Exile on Waveland

The Bulls can only offer him their MLE unless it's a sign-and-trade. The Bulls are over the salary cap but under the luxury tax. So why would a sign-and-trade be possible but not a regular signing? Because the players they'd give up in the sign-and-trade would come off their books.

I believe it centers around the organization "be aggressive" philosophy. The Cubs stress agressiveness over intelligence. The intelligent thing to do is accept a walk when the pitcher isn't giving you hittable strikes. The Cubs tell their guys that "it's called hitting". That wasn't just a Dusty thing, Hendry has stressed it since he was the minor league coordinator. The Cubs want to "be aggressive", "make things happen" and "put pressure on the defense." To me that pretty much equates to making pitchers' jobs easier and running into outs. Yeah, you're probably right there. The Cubs philosophy of aggressiveness over intelligence bleeds over from hitting to baserunning. Sad, really.

Errr, I lived in Oregon at the time. Bowie was an extremely hyped player and the blazers heeded your advice and took the big man because G/F are a dime a dozen. That one didn't really work out too well. If Durant was the only player in this draft then the hype would be that he is a once in a generation player. My point about the football trade analogy is proven by what you just said. 20% of your lineup is on the floor in 1 person. If you can trade 20% for 40% of equal talent you do that to better your overall TEAM. Remember, basketball is the quintessential team sport. If you have an option to double your talent level you MUST look at that VERY hard Yes, Bowie was hyped -- he was the #2 pick in the draft. However, he was a question mark. He missed TWO full seasons because of leg injuries. Again, two full seasons. In college, he averaged 12.9 ppg, 17.4 ppg, then missed two years and came back to average 10.5 ppg. Please stop comparing Oden to Bowie. While Oden is coming off an injury, he missed only a few games and still dominated. A player who missed two of the three previous seasons can't be hyped like Oden, nor could a player not taken #1 in the draft. Olajuwan was clearly a better prospect than Bowie, just as Oden is a better prospect than Olajuwan. No, your point is not proven because you will not get equal talent. There is no such thing as equal talent for a dominant big man. It does not exist (unless you think the Blazers are going to get Tim Duncan back, which still wouldn't be smart considering the age difference). In the NBA, that one position outweighs the others immensely. Also, the Blazers already have some extremely talented players at a few positions, so I'm not sure how much of a talent upgrade they could even get.

Who was the great big man on all those Bulls teams? What about the Pistons, both the 90's version and today's version? 1. Where did I say every team to win the NBA championship featured a great big man? There are obviously exceptions, and the fact that only a couple teams fit the exception helps prove my point. Having a great big man greatly increases your chances for a title and your chances of sustaining a great team. 2. Surely you understand the difference on those Bulls teams: Michael Jordan. You know, the single greatest player of all-time? I didn't add "except Michael Jordan" when saying G/F's are almost a dime a dozen, I thought that would be assumed and superfluous. 3. Rasheed Wallace is easily one the of the most talented PF's in recent NBA memory. While he doesn't fit the definition of "franchise big man" necessarily, it's not like the Pistons were devoid of interior talent. Ben Wallace was also pretty decent. The late 80's Pistons teams also featured multiple good big men. But, clearly, I agree that both Pistons team are an exception. 4. Recent NBA champions: Shaq-Duncan-(Pistons)-Duncan-Shaq-Shaq-Shaq-Duncan-Jordan-Jordan Jordan-Olajuwan-Olajuwan-Jordan-Jordan-Jordan. Notice a trend? If not, it's you almost always need 1) a dominant big man or 2) Michael Jordan. Michael Jordan isn't in this draft, so I think I might take the dominant big man. Or, I suppose, the Blazers could try to be like the one team in the past 16 years to win a championship and not feature a dominant big man or Jordan.

This is why a trade might be the best option. Portland has seen it before. An incredibly hyped big man or an incredibly talented G/F? We know how the 1st time worked out but have they learned? A trade to capitalize on the hype could work out similar to the herchsel walker trade in the NFL would be a great idea and still keep the team on the path with an excellent young core. Trading down in this deep of a draft is not a bad alternative. Who was the incredibly hyped big man that didn't work out for the Blazers? It's not Sam Bowie. He wasn't incredibly hyped by any means. In fact, that failed decision actually implies they should take Oden. Bowie was a need pick -- they already had Clyde Drexler so didn't think they needed a G/F, they thought they needed a big man. Repeat after me: you never, never, NEVER pass up the opportunity to take a franchise big man. G/F's are almost a dime a dozen, big men win in the NBA. Oden isn't Bowie. He's not. Just because it'd be same team drafting the two doesn't make it so. If they don't draft Oden, then history will repeat itself -- the Blazers will have passed up a once-in-a-generation player. Also, comparing football to basketball is pointless. The Herschel Walker deal isn't comparable. One player simply cannot have the same impact in football as basketball. A basketball player is 20% of the lineup on the court, and, in the one-on-one NBA, one player can mean even more than it does in college.

Neither of those trades could occur straight up, until well after the draft (July 10th ends this years moratorium) as neither would fit under the trade restrictions based on last years cap. Trading Hinrich for Randolph would work out decently in terms of the cap ($11mil for $13.3mil) but trading away Gordon ($4.88mil) would handicap the team to no end when attempting to fill out the bench. How horrible and snake bitten would Portland feel (and maybe they're gunshy now) to take the big man again, and have the following pick(s) go on to a remarkable HOF-like career. This morning they compared the upside of Oden to Robert Parrish. I like that comparison, and think it's where Oden will perform when all is said and done. Bill Russell's the ceiling, Eric Montross (also an LNHS alum) is the floor. But Parrish is the player he's likely to resemble the most, in my untrained eye. I really don't know where to begin here. Eric Montross is the floor? Is that a joke? Oden is so far above Eric Montross it's not funny. Oden is also nothing like Sam Bowie. Just because they will be drafted by the same team (or went to the same HS like Montross) doesn't mean they're the same player. I don't understand this too slow for the west business, either. First, Oden is quite mobile and athletic for someone his size (though he does need to work on his stamina). Is Tim Duncan too slow for the west? Was Shaq? Is Yao? Portland won't be Phoenix with Oden, but they won't need to be. They'll dominate the halfcourt game -- which those types of teams keep winning in the playoffs, even as much as I would've preferred the Suns to advance. I'd say it's very likely Oden will be much better than Robert Parrish. Oden is going to be a dominating defensive presence and, in the future, a big time offensive force as well. Portland won't be gun-shy -- and they'd be foolish if they were. They'll take Oden and he'll be a star leading them to NBA championships.

It sure looked like a huge steal three years ago. Now, in hindsight, not so much. I'd say it is and was a steal for the Pacers. Led by Artest they had a 61-win season and went to the ECF (they've only done better once since moving to the NBA). Miller was a productive player for a couple years for the Pacers. Rose scored well for Chicago, but they weren't good at the time. Best played, what, one year for the Bulls? I'm not sure what the Bulls got out of the deal. Sure, the Pacers are no longer benefiting from the deal. However, they did benefit immensely for a couple years, while I'm not sure the Bulls ever really did.

The Bulls did dump Artest because he was crazy, but he was more potential than all star when they did. True. But that deal was a huge steal for the Pacers. Unfortunately, they later thought it was a good idea to add Stephen Jackson to Ron Artest. That was the downfall. They might have been able to survive with one crazy player.

With his temper and questionable work ethic, Randolf would be a much better fit on the Pacers. After he blows up on the court or gets in trouble with the law, you guys can trade him for forty cents on the dollar. Zing! The Pacers are done with headcases for now, even if it means losing (which it does for the time being). Also, do I need to remind you where the Pacers got Ron Artest from?

Trading Hinrich makes you a worse team than trading Gordon does. That's the guard I would trade. I wouldn't trade Hinrich for Randolph. Randolph is a sieve defensively with a questionable attitude. I would, however, trade Gordon for him. I like Gordon a lot, but I think the Bulls are going to have to give him up (maybe Nocioni/Thomas/Pick would suffice) to get an inside presence. Would you be willing to trade a defensive inside presence for offense? Outside of that, I think the Bulls are hamstrung from making a trade to aquire the scorer inside they need/want. Hey, I'm a Pacer fan so I think the Bulls should trade Hinrich/Deng/Thomas/pick for O'Neal and Tinsely...c'mon...it's fair... Seriously though, I agree the Bulls are a little hamstrung. They won't, and shouldn't, trade Deng or Hinrich. That leaves Thomas, Gordon, Nocioni and the pick as real tradable assets. If you give up one or two, I'm not sure who you get (maybe a flawed player like Randolph. Though he would help). If you trade three, you better be getting someone damn good in return.

While I think Heinrich for Randolph is unfair, to me it's unfair both ways, so it might actually work theoretically, but the salary cap restrictions might prevent it. As for PGs that might be available, I think there might be a good deal to be had on Tinsley (puke). Indy should be looking to move O'Neal and any of Tinsley/Dunleavy/Murphy this offseason. If for nothing else than draft picks in this and next year's drafts. Please take Tinsley!!!

Soriano in right, Jones in center and Murton/Floyd in left is just so completely obvious that I thought even the Cubs would figure it out. Oh well. Here's hoping they do at some point in the future, but I'm not holding my breath. I do believe defense/position/etc can have at least a minimal affect on a player's hitting. Player's aren't robots. However, a move from left to right is so inconsequential I am quite dubious it would affect much. I don't understand why the Cubs are consistently such a poor baserunning team. The players change, the gaffes don't.

Trading Hinrich makes you a worse team than trading Gordon does. That's the guard I would trade. I wouldn't trade Hinrich for Randolph. Randolph is a sieve defensively with a questionable attitude. I would, however, trade Gordon for him. I like Gordon a lot, but I think the Bulls are going to have to give him up (maybe Nocioni/Thomas/Pick would suffice) to get an inside presence.

So instead of a franchise center you end up with marshmallow-soft Vince Carter (and a #1 next year)? Wow, that's a terrible, terrible idea. They should sprint to the podium to take Oden, then look to move Randolph (and Miles). Adding Oden to their young core sets up multiple 60-win season and NBA championships. That's what franchise big men do. Adding Vince Carter makes them a borderline playoff team in the west. You forgot that Portland would have Boston's pick and possibly end up with Yi. A team of Yi, Carter, Roy, Aldridge, & Jack is a pretty solid team too. Jarret Jack is VERY underrated. No, I didn't forget. I just don't really care. You simply do not pass up franchise centers, especially for a cream puff like Vince Carter and an unknown quantity like Yi (not saying he won't be good, but he is a gamble).

Thirded. Or is it fourthed now? Anyway, that was a rather uninspiring match. I figured Milan would win, but I'm still disappointed. Oh well.

I don't have a problem with Anaheim winning, but I'm definitely pulling for Ottawa, Canada deserves a cup after the way Americans have screwed with their game. Yeah, I've rooted hard in recent years for the Canadian teams to win. I've just been frustrated with their defeats and have become disenchanted with that rooting. I'm sure once the games roll (skate?) around I'll be cheering for the Sens.

It also would make Georgetown the likely favorite for next year's NCAA Championship.

I have to work. I'll be DVRing the game and watching it afterwards. GO LIVERPOOL!!!

I don't really care who wins, I'm just glad the Red Wings lost. Part of me thinks it would be refreshing to see a Canadian team win, part of me wants the Ducks to win because I probably like their team more.

So instead of a franchise center you end up with marshmallow-soft Vince Carter (and a #1 next year)? Wow, that's a terrible, terrible idea. They should sprint to the podium to take Oden, then look to move Randolph (and Miles). Adding Oden to their young core sets up multiple 60-win season and NBA championships. That's what franchise big men do. Adding Vince Carter makes them a borderline playoff team in the west.

Scratch that, it's already up. Ford's first crack at predicting the lottery: Oden Durant Conley Brewer Yi Horford B. Wright J. Wright Hawes Hibbert Noah Green Thorton Law If Atlanta stays at #3, I'm sure this is correct and they'll take Conley, Jr. I know nothing about Yi, he may be great, but that has to be disheartening for Celtics fans going from the Oden/Durant debate to an unknown quantity.

That draft wasn't near as good as this on, nor is Conley, Jr. as talented as Gordon. He's great at running a team and is ultra quick, but he can't do the things Gordon can offensively. Also, if they had that draft again, Gordon wouldn't go #3. He'd go high, but not that high. All that said, I was praying the rumored Al Harrington for a draft pick (to take Gordon) was true at the time. I loved Gordon. My point wasn't to compare Gordon to Conley. It was to illustrate that the buzz around a player heading into the draft in May can change rapidly. I think we'll see a similar rise by Conley in June. I know, I just meant I'm not sure Conley Jr.'s basketball skills will necessarily translate to individual workouts. Meaning, his greatest asset is his ability to lead a team. However, I think his athleticism will surprise.

Fair enough. We'll find out if your eyes and scouts' eyes are in sync the end of June. If Conley, Jr. is at #11 now (I think that's where ESPN has him), I think he'll likely move up the charts. And he probably should. But if he moves to #3, I'll think the scouts' eyes incorrect. (Though, if he does, then obviously the Hawks would be less inclined to move the pick)

I've read comments from scouts and GM's that place him in the top 5. Lots of time between now and the draft. Don't take the mock drafts and ranking out there as gospel. I think Conley at 3 makes perfect sense for the Hawks. i really doubt he'd go ahead of horford and williams, so if they're set on conley, i think they should definitely explore trading down at least to 5 Ben Gordon was listed in the 7-10 range heading into the draft. His workouts blow Paxson and Skiles away and the Bulls took him at 3. Like I said, long way to go and there haven't been any workouts yet. That draft wasn't near as good as this one, nor is Conley, Jr. as talented as Gordon. He's great at running a team and is ultra quick, but he can't do the things Gordon can offensively. Also, if they had that draft again, Gordon wouldn't go #3. He'd go high, but not that high. All that said, I was praying the rumored Al Harrington for a draft pick (to take Gordon) was true at the time. I loved Gordon.

I've read comments from scouts and GM's that place him in the top 5. Lots of time between now and the draft. Don't take the mock drafts and ranking out there as gospel. I think Conley at 3 makes perfect sense for the Hawks. I'm certainly not taking the mock drafts as gospel. I don't trust those peoples opinions. I trust my eyes, and my eyes tell me Conley, Jr. isn't the #3 prospect and is a borderline top-10 prospect. And I've seen Conley Jr. a ton over the years (I'd surmise far more than anyone here, not that it matters much) and talked to him numerous times. I'm a big fan of his game, but there are a handful of players I would take ahead of him without batting an eye.