# I think Rudy Gay may be the one for us



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

He has true superstar potential, fits our big guard needs, and I think he may be a hidden gem, even though he is predicted to go top 5 easily. He talks about having a lot more ability than he was able to show at UConn, but he also talks about doing everything Jim Calhoun asked of him. To me, that fits the bill perfect for what Skiles and Paxson want. They want a superstar who will act as just another one of the twelve players on the squad. There is something to be said for a player who will mold his abilities to what the team needs most, instead of constantly insisting to take a bigger role even at the expense of the team losing. 

I've been an advocate of picking Bargnani, but I would never expect Paxson to draft him. I was almost sure that Paxson would draft LaMarcus Aldridge, but now I'm beginning to think that Gay will be the guy, or atleast I hope. I would be happy with either Bargnani or Gay at this point. 

Anyways, I'm officially on the Rudy Gay bandwagon. Say no to Aldridge. Say no to Thomas. Say no to Morrison. Say no to Roy.


----------



## thom_york (Apr 17, 2006)

Im with you man. Gay for me is the only player im excited about.


----------



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

If we don't draft need, we need to draft Rudy Gay. I believe Gay is going to be the best player out of this draft class. I love what his coach said about him. 



> Gay is the one player Calhoun couldn't say enough about the past two seasons. He constantly wanted him to be the best in the country and was trying to get it out of him. Gay said last week in Orlando that he didn't listen to the hype regarding his preseason status as the possible No. 1 overall pick. He hasn't ducked anyone this spring, choosing to work out with Gonzaga's Adam Morrison in Portland on Thursday and again Wednesday in Toronto.
> 
> "I'll face up against anybody," Gay said. "I think I can be aggressive, and it's one of the things I want to show."
> 
> ...


 http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2006/columns/story?columnist=katz_andy&id=2487140


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

L.O.B said:


> *If we don't draft need, we need to draft Rudy Gay. I believe Gay is going to be the best player out of this draft class. I love what his coach said about him. *
> 
> http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2006/columns/story?columnist=katz_andy&id=2487140



I agree... the two guard is definitely not a position of need for us right now... but if Rudy Gay can play the two I'd be more willing to accept it as a luxury pick. He has the potential to be spectacular... his wingspan is ridiculous. I'd prefer a big, but I wouldn't defenistrate my TV if we took Gay.


----------



## dkg1 (May 31, 2002)

I posted something similar yesterday, Patch. I think if there's going to be a superstar from this draft class it will be Rudy Gay. I'm slowly starting to hope we pick Rudy, Although I wouldn't be upset if we end up with Aldridge, Bargnani, or Roy. If Gay continues to shred Morrison in workouts he's going to sky rocket up the charts. I'd really like to see Gay and Roy matchup in a workout.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Hmm, I put Gay a top my draftboard, and now he's becoming the cult #2 pick. Gay is going to be the best player in this draft, on T-Mac and Kobe's level, and he'll be a nice fit at the 2 alongside Gordon at the 1 with Kirk off the bench.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

I agree that Gay has the biggest upside. I just wonder about his ability to play the 2 as far as ball handling.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

TripleDouble said:


> I agree that Gay has the biggest upside. I just wonder about his ability to play the 2 as far as ball handling.


Ballhandling, I hate this...oh a 2 guard needs to handle the ball blah blah blah. I'm sure he has plenty of moves to get to the basket, and can dribble the ball up the court, most players can. I never got it, isn't Kirk/Ben/Duhon suppose to be the majority ball handlers?


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

sloth said:


> Ballhandling, I hate this...oh a 2 guard needs to handle the ball blah blah blah. I'm sure he has plenty of moves to get to the basket, and can dribble the ball up the court, most players can. I never got it, isn't Kirk/Ben/Duhon suppose to be the majority ball handlers?


A team with only one decent ball handler can taken advantage of by trapping the only ball handler.


----------



## dkg1 (May 31, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> A teem with only one decent ball handler can taken advantage of by trapping the only ball handler.



True, but if the defense is trapping off of Gay you'd like to think he wouldn't have a problem dribbling up the court. Plus at 6'9 he'll be able to see over the defense and actually pass over the top of traps, etc. Wouldn't it be nice to have a 2 who can attack the rim and throw one down over his defender?


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

dkg1 said:


> True, but if the defense is trapping off of Gay you'd like to think he wouldn't have a problem dribbling up the court. Plus at 6'9 he'll be able to see over the defense and actually pass over the top of traps, etc. Wouldn't it be nice to have a 2 who can attack the rim and throw one down over his defender?


Of course. I just don't think you can discount ball handling skills in a guard. If ball handling weren't important, why hasn't Deng played a lot more two guard against big guards?


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

If Gay works hard, and doesn't pull and ERob, he can and is most likely to reach superstar status from this draft class.

I like what I hear about Roy, but I rather go for Gay at 2 if we don't go big. Otherwise find a way to trade up to get Brewer.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

But from everything I've seen, his ball handling skills are definitely good enough. I don't see a scenario where the point guard gets trapped, and they pass it to Gay and he loses the ball over and over in this situation.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> I'm sure he has plenty of moves to get to the basket, and can dribble the ball up the court, most players can. I never got it, isn't Kirk/Ben/Duhon suppose to be the majority ball handlers?


Whenever I bothered to watch him he barely had any moves, just relied on the quick first step to make space and mostly ended up throwing up the J. Given that this was mostly during the early part of the season and that he has improved quite a bit, I still feel his ball handling is subpar and this really limits his ability to have many go to moves. Once it is improved he'll be a force to be reckoned with, I'm just not sure how long that will take.

I probably caught his bad games, but I just can't agree that he's this complete package some try to make him out to be. I won't be upset if we select him, I can see it being beneficial to both parties. He won't be asked to take over games, we have Ben for that. I just hope with our more involved offense that his disappearing magic act is something of the past, we already are plagued by this enough as it is.

Makes me curious to see what course of action Paxson takes and who will end up being the black sheep out of Deng, Gay and Nocioni.


> True, but if the defense is trapping off of Gay you'd like to think he wouldn't have a problem dribbling up the court.


Under pressure? You'd be suprised how many players end up crumbling when it is applied.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

If Calhoun is talking about how good you, then you're a terrific scorer.

Here are some of the things he has said about past players.

Ray Allen: He's the best shooter I've ever coached.
Ben Gordon: He's the most offensively gifted player I've ever coached.

Those guys are pretty darn good. Gay is more than likely going to be a steal wherever he's picked (especially if it's not in the top 2).


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

I am right with you on Bargnani being my first choice, but I don't really expect them to take him (if he's available). Gay on the other hand has more of a chance of being selected, and he's easily my 2nd choice. I think in a few years he'll become more skilled and again as mentioned before he has as good or more of a chance of being a superstar than anyone else in the draft. If we took him we could even go small with Hinrich, Gordon, Gay, Nocioni, and Chandler. Or if going big, Kirk, Gay, Nocioni, Chandler, Pryzbilla. That is of course assuming he can play the 2. 

Lastly, ball handling is KEY to a good SG. How do you think they create their own shot, or get past the defender and make a few moves on the way to the rim without losing the ball or travelling (not as if that gets called anymore anyway). Hopefully he'll turn out to be a more athletic Pippen....and Pippen was our PG and primary ball handler at times if you remember.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

I like Rudy, but again, I haven't forgotten how much he dissapeared ALL of last season.

This guy isn't a SG, not at all.

Yeah, he has star potential but he WAS the most dissapointing player to watch last year in the NCAA. Dude just never seemed to care to take over or standout.

I'd rather have him than Deng though. But I don't think he's a MUST have player for us.


----------



## Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! (Jun 10, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> I Hopefully he'll turn out to be a more athletic Pippen....and Pippen was our PG and primary ball handler at times if you remember.


"More Athletic Pippen"?? Wow, that would be A-M-A-Z-I-N-G! Because Pip was an incredible athlete!

Can this guy handle the ball? I thought he was more of a "3"??


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! said:


> "More Athletic Pippen"?? Wow, that would be A-M-A-Z-I-N-G! Because Pip was an incredible athlete!
> 
> Can this guy handle the ball? I thought he was more of a "3"??


Yeah it would be something else if he was able to become a more athletic Pip. Pip wasn't that great of an athlete. He was very good, and skilled, but he wasn't a high flyer or anything like that, he was just good at everything. The ball handling will have to come later if he's ever going to be able to handle the ball like a 2. I have seen several analysis of him saying best case scenario is a more athletic Pippen though.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> If Calhoun is talking about how good you, then you're a terrific scorer.
> 
> Here are some of the things he has said about past players.
> 
> ...


I haven't had the luxury to see Gay play everyday when he's not on centre stage, Calhoun has, but I don't see him being able to give an unbiased opinion on his own player anwyays. 
Gay has the tools to become a great scorer, but what he's showed hasn't wowed me to the point that I can overlook his inconsistency and his ability to disappear for long periods during a game.
I'd love to be proved wrong, this isn't something that I want to be right on, but I have seen this scenario play out too much to believe everything that is said.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Pip wasn't that great of an athlete.


    

Pippen's the only guy I've ever seen who could guard five guys at once. For his size in terms of quickness, agility, endurance, and explosiveness, I've never seen anyone that even approaches him.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

madox said:


> Pippen's the only guy I've ever seen who could guard five guys at once. For his size in terms of quickness, agility, endurance, and explosiveness, I've never seen anyone that even approaches him.


i think he only saw pippen - the rockets/blazers years. pip was pretty ridiculous in his prime.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

madox said:


> Pippen's the only guy I've ever seen who could guard five guys at once. For his size in terms of quickness, agility, endurance, and explosiveness, I've never seen anyone that even approaches him.


Jordan was a much better athlete than Pippen. Pippen was a very good athlete, but he didn't have that freakish athletic ability. He had great agility and endurance, but wasn't unbelievable in the quickness and explosiveness aspects. He was way above average but he usually made plays based on skill moreso than athleticism as far as I'm concerned. Again, I never said he wasn't a great athlete, but there are guys with much greater athleticism. Amare Stoudamire is another one with unbelievable athleticism.


----------



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

DaBabyBullz said:


> Jordan was a much better athlete than Pippen. Pippen was a very good athlete, but he didn't have that freakish athletic ability. He had great agility and endurance, but wasn't unbelievable in the quickness and explosiveness aspects. He was way above average but he usually made plays based on skill moreso than athleticism as far as I'm concerned. Again, I never said he wasn't a great athlete, but there are guys with much greater athleticism. Amare Stoudamire is another one with unbelievable athleticism.


I must have a faulty memory because I could swear that Pippen used his superior quickness to steal many passes by playing the passing lanes, followed by break away dunks.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> He has true superstar potential, fits our big guard needs, and I think he may be a hidden gem, even though he is predicted to go top 5 easily. He talks about having a lot more ability than he was able to show at UConn, but he also talks about doing everything Jim Calhoun asked of him. To me, that fits the bill perfect for what Skiles and Paxson want. They want a superstar who will act as just another one of the twelve players on the squad. There is something to be said for a player who will mold his abilities to what the team needs most, instead of constantly insisting to take a bigger role even at the expense of the team losing.
> 
> I've been an advocate of picking Bargnani, but I would never expect Paxson to draft him. I was almost sure that Paxson would draft LaMarcus Aldridge, but now I'm beginning to think that Gay will be the guy, or atleast I hope. I would be happy with either Bargnani or Gay at this point.
> 
> Anyways, I'm officially on the Rudy Gay bandwagon. Say no to Aldridge. Say no to Thomas. Say no to Morrison. Say no to Roy.


This almost makes sense to me -- Gay has all the tools to be the best player out of this draft. But I have two pretty serious reservations: I don't think he'll be able to play the 2 in the NBA, and I worry about his drifting in and out / shakiness in the clutch. 

IMO, Deng and Nocioni can't play a lick of off-guard. Maybe one particular matchup once in a blue moon for a possession or two. Beyond that, it's a train wreck. Each can be effective as a 4, but probably not over the long haul. Getting the most out of Gay would require playing him at a position where we're already awkwardly two deep. 

And I do think that the three is where Gay will be most effective. He's a great transition player and ballhandler in the open court, and he's got an incredible first step and finishing ability, but I saw him get into trouble a lot dribbling in the half court. He's not a great playmaker, he's not a great spot-up shooter, and I question whether he'll have legitimate NBA 3-point range. He shot the college three great his freshman year, but I think his poor showing from 3 this year, plus his woeful FT shooting, are decent indications that he is going to struggle at the next level.

I think I'd rather have Roy or trade down for Brewer. I'm lukewarm on Thomas. Now that I'm coming to grips with the fact that Bargnani won't be on the board, I'm sort of settling into an "Anyone but Aldridge" mode. His test results are just another series of red flags.


----------



## 7RINGS? (Sep 28, 2004)

I say NO to Gay,just for the simple fact that we would have a hard time marketing that name!


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> IMO, Deng and Nocioni can't play a lick of off-guard. Maybe one particular matchup once in a blue moon for a possession or two. Beyond that, it's a train wreck. Each can be effective as a 4, but probably not over the long haul. Getting the most out of Gay would require playing him at a position where we're already awkwardly two deep.


There would definitely be a choice between Deng and Gay. Nocioni proved to me this year in the playoffs, and last year in the playoffs as well, that he is big time. He is becoming more and more like Ginobili. He is definite roleplayer, but he seems to respond in big games. He is locked in on the Bulls as far as I'm concerned. Between Gay and Deng, Gay brings more to the table that we don't have. That is athleticism at the wing position. 

My problem with Nocioni and Deng, is that neither of them are super athletic. They are good athletes, but not anything special in the NBA. Nocioni has become a good finisher, shooter and hustle player. Plays both ends well. I think Nocioni at this point absolutely does everything that Deng does. In Deng's rookie year, that wasn't the case. Now Deng has become the odd man out, and being injury prone doesn't help his case. 

If we could package Deng and the 16th pick for the 1st pick, for example, I think we'd be in the good. We could come out with Bargnani and Gay. The Raptors would get a true small forward that would work well with Bosh, in my opinion, plus Colangelo has always been confident in his ability to draft anywhere on the board. Of course, this is just one of many scenarios that I'm pretty sure isn't going to happen, but it's good to know these possibilities are there. 

I think Gay can play 2 in the NBA for spurts, but I agree he'll be mostly a small forward. The thing about the Bulls is, they don't really worry about a full-time position, because Skiles doesn't do the 1st string 2nd string thing. It's mostly about lineups with the Bulls. Skiles is pretty good at putting unorthodox lineups on the floor and getting them to play great defense, and defense is all you need to worry about in terms of strange lineups. Offensively, you'd like to have your 5 best players on the court at all times, as long as it's not hurting your defense.


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

Anyone want in the club? :biggrin:


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Jordan was a much better athlete than Pippen. Pippen was a very good athlete, but he didn't have that freakish athletic ability. He had great agility and endurance, but wasn't unbelievable in the quickness and explosiveness aspects. He was way above average but he usually made plays based on skill moreso than athleticism as far as I'm concerned. Again, I never said he wasn't a great athlete, but there are guys with much greater athleticism. Amare Stoudamire is another one with unbelievable athleticism.


Because the best athlete in basketball history was a better athlete than Pippen, Pippen wasn't a great athlete? I think you may be confusing "dunk contest ability" with great athleticism.


----------



## thom_york (Apr 17, 2006)

for me, i look at gay and think wow, this guy could be amazing. plus hes pretty big as well, well hes not small, so would help the bulls get a little bigger, (ok im stretching)

but when i look at someone like aldridge, all i think is, yeah hes big, i guess he'l do.

i dont want a player based on needs who will "do", i want the player i think could be amazing. thats my opinion.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

thom_york said:


> for me, i look at gay and think wow, this guy could be amazing. plus hes pretty big as well, well hes not small, so would help the bulls get a little bigger, (ok im stretching)
> 
> but when i look at someone like aldridge, all i think is, yeah hes big, i guess he'l do.
> 
> i dont want a player based on needs who will "do", i want the player i think could be amazing. thats my opinion.


but when has he shown ANY of this amazement consistently?

James White & Tim Thomas were also thought of as amazing...it doesn't always workout like that though

All this FIRE and desire he speaks of his workouts, where was this need to prove us wrong when he was NEEDED every game last year for UCONN? This is about being the first pick for gay and getting the biggest contract, nothing more. Problem is, he's not built to handle the pressure of a #1 pick. He can't even handle being the best player on a team in college.


----------



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

The ROY said:


> but when has he shown ANY of this amazement consistently?
> 
> James White & Tim Thomas were also thought of as amazing...it doesn't always workout like that though


No you didn't! I can't believe you compared Gay to Tim Thomas, I no longer like you


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

The ROY said:


> He can't even handle being the best player on a team in college.


Neither could Vince Carter? Ben Gordon? Corey Maggette? 

In fact, a lot of wing players weren't the best player on their teams in college. College basketball favors point guards and big guys a lot more than wing players, because of the spacing issues.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Athletic wings often exceed their college performance when they get to the pros. See Vince Carter, Richard Jefferson, Jason Richardson, Corey Maggette. 

And as we saw last season, a very passive underperforming UCONN player stepped up pretty big when he turned pro.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> And as we saw last season, a very passive underperforming UCONN player stepped up pretty big when he turned pro.


............

............

....

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:yes:


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> And as we saw last season, a very passive underperforming UCONN player stepped up pretty big when he turned pro.


Bit of a difference between taking a risk on a passive underperformer at 2 vs. 7, no?

It's a #2 pick. Even in a top-unclear draft, you shouldn't take a guy with question marks of any significance, imo.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Bit of a difference between taking a risk on a passive underperformer at 2 vs. 7, no?
> 
> It's a #2 pick. Even in a top-unclear draft, you shouldn't take a guy with question marks of any significance, imo.


I think all the guys in this draft have question marks and I think Gay has a bigger upside than Charlie V. So I guess I disagree. If Gay can play the 2 spot offensively, I would not be against taking him at #2.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> It's a #2 pick. Even in a top-unclear draft, you shouldn't take a guy with question marks of any significance, imo.



Then perhaps we should "check?"

EVERY one of the top picks this year has significant question marks. Usually every opinion is a matter of debate. That is a 100% indisputable proposition. 

Everyone in this draft has question marks, which are emphasized or de-emphasized, depending on one's point of view, philosophy, bias, strategizing or agenda.

I don't care who "your guy" is this year. There is a good argument for or against. God willing, Pax will do a rockin' good job when he makes his decision.

But in this draft, there is NO question mark free pick, at #1, #2, #5, anywhere.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

I would be very happy we walk out of this years draft with Rudy Gay and Saer Sene, after hearing about how Rudy Gay will workout against anyone in the draft and after seeing Saer Sene's combine results these two guys just look like absolute freaks! Saer Sene is probably the NBA version of Julius Peppers, just genetic freaks of nature.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> But in this draft, there is NO question mark free pick, at #1, #2, #5, anywhere.


Here the Bulls are with the #2 pick, and I'm jealous of the teams with the #6-#10 picks who can take O'Bryant without scrutiny.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

The ROY said:


> but when has he shown ANY of this amazement consistently?
> 
> James White & Tim Thomas were also thought of as amazing...it doesn't always workout like that though
> 
> All this FIRE and desire he speaks of his workouts, where was this need to prove us wrong when he was NEEDED every game last year for UCONN? This is about being the first pick for gay and getting the biggest contract, nothing more. Problem is, he's not built to handle the pressure of a #1 pick. He can't even handle being the best player on a team in college.


And yet your the one basically begging the Bulls to take Tyrus Thomas #2, a player who was lets just say consistantly average for almost an entire year untill he had 1 big game in the tournament.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Maybe if Skiles stares at him long enough he'll see the jib.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> Saer Sene is probably the NBA version of Julius Peppers, just genetic freaks of nature.


John Merrick was also a genetic freak of nature. The called him "The Elephant Man."


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> John Merrick was also a genetic freak of nature. The called him "The Elephant Man."


Yeah but he dint have a 7'8 wingspan :smilewink


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> It's a #2 pick. Even in a top-unclear draft, you shouldn't take a guy with question marks of any significance, imo.


If that's the case we should have traded the pick by now.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

If we draft Gay, we have to trade Deng for another high pick or use him to land a big man.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> If that's the case we should have traded the pick by now.


That's exactly what I was lobbying for Pax to do prior to the deadline, so I'm not whistling a new tune here.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> But in this draft, there is NO question mark free pick, at #1, #2, #5, anywhere.


Probably not. But surely you can agree that some players' warts are bigger, uglier, and greater in number than others, yes?

When drafting Gay would require us to either make one or more big trades involving core players to resolve positional imbalance, or instead head into the season with three starting-caliber small forwards who aren't effective playing anywhere else, that is a huge wart. 

When Gay's in-game focus has repeatedly come into question, and when we have probably the least-tolerant coach in the league with respect to effort, that is an ugly wart. It's uglier still when you watch games and literally see Gay shying away from the ball down the stretch.

I agree that every player in the top tier has a red flag -- they're either not from around here, or they aren't that athletic, or they don't have a lot of upside, or they don't have a position. But even if Gay's ceiling is marginally higher than anyone elses, we are positionally and attitudinally simply not a good fit for him.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Probably not. But surely you can agree that some players' warts are bigger, uglier, and greater in number than others, yes?
> 
> When drafting Gay would require us to either make one or more big trades involving core players to resolve positional imbalance, or instead head into the season with three starting-caliber small forwards who aren't effective playing anywhere else, that is a huge wart.
> 
> ...


Gordon had some of those same question marks. Especially about attitude.

Personally, I'd try this:

Draft Gay at 2.

Deng +16 

for 

McCants +5

Draft whichever big falls to us.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> Gordon had some of those same question marks. Especially about attitude.


The fundamental difference being that no one ever accused Gordon of not performing up to his capabilities, and he was a ridiculously clutch player. 



> Personally, I'd try this:
> 
> Draft Gay at 2.
> 
> ...


I guess that would work for us. I can't see why Minnesota does it, though. They could take Gay themselves and keep McCants, and sleep soundly at night knowing that most years, 16 picks don't amount to much, e.g.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> The fundamental difference being that no one ever accused Gordon of not performing up to his capabilities, and he was a ridiculously clutch player.


Agreed.



> I guess that would work for us. I can't see why Minnesota does it, though. They could take Gay themselves and keep McCants, e.g.


Not if we take him at #2. Then they are stuck still needing a good SF. We'll give them Deng, and the opportunity to draft brewer, or whichever PG falls there for their #5 (Aldridge maybe??) and McCants.

And they still get Deng, who is LEAGUES better than McCants.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

I did not see the game where Gay shied away from the ball in such an obvious manner; however, even if he's not clutch, he could still be a great player. Plus I don't see his upside as being a Kobe/TMac go to scorer so the team may not need to rely on him to be the man down the stretch. I see him as having the potential to be a 20 ppg scorer and a great defender. A sort of combo/compromise between TMac and Kirilenko.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> I did not see the game where Gay shied away from the ball in such an obvious manner; however, even if he's not clutch, he could still be a great player. Plus I don't see his upside as being a Kobe/TMac go to scorer. I see him as being able to be a 20 ppg scorer and a great defender. A sort of combo/compromise between TMac and Kirilenko.


We don't need a 20 ppg scorer and great defender - cross between TMac and Kirilenko. We need another Stacey King!


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> I agree that every player in the top tier has a red flag -- they're either not from around here, or they aren't that athletic, or they don't have a lot of upside, or they don't have a position. But even if Gay's ceiling is marginally higher than anyone elses, we are positionally and attitudinally simply not a good fit for him.


 Gay's ceiling isnt just slighty higher, its head and shoulders higher then anyone elses. Gay was coached by one of college basketballs toughest coaches and yet Jim Calhoun has nothing to say but great things when asked about Rudy Gay. Gay's only obstacle is himself plain and simple, If Skiles can bring out the absolute best out of Rudy Gay then we are talking about a player that can go down in history as one of the best chicago Bull in history.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

At least Gay says he's interested in playing as a shooting guard. It's impossible to see Thomas or Morrison doing that. 

But I agree with those who think that if one of these three players or Roy look like the best player available, it would probably be better to trade down, even if all we get is a second round pick or two.

The Bulls just don't really need the skills these players have to offer; at least at the expense of the best BIG player available.

Speaking of which, I understand tomorrow is the last day for Spitter to duck out of this years draft. If he doesn't we should quietly intend to grab him at #16.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

The biggest problem with drafting Roy/Gay, well first off I think Roy's not going to be a good player, but with Gay, I like Kirk, Ben, Nocioni, and Deng a lot, and wouldn't want to see them be traded. But for all intensive purposes, Nocioni can play 3 and 4, Deng is pretty much a 3, Kirk is just a 1, Gay is a 2/3, and Ben's a 2/3. So say between the minutes at 1-3, and say 10 minutes at powerforward for Nocioni, that would workout to about 31 minutes a night for each guy. So maybe something along this:

Kirk: 32 minutes (all at point guard)
Ben: 32 minutes (16 at shooting guard, 16 at point guard)
Gay: 32 minutes (all at shooting guard)
Deng: 28 minutes (all at small forward)
Nocioni: 30 minutes (20 at small forward and 10 at powerforward)

For stretches, we might play like Kirk (or Ben), Gay, Deng, and Nocioni, talk about mismatches. This backcourt would extend us as the best in the league further, and the way Skiles plays people, it could work. Then come playoff times, guys won't get wasted, no more 40+ minute nights for Gordon and Hinrich, unless maybe its game 7 or something. It could work with the right coaching, all bring unique qualities, and it would be a hell of a backcourt.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

McBulls said:


> The Bulls just don't really need the skills these players have to offer; at least at the expense of the best BIG player available.


  
So we dont have a need for a potential superstar?


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

sloth said:


> The biggest problem with drafting Roy/Gay, well first off I think Roy's not going to be a good player, but with Gay, I like Kirk, Ben, Nocioni, and Deng a lot, and wouldn't want to see them be traded. But for all intensive purposes, Nocioni can play 3 and 4, Deng is pretty much a 3, Kirk is just a 1, Gay is a 2/3, and Ben's a 2/3. So say between the minutes at 1-3, and say 10 minutes at powerforward for Nocioni, that would workout to about 31 minutes a night for each guy. So maybe something along this:
> 
> Kirk: 32 minutes (all at point guard)
> Ben: 32 minutes (16 at shooting guard, 16 at point guard)
> ...


I like how you try to get minutes for all these guys, but when its all said and done the best player will get the minutes. If Gay happens to be better then Deng and Nocioni then Iam fine with Gay getting 30-40 minutes a night.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Speaking of which, I understand tomorrow is the last day for Spitter to duck out of this years draft. If he doesn't we should quietly intend to grab him at #16.


Interesting, would love to see us acquire another mid round pick, nab Sene and Splitter. That would be a crazy duo.

Before I suggest a slothesque trade idea that I've been mulling over for a while, how active do you see the trade deadline (or even early 08 offseason) next season being?


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> The Bulls just don't really need the skills these players have to offer; at least at the expense of the best BIG player available.


So you'd rather repeat the Sam Bowie mistake?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

step said:


> Interesting, would love to see us acquire another mid round pick, nab Sene and Splitter. That would be a crazy duo.
> 
> Before I suggest a slothesque trade idea that I've been mulling over for a while, how active do you see the trade deadline (or even early 08 offseason) next season being?


Splitter better be #1 on our draft board at 16, he hasn't pulled out yet, and I think he just wants to get drafted even if he doesn't come over right away, no way he slips past San Antonio at 59! But honestly, permitting that Splitter stays in, he has to be the pick, even if we don't get him right away. Theres been a lot of clamoring for Chris Kaman, but Splitter is a similiar player, only better on the defensive end. A very very solid center.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

sloth said:


> Splitter better be #1 on our draft board at 16, he hasn't pulled out yet, and I think he just wants to get drafted even if he doesn't come over right away, no way he slips past San Antonio at 59! But honestly, permitting that Splitter stays in, he has to be the pick, even if we don't get him right away. Theres been a lot of clamoring for Chris Kaman, but Splitter is a similiar player, only better on the defensive end. A very very solid center.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlrqMS7tp-A

Tiago looks just like Pau Gasol before he bulked up in the NBA. Tiago looks very active on defense, offensively hes probably average at best, he plays like a big SF. Solid handles for sure and a very impressive passer. Worth the #16 pick, but did he even show up for draft workouts and combines?

What I dont like is hes very soft on the inside offensively (ala young Pau) he gets wide open for a dunk and he just lays it in, not going to work in the NBA.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

step said:


> So you'd rather repeat the Sam Bowie mistake?


There are no Michael Jordans or Lebron James in this draft. Not even any Dwane Wades or Carmello Anthonys. The sole possible exception is Morrison, who could be every bit as good as one could hope -- and better, but I am very worried about his diabetes. The others may well prove to be good players, but not so good that you wouldn't take a chance on trading down if you didn't like the big man available at #2. Looks like Toronto may feel the same way. 



> Before I suggest a slothesque trade idea that I've been mulling over for a while, how active do you see the trade deadline (or even early 08 offseason) next season being?


A lot of teams will be trying to get under the cap for the summer of 2007; particularly those that get off to a poor start. If the Bulls manage to save some cap space until the trading deadline they could pick up a pick or a good veteran by helping teams launder their expensive veterans through Chicago in trades with third party teams.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> There are no Michael Jordans or Lebron James in this draft.


That is painfully obvious to everyone, but it really wasn't the point. We all know Portland's story in the 84 draft, we could easily be repeating that mistake by putting our needs ahead of everything else.



> Not even any Dwane Wades


Wade like many in this draft wasn't a sure thing either.


----------



## thom_york (Apr 17, 2006)

i know some have mentioned drafting the best "big" player available. although i see the obvious need for doing so, my argument would be that, in my opinion, the best big player available, most likely aldridge, just doesnt seem all that good, of all the top players in the draft, i just cant seeing this guy being a success. at least with gay i think he could really break out. although picking gay would ultimately be more complicated for the bulls, i would rather draft him.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

step said:


> That is painfully obvious to everyone, but it really wasn't the point. We all know Portland's story in the 84 draft, we could easily be repeating that mistake by putting our needs ahead of everything else.
> 
> 
> Wade like many in this draft wasn't a sure thing either.


Wade was a sure thing, just some people overlooked him, kind of like how Rudy Gay is the sure thing.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

thom_york said:


> i know some have mentioned drafting the best "big" player available. although i see the obvious need for doing so, my argument would be that, in my opinion, the best big player available, most likely aldridge, just doesnt seem all that good, of all the top players in the draft, i just cant seeing this guy being a success. at least with gay i think he could really break out. although picking gay would ultimately be more complicated for the bulls, i would rather draft him.


If Paxson feels the same way about Aldridge and Bargnani then he should trade the #2 for a lower lottery pick. One of the small forwards might be available as low as #8 (e.g., Thomas). If not he can get Brewer or O'Bryant, who fill needs. The lower pick will save cap space, and should come with bonus picks or other considerations and/or a second round picks that could be used to upgrade the #16.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

sloth said:


> Wade was a sure thing, just some people overlooked him, kind of like how Rudy Gay is the sure thing.


 I remember back in 2003 when half of all the experts believed that Darko Millicek was a better player then Lebron James. I think this draft would have been considered one of the best drafts if guys like say Adam Morrison, Tyrus Thomas, Bargnani and Gay where comming out of High School. For some reason people are more exited about taking high school kids over college products, Rudy Gay is a player who dominated in high school, played great his freshman year in college and improved and became one of the best players in college in just his sophmore year! Hes was being projected to have a 25 7 5 senior year, this guy is uber talented! I just hope the Bulls look very closely at Rudy Gay before thinking about taking the best available big guy in a year where there are going to be plenty of solid big men in FA.


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

The Bulls should bring him head to head against Thomas, Alridge, Morrison, and Roy.

If any of the above guys refuse, then the Bulls shouldn't like the cut of their jib. If Gay refuses, he's got crap jib. Maybe trim it down to 3, so it's not excessive.

If he can keep Aldridge from knocking him to the floor, and Morrison and Roy in front of him...

We pick him, and we laugh straight to the 2nd round of the playoffs (maybe EC finals!)


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

airety said:


> The Bulls should bring him head to head against Thomas, Alridge, Morrison, and Roy.
> 
> If any of the above guys refuse, then the Bulls shouldn't like the cut of their jib. If Gay refuses, he's got crap jib. Maybe trim it down to 3, so it's not excessive.
> 
> ...


Well, Morrison, Gay and Roy will have gone head to head. Thomas & Aldridge have refused (or at least haven't managed to fit the opportunity into their schedules). My guess is it will cost both of them as far as the Bulls are concerned, just as it cost Deng a couple of years ago.

Paxson is the kind of guy who likes to kick the tires before he buys a Bentley.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Gay has said that he looks foward to competing against the other prospects and that he will workout against anyone. Tyrus has not done the same, Aldrige knows hes a top 3 pick so hes going to avoid it and Bargs well Is he even in the US right now?


----------



## Plush4life (May 26, 2006)

Morrison, Roy, Gay....if we get any of these guys ill be super happy.

Stay away from aldridge and Thomas!!!

I know this has been posted before but

http://youtube.com/watch?v=yCso8qP_Mm4&search=rudy gay

1 min 56 sec into the video, abs beautiful


----------



## SianTao (Jul 11, 2005)

thebizkit69u said:


> ... and Bargs well Is he even in the US right now?


He's playing in the finals of Italian league.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Plush4life said:


> Morrison, Roy, Gay....if we get any of these guys ill be super happy.
> 
> Stay away from aldridge and Thomas!!!
> 
> ...


Best highlight video i have ever seen hands down.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

SianTao said:


> He's playing in the finals of Italian league.


Hows he doing? Stats wise?


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

thebizkit69u said:


> Best highlight video i have ever seen hands down.


it is impressive highlight wise. but anyone can look good hightlight wise. could get a compliation of D.Miles and make someones jaw drop. doesn't mean his a player. how about some moves? defence? im not sold on just those highlights.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

kulaz3000 said:


> it is impressive highlight wise. but anyone can look good hightlight wise. could get a compliation of D.Miles and make someones jaw drop. doesn't mean his a player. how about some moves? defence? im not sold on just those highlights.


Well i never said that i was sold on him as a player, but damn the highlight reel is one of the best I have ever seen. Right up there with some of the VC and Kobe tapes, but a notch bellow Jordan vidz. Difference between D-Miles and Gay are that Gay is a true basketball talent who rellies on much much more then just his athletisism, his handles, his scoring ability, his defense and his quickness are just out of this world.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

thebizkit69u said:


> Well i never said that i was sold on him as a player, but damn the highlight reel is one of the best I have ever seen. Right up there with some of the VC and Kobe tapes, but a notch bellow Jordan vidz. Difference between D-Miles and Gay are that Gay is a true basketball talent who rellies on much much more then just his athletisism, his handles, his scoring ability, his defense and his quickness are just out of this world.


well id love to believe you. as i did come away impressed with his array of dunks. but if he was such a sure thing why isn't he considered a higher draft choice? his athletic ability is very obvious to everyone. but i havn't heard such praise about his handles or defense let alone being able to create his own shot when needed. remember all those things handles. scoring ability. defense and quickness was once said about D.Miles also. though he still has a chance to turn it around.. but to compare him to a current player such a Miles i would rather Noc and Deng. but thats just clearly my point of view.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

kulaz3000 said:


> well id love to believe you. as i did come away impressed with his array of dunks. but if he was such a sure thing why isn't he considered a higher draft choice? his athletic ability is very obvious to everyone. but i havn't heard such praise about his handles or defense let alone being able to create his own shot when needed.


His handles are not great. But his defense is VERY good. His ability to get his own shot is also very good. And offensively he's in another league compared to miles. He's better than miles already and he hasn't played on minute in the pros. Bank on it.



> remember all those things handles. scoring ability. defense and quickness was once said about D.Miles also.


I don't EVER remember hearing that. And I WANTED US TO DRAFT miles.



> though he still has a chance to turn it around.. but to compare him to a current player such a Miles i would rather Noc and Deng. but thats just clearly my point of view.


I think he'll be better than both Noc AND Deng.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Plush4life said:


> Stay away from aldridge and Thomas!!!


You'll be regretting those comments down the line


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

I just believe someone like Brewer is more of a sure thing than Gay. He is just as athletic and probably more fundermentally sound than a player like Gay. Brewer can play and is "known" to play multiple position over the fact of "potentially" playing multiple positions. but who knows?? even the GM's that are sure arn't ever sure are they? Unless the players names are Duncan or Lebron. this is a very risky draft i think there are a few gems but noone knows who...


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

kulaz3000 said:


> I just believe someone like Brewer is more of a sure thing than Gay.


Maybe. But his ceiling is lower.



> He is just as athletic and probably more fundermentally sound than a player like Gay.


That would be a no.....and a no......

Gay is both more athletic AND more fundamentally sound.



> Brewer can play and is "known" to play multiple position over the fact of "potentially" playing multiple positions.


But honestly, if we draft Gay, it should be to play SF and nothing else. He's a natural born SF and he'll be a great one.



> but who knows?? even the GM's that are sure arn't ever sure are they? Unless the players names are Duncan or Lebron. this is a very risky draft i think there are a few gems but noone knows who...


Gay.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

I've been on the Gay bandwagon for a long time and I want Pax to draft him.

However, I don't see myself buying his jersey, no matter what.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

CiMa said:


> I've been on the Gay bandwagon for a long time and I want Pax to draft him.
> 
> However, I don't see myself buying his jersey, no matter what.


Yeah, I'm pretty confident that his jersey will never be a big seller, unless of course it's a huge hit with people of that persuasion. Maybe he should add an E to it, like Marvin Gaye.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

We could always do the chant from the movie Rudy (Notre Dame football player)...just chant Rudy, Rudy, Rudy, Rudy! :biggrin: That is of course assuming we get him


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Yeah I just dont see how Gay's jersery would be a big time seller, but I doubt he cares about that.

How do we make his jearsy more appealing? 

Should we add a R? so it looks like R.Gay? Or maybe a RU, Ru.Gay but somepeople might be offended.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

I think "ouR-GAY" could be big.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

With the popularity of gays and lesbians nowadays..

I'm sure his jersey would be extremely popular, atleast in THAT community. lol

Whatever team drafts him, you can almost read the headlines after one of his big games "It's good to be Gay"

it'll happen...


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

All I can say is what I've been saying. Thomas or Aldrige with the #2. Fill that size need, unless of course Paxson thinks the bigs are all bums.

The only exception to my preference is Gay. Not Roy.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

MJ will take Gay at #3.


----------



## NJ Grand NJ (Feb 22, 2005)

kulaz3000 said:


> it is impressive highlight wise. but anyone can look good hightlight wise. could get a compliation of D.Miles and make someones jaw drop. doesn't mean his a player. how about some moves? defence? im not sold on just those highlights.


Do you want to see him boxing out, staying infront of his man, and rebounding in a HIGHLIGHT video. Ofcourse their not gonna show him doing that stuff... DMiles is no where near Rudy in any aspect of basketball. DMiles is fast and athletic, but Rudy is already better than him. Strength, shooting(Rudy Gay is a very good shooter, just cause he's athletic people assume that's all he can do), defense, rebounding, etc., etc. I'm not saying Rudy Gay is a sure superstar, but once his handles get better, he should be a GREAT player.


----------



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

Shame on some of you for even suggesting to trade Deng if Gay is picked. Noc is the odd man out. His ceiling is Manu Ginobili. Noc's game consists of open 3's and hard drives to the basket, and the rest is all scrappiness and energy. Also he's already relatively old. He will improve, but not by leaps and bounds, by any means. If anyone gets traded, it should be him, but only in the event that Pax is landing a solid borderline allstar.

Gay has the potential to be a star, and Deng is simply too young to give up on. He has been dealing with injuries and only had his first postseason experience this year. He's already been working out regularly at the Berto Center (not that that means too much given the Tyson Chandler summer updates of from the previous several seasons). 

*RUDY GAY, ALL THE WAY.*


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Noc isn't going ANYWHERE anytime soon.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

The ROY said:


> Noc isn't going ANYWHERE anytime soon.


Id take Gay over Nocioni in a heartbeat, so would 9 out of 10 gm's.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

thebizkit69u said:


> Id take Gay over Nocioni in a heartbeat, so would 9 out of 10 gm's.


Do you know 10 gm's? I'd assume you don't, so how can u speak on what another GM feels his team may need?


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> Id take Gay over Nocioni in a heartbeat, so would 9 out of 10 gm's.


 I'd venture to say 10 out of 10 GMs would.

But as far is Nocioni is concerned, depending on what we do to the roster this year I wouldn't be surprised at all to see him get shipped out as part of a consolidation trade. He's a FA next year and IIRC he's one of the few non-RFAs out there that is due for a significant raise. Heck, the MLE is a raise and if a contending team like SA were to offer that I don't see how he doesn't take it and run.


----------



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

The ROY said:


> Noc isn't going ANYWHERE anytime soon.


Of course you have to appreciate his jib and hustle, but this team isn't getting back to promised land based solely on that.


----------



## Like A Breath (Jun 16, 2003)

I think Deng is the odd man out if Gay is drafted. Nothing against Deng, but it's obvious that the Grant Hill comparisons out of high school were way off and he's a bit one-dimensional on the court. Plus, he can fetch a lot more on the open market than Noc can.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

sp00k said:


> I'd venture to say 10 out of 10 GMs would.
> 
> But as far is Nocioni is concerned, depending on what we do to the roster this year I wouldn't be surprised at all to see him get shipped out as part of a consolidation trade. He's a FA next year and IIRC he's one of the few non-RFAs out there that is due for a significant raise. Heck, the MLE is a raise and if a contending team like SA were to offer that I don't see how he doesn't take it and run.


 Its pretty obvious that Nocioni is not a star and is no where near being a star. Nocioni has the shot to make more money somewhere else in the NBA. Hes not going to sign a big deal with Chicago its just not going to happen, atleast with Gay you get a player who is closer to being a superstar then Nocioni ever will be.


----------



## Plush4life (May 26, 2006)

What is a Star? How many times the name is mentioned? Does is even matter?

Id rather watch nocioni hustle and play with emotion then Dwayne Wade carry the ball and spawl out on the floor every foul. Which commericial is worse...breaking logic by falling 7 times and getting up 8?...or carrying the ball twice in slow motion for an ' I love this game' commercial?

The NBA and people assoc. with it will do anything to get people to watch, even if it means putting players on a platform they havent quite earned yet.

Iverson..Tmac..Garnnet...Francis... move over guys...melo, lebron, wade are here. Then in a few years when teams rise and fall,we will be brown nosing a new group.

I see more little kiddies walking around with melo jerseys then Arenas....Does that make him a better player?....(giggles)

lets just change the word to NBA celebrity


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

I noticed that a lot of people went gaga about Gay after watching that highlight clip.

I did that too when I first watched the clip last year.

And then I saw about 10 game or so of UConn games last year.

Man, Oh man. Gay is no way near from the player that highlight clips showed. 

After watching him in action during the course of game, my expectation of Gay isn't that high as of now. With Noc and Deng already in the house, I don't Paxon to pick him.

I don't see him becoming a superstar let alone star player in NBA. At all. Chance of him becoming a better player than Deng or Noc is slim in my book.

He coudn't dictate the college basketball game and how could you expect him to do that in NBA? I never saw one time he took over the game last year. In fact, a lot of time he totally disappear from the court.

Big No, No from me.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

thebizkit69u said:


> Its pretty obvious that Nocioni is not a star and is no where near being a star. Nocioni has the shot to make more money somewhere else in the NBA. Hes not going to sign a big deal with Chicago its just not going to happen, atleast with Gay you get a player who is closer to being a superstar then Nocioni ever will be.


Nocioni is a star in Chicago. 

How many Chicago players have heard their name chanted by 20000+ Chicago fans on national TV without having made a great play? Chicago fans love players who combine talent with passion for the game and a great work ethic. Add the fact that he has appeal to the 30+% of Chicago that is Spanish speaking, and you have a recipe for commercial success -- both for Nocioni and the Bulls. 

Trading Nocioni at this point in time is simply not going to happen unless some team makes a ridiculously unbalanced offer.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

McBulls said:


> Nocioni is a star in Chicago.
> 
> How many Chicago players have heard their name chanted by 20000+ Chicago fans on national TV without having made a great play? Chicago fans love players who combine talent with passion for the game and a great work ethic. Add the fact that he has appeal to the 30+% of Chicago that is Spanish speaking, and you have a recipe for commercial success -- both for Nocioni and the Bulls.
> 
> Trading Nocioni at this point in time is simply not going to happen unless some team makes a ridiculously unbalanced offer.


Not to mention that the last 6-7 weeks of the season he actually played at a near allstar level. Plus he made huge strides between his first and second seasons in the NBA. 

The theory that "he'll never be a star" is myopic. 

Way too many fans are caught up in the highlight reel version of what constitutes a star level player. 

Thankfully with the emergence of less gaudy stars like Ginobli, R-Jeff, Artest and AK47, the league is starting to realize the value of good old balls out basketball. Nocioni can most certainly achieve stardom in this mold of player.

Will he? I don't know. But its time to think about stars in actual, not perceived, value.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Plush4life said:


> What is a Star? How many times the name is mentioned? Does is even matter?
> 
> Id rather watch nocioni hustle and play with emotion then Dwayne Wade carry the ball and spawl out on the floor every foul. Which commericial is worse...breaking logic by falling 7 times and getting up 8?...or carrying the ball twice in slow motion for an ' I love this game' commercial?


 So you are happy watching Nocioni score 20 points in a Bulls first round loss then watch Dwayne Wade "Carry" his team to a game 6 of the NBA FINALS?! 

Yeah, if Chicago is happy settling with Nocioni as a "Star" then I guess we should be happy about back to back first round losses. 

Nocioni is as close to being a star as Lebron James is as close to retiring.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> Thankfully with the emergence of less gaudy stars like Ginobli, R-Jeff, Artest and AK47, the league is starting to realize the value of good old balls out basketball. Nocioni can most certainly achieve stardom in this mold of player.
> 
> Will he? I don't know. But its time to think about stars in actual, not perceived, value.


Well lets not get a head of ourselves here, Nocioni is a few years away from being as good as Ginobili but light years away from Artest and AK47 who IMO AK47 is top 10 in the whole league. Nocioni is not a Star, hes a great role player and borderline NBA starter you dont call a guy who averages 13 ppg 7 rbs a star, regardless of how well he finished the season.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

thebizkit69u said:


> Well lets not get a head of ourselves here, Nocioni is a few years away from being as good as Ginobili but light years away from Artest and AK47 who IMO AK47 is top 10 in the whole league. Nocioni is not a Star, hes a great role player and borderline NBA starter *you dont call a guy who averages 13 ppg 7 rbs a star, regardless of how well he finished the season.*


Did I call him a star? I said that to say he'll never be a star is myopic. Looking at how a guy finishes a season, for a sustained period of time like Chapu did, is important when you are looking at young players with limited NBA experience. The upward trend can be a meaningful predictor. 

Or it can mean nothing. 

But I saw enough really impressive play from Noc down the stretch to be patient. There are different types of "stars". There are elite, hall of fame players, and then there are borderline allstars. Noc may be the latter. And sometimes the guys that fall into that category are more valuable to team success than the flashier stars that get to play in the Allstar game every year.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> sometimes the guys that fall into that category are more valuable to team success than the flashier stars that get to play in the Allstar game every year.


I agree, but it depends on the team. Yes, I would rather have Nocioni over guys like Steve Franchise but there is no way Nocioni is more important to the Bulls or would have a bigger impact with the Bulls over any allstar in this league.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

thebizkit69u said:


> I agree, but it depends on the team. Yes, I would rather have Nocioni over guys like Steve Franchise but there is no way Nocioni is more important to the Bulls or would have a bigger impact with the Bulls over any allstar in this league.


Not yet.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> Not yet.


Not untill we draft or trade for a legit "Star". No doubt Nocioni would be a more valuable Bull if we had say Dwayne Wade on our team, then yes I would rather have Nocioni over Ray Allen or Shawn Marion but untill then the Bulls should do whatever it takes to bring in a guy who can take over a game night after night even if that means trading away Noc.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

thebizkit69u said:


> Not untill we draft or trade for a legit "Star". No doubt Nocioni would be a more valuable Bull if we had say Dwayne Wade on our team, then yes I would rather have Nocioni over Ray Allen or Shawn Marion but untill then the Bulls should do whatever it takes to bring in a guy who can take over a game night after night even if that means trading away Noc.


Now we are talking about two different things. I doubt any of us would balk at trading Chapu for "a guy who can take over a game night after night".


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

thebizkit69u said:


> Not untill we draft or trade for a legit "Star". No doubt Nocioni would be a more valuable Bull if we had say Dwayne Wade on our team, then yes I would rather have Nocioni over Ray Allen or Shawn Marion but untill then the Bulls should do whatever it takes to bring in a guy who can take over a game night after night even if that means trading away Noc.


Role players Nocioni, Ginobilli and a few not-so-famous friends gave a team of US all-stars all they could handle and more in the olympics. Fact is, they kicked their butts. 

Nocioni and a few small, not-ready-for-primetime Bulls teamates gave a Miami team full of all-stars all they could handle for six games. 

The necessity of "stars" for winning teams is overrated. Sometimes it seems the main advantage they bring to a game is prejudiced officiating. If games were called by officials who ignored the names on the back of uniforms (as in the Olympics) the stars wouldn't be worth half as much as the seem to be. 

Nocioni is one of those guys (like Artest or Pippen) who just does whatever it takes on both ends of the floor to marginally increase the chances of his team to win a game, regardless of what his statistics end up being. If you need a charge, he'll take it. Need a 3 pointer? He's ready. Need penetration? He can. Need rebounding? Get out of the way. Need a stop on Lebron? None better. Me-first offense & matador defense are not in his repitoir. I'll take a guy like that over Carter or Carmello Anthony any day.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

McBulls said:


> Role players Nocioni, Ginobilli and a few not-so-famous friends gave a team of US all-stars all they could handle and more in the olympics. Fact is, they kicked their butts.
> 
> Nocioni and a few small, not-ready-for-primetime Bulls teamates gave a Miami team full of all-stars all they could handle for six games.
> 
> ...


I have to agree that I would also take Nocioni over Carmello just because Carmelo thinks hes bigger then the game. Even though Carmelo destroys the Bulls each time we play Denver lol. What we really need out of Nocioni is consistency on both ends of the floor, hes still one of the Bulls that on a consistent basis makes these boneheaded plays.


----------



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

kulaz3000 said:


> it is impressive highlight wise. but anyone can look good hightlight wise. could get a compliation of D.Miles and make someones jaw drop. doesn't mean his a player. how about some moves? defence? im not sold on just those highlights.


So what about the people who want Bargnani? I highly doubt that many people who are for drafting him watch his Italian L games.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Gay will be the best player out of this draft. Period.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

The Krakken said:


> Gay will be the best player out of this draft. Period.



if that was the case he would be in more talks to be in the top 3 picks. there certainly isn't a sure thing in this draft. thats why this draft is causing such a stir and conversation. so much uncertainty meaning the whole class could be a bust or on the flip side make more of impact on the leauge than people imagine. but it sure makes it interesting...


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

''


> It seems unlikely the Bulls would select Gay at No. 2. As Bulls guard Ben Gordon, a fellow UConn product, said when asked about Gay: "He's a good player, but he's the same type of player as Luol Deng. So he doesn't seem to make sense for us.''


http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bull20.html

i hope that closes the case for all in favour of Gay as the number 2 pick for the bulls.


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

kulaz3000 said:


> ''
> 
> http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bull20.html
> 
> i hope that closes the case for all in favour of Gay as the number 2 pick for the bulls.


Well, Gordon by no means has the final say in who we draft, but I'd be very surprised if Paxson hasn't talked to him about Rudy Gay.

It's an interesting quote though, to say the least.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> "He's a good player, but he's the same type of player as Luol Deng. So he doesn't seem to make sense for us.''


Yeah only Rudy Gay is about 10 times more athletic and has more potential.


----------



## Plush4life (May 26, 2006)

> Yeah only Rudy Gay is about 10 times more athletic and has more potential.



This isnt the damn olympics..its basketball. Last I checked, Rudy Gay hasn't scored a point in the NBA, so how are you measuring?

There are players who have come and gone in this league with amazing athletic ability. ITS NOT EVERYTHING.

And yea, id rather cheer for the second place guy who busts his lip open playing hard then the 1st place winner who lays on the floor.

If championships mean everything, Wade aint got nothing on Dickey Simpkins :-o


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

You're the one for me, Rudy,
You're the one I really, really love.
And I will stay,
Promise you'll say if I'm in your way.
You're the one for me, Rudy,
You're the one I really, really love.
And I will stay,
Promise you'll say if I'm ever in your way.
Ah-hey.
All over Battersea,
Some hope and some despair.
All over Battersea,
Some hope and some despair.
You're the one for me, Rudy,
You're the one I really, really love.
And I will stay,
Promise you'll say if I'm in your way.
You're the one for me, Rudy,
You're the one I really, really love.
And I will stay,
Promise you'll say if I'm ever in your way.
Ah-hey.
All over Battersea,
Some hope and some despair.
All over Battersea,
Some hope and some despair.
You're the one for me, Rudy,
You're the one I really, really love.
And I will stay,
Promise you'll say if I'm in your way.
You're the one for me, Rudy,
You're the one for me-a-hey . . .


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Bumping this thread... some sobering raw stats I just rediscovered. I just find it interesting that Gay and Thomas are the exact same age, only a 1/4" apart in height with the same wingspan, similiar verts and agility scores... yet Thomas is talked about as an 'athletic freak' and has the most upside in this draft. Hmmm... okay? Should Gay be penalized because he doesn't scream after dunks and already has basketball skills starting from his first day playing in the league? If Thomas develops in 2 years what Gay's game is now, most Bulls fans would be highly pleased. I'm really souring on the hype surrounding TyThomas. I just hope Pax takes the BPA (in his opinion) for our #2 pick.

http://www.draftexpress.com/viewarticle.php?a=1349

Player / Date of Birth / Height w/o Shoes / Height With / Weight / Wingspan / Standing Reach
Rudy Gay / 8-17-86 / 6'7" / 6'8" / 222 / 7'3" / 8'11.2"
Ty Thomas / 8-17-86 / 6'7.25" / 6'8.25" / 217 / 7'3" / 9'

http://www.draftexpress.com/viewarticle.php?a=1352

Player / No Step Vert / Max Vert / Bench / Lane Agility / 3/4 Sprint / Score / Rank
Rudy Gay / 33.0 / 40.5 / 9 / 11.03 / 3.32 / 232.06 / 26
Ty Thomas / 34.0 / 39.5 / 8 / 11.36 / 3.2 / 235.43 / 22


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

I'm with you SD... my top 3 in this draft are TT, Bargnani and Gay. If we needed a SF, I think I'd have Mr Gay on top (oh my!).


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

I'd rather have Gay over Thomas, no doubt about it.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

superdave said:


> Bumping this thread... some sobering raw stats I just rediscovered. I just find it interesting that Gay and Thomas are the exact same age, only a 1/4" apart in height with the same wingspan, similiar verts and agility scores... yet Thomas is talked about as an 'athletic freak' and has the most upside in this draft. Hmmm... okay? Should Gay be penalized because he doesn't scream after dunks and already has basketball skills starting from his first day playing in the league? If Thomas develops in 2 years what Gay's game is now, most Bulls fans would be highly pleased. I'm really souring on the hype surrounding TyThomas. I just hope Pax takes the BPA (in his opinion) for our #2 pick.
> 
> http://www.draftexpress.com/viewarticle.php?a=1349
> 
> ...


 The biggest difference between these two is the intensity and relentless play Thomas displays on the floor, which is comparable to Amare Stoudemire, versus the deferrence of Rudy Gay. Rodney Carney, Rudy Gay... these guys are going to have to translate their athleticism into their game more often, not just for breakaway dunks. Otherwise they could fall off into Stromile Swift territory.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

superdave said:


> Bumping this thread... some sobering raw stats I just rediscovered. I just find it interesting that Gay and Thomas are the exact same age, only a 1/4" apart in height with the same wingspan, similiar verts and agility scores... yet Thomas is talked about as an 'athletic freak' and has the most upside in this draft. Hmmm... okay? Should Gay be penalized because he doesn't scream after dunks and already has basketball skills starting from his first day playing in the league? If Thomas develops in 2 years what Gay's game is now, most Bulls fans would be highly pleased. I'm really souring on the hype surrounding TyThomas. I just hope Pax takes the BPA (in his opinion) for our #2 pick.
> 
> http://www.draftexpress.com/viewarticle.php?a=1349
> 
> ...


I don't think it's all fair to say that the difference between these two is Thomas' demonstrative behavior following dunks. Thomas and Gay could not be more different on the court from an attitude standpoint. Gay defers to everyone (say what you will about UConn's deep NBA ready roster - I'd like the #2 pick in the draft to be more assertive than Rashard Anderson and Denham Brown) while Thomas is an aggressive game changer on the glass and as a defender. I agree that Gay is more skilled (thought it's not like he shoots the lights out), but these are two very different players. The idea that Gay is just a more skilled Tyrus Thomas is downright wrong.

(And, btw, I like Gay. I think he'll be a good pro. This is not meant to bash Gay at all.)


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Mr. Roger's Cardigan said:


> The biggest difference between these two is the intensity and relentless play Thomas displays on the floor, which is comparable to Amare Stoudemire, versus the deferrence of Rudy Gay. Rodney Carney, Rudy Gay... these guys are going to have to translate their athleticism into their game more often, not just for breakaway dunks. Otherwise they could fall off into Stromile Swift territory.


I'm trying to think of a list of 6'8" power forwards in recent memory that have had an big impact in the league. Hmmph.... err.... Elton Brand comes to mind. But he has always had the girth and monster sized hands to go along with a strong post game. And oh yeah weights 254. KMart had a solid arsenal of moves after 4 years in school. Marion? Projected as a 2/3 in the pros while showing skilled wing play in college.

I have no idea how Thomas will project in the pros. An Amare comparison is not very apt IMO. He had a fully developed body at age 19 and a first-step than was unmatched (until his injury). Also listed at 6'10" 245. Pardon me if I have a hard time envisioning a 6'8" 217 pound kid (with relentless intensity) develop a skill set that will give him a long term future at the 4 position in the pros.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

jbulls said:


> I don't think it's all fair to say that the difference between these two is Thomas' demonstrative behavior following dunks. Thomas and Gay could not be more different on the court from an attitude standpoint. Gay defers to everyone (say what you will about UConn's deep NBA ready roster - I'd like the #2 pick in the draft to be more assertive than Rashard Anderson and Denham Brown) while Thomas is an aggressive game changer on the glass and as a defender. I agree that Gay is more skilled (thought it's not like he shoots the lights out), but these are two very different players. The idea that Gay is just a more skilled Tyrus Thomas is downright wrong.
> 
> (And, btw, I like Gay. I think he'll be a good pro. This is not meant to bash Gay at all.)


Not a bad post my man, especially if you take college games as gospel as to how players translate in the pros.

Gay was the youngest starter on a JR/SR laden team with a bulldog as a coach. Did he meet the lofty all-world expectations set before the season? Clearly no. And I think this is why he is being unfairly criticized by many now. Contrast that with TyThomas whom no one even heard of before the NCAA tournament. He put together a string of good games on the highest stage and is reaping all the benefits. But at the end of the day, picking him is all upside and potential any way you shake it.

I have a hard time seeing a 6'8" PF who will be outweighed by 30-40 pounds from his man become an 'aggressive game changer on the glass and as a defender' in the pros. Of course it worked well in the college game, but in the pros? Not as easy.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

superdave, I think the difference is that people associate Tyrus Thomas with power forwards. For a power forward, he is a top tier athlete. For a small forward, he is a great athlete but really not _that_ special for an NBA small forward (look at LeBron, Marion, McGrady, Kirilenko, etc). 

If Thomas was 6'10 with that athleticism, or atleast a bulky 6'8 like Elton Brand, I'd buy into his athleticism at the power forward spot. 

People typically associate Thomas with Aldridge, as one of the top big guys in the draft, but why is he considered a big guy? He is a small forward in the NBA, but he struggles to fit that position because he doesn't have the skills necessary. Rudy Gay dwarfs Thomas in perimeter skills.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

superdave said:


> Player / Date of Birth / Height w/o Shoes / Height With / Weight / Wingspan / Standing Reach
> Rudy Gay / *8-17-86* / 6'7" / 6'8" / 222 / 7'3" / 8'11.2"
> Ty Thomas / *8-17-86* / 6'7.25" / 6'8.25" / 217 / 7'3" / 9'


Very close measurements and tests too, but what's really crazy is that they have the exact same birthdate.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> superdave, I think the difference is that people associate Tyrus Thomas with power forwards. For a power forward, he is a top tier athlete. For a small forward, he is a great athlete but really not _that_ special for an NBA small forward (look at LeBron, Marion, McGrady, Kirilenko, etc).
> 
> If Thomas was 6'10 with that athleticism, or atleast a bulky 6'8 like Elton Brand, I'd buy into his athleticism at the power forward spot.
> 
> People typically associate Thomas with Aldridge, as one of the top big guys in the draft, but why is he considered a big guy? He is a small forward in the NBA, but he struggles to fit that position because he doesn't have the skills necessary. Rudy Gay dwarfs Thomas in perimeter skills.


Nice post. I'm having a hard time seeing how TyThomas will fit into the pros too. I bought into the hype for weeks upon weeks, but now I want my money back.

I am not necessarily advocating picking Gay with my last few posts (though it may seem that way). I'm just struggling with the perception of these two players from which they both seem to be based very similarly athletically. Age, experience playing ball, height, weight, vert, wingspan, testing results, etc. Basically, I see Gay not getting enough credit for skills that he currently has at the cost of a perceived lack of desire.... versus Thomas getting too much credit for upside and developing skills due to an overinflated sense of his intensity and desire. The truth lies somewhere inbetween.

This draft is confusing and I love it!!! Time for bed


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

superdave said:


> I am not necessarily advocating picking Gay with my last few posts (though it may seem that way).


Yeah, despite the avatar and my praise for Rudy, he isn't my first choice. Andrea Bargnani is easily my first choice, but I figure he is as good as gone with the first pick. Rudy Gay is my second pick, but honestly I think I'll be fairly satisfied with anyone the Bulls pick at number two within the realm of reason (Aldridge, Thomas, Morrison, Gay, Roy and of course Bargnani). It's pretty close this year and we all have our pony.


----------



## Like A Breath (Jun 16, 2003)

jbulls said:


> I don't think it's all fair to say that the difference between these two is Thomas' demonstrative behavior following dunks. Thomas and Gay could not be more different on the court from an attitude standpoint. Gay defers to everyone (say what you will about UConn's deep NBA ready roster - I'd like the #2 pick in the draft to be more assertive than Rashard Anderson and Denham Brown) while Thomas is an aggressive game changer on the glass and as a defender.


It's funny how Gay defers to everyone and still manages to score more PPG than Thomas on a team with more talent. I think it's pretty indicative of his superior skillset.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

superdave said:


> I'm trying to think of a list of 6'8" power forwards in recent memory that have had an big impact in the league. Hmmph.... err.... Elton Brand comes to mind. But he has always had the girth and monster sized hands to go along with a strong post game. And oh yeah weights 254. KMart had a solid arsenal of moves after 4 years in school. Marion? Projected as a 2/3 in the pros while showing skilled wing play in college.
> 
> I have no idea how Thomas will project in the pros. An Amare comparison is not very apt IMO. He had a fully developed body at age 19 and a first-step than was unmatched (until his injury). Also listed at 6'10" 245. Pardon me if I have a hard time envisioning a 6'8" 217 pound kid (with relentless intensity) develop a skill set that will give him a long term future at the 4 position in the pros.


 I was only comparing Thomas' intensity and relentless desire to attack the basket to Amare. They are different players. His height would be a much bigger problem if he didn't have a 7'3 wingspan. His frame is nothing compared to a Dwight Howard but you still see him going up to 230 by the end of his sophomore season. No doubt Thomas is going to be a tweener early on in his career... staying close to the basket on defense contesting shots, and working in from the perimeter on offense/crashing the glass until he develops a back to the basket game.

But these playoffs showed more than ever how the game is evolving. Speed, athleticism, penetration are becoming more effective than your average position player. I'm sorry Thomas doesn't fit the bill of your prototypical PF, but he has the tools to be an elite defender and versatile offensive player. I don't know if he is the best fit for your team, but he should be a top 3 pick looking at the rest of the draft class.


----------



## Thankszeke (May 24, 2006)

Like A Breath said:


> It's funny how Gay defers to everyone and still manages to score more PPG than Thomas on a team with more talent. I think it's pretty indicative of his superior skillset.


All that talent sure got them far in the tourny. But honestly all that matters is ppg.

Also, for those of you who called Amare 245 when he came into the NBA, he was actually 233 

Amare Stoudemire 6-8 1/2 6-10 233 7-1 3/4 9-0 1/2 

Standing reach was a half inch off.


----------

