# Bogut still your pick?



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

If the 2005 entry draft were held over again tomorrow would you still want Bogut or is there someone else you would prefer?


----------



## Mavs Dude (Jul 20, 2003)

I would still pick Bogut. He is already making an impact in the league. He will continue to grow to become a top C in the league in a couple of years. Paul is an awesome player but we have TJ, Mo, and Charlie who all can play PG so even though he is better then them we have no need for him. Simmons is really starting to step up and that really would make Williams more useless than he already is. So yes I would still want Bogut. Plus he also has brought so many international fans to the Bucks so it is also good for business reasons.


----------



## bigdbucks (Jun 7, 2002)

whiterhino said:


> If the 2005 entry draft were held over again tomorrow would you still want Bogut or is there someone else you would prefer?


very very good question. I think that if i knew how good chris paul was gunna be i would absolutely
draft him. Not that Bogut was a bad pick because he is doing very well. Paul is gunna be a superstar. This guy is just soooo dynamic. TJ is a real good ballplayer but he isn't a superstar. I'm not saying that Bogut isn't going to be a superstar, he may, but i still see him more as a star and a great 2nd option. IF we drafted Paul and still made the deal for Magloire that would give us a team that I think would be top 3 in the conference. BUT WHO KNOWS?! Bogut is a good ballplayer and was a great pick.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Bogut's a player who has a much bigger impact than his stats indicate.

Paul's obviously running away with the ROY, but Milwaukee has two young effective point guards, and Bogut's going to be a very solid cog down the road.


----------



## Mavs Dude (Jul 20, 2003)

bigdbucks said:


> very very good question. I think that if i knew how good chris paul was gunna be i would absolutely
> draft him. Not that Bogut was a bad pick because he is doing very well. Paul is gunna be a superstar. This guy is just soooo dynamic. TJ is a real good ballplayer but he isn't a superstar. I'm not saying that Bogut isn't going to be a superstar, he may, but i still see him more as a star and a great 2nd option. IF we drafted Paul and still made the deal for Magloire that would give us a team that I think would be top 3 in the conference. BUT WHO KNOWS?! Bogut is a good ballplayer and was a great pick.


The thing though is that if we did pick Paul, we would have Ford and Mo who are left on the outside. If Mo would move to backup SG than we wouldn't have seen Charlie become the defensive stopper that he is. Also we would have to have Gadz as the backup PF and C. It's nice to have a superstar PG but IMO it's more important to have a sturdy C or bigman in general.


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

I think Bogut has proven to be a super solid pick. The only guys I would even consider other than him would be Paul and Channing Frye but I think Bogut was a great selection.


----------



## McCabeEvanston (Apr 19, 2003)

Paul looks like the star. I would pick him. But I think Bogut will be a good player. Right now TJ is really struggling. I think the Bucks would have alot better record with Paul.


----------



## Mavs Dude (Jul 20, 2003)

McCabeEvanston said:


> Paul looks like the star. I would pick him. But I think Bogut will be a good player. Right now TJ is really struggling. I think the Bucks would have alot better record with Paul.


I don't mean to be mean but I don't get why people think Paul would give us such a better record. I agree that he is going to be a star but look at our team and our needs. OK let's put Paul in there instead of Bogut. That gives us TJ Ford, Mo Williams, Michael Redd, Charlie Bell, and Chris Paul all vying (sp) for minutes at the 1 and 2. This would leave us with Joe Smith and Dan Gadzuric at the 4 and 5, maybe Magloire depending on if the trade would still go through. So let's think, would Paul really give us a better record? I mean let's take into account Smith's injury that leaves us with Gadzuric and maybe Magloire, what would we have done then? We really don't have any backups at all at the 4 and 5. Are we going to play Ervin Johnson 10-15 minutes a game? Also what are we going to do with all the guys fighting for minutes? How would we have started at PG? What are we going to do with 1 or 2 guys that don't get any minutes? We could have never found out about Bell and how good he actually is. We have to take everything into account then see who we would have needed? Of course now you can say with TJ struggling and having Magloire here and Smith healthy that we could've used Paul but what happens if TJ goes back to playing like TJ then do we need Paul? What about the San Antonio and Dallas games?


----------



## 85 lakers (Dec 22, 2005)

Imagine if you took Deron Williams over Chris Paul.
:laugh:


----------



## 36 Karat (Nov 10, 2005)

Drafting Chris Paul would be unnessary. Andrew Bogut was something we needed, a force in the post which has been nonexistent in Milwaukee for sometime now. In no way, shape, or form at all can I justify an argument as to why we should've drafted Chris Paul.


----------



## bigdbucks (Jun 7, 2002)

i can honestly say that Bogut is gunna be a solid player but i don't know how much better he'll get. I do say that Chris Paul is already on his way to being a perennial allstar and he is a WINNER! He will probably be a superstar and i don't think having a superstar would be unnecessary.

just have to take the wait and see approach with bogut i think


----------



## Mavs Dude (Jul 20, 2003)

Bogut, IMO, can still improve greatly. Get him a good big man coach, have him work on his inside game and on the defensive side and he could really start getting noticed.


----------



## hirschmanz (Jun 3, 2005)

there are plenty of superstars in the league who don't win championships.

I shouldn't need to give examples.

What the Bucks are trying to do is put a bunch of young guys together for a few years to come.
Redd, Simmons, Bogut, ford, williams, gadzuric... all young guys who are going to be playing together for a few years to come. Even Magloire (who I can't see the bucks resigning) isn't old yet. These guys make up a playoff team this year, and will only continue to gel in years to come. One could say that paul would be a worthwhile addition to this group, but unless you could swing a tj for great-young-big-man trade then there's not much room.

All the Bucks need now is some time.


----------



## girllovesthegame (Nov 3, 2005)

36 Karat said:


> Drafting Chris Paul would be unnessary. Andrew Bogut was something we needed, a force in the post which has been nonexistent in Milwaukee for sometime now. In no way, shape, or form at all can I justify an argument as to why we should've drafted Chris Paul.


You're right. Would have been unnecessary. If a pg was what the Bucks needed, chances are they may have selected Paul, Williams or Felton but that was not what they needed. Bogut was a good pick for the Bucks.


----------



## girllovesthegame (Nov 3, 2005)

Mavs Dude said:


> *Bogut, IMO, can still improve greatly.* Get him a good big man coach, have him work on his inside game and on the defensive side and he could really start getting noticed.


This is true. Every good/great player are not always the best "rookies" but go on to be some of the best players, even if just in their position. Who knows what all this seasons rookie class will look like in about 5 years. Hopefully they'll all be successful.


----------

