Where's the poll?
Best Fit or Best Players?
I know, I know. I'm starting another draft thread. However, I thought it was important to add a poll to this question, so I think it's ok to start a new one.
Anyway, this is my question. Do you think that Pax should draft the best fitting players for the team, even if it means perhaps taking someone a bit less talented? Or, do you think that Pax should take the best 2 players available, regardless if they play positions where we're already set? I guess as a third option, I will ask if you think he should draft 1 best fit and 1 best player (perhaps the best available center and Morrisson, Gay, etc.)
If I'm right about this, I believe that people who think you should pick the best 2 players available are the types who think we are further away from a complete/good team. Those who think we should draft for fit think that if we address an issue or two, we'll be set and ready to compete down the line in the East. Is this true? Is this the reason for your preference?
Anyway, this is my question. Do you think that Pax should draft the best fitting players for the team, even if it means perhaps taking someone a bit less talented? Or, do you think that Pax should take the best 2 players available, regardless if they play positions where we're already set? I guess as a third option, I will ask if you think he should draft 1 best fit and 1 best player (perhaps the best available center and Morrisson, Gay, etc.)
If I'm right about this, I believe that people who think you should pick the best 2 players available are the types who think we are further away from a complete/good team. Those who think we should draft for fit think that if we address an issue or two, we'll be set and ready to compete down the line in the East. Is this true? Is this the reason for your preference?
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
with this draft, one in which there is no really clear-cut #1, I think with the Knicks pick, you simply swing for the fences. Take the player who, in the Bulls estimation, has the highest ceiling. If bargnani is looking like a real possibility as a Dirk or Gasol clone - take him. If Patrick O'Bryant looks likes he's a legit 18pt/9rb center - take him. If Rudy Gay looks like he can shake off his air of indifference and become an aggressive player who'll become a perennial all-star - take him. If Aldridge looks like a Bosh clone - grab him. Splitter, Noah. It doesn't matter. Take the best player regardless of fit. With the Bulls pick (which is looking like a 9-12 pick) take the best player that fills the need. If it's another big like Splitter/Noah/Williams - so be it. If it happens to be a 2-guard like Brewer or Roy (he probably won't last till our pick - but ya never know!) so be it, but get a guy that fills a hole with out pick. To draft two swing players and not address our woeful lack of size really doesn't improve this team all that much.
Frankly, I don't think this team is all that far from being a real factor in the east. Again, all the games we've just petered away for one reason or another. If we could have won just half those games, we're talking fourth or fifth seed. We're talking one or two possesions that if we don't screw up, we win. Grab a guy with the most upside and then grab a guy to fill a hole and I really think this team will be back to at least being relavent.
Frankly, I don't think this team is all that far from being a real factor in the east. Again, all the games we've just petered away for one reason or another. If we could have won just half those games, we're talking fourth or fifth seed. We're talking one or two possesions that if we don't screw up, we win. Grab a guy with the most upside and then grab a guy to fill a hole and I really think this team will be back to at least being relavent.
It has been mentioned many times on Bulls games on national TV, especially by Greg Anthony, that the Bulls lack two things that would make them contenders: size, or an inside presence, and a legitimate go-to scorer. Ben Gordon has the capability to be that go-to guy, and proved it last season with his fourth quarter heroics, but this season he has somewhat frustrated me by preferring to take the tough shot many times when he already wide open, and opponents appear to be more focused on guarding Gordon. We all know about the Bulls' lack of size up front.
Of course, it's easier if the Bulls can get two for one: a player with size and great, proven scoring capabilities. Josh McRoberts has the size and mobility, but also has the toughness that the other top big men, Aldridge and Bargnani, appear to lack, but he is not a proven scorer yet. Proven scorers/superstar-quality players are more likely found at the top of the draft, but all of those at the top have at least one question mark: Aldridge's toughness, Gay's assertiveness, Morrison's athletic ability, Bargnani's strength (and the European stigma), McRoberts' inexperience.
NBAdraft.net and DraftExpress have differing opinions on the draft stocks of Tiago Splitter, Joakim Noah, and Patrick O'Bryant, but it seems that one of those three big men would be available by the Bulls' own pick.
It appears that size (and highly mobile size) is available all over the draft, and potential superstars are where they always are: at the top of the draft. My opinion is that the Bulls should go for the best talent at the top and then go for the biggest need with their own pick. I wouldn't be disappointed with either of those five, but if Paxson's drafting history goes through Bargnani is off of his top pick list.
Of course, it's easier if the Bulls can get two for one: a player with size and great, proven scoring capabilities. Josh McRoberts has the size and mobility, but also has the toughness that the other top big men, Aldridge and Bargnani, appear to lack, but he is not a proven scorer yet. Proven scorers/superstar-quality players are more likely found at the top of the draft, but all of those at the top have at least one question mark: Aldridge's toughness, Gay's assertiveness, Morrison's athletic ability, Bargnani's strength (and the European stigma), McRoberts' inexperience.
NBAdraft.net and DraftExpress have differing opinions on the draft stocks of Tiago Splitter, Joakim Noah, and Patrick O'Bryant, but it seems that one of those three big men would be available by the Bulls' own pick.
It appears that size (and highly mobile size) is available all over the draft, and potential superstars are where they always are: at the top of the draft. My opinion is that the Bulls should go for the best talent at the top and then go for the biggest need with their own pick. I wouldn't be disappointed with either of those five, but if Paxson's drafting history goes through Bargnani is off of his top pick list.
Where's the option for best player as long as they are not a SF or PG? I guess 2 best fits most closely resembles that.
I think we HAVE to draft a big with at least one of our picks, so two best players is not an option in my mind. I don't want to draft Foye, Morrison, or Gay. That is unless Pax thinks Gay is the best SG fit of the available players--I don't as I don't think he has the lateral quicks to keep up with fast SGs. This is why I'm so high on Carney with Roy and Brewer being right behind.
If we draft a big with our first pick, then I'd lean towards best player with our second pick. I guess I'll vote two best fits, but only because there are players I want to completely avoid.
I don't feel that this is a conservative approach at all in this particular draft. Normally, if there were a consensus top three picks and we ended up with a top three pick, I'm usually all for grabbing the best talent. However, this draft is anything but that so I think we have to go for most talent but at positions that fill our team needs. Two bigs or a big and a SG (or SG/SF).
I think we HAVE to draft a big with at least one of our picks, so two best players is not an option in my mind. I don't want to draft Foye, Morrison, or Gay. That is unless Pax thinks Gay is the best SG fit of the available players--I don't as I don't think he has the lateral quicks to keep up with fast SGs. This is why I'm so high on Carney with Roy and Brewer being right behind.
If we draft a big with our first pick, then I'd lean towards best player with our second pick. I guess I'll vote two best fits, but only because there are players I want to completely avoid.
I don't feel that this is a conservative approach at all in this particular draft. Normally, if there were a consensus top three picks and we ended up with a top three pick, I'm usually all for grabbing the best talent. However, this draft is anything but that so I think we have to go for most talent but at positions that fill our team needs. Two bigs or a big and a SG (or SG/SF).
Rhyder said:Where's the option for best player as long as they are not a SF or PG?
To me, that means best fit. The best player at a position of need versus the best player overall.
Yep, I just needed to logic it "out loud" to myself.jnrjr79 said:To me, that means best fit. The best player at a position of need versus the best player overall.
I also should note that if we have a trade of Gordon, Deng, or Noc already lined up, then I'm all for best players available.
I love Morrison's competitive fire, but he just doesn't make any sense to me with our current roster. Same with Reddick when we already have Gordon.
This is how I've said it in the past, and it remains my opinion:
With the Knicks pick, the Bulls should take the best non-point guard available. Its sort of a hybrid of best player available and best fit, I suppose. But it basically means taking the best player available. Especially since the lottery doesn't look to be point-guard heavy this season.
With the Bulls own pick they should take the best fit. In other words, the best size.
This may mean another small forward and a big. So be it. It may mean two bigs. So be that.
I still believe that a consolidation trade is needed and unavoidable regardless of who we draft. Therefore, I'm not too worried about doubling/tripling up talent at the small forward position. This just makes the drafted small forward/Deng/Nocioni that much easier to include in the inevitable consolidation trade. Moreover, since Deng and Noc can play the 4 in stretches (and some believe Deng can play the 2 as well) I don't consider a crippling short term log jam either. Even if we sign Harrington as a free agent.
So there you have it.
With the Knicks pick, the Bulls should take the best non-point guard available. Its sort of a hybrid of best player available and best fit, I suppose. But it basically means taking the best player available. Especially since the lottery doesn't look to be point-guard heavy this season.
With the Bulls own pick they should take the best fit. In other words, the best size.
This may mean another small forward and a big. So be it. It may mean two bigs. So be that.
I still believe that a consolidation trade is needed and unavoidable regardless of who we draft. Therefore, I'm not too worried about doubling/tripling up talent at the small forward position. This just makes the drafted small forward/Deng/Nocioni that much easier to include in the inevitable consolidation trade. Moreover, since Deng and Noc can play the 4 in stretches (and some believe Deng can play the 2 as well) I don't consider a crippling short term log jam either. Even if we sign Harrington as a free agent.
So there you have it.
This pretty much follows my logic as well. However, I think I've already formulated my opinions on Morrison and Gay which makes me want to stay away from them.Ron Cey said:This is how I've said it in the past, and it remains my opinion:
With the Knicks pick, the Bulls should take the best non-point guard available. Its sort of a hybrid of best player available and best fit, I suppose. But it basically means taking the best player available. Especially since the lottery doesn't look to be point-guard heavy this season.
With the Bulls own pick they should take the best fit. In other words, the best size.
This may mean another small forward and a big. So be it. It may mean two bigs. So be that.
I still believe that a consolidation trade is needed and unavoidable regardless of who we draft. Therefore, I'm not too worried about doubling/tripling up talent at the small forward position. This just makes the drafted small forward/Deng/Nocioni that much easier to include in the inevitable consolidation trade. Moreover, since Deng and Noc can play the 4 in stretches (and some believe Deng can play the 2 as well) I don't consider a crippling short term log jam either. Even if we sign Harrington as a free agent.
So there you have it.
If Paxson decides to select either of them, I would definately not be upset.
This is what made it difficult for me to vote on this poll.
I agree about the Knicks pick. If we are forced to draft a SF with the Knicks pick, then we have to take the best big available with our pick, but if we get a big guy with the NY pick, I would go back to taking the best player available. Lowry, Foye, JJ, maybe Rondo are probably the only bad fits Pax will really have to consider. I must say I like Kyle Lowry of Villanova a lot but he probably won't enter. If one of these guys is the best player available I would be surprised to see Pax keep the pick.Ron Cey said:With the Knicks pick, the Bulls should take the best non-point guard available. Its sort of a hybrid of best player available and best fit, I suppose. But it basically means taking the best player available. Especially since the lottery doesn't look to be point-guard heavy this season.
With the Bulls own pick they should take the best fit. In other words, the best size.
This may mean another small forward and a big. So be it. It may mean two bigs. So be that.
I still believe that a consolidation trade is needed and unavoidable regardless of who we draft. Therefore, I'm not too worried about doubling/tripling up talent at the small forward position. This just makes the drafted small forward/Deng/Nocioni that much easier to include in the inevitable consolidation trade. Moreover, since Deng and Noc can play the 4 in stretches (and some believe Deng can play the 2 as well) I don't consider a crippling short term log jam either. Even if we sign Harrington as a free agent.
So there you have it.
I voted for "fit."
I don't think there's a superstar in this draft (or in free agency), and unless some serious dust settles between now and draft day, the top of the draft seems insanely wide-open. When the "best player available" is likely to be only slightly better than the best fit, if at all, I think a team like ours ought to go with the fit. If we were in Charlotte's or Portland's or Golden State's shoes, I'd feel differently.
Ron, I think you're dead wrong about the effects of overloading the small forward spot, especially if we sign a "marquee" free agent to play the 4. Even with some spillover minutes at the 2 and 4, and even if the rookie or Nocioni were relegated to third-string mop-up duty, there isn't enough PT to go around, and the output/marketability of all the players involved will suffer. What worse is that it becomes Marcus Fizer, Part II: teams can easily see that we're motivated sellers, and the caliber of their offers will reflect that.
I think Paxson needs to be very cautious about the prospects of a forthcoming consolidation trade. He might not be able to get anything done that benefits the team, and he could easily end up staying put. So I think his picks have to reflect that reality and at least not make our current consolidation woes any worse.
Take the best available big with the Knicks pick -- Bargnani, Aldridge, or O'Bryant -- and take the best 2 guard with our own pick and call it a day.
I don't think there's a superstar in this draft (or in free agency), and unless some serious dust settles between now and draft day, the top of the draft seems insanely wide-open. When the "best player available" is likely to be only slightly better than the best fit, if at all, I think a team like ours ought to go with the fit. If we were in Charlotte's or Portland's or Golden State's shoes, I'd feel differently.
Ron, I think you're dead wrong about the effects of overloading the small forward spot, especially if we sign a "marquee" free agent to play the 4. Even with some spillover minutes at the 2 and 4, and even if the rookie or Nocioni were relegated to third-string mop-up duty, there isn't enough PT to go around, and the output/marketability of all the players involved will suffer. What worse is that it becomes Marcus Fizer, Part II: teams can easily see that we're motivated sellers, and the caliber of their offers will reflect that.
I think Paxson needs to be very cautious about the prospects of a forthcoming consolidation trade. He might not be able to get anything done that benefits the team, and he could easily end up staying put. So I think his picks have to reflect that reality and at least not make our current consolidation woes any worse.
Take the best available big with the Knicks pick -- Bargnani, Aldridge, or O'Bryant -- and take the best 2 guard with our own pick and call it a day.
First, great thread and poll. :clap:jnrjr79 said:I know, I know. I'm starting another draft thread. However, I thought it was important to add a poll to this question, so I think it's ok to start a new one.
Anyway, this is my question. Do you think that Pax should draft the best fitting players for the team, even if it means perhaps taking someone a bit less talented? Or, do you think that Pax should take the best 2 players available, regardless if they play positions where we're already set? I guess as a third option, I will ask if you think he should draft 1 best fit and 1 best player (perhaps the best available center and Morrisson, Gay, etc.)
If I'm right about this, I believe that people who think you should pick the best 2 players available are the types who think we are further away from a complete/good team. Those who think we should draft for fit think that if we address an issue or two, we'll be set and ready to compete down the line in the East. Is this true? Is this the reason for your preference?
Secondly, I just don't think we're good enough to grab the best fits for this team. And by fit, I don't mean positionally. I think we need to also draft based on need. We can't take a PG for example, I don't care who he is. When people say fit, I take them to mean "fits the WAY we do things." I really want whatever player makes us the best team when ALL factors (including him not perhaps being the best fit) are taken into account.
I think Detroit and San Antonio can afford to draft players who fit the way they do things. We just aren't that good. I would say we HAVE to draft one guy who is just the best guy. And then we can also take a jib player. Something like O'Bryant/S. Williams.
Clarification J as I read these postings. Does fit mean team needs or fits the way we do things (i.e. "cut of jib")?
best player available
the bulls made a mistake in the 2002 draft by jay williams over amare stoudamire
the bulls made a mistake in the 2002 draft by jay williams over amare stoudamire
I'm swayed by your logic actually. To me, nobody on this team is so good that there isn't going to be A player at their position in most drafts who couldnt' be a better long term replacement. To me Adam Morrison is better than a player like Deng because of his Reggie Millerish shot and release. I mean if you think about it, Deng is a better ALL AROUND player than Reggie ever was. But, like Morrison, that one thing made him the player you'd take over Deng ten times out of ten. Morrison isn't very good, but his skillset reminds me TOO much of Miller, who had a pure shot, a lightning quick release and played NO defense coming out of UCLA. Even five years into his career Jordan said being guarded by Miller was like being guarded by a girl. That's just me playing devil's advocate on Morrison v. Deng.mr.ankle20 said:best player available
the bulls made a mistake in the 2002 draft by jay williams over amare stoudamire
yeah, but WHO woulda thought Amare was gonna be better than Jay?? NOBODYmr.ankle20 said:best player available
the bulls made a mistake in the 2002 draft by jay williams over amare stoudamire
Yeah that to me just shows how the whole country got a Darko job from the media on Jay's worth. To me he was never that good. I do remember getting run off of J Hood for saying that Duhon would be a better pro and that Jay Williams was the great "scoring PG who CANT SCORE in the NBA." And he couldn't. He lived off of his quickness in college and in the NBA his quickness simply wasn't special. I just remember painfully watching him trying to finish and it just didn't happen. The missed dunks were UGLY.The ROY said:yeah, but WHO woulda thought Amare was gonna be better than Jay?? NOBODY
Pippenatorade said:Clarification J as I read these postings. Does fit mean team needs or fits the way we do things (i.e. "cut of jib")?
My intention for fit was to say somebody who fits in a position where we've got a need. To me, this means a long 2 and/or bigs. I'm not really having jib enter into the equation at the moment, other than if there were some guy out there whose jib is so bad we shouldn't consider him. With the current draft class, I haven't really heard those rumblings, so I think this should really be a jib-free determination.
I'm asking whether you take the best player on the board regardless of position, or just the best big/2 guard/etc.
Wasn't Jay Williams the consensus number 2 pick even though we had an up and coming PG named Jamal?mr.ankle20 said:best player available
the bulls made a mistake in the 2002 draft by jay williams over amare stoudamire
And if Amare was the consensus #2 talent, why did 7 other teams pass on him. Were they all after the best fit too? Nene, Wilcox, and Tskitishvili were all selected over Amare.
Point is, Amare wasn't the sure thing. Jay was the "best player available," at least in most mock drafts/expert opinions. Now if we had taken Shane Battier #2, I could see your point.
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Professional and College Basketball Forums
A forum community dedicated to Competitive Basketball players and enthusiasts. Talk about everything from the NBA to college basketball to even everything but basketball. It's all here!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Top Contributors this Month
View All
AlienAiden
54 Replies
Bill Russell
39 Replies
Bingo v2.0
37 Replies
Recommended Communities
