Since the friendly dictator decided to create a thread for each of the Bulls' two picks, I thought it appropriate to deflect all general post-draft discussion to yet another thread. Feel free to bemoan who got better when you didn't think they had a chance to and who was just plain stupid. (Chad Ford provides his "grades.")

A few thoughts of my own:

Sacramento is either stupid or genius; I'd go with the former. Bill Simmons says it best.

Andy Katz tells us the Kings loved Thompson because "he was the best player they worked out." That's always smart -- ignore four years of his college games and concentrate on his two workouts.

I'm mildly impressed w/ what Indiana did. I don't think they'll be an "elite" team anytime soon, but I think they've immediately become a Top-4 team in the East. I think Ford, Rush and Hibbert have a chance to be good to really good players, just not great. They'll be a tough team for the Bulls to beat the next couple, but in 3-5 years their potential will be tapped. Not too bad for "rebuilding on the fly"--a term usually reserved for the NFL.

Wait, Minnesota had a good draft??? Love, Mike Miller and one of the three decent Euro prospects in Pekovic supposedly makes it so. Since it's McHale, though, I'm still skeptical.

Miami didn't do too poorly. Even if Wade and Marion end up leaving, Miami won't have a bad core to build around (especially if they get anything of value in a sign-and-trade for either one). Beasley, Chalmers and Darnell Jackson--all liked by Hollinger, by the way.

And you can't finish off any draft talk without some discussion of the Blazers. I'm actually not that impressed with the draft. Yes, Bayless was a steal, but I'm not high on him. I think he and Batum have two great ceilings, but I think they both have pretty low floors as well. What if Bayless doesn't learn how to run the point? What if Batum never fills out? The good thing for the Blazers is that both have, reportedly, great work ethics. They were swing-for-the-fences picks, in my opinion. Either they'll vault the Blazers to one of the greatest teams ever, or they'll stick the Blazers in that 50-60 win club year-in/year-out. Although, if that happens, I'm sure the Blazers will have plenty of assets to further improve.

Oh, and did Seattle really do that well? They get the biggest question marks of the draft.

So anyway, what are your thoughts? Who do you think "won" this draft? Who lost? Who are you upset about thinking they got someone you wish the Bulls would have? Who are you laughing at?

So you want to trade back into the draft and take a shooting guard in case Ben Gordon bolts, huh? You think trading Hinrich and/or Nocioni for spot at the 15th, 20th or 25th pick could pay big dividends down the road? Well, DraftExpress.com has a guide to drafting. It's mostly just statistical breakdown w/ little interpretation. Kind of.

The part I'm concerned with, as implied by the title of this post, is trading back into the late-lottery (11-14) and the mid-first round. I was all for using Hinrich or Nocioni to somehow get to these spots (although I'm also for keeping Hinrich around, so go figure), but now I'm a little more skeptical.

Production compared to where the player was drafted:

 

I. Location, Location, Location: Win the Lottery

Let’s start with the most obvious finding: where you pick matters a lot. Lottery players have better success rates than players in the bottom half of the first round. First rounders do better than second rounders. And players in the top half of the second round have better success rates than those at the end of the draft.

If a player is selected among the top quarter (currently the top 7 picks: we broke the round into “quarters” to control for the growth from 23 picks in 1980 to 30 this year) of first round picks in an average year (See Figure 1), the odds are about 60% he will be a solid starter or better by his fifth year. Those odds drop to 38% by the second quarter of the first round (i.e., picks 8-15 this year), and slip below 20% by the time you reach the bottom of the first round.

The odds of any player drafted between 16 and 30 this year becoming a star player, is about 1 in 13. In fact, you’re doing well if you get a guy who is even a solid bench contributor or a marginal starter once you get beyond the lottery picks. Nearly half the players drafted in the bottom half of the first round, are out of the league, or barely hanging on, five years after being drafted. --emphasis by authors

There's some really great information in there that basically says, "Don't expect anyone to really help this year" and ::gasp:: "PG's and wings have less bust potential than big men".

I invite everyone to read the rest, especially the last part about the big man bust. I have my own opinions on why this is the case (Hint: less PG's are taken for a reason), but I only wanted to address one point. (maybe someone else can address the last part and ignite more debate about Rose and Beasley) I'm already sold on Rose, and I was all about getting Rush or Lee or CDR in the 10-20 spots, but this makes me skeptical. Although, if they get someone in the 10-14 spots, there's a slightly better than 1 in 3 chance that player turns into a "solid starter" (check their definitions), and I wouldn't mind that w/ everything else the Bulls have.

 

Hey guys. I'm a Chicago Bears fan. You guys (as I'm sure you know) run a brilliant site with lots of knowledge and information about your Broncos. There's also enough to keep general football enthusiasts around. I wanted to get your opinions on the Broncos trading for LB Brian Urlacher. Would the Broncos consider it? What's an appropriate cost for the Broncos? What's the most you'd want them to give up. From NBC Sports via SB Nation Windy City Gridiron:

If Shanahan was to send the Bears running back Travis Henry, wide receiver Brandon Stokley and linebacker Ian Gold along with two draft picks — including a first-rounder if the Broncos make the playoffs — it would be a trade that would work out well for both teams.

Since Week 3 (or so) of last year, I've thought the Bears needed to go into rebuilding mode. In the modern NFL, that doesn't take a long time. Considering the Bears have good (somewhat) young talent in Tommie Harris, Lance Brigss, Bernard Berrian, Mark Anderson, Nathan Vashar, Charles Tillman, I thought one year might be enough. I think it's even more urgent with the talent the Bears just drafted. Thoughts?