SBNation mock draft: Bulls pick has been made

Woot! Woot!

Yes, of course.

by tyger1147 on Jun 15, 2007 8:59 AM CDT reply actions

I will be in the northern woods of Minnesota when the real draft takes place. Last year I made the resort owners put their dish on ESPN so I could follow the draft. This year I'm taking the laptop to follow it.

We'll see if Pax follows Matt's pick.

Who will come and who will go? Stay tuned!

by sue369 on Jun 15, 2007 9:08 AM CDT reply actions

If the pick is between Green and Hawes

I'd take Hawes every time.

And with the 9th pick the Bulls select...

by bullshooter on Jun 15, 2007 9:21 AM CDT reply actions

Hawes

Good Pick!! I'd rather have Hawes than Green because I'm not sure if there is position for Green on this team. He would never start in front of Deng and I don't think he is big enough to play the 4.

by TT 4 Prez on Jun 15, 2007 9:40 AM CDT up reply actions

See...

I would just never worry about position, especially in this draft. What if this year or next Green shows that he can become a serviceable 15 & 6 & 4 guy in the near future? Not totally implausible. Hard to project, but what if he does?

Let's also say over the next two years that Deng improves to be a really, really good, but not great, player? His extension at a reasonable price would give the Bulls some great trading chips (combined with Hinrich). That's also why I wouldn't worry about a high-ceiling point guard. Hinrich, Gordon and Deng are pretty damn good players, but none are absolutely irreplaceable.

If the Bulls drafted Conley, Green, Julian Wright, etc. I wouldn't consider it the end of the world.

Yes, of course.

by tyger1147 on Jun 15, 2007 10:14 AM CDT up reply actions

In your scenario

the Bulls are constantly cycling players and winning 50 games and losing in the second round every year.

And with the 9th pick the Bulls select...

by bullshooter on Jun 15, 2007 10:18 AM CDT up reply actions

Really?

I didn't know you were such a prognosticator.

So... if a year from now, they get Gasol for Deng + weak parts (instead of Deng + Tyrus + #9) they won't be any better, huh?

Hinrich-Thabo
Gordon
Green
Gasol-Thomas
Wallace

is absolutely no better than

Hinrich-Duhon
Gordon
Deng-Nocioni
___
Wallace

Sure, that takes some resigning liberties or whatever, but that's what makes your predictions so absolutely astounding.

It seems to me that a year from now, Green might be only a slight drop-off from Deng (ohmygod! ludicrous! inconceivable) while Gasol would be a huge upgrade over Hawes/Noah.

Yes, of course.

by tyger1147 on Jun 15, 2007 11:56 AM CDT up reply actions

That's a pipe dream

I'd be all for trading Deng, Du and Noc for Gasol and drafting Green. However, the only trades that I heard Memphis making were Deng, Thabo and Tyrus and the #9 pick for Gasol. So no, I don't think that's what's going to happen.

And with the 9th pick the Bulls select...

by bullshooter on Jun 16, 2007 8:37 PM CDT up reply actions

So...

...You apparently don't think Deng will get much better this off-season, huh? I hadn't considered that. I'll rethink my stance now. I also hadn't considered the fact that Pau Gasol will never-ever make a trade request/demand again. My logic is surely flawed.

Yes, of course.

by tyger1147 on Jun 16, 2007 9:50 PM CDT up reply actions

By getting better

do you mean perhaps developing a back to the basket game, or becoming more of a lock-down defender? Because if Deng does that, it diminishes the Bulls need for Gasol and makes it even less likely Pax gives him up. Pax has made it clear he's only going to pay 50 cents on the dollar for a "disgruntled all-star." If Deng becomes an all-star, he's not getting traded.

And with the 9th pick the Bulls select...

by bullshooter on Jun 17, 2007 9:32 AM CDT up reply actions

That's one way.

Another could be developing a 3-pt shot, becoming a better perimeter defender or a better passer--which would all help the team certainly not diminish any need for Gasol, would it? There are many ways to get better in basketball.

Where did you see this quote that Paxson said/implied he won't be spending more than "50 cents on the dollar for disgruntled All-Stars"?

Is Deng some kind of God?

What's more probable/possible: Green approaching Deng's production or Hawes/Noah approaching Gasol's production? Being as Gasol was one of the most efficient players in the game, and that Green has a larger body of work to project him at, I say it's the former.

This is totally subjective, but let's put some guys on a 1-10 scale (I've never thought of it like this, but it at least sort of goes along with what I'm thinking):

Deng is a 7/8
Gasol a 8/9

Green, I think could be a 6-7
Hawes, anywhere from 4-8/9

To me, the choice is obvious. This draft is important; even if they do nothing, it will set things up for the future (duh). But if they sit pat and draft a bust, I don't see them ever being the elite team we want. They'll be good for many years, but not one of the top 2 or 3 teams in the league.

If you disagree that's fine, I just don't understand your "Oh my God, Luol Deng is untouchable" idea. Maybe the lack of a trade had as much to do with the combination of Deng, Tyrus and missing out on Greg Oden/Durant. In fact, I think it had as much to do with the pick as anything (not more, as much). How bad would trading Deng, Thomas and Oden for Gasol look? Horrible.

Anyway, I talk too much.

Yes, of course.

by tyger1147 on Jun 17, 2007 11:42 AM CDT up reply actions

You do talk too much

and I never said Deng was untouchable, just that Paxson wasn't going give Memphis equal talent value in a trade for Gasol, which is what they are asking for. If you read my comment for comprehension, I also said I'd gladly trade Deng and salary cap (Du, Noc, Khryapa) filler for Gasol, just that I didn't think that was likely. So wake the fuck up and pay attention.

And with the 9th pick the Bulls select...

by bullshooter on Jun 17, 2007 1:19 PM CDT up reply actions

Ouch.

The cursing stings my ears.

Yes, of course.

by tyger1147 on Jun 17, 2007 1:21 PM CDT up reply actions

Just wanted to be sure

you read the whole thing this time.

And with the 9th pick the Bulls select...

by bullshooter on Jun 17, 2007 1:24 PM CDT up reply actions

Definitely.

Admittedly, being hungover affects my reading comprehension abilities, too.

Yes, of course.

by tyger1147 on Jun 17, 2007 1:32 PM CDT up reply actions

me neither

in fact, I'm guessing whoever Pax takes will make most of us happy since we'll immediately start talking ourselves into liking it :)

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jun 15, 2007 10:18 AM CDT up reply actions

DAmn spurs

they just had wo win the championship when it was the bulls turn to pick on a mock draft night. But hawes is a good pick even though I would feel a lot more comfortable with the Spurs trade scenario.

by Sambossanova on Jun 15, 2007 9:30 AM CDT reply actions

Nicely done sir

Hawes feels like the right pick from what we know. The IndyCornrows guy seems to like him too.

Can't wait to see how Pax comes out on all this.

Draft pick rodeo -- Yi Hawes!

by preverbal on Jun 15, 2007 10:13 AM CDT reply actions

that trade

seems like trading for a bunch of spare parts. I guess I have a different conception of Scola than some around here - I don't think he'd be all that helpful. Of the 6 elements changing hands in that trade, the Bulls would seemingly give up the most valuable - the #9 pick.

But I'm not sure Hawes will be helpful (right away, anyway) either, so I guess I don't have any better plan.

I wish Hibbert had kept his name in the draft. We need at least 1 person in the 7- or 8-man rotation who's taller than 6'9". I guess Hawes is it.

by Bayern Munich on Jun 15, 2007 10:20 AM CDT reply actions

Elson is 7'

so there you (would) go, you have a tall guy to root for.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jun 15, 2007 10:25 AM CDT up reply actions

Fair enough

Certainly, he could be a good addition. I haven't seen him play too much, but he could be a useful tool.

Even so - I feel like the most valuable single piece in the 6-piece deal is the #9 pick, and the Bulls are on the wrong side of that piece's movement. But, as I've said, I don't have any easy answers either.

by Bayern Munich on Jun 15, 2007 1:10 PM CDT up reply actions

Hawes and Green

The only thing Hawes has going for him is his age and that's only if you believe he has room for improvement. I'm skeptical of that because he's a modestly athletic post player.

I guess the three or four inches Hawes has on Tyler Hansbrough is another big factor as they're similar players with the exception of Hansbrough's massively superior production in college and Hansbrough isn't considered a great NBA prospect.

Green v. Hawes in 06-07

Name	%Min	eFG%	FT%	PPWS	Pts	A	TO	BS	S	OR%	DR%
Green	83.0	56.0	77.5	1.20	28.8	6.4	5.2	2.3	1.6	7.3	16.3
Hawes	69.0	53.3	75.5	1.14	29.5	3.8	5.0	3.5	1.0	8.1	18.1

Green's eFG% isn't just a result of his three-point shooting. He made a higher percentage of his two-point shots (55.9) than did Hawes (53.3).

I don't know if Green and Deng could play alongside each other effectively (there are certainly situations in which they would struggle defensively) but I'm pretty sure that Green and Deng would be more productive than Deng and Hawes.

by Hoopinion on Jun 15, 2007 10:27 AM CDT reply actions

clarification

Pts, A, TO, BS, and S above are represented per 100 individual possessions.

by Hoopinion on Jun 15, 2007 10:42 AM CDT up reply actions

Hawes was sick

and is a freshman. Green was a ball handling small forward. How is that comparison valid? And no, you can't play Deng and Green next to each other.

And with the 9th pick the Bulls select...

by bullshooter on Jun 15, 2007 11:28 AM CDT up reply actions

Hawes was sick!

oh, you meant that in the literal way...

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jun 15, 2007 11:31 AM CDT up reply actions

heh ;-)

And with the 9th pick the Bulls select...

by bullshooter on Jun 15, 2007 11:31 AM CDT up reply actions

Hawes whole appeal

is that he could be conceivably be good at some unspecified point in the future.

In his one year of college he barely outrebounded a "ball-handling small forward," made fewer two-point field goals, and turned the ball over almost as often as Green but without a similar number of assists.

I don't think the Bulls get better by adding a player who could develop into Zaza Pachulia or Nick Collison.

by Hoopinion on Jun 15, 2007 11:33 AM CDT up reply actions

Absolutely they do...

Get better, that is. Having a legit 7-footer that at least demands defensive attention is all this Bulls team needs. With Deng adding a little post game and Tyrus continuing to develop his scoring ability, next year's offense will be an improvement over this year.

Great pick Matt.

by paxson43 on Jun 15, 2007 11:38 AM CDT up reply actions

Hawes v. Aaron Gray

Name	%Min	eFG%	FT%	PPWS	Pts	A	TO	BS	S	OR%	DR%
Gray	67.7	56.5	54.8	1.15	31.3	3.8	3.4	3.9	0.9	14.8	25.4
Hawes	69.0	53.3	75.5	1.14	29.5	3.8	5.0	3.5	1.0	8.1	18.1

That's Gray's senior year versus Hawes' freshman year, but even an immobile "legit 7-footer" like Gray never posted an OR% below 12.9 in any season of his college career.

Hawes will be picked on the basis of his upside (and I think his offensive game has room for growth) but his low OR% and S/100 numbers really give me doubt as to whether or not he can ever be good at enough things to be a starter on a good team.

Regardless of positional need, I'd rather draft a good basketball player than Spencer Hawes were I given the chance but maybe there's a market for Eddy Curry nostalgia in Chicago. Or Mike Sweetney with a higher center of gravity.

by Hoopinion on Jun 15, 2007 11:51 AM CDT up reply actions

He doesn't need to rebound

that's Ben Wallaces job, he needs to score. Drafting Green for this Bulls team is either dumb, or means Deng is gone. Green doesn't add anything to this Bulls team or help any of it's deficiencies. Best case scenario for Green is that he is an upgrade over Noc at backup SF. Why would you use the pick that way?

And with the 9th pick the Bulls select...

by bullshooter on Jun 15, 2007 11:56 AM CDT up reply actions

That's sort of my point

Green is more of an upgrade over Nocioni (in the short term) than Hawes is over PJ Brown/Malik Allen/Mike Sweetney.

by Hoopinion on Jun 15, 2007 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions

That's just plain wrong

plus PJ and Noc might both be gone/hurt/too old and slow next year. Again, why would you use the pick for a backup to your best player who plays 40+ minutes a night when you have a glaring hole on your team?

And with the 9th pick the Bulls select...

by bullshooter on Jun 15, 2007 12:01 PM CDT up reply actions

That question has already been answered.

Yes, of course.

by tyger1147 on Jun 15, 2007 12:06 PM CDT up reply actions

does he have 3pt range?

I think the backup to Deng would be better if they had 3 pt range like Noc to help space the floor

by NY Chicago Fan on Jun 15, 2007 2:34 PM CDT up reply actions

You're right, sort of.

Green doesn't add anything "now". But what is there that adds anything now? If he's a very good starting small forward that allows the Bulls to shop Deng after his extension kicks in, doesn't that add something? Why are you ignoring this point? (And I didn't know that teams only rely on one position or player--especially an 'aging' one--to get all of its rebounds.)

The point is: Deng could be used to address deficiencies, Green could allow the team to then not have created other deficiencies.

(Such as, trading Ben Gordon for a 20-pt scorer seems to just replace one need with another. Drafting someone like Green--it won't happen, so why are we discussing it--allows the Bulls to avoid this.)

Yes, of course.

by tyger1147 on Jun 15, 2007 12:05 PM CDT up reply actions

9th picks aren't future backups.

They should be starters:

Since 97, here are some #9 Picks(granted, some sucked too)
TMac
Nowitzki
S. Marion
Pryzbilla
A. Stoudemire
Iguodola

The rest were mostly mistakes, but quality can be had, especially in stronger drafts like this one. I think expecting someone as good as Iguodola is reasonable for a strong draft.

Like a proud papa...

by cubbybear on Jun 17, 2007 11:12 PM CDT up reply actions

First, you're ignoring

that the dude had a serious illness that impeded his development. Second, Gray got owned by Hawes when the two matched up. Hawes status as a hampered freshman means a lot more than you're giving him credit for.

what about little butterchubs there?

by colintj on Jun 15, 2007 1:49 PM CDT up reply actions

Didn't Gray sprain his ankle in that game?

He missed their next game at Seton Hall.

I recall Hawes getting the better of the matchup, but looking at the numbers neither one distinguished himself.

Gray was awful (2-7 from the field, 1-2 from the line, 3 OR, 7 DR, and 2 each of A, TO, BS, and S) but Hawes (6-16 from the field, no FTA, 4 OR, 8 DR, 4 A, 2 TO, 3 BS, and a steal) was good only in comparison to Gray.

I certainly don't think that Gray is the better player but I seem to think that Hawes is a lot less farther along in his development than other folks do.

by Hoopinion on Jun 15, 2007 1:56 PM CDT up reply actions

outrebounded

hawes was playing next to some guy named brokman who apparently steals everyones rebounds (some insane number like 10 rebounds a game).

by Sambossanova on Jun 15, 2007 11:50 AM CDT up reply actions

Brockman

is an excellent rebounder (he's also about 6-6): 17.6 OR% and 25.8 DR%.

Playing alongside an excellent rebounder doesn't necessarily depress your own rebounding numbers. Al Horford put up (OR%/DR%) 12.2/27 alongside Joakim Noah's 13.3/24.6 and vice versa.

Hawes isn't a bad player (probably) but, on-court, he's been outperformed by the other potential lottery picks .

by Hoopinion on Jun 15, 2007 11:56 AM CDT up reply actions

I'm not saying Hawes will rebound like

Noah or Horford. He's also not as bad as his statistics suggest. Before he got sick and lost twenty lbs, his rebounding was alot better. And the other major factor isn't Brockman, although I've read that explanation. The bigger explanation is that Hawes had to spend alot of his time on offense and defense outside the 3-point line. No one, except for Rodman, is going to get alot of rebounds out there. He was the only guy who could make the post entry pass to Brockman on the team so he had play outside alot in the high-low. On defense, he had to guard alot of 6-7 college PFs out by the 3-point line. When he played Aaron Gray at could stay in the paint, Hawes grabbed 12 rebounds.

by Scotter on Jun 15, 2007 12:05 PM CDT up reply actions

There's no doubt

Washington was a screwed up team last year with awful perimeter play and no defense of which to speak.

At the risk of giving Lorenzo Romar too much credit, doesn't it give you pause that the player who would be drafted to give the Bulls a post presence offensively was used to feed an inferior post player this past season?

by Hoopinion on Jun 15, 2007 12:14 PM CDT up reply actions

No because College is made for the

6-7 wide bodied PF. They're everywhere and all they have to do is seal another short player with their big butts. The other reason is that Brockman lacked the ability to make the post entry pass so Romar couldn't just flip them around. Hawes could feed Brockman, but nobody could get the ball to Hawes.

by Scotter on Jun 15, 2007 1:36 PM CDT up reply actions

The whole appeal of Hawes is that he is good

now. You're mixing up a Tyrus Thomas "developmental player" with Hawes. Hawes already has all the skills. "Development" for him is getting stronger and getting adjusted to the level of competition. Which is why your Hansborough comparison was awful. Tyler's a beast, but he has no jumpshot, doesn't pass well, and is undersized in the NBA. They're two completely different players, which is why Hansborough's never been considered more than a mid-1st round pick, and Hawes has always been a lottery pick.

by Scotter on Jun 15, 2007 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions

As college freshmen

Name	%Min	eFG%	FT%	PPWS	Pts	A	TO	BS	S	OR%	DR%
Hawes	69.0	53.3	75.5	1.14	29.5	3.8	5.0	3.5	1.0	8.1	18.1
Thomas	57.2	61.0	65.7	1.27	27.7	2.9	4.1	6.9	2.3	12.7	26.2

Hawes missed one game, Thomas missed four.

Tyrus Thomas, without any offensive game at all as a freshman at LSU was a more efficient scorer than Hawes and almost as productive a scorer in terms of volume while be a far superior rebounder and defender.

Hawes absolutely has massive developmental work to do as a rebounder and defender before he can be a useful NBA player. And that's assuming that his offensive skills (which were not especially effective at Washington last year) translate immediately to the NBA.

I think Hawes would have good value at the end of the first round, but there a lot more than 8 players better than Hawes in this draft.

by Hoopinion on Jun 15, 2007 12:08 PM CDT up reply actions

You're comparing

apples to oranges and putting up false arguments. You're comparing one of the top 15 athletes in the NBA to Hawes, and think you're making a point? Have you seen any of Hawes's games? It doesn't sound like it.

Your use of college statistics is also pretty meaning less outside of the rebounding numbers, which I've already addressed. College stats have no value without context. For instance Thomas played as the 4th option on a good team where he never had a played called for him. Hawes's lead his team in his scoring. Was always the 1st or second option, and was the primary focus of the defense. And he played with a bunch of crap. If you want to look base things on college stats, look up Michael Sweetney's. There really good, I bet he's a great NBA player.

by Scotter on Jun 15, 2007 12:19 PM CDT up reply actions

I'm only putting their college stats into context

Those numbers are per possession or, in the case of rebounds, per opportunity.

Despite being the 1st or 2nd option, Hawes barely outscored Thomas who, you quite rightly point out, never had a play called for him. (Or if he did have a play called for him it would end badly, if not comically.)

I have seen Hawes play quite a bit. That's why I'm flabbergasted that he's considered less of a project than Thomas was last year.

by Hoopinion on Jun 15, 2007 12:28 PM CDT up reply actions

That's not the context,

I was talking about. Here's what I saw when I watched Hawes in close to a dozen games this year. Hawes playing with no point guard, actually no perimeter players that could penetrate and pass. So there was no one he could effectively play in the pick and roll with. One 3-point shooter in Appleby on the entire team. So there was no one to space the floor to open up the post. On defense, I saw a player that was trying to do the right thing. Trying to get good position, but was thinking too much. I believe he'll be a better rebounder and defender when he can stop thinking about what to do and just play. And despite all that crap, Hawes played within the system even though he was their most effective offensive player.

That's why I want him for the Bulls. He played within the system. On the Bulls, he's going to get open shots off the pick and roll/pop. Gordon and Hinrich will space the floor, and give him space to actually use his moves. He'll make the Bulls better by scoring in the post some, but his passing is the big key. The ability to find Deng on cuts. The ability to find shooters from the post or on the perimeter. What seperates Hawes from all these small forwards with better statistics is his ability to make the game easier for the other players.

by Scotter on Jun 15, 2007 12:59 PM CDT up reply actions

It sounds like we mostly saw the same games

we just interpreted them differently. You saw "thinking too much" and I saw "too slow." So I have questions about him being able to get shots off against NBA competition.

by Hoopinion on Jun 15, 2007 1:07 PM CDT up reply actions

Every scouting report I have read indicates that

Hawes is a mediocre athlete, especially on the defensive end. (Someone here actually compiled a nice compendium of those critiques.)

I realize he is young, but he probably isn't going to get more athletic as he ages.

Why do the Bulls need another average athlete? We have enough of those.

I hope Paxson takes the best athlete available at nine, regardless of whether he meets our specific needs. It would be great if he could move up to snag Brewer or Yi.

by 1958ChiTown on Jun 15, 2007 12:17 PM CDT up reply actions

Do you think Deng has gotten

more athletic? It certainly appears, he's improved his vertical and how fast he gets off the floor. I don't think he's going to be a great in terms of running and jumping. But, he's 19 like Deng was coming into the NBA. I except Hawes to be stronger and build his lower body as he matures, which I would except to make him at least jump better.

by Scotter on Jun 15, 2007 12:24 PM CDT up reply actions

Here is an interesting little interview with Hawes

http://www.draftexpress.com/viewprofile.php?p=483

by 1958ChiTown on Jun 15, 2007 1:24 PM CDT up reply actions

He's a true center

those guys (Oden excepted) aren't usually your best athletes. 2's, 3's and maybe 4's are usually more athletic. The athlete thing is overrated.

And with the 9th pick the Bulls select...

by bullshooter on Jun 15, 2007 12:39 PM CDT up reply actions

Carl Lewis was the best Bull ever

by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on Jun 15, 2007 12:46 PM CDT up reply actions

he was certainly the fastest.

And with the 9th pick the Bulls select...

by bullshooter on Jun 15, 2007 12:48 PM CDT up reply actions

yes

Upgrade the athleticism. Pax did a great job in last year's draft, but we could still use an upgrade. Throw another athlete or two into the mix and the Bulls become a team that's really hard to handle. I think of that lineup we ran out against the Pistons late in the season where we blew them out in the 3rd. It was Sefolosha, Thomas, Deng and I can't remember who else. If the rotation has more players like that in it, we become extremely hard to manage, especially the second unit.

Take the best player available.

by jamestkirk on Jun 15, 2007 1:31 PM CDT up reply actions

Alright!

We have our own version of Andrew Bynum!

by Kantut on Jun 15, 2007 12:02 PM CDT reply actions

maybe

with more refined post skills and perhaps a little bit less upside.

by Sambossanova on Jun 15, 2007 1:02 PM CDT up reply actions

Rebounding

I'm enjoying the reading; great comments all around. I'm sure a lot of people know more about Hawes than I do, but if someone is a marginal or even poor rebounder for his size in college, he's not going to get better in the pros. In fact, he's probably going to get worse. It's one statistic that translates well from college to pros. If someone's a below-average rebounder in college, they're going to be a below-average rebounder in the pros, or worse. Adam Morrison is a classic example. It's also why teams miss on players like Boozer and Milsap. They poo-poo their college numbers because they're undersized or whatever, then low and behold they're actually good in the pros.

by jamestkirk on Jun 15, 2007 1:22 PM CDT reply actions

The question is whether Hawes

is really an below-average rebounder or he is merely an average rebounder hinder. If he is merely average, he's likely to get a little better. The rebounding translating from college is more consistently applicable to non-centers. 7 footers are a slightly different category.

by Scotter on Jun 15, 2007 1:43 PM CDT up reply actions

Spencer Hawes is a stiff

I'm pretty sure Paxson will have the brains to not draft this 7 foot bench-warming practice dummy so you all better keep your hopes down. This guys is a complete stiff, there are no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Forget drafting for need this year, this draft is too loaded! There is too much talent there for having to resort to drafting a 7 foot white guy just because the team needs a center. The track record on 7 foot white guys taken in the lottery isn't so good, if you haven't noticed. Paxson is smart enough to avoid disaster, but apparently everyone else is pretty sold on drafting a stiff.

by vlad001 on Jun 15, 2007 2:28 PM CDT reply actions

Get the best talent possible

with the 9th pick, then draft all the stiffs you want after that. The key is to not blow the 9th pick.

by vlad001 on Jun 15, 2007 2:29 PM CDT up reply actions

What Hawes Brings...

Post offense.

I cant say all the stats on hawes are wrong, but i dont he is as bad as alot of people are making him out to be. From what ive heard, its really hard to develop a post game, it is impossible to learn size, and the younger you are the more pottential you have to get better.

Hawes is only 19, at best it would be better to look at him when he is at the age of 22 to determine what his nba future really will be. Hawes is a 7 footer, and of all the 7 footers in this draft, the only 7 footers i think are better will probably be drafted before pick 9 (oden and yi, although i still dont think yi is what we need, and dont buy into his hype of being so great). And finally, without any doubt hawes is THE BEST POST GAME PLAYER IN THE DRAFT, BETTER THAN EVEN ODEN.

I think having hawes right now, wouldnt make him a great star on our team, but when we need inside scoring it would be nice to send someone in, other than sweetney. I mean do you think sweetney is more athletic than hawes?? there have been several games that sweetney has come off the bench and actually been a huge contribution to the team (not this year really, but last year in the playoffs). I think hawes can contribute the same as sweetney at his best, right now.

By the age of 22, or his third year i am hping hawes would have added 30 or 40 lbs of muscle, though it still wouldnt make him the strongest, that should be good enough to play like pau gasol.

also, hawes has range on his jumpshot like pj brown (in his workouts he was easily able to extend to the nba 3 point line) can run the court fairly well and pass above average for a center (he played gaurd until he hit a growth spurt and became a 7 footer), and knows of his weaknesses and will definetly try to overcome them (being with the bulls, a franchise that pushes working hard and getting better, you can see hawes become stronger, and the bulls wont let him have sub par defense)

I think hawes is a great pick

im trying hard to become the next kirk hinrich, therefore im doing nothing more than being the next chris duhon.

by piccolomair on Jun 15, 2007 3:08 PM CDT up reply actions

the stiff thing

shut up with the stiff thing. He is a center its not like he is going to jump 40 inches and run down the court faster than deng or something. If he is a stiff I am sure paxson knows that by now but I highly doubt it. He seems like a fluid player. Plus a lot of people would have wanted to take hibbert. Now hes is a stiff, albeit a very good one. But then again hes black so i guess hes not a stiff like Hawes right?

by Sambossanova on Jun 15, 2007 4:12 PM CDT up reply actions

That's my thing...

The two things that people really need to lay off when arguing against Hawes is his race/color and his "stiffness".

He's white, so be it. So was Pau Gasol; whom so many want. And he's not stiff. He's slow and can't jump--use those as the arguments, but he's not stiff. As you said, he's very fluid. For anyone to say Hawes is stiff means they haven't actually watched him play. And if they have, well, I guess I'll just have to "agree to disagree" on what we've seen.

Yes, of course.

by tyger1147 on Jun 15, 2007 4:44 PM CDT up reply actions

Hibbert is a statue

by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on Jun 15, 2007 4:55 PM CDT up reply actions

Hawes is my nightmare pick

There's such a long history of bad big men going late in the lottery that it would be hard to get excited about Hawes as a Bull. That said he's only 19 and there has been some recent success finding very young big men in the late lottery (Stoudamire, Bynum). I guess I'd go with Julian Wright even though he doesn't fit a need or draft Crittenton.

by theundergroundman on Jun 15, 2007 5:10 PM CDT reply actions

I never liked the idea

of Gasol on the Bulls (unless as a gift). Just doesn't seem to be a Skiles defensive player. 'Course I thought getting Wallace meant a finals trip! (Next year?...)

Seems the best evidence for Hawes is his top recruit status at C a year ago. Like he needs to go back to show what he can do without an illness excuse. Or even transfer if the team is holding him back. Then any comparison to Duncan or Gasol would be less ludicrous with >6reb/gm.
But if he gets picked at #9, it's the right move for him, no? Unless he never develops into the player he could've been....rumoured to happen to others before. Sac/Atl/Phi/Was...hey anyone could use a big man with upside, if willing to wait years...,I wonder where Hawes ends up, if not #9? Matt, as an experiment you could've passed on him, just to see.

Since maybe one other member (might?) agree with me, so it must mean I'm wrong, but if Paxson took Noah I'd be excited!
Though playing Wallace and TT with him could get funky. Plenty of Blocks and Transition/ TO's (for Bulls... and the opponent!).
Seriously, it is very possible to stop a post game. JO,Shaq,Gasol(zero post season wins),Cavs stiffs even did okay on Duncan ('tho he knew abusing them wasn't necessary?)...a team's strength can be turned into a dependancy to be used against them. Better to have more than one player with back to the basket capability, ala Detroit, methinks. Less predictable.

If Brewer, Horford, BWright, Yi, Conley are gone, I'm glad to get Noah at 9. Or Nick Young, who seems less a stretch/project even. Make a trade for Hawes 3 years from now with whomever he's been languishing. Just like JO, Curry, Chandler the change of scenery will make a (relative) star of him.

by marionette on Jun 15, 2007 7:49 PM CDT reply actions

ooh, I wouldn't say nightmare pick

Just sayin' prepare for probable long development that may only pay off for another team. If you can afford a (possible) wasted pick...

Maybe Noah will suck. Maybe he gives what BBen and TT do, and things they don't. Like made FTs and IQ.

I just see him getting minutes and producing, like now. And getting better thru hard work. Though the screams are a bit much. Kinda like a clown (non-threatening) version of KG with hair.

by marionette on Jun 15, 2007 8:16 PM CDT up reply actions

Made FTs?

He was a 66 percent free throw shooter last year in college.

by Big D on Jun 16, 2007 11:03 AM CDT up reply actions

You're right

And: Noah 73.3% ('06)
Hawes 75.5% ('07)
Wallace (too low to print)

by marionette on Jun 17, 2007 11:43 PM CDT up reply actions

Nick Young

I like Nick Young as well and he will very likely be available at 9. Not a big man but could be a playmaker in the NBA.

by goldengod on Jun 15, 2007 9:39 PM CDT up reply actions

He appears to be the safest big guard

/ traditional SG pick. 6-5 or 6-6 with 40in vert to go with the pure shot. Maybe softens the blow a bit if Gordon is traded for front court post/paint player. Don't know who that would be. None of the usual suspects, from Bonsi to Zach, impress as suitable characters. Young patterns himself after Kobe, so will he chuck from beyond or be tough and post (like Mike)?
At 9 seems about 5 or 6 picks early, but someone on DraftExpress had the Bobcats taking him 8th. He's definitely climbed up recently.

by marionette on Jun 16, 2007 2:02 AM CDT up reply actions

Be realistic with Hawes here

This guy is another Chris Mihm, at best.

by vlad001 on Jun 16, 2007 10:33 AM CDT reply actions

Great one-line analysis!

Rasheed Wallace likes to comment about guys' butts. -"Them butt holes got tighter and TIGHTER."

by NittanyBull on Jun 16, 2007 11:01 AM CDT up reply actions

7 foot white lottery picks

Do not succeed in the NBA. Maybe teams pick them because they are 7 feet, but their quickness and athleticism are so lacking that the 3-4 extra inches take away more than they give. Bogut and Kaman are probably the best we will ever see, and they are career 12pt 7rb guys.

by vlad001 on Jun 16, 2007 11:44 AM CDT up reply actions

one is the reigning MVP

by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on Jun 16, 2007 11:56 AM CDT up reply actions

Neither do most 7 foot black lottery picks.

What is your point? I can only guess you are being purposefully abrasive. There are plenty of successful/functional white 7 footers. Nowitzki, Gasol? Your namesake? Vlade Divacs? Not a lottery pick, but successful. Same with Brad Miller, Jeff Foster, even Oberto, Varejao, or any of the other non-black centers. All serve their roles. Nine is not where you usually find a star, but you hope they can start on the NBA level. Don't be so blindly judgemental. I'd guess you've never seen him play.

by Repeat Threepeat on Jun 16, 2007 12:14 PM CDT up reply actions

Pax Jax types faster than me.

by Repeat Threepeat on Jun 16, 2007 12:15 PM CDT up reply actions

I don't think Gasol is considered white.

He's a Spaniard

Rasheed Wallace likes to comment about guys' butts. -"Them butt holes got tighter and TIGHTER."

by NittanyBull on Jun 16, 2007 1:54 PM CDT up reply actions

Thanks for noticing.

This makes my point invalid. I take back everything I said.

by Repeat Threepeat on Jun 16, 2007 5:25 PM CDT up reply actions

Just trying to help you out, Princess.

No need for the hostile remark

Rasheed Wallace likes to comment about guys' butts. -"Them butt holes got tighter and TIGHTER."

by NittanyBull on Jun 16, 2007 5:57 PM CDT up reply actions

You haven't seen hostile yet

That was called sarcasm, but calling me "Princess" while hiding behind a computer screen is one way to get a hostile remark.

by Repeat Threepeat on Jun 17, 2007 7:53 AM CDT up reply actions

I haven't seen hostile yet? Oh God no!

That was a rude remark on my part though, so sorry. I sure wouldn't like to see you get hostile

Rasheed Wallace likes to comment about guys' butts. -"Them butt holes got tighter and TIGHTER."

by NittanyBull on Jun 17, 2007 11:41 AM CDT up reply actions

ah, so colossus IS back

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jun 17, 2007 11:08 AM CDT up reply actions

God save us

by paxson43 on Jun 17, 2007 11:16 AM CDT up reply actions

Hardy har-har

Rasheed Wallace likes to comment about guys' butts. -"Them butt holes got tighter and TIGHTER."

by NittanyBull on Jun 17, 2007 11:42 AM CDT up reply actions

hmm

i think anyone would be happy with getting a player like kaman or bogut with the 9.

by smegmatic on Jun 16, 2007 3:07 PM CDT up reply actions

I know I would be

by bu11s on Jun 16, 2007 4:48 PM CDT up reply actions

Hello

Just wanted to say hello. I am a kings fan making my usual rounds on these blogs. Anyway i wanted to ask if Julian Wright was available, on the unlikely chance, would bulls fans want to see a local kid get a backup spot for a few seasons? Or would you prefer Hawes to fill a need and go another direction with another roster spots? Anyway I was just curious. Since Chicago doesn't have a real clear need I figure Paxson will take the best player he feels is regardless of position.

by pookeyguru on Jun 18, 2007 2:14 AM CDT reply actions

they do have a clear need

it's not necessarily by position, but they do need somebody who can post up and maybe command a double-team.

Hawes likely won't be effective enough to do that next season, but if he can even play a little (and if he's a total project I assume the Bulls will pass) the Bulls flat-out need big men in their rotation, as they have a lot of FAs.

Wright is an option too as getting a backup SF isn't that redundant considering Nocioni may be on his way out.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jun 18, 2007 9:37 AM CDT up reply actions

I heard a rumor

Would Shareef Abdur Rahim interest you? I'm all in favor for trading him for Chris Duhon over the summer (salaries don't match up but the difference could be made up in cap space). I forgot to put that in there too. I don't hate Shareef I just think he would fit in well and the Kings don't really have a buyers market for him so selling him cheap may be the best recourse to move on.

Michael Jordan is overrated...except for those 6 titles 4 MVP's DPY and other things like Bryon Russell's ankle...

by pookeyguru on Jun 18, 2007 6:52 PM CDT up reply actions