# Hollinger: "Dollars to Donuts" Pax trades the pick



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

in his weekly chat yesterday, John Hollinger dropped this little "nugget of excellence":






> Eric (Chicago): Does Deng have the athleticism to play the 2? That seems like it would solve some of the Bulls' defensive and size problems if they get Aldridge or Gay in the draft.
> 
> John Hollinger: I'm not sure he can handle it defensively, and he's definitely not well suited for it offensively. *Don't sweat the pick, though -- I'd bet dollars to doughnuts Chicago trades it.*





http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=11061


so...with all the talk about "who do you take" centering around Aldridge v. Morrison v. Splitter etc...*what about the scenario where the pick gets traded?* i mean, do we really need to get any younger and more inexperienced? i think not.

who does pax have his eye on? KG? Harrington? Gooden? 



*IF YOU WERE PAX, what would you do?*

(let's keep this clean and _about the future_ and not about the past, if that is at all possible)


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

there isn't really anyone to TRADE for...

i'd rather keep our picks and build our future how we've been building it...


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

I like your blueprint for a bulls championship


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Well, he supposedly offered the #7 pick that landed Deng to get Harrington (how would we be feeling about that one), but trading for him makes no sense at this point.

I tend to think Pax doesn't want to add two new high draft picks, but he's not going to simply trade the picks for whatever he can land either, and so far I'm not seeing a lot of obvious guys on the market. Except Garnett. He's the guy who obviously looks to be in play. We could always, I'm sure, make a trade of the Shareef Abdur-Rahim for the #3 pick, Pau Gasol, variety, but that'd be downright stupid. And someone else would have to be downright stupid to make a trade of the Elton Brand for the #2 pick, Tyson Chandler, variety.

So my guess is that he grits his teeth and doesn't trade any.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

darlets said:


> I like your blueprint for a bulls championship


 I try


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

agreed, Mike. Unless we somehow bamboozle McHale into giving up Garnett for half his value, I don't see anything out there right now that would compel Pax to trade the pick(s). Of course, things can chance between now and draft day. And McHale has a track record of making stupid decisions, so it's not out of the question that Garnett will be in play for a good price - but I doubt it'll happen.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> Well, he supposedly offered the #7 pick that landed Deng to get Harrington (how would we be feeling about that one), but trading for him makes no sense at this point.
> 
> I tend to think Pax doesn't want to add two new high draft picks, but he's not going to simply trade the picks for whatever he can land either, and so far I'm not seeing a lot of obvious guys on the market. Except Garnett. He's the guy who obviously looks to be in play. We could always, I'm sure, make a trade of the Shareef Abdur-Rahim for the #3 pick, Pau Gasol, variety, but that'd be downright stupid. And someone else would have to be downright stupid to make a trade of the Elton Brand for the #2 pick, Tyson Chandler, variety.
> 
> So my guess is that he grits his teeth and doesn't trade any.


good posts..my thoughts exactly


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Paxson: I'll give you this delicious #2 overall pick for your crummy players named Channing Frye and David Lee.

Isiah: Done and done...DOH!

Of course this was taken from The Simpsons, but hey why not make a joke.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Short of landing that marquee-type talent by dealing both our picks (garnett, Pierce, Bosh :gopray: or the like) plus whatever ONE piece of our young core and scraps, I'd really hope Pax at least holds onto the Knicks pick and gets the best player available (*cough* bargnani *cough*). With our own pick, I could see him trying to pull a Pheonix and trade out of this draft for a future pick (2008 or later with no protections). That or put the pick up for auction and take the best possible offer. I'm with some other folks here, right now I just don't see who the Bulls could get with both picks or either one pick in a deal. Maybe use our pick as incentive in a sign and trade?

I just hope Pax looks at the Knicks pick as something of a free shot. Swing for the fences with that one and play it safe with our own pick. Whatever transpires this summer, I want Pax to put the pieces in place to make this team a solid playoff contender with the ability to get to the second round of the playoffs and possibly beyond.

I wouldn't think I'd go so far as to guarantee that either pick gets moved simply because, at this moment, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot out there.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

I agree with most on this thread. I don't think he'll trade it unless it's a home run. Pax has been stressing the need for a "bona-fide" star for a while now. I can't imagine he would trade the pick(s) + players for anything but a "right way" star. If that can't be done, I think Pax is patient enough to stick with picks.


----------



## Cyanobacteria (Jun 25, 2002)

I've got a glazed, creme-filled I'll put on the line, but not my rasberry jelly-filled. This kind of remark was not made in the Jerry Krause era.

but seriously folks...

I think the focus is an attempt at contending in the future or moves would have already been made.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

In all of these scenarios, I'm assuming we don't trade Chandler. We committed to him, he's going to get better, and I don't think many teams would actually want him at his salary.

I tried to think of mostly the players have been mentioned in trade rumors at some point, also, since I don't want to list every player in the NBA. But some of them are just fantasy trades in my head.

*Players I'd trade the pick + one of our core (Hinrich, Gordon or Deng) for* 
Garnett
Kirilenko
Pierce
Bosh (maybe)

*Players I'd trade the pick + another decent player (Noch or Duhon)*
Troy Murphy
Lamar Odom
Drew Gooden + pick
David West + mid-1st pick


*Players I'd trade just the pick for*
David West
Josh Childress + 2nd rounder
Josh Smith by himself
Andris Biedrins


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Showtyme said:


> In all of these scenarios, I'm assuming we don't trade Chandler. We committed to him, he's going to get better, and I don't think many teams would actually want him at his salary.
> 
> I tried to think of mostly the players have been mentioned in trade rumors at some point, also, since I don't want to list every player in the NBA. But some of them are just fantasy trades in my head.
> 
> ...


I like the thinking. Can't argue that logic much.

There are probably some juicy multiplayer scenarios we could include, but that is a pretty good analysis.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Showtyme said:


> In all of these scenarios, I'm assuming we don't trade Chandler. We committed to him, he's going to get better, and I don't think many teams would actually want him at his salary.
> 
> I tried to think of mostly the players have been mentioned in trade rumors at some point, also, since I don't want to list every player in the NBA. But some of them are just fantasy trades in my head.
> 
> ...


Losing a high lottery pick in a trade for Drew Gooden? Shudder. Ditto for the Childress scenario, I like him, but an okay NBA player plus a 2nd round pick is not worth a high lottery selection. Biedrins is too much of an unknown.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

jbulls said:


> Losing a high lottery pick in a trade for Drew Gooden? Shudder. Ditto for the Childress scenario, I like him, but an okay NBA player plus a 2nd round pick is not worth a high lottery selection. Biedrins is too much of an unknown.


Agreed. I'd also be hesitant to give the pick up for Josh Smith.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Speaking of donuts, is everybody hip to the latest sports food taste sensation -- the donut burger?

.....


http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2362369












> Updated: March 10, 2006, 12:33 PM ET
> 
> Illinois team counts on calories to draw attention
> 
> ...



For more, tune in the the everything but basketball forum


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Players I'd trade the pick + one of our core (Hinrich, Gordon or Deng) for
> Garnett
> Kirilenko
> Pierce
> Bosh (maybe)


In a heartbeat. No maybe from me on Bosh.



> Players I'd trade the pick + another decent player (Noch or Duhon)
> Troy Murphy
> Lamar Odom
> Drew Gooden + pick
> David West + mid-1st pick


West is intriguing, I'll have to give him a decent look soon enough, his numbers are very suprising. Gooden, If we can't sign him outright, I wouldn't bother with a S&T.
As for the rest - Odom most definitely, and Murphy is a player I like, but his contract is a bit worrisome. I'd like to have him as the main backup, especially if we draft Bargnani, though we'd most likely have to work out something else for that to work.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

jbulls said:


> Losing a high lottery pick in a trade for Drew Gooden? Shudder. Ditto for the Childress scenario, I like him, but an okay NBA player plus a 2nd round pick is not worth a high lottery selection. Biedrins is too much of an unknown.


It would be a risk, but the thing is, this is not a high lottery pick in the 1999 draft. This is a 2high lottery in the 2006 draft, easily the worst draft class since 2000. Combine that with the fact that two of the top three consensus players, Gay and Morrison, play the position where we have two solid young talents already developing quickly, guys we've invested into. This high lottery pick may have a lot of objective value, but not this year and not for our team.

Childress is the long defensive 2/3 we need, and the Hawks 2nd rounder will be HIGH, and result in a solid college player;

Smith, granted, also plays SF but is on his way to becoming an All-Star power forward, in my opinion. That's my own evaluation, but the guy has games sometimes that make my jaw drop. He's pretty serious about basketball, too. The kid just dunks on anyone, swats shots like they're half a million bucks each, and he's just coming into his own. In February and March this season, he's quietly busted out: 12 ppg, 8.4 rpg, 1 spg, 3.27 bpg, and out of nowhere, 35% from the arc. He is 20 years old.

He's not going to be a bruiser in the post or anything like that, but he could become a Kenyon Martin-like PF. He's going to continue to fill out and add muscle, and I just really think he's got the talent and the crazy athleticism to be a 17/11/3 bpg guy.

Here's another way to put it: if Josh Smith entered college and were in this year's draft, I don't know that #2 would be high enough to pick him.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Showtyme said:


> Smith, granted, also plays SF but is on his way to becoming an All-Star power forward, in my opinion. That's my own evaluation, but the guy has games sometimes that make my jaw drop. He's pretty serious about basketball, too. The kid just dunks on anyone, swats shots like they're half a million bucks each, and he's just coming into his own. In February and March this season, he's quietly busted out: 12 ppg, 8.4 rpg, 1 spg, 3.27 bpg, and out of nowhere, 35% from the arc. He is 20 years old.
> 
> He's not going to be a bruiser in the post or anything like that, but he could become a Kenyon Martin-like PF. He's going to continue to fill out and add muscle, and I just really think he's got the talent and the crazy athleticism to be a 17/11/3 bpg guy.
> 
> Here's another way to put it: if Josh Smith entered college and were in this year's draft, I don't know that #2 would be high enough to pick him.


You may be right. I was suprised to see some of Smith's recent numbers. I haven't seen him play much this season so I don't know if he's developed any kind of a low post game. Still, the chance to add that kind of athlete on a frontline next to Chandler and Deng is tempting.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

I think the other general principle to remember is that guys we trade for have NBA EXPERIENCE. For some, that's not good, but for most young players, it IS. Guys like Childress, Smith, Biedrins... I put them in there because they are READY to break out with a new environment in their 3rd years in the league. Getting a Rudy Gay would mean waiting a few years.

The exercise I used in my last post should really be the metric by which we consider the value of this pick. If Josh Smith were a sophomore in college now, would the #2 pick even be high enough to get him? What about if Childress were a senior? Where would he go in this draft? What about if Biedrins stayed overseas? Would he be considered better or worse than Bargnani?

I can't say about Childress or Biedrins (so I revise my earlier list to Biedrins + future first from GS), although I think Childress would DEFINITELY be in the lottery this year. But Smith, I think, would have completely dominated the collegiate scene and would be considered better than Rudy Gay. 

And we're not getting Smith with two years of Tom Izzo or Lute Olsen or Jim Calhoun. We're getting Josh Smith with two years of NBA experience, a player in the All-Star Rookie Challenge, the 2005 Slam Dunk Champion... that's the guy we're getting. AND he's still 20, so the upside is huge.

Childress is a bit older but I just really like what I see of him. Crazy hustle ball, even with a statistical step back in points, he upped his FG% a LOT, is shooting 54% from the arc (granted, on only 41 attempts this season, but still), 1.2 steals, and just continues to play well... reminds me of a more athletic Shane Battier. Would I trade a young rookie LaMarcus Aldridge for Shane Battier + Kevin Pittsnogle? I might.

The value of the pick is not player for player. It's young, inexperienced, potentially raw player for a young veteran.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

I can't stand childress's game...

AS much as I don't like Aldridge, if we drafted him..NOOO WAAYY i'd trade him for Battier...wtf is Battier gonna do for this ball club? He's just a DECENT nba player


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

The ROY said:


> I can't stand childress's game...
> 
> AS much as I don't like Aldridge, if we drafted him..NOOO WAAYY i'd trade him for Battier...wtf is Battier gonna do for this ball club? He's just a DECENT nba player


What if Aldridge becomes the next Tony Battie?

And what if Kevin Pittsnogle becomes a poor man's Brad Miller?

Battier + Brad Miller > Tony Battie by a whole lot.

And Aldridge, while not raw, is not the most NBA-ready big man I've seen. Even if Aldridge does develop into a Shareef type player (hopefully without the losing albatross stalking him everywhere he goes), it won't be for another year or two, if it even happens.

Battier has great size, composure, leadership, rebounds hard, has developed a terrific 3-pt shot, and keeps turnovers very low. He's been struggling from the line this year but he's also in the rare 1-steal 1-block club, averaging 1.11 spg and 1.32 bpg. He's done this 1 and 1 thing in two seasons previous. He's also extremely durable.

I'm not saying he's a star, but he's more than just a "decent" NBA player. I can't name a single player on the Bulls today that plays as consistently as he does. And he's done it for five seasons now.

I didn't say that I'd definitely do it, either, but I certainly might, if he's the kind of guy I needed.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Showtyme said:


> It would be a risk, but the thing is, this is not a high lottery pick in the 1999 draft. This is a 2high lottery in the 2006 draft, easily the worst draft class since 2000. Combine that with the fact that two of the top three consensus players, Gay and Morrison, play the position where we have two solid young talents already developing quickly, guys we've invested into. This high lottery pick may have a lot of objective value, but not this year and not for our team.
> 
> Childress is the long defensive 2/3 we need, and the Hawks 2nd rounder will be HIGH, and result in a solid college player;
> 
> ...


I think you seriously overestimate the value of a high second round pick. Just for the hell of it, picks 30-40 in the last three drafts:

Salim Stoudamire, Daniel Ewing, Brandon Bass, CJ Miles, Ricky Sanchez, Ersan Ilyasova, Ronny Turiaf, Travis Diener, Von Wafer, Monta Ellis, Anderson Varejao, Jackson Vroman, Peter Ramos, Lionel Chalmers, Donta Smith, Andre Emmett, Antonio Burks, Royal Ivey, Chris Duhon, Albert Miralles, Maciej Lampe, Jason Kapono, Luke Walton, Jerome Beasley, Sofoklis Schortsanitis, Szymon Szewczyk, Mario Austin, Travis Hanse, Steve Blake, Slavko Vranes, Derrick Zimmerman.

Look at those names. That's 30 players. High second round picks. In my opinion, not a single one of them is an average starter in the NBA. I would say three of them (Duhon, Blake and Varejao) are good rotation players. So basically a high second round pick is a 10% shot at a capable rotation player. We don't need anymore rotation players. I could not be more against stockpiling picks in this draft, we have enough okay to good players on this team. We'd be lucky to get anything of value with a high second round pick.

I like Childress. But trading Gay, Bargnani, Aldridge or Morrison for Josh Childress and a high second rounder? Not a good idea. Childress is an average NBA player with a ceiling of good, and high second round picks are worthless eighty percent of the time. Just look at the above list.


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

= HEART ATTACK WAITING TO HAPPEN :dead:


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

"MMMMMMMM...Donut sandwich!"


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

That looks terrible.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

FWIW, the Blazers' announcers were talking about how the Bulls were likely to trade Gordon.

It's not far fetched at all. Pax has traded away Rose, Crawford, and Curry, our last 3 leading scorers. Gordon would make it 4 in a row.

So you might consider Pax trading the pick and Gordon together.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> FWIW, the Blazers' announcers were talking about how the Bulls were likely to trade Gordon.
> 
> It's not far fetched at all. Pax has traded away Rose, Crawford, and Curry, our last 3 leading scorers. Gordon would make it 4 in a row.


Obviously, Pax won't be happy until we start winning games 50-49 with no one averaging over 10ppg.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> FWIW, the Blazers' announcers were talking about how the Bulls were likely to trade Gordon.
> 
> It's not far fetched at all. Pax has traded away Rose, Crawford, and Curry, our last 3 leading scorers. Gordon would make it 4 in a row.
> 
> So you might consider Pax trading the pick and Gordon together.



Yes, this is certainly possible. But, somehow that information from the announcers seems regurgitated. They were really reaching for things to talk about last night, for obvious reasons. I think they also said that Othella was disappointed with his playing time. I don't remember reading that although it's probably true.

Anyhoo, I'm not up for trading the pick unless we get a bona-fide two-way (maybe 1 1/2 way) star back, much less trading Ben along with it.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

RE: the comments made in the game last night about ben etc.

the portland announcers were talking about how they were going to go on a "sopranos" tour when they hit NJ to play the nets. they were more excited about the prospect of visiting the "bada bing" then they were about anything happening on the floor last night. 

they were making stuff up about the bulls. their info was really stale. kirk, according to them, was put into the starting lineup only in january.

i wouldn't take anything they said with any seriousness at all.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

dsouljah9 said:


> = HEART ATTACK WAITING TO HAPPEN :dead:


Sweetney's mid after noon snack.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> RE: the comments made in the game last night about ben etc.
> 
> the portland announcers were talking about how they were going to go on a "sopranos" tour when they hit NJ to play the nets. they were more excited about the prospect of visiting the "bada bing" then they were about anything happening on the floor last night.
> 
> ...


So you're saying there's a job opening as a Blazer announcer?


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Hustle said:


> Sweetney's mid after noon snack.


Maybe he has one of these for lunch.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/15/news/funny/hardees/












> St. Louis-based Hardee's said its new burger boasts two 1/3-pound slabs of Angus beef, four strips of bacon, three slices of American cheese and some mayonnaise -- all on a buttered, toasted, sesame seed bun.
> 
> The "Monster Thickburger" will cost about $5.49, Hardee's said. But chowing down on the 1,420-calorie burger, which contains 107 grams of fat, will cost around $7 with fries and a soda.


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

_This_ is what Sweetney has for lunch!!


----------



## knicksfan (Jan 4, 2003)

I'm not sure about the last one. The " Monster Thickburger" looks about right but the last one has too many pickles, too much lettuce too many tomatoes and FAR too much onion than he could handle in a year, muchless a single meal.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

I would think Pax would swing for the fences on draft night shopping BOTH picks + Duhon for a pf .

Maybe he plays on the raps fear of not being able to resign Bosh and they bite . Could they turn down Gay or Morrison AND Aldridge AND Foye or Roy ? They will be well under the cap after next year so if they could add 3 of those players to Charlie V and Graham thats a pretty good nucleus and cap space to make moves well.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

TRUTHHURTS said:


> I would think Pax would swing for the fences on draft night shopping BOTH picks + Duhon for a pf .
> 
> Maybe he plays on the raps fear of not being able to resign Bosh and they bite . Could they turn down Gay or Morrison AND Aldridge AND Foye or Roy ? They will be well under the cap after next year so if they could add 3 of those players to Charlie V and Graham thats a pretty good nucleus and cap space to make moves well.


yeah..i wish..

but i'm pretty sure they brought in that new gm to do EVERYTHING in his power to build a team that bosh likes...

if not

Chandler
Bosh
Deng
Gordon
Hinrich

= future champs

they'd litterally have 3 lotto picks (our two and their own) plus a good young pg in duhon..plus mike james probably won't resign there...


----------



## RunTMC (May 11, 2003)

Showtyme said:


> In all of these scenarios, I'm assuming we don't trade Chandler. We committed to him, he's going to get better, and I don't think many teams would actually want him at his salary.
> 
> I tried to think of mostly the players have been mentioned in trade rumors at some point, also, since I don't want to list every player in the NBA. But some of them are just fantasy trades in my head.
> 
> ...


As much as I'd love, love, love to see it happen, you don't want Murphy. You just really don't, trust me. Can't play defense, is an inefficient shooter, the epitome of a points/rebound guy that doesn't impact the game whatsoever, with bad feet and a ridiculous contract to boot. I'd give him away if I could (and I'll pay you to take Dunleavy while you're at it - please?). Just so it doesn't completely look like I'm spewing garbage - according to 82games GS is giving up 104 points per 100 poss when hes off the court, and 109 points per poss when hes on, and offensively its about dead even on/off. Not to mention, our rebounding numbers even go up when he's off the floor. His overall +/- is by far the worst of any of the players getting significant minutes on the team. 

Also, I think you're seriously overrating Josh Smith and undervaluing the pick a bit. At worst, Gay or Morrison will be as good as Smith is now with an equal upside, at best they will be far more, and they'll both be on a rookie scale contract for 2 years longer, even if it is a larger base.




The ROY said:


> AS much as I don't like Aldridge, if we drafted him..NOOO WAAYY i'd trade him for Battier...wtf is Battier gonna do for this ball club? He's just a DECENT nba player


Sorry, I just had to bite on this.. Shane Battier is probably the most underrated player in the NBA. Offensively, his efficiency is phenomenal, 1.15 points per possesion (or in TS, 57.4%), while he's having a better than average shooting year his career efficiency is still 1.11 (55.6%TS) which is far above average, he's got a very low turnover rate, (1.2to in 35.5mpg), and he's an excellent offensive rebounder for a sf (2.1/g). He also happens to probably be the most undderated defender in the nba - he's a lockdown defender that definitely should be at least 2nd team all nba defense. He averages 1.3 steals, 1.3 blocks, and according to 82games Memphis is averaging an absurd 9.5 points per 100 possessions less allowed while he's on the floor. Just to throw out some comparisons - Artest is worth 8.6 for the Kings, Ben Wallace is worth 7.5 for the Pistons, Rasheed Wallace 4.2, Duncan 2.3, Yao 4.1, Kirilenko 4.9, etc. He has no holes in his game - there's not a single facet of the game he does poorly in. His contract averages under the MLE and he's locked up for 5-6 more years. He's a model citizen and team player. In my opinion, he's the best player on Memphis, and it's not even close. In fact, if Battier were offered up for the pick, personally, I'd jump all over it. At the very least though, stop underrating Battier - the guy can flat out ball.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

If Battier was on a team in which he absolutely never had to worry about scoring (like Ben Wallace), he would be considered the best 1 on 1 and team defender in the league. IMO his defense is at the least, on par with Ron Artest. He spent the first half of this season playing PF and was shutting them down also even in the post. He has an underrated post game and his Hoops IQ is off the charts with charges, key blocks, tip outs, and versatility. Our need for him playing PF earlier this season has worn him out and he is just now starting to get his legs back. I can tell you that most Memphis fans would be reluctant to give him up for anyone in this draft.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

If we land Bosh during the draft, I would be very happy.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

I still like the idea of trying to pry Charlie Villanueva from the Raptors for the Knicks pick.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

MemphisX said:


> If Battier was on a team in which he absolutely never had to worry about scoring (like Ben Wallace), he would be considered the best 1 on 1 and team defender in the league. IMO his defense is at the least, on par with Ron Artest. He spent the first half of this season playing PF and was shutting them down also even in the post. He has an underrated post game and his Hoops IQ is off the charts with charges, key blocks, tip outs, and versatility. Our need for him playing PF earlier this season has worn him out and he is just now starting to get his legs back. I can tell you that most Memphis fans would be reluctant to give him up for anyone in this draft.


LOL ya'll swear Battier is THAT good...

that's laughable to me....he's a decent player and above average defender..but he ain't gonna help nobody win SH**

I'd rather have Noc...


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Now that we have a player like Nocioni, I would rather have Andres as well.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

I'd much rather have Battier. Nocioni is not a very good defender.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

This is why you guys are in the lottery. Battier in his place and you guys are a playoff team.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Uncle Jerry isn't going to fork over the dollars and Sweetney ate the donuts.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

MemphisX said:


> This is why you guys are in the lottery. Battier in his place and you guys are a playoff team.


LOL

sure...you're team is one and DONE..ya'll will get swept again this year

you'd have to be a <strike>SERIOUS idiot</strike> to think shane battier is THAT vauable..he is NOT

he's a 4th option on a team at BEST


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

The ROY said:


> LOL
> 
> sure...you're team is one and DONE..ya'll will get swept again this year
> 
> ...


You would much rather be in the lottery then losing in the 1st round of the playoffs?


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> You would much rather be in the lottery then losing in the 1st round of the playoffs?


In this particular season.....I just might.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> In this particular season.....I just might.


Can't agree with you there. Tanking makes some sense during certain years in the NFL, but not ever in the NBA, IMO.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Can't agree with you there. Tanking makes some sense during certain years in the NFL, but not ever in the NBA, IMO.


Read my response in the tanking thread. I didn't say we should tank. I AM saying that I won't be disappointed if we end up in the lottery, as opposed to fodder for the Pistons/Heat in the first round.

EDIT: I have no interest in being bounced from the playoffs every year in the first couple of rounds. And unless we land a superstar in FA, I don't see us getting one through any means other than the draft. I'm becoming more convinced that NONE of our current core are going to make it to even STAR status.....


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

I think T.Shock on page 1 got it right .

channing frye for the knicks original pick is about as perfect a deal as there is for the bulls and the knicks .

for the bulls it gives them a player who is of course jibberiffic who can score in the post and can score off of jumpshots which is what skiles' offense is based on ...also up untill maybe the last week frye had more ft's made than any bull (kirk has nudged ahead of him recently) 189-185 in 24.1 min. a game to kirk's 36.3. he is also a very smart player.

he is a 4 year player and a known quanitity. we all know how pax loves them.

larry brown doesn't seem to have much of a need for channing nowadays and wants a 4 who defends 1st and rebounds 2nd and then maybe scores some points. a guy like splitter or aldridge(although lemarcus has a real SAR vibe to me) would seem to fit brown's needs far better .

zeke gets to talk about how he got better value for frye(even in a weak draft) pax gets a player who fits his team and he knows can play. everyone leaves this dance happy.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Showtyme said:


> *Players I'd trade just the pick for*
> Josh Smith by himself


Kudos to you for recognizing this guys talent before he really broke out this season.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

TripleDouble said:


> Kudos to you for recognizing this guys talent before he really broke out this season.


Josh Smith broke out?


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Josh Smith broke out?


Last 23 games he's averaging 16 ppg, 2.8 Blks, 4.1 assists and 7.3 rebounds.

I'd say that's a pretty solid break out for a player one year out of HS.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

Why would they trade the actual Frye for a Frye wannabe? Makes no sense, unless the Knicks think Tyrus Thomas is the next big thing, much better than CF. But IMO Frye is one of the 2 or 3 players the Knicks fans actually respect, they would tear MSG down if they trade him for another rookie, which basically takes them a step backwards.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

TripleDouble said:


> Last 23 games he's averaging 16 ppg, 2.8 Blks, 4.1 assists and 7.3 rebounds.
> 
> I'd say that's a pretty solid break out for a player one year out of HS.


He's shooting around only 43% during that time. My question, what position does he play on the Hawks and what position would he play on the Bulls?


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> He's shooting around only 43% during that time. My question, what position does he play on the Hawks and what position would he play on the Bulls?


He should play small forward, the way he is now, and eventually move to the PF spot. But he doesn't have the bulk or the post moves to really operate there right now.

Then again, K-Mart and a bunch of other PF's aren't really true post guys either.

By the way, I'm totally buying into Gerald Green. I think he looks like a skinnier LeBron... CRAZY hops, real range, nice handle, runs the floor without the ball. He might be a raw defender, but I think he could block shots.

He's got nasty, nasty skills. CRAZY athleticism, crazy jumping ability, and I think it'll pan out on the court. As long as he doesn't have off-court issues, I think Gerald Green is the real deal. Just saw a clip of him doing dunks as a Celtic and also some of the dunks from the McDonald's dunk contest, and he makes the Vince Carter dunk look better than Carter did.

And from the clips, he's got crazy nice range. He's 5-12 from the arc in his NBA career so far... doesn't say much but he can really shoot the ball from deep. Really deep.

Again, I don't know about his defensive intensity, but the kid is really talented. I know we don't need to get younger, but I think whoever has him three years from now is going to be building around him or if they aren't, they'll scrap their team and start building around him.

Haven't talked like this since the Bulls were really bad, but gosh, Gerald Green looks THAT good to me.


----------

