It comes down to two freshmen: [video=youtube;8hYfDCxUX9I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hYfDCxUX9I&NR=1[/video] [video=youtube;Y8YlWj6XE2U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8YlWj6XE2U[/video]
I'm always in the mindset that if you're going to take #1, get the guy that makes everyone around him better (regardless of size). This means either by strong defense ability (which means less help D effort from other teammates around him) or by great playmaking (setting teammates up for easy buckets). I'd go Derrick Rose, even though Beasley is the readiest to play right now. I get the feeling that you get more from Rose than just scoring (leadership, good man-to-man D, nice attitude). If he were to play for Nelly he'd be a bigger impact than Beasley IMO. The reason I say that is because what position will Beasley play? Right now he's in between a small forward and a power forward and we don't need that type of defensive liability at power forward or small forward unless they're big enough to play a true position like Kevin Garnett or Pau Gasol. Those types who don't fit a position who can flat out score either remind me of Antwan Jamison, Antoine Walker, or Jamaal Mashburn. We're talking versatile, tremendous scorers, but also high volume gunners who don't really lead the team or play good D. So yeah, I'd go with Rose because I believe he'll be a bigger franchise impact than Beasley. If we're arguing "best player available" and position of need, you still take Rose because he does both. If Baron walks or we lose Ellis somehow, Rose can play either guard position. In fact, I would love it if we had a team that featured Ellis and Rose in the same backcourt. Talk about unbeatable quickness.
I trade the pick and and get a game changer in return. I'm not really big on anyone in the draft this year.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Custodianrules2 @ Apr 23 2008, 04:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm always in the mindset that if you're going to take #1, get the guy that makes everyone around him better (regardless of size). This means either by strong defense ability (which means less help D effort from other teammates around him) or by great playmaking (setting teammates up for easy buckets). I'd go Derrick Rose, even though Beasley is the readiest to play right now. I get the feeling that you get more from Rose than just scoring (leadership, good man-to-man D, nice attitude). If he were to play for Nelly he'd be a bigger impact than Beasley IMO. The reason I say that is because what position will Beasley play? Right now he's in between a small forward and a power forward and we don't need that type of defensive liability at power forward or small forward unless they're big enough to play a true position like Kevin Garnett or Pau Gasol. Those types who don't fit a position who can flat out score either remind me of Antwan Jamison, Antoine Walker, or Jamaal Mashburn. We're talking versatile, tremendous scorers, but also high volume gunners who don't really lead the team or play good D. So yeah, I'd go with Rose because I believe he'll be a bigger franchise impact than Beasley. If we're arguing "best player available" and position of need, you still take Rose because he does both. If Baron walks or we lose Ellis somehow, Rose can play either guard position. In fact, I would love it if we had a team that featured Ellis and Rose in the same backcourt. Talk about unbeatable quickness.</div> I think Derrick Rose will take to the NBA very well CR2. The guy can penetrate, dish, has size, athleticism and he's only a freshman. I like that leadership, good D and super attitude, too. He could be ready to start in year 2. He'd be my pick at #1. I'm sure he'll get Biedrins and Wright involved more. Rose's weakness is his shot, but he should be able to find his stroke after the coaches work with him. Michael Beasley is a force but that was in high school. He had a super year at KState, but one of his weaknesses is size at the 4 and you can't teach size there!!!111!!!111. I think he's taller than Antawn Jamison though, but probably not by much. You really got to put this guy next to some true 6' 9" guys to make sure. There are questions about his mental game and ability to focus, too. I think you make a great point about guys who can flat out score, but don't really lead their team or play good D. Zach Randolph is another who comes to mind. I would really like to see this team next year. We'll have a tremendous nucleus for the future: PG: Baron, Rose SG: Monta, Azubuike, Belinelli SF: Jax, Harrington C: Biedrins PF: Wright, Harrington
Interesting question. I'm pretty torn on this actually. I am of the belief that Beasley is not a pure PF, even more of a SF in the west. Like others have mentioned previously, you have to wonder about his defensive ability at either position. Zach Randolph is an interesting comparison, I'd say hes more like Carmelo (with better rebounding) but he is similar to both in that hes very mobile but undersized for the PF and big and a little slow for SF. Hes got the complete game; solid post game with the turnaround J and floaters, finishes well in traffic, hes athletic and powerful enough to finish amongst the trees. Hes also got the mid-range/long range game since hes got a nice jumpshot and a good handle for his size along with solid quickness and first step. Obviously hes got a nose for rebounds as well though no other part of his game really stands out to me. Rose will not be a Chris Paul, Jason Kidd, Steve Nash type of PG IMO. I've heard a comparison to "Marbury with his head screwed on right" and IMO thats pretty spot on. He doesn't have the elite level passing skills but hes just an echelon below. Not bad but certainly not on the level of the elite guys. Of course hes also got that big body, penetration and scoring ability, defense, and leadership. IMO neither Beasley nor Rose are once-in-a-lifetime prospects like your LeBrons, Duncans, Shaqs, etc. I would tend to go with the guy who projects as a PF with the post game but as I think about it more Rose would be an AWESOME pair with Monta. Monta has to be paired with a big PG who can defend SGs and still be a legit distributor on the other end. We just drafted Wright last year who is projected to be our PF of the future (IMO hes a better prospect than Beasley too). Ultimately, I'd probably go with Beasley. Yes, I don't think hes a pure PF. Yes, I question whether hes 6'9. But when I watch him I see hes just got that "it". Its not that Rose doesn't have it but I like that Beasley has it as an SF/PF. I do think that Beasley will be a great scorer in the NBA and if he measures favorably at 6'10 in shoes its a done deal. Hes got the complete offensive game in a (hopefully) 6'10 frame. You can't really go wrong with Rose either but I think you gotta go with the big fella at #1. This al changes if Beasley measures out at 6'8 though, which is very possible.
I'd trade the pick to New York Knicks for five future first rounders...wait Isaiah's already been fired. Then I'd trade the pick to the Memphis Grizzilies for Kwame Brown, Javaris Crittenden, and the Lakers first round pick, who will then trade the pick to the Lakers for George Karl's son. Jerry West, you're a genius. Do you get a ring when the Lakers win it all this year? But I think I'd go with the guy who got sick eating gummy bears before the Final Four. He sounds pretty good.
Ha ha Rose... funny how he O.D'd on gummi bears. Run, Just to clarify I do like Michael Beasley. I think he's got tremendous understanding of offense and how to create offense inside and out. I just think he's a crap defensive player who will get a rude awakening in the nba when he finds out everyone at the small forward position can score pretty well... if you don't defend them properly. So while this kid maybe be an instant all-star when you draft him, does he provide the right team chemistry? Does he lead by example defensively and is willing to make that adjustment? I'm not so sure... But scouts love this guy because he is by far the most nba ready prospect you can find in terms of offensive skill level (like Kevin Durant). He knows all the moves, great coordination, great fundamentals, great hands, has very few weaknesses outside of defensive effort. He dominates in college as a Freshman and that's green flag for being a future nba leader in scoring. But the key word "defensive effort" is something he can improve upon, but I don't know if he's about that kind of game. This guy has the ability to block shots, get steals and play good position defense at small forward, but the guy still isn't very proven at the collegiate level in how to play defense. Maybe it's the coach... who knows... I don't know. He sounds like a player we can use since he can cover small forward and power forward position (granted he's scoring the ball and rebounding). He's got a lot of potential with that smooth offense and athleticism of his. But I just don't see how he would make other guys better. He's still a #2 IMO. But maybe to us he could be a #1 value because he could be a great finisher at a high%. As long as we have a guy that set the table for him, maybe we don't worry about his lack of passing and forcing the issue. His shooting % is very good, so I don't think he takes bad shots, but maybe in the nba level he may be finding himself struggling like Kevin Durant was (not because he didn't have quality scoring teammates, but because he couldn't get all the way to the rim and he was too weak to take advantage of his size). Anyway, I'm hoping for Rose if we ever get the "never will happen" #1 pick in the lotto. He could end up being the good tweener as a shooting guard, you never know. If he's got the length and strength, he can play bigger than his size. If he does score like Marbury that's a plus, but if the guy's more unselfish that's also a plus on top of that. Plus, it's prospected that Rose will be the better man-to-man defender than Marbury. I like CH's idea of trading the pick, though. We could get a lower pick and a better veteran in return. How about we make an arrangement to get OJ Mayo and trade down. We'd convert one player into two players and maybe dump somebody we don't need. But that doesn't make a whole lot of sense if the guys being drafted can't play the shooting guard position (which might also be the case with Rose). I'd rather go with the size pick in Michael Beasley (power and finesse, maybe what's been missing on this team with Jrich's absence at small forward and besides missing Jrich's tremendous heart).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Run BJM @ Apr 24 2008, 12:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Rose will not be a Chris Paul, Jason Kidd, Steve Nash type of PG IMO. I've heard a comparison to "Marbury with his head screwed on right" and IMO thats pretty spot on. He doesn't have the elite level passing skills but hes just an echelon below. Not bad but certainly not on the level of the elite guys. Of course hes also got that big body, penetration and scoring ability, defense, and leadership. IMO neither Beasley nor Rose are once-in-a-lifetime prospects like your LeBrons, Duncans, Shaqs, etc. I would tend to go with the guy who projects as a PF with the post game but as I think about it more Rose would be an AWESOME pair with Monta. Monta has to be paired with a big PG who can defend SGs and still be a legit distributor on the other end. We just drafted Wright last year who is projected to be our PF of the future (IMO hes a better prospect than Beasley too).</div> I've heard comparison to Rose being a Jason Kidd type PG, but I agree with his detractors that he's got to put up the numbers first. At this point, he's a freshman so you go by his upside. Even Chris Paul wasn't the hands down highest rated PG or #1 pick on many analysts' boards before his draft.
The NBA should have this rule - The lottory team with the highest record in each conference is guaranteed a top 5 draft pick, if they don't win the lottory. More good teams = more entertaining NBA action and better ratings. It will also reward teams for winning and not tanking.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jason voorhees @ Apr 25 2008, 05:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Run BJM @ Apr 24 2008, 12:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Rose will not be a Chris Paul, Jason Kidd, Steve Nash type of PG IMO. I've heard a comparison to "Marbury with his head screwed on right" and IMO thats pretty spot on. He doesn't have the elite level passing skills but hes just an echelon below. Not bad but certainly not on the level of the elite guys. Of course hes also got that big body, penetration and scoring ability, defense, and leadership. IMO neither Beasley nor Rose are once-in-a-lifetime prospects like your LeBrons, Duncans, Shaqs, etc. I would tend to go with the guy who projects as a PF with the post game but as I think about it more Rose would be an AWESOME pair with Monta. Monta has to be paired with a big PG who can defend SGs and still be a legit distributor on the other end. We just drafted Wright last year who is projected to be our PF of the future (IMO hes a better prospect than Beasley too).</div> I've heard comparison to Rose being a Jason Kidd type PG, but I agree with his detractors that he's got to put up the numbers first. At this point, he's a freshman so you go by his upside. Even Chris Paul wasn't the hands down highest rated PG or #1 pick on many analysts' boards before his draft. </div> Well assist numbers are kind of overrated if the other guy has the most open look he's ever going to get and still misses it. Then you also have to factor in some stats don't count if the receiver makes a move with the ball which cancels the assist. Like Adonal Foyle and Al Harrington would totally destroy Baron's assist numbers because they'd bobble it or miss it and then put it back in. Sorry Baron no assist for you. I think this is why Baron misses Jrich somewhat. He doesn't have to dribble to score, he's a great catcher, and he's a great finisher. No Al Harrington Offensive Rebounds for him, he just has to make it once and it usually goes down. So I guess in terms of rating point guards, you kind of have to watch what they do on the court and how the coach is playing him and what their tendencies are. Rose could score at will, but he wants to distribute, but he's the team's best scorer. He doesn't hog the ball like you'd expect shoot first combo guards would. Plus, let's talk about his defense. He's got the potential to be something with that quickness, length, and know-how.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (igotask8board @ Apr 25 2008, 06:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The NBA should have this rule - The lottory team with the highest record in each conference is guaranteed a top 5 draft pick, if they don't win the lottory. More good teams = more entertaining NBA action and better ratings. It will also reward teams for winning and not tanking.</div> I actually love this idea because it prevents teams from tanking and could also help the draft function the way they originally intended it to. The current problem with the draft are teams who take a tremendous amount of risk on a project who doesn't pan out which sets their team back another 4 seasons. I think teams who were just shy of missing the playoffs would be more prone to drafting to fill a void to get them into the playoffs for the upcoming season. It would also create more competitive teams with more than one or two star players on a roster. I think Mark Cuban was petitioning for this a year ago. He said the draft lottery should be available for every team in the league. Back to the question, I think you have to go with Derrick Rose if you get the 1st pick. He's the only player in the draft with the "it" factor. He'll be an impact player in his rookie season.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Shapecity @ May 14 2008, 09:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Back to the question, I think you have to go with Derrick Rose if you get the 1st pick. He's the only player in the draft with the "it" factor. He'll be an impact player in his rookie season.</div> Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I got that feeling about him over Beasley like Paul over Bogut and Aldridge over Bargnani.
