The more I think about this pick the more I think that Paxson is still too in love with these players. Something along the lines of ... "if I just had a great PG to make all these guys better, then we'd really be something." Unless you think this guy is the next Chris Paul then you should not have drafted him #1. You draft a superstar at #1, not a PG whose main role is to make the other guys better. Sure, that's a great aspect to the greatest players around, but that's not the primary reason for drafting them. Perhaps Rose makes Deng, TT and the gang into all-stars. I don't think so though. I hope I'm wrong. The troubling thing is that Paxson was saying that Beasley will produce more right away. I hated hearing that. If you have the #1 pick, you pick a superstar or who is most likely going to become a superstar. Its not like Beasley is more raw or more mature than Rose, so why would Paxson expect Beasley to produce more right away? I just hope that Paxson's mindset isn't "these guys i drafted over the years are great, they just needed a good PG" since I don't think that's the right direction for the team.
Isn't it conceding that Hinrich isn't the answer at PG to draft Rose? Rose hasn't played a game in the NBA yet. The projections for him are that he is the next Chris Paul.
As I said in the other thread, you are giving Paxson too much credit. He isn't smart enough to pull of such a line of reasoning. The reason he took Rose is that he such a poor talent evaluator that he actually believes Rose is the best player from the draft.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Jul 1 2008, 10:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>As I said in the other thread, you are giving Paxson too much credit. He isn't smart enough to pull of such a line of reasoning. The reason he took Rose is that he such a poor talent evaluator that he actually believes Rose is the best player from the draft.</div> I don't see that as being any sort of open and shut thing. Rose has all the tools to be a franchise player, not just a good player. Further, it's pretty obvious to me that the PGs usually take longer to come along than scorers. Glenn Robinson vs. Jason Kidd and all that. I'm expecting something along the lines of Deron Williams rookie year from Rose, which didn't look spectacular, but set the foundation for very good things.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ Jul 1 2008, 11:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't see that as being any sort of open and shut thing. Rose has all the tools to be a franchise player, not just a good player. Further, it's pretty obvious to me that the PGs usually take longer to come along than scorers. Glenn Robinson vs. Jason Kidd and all that. I'm expecting something along the lines of Deron Williams rookie year from Rose, which didn't look spectacular, but set the foundation for very good things.</div> Hi. Most of those reading this post probably know me. Hope I'm not completely unwelcome (although, if so, I can understand that as well). I'm not here to pick up any fights and consider bygones to be bygones vis-a-vis what's happened on other boards. If I can drop by every once in a blue moon, I'd appreciate it. Anyway, I've been browsing (as I do once or twice a week) and wanted to say I think DC hit the nail on the head. Rose does (mostly) it all and does (mostly) it all well. He is a great passer. He slashes. He defends. The only true weakness is jumpshot consistency and that is something that can come around. And YES, in fact HELL YES, he makes players around him better. That is the biggest compliment you can give a point guard, as far as I'm concerned. Beasley will get points and I expect to enjoy watching him for years to come. In other areas, he is not as spectacular. I can see both guys being all-stars, but I honestly don't project either as super-duper stars. So, I don't think it is the case that Pax got Rose because he is too in love with his players. I do think he had it in mind that the talented players he had underperformed last year and that a true play-making PG could get them back into playing closer to their potential. I see that as a good thing. Peace.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tb#1 @ Jul 1 2008, 02:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So, I don't think it is the case that Pax got Rose because he is too in love with his players. I do think he had it in mind that the talented players he had underperformed last year and that a true play-making PG could get them back into playing closer to their potential.</div> What if the Paxson gang really isn't all that talented (Hinrich, Deng, Gordon, Nocioni) but are really types who were drafted / acquired with lower upside but also low risk of complete failure, as many thought. They really are not underperforming all that much.... they just are not all that good (given that we burned multiple lotto picks and spent lots o' $$$$ for the Paxson "core") Sure, they all played in the big games and "know how to win" (i cringed when Paxson said that about rose... Paxson saying that is like a kiss of death imo... that Paxson mentality led to the awful Wallace, Hinrich and Nocioni contracts) but they really don't amount to all that much in the NBA. I just hope that Paxson drafted the guy he thinks has the best chance of being an NBA Superstar. Trying to save face on his failed "right way" campaign by thinking a great PG will make these fellers markedly better and make his "core 4" somehow worth the price paid for it seems like throwing good money after bad (lord knows Paxson has already thrown away lots and lots of bad money).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kukoc4ever @ Jul 1 2008, 03:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tb#1 @ Jul 1 2008, 02:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So, I don't think it is the case that Pax got Rose because he is too in love with his players. I do think he had it in mind that the talented players he had underperformed last year and that a true play-making PG could get them back into playing closer to their potential.</div> What if the Paxson gang really isn't all that talented (Hinrich, Deng, Gordon, Nocioni) but are really types who were drafted / acquired with lower upside but also low risk of complete failure, as many thought. They really are not underperforming all that much.... they just are not all that good (given that we burned multiple lotto picks and spent lots o' $$$$ for the Paxson "core") Sure, they all played in the big games and "know how to win" (i cringed when Paxson said that about rose... Paxson saying that is like a kiss of death imo... that Paxson mentality led to the awful Wallace, Hinrich and Nocioni contracts) but they really don't amount to all that much in the NBA. I just hope that Paxson drafted the guy he thinks has the best chance of being an NBA Superstar. Trying to save face on his failed "right way" campaign by thinking a great PG will make these fellers markedly better and make his "core 4" somehow worth the price paid for it seems like throwing good money after bad (lord knows Paxson has already thrown away lots and lots of bad money). </div> Hey, "what if" is "what if." If the core guys really aren't talented, then you are right. I think they are talented and the team that got to the 2nd round two years ago (albeit on what appears to be in retrospect exposed Heat team) suffered a setback last year that...well...I'm not sure why that happened. I do think a true point can bring out the best in those guys and that best, even without further moves, could make another second round appearance, if VDN can run the show. Hey, there are a lot of unknowns going into this season. We'll see what happens. If it turns out that someday the Heat are building a Beasley statue in front of their stadium and the Bulls are the 2008 version of the Sam Bowie draft, I'll give you credit for calling it first. Honestly, I don't see either as a superstar. I see both as stars.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kukoc4ever @ Jul 1 2008, 03:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tb#1 @ Jul 1 2008, 02:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So, I don't think it is the case that Pax got Rose because he is too in love with his players. I do think he had it in mind that the talented players he had underperformed last year and that a true play-making PG could get them back into playing closer to their potential.</div> What if the Paxson gang really isn't all that talented (Hinrich, Deng, Gordon, Nocioni) but are really types who were drafted / acquired with lower upside but also low risk of complete failure, as many thought. They really are not underperforming all that much.... they just are not all that good (given that we burned multiple lotto picks and spent lots o' $$$$ for the Paxson "core") Sure, they all played in the big games and "know how to win" (i cringed when Paxson said that about rose... Paxson saying that is like a kiss of death imo... that Paxson mentality led to the awful Wallace, Hinrich and Nocioni contracts) but they really don't amount to all that much in the NBA. I just hope that Paxson drafted the guy he thinks has the best chance of being an NBA Superstar. Trying to save face on his failed "right way" campaign by thinking a great PG will make these fellers markedly better and make his "core 4" somehow worth the price paid for it seems like throwing good money after bad (lord knows Paxson has already thrown away lots and lots of bad money). </div> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Hey, "what if" is "what if." If the core guys really aren't talented, then you are right.</div> Well, I think we all know that Hinrich, Gordon and Nocioni are not going to be all-NBA types, that’s for sure. I don’t really see it in Deng either. Too slow, too bad with the ball. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I think they are talented and the team that got to the 2nd round two years ago (albeit on what appears to be in retrospect exposed Heat team)</div> OK, so the 2nd round appearance didn't really mean that much, since the Heat were clearly a dying team, as some thought. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>suffered a setback last year that...well...I'm not sure why that happened.</div> I do. B/C the "core 4" were drafted / acquired based on a failed Paxson ideology and were really only a .500ish team those couple years due to extreme coachability and willingness to play 110% and grind out wins for Skiles during the dog days of the NBA regular season. Once they tuned Skiles out and tried to get by on playing 90% (which so many NBA teams do in the regular season) they got their asses handed to them b/c its just not all that talented a NBA core. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I do think a true point can bring out the best in those guys and that best, even without further moves, could make another second round appearance, if VDN can run the show.</div> Too bad we have to have an "if" at the coaching position to start the season on this major market team. We have tons of Paxson lotto picks on this squad but most appear to be 3rd or 4th men. If TT or Rose can exhibit some STAR POWER (consistent all-NBA performances) then perhaps we have a shot. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Hey, there are a lot of unknowns going into this season. We'll see what happens.</div> That's for sure. Year 6 under Paxson. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>If it turns out that someday the Heat are building a Beasley statue in front of their stadium and the Bulls are the 2008 version of the Sam Bowie draft, I'll give you credit for calling it first. Honestly, I don't see either as a superstar. I see both as stars.</div> I don't have a strong feel for either guy to tell you the truth.... I'm just commenting on what Paxson is saying. All things being equal, I'll take the bigger guy (although Beasley does have size issues) and the one thing we've been clamoring for all these years is a 4 or 5 and can really score. I didn't hear a lot of people saying we needed a PG. A Chris Paul or Jason Kidd type would be awesome though. The main requests were big guard and scoring big. Paxson went PG. Fair enough.... we'll see how it goes with the second batch of "found money." Never has a man done so little with so much.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 1 2008, 09:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Isn't it conceding that Hinrich isn't the answer at PG to draft Rose?</div> Not really, IMO. Paxson and Skiles both pretty consistently said that Paxson was not a PG. They said he was a G.
Pax is too in love with his players and should package a few of them for some star players. All you need are a couple of stars and role players. We have a team of players who should probably all be role players.
Bygones! In no particular order: 1. If there's a "right way" element to this, it's not the "proven winner" angle, it's the fact that Rose seems serious as a heart attack and Beasley is kind of a knucklehead. Not a gang-banger or a lazy kid who won't like to play basketball (far as I can tell) but definitely an unorthodox personality. Pax seems to veer toward the milquetoast, and honestly the biggest thing that's bothered me about Rose so far was that, on draft night both he and his mom sounded like someone told them they were being audited instead of telling them they'd just won the lottery. 2. The argument about making the current players better could be made just as easily about Beasley. Having a guy that can average 25-30 points a game makes everyone else look better too. More defensive attention on Beasley means less on everyone else. 3. I think a lot of the fallback last year was the result of our defensive anchors flopping. Little and/or slow perimeter guys need high quality interior defenders. AD, PJ, and even Tyson in his last year here were vastly underrated in what they brought defensively. So was Curry, who, while not a good defender, filled his role in the team defensive concept just fine. Two years ago Wallace was (more or less) motivated and PJ was a quality complement. Last year our big men scared nobody. Joe Smith was skinny and wouldn't guard anyone. Wallace fell apart and wouldn't try on top of it. Tyrus mostly sucked defensively and Noah was a rookie and even though I think he'll become quite good, asking a rookie big man to anchor your defense is just not gonna work. Gooden is a slight upgrade to Smith but not the caliber of guy we had before. People blew by our guards in prior years too, but someone made them pay for it. This past year they had a clear lane to the basket. The second big reason I see is that we didn't share the ball offensively as well. Deng and Gordon both played selfishly to start the season and that's the only way Hughes seems to play any more. Kirk just played like garbage for most of the year. I often got the sense (can't point to anything) that he wasn't happy with what he was being asked to do and his teammates weren't happy with him. Neither Deng nor Gordon really stepped up and teams figured out that if you knock them off their game it'll be hard for us to score. And they were right. ---------------- Add up all of that, by the way, and I think if you're trying to maximize the current talent on the roster Beasley was maybe the more obvious choice. Defenses would have to focus on him and and that would create better opportunities for everyone else. Defensively he'd be no worse than last year, and he wouldn't take anyone of the core 4's place.
Welcome TB#1, I remember you from bbb. Great to see you around here, I even asked someone before about you, and where were you. Hopefully you stick around.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kukoc4ever @ Jul 1 2008, 10:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The more I think about this pick the more I think that Paxson is still too in love with these players. Something along the lines of ... "if I just had a great PG to make all these guys better, then we'd really be something." Unless you think this guy is the next Chris Paul then you should not have drafted him #1. You draft a superstar at #1, not a PG whose main role is to make the other guys better. Sure, that's a great aspect to the greatest players around, but that's not the primary reason for drafting them. Perhaps Rose makes Deng, TT and the gang into all-stars. I don't think so though. I hope I'm wrong. The troubling thing is that Paxson was saying that Beasley will produce more right away. I hated hearing that. If you have the #1 pick, you pick a superstar or who is most likely going to become a superstar. Its not like Beasley is more raw or more mature than Rose, so why would Paxson expect Beasley to produce more right away? I just hope that Paxson's mindset isn't "these guys i drafted over the years are great, they just needed a good PG" since I don't think that's the right direction for the team.</div> K4E, I agree with the general premise of your post (the drafting of Rose creates a concern that Paxson's love for his own players may hinder him from doing what's best for the team). However, I disagree with some of the points you used to argue it. In general I think there are two ways to be concerned about Paxson's affinity for his own players. They are 1). He'll be too hesitant to trade them, so he won't make necessary moves to balance out the roster, which in the long run could spell disaster for the team since everything might implode due to too many players with undefined talents and undefined roles trying to be developed and signed at the same time. 2). An inclination to believe something like 'Now that we have Rose, everything will be alright', and trick himself into thinking that the team will be fine just the way it is because he's viewing our guys w/ Rose colored glasses. I know these are basically two sides of the same coin, but for me option #1 is the bigger problem, mostly because, regardless of how much anyone likes or dislikes our players, it doesn't change the fact that there are way too many players than there are minutes available on the court to suit everyone, so they have to be traded either way. In general, I don't find myself being too concerned with the rest of the items you mentioned in the post. For a few reasons.... 1). The general consensus is that DR is a Chris Paul like talent. 2). We have the type of players that greatly would benefit from playing with a great PG, particularly Deng and Tyrus, so I think using that as a reason to draft a PG isn't faulty reasoning. 3). Making other players is one of the most important characteristic of great players (maybe the most important), not some ancillary one that should naturally be subservient all sorts of other things. 4). It's not like Derrick Rose is the Brooks Lopez of PG's. When it comes to natural talent, him and Beasley seemed to be in a class by themselves, so choosing Rose wasn't a case of picking someone with an obviously lower ceiling over a much more gifted player.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rosenthall @ Jul 2 2008, 10:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>1). The general consensus is that DR is a Chris Paul like talent.</div> I'm not sure where you are getting that consensus, because I've never seen a consensus opinion of that from people who's opinion I respect.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Jul 2 2008, 10:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rosenthall @ Jul 2 2008, 10:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>1). The general consensus is that DR is a Chris Paul like talent.</div> I'm not sure where you are getting that consensus, because I've never seen a consensus opinion of that from people who's opinion I respect. </div> There's someone out there whose opinion you respect? Back to Rosenthall's post, I think the first way to be concerned is the "right" one (if that can make sense). I was a bit concerned when, moments after taking Rose, Pax was looking serious and muttering about being very cautious and liking his guys. OK, that's a given... you don't have to tell us you don't want to make a stupid, rash move every time you open your mouth Pax. No one wants to. It's a given. More concerning is that teams around the league seem to be settling their PG questions pretty quickly.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rosenthall @ Jul 2 2008, 09:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>2). We have the type of players that greatly would benefit from playing with a great PG, particularly Deng and Tyrus, so I think using that as a reason to draft a PG isn't faulty reasoning.</div> As long as that PG is projected to be a NBA Superstar (or the guy with the best chance at becoming one). This is the #1 pick in the draft afterall. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>3). Making other players is one of the most important characteristic of great players (maybe the most important), not some ancillary one that should naturally be subservient all sorts of other things.</div> But its true for all superstars. If Beasley is a superstar, then he'll make the other guys around him better as well. I'm not poo-pooing the pick by any stretch. I just hope that the rationale behind it is that Rose is the most likely to become a superstar, not a guy that's "won everywhere," has fewer character issues and is better suited than Beasley to make the existing personnel better. (if beasley is a star, then he will).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ Jul 2 2008, 08:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Jul 2 2008, 10:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rosenthall @ Jul 2 2008, 10:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>1). The general consensus is that DR is a Chris Paul like talent.</div> I'm not sure where you are getting that consensus, because I've never seen a consensus opinion of that from people who's opinion I respect. </div> There's someone out there whose opinion you respect? Back to Rosenthall's post, I think the first way to be concerned is the "right" one (if that can make sense). I was a bit concerned when, moments after taking Rose, Pax was looking serious and muttering about being very cautious and liking his guys. OK, that's a given... you don't have to tell us you don't want to make a stupid, rash move every time you open your mouth Pax. No one wants to. It's a given. More concerning is that teams around the league seem to be settling their PG questions pretty quickly. </div> Golden State just freed up a ton of cap space with Baron Davis opting out, and they need a PG.
