpress having the Bulls take him at #11 and NBADraft having him last 'til #24.

Since I've never seen Splitter play, I'm extremely high on him...he's the next big thing.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

transplant said:


> Since I've never seen Splitter play, I'm extremely high on him...he's the next big thing.


I've never seen him play either. He rules.


----------



## CaptK (May 29, 2006)

I'd be happy with Hawes, possibly even Hibbert.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I've never seen him play either. He rules.


Kinda like...Post-Draft/Pre-Bulls Dragan Tarlac.







ok. Lets hope to God not.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Kinda like...Post-Draft/Pre-Bulls Dragan Tarlac.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Dragan was always just misunderstood and misused as a player. His coaches tried to utilize him by placing him on the court with 4 other teammates in active competition against a professional opponent.

This just isn't the right way to put his particular style of play to use for the betterment of the team.


----------



## Fizer Fanatic (Jun 20, 2002)

1-Greg Oden
2-Kevin Durant
3-Al Horford
4-Brandan Wright
5-Spencer Hawes
6-Roy Hibbert
7-Joakim Noah
8-Tiago Splitter
9-Yi Jianlian
10-Corey Brewer


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

transplant said:


> I'm not that smart on draft stuff, particularly at this time of year. I watched some NCAA regular season games and lots of tourney games. On Euro league players, I only know what I've read, and most of it's from this board. I've read some stuff on DraftExpress.com and NBADraft.net. On those sites, Hibbard has moved up a lot, probably out of our range. Those two sites are "split on Splitter," with DraftExpress having the Bulls take him at #11 and NBADraft having him last 'til #24.
> 
> Since I've never seen Splitter play, I'm extremely high on him...he's the next big thing.


There may be some competition between those two sites. Both had him higher earlier in the year. Draftexpress dropped him around January. Nbadraft.net dropped him soon after. Draftexpress raised his ranking recently after some strong play. Nbadraft.net hasn't followed, yet. 

I feel the same way about Splitter.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> There may be some competition between those two sites. Both had him higher earlier in the year. Draftexpress dropped him around January. Nbadraft.net dropped him soon after. Draftexpress raised his ranking recently after some strong play. Nbadraft.net hasn't followed, yet.
> 
> I feel the same way about Splitter.


FWIW, I think DraftExpress is way more on the ball than NBAdraftnet. They post changes more frequently and they seem to have solid reasoning behind their rankings. For example, I think Splitter and McRoberts will go much closer to where DraftExpress has them. Big guys who can play are always valued much higher.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

Fizer Fanatic said:


> 1-Greg Oden
> 2-Kevin Durant
> 3-Al Horford
> 4-Brandan Wright
> ...


That is a pretty decent top 10 list. But after seeing the emergence of Tyrus, i think the only gap we need filling now is the Center position. We have about 2 more years of decent contribution of Wallace, and by that time he'll be on his last year of his contract. We need a 7 footer or we need to trade this pick for a young center. We dont' need a Wright, Noah, Splitter, Horford or any powerfoward types. The powerforward position is going to be filled by Tyrus for the next 10 years, this guy is going to be a all star in that position and we don't need another powerforward to negate him from that.

So the list should be down to.

Oden.
Hibbert.
Hawes.
Or some other young center we can groom.

If we can't get any of those players, trade down, or just trade the pick. The position we in most need is a center with some size, i don't want a powerfoward playing as a center.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Dragan was always just misunderstood and misused as a player. His coaches tried to utilize him by placing him on the court with 4 other teammates in active competition against a professional opponent.
> 
> This just isn't the right way to put his particular style of play to use for the betterment of the team.


:lol:


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Dragan was always just misunderstood and misused as a player. His coaches tried to utilize him by placing him on the court with 4 other teammates in active competition against a professional opponent.
> 
> This just isn't the right way to put his particular style of play to use for the betterment of the team.


:lol: :lol: 

organizations win championships......


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

kulaz3000 said:


> That is a pretty decent top 10 list. But after seeing the emergence of Tyrus, i think the only gap we need filling now is the Center position. We have about 2 more years of decent contribution of Wallace, and by that time he'll be on his last year of his contract. We need a 7 footer or we need to trade this pick for a young center. We dont' need a Wright, Noah, Splitter, Horford or any powerfoward types. The powerforward position is going to be filled by Tyrus for the next 10 years, this guy is going to be a all star in that position and we don't need another powerforward to negate him from that.
> 
> So the list should be down to.
> 
> ...


I disagree. I think that Tyrus and Brandan Wright could be a very good combo in the paint for us. Those 2 would destroy the bigger slower guys with their speed and athleticism, and they both play like 7 footers due to their long arms. If Ben Wallace, who plays much smaller than Tyrus can play C, I think one of these guys could play center too in a few years. Look at the Suns, they don't really have a center either...more like a PF playing Center, which is all Big Ben is anyway. In today's NBA, where there are so few actual centers, you don't have to have a big 7' plodding center to win. You just have to have something else to compensate (faster, quicker, long PFs like Tyrus/Brandan) or if your perimeter players are good enough, you just need a big body to bang down low....the Bulls won championships without a real post player, as did the Pistons, and the Mavericks should've last year if not for the refs.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

kulaz3000 said:


> That is a pretty decent top 10 list. But after seeing the emergence of Tyrus, i think the only gap we need filling now is the Center position. We have about 2 more years of decent contribution of Wallace, and by that time he'll be on his last year of his contract. We need a 7 footer or we need to trade this pick for a young center. We dont' need a Wright, Noah, Splitter, Horford or any powerfoward types. The powerforward position is going to be filled by Tyrus for the next 10 years, this guy is going to be a all star in that position and we don't need another powerforward to negate him from that.
> 
> So the list should be down to.
> 
> ...


Huh? Splitter is a 7"0 CENTER, not a 'power-forward type'. He'd also be an absolute BEAST defensively in the paint with Tyrus for the next ten years. Contrary to popular belief, Splitter CAN score, that's just not his role since he plays next to Scola. I've seen two complete games of him and various highlights, offensively, he isn't outstanding but he knows how to put the ball in the hole. If Splitter was our only addition in the offseason, I'd be very happy.

C Wallace / Splitter
F Thomas
F Deng / Khyrapa

Since we have to extend Luol & Ben, I don't know how much we'd have left for Nocioni but Khyrapa is decent insurance if we do lose him. Those two 2nd rounders should come in handy also.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

I agree with you roy. Splitter wouldn't be bad.

I also would love to see us pick up Herbert Hill or Marc Gasol with a trade up using our 2nd rounders.

I think Thabo showed he can play at a higher level than we've seen. Like Tyrus, and many young NBA players, an off season or two and he should be a real contributor to this team. 

One questioins though, Thabo played mostly at the SF spot tonight. Anyone think that's a better place for him?


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

chifaninca said:


> One questioins though, Thabo played mostly at the SF spot tonight. Anyone think that's a better place for him?


Yes, at least for the immediate future I see him playing his best ball at SF. He gets beat off the dribble too much by quicker guards, I think he can improve on this as he gains experience but I think for now he can hold his own at SF. He held Prince in check and I thought he did a better job guarding him than Deng ever has. 

Thabo's also one of our better rebounders and when Skiles decides to go with a 3-guard lineup it makes a lot more sense to have Thabo playing the 3 where he isn't overmatched and at the same time it gives us another ball-handler/passer out on the court.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

chifaninca said:


> I agree with you roy. Splitter wouldn't be bad.
> 
> I also would love to see us pick up Herbert Hill or Marc Gasol with a trade up using our 2nd rounders.
> 
> ...


I'm all for that move for Hill or Gasol.

As far as Thabo is concerned, yeah he does play pretty damn good at SF but here's to hoping he develops enough in the offseason to truely become the 3rd guard.

:cheers:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

chifaninca said:


> I think Thabo showed he can play at a higher level than we've seen. Like Tyrus, and many young NBA players, an off season or two and he should be a real contributor to this team.
> 
> *One questioins though, Thabo played mostly at the SF spot tonight. Anyone think that's a better place for him?*


One of my stated reasons for supporting trading Deng for Gasol is that I consider Thabo Christo to be a 1/3. 

I don't really think of him as a 2 at all. And I think he's going to be a very nice player. A very, very nice player. He's just been too hesitant. Once he gets his confidence rolling, the kid has an instinctual game that is really smooth and fun to watch. 

To me, this makes Nocioni, or to a lesser degree Deng, tradeable for the right big man.


----------

