Chicago Bulls Draft Pick Watch

[jmmagicfan 301]

Just now, hootie249 said:

   I hope they don't get caught up on rankings. Take the player your scouting says is good. Like if we drop to 7 and all the mocks have forwards like Scottie or Jalen,  but your scouts see Moody,Bouknight,Springer as good scorers take one!! Teams get caught up with size too much these days. Take the guys who can play and score. If your team needs a little size there is always free agency. No more physical freaks who can't play. And don't worry about mocks. 

I agree, you always want to take the Best Player Available, almost regardless of fit. I'm fairly high on Springer, but I think Moody, Bouknight, and Keon Johnson are all a bit over-rated. I actually think that Kuminga, Barnes, and Jalen Johnson are a little over-rated as well. I really think this is a draft where there are four top guys (Cunningham/Suggs/Green/Mobley ) that are almost can't miss prospects, and another 12-15 guys who all have the potential to make a leap. Of course the odds are that at least one of the top four WILL miss, and that one (or more) of the next 12-15 will make a massive jump. 

[jmmagicfan 301]

2 hours ago, CTMagicUK said:

Think RJ is more of a 2. At least at the moment. And so is Ross really now I'm looking at it... God we're desperate for a real 3. If we get Cade I'd probably start him at the 3 looking at it. He's struggled with his handle against smaller guards anyway and this would help mitigate that. 

One reason I would look at Barnes if we fell out of the top 4, though his shooting worries me. It's why I might actually take Jalen Johnson. Kuminga's shooting isn't any better. I might look at re-signing Porter (no more than 4/$68M), and Ennis (2/$9M), though I think a three forward rotation of Isaac/Okeke and (Kuminga, Barnes or J Johnson) might work okay. I think Ennis is a reasonable "cheap insurance" veteran with excellent work habits to mentor our young guys.

I tend to agree with you that playing Cunningham more off the ball at the SF (or SG) might be a good place to start if we are lucky enough to get the #1 pick. 

[jmmagicfan 301]

I actually like Wagner quite a bit, and a might take a longer look at Kispert as well with the Chicago pick. 

 

[The Neighborhood Bully 266]

18 minutes ago, jmmagicfan said:

One reason I would look at Barnes if we fell out of the top 4, though his shooting worries me. It's why I might actually take Jalen Johnson. Kuminga's shooting isn't any better. I might look at re-signing Porter (no more than 4/$68M), and Ennis (2/$9M), though I think a three forward rotation of Isaac/Okeke and (Kuminga, Barnes or J Johnson) might work okay. I think Ennis is a reasonable "cheap insurance" veteran with excellent work habits to mentor our young guys.

I tend to agree with you that playing Cunningham more off the ball at the SF (or SG) might be a good place to start if we are lucky enough to get the #1 pick. 

With Porter's injury history over the last few years, I'd be surprised if he gets more than MLE.

[argentinaworldchampion 32]

4 hours ago, CTMagicUK said:

Here are the odds:

http://www.tankathon.com/pick_odds

 

I dont know if I understood correctly, but the worst 4 teams all have equal chance at #1-#4?

[All Eyes On Me 1,196]

1 hour ago, CTMagicUK said:

You may be aware Im particularly high on Giddey so any situation where we end up with him is a win for me. 

Not overly interested in Scottie or Jalen at 6. Scottie especially is nothing against him I actually like him I just think he's a really bad fit on this roster and he's such a unique prospect that fit is going to be massively important for his development. I think I'd take a flier on one of the wings Moody/Keon Johnson/Springer/Bouknight at 6. Keon seems to be the most highly regarded of the 4 by mainstream mocks so maybe him I guess.

Dare we say, you’d be Giddey about it?

[CTMagicUK 1,476]

8 minutes ago, alwaystragic said:

I dont know if I understood correctly, but the worst 4 teams all have equal chance at #1-#4?

Worst 3 teams do yes. 4th worst team has slightly different odds. 

[jmmagicfan 301]

1 hour ago, alwaystragic said:

I dont know if I understood correctly, but the worst 4 teams all have equal chance at #1-#4?

 

56 minutes ago, CTMagicUK said:

Worst 3 teams do yes. 4th worst team has slightly different odds. 

Only difference between the worst three are the odds on how far they could fall. Worst record can't fall below pick #5, next worst can't fall below pick #6, and third worst can't fall below pick #7. All have about a 52% chance of being top-4. Fourth worst could fall to #8, and has about a 48% chance of being in the top-4. 

[JJZFL 618]

6 hours ago, jmmagicfan said:

Yes, and no. Worst case scenario if teams "jump" up via the lottery - worst record is guaranteed #5 or better, 2nd worst guaranteed #6 or better, etc. With the fourth worst record, there is potential to fall as far as #8. The percentages for the bottom 4 are about the same, but how far you could potentially fall is very different. That's why it matters. 

I understand.  But that’s only one side of the equation.  I believe there is a significant downside to tanking, and the relatively small percentages you’re  talking about don’t compensate for those disadvantages.  Historically, is there that much difference between pick 6 and pick 8?

[Natesroom 197]

obvious best scenario for us is we get #1 the next two picks are the Minny, Houston then any team but chicago for #4 that way wherever they were on the scale based on record become ours anything from 5-14 - we just dont want them getting more losses -  10 is actually the best spot for us. they would have a slightly over 10% chance of getting a top 4 but if not giving us a decent chance to package #10 with our pick if we arent #1. Them at 8 is 25% chance for a top 4 and that is to much.

I'm not a fan of this new revision to the draft. Your odds should be calculated for this season win loss and modified by the last 5 years of records (weighted) and weighted based on previous picks in the last 5 years (for ex a year you should have received the #1 pick but did not pick #1 and picked #3 that would be weighted higher then if you had picked #2 that year)

This would eliminate a team having a super bad year after having gone to the finals, either because they traded away talent or had an injury, from being heavily favored from receiving #1 pick as it would take into account previous years. but it wouldnt preclude them either. it just would help reduce things like the SanAntonio/Duncan Draft or a few of the other weird things over the last few years.

[CTMagicUK 1,476]

Y'know I don't think I've ever wanted a team to get a top pick less than this year's Thunder team. What they've done is Process 6ers level tanking. 

I'm obviously hoping for the Magic to get the #1 pick but failing that as long as it's not the Thunder, T'Wolves (how many do they need) or Bulls (obvious reasons) I'll be fine. 

If you believe the lottery is rigged you've got to be hoping the league is especially thankful for us helping organise the bubble. 

If you don't believe the lottery is rigged (I don't) you've got to root for the cosmic karma that this wasn't our initial plan and we spent the majority of this year trying to win games and have been decimated by injuries. 

[Soul Bro 1,419]

3 hours ago, CTMagicUK said:

Y'know I don't think I've ever wanted a team to get a top pick less than this year's Thunder team. What they've done is Process 6ers level tanking. 

I'm obviously hoping for the Magic to get the #1 pick but failing that as long as it's not the Thunder, T'Wolves (how many do they need) or Bulls (obvious reasons) I'll be fine. 

If you believe the lottery is rigged you've got to be hoping the league is especially thankful for us helping organise the bubble. 

If you don't believe the lottery is rigged (I don't) you've got to root for the cosmic karma that this wasn't our initial plan and we spent the majority of this year trying to win games and have been decimated by injuries. 

Maybe this has been addressed, but I don’t understand how they can sit Horford without being penalized. There’s something very wrong with that scenario.