1908
-
Posts
4,932 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by 1908
-
Ah, yes, OPS+ -- a favorite stat among HOF voters.
-
Thomas is a hard worker by all reports. I can't see that happening at all.
-
Do you think Roy's the best player in the draft? I am not sure that he is, but I do think he is the most ready to help us now. I guess I am adverse to another project, and Thomas, while clearly gifted, is a project. One player from this draft will not make the Bulls a finals team next year. I think Roy could help the team more next year, but Thomas/Aldridge/Bargnani are likely to contribute more down the road. The Bulls are a superstar away from contending and the best shot at a superstar is the draft, even a "down" draft like this one.
-
Why is Marion available? I haven't heard anything of the sort. Sam Smith floated the idea out there last week because he's bored.
-
Do you think Roy's the best player in the draft?
-
Not to mention his freakish leaping ability. There are players with excellent verts, and then there's Thomas.
-
I don't think he's a guy who will ever be the best player on a good team. I don't like spending a top 3 pick on someone like that. Aldridge could be, as could Morrison. Of the top 5 guys in the draft, Thomas is the one I'd like the least. He's not going to contribute to the team next year, he's really young and raw, and isn't as offensively skilled as the other options. At the very least, Thomas will be a force on the glass and a shot-changer his rookie year. He's not as polished as either Aldridge or Morrison offensively, but those two have as many questions about their overall games as Thomas does, and Thomas has the highest potential of the three.
-
The Bulls have the option of swapping draft position with the Knicks next year after the final draft order has been set.
-
We really won't know how good the 2006 draft will be for another 2, 3 years.
-
Hill and Ozzie would need to work for the same organization for this analogy to make sense.
-
I like Paxson's comments about the reported Gordon "trade" more and more. From Peter Vecsey's 5/20 column. The last paragraph is perfect. The Bulls are in good hands.
-
Good stuff.
-
Fixed.
-
From today's paper:
-
Because there are restricted FA stars to be had and his budget is almost unlimited. I think he's in love with Fyre and it would take a superstar in return to get him. KG, Pierce, etc.
-
I'd give up one of the core and both of this year's picks. KG is 30 with lots of miles on the odometer. Give up too much to get him and you turn next year's Bulls into this year's Wolves.
-
Out of curiosity, what's the incentive for the Knicks in this trade? They're overloaded with guards already, and I suspect Isiah's got his eye on next year's free agent class as well. I could see them accepting Tyson and Gordon for Fyre and Francis (or Crawford). I wouldn't make that deal, would you?
-
Deng. Almost as productive as Noch was this year, and he's five years younger.
-
I think you're selling Tyson a bit short, but I'd trade him straight up for Fyre with money in mind. With their cap space and top 5 pick, the Bulls should be able to address their front line without giving up on Gordon prematurely. That's my preference, and the path I expect Paxson to follow.
-
I like PER. I think it sums up the stats you provided above nicely. But it does a poor job evaluating defense. For instance, Ben Wallace produced a 17.54 PER this year. Do you think Fyre was the better player? I expect Tyson's PER to rebound next year, and Fyre has a ways to go before he's in the same class defensively as Tyson. I also have my doubts about its predictive value, especially when looking at the first few seasons of a player's career. Diaw jumps from 8.82 and 9.97 to 17.31. Noch jumps form 9.96 to 16.12.
-
Arenas isn't much bigger, and I think Gordon's every bit as athletic as he is. If you think that's all Gordon does, I see little value discussing it further.
-
Not yet. But it's only his second year. Way too early to make that pronouncement. Look at Arenas, Billups, etc. for examples. I don't see how this trade would make the Bulls better next year. Frye's a nice young piece, but he wouldn't make up for Gordon's scoring, and Rose is useless. It could make the team better longterm if everything fell into place, but the same holds true if the Bulls hang on to Tyson and Ben and they blossom. How much younger is Fyre than Chandler? And I don't know if your claim that two guard is the easiest spot to fill is accurate or not. Are you speaking from a production standpoint or the number of bodies out there standpoint?
-
Assuming NY stands pat this off season. I'm more concerned with what Gordon could turn into here. I remember you calling him nothing more than a role player this past season, but I see a lot of Arenas in his future. I'm not ready to write Tyson off yet. Although he was very disappointing this year, he's still a defensive presence. How old was Ben Wallace when he finally figured stuff out? Rose's expiring contract would be a nice chip, but they've got a lot of nice chips already without him. It's a gamble. Could pay off, could fail, not a no-brainer -- and I suspect the Knicks are planning on making a run at next off season's free agent class, too.
-
Gambling the Bulls could sign one of the big free agents in next year's class? That would indeed be the plan. I saw the list awhile back, and it was sick. Still a long shot to pry any of the truly elite players away from their current teams. Might be able to land a guy like Carter, but how much does he have left? A little too risky for my tastes, but it could pay off.
-
Gambling the Bulls could sign one of the big free agents in next year's class?