# The 16th pick and drafting the best player regardless of need



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Say we get Thomas, or even Aldridge. I'll be satisfied that we've done enough for one offseason downlow. Thomas to me gives us a headliner, and Allen is OK to me as a third guy. This also makes Sweetney a fourth guy. Ideal size? Not yet. But with that kind of explosion, I'd be happy. 

At that point I'm really looking at who could be the best BASKETBALL PLAYER at 16. The premise? Unlike many, I don't think that the moves of this summer are going to make us REAL contenders next year. So why not try to get a player that makes us look REALLY good 2-3 years from now, and also gives us added flexibility. 

I think that one player who may make it ok for us to go away from positional needs (center, big SG) would be Rajon Rondo with that 16th pick. He really does remind me of Isiah Thomas in terms of footspeed. Every so often a player comes along who is so great in one area of their game, that it accelerates their worth across the board. For example, if Eddy Curry wasn't mammoth, if he was 6'10" 255, he wouldn't even be in the league. Well Rondo's quickness reminds me of that. Just as Jordan's leap was the perfect leap for a SG, Rondo's quickness may be perfect for a PG. And that may be enough for me to actually want a PG (Am I really saying this). There are some key pluses to taking Rondo. *First, this needn't be merged, because it isn't a Rondo thread per se. What it is is a thread about the kind of thinking that goes into taking a player when you have two good players already at that position (Hinrich, Duhon)*:

1. Maybe we needn't try to be the 2004-05 Bulls. We have our nitch now. We're going to show up every night, try harder, run faster in an attempt to exhaust you, key our game on PG play, and keep coming like a pack of wild dogs. *Rondo makes us the perfect PG team* We now would have 48 minutes every night of a PG who can run you ragged up and down the floor. Imagine teams dealing with what I think it VERY very good quickness in Duhon (after Hinrich) and when they get to those key minutes when the starters are resting and you're just trying to hold even, they have to deal with Rondo coming in and running the floor. 

2. It means no more Pargo. For the love of god, when Duhon is hurt, or when we have to have both Du and Hinrich on the bench, I cringe when I see this jamoke. His style of play, to me, contradicts everything that Kirk and Du are about. Lacks intensity, makes bonehead decisions with ball, and will pull up and take bad shots seemingly like someone suffering from ADD. 

3. It keeps this guy away from other teams. Man oh man I don't want to see this guy on Detroit, Cleveland or Indiana. He has the type of quickness and intensity that could breath life into a team that we have a current advantage against in that we run the floor better and keep the intensity higher. 

I'd like to hear an analysis on guys that don't fit needs for us from other people if we have them. And I hope we do take this approach on maybe 3-5 guys outside our needs and take some people seriously even though the average fan may be saying "WHAT." This, to me, is how you keep from becoming the 1984 Trailblazers.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I just can't get behind taking a point guard with either pick. Sorry. I don't have a long analytical breakdown. I just couldn't back that. 

I'm all for "best player available" with both picks. With the qualification that it can't be a point guard or any short guard. 

I'm in sort of a "need/talent" hybrid mode. No more shorty backcourt guys. We've got them out the ying yang and ours are better than anyone available in the draft.

I do hate hate Pargo though. You almost convinced me with that bit of logic.


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

I agree with Ron on this one, although I like Rondo's play very much, and I also think he would be a good match on this team. He has huge hands for a guy his size, and he is a great rebounder at the point guard position, but he just isn't what we need right now. 

I'd rather gamble on a big guy like Sene with the #16 pick.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> I just can't get behind taking a point guard with either pick. Sorry. I don't have a long analytical breakdown. I just couldn't back that.
> 
> I'm all for "best player available" with both picks. With the qualification that it can't be a point guard or any short guard.
> 
> ...


I certainly wouldn't be against moving someone. If we could move Gordon for a big SG or something I'd be good. My point is, we can always get that big SG NEXT year, because I just don't think we'll be the finished product this coming season. Plus, if we get Thomas, and decide he's enough, couldn't we always sign a tall SG? Even if it was only with PART of our capspace? What if we signed say Mohammed and a tall SG in addition to drafting Thomas and Rondo? That would be alright, wouldn't it?

It kinda reminds me of the Cleveland Cavaliers (who remind me a lot of us) drafting Terrell Brandon when they already had Mark Price. 

If Roy, Carney and Brewer are all gone at 16, I hope we think about it.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Pippenatorade said:


> If Roy, Carney and Brewer are all gone at 16, I hope we think about it.


The only exception I can think of would be if *all of the other options* at #16 are bums and Rondo is WAY, WAY, WAY better than the scraps. 

I just don't see that being the scenario.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> It kinda reminds me of the Cleveland Cavaliers (who remind me a lot of us) drafting Terrell Brandon when they already had Mark Price.


ok, but imagine if Mark Price were 5 years younger, they drafted another pg with their second round pick and gave him the same amount of pt as brandon. AND then next year they drafted another young pg in the middle of the draft. Then you'd have something similar. 

Rondo, if he's as good as billed, will challenge KH, Duhon, and BG for playing time (especially since he's projected as the fastest of the four) and that's assuming Pargo and Livingston are non-returnees. I also don't like it because it's more youth at such a crucial position.

now i'd go along with this idea if Pax figured Rondo is the chosen one, but i'd hope he would move 1-2 of the other pg's for some combo of height/athleticism/experience.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Paxson will be looking for a player that can contribute right away. Rudy Fernandez, Maurice Ager, or one of Armstrong/Boone come to mind. There will be some value there.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

superdave said:


> Paxson will be looking for a player that can contribute right away. Rudy Fernandez, Maurice Ager, or one of Armstrong/Boone come to mind. There will be some value there.


1. I think Rondo produces right away.

2. I think he has far and away the greatest chance to be the best of anyone left once Carney, Brewer and Roy are gone. This guy to me is the Gil Arenas, Michael Finley, Manu Ginobili etc. of this draft. I'll put my money on that and anyone can bump this in two years and rip me apart if I'm wrong.

I base my logic on this. What does anyone in this draft really have that is as special as Rondo's lightning quickness? Thomas' explosiveness comes to mind. As does Morrison's jumper. Many think Aldridge's *size* and chance to be an all around true center are special (I don't, but I can see why some do). After that, I don't see much. I don't see many players with any ONE attribute as elite as Rondo's quickness. In FACT, I've seen few PGs in this league that have both Rondo's explosive quickness AND the ability to become a complete PG. Isiah Thomas, World B. Free, Tiny Archibald and Allen Iverson come to mind. I don't believe that Rondo will be as good as any of those guys at all, but just in that ONE aspect, I believe he's there.

*The point is this.* I believe you start off with two draft boards. On one you rank players according to need, and then on the other you rank them according to special attributes... things that they can do that give you a guy who can do one thing that very few other teams can match (i.e. Eddy Curry's scoring ability down low from a 6'11" 285 lb. player).

You have to look at things. We're not likely to have four all stars any time soon like the Pistons. Lebron is ready to take over in a big way. Basically you already know. If you want to win the East and probably a championship in coming years, you will be needing to knock of two gentlemen named Lebron James and Dwyane Wade. You know you can't match them as far as building around one guy. So what can you do? You have to find guys who can threaten the Cavs at other positions in ways in which you rip branches off the tree. For example... Lebron can do a lot of things. One way to give him trouble is with players like Rondo. Guys who aren't that good, but they are positions that he can't check (PG), and they can do things that he may not be able to compensate for. You can tire Lebron out over seven games if you have a guy like Rondo breaking down the court game after game.... running the Cav PG ragged. I'd liken the guy to Steve Smith, the Carolina WR. His speed and quickness combo is sooo lethal, that even though he may not be Jerry Rice or even Terrell Owens as an all around WR, he was single-handedly leaning on some of the best defenses in the game.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

I think it very likely that one of the four best SG in the draft that will fall to the bulls at number 16. I think it unlikley that Roy will last but either Carney, Redrick, Foye, or Brewer will be there at #16. IMHO O'Bryent, Spliter, and Simmons are all going to move up since there are so many teams that need either a center or PF in the Lotto. Even Houston, that really needs help in the backcourt, is desperate for a PF (no disrepect to Howard but he is done). 

Minny needs a pg bad (williams) as does settle (Foye) and i know this sounds nuts but i could see Roy falling to Orlando at 11 because Boston, Houston, and Golden State all need either a center or PF. That means redrick, carney, and brewer are all there for NO and Utah. This assumes Philly takes a PF which i assume they will since they are so thin up front. I assume Utah takes Redrick (come on they aways draft a white guy (after all St Lake City is the whitest city on earth) so we should be able to draft either Carney or Brewer at 16 depending on who NO takes. Or that is my best guess.

I dont know them well enough to say who i be better but both are long defensive SG and my guess is pax would like either of them to go along with one of the three big men will should get with the living memoral EC pick,

david


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

giusd said:


> I think it very likely that one of the four best SG in the draft that will fall to the bulls at number 16. I think it unlikley that Roy will last but either Carney, Redrick, Foye, or Brewer will be there at #16. IMHO O'Bryent, Spliter, and Simmons are all going to move up since there are so many teams that need either a center or PF in the Lotto. Even Houston, that really needs help in the backcourt, is desperate for a PF (no disrepect to Howard but he is done).
> 
> Minny needs a pg bad (williams) as does settle (Foye) and i know this sounds nuts but i could see Roy falling to Orlando at 11 because Boston, Houston, and Golden State all need either a center or PF. That means redrick, carney, and brewer are all there for NO and Utah. This assumes Philly takes a PF which i assume they will since they are so thin up front. I assume Utah takes Redrick (come on they aways draft a white guy (after all St Lake City is the whitest city on earth) so we should be able to draft either Carney or Brewer at 16 depending on who NO takes. Or that is my best guess.
> 
> ...


If we pick JJ Redick and Rondo is available I will go postal for real.


----------



## ztect (Jun 12, 2002)

Personally I think the Bulls should take Foye with the NY pick and Rondo 
with the 16th pick. Plus the Bulls resign Pargo. 

Then the Bulls starting five could be 

pg- hinrich
sg- gordon
sf- Foye
pf- Duhon
c- Rondo.

6th man - Pargo

Skiles will be SO happy !!!!

:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

I'd rather trade the 16th pick for future considerations if the only thing of value on the board is a small guard. 

In any case, two rookies are probably one too many--not enough playing time for both. 
If the Bulls don't do well in the lottery, I'd be for packaging the two picks to move up to a top 2 or 3 spot to get the big guy Paxson wants after tryouts. 
If they get the guy they want with their top pick, then the 16 pick would be well used in a sign & trade for Gooden or Nene (if Paxson thinks they are worth it). Maybe Denver or Cleveland could use another small guard.

Of course everything changes if Duhon's surgery has complications.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

McBulls said:


> I'd rather trade the 16th pick for future considerations if the only thing of value on the board is a small guard.
> 
> In any case, two rookies are probably one too many--not enough playing time for both.
> If the Bulls don't do well in the lottery, I'd be for packaging the two picks to move up to a top 2 or 3 spot to get the big guy Paxson wants after tryouts.
> ...


I'd move Gordon or Duhon for a big guard to take this kid.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

The problem with Rondo has and always will be his jumpshot. It's atrocious. Like a blind man attempting to throw dodgeballs into a plastic cup. However, because his ability to penetrate is very good, he could find a place on Jump Shooters Inc. a.k.a the Bulls. Or maybe we can saw off his hands and attach them to Chandler.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

T.Shock said:


> The problem with Rondo has and always will be his jumpshot. It's atrocious. Like a blind man attempting to throw dodgeballs into a plastic cup. However, because his ability to penetrate is very good, he could find a place on Jump Shooters Inc. a.k.a the Bulls. Or maybe we can saw off his hands and attach them to Chandler.


The perfect posting style. Disagree with me, but try to see my side, and then finish with classic humor. I give it a 10.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Pippenatorade said:


> The perfect posting style. Disagree with me, but try to see my side, and then finish with classic humor. I give it a 10.


Haha thanks. The thing is, you made a fantastic point about letting a couple other teams get him. One team grabbing him especially worries me. The Cavs. Imagine Rondo setting up LeBron, Hughes, and D-Marsh. I think I just got sick.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

T.Shock said:


> Haha thanks. The thing is, you made a fantastic point about letting a couple other teams get him. One team grabbing him especially worries me. The Cavs. Imagine Rondo setting up LeBron, Hughes, and D-Marsh. I think I just got sick.


Yeah... the idea of Lebron skying over everyone for a rebound and then in one motion turning around and whipping it 40 feet on the money like an NFL QB to Rondo, who is outrunning the speedy Duhon by 5 paces (even though Duhon turned to run with him as soon as anyone could make that realization) sickens me. 

I also think that he could keep Detroit young and breath life back into the Pacers.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

The premise of this thread (and Pip I'm kinda with you on this one) begs the (sorry, but OT question) :

Some have screamed that if Pax doesn't produce a finals contender THIS YEAR, the entire Pax/Skiles -- Right Way/C Space regime is a complete and utter failure.

Deal...or No Deal?


I think Pip is right. We may or may not be in a position to contend THIS YEAR based on our offseason moves. Fantastic, if we are, but if not, we could still be a couple of savvy moves away from some long term sweetness. I'm cool with that.


----------



## NeTs15VC (Aug 16, 2005)

NBADraft has the Bulls picking Redick.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> The premise of this thread (and Pip I'm kinda with you on this one) begs the (sorry, but OT question) :
> 
> Some have screamed that if Pax doesn't produce a finals contender THIS YEAR, the entire Pax/Skiles -- Right Way/C Space regime is a complete and utter failure.
> 
> ...


Deal with me. I'm finally getting over Curry not being here and I think even you TB1 have seen that I've come from being exiled forever in November to part of the group only 6 months later. 

My whole thing is this. If he makes moves that show he's naive enough to think that we'll be the finished product this year (drafts totally based on need and then overpays for below average bigs and spends every dime) then... NO DEAL. 

If he realizes what I realize... that we'd be much much better off trying to be the finished product two years from now, and goes after the best weapons we can get with our draft picks, and also maybe even waits a summer in free agency if the "right" (lol) guy doesn't come to the forefront, then... deal. You can hold me to it. If he drafts Rondo and doesn't sign anyone, and we win 35 games, barring any ridiculous move outside my current competence or belief.... I won't whine. 

So the answer is, it depends.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> Deal with me. I'm finally getting over Curry not being here and I think even you TB1 have seen that I've come from being exiled forever in November to part of the group only 6 months later.
> 
> My whole thing is this. If he makes moves that show he's naive enough to think that we'll be the finished product this year (drafts totally based on need and then overpays for below average bigs and spends every dime) then... NO DEAL.
> 
> ...


Hey, as I said, I'm not disagreeing with you. I just wonder what everyone else thinks in terms of the big picture premise:

If we get a guy at 16 who may not make us THE MAN this year, but has us sitting pretty for the rest of the decade, as you suggest, I think that is a success. Others have said that this is the year we must [chris berman]GO...ALL...THE...WAY[/chris berman].

Like you, I see the big picture and agree with your analysis from that perspective. As to Rondo, per se, I agree somewhat with Ron Cey (although not as strongly). It is tough to accept drafting another small guard. If theydid that, there had better be a blockbuster in the works with one of our other small guards not named Kirk.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

On an aside, if the Bulls do use the two picks to draft players, then one or two of the "core" will be gone by midseason.

Anyway, if speed is the topic of this thread, the Bulls could easily trade the 16th pick for somebody and a second rounder and hope that Dee Brown is available by that pick.

Rajon Rondo is probably the most talented, but not most polished, point guard in the draft, though Mustafa Shukur is right up there in raw potential.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

rondo, for all the "talent" someone thinks he has, (i truly don't) is nowhere near what i believe paxson is gearing up for. a 6'0 guard with no jump shot? i hope he does go to the cavs.... (lol)

i'd agree that much depends on draft position, but IF this is about BPA at #16, rodney carney (if available) is a FAR better fit and a BPA at 16. now i doubt myself that he'll be there (i'm not against a trade up though), but a 2 with defense, world class speed, outside shooting and slashing fits as well as having a high degree of talent. rondo's nowhere near ready for pro ball, and his suspect j' will expose him further regardless of his speed. is he close in talent to sebsatian telfair or t.j.ford? i believe not, and telfair has struggled and t.j.'s still rising as a player. collins from temple, ager from msu are all better choices than a (short) guard that can't shoot. and yes, I'D take pargo over him.

the bull, if it's anywhere close, will take the best big man at 16 over a smaller player (unless there's a wide degree of talent from say a carney over a o'bryant or splitter). and even that's predicated on if a big like aldrige is the bull first selection. two bigs in the draft (if the bull like 2) would indicate a lean toward a 2 in FA (bonzi wells, corey magette?)

lastly, i'm on board with pax NOT beliveving this summer is make or break; stockpile assets, (read:good players) let the core grow and integrate the newcomers (picks and FA's) into the philosophy. imo, smart acquisitions added to the core should make this team at least a second round playoff contender.

the year after may be the splash folks want to see. i'm fairly confident so far in pax's strategy and while the results haven't been spectacular, i see progress, players with talent and desire, and a coach who's getting the most from his players. as a fan, that's what i expect, no more no less.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

NeTs15VC said:


> NBADraft has the Bulls picking Redick.



I believe that NBAdraft does not rank players based on team need but just projects the pick as how desirable the player is relative to the other players in the draft.

Having said that I think that there is a very good chance that Redick will fall to 16. As all of us know, Redick has questions regarding his athleticism (or lack thereof) and that he may be an inch or two too short for the 2 guard position. 

Question: You are Pax and Redick is sitting there at 16. Do you take him on the basis that he is a Dukie and one of the best pure shooters in the draft, or do you go for a project like Sene or Vinicius who may have a (much) bigger upside?


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Pippenatorade said:


> Deal with me. I'm finally getting over Curry not being here and I think even you TB1 have seen that I've come from being exiled forever in November to part of the group only 6 months later.
> 
> My whole thing is this. If he makes moves that show he's naive enough to think that we'll be the finished product this year (drafts totally based on need and then overpays for below average bigs and spends every dime) then... NO DEAL.
> 
> ...


I'm always against giving draft picks away for future draft picks because circumstances can really end up biting you in the *** (see Memphis-Detroit '03), so I'd like to take two players (maybe a project like Sene who can play in the NBDL for two years). However, you hit the cap space issue dead on. If Pax doesn't feel like he has a shot at Ben Wallace (he doesn't), or that Drew Gooden, Nazr Mohammad, Nene, etc. isn't worth what they are asking, then roll the cap space over. Use some of it to pay Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, and especially Nocioni. I see nothing wrong with paying those guys and using the cash left over to add another guy who will put us over the hump in '07.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

charlietyra said:


> Question: You are Pax and Redick is sitting there at 16. Do you take him on the basis that he is a Dukie and one of the best pure shooters in the draft, or do you go for a project like Sene or Vinicius who may have a (much) bigger upside?


This is off-topic, but a warning to anyone who might attend the east coast draft party, if it happens -- if Pax takes J.J. Redick at 16, I'm probably going to projectile vomit.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

charlietyra said:


> I believe that NBAdraft does not rank players based on team need but just projects the pick as how desirable the player is relative to the other players in the draft.
> 
> Having said that I think that there is a very good chance that Redick will fall to 16. As all of us know, Redick has questions regarding his athleticism (or lack thereof) and that he may be an inch or two too short for the 2 guard position.
> 
> Question: You are Pax and Redick is sitting there at 16. Do you take him on the basis that he is a Dukie and one of the best pure shooters in the draft, or do you go for a project like Sene or Vinicius who may have a (much) bigger upside?



Once the draft lottery is over, NBAdraft starts doing mocks according to need.

As to Reddick, I agree that we don't need him, but I am somewhat perplexed about the degree of venom that arises whenever his name is mentioned.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> As to Reddick, I agree that we don't need him, but I am somewhat perplexed about the degree of venom that arises whenever his name is mentioned.


I think he was wildly overrated as a college player, and I loathe Duke, but my venom/vomit reflex has more to do with the thought of Redick's joining our 'Bitty Backcourt and the prospect of lineups where Kirk Hinrich could conceivably be playing power forward. We have no need for him whatsoever, and considering overall talent/ability/upside weighed vs. cost, I don't see him as an improvement over Gordon, Duhon, or Hinrich in any respect.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I think he was wildly overrated as a college player, and I loathe Duke, but my venom/vomit reflex has more to do with the thought of Redick's joining our 'Bitty Backcourt and the prospect of lineups where Kirk Hinrich could conceivably be playing power forward. We have no need for him whatsoever, and considering overall talent/ability/upside weighed vs. cost, I don't see him as an improvement over Gordon, Duhon, or Hinrich in any respect.


I certanly do agree with the part of our not needing to add him to our undersized backcourt.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

S-E-N-E

Then in FA

N-E-N-E


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

charlietyra said:


> I believe that NBAdraft does not rank players based on team need but just projects the pick as how desirable the player is relative to the other players in the draft.
> 
> Having said that I think that there is a very good chance that Redick will fall to 16. As all of us know, Redick has questions regarding his athleticism (or lack thereof) and that he may be an inch or two too short for the 2 guard position.
> 
> Question: You are Pax and Redick is sitting there at 16. Do you take him on the basis that he is a Dukie and one of the best pure shooters in the draft, or do you go for a project like Sene or Vinicius who may have a (much) bigger upside?


They do not determine picks by team need until after the draft lottery.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Are we guessing that Reddick is closer to 6'3" than 6'4"? Is there any chance that he can guard shooting guards in the NBA? He doesn't strike me as particularly athletic... but his shooting touch is special. If he's Jeff Hornacek I'd take him... if he's Shawn Respert I'll pass... 

Outside of the anti-Duke bias can someone give me a reasonable evaluation of his defensive game and his overall athleticism?


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Dornado said:


> Outside of the anti-Duke bias can someone give me a reasonable evaluation of his defensive game and his overall athleticism?


I don't have a particularly strong anti-Duke bias...I used to like Duke, but eventually got sick of them always being on national TV, of the Crazies, of all of it. But I still don't hate them the way that many do.

anyway, I don't think Redick is as bad of an athlete as his detractors say, but that doesn't mean he's a good one. He is average at best in lateral quickness and pure end to end speed. He gets decent lift when he shoots his jumper, but he doesn't have the kind of athleticism to finish at the rim in college, much less the NBA. What he does have is a non-stop 100% motor. Sometimes he'd get loose for an open shot late in the shot clock just because he'd spend the first 28 seconds of the possession running like his feet were on fire, eventually getting some daylight from his defender.

On defense, he puts forth an admirable amount of effort, but isn't quick enough to keep decent NBA SGs in front of him, and isn't strong enough to keep the bigger ones from taking him into the post. I don't think he'll be a total liability on defense because he does work very hard and seems like a smart team defender, but he doesn't measure up if he's in an isolation situation against most starting SGs.

I am not a Redick hater by any means, but we certainly don't need him. If the right team drafts him, he could have a decent career IMO. But I don't think we're right for him or vice versa.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

We don't need Reddick.....PERIOD


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

I really dont think Paxson would draft Redrick but IMHO he will be gone long before we pick. He can do the one thing that every team needs, that is shot 3's with a high pecentage. He can also knock down the intermediate jump shot and i think he will be a very solid pro. And in the NBA he is not going to me double teamed all the time and have the other teams best defender on him. My guess he turns into a much better pro then we are giving him credit for.

I really like Carney or Brewer on the bulls because they both play serious D and have size at the SG position but i think a lot of teams will pass on them because they dont have much of a jump shot and unlike the bulls most teams need a scoring SG. Also, we are not looking for a starter with our 16th pick but most teams drafting ahead of us are looking for a starter and that includes a starter who can score. 

And when combined with the number of teams in the lotto that need big men some SG will definately fall to 16th. ESPN insider says that the Carney camp believes he is a top 10 but i dont agree. He is my 3rd SG and 5th guard on in the draft (behind Williams, Foye, Roy, Redrick, and Brewer) thro i guess Brewer and Carney could be switched on some draft broads. But IMHO one will fall to the bulls and my guess is it is Carney. And i would be cool with that since i think with Skiles on his butt he could be a serious shut down SG.

But if i had my way we would trade our 16th for Michael Pieturs.

david


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

S-E-N-E

Then

N-E-N-E

I think with the first pick I am going to declare that Andrea Bargnani be my guy. I like Tyrus Thomas a ton. I like LaMarcus Aldridge a ton. Either guy would make me happy. But there is something about Bargnani that seperates him from the other 2. We need freaks. If the Bulls go Andrea with their first pick, then it has to be a freak at 16. And then FA is all about freaks. Nene helps there. Sene is a freaking freak. And if the option comes up to trade 16 for Pietrus (I am sure GS would do it), you do it, because he would fit into the culture this team is trying to create too a tee. And I would love to see him in a bulldog lineup with Noc and Hinrich.


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

rlucas4257 said:


> S-E-N-E
> 
> Then
> 
> ...


I like the way you think.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

I'm leaning more towards trading the pick for a pick in next year's draft. Especially if we land in the top 2 with the NY pick.

Next years #16 would likely be top 5 in this years draft.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

I agree about the best available at 16th.

But I would take Kyle Lowry over Rajon. I love Rondo , but I see Lowry as the better nba player.

Sene would be nice too.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

LegoHat said:


> I like the way you think.



Let me add, I dont think Bargnani is a freak. But he is so skilled, so versatile and so good, you have to take him. He is far more complete then Thomas (who would fill the freak side) and Aldridge (who would fill the size side). I think Bargnani comes in and gives you a go to scorer who can create for himself or others probably within a season and a half. I dont think on day one he does much, not because he isnt a good player, but because of the cultural adjustment. But damn, his skill set is mouth watering and the fact that he is this good, against top competition already, is down right scary. The only reason he isnt #1 right now is the bias against international players. He is my guy. But he isnt a freak. #16, get a freaking freak. Any position, I dont really care. But he better be able to change ends, dunk on people and defend with length. Sene, Pietrus, I like Obryant, any would do. It better not be Paul Davis. Thats the last thing the Bulls need.


----------



## ChiSox (Jun 9, 2004)

I am all for taking the best available play. Paxson want/need assets. Paxson is still trying to build a Championship team and he need as many asset as possible. If the best player is a small guard so what? You can alway trade talent but it is very hard to trade garbage. If Paxson feels Rondo is the next coming of G Arenas then you take him, period. I don't care about need. You take a very good player over average/below average player everytime. The only time need should matter in the draft is if the two prospects are close in ability. For example you don't take Sam Bowie instead of Michael Jordon, because you need size.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

bullet said:


> I agree about the best available at 16th.
> 
> But I would take Kyle Lowry over Rajon. I love Rondo , but I see Lowry as the better nba player.
> 
> Sene would be nice too.


I have been high on Lowry for a while, I have him as the #2 PG in the draft. He will enter the league as one of the top 20 PG defenders. I actually think he would be a decnet upgrade to Duhon but I'm still hoping Carney or Brewer are available.


----------



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

If the Bulls draft size with the earlier pick, I would love to pick up Mardy Collins if he happens to fall to 16. At 6'6" Collins is a legit point guard that likes to post his defender as well as drive to the hope. He is a good defender and plays the passing lanes. He would play well with all the current guards, allowing the others to guard the smaller opponent.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

yeah, but how good of a defender is he?


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

The ROY said:


> yeah, but how good of a defender is he?


If he plays for Temple he has got to be a good defender or he doesn't play. My concern with Mardy is his outside shot.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

rlucus,

Dude any word on how Sene looks in his private work outs. I here he is a great leaper and all and has great size and length but they also said that about Diop. Have you seen him play and does he have more than size?

Let us know.

david


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

I have believed all along that Ronnie Brewer is going to be there 

Your top 3 are Thomas, Bargnani and Roy 

Aldridge , Morrison , Williams and Foye all follow 

Gay and Carney go next 

Then Ced Simmons, O'Bryant,Shelden Williams and Hilton Armstrong all follow 

I'm tipping one of both of Jordan Farmar and Kyle Lowy make it into the lottery 

Brewer is mid 1st round as 2nd rated swing guard type behind Gay and Carney which put him right about where we are

I'm confident he will be available when the Bulls pick at #16


----------



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

charlietyra said:


> If he plays for Temple he has got to be a good defender or he doesn't play. My concern with Mardy is his outside shot.


Chaney always stresses defenses. Collins played the top of their zone and stole alot of passes by anticapation. 

The knock on Collins is his outside shot but we have alot of guards that can hit the deep shot. If Collins is playing opposite Kirk or Ben, having a guard that can post and drive would be a nice pairing with either player. 

Collins is everything that Paxson looks for in a player. Substance over flash, high basketball IQ, selfless to to teams goals, comes from a good program and if Collins can work for Chaney, Skiles will be easy. 

I doubt he's there at 16 though, he seams perfect for the Jazz and Sloan or the hometown 76ers and Mo Cheeks.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Brewer is mid 1st round as 2nd rated swing guard type behind Gay and Carney which put him right about where we are
> 
> I'm confident he will be available when the Bulls pick at #16


I think Carney would probably be more of the logical choice since we need athletes but Brewer is a GREAT choice for us also.

The thing I like about carney though is, he's a TEAM oriented player. Perfect for our system. Cares about all his teammates being involved but can take over from time to time.

If we can do anything to trade down to get Carney, O'Bryant or Brewer, I'm all for it.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

from what I've seen Collins is a good defender , both man to man and teamwise.

But as many people expressed , the concern is his shot. It's not awful , but not good either.

Lowry is small - but you cannot get much scrappier than him on defense. He has true pg skills as well. he can transform into a good nba player imo.


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

bullet said:


> Lowry is small - but you cannot get much scrappier than him on defense. He has true pg skills as well. he can transform into a good nba player imo.


I like Lowry very much, if we were looking for a point guard, I think he and Rondo would be my choices over Marcus Williams.


----------



## belgian (Feb 21, 2004)

First Pick: Bargnani
Seconde Pick: Sene

Then Bulls team will be very scary

Hinrich/Duhon
Gordon/Deng
Deng/Nocioni
Bargnani/Nocioni/Chandler
Sene/Chandler


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

belgian said:


> First Pick: Bargnani
> Seconde Pick: Sene
> 
> Then Bulls team will be very scary
> ...


I don't think either Bargnani or Sene would start from the get go, but I'm not opposed to that idea, provided we trade for a big defensive guard. If Paxson really likes Sene he should try and trade down, because I think Sene will be a late first rounder unless he dominates in his workouts. 

Maybe we could trade our #16 for Portland's #30 and #31 and grab Sene and Rudy Fernandez with the #30 and #31 picks. Sign Nene and Gooden in free agency, and trade Sweets+future first rounder for Pietrus:

Hinrich/Duhon
Pietrus/Gordon/Fernandez
Nocioni/Deng
Gooden/Bargnani
Nene/Sene

One can dream right?


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Seconde Pick: Sene


Would love to get him with the second pick, but I just don't see Paxson taking the chance on him, which is quite a shame really.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

belgian said:


> First Pick: Bargnani
> Seconde Pick: Sene
> 
> Then Bulls team will be very scary
> ...



Belgian, can you tell us more about Sene since your there? Also, if you had a chance to see his last game? 16 rebounds in 22 minutes. Id like to hear more. I have seen 25 minutes of tape, including Nike camp, and i cant figure out why he isnt going #1 based on what I see. But its so limited that Id like to learn more


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Can Carney provide offense from the 2 spot?

In other words, is it more like a PG-Gordon-Carney trio or a PG-Carney-Noch/Deng trio?

Because depending on the matchups, if a team has offensive talented SG and SF (like New Jersey or Cleveland or the Lakers), and we need guys that can clamp down on both, right now we aren't equipped to do it. You can't have Hinrich guarding Carter and Deng or Noch guarding RJeff (fill in Hughes/James or Kobe/Odom in those spots)... Carney/Deng would be a serious matchup at least in size and definitely in defensive presence.

But what about on offense? Can Carney play like a 2 guard on the offensive side, fit into the system, make jumpers, have range out to the NBA three? A good example would be James Posey... Posey's really much more a SF than a SG, but he can play at the 2 spot because he has mad range and doesn't need to be a part of the frontcourt as much. That's why Miami can use him really well as their defensive specialist that's not an offensive liability.

I think Brewer might be a better fit, although Carney might be a better talent.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

I predict Carney will slip to like 14 and Brewer will rise to top 10. Either way, we're more than likely to miss them.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

Sear Sene's numbers have been poor all season long, without logging much playing time:

http://www.rbcverviers-pepinster.be/saison05-06/joueurs/sene.php

(Game by Game stats)


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

El Chapu said:


> Sear Sene's numbers have been poor all season long, without logging much playing time:
> 
> http://www.rbcverviers-pepinster.be/saison05-06/joueurs/sene.php
> 
> (Game by Game stats)


4.5 and 5 with a blocked shot a game in 12.3 mpg? That's pretty sick if you ask me.

Could be another DeSagana Diop, which is bad and good, because Diop has looked pretty good in the playoffs even though his stats don't say much. I think that we're going to see a starting 7-footer for Dallas, and it's not going to be Dampier, for several seasons to come. Diop is 24 years old.

If Sene becomes the new and improved and accelerated Diop, I wouldn't actually be that disappointed. With the big man help we pick up in FA, we should be good enough to let him develop at least a little bit, and see a good, defensive big man in two seasons, which is when our team should be reaching full throttle.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

Showtyme said:


> 4.5 and 5 with a blocked shot a game in 12.3 mpg? That's pretty sick if you ask me.
> 
> Could be another DeSagana Diop, which is bad and good, because Diop has looked pretty good in the playoffs even though his stats don't say much. I think that we're going to see a starting 7-footer for Dallas, and it's not going to be Dampier, for several seasons to come. Diop is 24 years old.
> 
> If Sene becomes the new and improved and accelerated Diop, I wouldn't actually be that disappointed. With the big man help we pick up in FA, we should be good enough to let him develop at least a little bit, and see a good, defensive big man in two seasons, which is when our team should be reaching full throttle.


Pretty good to earn him that much playing time.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

First off, I really like the concept of grabbing 2 bigs with our draft picks. If someone like Brewer, who's a great fit for us, slips to 16 then we should take him. But if not, let's look at the remaining bigs who fall; namely, Splitter, Armstrong, and Sene.

I won't waste time talking about who to take with the Knicks pick (simply put, I want to come away with Tyrus, Bargnani, Aldridge, or O'Bryant).

At #16, I'm taking Splitter if he's there. No question about it. He's already measured in as a near 7-footer in past drafts and he's tough as nails. Good team player, good skills and basketball IQ. Since we have a lotto pick + cap space to work with, I have no gripes about holding his rights for a few years if buyout issues prevent him from signing. It's really no different from waiting for high schooler to pan out.

If Splitter is gone though, that's when we should look at Armstrong or Sene. Both are raw with nonexistent offense, but both are athletic bigs with upside (Sene has the bigger upside it seems). Again, we can work him into the league slowly and down the road he could pay dividends. Unlike others, I could see Pax taking him if he strikes him as having work ethic.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

Look at Sene's teammates...some look like 7th graders and others like McDonalds workers. Tough competition if you ask me.

http://www.rbcverviers-pepinster.be/saison05-06/roster05-06.php

Kidding.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

El Chapu said:


> Look at Sene's teammates...some look like 7th graders and others like McDonalds workers. Tough competition if you ask me.
> 
> http://www.rbcverviers-pepinster.be/saison05-06/roster05-06.php
> 
> Kidding.



It must be tough going through life with the name Gerben Van Dorpe.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

El Chapu said:


> Pretty good to earn him that much playing time.



Chapu, very rarely do European players, especially sub 21 year olds, get much playing time in Europe. I can count the instances on less then one hand. Sure, thats the magic of Andrea Bargnani who looks really special but others, who have turned out to be very good NBA players, have not. Sene is no different. He has played 2 years of organized basketball. TWO YEARS. For where he started to now, and then being the absolute dominant player at the Nike Classic against the best HS Big Man Class Ever, is far more interesting then his stats. Lets also remember that in Europe they dont run offense of the young guys either. Is Sene another Diop as Showtyme adds? I think they are totally different players. Diop has so much more mass then Sene, but doesnt have the athletic skills of Sene. But Diop is a competent starting center in the NBA at the age of 24 (or something) and getting better. What did he average in HS? 12 ppg? Sene could be better then Diop, and at 16, thats value.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

I'm not sure 2.3 ppg and 4.6rpg and has 2 shot opportunities in 18 minutes a game qualifies as "a competent NBA starting Center"

I do acknowledge Diop's 1.8 blocks per game whilst also acknowleding his 3.1 fouls per game 

He's playing the same minutes in the playoffs and his production is slightly down 

He can rebound some , block and bang his body around ..but any which way you shake it , he is a marginal NBA player

Always was . Always will be


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> He can rebound some , block and bang his body around ..but any which way you shake it , he is a marginal NBA player
> 
> Always was . Always will be


I wouldn't say that, his improvement this year alone has been very good, and I don't see why he couldn't become even better. His stats don't show his true value as a defensive intimidator, and the amount of shots he alters don't appear on the stat sheet either. Now, I'm not saying he's God's gift to basketball, but he is a better center prospect than a lot of teams in the NBA have right now.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

And if Diop is " a competent starting NBA Center at 24 and getting better" producing what is outlayed above...then I guess by this standard Michael Sweetney is perhaps more than competent and has a place in the NBA

18.5 mpg , 8.1ppg , 5.3rpg , .85bpg, 1apg , 3.2 fouls per game

Same minutes / Same foul rate

More rebounds / More Points / More assists -better passer

Less blocks per game


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

LegoHat said:


> I wouldn't say that, his improvement this year alone has been very good, and I don't see why he couldn't become even better. His stats don't show his true value as a defensive intimidator, and the amount of shots he alters don't appear on the stat sheet either. Now, I'm not saying he's God's gift to basketball, but he is a better center prospect than a lot of teams in the NBA have right now.



Thank you. Someone actually watches the games and acknowledges that an impact on the game can be had beyond the stat sheet. :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

LegoHat said:


> I wouldn't say that, his improvement this year alone has been very good, and I don't see why he couldn't become even better. His stats don't show his true value as a defensive intimidator, and the amount of shots he alters don't appear on the stat sheet either. Now, I'm not saying he's God's gift to basketball, but he is a better center prospect than a lot of teams in the NBA have right now.


All I'm saying is that he's limited . Quite limited , in that he only has something to offer in one aspect of the game ..and that in itself IMO is not game changing like 

He's a role player ( obviously ) 

Perhaps calling him "marginal" was harsh ..but its not too far off

He's certainly not "competent" by any rational measure 

He's just 7'0 and 280 which is why some bone up


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

rlucas4257 said:


> Thank you. Someone actually watches the games and acknowledges that an impact on the game can be had beyond the stat sheet. :clap: :clap: :clap:


Whoops I forgot no one else watches games besides RLucas and anyone that agrees with his point of view de jour


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

Yeah, but its difficult to alter shots and intimidate opponents sitting on the bench.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

El Chapu said:


> Yeah, but its difficult to alter shots and intimidate opponents sitting on the bench.


 Yeah . Funny game this basketball


----------

