# You're on the clock/Who is your guy at #2? (poll merged!!)



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Ok, you are John Paxson and the Bulls have officially been awarded the #1 pick overall because of the Knick trade of course. Your on the clock and the Bulls have 5 minutes to pick who they want. No, so and so or so and so...one name...one guy...one chance. WHo do you select and why.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Your on the clock*

Randy Foye. The Bulls are just one undersized shooting guard away from a championship. :angel:


----------



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

*Re: Your on the clock*

I trade the pick along with Chris Duhon to the Lakers for Lamar Odom and their 27th and 51st picks.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

*Re: Your on the clock*

I trade the pick along with filler to Portland for Randolph and Miles.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

*Re: Your on the clock*



L.O.B said:


> I trade the pick along with Chris Duhon to the Lakers for Lamar Odom and their 27th and 51st picks.


Odom, Deng, and Noc?


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: Your on the clock*

My Pick (& Larry Brown's ) :

Tyrus Thomas - Pure Athelete, INCREDIBLE shot-blocker, great defender, has range from 15-18 ft, runs the floor like a deer, has the heart and competitiveness of a champion, can put the ball on the floor and take you off the dribble. He already fits the defensive mind-set of the team and he's absolutely OUTSTANDING on the fastbreak & great at getting catching lobs & getting putbacks. He's the type of dunker that gets the crowd out of their sits and puts energy in the building (a la Marion, Martin etc.). IMO, the type of player WORTH developing & shouldn't have that much pressure to score now since we'll be picking up a few more bigs in the offseason.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: Your on the clock*



mediocre man said:


> I trade the pick along with filler to Portland for Randolph and Miles.


horrible...i doubt pax would bring headcases like those two in here.


----------



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

*Re: Your on the clock*



HAWK23 said:


> Odom, Deng, and Noc?


Odom can play the 4. He's pretty damn good at pick and rolls and he's very good at passing out of the post and he's versatile. I would rather grab someone like Odom and put him at the 4 then sink a ton of money into Al Harrington.


----------



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

*Re: Your on the clock*



mediocre man said:


> I trade the pick along with filler to Portland for Randolph and Miles.


trade Tyson and the #1 to Portland for their #2 and Randoplh, I might just pull the trigger on that deal.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: Your on the clock*



L.O.B said:


> Odom can play the 4. He's pretty damn good at pick and rolls and he's very good at passing out of the post and he's versatile. I would rather grab someone like Odom and put him at the 4 then sink a ton of money into Al Harrington.


agreed

he averaged what? 19, 10 & 5 when he played PF in miami.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

*Re: Your on the clock*

Odom would be great pickup.

Another one I wouldn't mind is Villanueva, would they take Deng and the #1?


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: Your on the clock*



step said:


> Odom would be great pickup.
> 
> Another one I wouldn't mind is Villanueva, would they take Deng and the #1?


I doubt it, they wanna build around Charlie & Chris. Charlie has outstanding potential.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: Your on the clock*

Ok gang this isn't about trades this is about picking a player at #1, stay focused!


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Your on the clock*



The ROY said:


> My Pick (& Larry Brown's ) :
> 
> Tyrus Thomas - Pure Athelete, INCREDIBLE shot-blocker, great defender, has range from 15-18 ft, runs the floor like a deer, has the heart and competitiveness of a champion, can put the ball on the floor and take you off the dribble. He already fits the defensive mind-set of the team and he's absolutely OUTSTANDING on the fastbreak & great at getting catching lobs & getting putbacks. He's the type of dunker that gets the crowd out of their sits and puts energy in the building (a la Marion, Martin etc.). IMO, the type of player WORTH developing & shouldn't have that much pressure to score now since we'll be picking up a few more bigs in the offseason.


Ditto. Tyrus Thomas is my guy at #1, though this could change if new info presents itself through workouts and/or measurements.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: You're on the clock*

Disclaimer: This is premature since we don't have word yet on workouts. They make a big difference both for teams (obviously) and for fans.

That said, Aldridge.

Can be a 4/5 and is more of a known commodity in that his skill set is far more polished. This is not a slight on Thomas, who is my clear second choice. I simply prefer Aldridge because the skill set is in place. 

I've seen enough athletic freaks never develop the skill set needed to be a consistently productive NBA player that I don't really want to risk it now if we have a reasonable alternative option to that risk.

What we need inside is consistency. I think Aldridge offers more of that commodity than Thomas will.


----------



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

*Re: Your on the clock*



ace20004u said:


> Ok gang this isn't about trades this is about picking a player at #1, stay focused!


Why didn't you say that in in the 1st place then? :biggrin: 

I still want to trade the pick but if you force me....
I'll take Lamarcus cause I don't have enough information on Splitter or Barganini and I'd be too damn scared to draft Obryant. I want a player that can score in the post and do a reasonable job defending this is why I would choose Aldridge over the others.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: You're on the clock*



Ron Cey said:


> Disclaimer: This is premature since we don't have word yet on workouts. They make a big difference both for teams (obviously) and for fans.
> 
> That said, Aldridge.
> 
> ...


can't u just pick your guy and tell us why? instead of downplaying another player? no offense


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: You're on the clock*



The ROY said:


> can't u just pick your guy and tell us why? instead of downplaying another player? no offense


I thought he did 

He picked Aldridge, because he's a polished prospect.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: You're on the clock*

My First Post Should Of Been The Blueprint Of This Thread

Catch Up!


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: You're on the clock*



The ROY said:


> can't u just pick your guy and tell us why? instead of downplaying another player? no offense


Wasn't the request that we explain why? 

My top 2 choices are Aldridge and then Thomas. My choice has a bit to do with Aldridge's strengths and a bit to do with Thomas' weaknesses and what I think fits better with this team. My evaluation of Thomas is part of the reason I prefer Aldridge.

And, for what its worth, I was deliberately trying to avoid the reaction that I was "downplaying" Thomas when I typed this:



> This is not a slight on Thomas, who is my clear second choice.


I like Thomas a lot.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

*Re: You're on the clock*

Aldridge.

Bulls need a center, and he's the best available. Seems to have the whole package -- good defense, rebounds well, good ball-handling and can score.

He may or may not be the best player available, but he's rated by most to be at least a top 5 player in the draft, and he's the only player other than O'Bryant who can play the center position.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: You're on the clock*

Aldridge.

He is the most capable scorer for a big man that still should play above average defensively. I also think he will be the most productive big man in his rookie year.

My main reason for this is I think he is the guy who will mesh the best with Chandler as a starting two. He is the only one of the big three who can play the Center position. While both a bit undersized, both Chandler or Aldridge could take the opposing team's best offensive frontcourt player depending on foul status & situation. Chandler could stay in his pick and roll role and Aldridge can hit the open shot. 

In addition, Aldridge should be able to cover everything Sweetney provided offensively in the post, as well as rebounding, and much better on the defensive end. He should be able to provide what Othella Harrington brought for us too. If we draft a guard with PG skills at #16, it could mean we trade Duhon & Sweetney to a team for an upgrade at backup Center.

I think Aldridge is the lowest risk pick at #1, and his ceiling is not noticeably lower than any other top choice. I think Aldridge has Camby or Brand type upside (in terms of impact on a team).


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

*Re: You're on the clock*



> I doubt it, they wanna build around Charlie & Chris. Charlie has outstanding potential.


Charlie is great, but as a wing player I don't see him being that successful at all. Unless Bosh moves to the middle, they have two guys best suited at the same position.

Draft Aldridge with the Knicks pick and Roy with theirs.
Aldridge
Bosh
Deng
Peterson
Roy

compared to:

Draft Roy with their pick.
Araujo
Bosh
Villanueva
Peterson
Roy

Which one would you rather have? Also considering the rumours going around, they're supposedly high on Bargnani, another guy going to be playing out of position.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

*Re: You're on the clock*

Aldridge. He's got best combination of size and skill in the draft. While his low-key demeanor is cause for concern, I speculate (hope) he's got the Duncan personality syndrom: I think he cares a lot about winning without having to prove it through on-court histrionics.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

*Re: You're on the clock*

Lamarcus Aldridge

Legit 7 footer, long wingspan, most balanced big man in the draft. Not as good as a defender as TT or a better scorer than Bags. However, he does both things better than each of the other guys. He is also the 'safe' pick. I do not believe Pax is a risk taker. 

If I knew the Pre-Draft Measurements, and this relates to another thread on here, that IF Tyrus is a legit 6'10", he might be taken. Bags will be considered, but that depends on workouts. I believe Bags fits our offense better, and our team D should hide his defensive weaknesses a la Eddy. 

Overall: Aldridge will be the name announced.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: You're on the clock*



Ron Cey said:


> Disclaimer: This is premature since we don't have word yet on workouts. They make a big difference both for teams (obviously) and for fans.
> 
> That said, Aldridge.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure I see where the consistency comes from with Aldridge though. If anything, his lack of consistency has been a knock on him. From mid January onwards, he seemed to pretty inconsistent to me. He'd play a couple good games then a couple bad games. In general, he sort of tailed off after a very hot start to the year.

And then there are consistent questions about his desire and competiveness. It's true there are plenty of unskilled athletes in the NBA, but there are also plenty of guys with all the skills in the world who don't apply them.

That, I think, is the real distinction that needs to be made. Obviously skills and athleticism are both important, but more important than either is the ability to utilize the talents. And I think that's really the question with Aldridge. It's not like Aldridge is a bad athlete or anything... he's way above average. And his skills are impressive. But with all that athleticsm and talent, Aldridge as underachieved and to me that's a pretty serious knock.

I also think it's a pretty serious knock in Paxson's eyes too. And that's one thing I agree with him on. He's yet to draft a guy who didn't look like he was really a baller.

Maybe Aldridge is a baller. More info will certainly come out on him and we'll get some good stories about his background and hopefully what makes him tick. But the evidence so far, notably what I've seen on the court, points me to the conclusion he's not.

------

Anyway, to answer the question, given the info I have right at the moment, I'd have to say Bargnani is still ahead by a nose over Thomas for me. Bargnani looks like a guy who can do it all, likes to play, and has shown he can play. I'm not sold on either of them. 

I'd also consider Morrison, Roy, and Aldridge as potentials, but as of now they're not my guys.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

*Re: You're on the clock*

My personal pick would be Bags. I think he fits our offense the best, is very young, and has a wide variety of skills. I know the 'Dirk' comparisons are good to hear, but I don't know how valid they are. How good was Dirk at this stage of his career?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: You're on the clock*

Andrea Bargnani. He's cut his teeth against far and away the best competition of any of the players we're talking about for number one -- no Baylors, University of Texas at Arlingtons, or McNeese States on the Benetton Treviso schedule. 

He'd give us a front-line player who'll create matchup nightmares with his ability to score from anywhere on the floor, be it in the open or half court. He has been praised for his work ethic and considerable year-to-year improvement. His professional experience ought to ease his transition to the NBA.

Tyrus Thomas is a close second. If we weren't a good defensive team, he'd be the obvious choice. But we're a stellar defensive team, and what we need is the most offensively capable big man we can find. That's Bargnani.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

*Re: You're on the clock*

Bargnani. 

Dont know that much about because I have never seen him play but being compared to the next Dirk, he cannot be all that bad eh? 

Second comes Aldridge simply because he is a center. 

My preference is TT, but I think with the #1 you take either Bargs or Aldridge. 

We go 4 or five we could very well end up with TT and that would not be a bad thing!


----------



## CroatianBullsFan (May 23, 2006)

*Re: You're on the clock*

LaMarcus Aldridge. I believe that he will bi atleast solid player under the rim. Thomas could bi better then him, but i also think he has bigger chance to be a bust.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: You're on the clock*



Mikedc said:


> I'm not sure I see where the consistency comes from with Aldridge though. If anything, his lack of consistency has been a knock on him. From mid January onwards, he seemed to pretty inconsistent to me. He'd play a couple good games then a couple bad games. In general, he sort of tailed off after a very hot start to the year.
> 
> But with all that athleticsm and talent, Aldridge as underachieved and to me that's a pretty serious knock.


I don't know how much Texas ball you watched and I'm not going to pretend I saw them play 25 games or anything, but I watched them as often as I could as the season went along. When Aldridge had some down games statistically, it was typically because the guard play was so selfish and atrocious. 

Its been said a lot, and its true. Frankly, I'm shocked he was able to score 15 a game on that team.

If you look back at his games, statistically, from last season you will see that there are a few in which he underwhelmed. But in those in which he scored in single digits, with the exception of 3 games in which he got into foul trouble which limited his minutes, you will note that he consistently had good rebound and block numbers - big man stats that have nothing to do with guard play.

He is consistent. His teammates, not so much.

He averaged 15/9/2 as a sophomore in college and was the Big 12 Defensive Player of the Year. I don't consider that under-achievement. Thats a pretty good collegiate year for a sophomore big man.

He wasn't a showy player. But I never got the impression he wasn't playing hard when I watched him.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: You're on the clock*



Ron Cey said:


> Wasn't the request that we explain why?
> 
> My top 2 choices are Aldridge and then Thomas. My choice has a bit to do with Aldridge's strengths and a bit to do with Thomas' weaknesses and what I think fits better with this team. My evaluation of Thomas is part of the reason I prefer Aldridge.
> 
> ...


my apologies ron ron


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: You're on the clock*



ScottMay said:


> Tyrus Thomas is a close second.


Scott, I think we have similar taste in draft prospects this year. Only difference being that Tyrus Thomas is my top choice, with Bargnani being a close #2 (not vice-versa). I definitely think either would be good choices, and Bargnani gives an offensive punch we don't currently have. I give the edge to Thomas though because his athletic ability is simply off the charts (and our squad lacks standout athleticism, IMO), PLUS I think he has the skills to grow into a solid scorer as well. More than anything though, he really seems to have the mindset and competitive edge to work balls out become a phenomenal player. If Bargnani has that same desire, then great...for me, it's just because I don't know enough about the guy.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: You're on the clock*



ScottMay said:


> Andrea Bargnani. He's cut his teeth against far and away the best competition of any of the players we're talking about for number one -- no Baylors, University of Texas at Arlingtons, or McNeese States on the Benetton Treviso schedule.
> 
> He'd give us a front-line player who'll create matchup nightmares with his ability to score from anywhere on the floor, be it in the open or half court. He has been praised for his work ethic and considerable year-to-year improvement. His professional experience ought to ease his transition to the NBA.
> 
> Tyrus Thomas is a close second. If we weren't a good defensive team, he'd be the obvious choice. But we're a stellar defensive team, and what we need is the most offensively capable big man we can find. That's Bargnani.


If we draft him, I hope you guys are right about Bargnani. But I don't get Euro-League basketball on TV so I haven't seen him play. I also haven't been able to evaluate the strength of competition in the Italian league. I don't know who he has played against or how good they are. 

Rumor has it he's a good scoring big man. But that he's basically a scorer in the small forward mold. I think Aldridge's type of scoring maybe fits in a little better with what we lack - assuming what I read about Bargnani is true.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: You're on the clock*



The ROY said:


> my apologies ron ron


No sweat.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: You're on the clock*



truebluefan said:


> Bargnani.
> 
> Dont know that much about because I have never seen him play but being compared to the next Dirk, he cannot be all that bad eh?


If we get him I just hope he lives up to half his hype. I remember Tyson being hyped as the next Kevin Garnett, a freakish, ballhandling center with range out to the pro 3, who could play C PF and SF.

As it turns out, not _exactly_...




I'm not slagging Bargnani, because like you, I haven't seen him play, except a couple of clips. I'm just saying...


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: You're on the clock*



truebluefan said:


> We go 4 or five we could very well end up with TT and that would not be a bad thing!


I don't think Thomas falls that low. He has too much hype right now. I think we CAN get one of these 3 at 4 or 5 though. As good as Rudy Gay sounds in the pre-draft workouts, he may be taken higher than expected.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: You're on the clock*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> If we get him I just hope he lives up to half his hype. I remember Tyson being hyped as the next Kevin Garnett, a freakish, ballhandling center with range out to the pro 3, who could play C PF and SF.
> 
> As it turns out, not _exactly_...
> 
> I'm not slagging Bargnani, because like you, I haven't seen him play, except a couple of clips. I'm just saying...


Agreed, I haven't seen him play ENOUGH to say I could take him no question. We've seen GOOD looking clips, but how about the rest of the game? Is he doing the little things? Obviously if they take him, they know so, I trust Pax.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

*Re: You're on the clock*

Mine should be no secret. With the first overall selection in the 2006 NBA draft, the Chicago Bulls select... Andrea Bargnani. Matchup nightmare on offense. As I've said before, he really is the safest pick because of his skill-set and the fact that he's doing it against men in one of the better professional leagues on the planet. He doesn't necessarily address the supposed "low post" scorer that we seem to need, but what he will do is draw that low post defender out and open the floor up considerably on offense. Defensively, he'll hold his own. I think there is very little to his downside and he still has considerable upside to him.

Aldridge may seem the most skilled, but there is just too much variance in his game. He fits the mold of that skilled low post player, but will he succeed at it? He's not a banger and he really isn't going to take folks off the dribble that much. I don't know what his range is, but it can't be much beyond 15 feet. There's some risk there.

Thomas probably has the most upside of the three, but he's also the most unskilled at this point in time. If he fulfills his considerable upside, he may well be the best player in the draft. But, we've seem the high risk/reward player a few too many times here with the Bulls. If he fails to tap into his potential, we've got a #1 pick who isn't producing like a #1 should. Lot of risk there, but he sure is tantelizing.

If Pax is as conservative as he's led all of us to believe he is, Bargnani makes a whole lot of sense. He's the most battle-tested of the three and I have little doubt he'd contribute pretty much from day 1.

If you want that rebounding big, go get Nazr, Nene, Pryz or get Gooden if you'd like some more scoring punch from your frontline.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

*Re: You're on the clock*



Mikedc said:


> But with all that athleticsm and talent, Aldridge has underachieved and to me that's a pretty serious knock.


I don't agree that he has underachieved, especially considering the shot-first nature of the guys he's playing with. 

Compare his stats as a sophmore with Duncan's sophmore stats:

Aldridge 34 MPG 15 PPG 57 FG% 4.9 FTAPG 9.2 RPG 2 BLKS

Duncan 37 MPG 16.8 PPG 59 FG% 4.9 FTAPG 12..5 RPG 4 BLKS

Duncan obviously has him beat in blocks and rebounds by a fairly wide margin, but scoring was pretty close, especially on a per minute basis. 

Aldridge is obviously not Duncan -- he doesn't have the frame or the explosiveness of a young Duncan -- but I do see _some_ of the same offensive polish and touch that Duncan had. And I am hopeful that they share the same reserved on court demeanor.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: You're on the clock*



fl_flash said:


> Mine should be no secret. With the first overall selection in the 2006 NBA draft, the Chicago Bulls select... Andrea Bargnani. Matchup nightmare on offense. As I've said before, he really is the safest pick because of his skill-set and the fact that he's doing it against men in one of the better professional leagues on the planet. He doesn't necessarily address the supposed "low post" scorer that we seem to need, but what he will do is draw that low post defender out and open the floor up considerably on offense. Defensively, he'll hold his own. I think there is very little to his downside and he still has considerable upside to him.
> 
> Aldridge may seem the most skilled, but there is just too much variance in his game. He fits the mold of that skilled low post player, but will he succeed at it? He's not a banger and he really isn't going to take folks off the dribble that much. I don't know what his range is, but it can't be much beyond 15 feet. There's some risk there.
> 
> ...


nice post, makes alot of sense.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: You're on the clock*

My real concern with Bargnani is that I keep hearing everyone referring to him as a SF. Every clip I've seen of him makes him look like a PF that can shoot from the perimeter. Is his strength that much of a concern?

Bargnani is definately my 1b option to Aldridge, although I don't know enough about him and have been desparately searching the net for more.

I even called my cousin who is currently doing a work-study in Germany to see if he could record and send me some games, but he nor his host family had the equipment to do so.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: You're on the clock*



Ron Cey said:


> I don't know how much Texas ball you watched and I'm not going to pretend I saw them play 25 games or anything, but I watched them as often as I could as the season went along. When Aldridge had some down games statistically, it was typically because the guard play was so selfish and atrocious.
> 
> Its been said a lot, and its true. Frankly, I'm shocked he was able to score 15 a game on that team.
> 
> ...


Texas's guards don't get to take all of the blame on this one, I'm afraid. Nope, Corchiani and Hurley they ain't, and yup, they sure did like to jack a lot of shots, but Aldridge drifted in and out of lots of games and failed to make himself available. You can't pass to a guy who isn't open.

It was an ongoing theme with Texas the entire season.



> Texas coach Rick Barnes is preaching consistency heading into the NCAA Tournament. With a team that basically goes only six deep, Barnes wants to know what he's going to get from each starter night in and night out.
> 
> Barnes told the Longhorns that he knows what he's going to get from two of his starters – P.J. Tucker and Kenton Paulino – but isn't quite sure what he'll get from LaMarcus Aldridge, Daniel Gibson and Brad Buckman.
> 
> "I go back and watch films with Coach," Aldridge said. "He shows me spots when I can disappear, as far as not wanting the ball or not being aggressive or being too passive. If I'm not wanting the ball, I'm not being aggressive. I'm just out there for no reason."





> "We need him to be aggressive and to want the ball. But it works both ways. He's going to have to demand it and make those guys feel comfortable about throwing it in there to him. ... The worse thing he can do is be passive in this tournament."
> 
> – Rick Barnes on sophomore forward LaMarcus Aldridge


http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...men/stories/031706dnspoutbriefs.1c441686.html

Consistency is a huge concern with Aldridge. In fact, personally, it's my biggest concern. He's not physically gifted or skilled enough to take games off at the next level.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

*Re: You're on the clock*



fl_flash said:


> Mine should be no secret. With the first overall selection in the 2006 NBA draft, the Chicago Bulls select... Andrea Bargnani. Matchup nightmare on offense. As I've said before, he really is the safest pick because of his skill-set and the fact that he's doing it against men in one of the better professional leagues on the planet. He doesn't necessarily address the supposed "low post" scorer that we seem to need, but what he will do is draw that low post defender out and open the floor up considerably on offense. Defensively, he'll hold his own. I think there is very little to his downside and he still has considerable upside to him.


I really don't understand the enthusiasm for Bargnani on this board. His stats for 2005-2006 are not that impressive :

http://www.euroleague.net/plantillas/jugador.jsp?id=BWZ

For a big man, Barganani is not a good rebounder (4.1 per game in 21 min).
He is obviously not a terrifying scorer (10.9 pnts per game), although he shoots pretty well from the euro 3 pnt line (43%).
Assists, steals are low, and he manages to get 3.2 fouls and 1.6 turnovers in his 21 minutes.

Overall, his numbers don't compare very well with Aldridge and the other big men he is being compared to. 

Shades of Brad Sellers.

PS. How the hell do you paste an image into a post??


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

*Re: You're on the clock*



ScottMay said:


> but Aldridge drifted in and out of lots of games and failed to make himself available.


That is to the wildcard with Aldridge. Will he be able to put on the strength he will need to effectively establish position in the NBA? If the answer is yes, I have no doubt he'll be a very effective player. If not, he won't be because he is not an elite athlete like Bosh who can consistantly create off face-up situations with his quickness. 

Somewhere I have seen "before and after" photos showing Aldridge when he entered Texas and now and I remember the weight gain looking impressive. This shows willingness and ability to add weight.


----------



## LIBlue (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: You're on the clock*

We need somebody that can get the offensive and defensive rebound, block an occasional shot, and can play both solid interior and help defense. My gut says Thomas is probably the best at this aspect of the game.

We need a player with a somewhat developed low post offensive game, that can also hit the 12 to 15 foot jumper. If we can establish a better low post game, it will help open up the outside game, and will hopefully help reduce the wide discrepancy in free throw attempts per game. We lost so many games last year because the other team took 15 more FT attempts than the Bulls. My gut says Aldridge is the most developed low post player.

We also need a player with movement skills. We do not need a plodder slowing down the motion offense. Either Thomas or Aldridge will work here.

I have not heard enough about Bags to know his game.

Based on these facts, I lean slightly towards Aldridge with the # 1 pick, followed by Thomas and then Bags.


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

*Re: You're on the clock*

For me it's definitely Bargnani.

As many others have remarked in this thread, he has shown that he can compete at the very top in Europe, unlike the countless other "next Nowitzkis" that teams have been drooling over the last couple of years. If we got him, the other teams in the league would have to adjust to us, instead of the other way around as we have seen countless times this season. He also looks like he can handle the ball well, and he is definitely fast for his size. His speed leads me to believe he can become a decent defender in the NBA, which he has also shown by leading the Italian league in blocks. His shot looks great, all the way out to the 3 point line, and he seems to have an improving post game. 

I'm not too worried about the strenght factor, because Bargnani looks like he could easily add 15 pounds of muscle without losing any speed. I think he would be a great forward combo along with either Nocioni or Deng, and when we add a decent inside scorer in free agency, we will be very hard to defend.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

*Re: You're on the clock*



ScottMay said:


> Andrea Bargnani. He's cut his teeth against far and away the best competition of any of the players we're talking about for number one -- no Baylors, University of Texas at Arlingtons, or McNeese States on the Benetton Treviso schedule.
> 
> He'd give us a front-line player who'll create matchup nightmares with his ability to score from anywhere on the floor, be it in the open or half court. He has been praised for his work ethic and considerable year-to-year improvement. His professional experience ought to ease his transition to the NBA.


Agreed. With the #1 pick, I take Andrea Bargnani.

I'm not sold on any of the top five players really, but I doubt any of them become stars. Bargnani may be the highest risk in the top five (coming from overseas, new language, changes in rules and so on make it hard to adjust, some kids just give up), but he is also the highest reward. He is the only guy in this draft who strikes me as superstar. Potential to be a top 10 player. 

If the Bulls didn't already have great depth and a lot of good roleplayers, I'd go with a safer bet, but at this point, adding to our _depth_ doesn't really make us much better. Turning an 8 man rotation into a 9 man rotation doesn't make us better. We need to look at the 8 man rotation and upgrade. We're not going to win jack with Kirk Hinrich as our best player, or Noce/Gordon, whoever you think is our best. Depth won't get you that far, your team has to be somewhat top heavy at some point if you're thinking about winning titles. 



ScottMay said:


> But we're a stellar defensive team, and what we need is the most offensively capable big man we can find. That's Bargnani.


That's my thinking too, which is why I'm very hesitant on Thomas, because I'm afraid there is too much Tyson Chandler in him.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: You're on the clock*



LIBlue said:


> We need somebody that can get the offensive and defensive rebound, block an occasional shot, and can play both solid interior and help defense. My gut says Thomas is probably the best at this aspect of the game.
> 
> We need a player with a somewhat developed low post offensive game, that can also hit the 12 to 15 foot jumper. If we can establish a better low post game, it will help open up the outside game, and will hopefully help reduce the wide discrepancy in free throw attempts per game. We lost so many games last year because the other team took 15 more FT attempts than the Bulls. My gut says Aldridge is the most developed low post player.
> 
> ...


OOOOOOhhhh, please don' t call him "Bags."

That is way bad mojo around here...


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: You're on the clock*



Sir Patchwork said:


> That's my thinking too, which is why I'm very hesitant on Thomas, because I'm afraid there is too much Tyson Chandler in him.


:cowboy:


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

*Re: You're on the clock*

Is the euro league so much better than the NCAA and NBA that a player who averages less than 11 points and four rebounds per game is considered a top big man prospect in the NBA?

People have reservations about Thomas's scoring ability. But at least he can rebound and play defense. Not to mention that he is a better scorer than Bargnani at this point.

These highlight clips are being take a little too seriously IMO. OK, the guy can stick the open jumper from the euro 3 point line, but I just don't see anything in those clips that cause me to overlook a mediocre statistical performance.


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

*Re: You're on the clock*



McBulls said:


> Is the euro league so much better than the NCAA and NBA that a player who averages less than 11 points and four rebounds per game is considered a top big man prospect in the NBA?


Coaches in Europe are notoriously tough on young players, and they usually prefer savvy veterans who will not make mistakes in the big games, and every game in the Euroleague is a BIG game. It's a competition with the best teams in Europe, like the playoffs in the NBA. For a 20-year old to have such a key role on his team, he has to be really good, or else he simply wouldn't play. How many 20-year old big men have had key roles on their teams in the playoffs in the NBA this season?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: You're on the clock*



McBulls said:


> Is the euro league so much better than the NCAA and NBA that a player who averages less than 11 points and four rebounds per game is considered a top big man prospect in the NBA?


I'm no Euro-league guru, but from what I understand, one of the big trends in Euro ball is that coaches use VERY deep rotations and rarely play single players alot of minutes. They seem to care less about stats the way we do in the NBA. I'm fairly certain that there are some very good NBA players who put up low minutes (and hence, smaller stats) while playing overseas. Nocioni, for example, I think only averaged about 11 points and 7 rebounds for his Tau Ceremica (sp?) team. And he was considered one of the team's stars. I won't even mention Tskitishvili and Darko's stats, because frankly they barely had any! In other words, players play less...and young players don't play at all.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

*Re: You're on the clock*



McBulls said:


> Is the euro league so much better than the NCAA and NBA that a player who averages less than 11 points and four rebounds per game is considered a top big man prospect in the NBA?


There needs to be a ton of context to take EuroLeague stats and compare them to NCAA stats. It's more focused on the team in EuroLeague. It's a brand of basketball. You get numbers within the flow of the game and the style of play. Nobody is going to be feeding you the ball isolating you. 

Aside from that, the minutes are usually down. 17 points and 7 rebounds may not be impressive at first glance, but in 22 minutes it's pretty good. 26 points in 30 minutes. 30 points in 32 minutes. 20 points in 23 minutes. 

And yes, every team in the EuroLeague would run the table in the NCAA.


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

*Re: You're on the clock*



yodurk said:


> I'm no Euro-league guru, but from what I understand, one of the big trends in Euro ball is that coaches use VERY deep rotations and rarely play single players alot of minutes. They seem to care less about stats the way we do in the NBA. I'm fairly certain that there are some very good NBA players who put up low minutes (and hence, smaller stats) while playing overseas. Nocioni, for example, I think only averaged about 11 points and 7 rebounds for his Tau Ceremica (sp?) team. And he was considered one of the team's stars. I won't even mention Tskitishvili and Darko's stats, because frankly they barely had any! In other words, players play less...and young players don't play at all.


True, European basketball is much more team-oriented. That's why you don't have guys averaging 30 points a game.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: You're on the clock*

While we're on the topic of Euro basketball style of play, would anyone be so kind to locate some Euro statistics for Ginobili, Gasol, Nowitzki, and hell even Toni Kukoc? I know Kukoc and Gasol were both god-like status among Euro basketball fans. I wonder what kind of stats they put up.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

*Re: You're on the clock*



yodurk said:


> While we're on the topic of Euro basketball style of play, would anyone be so kind to locate some Euro statistics for Ginobili, Gasol, Nowitzki, and hell even Toni Kukoc? I know Kukoc and Gasol were both god-like status among Euro basketball fans. I wonder what kind of stats they put up.


Gasgol is a recent comparison.

http://www.euroleague.net/plantillas/jugador.jsp?id=BWZ

Averaged 18.5 points and 6 rebounds per game in 200-2001. Shot 69% from the field.

Those numbers inspire a high pick.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

*Re: You're on the clock*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> If we get him I just hope he lives up to half his hype. I remember Tyson being hyped as the next Kevin Garnett, a freakish, ballhandling center with range out to the pro 3, who could play C PF and SF.
> 
> As it turns out, not _exactly_...
> 
> ...


I remember as recently as NBA 2k4 they had Chandler listed as a SF. Haha. Can you imagine that? I like Bargnani, but my guess is that Paxson prefers Aldridge/Thomas based on his drafting record.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: You're on the clock*



yodurk said:


> While we're on the topic of Euro basketball style of play, would anyone be so kind to locate some Euro statistics for Ginobili, Gasol, Nowitzki, and hell even Toni Kukoc? I know Kukoc and Gasol were both god-like status among Euro basketball fans. I wonder what kind of stats they put up.


According to his Wikipedia entry, Gasol averaged 11 ppg for FC Barcelona (don't know if that's his career or best year . . .)

Ginobili and Kukoc were more established veteran guys, so they had better numbers. IIRC, Kukoc led the Italian League in assists multiple years running. 

And I don't think Nowitzki played professionally in Europe . . . he was awfully young when he came over here.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

*Re: You're on the clock*



McBulls said:


> Is the euro league so much better than the NCAA and NBA that a player who averages less than 11 points and four rebounds per game is considered a top big man prospect in the NBA?


In a word - yes. I don't even think it's all that close. The top Euroleague teams would most likely chew up the Florida's and LSU's of the world.



> People have reservations about Thomas's scoring ability. But at least he can rebound and play defense. Not to mention that he is a better scorer than Bargnani at this point.


I'll give you the rebounding and defending side of Thomas, but there is no way in hell he's a better scorer than Bargnani. Again, it's not even close.



> These highlight clips are being take a little too seriously IMO. OK, the guy can stick the open jumper from the euro 3 point line, but I just don't see anything in those clips that cause me to overlook a mediocre statistical performance.


As others have pointed out, you have to take these stats in context. Also, Bargnani really wasn't getting much time to start the season off. Most Euro teams really don't play their young players many minutes and let's not forget that this guy was 19 years old to start his season. He just didn't play many minutes. Now he starts and gets decent minutes and he produces. When you account for his _averages_ for the year, sure they don't knock you over. When you look at his progression from his first game this year to his final games this year, you see a clear and unmistakable increase in his stats across the board. He often leads his team in scoring. He was named the Euroleage's 22 and under MVP. The guy can play.

When you look at those clips, how can you not see a guy who, at a legit 7-feet, can take the ball the length of the floor and finish. Has range out to at least 20 feet. Can hit the mid range shot either from a pass or off the dribble. Seems to have some pretty nice post moves and a nice touch around the rim. He's not Tyrus Thomas on defense, but he doesn't have to be.

I can all but guarantee you that if Bargnani had played college ball for any decent program, he'd have put up 25pts and 7 boards (I don't think he'll ever be a top notch rebounder) against basically slower and shorter competition. He'd have been a featured player and been fed the ball as much as possible. They don't do it that way overseas. I can't explain it, but he's every bit as good as Aldridge or Thomas. All three of them bring something different to the table - I just happen to like bargnani's mix of skills more and I think that he'd be a damn good fit for this team.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: You're on the clock*



McBulls said:


> Gasgol is a recent comparison.
> 
> http://www.euroleague.net/plantillas/jugador.jsp?id=BWZ
> 
> ...


Your link goes to Bargnani's stat page. 

According to these links, Gasol averaged 11/5 on 54% shooting his last year in Spain.

http://www.tsn.ca/NBA/teams/players/bio/?id=413&hubname=nba-grizzlies

http://nbadraft.net/profiles/paugasol.htm#stats

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/pau_gasol/bio.html


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

*Re: You're on the clock*

Stats in the states are so heavily analyzed. In EuroLeague and other leagues, stats aren't much of a measure for anything. They don't utilize players the way we do, trying to exploit every possible strength out of a player. They just plug and play. Plug players into the system and play. Doesn't matter how much better player A is than player B.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

*Re: You're on the clock*

OK, I've found an NBA player with similar stats to Barganani.

Darius Songalia averaged 12.7 points and 3.8 rebounds in 21 minutes for CSKA Moskow in 2002-2003.

So we already have someone who can shoot well from the euroleague three point line. Why do we need another one?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: You're on the clock*

In the absence of a surefire #1 and #2 along the lines of a James, Duncan, etc, I want the Bulls to make a safe and conservative selection.

Don't kill the momentum, don't subject the team to a lot of questions about some risky pick not working out...just go safe.

For the record, assuming we get one or two, I'd like to trade down and draft another guard, Roy, pick up a servicible big man in the trade, get someone else big in FA, then straighten it all out with a trade out of the backcourt again down the line.

Why? We're tiny on the perimeter. And we don't have anyone who can get to the hole from the backcourt and draw fouls. It's hugely important in close games and in half-court sets and of course in the playoffs. Thats as big a need in my eyes as interior defense.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: You're on the clock*

We need BIGS more than we need ANY guard. Our backcourt is SOLEY responsible for us taking Miami to it's limits. WE NEED BIGS


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

*Re: You're on the clock*



Sir Patchwork said:


> Stats in the states are so heavily analyzed. In EuroLeague and other leagues, stats aren't much of a measure for anything. They don't utilize players the way we do, trying to exploit every possible strength out of a player. They just plug and play. Plug players into the system and play. Doesn't matter how much better player A is than player B.


I agree that stats can be easily overemphasized. But they're a bit more helpful that highlight films, which are all that most of us have seen of Bargnani. Practically anyone can be made to look good on a highlight film. Those who have had a chance to see him play in person or on TV have the better read on his abilities, but failing that the best thing to look at is statistics. 

Of course the best thing would be to bring him to Chicago to workout against Thomas and Aldridge. That would undoubtedly settle things.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: You're on the clock*



The ROY said:


> We need BIGS more than we need ANY guard.


Would you turn down a straightup offer for the pick for Wade, Redd, Rip, Paul?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: You're on the clock*



McBulls said:


> OK, I've found an NBA player with similar stats to Barganani.
> 
> Darius Songalia averaged 12.7 points and 3.8 rebounds in 21 minutes for CSKA Moskow in 2002-2003.
> 
> So we already have someone who can shoot well from the euroleague three point line. Why do we need another one?


Wait, let's go back to Gasol. Are you less worried about Bargnani considering he put up almost identical numbers to what Gasol did in his last year in the Spanish league?


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: You're on the clock*



GB said:


> Would you turn down a straightup offer for the pick for Wade, Redd, Rip, Paul?


nobody would offer us those players for this pick


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

*Re: You're on the clock*



McBulls said:


> I agree that stats can be easily overemphasized. But they're a bit more helpful that highlight films, which are all that most of us have seen of Bargnani. Practically anyone can be made to look good on a highlight film. Those who have had a chance to see him play in person or on TV have the better read on his abilities, but failing that the best thing to look at is statistics.


I disagree. Highlight films are hugely helpful. 

Sure anyone can look good in a highlight film, but if you let me watch one quarter of basketball between let's say, Dirk Nowitzki and Kenyon Martin, I would come away thinking Dirk was the better ball player regardless. 

Martin could score 15 points, have nasty dunks, run the break, get in the air to block shots, etc. While Dirk could go 0fer and miss all of his shots. It doesn't matter. You look Dirk's high release and his mechanics, plus great coordination for a long and lengthy 7'0 footer. Plus he can handle the ball. You know the kid is going to be a nightmare to guard on days where the shot is falling. 

Stats on the other hand, at the end of the day, are numbers. I think stats are somewhat fair when comparing NBA players, but comparing NCAA stats from Tyrus Thomas to EuroLeague stats from Andrea Bargnani reveals nothing that helps us progress in the discussion, in my opinion.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: You're on the clock*



McBulls said:


> OK, I've found an NBA player with similar stats to Barganani.
> 
> Darius Songalia averaged 12.7 points and 3.8 rebounds in 21 minutes for CSKA Moskow in 2002-2003.
> 
> So we already have someone who can shoot well from the euroleague three point line. Why do we need another one?


I haven't seen much of him, but I can say all of this about Bargnani vs. Songaila:

Bargnani is a lot more athletic
Bargnani can handle the ball better
Passing seems to be a push
Rebounding seems to be a push
Shooting seems to be about a push, although Bargnani has the potential to be a featured shooter.
Bargnani also plays above the rim and seems to love the dunk.
Bargnani also much more fleet of foot and is better defensively than is Songaila


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

*Re: You're on the clock*



ScottMay said:


> Wait, let's go back to Gasol. Are you less worried about Bargnani considering he put up almost identical numbers to what Gasol did in his last year in the Spanish league?


Not much. I just don't put much stock in highlight films. All I see in them is a guy who could be a good replacement for Songalia. If Paxson wants to draft this guy with the NY pick, I'm sure he'll work him out personally, as well as look at scouting reports. I confident he'll pick the best big man available.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

*Re: You're on the clock*

I'm always certain that Paxson will pick Aldridge if he is there. He seems like a nice kid with solid game who could help the team. 

I just hope it doesn't come back to bite us in the ***. This draft looks like Joe Smith and Kenyon Martin with Aldridge and Thomas. Those kind of players have a shoulder shrug appeal to me. 

I just hope Paxson keeps his eyes open.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: You're on the clock*

If Dirk Wins a ring for the mavs, Bargnani's value will go up...


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: You're on the clock*



ScottMay said:


> Your link goes to Bargnani's stat page.
> 
> According to these links, Gasol averaged 11/5 on 54% shooting his last year in Spain.
> 
> ...


Good finds! Turns out, my vague memory of Gasol was pretty accurate. 



> Delivered a breakthrough season in 2000-01 as a 20-year-old playing for F.C. Barcelona ... Played in 29 of team's first 33 games, averaging 11.3 points and 5.2 rebounds in 23.8 minutes.


Despite only playing 24 minutes per game and averaging 11 pts/5 rebounds, he was still considered the "star" of his entire league. And it's eerily similar to what Bargnani has done, too. At the exact same age, no less. I'm not worried about this kid.

As for Songaila, it's definitely worth mentioning that Songo played 4 years at Wake Forest and was worlds more mature, both physically and experience-wise, than Bargnani is now. Songo is a 6'8 standstill jump shooter, whereas Bargnani is a far more athletic, more versatile 7-foot scorer.


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

*Re: You're on the clock*



Sir Patchwork said:


> I'm always certain that Paxson will pick Aldridge if he is there. He seems like a nice kid with solid game who could help the team.
> 
> I just hope it doesn't come back to bite us in the ***. This draft looks like Joe Smith and Kenyon Martin with Aldridge and Thomas. Those kind of players have a shoulder shrug appeal to me.
> 
> I just hope Paxson keeps his eyes open.


You and me both.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

*Re: You're on the clock*



The ROY said:


> If Dirk Wins a ring for the mavs, Bargnani's value will go up...


Good point.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

*Re: You're on the clock*



The ROY said:


> If Dirk Wins a ring for the mavs, Bargnani's value will go up...


Good point. If Dirk wins Finals MVP, the case for Bargnani going #1 improves greatly. 

Interestingly enough, I'm also expecting a Detroit / Dallas matchup in the finals, and none of those teams have a "low-post" scorer they rely on for offense. Rasheed and Dirk are their number 1 options for scoring amongst their bigs, and both are known more for their shooting touch than banging down low.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: You're on the clock*



yodurk said:


> Good finds!


That TSN site is freaking awesome for one-stop shopping to get Euro stats for current NBAers who played over there.

I was wrong about Dirk -- he did play two pro seasons, but I think it was a second-division/junior team.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: You're on the clock*



The ROY said:


> nobody would offer us those players for this pick



Is it possible that a player like that could be overlooked because we're concentrating too much on a big?


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: You're on the clock*



GB said:


> Is it possible that a player like that could be overlooked because we're concentrating too much on a big?


yeah, but i think our guards and forwards are good enough for us to focus on our true weakness. Besides the fact that Gordon's small, that's the only problem, but at the same time, size never hurt Iverson from playing SG for the majority of his career. We can pick up a big SG in FA like Demarr Johnson or John Salmons for very cheap. Earlier this year, people were saying Roy was a GOOD pick around 10-18, and he wasn't great at anything but good at everything. Then all of a sudden, he goes to the elite 8 and he's the 2nd coming. Don't get me wrong, he's GOOD, if we didn't have Gordon, he'd best the BEST fit to put next to Hinrich. I just don't think we're hurting THAT badly in that area. Plus EVERY young up-coming team has a potentially GOOD big in the wings. Yeah, none of these guys are Ming, Howard, Okafor "SURE", but they all have a great amount of potential IMO. We traded a potentially good big, I think we need to replace him with another potentially good big.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

*Re: You're on the clock*



> yeah, but i think our guards and forwards are good enough for us to focus on our true weakness. Besides the fact that Gordon's small, that's the only problem, but at the same time, size never hurt Iverson from playing SG for the majority of his career. We can pick up a big SG in FA like Demarr Johnson or John Salmons for very cheap. Earlier this year, people were saying Roy was a GOOD pick around 10-18, and he wasn't great at anything but good at everything. Then all of a sudden, he goes to the elite 8 and he's the 2nd coming. Don't get me wrong, he's GOOD, if we didn't have Gordon, he'd best the BEST fit to put next to Hinrich. I just don't think we're hurting THAT badly in that area. Plus EVERY young up-coming team has a potentially GOOD big in the wings. Yeah, none of these guys are Ming, Howard, Okafor "SURE", but they all have a great amount of potential IMO. We traded a potentially good big, I think we need to replace him with another potentially good big.


could this be posted in all caps so all this banter about acquiring another freakin' guard can cease and desist!!!

the bulls need big people..... :curse:


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: You're on the clock*

Bargnani 

As much as it pains me to say so given my undying love for Tyrus Thomas 

BTW ...there is nothing of Tyson Chandler is Tyrus Thomas except for the capacity to jump and cover air space on help defense 

On this criteria there are 1000 other Tyson Chandler's out there 


Chandler has use for this team and I want him on it..but he's a goon compared to the baller y'all going to see Tyrus Thomas become


----------



## Aesop (Jun 1, 2003)

*Who's your guy?*

For the sake of argument, let's assume that everyone is available since we don't know with any certainty at this point who the Raptors will select.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: Who's your guy?*

Tyrus Thomas


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Who's your guy?*

Aldridge, but Tyrus Thomas a close second. My Bargnani stock went down tonight for some reason.


----------



## KDOS (Nov 29, 2005)

*Re: Who's your guy?*

T Thomas, Aldridge would be a good pick too.


----------



## Fizer Fanatic (Jun 20, 2002)

*Re: Who's your guy?*

I voted for Aldridge. Bargnani is my second choice.

Obviously it depends on what Toronto does. Many seem to think they will chose between Aldridge and Bargnani...


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Who's your guy?*

The Toronto version of this thread:

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=272878


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

*Re: Who's your guy?*



Electric Slim said:


> The Toronto version of this thread:
> 
> http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=272878


32 of their posters say Aldridge! Thats 72% of the vote.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

*Re: Who's your guy?*

I voted Bargnani. He can and will make the low post defender come out and guard him! 

Second is TT and third is Aldridge.


----------



## H.O.V.A. (Jul 13, 2005)

*Re: Who's your guy?*

Trade the pick. Alridge is overrated. Never seen Bargnani play, and I'm wary of taking a European with such a high pick just because they're european (too many Bulls fans want this kid because Chad Ford or one of his cohorts wishes they were European). If you put a gun to my head, I'd take Rudy Gay everyday of the week.


----------



## r1terrell23 (Feb 11, 2006)

*Re: Who's your guy?*

Aldridge


----------



## Fizer Fanatic (Jun 20, 2002)

*Re: Who's your guy?*



truebluefan said:


> 32 of their posters say Aldridge! Thats 72% of the vote.


It'd be interesting to know if the Toronto poll results would be much different had Bargani been listed. 'Other' did get most of the remaining votes.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

*Re: Who's your guy?*

Was there ever any doubt who I would pick?

#2 for me would be Aldridge. I fear we won't have a shot on him and will pass on Roy.

If Paxson takes a good look at Roy in a workout and then decides to go in another direction, I may give him the benefit of the doubt. Pax has managed to take very good players with his lotto picks. 

That being said, I think Pax is going to discover just how much he likes Mr. Roy when he gets a first hand look at him. He should be available at #2, and I hope he takes him, especially if LaMarcus is off the board.

This Bargnani stuff just doesn't make any sense. If the Raps didn't have two similar sized multi-skilled bigs, perhaps the Italian would be a strong pick, but as things are, they should take LaMarcus and play him at center.

Morrison or Gay (or Roy) are dark horses for Toronto.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

*Re: Who's your guy?*



Fizer Fanatic said:


> It'd be interesting to know if the Toronto poll results would be much different had Bargani been listed. 'Other' did get most of the remaining votes.


9 votes for "other"


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

*Re: Who's your guy?*

Everybody vote please. Even if you dont normally post you can at least vote in the poll. I would love to see the actual opinion of all of the bulls fans at this site. 

You dont have to post your replies. In other words its not a have to thing. Just vote.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Who's your guy?*



truebluefan said:


> 32 of their posters say Aldridge! Thats 72% of the vote.


I still don't understand why Aldridge isn't the clear cut favorite on the Bulls board. We need him more than Toronto does.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Who's your guy?*

Here is the no BS statement, the only reason Rudy Gay is not the clear no doubt about it #1 pick is because people are questioning his drive, plain and simple. The truth is Rudy Gay is heads and shoulders above everyone else in this draft in terms of Potential and Skill set, Gay has it all hes every recruiters dream and every scouts joy to watch. The only guestion is if Rudy Gay will finally accept that hes the best amatuer basketball talent in the planet right now and that he has to just put it all together and believe that he can be a force. 

We have all seen Rudy play, when Rudy is on hes is just UNSTOPABLE.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

*Re: Who's your guy?*



Darius Miles Davis said:


> This Bargnani stuff just doesn't make any sense. If the Raps didn't have two similar sized multi-skilled bigs, perhaps the Italian would be a strong pick, but as things are, they should take LaMarcus and play him at center.


Didn't stop them last year. They took Charlie even though everyone swore it was a dumb pick because they had Chris Bosh. I think the Raptors will draft whoever they believe is the best player and sort it out later. I agree with drafting that way too, the draft is about gaining assets more than finalizing your team for next year. If they feel Bargnani is the best, they'll take him. 

My guy is Andrea Bargnani. He has been a big impact player against tougher competition than the college guys have been playing against, and he has a great skillset. I doubt Paxson will take him though. 

For my money, I would say that Paxson takes Aldridge, and Thomas if Aldridge is gone. I hope he looks at Bargnani though.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Who's your guy?*



truebluefan said:


> Everybody vote please. Even if you dont normally post you can at least vote in the poll. I would love to see the actual opinion of all of the bulls fans at this site.
> 
> You dont have to post your replies. In other words its not a have to thing. Just vote.


Go to the "Your On The Clock" thread from earlier today if you want more detail and discussion. It has a discussion of everyone's favorite prospect.


----------



## PowerWoofer (Jan 5, 2006)

*Re: Who's your guy?*

I want Aldridge. He has what every big on the Bulls lack: AN OFFENSIVE SKILLSET!!!

I want a big who can score in the post, and who can play with his back to the basket. I want someone who can average around 15/7 and make an impact. That someone is Aldridge, if you ask me. I just believe this kid has what it takes to be "the" guy for the Bulls.

I hope I'm right, and I hope to god Toronto doesn't screw up the draft and take another damn PF. They already have TWO of them!!

All my money is on Aldridge.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

*Re: Who's your guy?*

Toronto choosing ahead of us really does stink. We might end up with the guy that Paxson likes so much, Tyrus Thomas, but I don't know how good he's going to be coming in. He IS really raw.

But I suppose we could use the depth, and he'd instantly be the best athlete on the team.

It's very likely that Toronto would take Aldridge, also, but I wouldn't surprised to see Morrison (very CoAngelo offensive thunder style) taken here. Chad Ford thinks Bargnani will go #1 overall; that would definitely be a surprise. 

He likes us taking Tyrus, although it's admittedly a toss-up between him and Aldridge. Much will be decided during the workout, but I think that while either would be great, Aldridge gives us a soft touch around the hoop along with great size and defensive intensity. Thomas looks much more like everything we paid Tyson Chandler to be.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Who's your guy?*



PowerWoofer said:


> I hope I'm right, and I hope to god Toronto doesn't screw up the draft and take another damn PF. They already have TWO of them!!


Yeah, but along those two, Aldridge is a center.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: Who's your guy?*

As long as we don't pick Roy, Thomas, or Morrison....I'm cool.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Who's your guy?*

1. Who is your guy meaning who would you take with the #1 pick if we had it?
2. Or who is your guy meaning you think is the most undervalued top prospect (i.e. you see that little something in them you don't think many other see yet but will)?

Aldridge would be my answer to #1. Carney would be my answer to #2.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: Who's your guy?*



Electric Slim said:


> I still don't understand why Aldridge isn't the clear cut favorite on the Bulls board. We need him more than Toronto does.


He's soft, he's not aggressive, he'd rather blend in than be a leader.

just a few reasons

i still like the kid though


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Who's your guy?*



The ROY said:


> He's soft, he's not aggressive, he'd rather blend in than be a leader.
> 
> just a few reasons
> 
> i still like the kid though


While there's definitely some areas that Aldridge can improve in, I wouldn't say he's not aggressive. Most times i saw him play he'd work like hell to get great position only to watch Gibson and Tucker chuck it.

But the skills are there from both ends.

Thomas I'm going to have to warm up to because I think he's going to be our pick. But while he loves to run and dunk, he's way behind Aldridge in terms of a back-to-the-basket low post scorer (which is why I'd LOVE to pair TT with Nene if we can).

We all should understand that Tyrus and LaMarcus could REALLY use another year in college. I think the a lot of the knocks on both players should be taken with a grain of salt.

But if you look at what the Bulls need the most, i think LaMarcus is the guy who meets those needs most for one player. Leadership is an important trait when you pick a player to build a franchise around when you're a lowly lottery team, but unlike other teams in the lottery, the Bulls aren't really in that position. Aldridge seems to be a good-jib guy, and along with the rest of the jibby Bulls he can afford to be one of the soft-spoken types. 

That being said, the nastiness of TT can't hurt either!


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: Who's your guy?*

The case against Thomas (and aldridge for that matter) can be summed up in one sentence.

"We swap picks with the Knicks again next year".

Lets face it, the knicks are screwed for AT LEAST one more season. They won't be MUCH better this coming year, than they were last year.

And already I can think of at LEAST 4 bigs that will be better than both Aldridge and Thomas, that are likely to declare next year.

Bargnani, is the only player in this years draft (along with maybe GAY), whose skillset likely wont be duplicated next year.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: Who's your guy?*

I agree...

I think Toronto's taking Aldrige regardless though...I just can't see Bosh not WANTING to be with his good friends...

Both would be wonderful players to have, Aldridge would help alot more right now but down the line Thomas has the upside to be better...

It's difficult, it just depends on where you are as a franchise. Sort of like that whole Charlotte/Orlando-Howard/Okafor situation.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: Who's your guy?*



The ROY said:


> I agree...
> 
> I think Toronto's taking Aldrige regardless though...I just can't see Bosh not WANTING to be with his good friends...
> 
> ...


Your sig explains the case against Thomas and Aldridge better than anything I could say.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

*Re: Who's your guy?*

Dont kid yourselves. You cant draft this year thinking already in next year's draft. At least I wouldnt recommend it.


----------



## Aesop (Jun 1, 2003)

*Re: Who's your guy?*



The Krakken said:


> Bargnani, is the only player in this years draft (along with maybe GAY), whose skillset likely wont be duplicated next year.


I don't think there is a Roy next year either.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: Who's your guy?*



Aesop said:


> I don't think there is a Roy next year either.


Of the top players in this years draft, Roy is the player whose skills we NEED the least.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: Who's your guy?*



El Chapu said:


> Dont kid yourselves. You cant draft this year thinking already in next year's draft. At least I wouldnt recommend it.


THat isn't what I was suggesting at all. What I WAS suggesting is that we not get antsy and panick with our pick because of some need to solve our big man (post) issues long term. WE WILL have a chance to do that in next years draft, so there's no need to make the pick out of desperation.

No matter WHAT happens with this years pick, we are still at LEAST a FULL YEAR away from contending.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

*Re: Who's your guy?*



The Krakken said:


> THat isn't what I was suggesting at all. What I WAS suggesting is that we not get antsy and panick with our pick because of some need to solve our big man (post) issues long term. WE WILL have a chance to do that in next years draft, so there's no need to make the pick out of desperation.
> 
> No matter WHAT happens with this years pick, we are still at LEAST a FULL YEAR away from contending.


OK, but I wouldnt make plans regarding next (2007-08) year. I know we wont contend next season, but I wouldnt draft Thomas because in 2007 we will complement him with [enter draft pick name] game.


----------



## r1terrell23 (Feb 11, 2006)

*Re: Who's your guy?*



El Chapu said:


> OK, but I wouldnt make plans regarding next (2007-08) year. I know we wont contend next season, but I wouldnt draft Thomas because in 2007 we will complement him with [enter draft pick name] game.


Why not? If we get a low post scoring threat we can make the ECF. Hell, Cleveland took Detroit to 7 games and we looked better against Miami at home than Detroit. Then there's the Clippers almost making the WCF, Dallas beating SA, etc. This team is young and will improve next year to a possible 4 seed.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: Who's your guy?*

Pax's guy is :



> Still, Paxson isn't complaining. He called Thomas a "game-changer."
> 
> "He can block and rebound," he said. "He's not afraid."


http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...ttery,1,7602576.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines

hahahhahaha GET EM PAX!


----------



## Tim-may (May 24, 2006)

*Re: You're on the clock*

The Sausage has spoken. :banana:


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Who's your guy?*



The Krakken said:


> And already I can think of at LEAST 4 bigs that will be better than both Aldridge and Thomas, that are likely to declare next year.


Could you name the 4 and what's the latest the 4th will be on the board. I could easily see the Knicks climb up to 7th or 8th. I think it's a lock if Brown figures a way out and IT takes over before camp.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: Who's your guy?*

There are two bigs CLEARLY better than Aldridge and Thomas in the 07' draft, Oden & Kevin Durant. Everybody else is up in the air.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

*Re: Who's your guy?*

I would take Gay and then package Deng with someone to land a big man that's already in the league.


----------



## babybulls23 (May 16, 2005)

*Re: Who's your guy?*

I would absolutely love to see the Bulls either take Gay at 2, or if thats too high, then work something out trade down and pick up Gay or Roy a couple picks later. We need Gay's athleticism and length on this team, his potential to be a star is unmatched on this team right now...but i also worry about his lack of will or drive that some people have pointed out but I still feel this is the guyto take


----------



## Tim-may (May 24, 2006)

*Re: Who's your guy?*

LA, TT, or Bargs. I'm also feeling a little Gay.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: Who's your guy?*

I don't get some of you LOL. There is absolutely NO reason to draft Rudy Gay. He's not a SURE thing, if he was, he'd be the #1 pick, BARNONE.

You don't draft Gay when you have Deng & Nocioni unless you're planning a trade. Our SF tandem is developing VERY well & give us great production every minute on the floor. No reason to mess that up when we're STRONG at the position.


----------



## r1terrell23 (Feb 11, 2006)

*Re: You're on the clock*



BULLHITTER said:


> could this be posted in all caps so all this banter about acquiring another freakin' guard can cease and desist!!!
> 
> the bulls need big people..... :curse:


We have Big people. We need big people that are TRUE offensive threats AND play good defense.


----------



## r1terrell23 (Feb 11, 2006)

*Re: Who's your guy?*



babybulls23 said:


> I would absolutely love to see the Bulls either take Gay at 2, or if thats too high, then work something out trade down and pick up Gay or Roy a couple picks later. We need Gay's athleticism and length on this team, his potential to be a star is unmatched on this team right now...but i also worry about his lack of will or drive that some people have pointed out but I still feel this is the guyto take


The problem is we have Deng and Noc playing the 3 and one or both of them would have to be traded. I'm not as sold on Gay as everyone else. I think Roy and Carney will both be better than him.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Who's your guy?*

OK - I am back on the Tyrus Thomas train. Sure, he is a bit redudant with Chandler. And I think we will have to stay away from Przbilla. Still worth it. 

Tyrus and Nene. That's what we need.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

*Re: You're on the clock*



> We have Big people.


Songalia, Allen and Harrington are far from "big". Sweetney is for the wrong reasons. Outside of Chandler, who is a big pushover, we have noone that's big at all.


----------



## Banjoriddim (Aug 14, 2004)

*Re: Who's your guy?*

Hi, not hardcore bulls fan and I am bit of Bargani fan but... since I wouldn't be surprised if LA is gone then I would pick TT (if he really has potential and is agressive) ONLY if bulls could get Nene (if hes leg is ok). Front court of Chandler, TT and Nene would be perfect: All the lenght, athletism, speed you could desire and also some serious mass in low block with good touch, moves and good defense. You could run, play half court, hold your own against big dudes (Nene) you would have good help defense... 
Now TT with Nazr or Godzilla would be bad bad idea. Przybilla is injuriprone brings nothing on offense and will cost quite a bit so if you have Chandlers contract getting him would be bad idea, I agree he is bulkier but thats it, he is older, fouls a lot, is injured a lot has no moves... Nazr on other hand has never ever been anything good and he isnt young or that big either also he has little offense and he couldn't earn minutes against quick Dallas team, since he is lost in premiere and brings little in post. And you would have to pay them way more than they deserve.
So if Nene is ok, then I would do whatever to get him... I would maybe even give out some picks (2 rounders if possible). If I couldn't get Nene TT wouldn't make any sense since two lanky guys with no offense would basicly mean that Sweet will see some serious p-time again. So if you don't get anybody who can buy a basket in FA market then Bargani would be smarter choice since he is (by far) most proven player and has some serious offensive talent.


----------



## taurus515th (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: Who's your guy?*

i want tyrus thomas i feel that he gives us defense and he can score maybe not much but i feel he can give u a double double like nocioni. i love when guys play defense. defense wins games. people say tyrus is tyson. well if so y shouldnt we get another tyson but tyrus is a lot different from tyson in a way. to me defense wins games so if yall are not for him and yall are for wallace what is his difference from tyson and wallace? he is another tyson only better as of now :biggrin:.


----------



## JPTurbo (Jan 8, 2006)

*Re: Who's your guy?*

I voted for Aldridge since I like his back-to-basket abilities, but I'd be surprised if he fell to us so I'm starting to accept the fact that Thomas is a strong possibility.

1 question though. Everyone is starting to compare Thomas to Tyson in that he brings defense and rebounding with a raw offensive game. Now, I'm wondering if you guys actually mean he has a raw offensive game, or no offensive game. Because there is a difference between raw and the absolute nothing that Chandler has. 

Can Thomas use his strength/height/hops to go up to the basket with force unlike Tyson's "jump as high as I can with both hands on the ball and then chuck towards the hoop when I should have gone with one and been able to dunk over everyone" ?

Can Thomas release a fluid jump shot unlike Tyson's awkward "close as you can be to throwing the ball horizontally without it being perfectly horizontal jumpshot" ?

Because I'm curious here. Is the only reason Tyrus is looked at as raw is because he hasn't been given the opportunity to free-lance and carry a team yet? But when he does do things on the offensive end do these bursts look dominant and look like he has the instincts and knows how to deliver unlike Tyson who looks like he is playing basketball for the first time on offense.

If he can go up with strength/control/instinct and release a fluid jumpshot and is being mistaken as Tyson for just being inexperienced, he sounds like an absolutely excellent pick.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

*Re: Who's your guy?*



Banjoriddim said:


> Hi, not hardcore bulls fan and I am bit of Bargani fan but... since I wouldn't be surprised if LA is gone then I would pick TT (if he really has potential and is agressive) ONLY if bulls could get Nene (if hes leg is ok). Front court of Chandler, TT and Nene would be perfect: All the lenght, athletism, speed you could desire and also some serious mass in low block with good touch, moves and good defense. You could run, play half court, hold your own against big dudes (Nene) you would have good help defense...
> Now TT with Nazr or Godzilla would be bad bad idea. Przybilla is injuriprone brings nothing on offense and will cost quite a bit so if you have Chandlers contract getting him would be bad idea, I agree he is bulkier but thats it, he is older, fouls a lot, is injured a lot has no moves... Nazr on other hand has never ever been anything good and he isnt young or that big either also he has little offense and he couldn't earn minutes against quick Dallas team, since he is lost in premiere and brings little in post. And you would have to pay them way more than they deserve.
> So if Nene is ok, then I would do whatever to get him... I would maybe even give out some picks (2 rounders if possible). If I couldn't get Nene TT wouldn't make any sense since two lanky guys with no offense would basicly mean that Sweet will see some serious p-time again. So if you don't get anybody who can buy a basket in FA market then Bargani would be smarter choice since he is (by far) most proven player and has some serious offensive talent.


Nice post. I kind of like Godzilla myself after watching the Bulls get mauled by bigger centers all season last year. But Nene would definitely do if his knees are OK and we can get him (he's an RFA, so Denver can match any offer).

Back on topic. We don't get much of a chance to see Bargnani in the US. It's clear he can score from the outside. In one interview he said he preferred to play outside on offense more than in the paint. But you probably have more insight into the rest of his game than we do.

We already have several big guys who can run the floor, shoot the outside shot and rebound well (Songaila, Deng, Nocioni). What does Bargnani offer that they don't? The Bulls need someone who can score in the paint, rebound and defend tall opponents who try to score in the paint. 

So my question is, how good is Bargnani at defending the post? Does he get shoved around by bigger players? Is he a reliable rebounder?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Who's your guy?*

In this draft, you have to have "Two" guys. One for the first pick, one for the second. I myself would have Bargnani slightly ahead of Thomas as my guy at #2. At #16 I would have Saer Sene as my guy if Patrick Obryant (a young Brad Daugherty?) isnt there.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: Who's your guy?*



JPTurbo said:


> I voted for Aldridge since I like his back-to-basket abilities, but I'd be surprised if he fell to us so I'm starting to accept the fact that Thomas is a strong possibility.
> 
> 1 question though. Everyone is starting to compare Thomas to Tyson in that he brings defense and rebounding with a raw offensive game. Now, I'm wondering if you guys actually mean he has a raw offensive game, or no offensive game. Because there is a difference between raw and the absolute nothing that Chandler has.
> 
> ...



the dude actually has way more fluent offensive skills than chandler does. i just think it may be about confidence and comfort with thomas. alot of nba scouts and exec's (according to chad ford) seemed to think that he just deferred to big baby and decided to be the energy/enforcer/defender player. in his 21pt, 12reb & 3blk game vs. duke, he showed a number of different ways he could score. he had a soft baby hook, 15-18 ft jumper, he ran a lonefast break on a few duke players and scored on them all putting the ball on the floor more like a sf, he also caught EVERYTHING they threw to him around the basket, it was atleast 5 or 6 lob's that game, plus he did a few putback dunks gettin offensive boards.

he looks nowhere near as scared or timid as chandler does on offense, he actually scored when he needed to last season but mainly deffered to big baby. i'm not saying he's gonna come here and be some offensive monster, but he's gonna be alot better offensively than most think. even if he's there to catch lob's from our guards next season, that's something eddy provided for us which we sorely miss.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Who's your guy?*

Gay.

You don't get to pick at the top of the draft that often (hopefully). When you do, you should go for the home run, and not the best player who fits your need.

We should address the need for probably one big that we need with #16 and/or trade.

Regardless of the guy's past history, all the matters is his future. Master Sargeant Skiles should be able to get this guy to ooze jib, or he ain't worth a salt.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: Who's your guy?*

This seems kind of redundant to my "on the clock thread" which basically asks the same thing. Still, I will bite and post here too. I think there are many factors to consider when it comes to picking your guy and there is still a lot of information to be ascertained before I would give a definitive answer. Right now I am leaning towards Aldridge and then Tyrus Thomas but I am really torn between the two. I also like what I hear about Bargnani so he is in the mix too in my mind.

Aldridge should be a perfect fit on this Bulls team, he pretty much brings exactly what we are lacking and should be a better offensive player on the next level with pg's who will feed him the ball. Besides, a front court of Aldridge/Chandler/Deng would be great defensively, long, atheletic, fast running the floor. Also if we add Aldridge it would allow us to purse Drew Gooden in FA who I think is really ready to take a step forward.

Tyrus Thomas is a bit raw but he is electrifying in his energy. He definitley has some solid offensive moves, he has much softer hands than Chandler, a jumper, a hook, a few post up moves, and the ability to get into the paint and jam it down. The real problem with Thomas is he is probably only 6'9" and more suited to pf than center. Still, he is only 19 and he could grow some more and he is already good at 19. Besides, I see more passion in Thomas than I see in Aldridge so it makes it a very difficult call for me. Of course since the Bulls have the second pick Toronto may make it easier.

Bargnani from everything I have read and seen is a really skilled offensive player. He can shoot the three, put the ball on the floor and drive, and he even has a few post moves. He has great size and atheleticism and seems to have a great work ethic. He is also young and could become much better in a couple of years. My major knock on BArgnani is that he appears to be defending sf's in europe and I don't know who he would be defending in the NBA or how effective he would be at it.

At 16, my steal of the draft will be Shedlen Williams. He is high energy with a great deal of skill and a long atheletic body, not to mention a good bball iq, don't be surprised if people are asking next year why Williams wasn't a high lottery pick. That being said he could easily be gone at 16. I also like O'bryant and Brewer at 16.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: Who's your guy?*

O'Bryant's going in the top 10 & I definintely can't see Shelden falling to 16. There's not alot of talent at the top of the draft. Really gotta take what u can get up there.

The one thing Paxson said when he spoke of Thomas was "he's a game changer, he's not afraid". At times Aldridge looks scared on the court and telling the mass media you don't want to bang with a player in the pre-game interview? He should of welcomed the challenge instead. While Thomas is fearless and tries to intimadate the opposing team. We need that attitude on our team, that 'enforcer-like' stance. That's one thing we've missed since AD's been gone.

I like LA, I really do but that's the only thing that really bothers me about him.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

*Re: Who's your guy?*

I didn't post here because of the redundancy as well. 

I voted for Aldridge. But I'm comfortable with anyone Paxson chooses to sign. That includes Rudy Gay, if it's his opinion that he will be as good as it looks like he might be. In the 2 spot of a draft it's more important than ever to get the best player. If you guess right, the pick could be a superstar that defines the team for many years. It's rare for there not to be at least one such player in even a weak draft.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: You're on the clock*

Aldridge should be a perfect fit on this Bulls team, he pretty much brings exactly what we are lacking and should be a better offensive player on the next level with pg's who will feed him the ball. Besides, a front court of Aldridge/Chandler/Deng would be great defensively, long, atheletic, fast running the floor. Also if we add Aldridge it would allow us to purse Drew Gooden in FA who I think is really ready to take a step forward.

Tyrus Thomas is a bit raw but he is electrifying in his energy. He definitley has some solid offensive moves, he has much softer hands than Chandler, a jumper, a hook, a few post up moves, and the ability to get into the paint and jam it down. The real problem with Thomas is he is probably only 6'9" and more suited to pf than center. Still, he is only 19 and he could grow some more and he is already good at 19. Besides, I see more passion in Thomas than I see in Aldridge so it makes it a very difficult call for me. Of course since the Bulls have the second pick Toronto may make it easier.

Bargnani from everything I have read and seen is a really skilled offensive player. He can shoot the three, put the ball on the floor and drive, and he even has a few post moves. He has great size and atheleticism and seems to have a great work ethic. He is also young and could become much better in a couple of years. My major knock on BArgnani is that he appears to be defending sf's in europe and I don't know who he would be defending in the NBA or how effective he would be at it.

At 16, my steal of the draft will be Shedlen Williams. He is high energy with a great deal of skill and a long atheletic body, not to mention a good bball iq, don't be surprised if people are asking next year why Williams wasn't a high lottery pick. That being said he could easily be gone at 16. I also like O'bryant and Brewer at 16.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

*Re: Who's your guy?*



> he looks nowhere near as scared or timid as chandler does on offense, he actually scored when he needed to last season but mainly deffered to big baby. i'm not saying he's gonna come here and be some offensive monster, but he's gonna be alot better offensively than most think. even if he's there to catch lob's from our guards next season, that's something eddy provided for us which we sorely miss.


this statement is so true in my eyes; thomas' potential is scary. he's the least of the group to "bust" in my opinion, and i'm of the opinion that it's a tough call to evaluate his true talent, because some of these guys' talents are supressed by the teams they play for and their willingness to supress said talent for the good of the team. i could see this kid having shawn marion/amare stoudemire potential....will the bull take him? i wouldn't be dissatisfied or disappointed.

rudy gay; i'm with the opinion that says if the bull have the opportunity to hit a home run then they should go for it. gay has "superstar/go to guy/1st option" talent/potential. however, i'd also pray that rudy doesn't turn out to be a foul pop-out as well. skiles won't coddle him, so he'd better be tough of mind. being coached by jim calhoun is a nice start though.

aldridge has the most ingredients coupled with talent/upside that fits what the bulls are looking for so he's the no-brainer pick; will toronto pass though?

morrison is an x-factor; is bird? is he sczerbiak? is he a star? if he's the available player, i think pax looks hard for teams to deal with who think he's bird (portland pick swap? they don't need duhon). he'll be a very good player in the league though; he's got mad heart; which *is* a good ingredient in concert with the pax and skiles' philosophy.

roy; is the least of the guys the bull will look at UNLESS he blows away the competition in the workouts; he's definitely a nice player, but he's another who i beleive pax in the right scenario would draft for another team to set up a nice deal that favors the bull now and in the future. i always wonder about guys who are 4 year players playing well against a mostly underclassman competition; is he as good as he looks?

*also, the bull will not take bargnani, imo* i could be wrong; but i doubt it.

my bottom line; aldridge if he falls, thomas if aldridge doesn't, and gay if he blows away the workout.
lastly, IF it's not moved prior, i think the bull is in line for a *very * nice player at 16; someone who they wouldn't expect (williams/o'bryant/carney/brewer).


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: Who's your guy?*

One thing that's good about our situation for Thomas is, he doesn't have to worry about being a major contributor since we're already a playoff team. He gets to come into a winning situation, do the little things & develop slowly. If he goes to any of the other top 3 (charlotte, atlanta or portland), he'd be expected to do alot more in his rookie season. I didn't list Toronto because they have no need for him.

I expect more of an offensive contribution from the guys we pick up in Free Agency.


----------



## BULLS23 (Apr 13, 2003)

*Re: Who's your guy?*

My guy is Aldrige with Bargnani a 1a . . .

First, let me say that I love the way Thomas plays, however, I just think that he doesn't fit with the way the team CURRENTLY plays. Now, if we get him and change our style to more of a full time smallball scheme, then he's the perfect guy. To me he will be much better on offense then people initally thought (I saw plenty of his games this season living in SEC/ACC country) and he's going to be a wonderful player in 3 years. My contention is that Aldrige could come in and be more effective in our weak areas now (low post scoring) plus he has damn good upside himself . . . 

At 16, I would love for O'Bryant to be there but that's a pipe dream. The guy that we should take a hard look at is Mardy Collins . . . He's Jibby (as most guys who played for The Old Owl are) he's got some PG skills that could make it interesting to play him along with Ben, and he's a good defender. I'd also like Brewer or Carney, but they probably won't be there either.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: Who's your guy?*

I don't see the problem with him being a 6"9 PF. Ben Wallace is what? a 6"8 C and he's a 4-time DPOY.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Who's your guy?*



ace20004u said:


> This seems kind of redundant to my "on the clock thread" which basically asks the same thing.



well, yeah. but yours doesn't have a poll.

should these two threads be merged?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Who's your guy?*



BULLS23 said:


> At 16, I would love for O'Bryant to be there but that's a pipe dream. The guy that we should take a hard look at is Mardy Collins . . . He's Jibby (as most guys who played for The Old Owl are) he's got some PG skills that could make it interesting to play him along with Ben, and he's a good defender. I'd also like Brewer or Carney, but they probably won't be there either.


Sam Smith's mock in the Tribune today has the Bulls taking Shannon Brown at #16. I'm definitely warming to the idea of taking an uber-athletic big guard there, and Brown isn't as bad at 2nd glance. His workouts have been really impressive so far. He's only 6'3/6'4, but with how he's billed athletically I think he could still be our backup SG. He might not be a big PG, but he can score, slash, and brings some much needed athleticism to our backcourt. 

Tyrus Thomas and Shannon Brown would DEFINITELY make the Bulls a quick team, on both ends.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: Who's your guy?*



mizenkay said:


> well, yeah. but yours doesn't have a poll.
> 
> should these two threads be merged?


yep, they're the same thread IMO


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: Who's your guy?*



yodurk said:


> Sam Smith's mock in the Tribune today has the Bulls taking Shannon Brown at #16. I'm definitely warming to the idea of taking an uber-athletic big guard there, and Brown isn't as bad at 2nd glance. His workouts have been really impressive so far. He's only 6'3/6'4, but with how he's billed athletically I think he could still be our backup SG. He might not be a big PG, but he can score, slash, and brings some much needed athleticism to our backcourt.
> 
> Tyrus Thomas and Shannon Brown would DEFINITELY make the Bulls a quick team, on both ends.


He sounds really good, but don't we need a bigger SG? someone in the 6"5-6"6 range would be perfect for Hinrich & Gordon.

oh and i stopped reading sam's mock when he said Bargnani is a simular player to Troy Murphy.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Who's your guy?*



The ROY said:


> He sounds really good, but don't we need a bigger SG? someone in the 6"5-6"6 range would be perfect for Hinrich & Gordon.
> 
> oh and i stopped reading sam's mock when he said Bargnani is a simular player to Troy Murphy.


Yeah, he obviously doesn't think much of Bargnani. But I'm betting he hasn't seen much of Bargnani, much like many other "experts" out there. Too bad every Euro scout has him locked into the top 5. 

In regards to the "big SG" discussion, there are several schools of thought there. Some think we need a SG-sized player who can play PG so Gordon can play off the ball; hence Ronnie Brewer and Mardy Collins being talked about (and I do think both would be good for us; both are outstanding defenders). Others think we should find more of a pure SG with good 6'6/6'7 size, ala James White or trading for Pietrus. Then there's the Sam Smith route of taking yet another combo-guard. The thing about Brown though, is that he's a better scorer/shooter than any of the aforementioned players, and just as good a defender (it's becoming known via workouts that he's one of the top athletes in the draft). And he's still got better size than any guard we have. If he proves to play big, even at 6'3/6'4, then that's good enough to be our big guard, IMO. Eric Snow defended SG's extremely well for years because he still had decent enough size but also alot of strength and quickness.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

nice breakdown...

i'll have to go read up on that kid now...


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: Who's your guy?*



The ROY said:


> I don't see the problem with him being a 6"9 PF. Ben Wallace is what? a 6"8 C and he's a 4-time DPOY.



Ben Wallace is also built like a tank and has the wingspan of a 757, he has the strength and the length to play center. I don't think there is a problem with a power forward who is 6'9" but the Bulls really need a center.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

If Thomas stayed in school next year he would still be the number pick after Odem.

I think these is not doubt that pax is going to take thomas. People talk about how they remind him of Marion but i think his game is more like Amare Stoudemire. They have very similar builds (AS is 6'10" with just over a 7" wing span and my guess is TT will be alomst the same) and they are both great athletes with big hands and great lateral movement. And TT has the same kind of quick leaping ability that AS has.

This team needs a PF to play with TC as well as another scoring PF (like AH) and a SG. This is the year we need to do this.

AH, TT, and a SG (Brewer or Carney) would really upgrade this team. And since AH would start that would let both are rookies come off the bench so they can develop slowly.

david


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

giusd said:


> If Thomas stayed in school next year he would still be the number pick after Odem.
> 
> I think these is not doubt that pax is going to take thomas. People talk about how they remind him of Marion but i think his game is more like Amare Stoudemire. They have very similar builds (AS is 6'10" with just over a 7" wing span and my guess is TT will be alomst the same) and they are both great athletes with big hands and great lateral movement. And TT has the same kind of quick leaping ability that AS has.
> 
> ...


ahh, your posts are so refreshing, they remind me of mine :biggrin:


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: Who's your guy?*



ace20004u said:


> Ben Wallace is also built like a tank and has the wingspan of a 757, he has the strength and the length to play center. I don't think there is a problem with a power forward who is 6'9" but the Bulls really need a center.


I thought we just really needed big's with size and scoring in the low post? I don't think it's the Center position that's hurting, but the overall frontcount in general.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Thanks Roy,

I also dont understand why Rudy Gay in not in the top 5. If he falls to Minny they are going to be really pleased. I think all this he doesnt have heart is BS and he will be a star in the NBA. He is just a good young man, a team player, and doesnt feel the need to up stage the older players on UConn. Funny you would think that teams and scouts would respect this rather than critisism.

david


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

giusd said:


> Thanks Roy,
> 
> I also dont understand why Rudy Gay in not in the top 5. If he falls to Minny they are going to be really pleased. I think all this he doesnt have heart is BS and he will be a star in the NBA. He is just a good young man, a team player, and doesnt feel the need to up stage the older players on UConn. Funny you would think that teams and scouts would respect this rather than critisism.
> 
> david


he actually said that he knew he was going to a very capable scoring team when he went to uconn. he was the leading scorer and probably could of scored more if they didn't have so much talent. my problem with him is, not stepping up when it really matters.


----------



## H.O.V.A. (Jul 13, 2005)

Draft for talent. Draft for talent. TT is nice, but dont sleep on Gay.

http://www.youtube.com/v/GTfHMilglsk"><EMBED src="<a href=" type="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" target="_blank" GTfHMilglsk? v www.youtube.com http:>http://www.youtube.com/v/GTfHMilglsk" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></EMBED></EMBED></EMBED>


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Either Bargnani or Aldridge will make me perfectly happy, and we take whichever one is left aft er Toronto has their pick. On the off chance both are still there at #2, I guess I slightly prefer Aldridge, as (I am guessing, based on the usual Euro bias) that LaMarcus has a little more toughness.


Whichever one we pick, I am still hoping that Knicks pick in '07 lands us one of the premier bigs from that class. That would set us up for a pretty formidable rotation for the front line.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Would you trade the right to swap with the Knicks for the right to draft OBryant at number 6-10 if he is still around?


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

My head says Bargnani

My heart says Tyaranasaurus


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Either Bargnani or Aldridge will make me perfectly happy, and we take whichever one is left aft er Toronto has their pick. On the off chance both are still there at #2, I guess I slightly prefer Aldridge, as (I am guessing, based on the usual Euro bias) that LaMarcus has a little more toughness.
> 
> 
> Whichever one we pick, I am still hoping that Knicks pick in '07 lands us one of the premier bigs from that class. That would set us up for a pretty formidable rotation for the front line.


Oden and Thomas 

Hmmmmmm. Yummy


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Oden and Thomas
> 
> Hmmmmmm. Yummy


can u IMAGINE the DESTRUCTION they would cause on defense!?

we'd win a ring with those two as the frontcourt


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Take Aldridge #2, and Gay if Aldridge is already gone.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I have been mulling it over and here is what I came up with for my submission to the Daily Herald

(See the Daily Herald Wants Your Opinion thread)

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

Until a couple of days ago, I just wanted Aldridge if available, or Bargnani as a second choice. But I've been thinking.

My plan is premised on the concept that our long term center of the future will come from the 2007 draft pick swap with New York. Even if we don't luck into a top pick to grab Oden or Noah, it promises to be one of the deepest big man drafts in years. Whatever big we grab in '06 will be part of an impressive front line rotation, but does not necessarily need to be "the franchise."

That being said, the plan would be to take the best of the premier bigs left after Toronto (or trade) takes the #1. I assume the #1 pick will be a big -- Aldridge, Bargnani, Thomas. We take either one left.

We can hold on to that pick, if need be and we're cool...but I'd be looking to trade the rights to our #2 to a lower lottery team for the rights to Brandon Roy. Maybe Bargnani and future considerations to Golden State for Roy and Pietrus? 

If we get Roy, we take a project big at #16, such as O'Bryant, Armstrong or Williams. If we keep the big we got at #2, then a decent sized 2 guard like Mardy Collins.

The next step is to further shore up our front line by going after Nene or Pryzbella (or dare to dream...Ben Wallace in FA).

Hinrich/Duhon
Gordon/Pietrus/Roy
Deng/Nocioni
Chandler/Sweetney
(Nene or Wallace)/Schenscher/O'Bryant

or

Hinrich/Duhon
Gordon/Collins/FA guard
Deng/Nocioni
Chandler/Sweetney
(Nene or Wallace)/(Bargnani,Thomas or Aldridge)/Schenscher

I like it.

Of course the other option is to buck conventional wisom and draft Roy at #2, but I like my plan better, since it gives us either a solid big or the option of getting Roy + a vet.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

I'm going with Thomas, followed closely by Bargnani and Roy.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Bargnani, depending on his workout. If he's anything like Dirk, a 7 footer that can run and shoot the 3, he's got my vote. We already have a fast, tenacious team, if we could get a rare talent like that it'd add a whole nother dimension to the team. Maybe at 16 we can go for a big body to replace Curry. (I personally still wish we had Curry instead of the pick)


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

DaBabyBullz said:


> (I personally still wish we had Curry instead of the pick)


Don't really understand why..but sure

hearing him, his mother and his agents in the papers talking about his unhappiness didn't sit well with me...I was happy to see his complaing a** go


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

I really think it will be thomas because just fits into the pax skiles game. Pick and roll and good spacing on offensive and we need are big men to be mobile and good hands. That is really thomas game on defensive we want rebound, shot blocking, and good man d on the block. And the thing about thomas is not just that he is a great leaper but he also gets off the floor really quickl. I think he is a player much like Amare Stoudemire. Same build, height, and reach with quick feet and really quick jumper who can sky. 

IMHO this is paxson man. A better horse grant ype player that will do all the reboundinhg and shot blocking defensive similar to what horse did.

AT 16 i still think carney will be there but i also think pax may look at this SG from switzerland and whle i have only seen clips he does look perfect. Great height and mobility and i hear he plays nasty defensive and is a complete team player. That sounds like pax all the way.

I think we should sign AH and our starting line up would be BG, KH, LD, AH, and TC and then are bench would be carney or brewer and noci and thomas off the bench. I think that a really solid eight men rotation. And skiles will use a lineup like this to wear down the other team with nasty defensive and physical play.

david


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

i'm now on board to take bargani. there is no sure thing in this draft, and we can swap picks with the knicks next year. so i say take a risk on bargani, what do we have to lose?


----------

