Friday, June 26, 2009

What's the word ...

boring? uninspired? unconventional? stupid?

Maybe it's because I don't watch college hoops, but I was not ultra-impressed with the Bulls. I guess Minny wanted James Johnson at 18, so he must be decent. (Speaking of Minny, why did they take Flynn instead of Stephen Curry to play with Rubio??) I feel like the Bulls created a logjam at the 4 (by drafting 2 power forwards in Round1). Does that make sense after spending the last few years developing our PF of the future?? Who knows ... In Gar We Trust!


Catch up on the whole draft with Bill Simmons' Draft Diary -
6:08: There have been 29 NBA players named "James" and 55 players named "Johnson." Somehow, we've never had a "James Johnson." Now we do. Chicago just took him 16th. I'm glad I'm here.




Draft grades -

CHICAGO BULLS GRADE: B-

Round 1: James Johnson (16), Taj Gibson (26)

Round 2: None

Analysis: I think the Bulls had their hearts set on Tyler Hansbrough and were probably a bit crestfallen when they couldn't move up and get him. Like Hansbrough, Johnson brings toughness, but with a bit of an edge that could make the Bulls a little less comfortable. Gibson is skilled and versatile, but like Johnson, is no sure thing.

I think the value of Chicago's draft will be clearer once we see what happens via free agency with Ben Gordon and potential trades with Kirk Hinrich and Tyrus Thomas. There's upside here, but not enough to get really excited about at this point.


What are your thoughts on the Bulls draft?? Hit up the comments below.
Posted by 2j at 7:08 AM

Post a Comment

8 comments:

Pete said...

i dont know what to think of this draft. what happens if you dont resign ben? then salmons is a full time 2? i think you are one guard short then. i would have liked to see a guard with the 2nd pick. Johnson sounds like a promising talent but i cant ever remember seeing him play. there have to be other moves coming with this draft right?

June 26, 2009 at 11:22 AM
2j said...

I would think there are more moves coming, but all I've heard is potentially packaging BG and TT - I would think to land a scoring 4, but that makes no sense after drafting 2 PFs last night. Also, I like Salmons as a 2, but apparently none of the analysts see it. They always list him as the back-up 3, and even mentioned going small with him at 3 and Luol at 4 ... which makes ZERO sense after drafting 2 PFs. And we are short a guard in the rotation, as it looks like Kirk is our back-up PG and 2. So, there has to be something else in the works ...

June 26, 2009 at 11:32 AM
PezzaXtremo said...

I think it was a very solid draft. When BG is out of the picture Salmons can move to the 2 and Deng can play the 3 leaving the Bulls a regular sized and not undersized team. If Deng still sucks you have 2 quality lengthy men that can play the 3, one providing the ability to score and rebound and the other a lengthy defender that can stop guys like bosh and marion. A very nice draft when considering the Bulls needs

June 26, 2009 at 1:50 PM
2j said...

I have yet to see Salmons listed as a 2 anywhere. Maybe he's too slow? But for some reason he is only listed as Luol'd back-up and never projected to be a 2 on all the depth charts.

Also, both picks are expected to play 4 at the NBA level.

June 26, 2009 at 3:05 PM
2j said...

It just seems ridiculous that we would spend all this time developing TT only to draft 2 more project-PFs and get rid of him just when he's finally coming around.

He's going somewhere else and will turn into the player we've all been hoping for ... and we will regret this bad draft even more.

June 26, 2009 at 6:12 PM
Kmart said...

Pez, I think you are on the right track with your thoughts on the Johnson pick. Once Henderson was off the board at 12, I thought the best pickup was whoever the Bulls thought the best 4 would be, whether that be Blair or Johnson.

However, to pick another 4 at 26 couldn't have been more idiotic if the intent was to keep both picks. I wouldn't have scoffed at Blair at 26, because the pick had value at that point when compared to an undersized frail 24 year old rookie, but still it would have been a bit redundant.

As mentioned we are now a guard short in the rotation with plans to either release Ben or trade Kirk. If anything that pick should have been a 2, 3, or combo. Hell I wouldn't have been upset with a backup PG. With Young, Ellington, Green, Budinger on the board there was room to improve this basketball team. (Specifically a high floor older 6'7" 2-3 combo who played shut down D in the big east this year for the Pitt Panters)

If Ben walks or Kirk is traded he (or anyone who's not another undersized 4) would have been the perfect backup to either. A rotation of

1-Rose/Kirk (Ben)
2-Kirk (Ben)/Salmons
3-Deng/ Salmons/ Johnson?
4-Tyrus/Johnson/Taj/Miller
5-Noah/Miller

Looks very weak in the guard area.

And the kicker to me is that the consensus thought is that our true need is a superstar 4... Which makes the pick even more confusing... unless our plan is to attempt to package Tyrus and Johnson/Taj to acquire said superstar.

June 27, 2009 at 2:12 AM
2j said...

Had to link to this to point out how terribly idiotic the writer is.

http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=13096

"Rubio is going to be a must-see playmaker for years to come. The way he dominated Jason Kidd and Chris Paul in the Olympics sold me on his bright future."

I love Rubio also ... but "dominated"?!?! Shooting 1/3 and scoring 6 points with 3 assists is dominating?! CP3 had 13 points and 6 assists.

June 27, 2009 at 11:27 AM
Pete said...

i absolutely agree the gibson pick only has value if you are planning on getting rid one of your bigs or think ty all of a sudden can play 3 part of the time. i just dont understand how you can take a rotation player (gibson) at a position where you have no time to rotate. maybe there is a 2 out there that we dont know about. maybe mcgrady?

June 29, 2009 at 11:44 AM

Post a Comment

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)