# 2014 Draft - 16th and 19th Picks



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

*June 26 2014*

Most of our focus has been on potential free agent acquisitions, but we do have a couple of mid-to-late 1sts in what is theoretically a pretty deep draft. 

It is hard to predict who will be on the board for us at 16 and 19... here's what a few 'experts' have so far, though these are obviously early and typically based on value rather than need:

www.draftexpress.com

16 - PG Tyler Ennis

19 - PF/C Clint Capela 


www.nbadraft.net 

16 - SF Jerami Grant

19 - PG Shabazz Napier


Assuming we keep these picks (for the sake of discussion, as they may get traded away), who do you think the Bulls should target at 16 and 19?


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Chad Ford has the Bulls taking Tyler Ennis and Rodney Hood in his latest mock.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/mock/?season=2014&version=6&source=Chad-Ford-Mock-Draft


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Rodney Hood may be a solid prospect but he doesn't fit what the Bulls need. Hes another jump shooter who can't really create for himself and isn't much of an athlete. Look at some of the scouting videos on this kid, hes at times a borderline HORRIBLE defender, you can't be that and play the 3 in the NBA. Hes just redundant at this point. Jimmy can defend but can't shoot, Snell can shoot sometimes and defend sometimes, Hood can shoot but can't defend or break down a defense.

I'm just not sold on the guy. 

As for Jerami Grant, if the kid improves his ball-handling and shooting stroke he can be the next Paul George. Hes an athletic specimen who can finish way above the rim and moves very fluidly for a man his size. Again, he can't shoot and will struggle to get anything other than put backs and break away dunks at the next level. But, adding him to this team gives him time to develop his offensive game slowly and if the Bulls run a more up-tempo offense (or at-least a bit more up-tempo), he will be a joy to watch. 

His defensive potential under Thibs is flat out scary. What separates him from a bunch of the try hard guys is that he is an elite athlete with a great motor, not just one or the other. I just have to wonder if he will ever improve on his offense, because even if he does develop an average jump shot, the guy will be at the very least worth a mid round pick.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

I personally would like the Bulls to try to move both picks for the Sixers 10th and 32nd pick. Then I have the Bulls obviously taking anyone of the big names who drop from the top 7 but if not, then take LaVine at 10. 

I think the Sixers do it because they have a lot of holes to fill and an extra first rounder can help. I don't think Sixers are worse off coming out of the draft with Wiggins/Parker, James Young and Adrian Payne, than Wiggins/Parker and say Stauskas. I don't think the drop off is that bad. 

Bulls could really use a legit scoring 2 guard who can also create for himself. LaVine is unique talent at the 2. His 41 inch vertical leap and ability to break down a defense is something the Bulls desperately need at the 2. He does remind me a bit of Austin Rivers which is a concern but I think hes got all the physical tools to excel at the position. 

Not having that second first round pick saves a bit of cap space and having multiple second rounders can give the Bulls more options. They can draft a pair of bigs like McAdoo and Mitch McGary (Pairing Mitch with Noah will instantly make the Bulls front court the most annoying front court in NBA history).


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

One of my favorites in our range is Nik Stauskas. Granted I think he will be a terrible defender for a while and with Thibs that could be a problem, but offensively he is sick. Possibly the 2nd best pure shooter in the draft (behind McDermott) and on top of that he has a great handle, court vision, and unselfish passing. Also an underrated athlete which is backed up by his combine numbers. With improvement on D, he could definitely be a damn good starter in this league. I can't think of a good comparison, I just see a guy who knows how to play good basketball.

I am not very sold on McDermott. If he were big enough to play the 4, he would be a great Ryan Anderson clone. But he is really a SF who won't be able to defend and offensively he will be mostly a shooter. Valuable rotation skill but don't see how he could ever be a starter-level player.

Not a fan of drafing Zach Lavine either. Great talent but way too young/raw. We don't have a big enough window to wait for him, and he might never fully pan out.

Adrien Payne sounds intriguing if we have to trade Taj. Payne I see as having a very high floor; seems like a safe pick who will stick in the league for a while.

This is only a small sampling of players we could get there...still getting info on James Young, Rodney Hood, and others. The Bulls could go alot of directions this draft, should be interesting.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

yodurk said:


> One of my favorites in our range is Nik Stauskas. Granted I think he will be a terrible defender for a while and with Thibs that could be a problem, but offensively he is sick. Possibly the 2nd best pure shooter in the draft (behind McDermott) and on top of that he has a great handle, court vision, and unselfish passing. Also an underrated athlete which is backed up by his combine numbers. With improvement on D, he could definitely be a damn good starter in this league. I can't think of a good comparison, I just see a guy who knows how to play good basketball.
> 
> I am not very sold on McDermott. If he were big enough to play the 4, he would be a great Ryan Anderson clone. But he is really a SF who won't be able to defend and offensively he will be mostly a shooter. Valuable rotation skill but don't see how he could ever be a starter-level player.
> 
> ...


I don't know if I would necessarily label LaVine as RAW. Sure he's young and unproven but he's got too many NBA relevant skills to be considered raw. I think raw fits Jerami Grant, more so than LaVine.

Stauskas is a very good player, I like a lot of things about him. Yeah his defense is poor, but the bulls are a team defense, so I would not worry too much about Stauskas on the bulls. The issue is, I just can't see taking him at 10. A top ten pick should be a player with the potential to be great in the NBA. I don't think Nik has that potential. At the very least I can see him being a productive starter in the league, maybe even averaging 16 ppg one day, but multiple all-stars, I just don't see that. 

LaVine may not have the all around solid game that Stauskas possesses, but he's got a ton more talent physically and athletically. That being said, LaVine could very well be a bust.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Lavine is most probably a late first round pick...or maybe a second round pick. Someone is going to take a chance at his potential, but the chances are that if he pans out it will be after he's left the team that drafted him. 

You may as well forget about Thibs taking on some long term project too. That shit is never happening. He's going to play guys who help him win tonight.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

Shabazz to Chicago!!!!


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Diable said:


> Lavine is most probably a late first round pick...or maybe a second round pick. Someone is going to take a chance at his potential, but the chances are that if he pans out it will be after he's left the team that drafted him.
> 
> You may as well forget about Thibs taking on some long term project too. That shit is never happening. He's going to play guys who help him win tonight.


He played and gave many chances to Tony Snell during the season and the only reason he stopped playing him was because Snell sucks. Also, when was the last time the Bulls drafted an under #20 pick in Thibs reign? Never. 

As for LaVine; ESPN, NBADRAFT and DraftExpress all have him going anywhere from 11 to 17, so the idea that hes going to the second round is a reach. 

LaVine believe it or not is not a huge project. The kid is not raw. I know that word likes to be thrown around a lot when talking about guys like LaVine, but raw should be used for players who only have a very limited skill set. Tyrus Thomas was an athlete who can dunk and that was about it, thats Raw. 

LaVine needs to improve his basketball IQ and needs to develop a bit more physically. The latter can be improved in one full NBA off-season and I think the IQ part is where a coach like Thibs can really do wonders. Thibs surprisingly gets a lot out of his guards.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Marcus13 said:


> Shabazz to Chicago!!!!


Another shrimp jump-shooting guard... No thanks.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

For the record I would want Stauskas at #16 . If we traded up to #10 , I think there are better talents we can take.

Lavine's "raw-ness" is in his shooting ability and physical development (i.e, too skinny...a boy among men). I also think he will be a turnover machine for a while kind of like MCW this past year. Basically not a guy we can rely on until 3rd season at a minimum. Whereas a guy like Stauskas plays like a vet and could be rotation ready on day 1, IMO, with a pure NBA ready shot and good decision making.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Here's how I have my big board in a tiered approach (ranked on my order of preference within each tier but interchangeable).

1. Wiggins
2. Embiid
3. Parker
-----
4. Exum
5. Randle
6. Vonleh
7. Smart
8. Gordon
-----
9. McDermott
10. Saric
11. Harris
12. Stauskas
-----
13. Nurkic
14. Payne
15. Young
16. Hood
17. LaVine
-----
18. Warren
19. Hairston
20. Payton
21. Anderson
22. Adams
23. Ennis
24. Grant
25. Napier

There seems to be a number of wings that should still be available by #19 , so I am leaning going big (Nurkic or Payne) unless one of the guys from tier 3 falls. At 19, draft BPA wing which should hopefully come from tier 4. I don't really see a tier 3 guy to trade up for unless they are high on McDermott or just trying to free up cash for FA.

Best case scenario:
#16 Harris/Stauskas
#19 Nurkic/Payne/Young/Hood/LaVine

More expected:
#16 Nurkic/Payne
#19 Warren/Hairston

Worst case:
#16 Young/Hood
#19 Hairston/Payton/Anderson


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

I would throw up if we come out of this draft with Nurkic and Payne. One a complete unknown who probably won't play here for another 3 years and the other is a Taj Gibson clone.. Redundant. 

The only thing I know for sure is that if Gary Harris is available at 16, the Bulls will take him. I personally want more potential out of these draft picks but I doubt the Bulls will take risks. Harris is a guy who can shoot and play defense, sounds like a guy GarPax loves.


----------



## Fergus (Oct 2, 2002)

I would love it if the Bulls could select Harris. Someone who can score is a must.

However, I really hope that the Bulls look for someone who can play some minutes at backup center. Noah needs some help.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> I would throw up if we come out of this draft with Nurkic and Payne. One a complete unknown who probably won't play here for another 3 years and the other is a Taj Gibson clone.. Redundant.
> 
> The only thing I know for sure is that if Gary Harris is available at 16, the Bulls will take him. I personally want more potential out of these draft picks but I doubt the Bulls will take risks. Harris is a guy who can shoot and play defense, sounds like a guy GarPax loves.


For the record, I would not take Nurkic AND Payne, and would only go big if Harris and Stauskas are off the board.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Another guy to keep an eye on is *Elfrid Payton*. His one glaring flaw is a broken jumpshot, but other than that he has a complete game and star level talent. True point guard at 6'4, big wingspan, lockdown defender, great athleticism, creates his own shot, and can finish in the paint. I'd definitely consider him at #19 ...would probably be top 5-7 if he was a good shooter. Maybe we fix his jumpshot and he explodes with us.

I would be totally cool if we came out of this draft with Stauskas at #16 and Payton at #19 . Those 2 guys would fit great together at the guard spots off the bench and provide a solid mix of ballhandling, shot creation, shooting, and defense. Maybe one of them emerges as a starting backcourt mate w/ Derrick.

Re: Payne, I would only take him if we lose Taj Gibson in a Melo/Love trade. I agree he is redundant on some level.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Another guy to keep an eye on is *Elfrid Payton*. His one glaring flaw is a broken jumpshot, but other than that he has a complete game and star level talent. True point guard at 6'4, big wingspan, lockdown defender, great athleticism, creates his own shot, and can finish in the paint. I'd definitely consider him at #19 ...would probably be top 5-7 if he was a good shooter. Maybe we fix his jumpshot and he explodes with us.


I have seen Payton play since early in his high school career. His athleticism is getting played up in the draft process, but it is deceptive because of his recent competition. He is NOT an elite NBA athlete. I have seen quite a few good PGs come through this region over the years. In terms of former NBA talents, Payton is not in the same stratosphere as either DJ Augustin or Chris Duhon when it comes to athleticism. Don't believe the hype! I don't seen him having much of a career at the NBA level.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

I have the bulls taking Payton in my mock. While I agree that athletically he's not elite, he's good enough. If Kendall Marshall can play in the league, Payton sure as hell can as well. His size, skill set and recent workouts have impressed scouts. His lack of aggression has been something that has held him back according to some scouts. Pairing him with Rose in every practice might just help him step up and gain more confidence.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I agree Payton isn't a 5-star elite NBA level athlete, ala healthy Rose, Lebron, John Wall, etc. But he is still a great athlete and at 6'4 that is a nice package. Just doesn't have that extra 5th gear to rely on when needed. I also think he is deceptively fast due to the long strides he takes when running. I remember Pippen was always the same way, much faster than he looked due to those long strides. The other thing to remember with Payton is he came into college very young and is still only 20 years old. I like him in part b/c he has a skill set that should translate right away and would incline Thibodeau to play him, but also has a high ceiling if some of his flaws can be ironed out. At WORST, I see him as a reliable backup point guard who is a defensive specialist, which is a very high floor for a mid-first pick.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

yodurk said:


> I agree Payton isn't a 5-star elite NBA level athlete, ala healthy Rose, Lebron, John Wall, etc. But he is still a great athlete and at 6'4 that is a nice package. Just doesn't have that extra 5th gear to rely on when needed. I also think he is deceptively fast due to the long strides he takes when running. I remember Pippen was always the same way, much faster than he looked due to those long strides. The other thing to remember with Payton is he came into college very young and is still only 20 years old. I like him in part b/c he has a skill set that should translate right away and would incline Thibodeau to play him, but also has a high ceiling if some of his flaws can be ironed out. At WORST, I see him as a reliable backup point guard who is a defensive specialist, which is a very high floor for a mid-first pick.


Agreed. 

He breaks the mold of high floor low ceiling guys the Bulls have been drafting of late. At worst hes a serviceable backup on a team that needs a backup, the upside is in his potential and physical tools. The guy can develop into a legit NBA player. 

I felt the very same way about Tony Wroten a few years ago and hes panned out to be a decent player with a bit of upside.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> Agreed.
> 
> He breaks the mold of high floor low ceiling guys the Bulls have been drafting of late. At worst hes a serviceable backup on a team that needs a backup, the upside is in his potential and physical tools. The guy can develop into a legit NBA player.
> 
> I felt the very same way about Tony Wroten a few years ago and hes panned out to be a decent player with a bit of upside.


Devin Harris is probably a good comparison too, right? I am actually hard pressed to think of how Payton and Harris would be much different. Harris started out as a solid backup PG out of the gates with the same strengths & weaknesses, and even evolved into all-star level player for a few brief seasons there. Harris was also more fast than explosive just like Payton.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

yodurk said:


> Devin Harris is probably a good comparison too, right? I am actually hard pressed to think of how Payton and Harris would be much different. Harris started out as a solid backup PG out of the gates with the same strengths & weaknesses, and even evolved into all-star level player for a few brief seasons there. Harris was also more fast than explosive just like Payton.


Its a good comparison. Harris ended up as the fifth pick because he played in a better conference but Payton is a much more NBA ready defender and even a better passer, the TO rate is high but I don't project him as an NBA starting PG just yet, so he can really work on his passing when playing off Rose and maybe being more of a point-SG. 

I just like his potential and size better than Enis and Napier.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Yes, definitely do NOT want Ennis or Napier. I look at Ennis and just see Chris Duhon 2.0. That would be settling too much when I think there will be some dynamic talent available mid-first round in this draft. Ennis would be fine as a late 1st or early 2nd rounder, mid-1st is too early for him.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> 1. Wiggins
> 2. Embiid
> 3. Parker
> -----
> ...


Updated my draft board a bit. Players I moved up on my board are in bold:

1. Wiggins
2. Embiid
3. Parker
-----
4. Exum
5. Randle
6. Vonleh
7. Smart
8. Gordon
-----
9. McDermott
10. Saric
11. Harris
12. Stauskas
*13. Young*
-----
14. Nurkic
15. Payne
*16. Warren*
17. Hood
*18. Hairston*
19. LaVine
-----
20. Payton
21. Anderson
*22. McDaniels*
23. Adams
24. Ennis
25. Grant
26. Napier


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

^ No way the Raptors take Payton over Ennis. 

I really hope you guys take Payton so that we don't even consider it.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Porn Player said:


> ^ No way the Raptors take Payton over Ennis.
> 
> I really hope you guys take Payton so that we don't even consider it.


Duhon 2.0 (Ennis) is probably a better fit for the Raptors. You guys have dynamic and athletic talent on the wings already. Ennis could help facilitate that. Payton is not as much of a true PG of Ennis, but has that wicked defensive length and versatility with big time shot creation potential driving to the hoop. Raptors don't need that with Derozen around...the Bulls do.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Good call by @Rhyder moving Warren up the board. He is going to surprise some people with his ability to score the basketball. He reminds me a little of Uncle Cliffy offensively. I can see him being a 14 or 15 PPG guy off somebody's bench.


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

yodurk said:


> Duhon 2.0 (Ennis) is probably a better fit for the Raptors. You guys have dynamic and athletic talent on the wings already. Ennis could help facilitate that. Payton is not as much of a true PG of Ennis, but has that wicked defensive length and versatility with big time shot creation potential driving to the hoop. Raptors don't need that with Derozen around...the Bulls do.


Big time shot creation? You'll be surprised at the actual lack of this if you draft him. 

He has the chance to be a defensive specialist but nothing more. His skills aren't in the ballpark that they're being suggested.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Porn Player said:


> Big time shot creation? You'll be surprised at the actual lack of this if you draft him.
> 
> He has the chance to be a defensive specialist but nothing more. His skills aren't in the ballpark that they're being suggested.


I don't think anyone is saying hes going to start breaking 2's and 3's ankles and sinking jumpers in their faces, but I do think its completely realistic that at 6'4 he can get his shot off against the majority of PG's in the League. Given time of-course.


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> I don't think anyone is saying hes going to start breaking 2's and 3's ankles and sinking jumpers in their faces, but I do think its completely realistic that at 6'4 he can get his shot off against the majority of PG's in the League. Given time of-course.


This is not a problem. He will miss the shot he creates for himself. 

The more the Bulls hype Payton, the more likely they ignore Ennis and Warren which makes me incredibly excited.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> I don't think anyone is saying hes going to start breaking 2's and 3's ankles and sinking jumpers in their faces, but I do think its completely realistic that at 6'4 he can get his shot off against the majority of PG's in the League. Given time of-course.


Yes, exactly what I am saying...thanks. That is why I didn't say "shot maker" or "scorer". He will however be able to create shots for himself and others, that is all I meant. If his shot is permanently broken, that will limit him of course to drives and scores around the hoop. I still really like the Devin Harris comparison.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Porn Player said:


> This is not a problem. He will miss the shot he creates for himself.
> 
> The more the Bulls hype Payton, the more likely they ignore Ennis and Warren which makes me incredibly excited.


Warren is a different story and could definitely be a viable pick up for the Bulls. Quite possibly best player available at #16 or #19 . Though I think he will get snagged in the 11-15 range. I prefer him over Payton.

Ennis is pretty "meh" to me. I don't see him as a legit starting PG in this league. Maybe a George Hill type of gig where he's the 5th best player in the starting lineup. But look around at the PG position in today's NBA...it is the most stacked position by far and I just don't see how Ennis stands out in any way. Still could be a very solid backup PG though, nothing wrong with that for where he'll be taken.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Ennis has the potential to be a good floor general at some point, hes just not a potentially great player on either end of the floor. He's not what the Bulls need right now.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

I don't think both of them are able to help Bulls much the next 3 seasons.

Trade up to top 3. If not, trade up to get #6 or #7 , which is available.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Ballscientist said:


> I don't think both of them are able to help Bulls much the next 3 seasons.
> 
> Trade up to top 3. If not, trade up to get #6 or #7 , which is available.


Who says 6 and 7 are available? I highly doubt those picks are available and I highly doubt the Bulls would trade anyone of significance for those picks.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> Who says 6 and 7 are available? I highly doubt those picks are available and I highly doubt the Bulls would trade anyone of significance for those picks.


I doubt those picks are available, however in theory I would trade 16 and 19 if it meant moving into the top 6-7. I only say that b/c the magic # for this draft seems to be top 7 picks. You basically have 3-4 guys who could be superstars (Wiggins, Parker, Embiid, Exum), another 2-3 who could be second tier all-stars (Randle, Vonleh, Smart), and then a notable drop off after that. I am not a big Smart fan, though for Vonleh I would definitely swap our two picks without a thought.

The interesting thing though, is there is not really a big gap from the #8 pick up through the late teens / early 20's level picks. I mean, you have Doug McDermott at #8 projected by Draft Express while TJ Warren is at #18 . I don't really see a big difference in these guys' NBA careers. Ditto with James Young at #12 and PJ Hairston at #24 . 

If you ask me that makes the #16 and #19 fairly valuable as you get two caliber players who are in a similar tier as the late lotto picks.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Porn Player said:


> ^ No way the Raptors take Payton over Ennis.
> 
> I really hope you guys take Payton so that we don't even consider it.


Mine is a tiered approach from the Bulls perspective. Me having Payton ranked 20 does not mean I think the Raptors would take him at 20, I would just prefer Payton over Ennis on our team and rank them in the same tier of players.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Based on mocks and reports, it appears Nik Stauskas' stock is rising. I am not surprised, the guy is going to be good. Pure 3-pt stroke, SG size (6'6), and point guard quality handles and court vision. Who cares if his defense stinks with those skills. Would love him on the Bulls at #16 but just don't think he'll be there. Too bad, he would be a great fit alongside Rose.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Chad Ford per ESPN insider believes that a deal involving Denver's #11 pick has been discussed for #16 and #19 . Believes that we would move up to draft a wing (assumedly Harris, Stauskas, or Young). Not sure if our target is Ford's own idea, but we most likely be blowing smoke if that projected target came out of the Bulls camp (perhaps McDermott, Saric, or Gordon).

There is some conjecture that we would then package the #11 to Minnesota, but it seems more like reactionary wishful thinking based on the Love news from what I can tell.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

I keep hearing Stauskas or Harris. Harris is the MUCH better defende, while Stauskas is the better all around offensive player. My gut tells me they draft the kids who can play defense. 

I think Nick would be a better pick up, but his defense is horrid and I just can't imagine Thibs paying him.


----------



## Fergus (Oct 2, 2002)

I like the idea of trading #16 and #19 to move up. Moving up to # 11 sounds like a fair trade. However, the Bulls should only do this if they think the player they can get at # 11 is a difference maker. I am not sure this is true.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I am not the biggest Gary Harris fan, not gonna lie. Nothing against him personally, in fact I think he has a great mindset (team oriented, plays hard D) and Thibs would love him, but he is not what we need. He will be just another 3-and-D guy....and maybe not even a great one at that. He is pretty small for a SG so even though his D is great, his defensive versatility will be limited, and it's not like he is some freak athlete or anything. His 3-ball is OK but nothing special (Stauskas has a purer 3-pt stroke) and I don't like his ballhandling ability. But still wouldn't surprise me if the Bulls are targeting Harris...in fact I called that months ago, he fits the profile of Bulls draft picks for better or worse. Stauskas is "my guy" in our draft range, quote me on that.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> I think Nick would be a better pick up, but his defense is horrid and I just can't imagine Thibs paying him.


Agreed 100%, and I have the same concern about Thibs playing him. If we somehow trade up for Stauskas, I expect him to play maybe 15-20 minutes per game as a rookie off the bench. Snell would probably play alot more backup SF playing alongside Stauskas, where Snell takes the harder defensive wing assignment. I hope we can keep Hinrich at the vet minimum, he would be a quality backup PG to play with the 2 youngbloods Stauskas and Snell in the 2nd unit.

Starting backcourt would in that case remain Rose & Butler, and probably Dunleavy at SF, assuming no major moves. (Though hopefully that turns out to be Melo at SF)

Long term though, Stauskas is a custom fit backcourt mate for Rose. Perfect mix of ability to stretch the floor while also taking playmaking pressure off him. And Stauskas is a good enough athlete where he "could" turn into a passable defender eventually. I think it's his awful technique holding him back defensively and to a lesser extent strength and effort; these are all things that could improve in time with a pro training regime and Thibs tutoring.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Out of guys in the 9-11 range to trade up for, I would only personally do it for McDermott, Saric (if we are trying to free up dollars for FA), or in a consolidation trade (Love).

My definite preference out of the wings is Harris as I see a lot of Beal in his game (another guy who I was high on), but I like the idea of getting Nurkic/Payne/Warren and Young/Hairston/Hood better than only Harris. Now if trading up to free up FA money is the objective, I wouldn't be horribly against Harris or Stauskas, but only dependent on what they do in FA.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

I'm very unhappy about how this draft seems to be shaping up. Before the tourney, it looked like Stauskas would be available at 19 if the Bulls wanted him (and I want them to want him). Now it looks like even if they are willing to trade both the 16 and 19, it still won't get them Stauskas. That just sucks.


----------



## Fergus (Oct 2, 2002)

The Chicago sports radio guys were pushing for the Bulls to go "all in" on getting both Love and Mello.

The idea is to pull of a trade for Love, using Mirotic, draft picks and whatever else it takes and then try to get Melo to sign as a free agent.

A starting line up of:
Noah
Love
Mello
Butler / Snell
Rose

is pretty sweet.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Problem with Love if you need the Wolves to make the trade. They have been very reluctant to trade for anything short of a king's ransom. It is also going to be hard to compete with Houston's sell for Melo. Easy for radio personalities to say go all in, I'm not even sure they realize what that means.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

the bulls in general look for the same thing in evaluating prospects .

a bankable skill
college success (at least the 2nd round of the ncaa's)

in my opinion tj warren should be the guy they target he reminds me of a bigger(although less athletic)cedric ceballos

the other guy is zach lavine , if he's not available james young, they need to take chances, get the most talented players possible and try to make it work.

i feel they will take adreian payne followed by shabazz napier...if they trade up to 11 than nik straukas


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I really don't see how we can afford to take these 19-yr guys like Lavine & Young. These are kids, not men, who will need 2-3 years minimum before they are consistent rotation players. 

Lavine is particularly getting overrated IMO -- which is fine b/c maybe he will get picked too high by another team. I really don't want him on the Bulls though, we are not in good position to develop him. Great run & jump athlete but also thin as a toothpick so not sure he'll be able to really capitalize on it like a Rose or Westbrook in getting to the rim. Tough defense is not remotely in his nature and his ball skills are getting way too played up. He is nowhere near able to play as an NBA point guard as some seem to think. While his 3-ball may turn out pretty well, not many 19-yr old kids come into the league as good shooters until they build confidence for a couple years. 

Young is a little better due to his superior size over Lavine, and I think he is just as skilled as Lavine, but much of this applies to him as well.

I am of the mindset the Bulls can't afford to wait for rookies to develop, unless we plan to bury them on the 3rd string bench. The Bulls are trying to be a contender before we lose Rose & Noah's prime years. We can get NBA ready guys like Warren, Stauskas, Payton, etc, to play in the bench mob as specialists, but expecting young kids to play that role, or any rookie to play a bigger role than that, is asking for trouble.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I would be OK with TJ Warren at either #16 or #19 since Stauskas is probably going top 10 now. The thing I really like about him is not only the scoring instincts, but the fact he moves so well off the ball and isn't a ball dominant scorer. I don't see him in our starting lineup for several years but could definitely see him find a niche as instant offense off the bench. That being said, I do not think the Bulls will draft him, he doesn't fit the profile of guys they usually draft. That is why I think they will elect for Elfrid Payton if they end up keeping the picks, or (hopefully) will manage to trade up to get Stauskas.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

yodurk said:


> I really don't see how we can afford to take these 19-yr guys like Lavine & Young. These are kids, not men, who will need 2-3 years minimum before they are consistent rotation players.
> 
> Lavine is particularly getting overrated IMO -- which is fine b/c maybe he will get picked too high by another team. I really don't want him on the Bulls though, we are not in good position to develop him. Great run & jump athlete but also thin as a toothpick so not sure he'll be able to really capitalize on it like a Rose or Westbrook in getting to the rim. Tough defense is not remotely in his nature and his ball skills are getting way too played up. He is nowhere near able to play as an NBA point guard as some seem to think. While his 3-ball may turn out pretty well, not many 19-yr old kids come into the league as good shooters until they build confidence for a couple years.
> 
> ...


bench specialists wont bring the team any closer to a title , heck garpax has shown the ability to stock his bench with minimum salaried guys and get decent results he doesn't need to waste draft picks on that, standout players will and do make difference, and if everyone thought they were able to be standouts from day 1 they would be long gone by 16.

if thibs cant develop players ....thats not a good thing 

and bear in mind the nba ready guys you speak of are 20(payton , warren and staukas) vs the 19 year olds i mentioned ...its not really a big difference


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Well bench specialists are all you might get with the #16 or #19 picks. I agree they don't get you any closer to a title per say, but they are still important roles for any contender, assuming they will crack the top 8-9 in your rotation. And if you pick someone with upside they could continue to improve, versus a vet min player who is likely peaked already (ala Hinrich, Dunleavey, etc.). Draft picks let you lock in those guys on very cheap salaries for multiple years, so there is value in that. 

All this being said, the greatest value in these picks would be their ability to facilitate a trade for Melo or Love.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Well bench specialists are all you might get with the #16 or #19 picks. I agree they don't get you any closer to a title per say, but they are still important roles for any contender, assuming they will crack the top 8-9 in your rotation. And if you pick someone with upside they could continue to improve, versus a vet min player who is likely peaked already (ala Hinrich, Dunleavey, etc.). Draft picks let you lock in those guys on very cheap salaries for multiple years, so there is value in that.
> 
> All this being said, the greatest value in these picks would be their ability to facilitate a trade for Melo or Love.


in the 15 to 20 range over years has produced a number of really good players currently in the nba guys like kawhi leonard, roy hibbert eric bledsoe kenny faried , jrue holiday,not too mention guys beyond that and in the 2nd round like lance stephenson,monta ellis chandler parsons...guys on the bulls currently like carlos boozer , taj gibson was a late1st round pick.

the talent is there in alot of cases the difference in succeeding and not succeeding is the opportunity you get , and if your goal is to use a player for trade bait isn't it wiser to draft and can develop into a player worth 10 mil. on the open market rather than 2 or 3?

who is worth more in a trade Giannis Adetokoubo or tony snell?

the difference in their stats is far less than the difference in their relative value

if its really that important to draft a more nba ready player you can easily pay a vet to give a typical rotation rookie's production for the minimum. a rook is not going to be more ready than a guy who is already there

and the bulls have 2 picks it simply makes more sense to swing for the fences


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

This is a little OT but couldn't resist...Cleveland's incompetence continues to amaze:

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on...ng-toward-drafting-joel-embiid-with-no-1-pick

Like I said earlier in this thread, Cleveland needs to stop trying to be cute and just pick Andrew Wiggins. Even Jabari Parker I could understand (though Wiggins is a better choice for them). But Joel Embiid, that just won't turn out well. The guy has the biggest bust potential in the top 5. I see more Tyson Chandler than Hakeem Olajuwon in his game. Kid could be an amazing defender but I see some real offensive limitations to him. Not to mention the injury concerns.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

yodurk said:


> This is a little OT but couldn't resist...Cleveland's incompetence continues to amaze:
> 
> http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on...ng-toward-drafting-joel-embiid-with-no-1-pick
> 
> Like I said earlier in this thread, Cleveland needs to stop trying to be cute and just pick Andrew Wiggins. Even Jabari Parker I could understand (though Wiggins is a better choice for them). But Joel Embiid, that just won't turn out well. The guy has the biggest bust potential in the top 5. I see more Tyson Chandler than Hakeem Olajuwon in his game. Kid could be an amazing defender but I see some real offensive limitations to him. Not to mention the injury concerns.


The pick SHOULD be Wiggins or Parker, they can't afford another screw up with the #1 pick. But, I have to disagree with any Tyson Chandler comparisons, Embiid is a much much much more polished athlete than Tyson Chandler ever was.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> The pick SHOULD be Wiggins or Parker, they can't afford another screw up with the #1 pick. But, I have to disagree with any Tyson Chandler comparisons, Embiid is a much much much more polished athlete than Tyson Chandler ever was.


To be clear, I am not comparing Embiid to Chandler per say. Just that I have seen a number of people saying Embiid reminds them of Hakeem. I don't see it personally....my point is just he seems closer to Chandler than Hakeem. Maybe there is a better comparison out there, I can't think of one. Like I said he will be right up there with the best interior defenders in the league, I have no doubt, just offensively I don't think he will be anything special at all. (whereas Hakeem was art in motion, arguably the smoothest scorer of all time at the center position)

Cleveland should take Wiggins for a number of reasons, he is a 2-way player, has the talent to be special on both ends, will contribute some immediately but also a ridiculous high ceiling. Embiid I see hitting a ceiling offensively.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

I see what your are saying.

I have Embiids ceiling as high as Hakeem but his floor as low as Olowokandi. So its safe to say that the Boom or Bust potential with Embiid is huge. If Embiid stays healthy, and if he even shows slow development on his game, I can see him being at worst a Mutumbo type of player.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I guess there is nothing in Hakeem's college numbers at the same age that suggest Embiid couldn't evolve in that level of dominance.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/olajuha01.html (scroll down a bit)

Hakeem actually had similar low playing time at age 19 and similar per-36 numbers to Embiid. Though Hakeem's #'s were good, they were nothing too eye opening, so you could say that about alot of players.

While i have stated my opinion, I will eat crow in 5 years if Embiid turns into a 20+ type of scorer with anywhere near that level of offensive impact.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Crazy thing is, I would not be surprised if Embiid is great and I wouldn't be surprised if he's a bust. That being said, the Cavs need to play this one safe and draft Wiggins or Parker.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Yep, the Cavs already have a franchise talent and might be able to land a good free agent this summer as well. Going with the safer draft pick is fine for them. They stand to lose far more by drafting a bust, which could set the franchise back years, compared to if they get the 3rd or 4th player from the draft to play alongside Irving.

This same comment does NOT apply to teams like the Bucks, Sixers, or Magic. All 3 of those teams really need a true franchise player and could easily take the risk on Embiid. If he busts for them, they are right back in the top 3-4 picks every year anyways.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

OK, latest news is Joel Embiid now has a stress fracture in his foot that will require surgery. Between this and his back injury, this may drop his stock a bit. 

There are rumors floating around the Cavs may trade down, the two most likely partners being Philly (#3 and [URL=http://www.basketballforum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 0[/URL] , for Cavs' #1 ) and Utah (#5 and Favors, for Cavs' #1 ). In either case I could see the Cavs ending up with Embiid. His stock plummet may be enough to make it happen since the Cavs seem to love the guy.

This is borderline hilarity for the Cavs...not even an Embiid stress fracture can save them from themselves.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Theoretical question here, what would folks think if we kept both picks and came way with TJ Warren at #16 and PJ Hairston at #19 ?

I could see both guys being steals at those slots, that is a lot of offensive punch and both guys have upside defensively as well. Would possibly supplement each other pretty well too, Hairston being more a 3-pt sniper and Warren the outstanding off-ball finisher and midrange scorer. Both are lethal in the fast break as well, and both could step in and contribute early on.

Only concern I have is, both have alot of black hole potential offensively and not great passers. Thibs and the Bulls culture would need to shake some bad habits out of them fast. The upside is worth it though, IMO.

FWIW, the Bulls have already brought in Hairston for workouts multiple times. I think they are strongly considering him for the #19 pick if we keep the pick. Makes sense, he may be the best 3-pt shooter and even best overall talent available at that slot.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Green room invites released....larger than usual number this year (21):



> Chad Ford: Confirmed NBA Green Room invites: Wiggins, Parker, Embiid, Exum, Vonleh, Gordon, Randle, Smart, McDermott, Saric, Harris, Payton, Stauskas, Young, LaVine, Nurkic, Payne, Warren, Ennis, Hood, Napier. 21 total.


Notable omissions comparing this to draft express' mock: Kyle Anderson, PJ Hairston, Clint Capela, Jordan Adams, Jarnell Stokes, Jerami Grant, KJ McDaniels

I would've thought Anderson cracks top 21, but this suggests otherwise. Hairston also stood a chance but looks like teams might be scared away by his character issues and lack of team basketball. Really tough to predict what the Bulls will do here...if they keep the picks I am predicting Warren at 16 & Payne at 19 (IMO, Payton will gone, his stock rose too much). If they trade up to the 8-11 range, I think they'll take Stauskas, or if he's not available it'll be Gary Harris.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Theoretical question here, what would folks think if we kept both picks and came way with TJ Warren at #16 and PJ Hairston at #19 ?
> 
> I could see both guys being steals at those slots, that is a lot of offensive punch and both guys have upside defensively as well. Would possibly supplement each other pretty well too, Hairston being more a 3-pt sniper and Warren the outstanding off-ball finisher and midrange scorer. Both are lethal in the fast break as well, and both could step in and contribute early on.
> 
> ...


warren i would like to see the bulls draft , but its extremely unlikely they will draft hairston , its not like the bulls to want him , questions about his character plus his poor defense pretty much says it aint happening no matter how good he shoots.

paxson has never drafted a 1st rounder with character issues (although in hindsight tyrus should have had some). my guess if they were to draft him it would be to sell him , possibly to the knicks who are rumored to be very high on hairston .


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> Out of guys in the 9-11 range to trade up for, I would only personally do it for McDermott, Saric (if we are trying to free up dollars for FA), or in a consolidation trade (Love).


I don't often quote myself, but hmmm...


----------

