# Sam Smith's Bulls Draft Analysis



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sport...un19,1,3928703.story?coll=chi-sportsbulls-hed

So just who is going to be the Bulls' top pick in the June 28 NBA draft? How could the Bulls not know by now? If history is any guide, they're usually undecided until draft day. Here's a handicapping guide to the top prospects:

LaMarcus Aldridge

Toronto keeps throwing out the name Andrea Bargnani, but the thinking is the Raptors eventually will go for Aldridge, in part to appease Chris Bosh, who is close to Aldridge and who likes to play away from the basket. Toronto could trade down for Bargnani, say with Portland, and get the point guard it needs in Jarrett Jack, Bosh's college teammate.Given the mess of its roster, no one is quite sure what Portland would do with the top pick.

Bulls' chances: Aldridge is shaping up as the probable No. 1 pick, so the Bulls are unlikely to get him. At the predraft camp, he measured an NBA center size of 6 feet, 11 1/4 inches, with shoes, and a 9-2 reach, which is Elton Brand but three inches taller. He did test out weak in strength reports, but he's said to be the rare big man who actually likes basketball.

Tyrus Thomas

He came out of the Orlando pre-draft camp with a measurement of 6-8 1/4 with shoes, which is small, but with a 9-foot reach. And it didn't seem good that he bailed out of part of his Bulls workout with a stomachache, though there were reports of a groin injury. Tyson Chandler had a similar episode working out for Washington in 2001, which is one reason the Wizards passed on him. (It didn't quite work out with Kwame Brown, though, did it?) Is Thomas the next Stromile Swift or Shawn Marion? The Bulls complained last season of being small at all the positions, and Thomas wouldn't change that much. But Marion, to whom he's likened at times, is awfully effective playing inside. Plus, it seems Thomas can guard multiple positions. Dallas is in the Finals without a true post presence and the Bulls can get someone with size in free agency and perhaps in next year's draft with the pick they can exchange with the Knicks.

Bulls' chances: Probable pick if they keep the No 2.

Brandon Roy

This is probably the guy I'd go with, though I believe Aldridge and Thomas help considerably and any of the three would bring major improvement. By all accounts, Roy will be a big NBA talent, and what I like is he sets up the backcourt for years. I don't know if Ben Gordon will buy in as a sixth man eventually, but he, Kirk Hinrich and Roy would be the kind of backcourt that in a few years could rank among the best in the NBA and be around for a decade. The East is weak and the Bulls could compete next season, but I'd pick up a big man or two in free agency and then hope for a chance at another in next year's draft.

Bulls' chances: Probably 1A assuming Aldridge goes No. 1.He's probably the safest pick.

Adam Morrison

In some respects, I'm more interested to see him play in the NBA than any of the top prospects. I've heard everything from his being a 20-point-plus scorer almost immediately to his not being able to keep up with the quickness of the game. I tend to think he could make it big, if not quite in the Wade, LeBron, Kobe class. There's some thought Portland would like him and would like to get ahead of Charlotte at No. 3. Perhaps the Bulls then trade down and still get Thomas at No. 4, and get some high seconds Portland has and use them with No. 16 to move up and perhaps get someone like Ronnie Brewer, Rodney Carney, Shelden Williams or even Rudy Gay. But who knows now what Michael Jordan will push to do at No. 3 and perhaps spoil the Bulls' plans.

Bulls' chances: Unlikely, though his active game and competitiveness would fit with the way the Bulls like to play.

Rudy Gay

He's a small forward. The Bulls already have Luol Deng and Andres Nocioni, so picking Gay likely would mean trading Deng, who is not quite ready to be a shooting guard. And that gets too complicated. Plus, Deng is a kid and has room to improve. Why mess up the Bulls' deepest position? This year Gay is the guy with the indifferent reputation, one that may be overstated. (Last year it was Marvin Williams with that reputation and it scared off teams.) Gay has classic size, 6-8 in shoes and almost a 9-foot reach and was one of the best jumpers in college. He could be a real star but probably is too risky for the Bulls.

Bulls' chances: Most likely not.

Andrea Bargnani

He's the draft's mystery man. Most everyone in the NBA has gone to Europe to see him and returned with glowing reports. But the talent level in Europe is down and he hasn't come to the U.S. to work out. He actually could fit with the Bulls, a player close to 7 feet with a terrific outside shot. He's not known to mix it up much and I don't see the Bulls wanting to go through that again after Chandler and Eddy Curry.

Bulls' chances: No way. He's the only guy of all the above I'd be truly surprised if the Bulls took.

- - -

SAM'S QUOTE OF THE WEEK

`There are three safe picks in this draft. Everyone else is a question mark or risk. They're Adam Morrison, Brandon Roy and Shelden Williams.'

--Veteran NBA personnel expert

SAM'S WORKOUT OF THE WEEK

Ukraine 7-footer Kyrylo Fesenko was asked by Bucks assistant Brian James in a drill to "come off a screen and put the ball on the floor." So Fesenko, 19, did and just laid the ball down and left it there. "The coaches just looked at one another," James said. "He did do exactly what I told him. But then I said, `You must dribble.' "


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> http://www.chicagotribune.com/sport...un19,1,3928703.story?coll=chi-sportsbulls-hed
> 
> 
> Ukraine 7-footer Kyrylo Fesenko was asked by Bucks assistant Brian James in a drill to "come off a screen and put the ball on the floor." So Fesenko, 19, did and just laid the ball down and left it there. "The coaches just looked at one another," James said. "He did do exactly what I told him. But then I said, `You must dribble.' "



:biggrin:


----------



## Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! (Jun 10, 2003)

*Re: Tale of the Tape*

So, per Sam Smith, Aldridge is 6'11 and 1/4, wingspan 9'2" (he called this Elton Brand plus 3 inches..)
Thomas: 6'8", wingspan 9'

Relevant? Yes, Significant? Possibly. A dealbreaker? Probably not.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Ukraine 7-footer Kyrylo Fesenko was asked by Bucks assistant Brian James in a drill to "come off a screen and put the ball on the floor." So Fesenko, 19, did and just laid the ball down and left it there. "The coaches just looked at one another," James said. "He did do exactly what I told him. But then I said, `You must dribble.' "


I wonder what the kid would have done if the coach had told him to "take it to the hole."


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I wonder what the kid would have done if the coach had told him to "take it to the hole."


thats a quite disturbing thought....


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

It is Thomas,Roy,Aldridge in that order.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Tale of the Tape*



Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! said:


> So, per Sam Smith, Aldridge is 6'11 and 1/4, wingspan 9'2" (he called this Elton Brand plus 3 inches..)
> Thomas: 6'8", wingspan 9'
> 
> Relevant? Yes, Significant? Possibly. A dealbreaker? Probably not.


I think he meant same wingspan as Brand, but 3" taller


----------



## mr.ankle20 (Mar 7, 2004)

I"m starting to believe the bulls are going to Draft thomas. I hope not I"m not a big fan of Thomas or Roy


----------



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

> Ukraine 7-footer Kyrylo Fesenko was asked by Bucks assistant Brian James in a drill to "come off a screen and put the ball on the floor." So Fesenko, 19, did and just laid the ball down and left it there. "The coaches just looked at one another," James said. "He did do exactly what I told him. But then I said, `You must dribble.' "


That story has me reminded of my Grampa's favorite story of him coaching little league, Gramps told a kid that if he hit the ball really hard he should run for second. The kid smoked a ball into the outfield and ran directly to 2nd, running right past the pitchers mound to do it, that child was 6 not 19 though.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Ukraine 7-footer Kyrylo Fesenko was asked by Bucks assistant Brian James in a drill to "come off a screen and put the ball on the floor." So Fesenko, 19, did and just laid the ball down and left it there. "The coaches just looked at one another," James said. "He did do exactly what I told him. But then I said, `You must dribble.' "


Quite funny, but easily understandable.



> But the talent level in Europe is down and he hasn't come to the U.S. to work out.


He's a bit preoccupied Sam.


> He's not known to mix it up much and I don't see the Bulls wanting to go through that again after Chandler and Eddy Curry.
> 
> Bulls' chances: No way. He's the only guy of all the above I'd be truly surprised if the Bulls took.


Have to say it again, multiple personality disorder


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I wonder what the kid would have done if the coach had told him to "take it to the hole."


Penetrate?


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

i'm hardly the prognosticator that some are believed to be, however, going out on a limb i'm predicting the bull has plan a and plan b for the picks; they'll go something like this.....

*PLAN A*

#2 pick *LAMARCUS ALDRIDGE*; a young big that can score. it's somewhat risky, but it fills a need and pax and skiles will see potential in him based on work ethic.

#16 pick; the two guard left between brewer, carney, the greek kid, and maurice ager. 

*IF ALDRIDGE IS NOT AVAILABLE*

*PLAN B* 

#2 pick *BRANDON ROY*; experienced college baller, with good, versatile skillset and work ethic that sets the guard rotation up for the future, immediate and beyond. not my pick, but i understand.

#16 project big, armstrong, sene, davis; the bull must get at least one big to build with, at least i beleive pax believes this.

unless gay blows everyone out of the water and shows 2 guard potential, the safe pick will be roy over gay in plan B. aldridge will be the first option above and beyond all others.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> http://www.chicagotribune.com/sport...un19,1,3928703.story?coll=chi-sportsbulls-hed
> 
> SAM'S QUOTE OF THE WEEK
> 
> ...



FWIW, I share this view %100. Except, I would add Hilton Armstrong as another sure thing if not quite the same talent level prospect.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Pax needs to take a chance this year, there are some very good big men in FA this year and I would hate to see guys like Morrison and Gay get passed up for a guy like Roy or Thomas because Pax fealt that there was less risk being involved. 

Next year is another year where Pax can find his big man, all signs are pointing towards Pax taking a chance on a guy like Rudy Gay.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

thebizkit69u said:


> Pax needs to take a chance this year, there are some very good big men in FA this year and I would hate to see guys like Morrison and Gay get passed up for a guy like Roy or Thomas because Pax fealt that there was less risk being involved.
> 
> Next year is another year where Pax can find his big man, *all signs are pointing towards Pax taking a chance on a guy like Rudy Gay.*


What signs? I haven't noticed a single sign suggesting he'll take Gay.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> What signs? I haven't noticed a single sign suggesting he'll take Gay.


I wasnt trying to say that Pax will take Gay, but What i meant to say was that with the FA market full of solid big men and next years draft has a good shot at being one of the best in a long time, the time is perfect for Pax to take a chance on a guy Like Rudy Gay.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

thebizkit69u said:


> I wasnt trying to say that Pax will take Gay, but What i meant to say was that with the FA market full of solid big men and next years draft has a good shot at being one of the best in a long time, the time is perfect for Pax to take a chance on a guy Like Rudy Gay.


Oh. I thought maybe I had missed something.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

One sign that Pax would take a guy like Gay is that he's said repeatedly we need to get more athletic.

Aldridge didn't come across, by the numbers, quite as well as I thought he would. From my perspective, it's ok for a guy who's going to play center, but nothing special at all. His sprint time and lane agility scores left something to be desired to me. Compared to other recent PF/C types (Howard, Bosh, Amare, Nene (pre-injury, when he was drafted), Gooden, etc... he measured out at the low end of the strength scale and very much at the low end of the quickness measures.

Against the more traditional C type guys, Kamen and Darko seemed to do as well or better, but they also have strength on him.

I'm still pretty comfortable taking him because I think he's got a good head and can add strength, but my expectations have dropped a bit.

Anyway, same is true for Roy. Roy jumped really well, but he didn't strike me as really quick or agile compared to what other guys can do.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Who is Aldridge comparable to then? I know when I see him play I see a lesser version of a young Bill Cartwright. How does that jive with the current NBA?


----------



## different_13 (Aug 30, 2005)

If you drafted Aldridge, wouldn't it be to start at PF? along with a FA at the 5 (or Chandler).
or even to back up the 4 behind... Nene, i dunno.

Oh, and does anyone think the Bulls are genuinely interested in Ty Thomas? don't the SF comments, and the low height (a small 6'8") put anyone off?

Gay probably COULD play SG, but not immdediately. though, in a backup role perhaps.. but that still makes either Noci or Deng obsolete.


I heard Frye a coupla times for Aldridge, but that doesnt mean much as Frye's played less than 70 nba games in his career thusfar..
but that kind of player, a finesse centre/forward - Bill cartwright isnt a bad idea actually.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

I don't think that "athletic" chart ment JACK.

In prior years, the best players in the draft, according to that chart, didn't possess the highest level of athelticism.

Means nothing


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

The ROY said:


> I don't think that "athletic" chart ment JACK.
> 
> In prior years, the best players in the draft, according to that chart, didn't possess the highest level of athelticism.
> 
> Means nothing


What do you mean by "prior years"? Because what I see is that the athleticism and physical size characteristics show quite a lot.

The overall athletic ranking thing that they through on the numbers is somewhat irrelevant because it seems to equally weight all the scores regardless of what size player/type of game he's going to play (who cares how much a point guard is going to bench, for example?).

But the athleticism measures, coupled with the physical size, appear to me to determine quite a bit. Usually not a single score, but their combinations. Guys like Dwight Howard and Amare and even Dwyane Wade and Kirk Hinrich have some phsyical attributes (usually more than one) that most other guys - even NBA level guys at his position don't.

Obviously you need the head to utilize it, but having the right physical skills is very important.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> What do you mean by "prior years"? Because what I see is that the athleticism and physical size characteristics show quite a lot.
> 
> The overall athletic ranking thing that they through on the numbers is somewhat irrelevant because it seems to equally weight all the scores regardless of what size player/type of game he's going to play (who cares how much a point guard is going to bench, for example?).
> 
> ...


I'm just speaking on that chart, itself. Reading how Troy Bell was ranked #1 the year he was drafted and most of the top 10 were nowhere to be found?!

I wouldn't even worry about that stuff, that's a bit too technical for my liking.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> What do you mean by "prior years"? Because what I see is that the athleticism and physical size characteristics show quite a lot.
> 
> The overall athletic ranking thing that they through on the numbers is somewhat irrelevant because it seems to equally weight all the scores regardless of what size player/type of game he's going to play (who cares how much a point guard is going to bench, for example?).
> 
> ...


I think the numbers are especially useful to get an idea for players that we haven't seen play a lot. For example, I don't need to see the numbers for Carney to know that he is an explosive athlete -- that's quite obvious if you've seen him play. But I do need the numbers on Sene because I haven't seen him. 

There can be a problem though when numbers don't confirm your eye witness experience. For example, Brewer is, by his numbers, a great athlete. He didn't appear to be a great athlete when I saw him play. In football, when athletic test performance numbers greatly exceed what a guy does on the field, I am very leary of taking that guy too high. I guess Mike Mamula is exhibit A of this point.


----------



## 7RINGS? (Sep 28, 2004)

Man I don't know who we should draft.No one is really a lock yet! This could be a really good draft for us or a really bad one.If PAXSON makes the pick we should come out of the draft alright.I just hope we get the best player possible.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Its a crying shame that Bargnani is off the radar IMO 

It looks like we will likely go with Roy. If this is the case I want us to somehow move up to 10 - 12 and make a promise to Splitter 

He still has his name in right ?


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Its a crying shame that Bargnani is off the radar IMO
> 
> It looks like we will likely go with Roy. If this is the case I want us to somehow move up to 10 - 12 and make a promise to Splitter
> 
> He still has his name in right ?


Splitter is out for this year.

http://www.draftexpress.com/viewarticle.php?a=1355


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Its a crying shame that Bargnani is off the radar IMO


It defies logic and common sense.

I'm not even sure what the "risk" is that Pax is attempting to avoid with respect to Bargnani, either. He speaks fluent English, his coach is from Boston, he's got several American teammates, Pax has excellent first-hand knowledge of how to buy out a European star, Bargnani has become the best player on a team that's one win away from a title of a premier pro league . . . what am I missing?

I'm hoping against hope it's the ultimate smokescreen, but Sam Smith is actually pretty plugged in to the organization (then again, maybe that fact ought to feed my hopes).


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> It defies logic and common sense.
> 
> I'm not even sure what the "risk" is that Pax is attempting to avoid with respect to Bargnani, either. He speaks fluent English, his coach is from Boston, he's got several American teammates, Pax has excellent first-hand knowledge of how to buy out a European star, Bargnani has become the best player on a team that's one win away from a title of a premier pro league . . . what am I missing?
> 
> I'm hoping against hope it's the ultimate smokescreen, but Sam Smith is actually pretty plugged in to the organization (then again, maybe that fact ought to feed my hopes).


this just in, bargnani is the best player in the draft, by far. chicago is trying to put on a poker face but to me its not fooling anyone, with tyson chandler playing the low post the big italian would be the perfect compliment at the 4 spot. sam smith would be the last person(along with chad ford) that i would be listening to.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> It defies logic and common sense.
> 
> I'm not even sure what the "risk" is that Pax is attempting to avoid with respect to Bargnani, either. He speaks fluent English, his coach is from Boston, he's got several American teammates, Pax has excellent first-hand knowledge of how to buy out a European star, Bargnani has become the best player on a team that's one win away from a title of a premier pro league . . . what am I missing?
> 
> I'm hoping against hope it's the ultimate smokescreen, but Sam Smith is actually pretty plugged in to the organization (then again, maybe that fact ought to feed my hopes).


There exists, of course, yet another possibility. Indeed, it is the scenario that I believe is playing out in Chicago.

As has been reported, Paxson has extensively scouted Bargnani. And perhaps he's simply not all that impressed. He has found a player or two he simply likes better and they happen to be Americans. 

There is disagreement over the value of Thomas/Aldridge/Gay/Roy etc. all over this board and in the media reports. Why is Bargnani exempt? Why is a choice against drafting him necessarily based on geographical fear rather than informed choice?

If Paxson passes him over, its likely because he simply didn't want him. Not because he feared him. Same with the other draft prospects he'll be choosing from, and rejecting, at #2.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> There exists, of course, yet another possibility. Indeed, it is the scenario that I believe is playing out in Chicago.
> 
> As has been reported, Paxson has extensively scouted Bargnani. And he's simply not all that impressed. He has found a player or two he simply likes better and they happen to be Americans.
> 
> ...


Good post 

I think the Bulls look set to take Thomas who was my equal choice to Bargnani 

I think Brewer will be there at 16 for us - have said it all along ( but if he's not I like Shannon Brown )

With Thomas being added I think we absolutely have to add the best two way big men C/PF which is probably Nene ( if he can prove his fitness )

Nothing else fancy..just bring back Malik Allen and Darius Songaila

Which big we target in free agency depends who we draft 

For example if its Bargnani I believe it absolutely necessary to acquire Joel Pryzibilla 

If we take Roy..I think we take Armstrong at #16 and acquire Drew Gooden 

I think it all needs to be connected


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> There is disagreement over the value of Thomas/Aldridge/Gay/Roy etc. all over this board and in the media reports.


I know, Ron. This was exactly my point when I said Paxson was defying logic and common sense. In a draft where there is considerable dissent amongst amateurs (us) and professionals (GMs, media, etc.) regarding who the best player is, and in what order the "consensus" top six should be drafted, it's foolhardy to emphatically close the book on any player.

I admit that I believe passing on Bargnani would be a huge error in basketball judgment. But independently of that, surely you can agree that in letting the world know he has no use for the guy, Paxson is making a significant tactical error.

Unless or until Colangelo has submitted an affidavit to the Bulls promising to draft Bargnani at number one, the Bulls should at least go through the motions of remaining interested.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I admit that I believe passing on Bargnani would be a huge error in basketball judgment. But independently of that, surely you can agree that in letting the world know he has no use for the guy, Paxson is making a significant tactical error.


And maybe it's all a smokescreen. Maybe Pax wants the Raptors to trade down thinking they can get him. Then Pax swoops in.

I don't have any doubt that Pax has done his due-dillegence on Bargnani.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Has Paxson stated that he doesn't want Bargnani? 

I haven't read anything that would convince me that Paxson is not considering Bargnani.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I really don't see Paxson drafting Bargs, unfortunetly. I don't think he is afraid to take a risk, but only within the confines of the college basketball world that he loves so much, if that's even possible. I can't see him taking a high school player (nobody will anymore, though) or a foreign player with a high draft pick. 

I hope he surprises me though. He surprised me when he took Gordon because he was undersized, defensively challenged and played the position we're stacked at, but Paxson overlooked that in favor of basketball talent. So it's not completely beyond him to take Bargnani, but ehh, I just doubt it. 

I still think Paxson has his sights set on Gay.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Right now...

Bargnani is #1 on my list....That kid is a ******* BEAST..

Once he gets more aggressive and puts on a bit more weight, it's over...He's NEXT

No way Colangelo doesn't draft him...

He slashes, shoots 3's better than guards, has great blocking instincts and is pretty damn athletic...

And there is ABSOLUTELY no way he's gonna be a bust, NONE


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> And maybe it's all a smokescreen. Maybe Pax wants the Raptors to trade down thinking they can get him. Then Pax swoops in.


I allowed for this possibility when I said I hoped that Smith's source within the Bulls is running a misdirection.



> I don't have any doubt that Pax has done his due-dillegence on Bargnani.


I haven't seen anything that suggests the Bulls are scouting the Series A finals with a real live human being.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

The ROY said:


> Right now...
> 
> Bargnani is #1 on my list....That kid is a ******* BEAST..
> 
> ...


The ROY, don't take this the wrong way, but at this point, I'm half-expecting to see Ivan Renko end up at #1 on your list.


----------



## butr (Mar 23, 2004)

IMHO Aldridge will be available for you. The stuff about the Raps liking him is BS. Do you think they need to appease Bosh? He is already signing. Bosh wants the best for the team, not an old chum from Texas who can't bench his weight.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> The ROY, don't take this the wrong way, but at this point, I'm half-expecting to see Ivan Renko end up at #1 on your list.


You won't...I don't know who that is 

http://boss.streamos.com/wmedia/nba/nbacom/draft/draftprofile_bargnani_a.asx

It was always Thomas, Bargnani, Aldridge for me...

Bargnani & Thomas have more upside than Aldridge though

LOOK at that friggin' video...He moves damn near like a guard, his footwork is very good, he's athletic and it looks like he can score from ANY damn where on the floor....

LOOK at how the best moments of the clips were all scores on Chris Bosh...

It's going to HURT to see him in another Jersey...He'll be an incredible NBA player..

What's most impressive about the video is...ALL those incredible shots and moves were against NBA players...and he looked ALL-STAR like against an NBA ALL-STAR...

I wish I could view his statline from that game


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Tyrus Thomas, Ronnie Brewer, Drew Gooden and Joel Przybilla would be a hell of an offseason for Paxson, IMO.

And its so doable. That's the good thing. Get it done.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Tyrus Thomas, Ronnie Brewer, Drew Gooden and Joel Przybilla would be a hell of an offseason for Paxson, IMO.


Agreed, although with Gooden and Pryzbilla being rebounder/defender type guys, and Chandler also being that, I don't think Tyrus Thomas would be the guy to take with the number 2. 

Everyone has their guy at #2 though, so I know where you're coming from.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

*Re: Tale of the Tape*



Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! said:


> So, per Sam Smith, Aldridge is 6'11 and 1/4, wingspan 9'2" (he called this Elton Brand plus 3 inches..)
> Thomas: 6'8", wingspan 9'
> 
> Relevant? Yes, Significant? Possibly. A dealbreaker? Probably not.



Reach and Wingspan...huge difference buddy. Reach is standing and reaching as high into the air as you can. Wingspan is standing and putting both arms straight out to the sides, and measuring from fingertip to fingertip. So say Aldridge is 6'11", his wingspan is probably like 7'6" or something, and his reach is 9'2" so his fingertips would be 8" from the rim.


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

The ROY said:


> You won't...I don't know who that is
> 
> http://boss.streamos.com/wmedia/nba/nbacom/draft/draftprofile_bargnani_a.asx
> 
> I wish I could view his statline from that game


Great video, Bargnani really looks like an NBA player going against Bosh and the Raptors. By the way, Bargnani had 13 points (5-16), 5 rebounds and 2 blocks in 22 minutes, I can't find a boxscore though. 

The best part of the video however, was Ryan Blake saying: _Benetton, which is the strongest Italian team, in erh... in Italy._ :rofl:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Tyrus Thomas may turn out to be be a great player someday [and I am just giving the beefit of the doubt here], but he is soooooooooooooooooooooo far down my list for the Bulls. A skinny 6'7" SF with one year of playing against college level talent is just not what we need, and I don't think he will be BPA at #2. 

The only thing we need less than TT is another short point guard.

I will be HIGHLY disappointed if reports are true that Thomas is Pax' boy. And this has nothing to do with his moodiness and whatever. I think despite his "trust issues" and his snapping at reporters, he will be coachable and is willing to learn. He'll be just fine on a team where he is a good fit. I just see him as too much of a project in a slot where we really don't need help. We need a 5 or a 4/5, not a 3 who can play spot minutes as an undersized 4.

My draft board:

Roy
Aldridge
Bargnani
trade
Morrison
Thomas/Gay

The only way I can see Thomas being the right guy is if there is a trade of Deng or Noc, and if that is the ase, it'd better be a HELL of a trade.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I don't get all this ga ga over Barnani.

The guy doesn't play much in Euro ball. That's a good indication he needs a lot of seasoning and that he's not good enough to play much in Euro ball.

DraftExpress had him going #1 after the ping pong balls fell, and now he's 5th on their mock. Aldridge is 4th!


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

For those who have seen him play - is Keith Van Horn coming out of college a fair comparison for Bargnani?


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> DraftExpress had him going #1 after the ping pong balls fell, and now he's 5th on their mock.


I wouldn't take mocks too seriously, after you get past the smokescreens and rumours, it's still a guessing game, one that is still decided by personal opinions. 



> DraftExpress had him going #1 after the ping pong balls fell, and now he's 5th on their mock. Aldridge is 4th!


And?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

step said:


> I wouldn't take mocks too seriously, after you get past the smokescreens and rumours, it's still a guessing game, one that is still decided by personal opinions.
> 
> 
> And?



The adjustment of the mock is a pretty good indication of a few things. How players' stock has risen or fallen, how the press and the teams are talking about the players, results of the measurments and test of the guys, seeing the guys work out, seeing what teams work out who, and so on.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> I admit that I believe passing on Bargnani would be a huge error in basketball judgment. But independently of that, surely you can agree that in letting the world know he has no use for the guy, Paxson is making a significant tactical error.
> 
> Unless or until Colangelo has submitted an affidavit to the Bulls promising to draft Bargnani at number one, the Bulls should at least go through the motions of remaining interested.


Has Paxson let the world know that? I don't know what Paxson, or any team other than Toronto, has done recently with regard to Bargs. 

I suspect that all of the top 5 or 6 teams had scouts at his championship games these last couple of weeks. 

As far as Bargnani is concerned, based on what I've read, the only team who has publicly said anything about him is Toronto. But that certainly doesn't mean the others aren't doing their due diligence - or at least faking due diligence for appearances.

Or its a smokescreen and Bargs is Pax's guy. Its been reported that the Bulls and Toronto were the two teams that scouted him the most thoroughly.

My point is that its being spun as though Pax "just won't draft the euro". There are equally logical - indeed far more logical - alternative explanations for why he may not draft the guy.


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> I don't get all this ga ga over Barnani.
> 
> The guy doesn't play much in Euro ball. That's a good indication he needs a lot of seasoning and that he's not good enough to play much in Euro ball.


Doesn't play much? He is among the leaders in minutes on his team in the finals right now, lack of playing time is definitely not a problem with Bargnani.


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I don't get all this ga ga over Barnani.
> 
> The guy doesn't play much in Euro ball. That's a good indication he needs a lot of seasoning and that he's not good enough to play much in Euro ball.
> 
> DraftExpress had him going #1 after the ping pong balls fell, and now he's 5th on their mock. Aldridge is 4th!


 :frenchy:


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> The adjustment of the mock is a pretty good indication of a few things. How players' stock has risen or fallen, how the press and the teams are talking about the players, results of the measurments and test of the guys, seeing the guys work out, seeing what teams work out who, and so on.


Mock drafts haven't been that far off in the past. The players currently listed in the top 7 will undoubtedly go in the top 10 picks, just as they have in the past. This year is unusual since no player seems guaranteed to go in the top 3 at this point, and the top two teams have been making it clear that they would be willing to trade down. That hasn't happened before in my memory, and won't happen next year.


----------

