I am sick to my stomach. I can not believe how bad the draft went for my Bulls. Joakim fucking Noah. The player I hated in all of college basketball the second most ( far behind Noah) was Aaron Gray. I dropped my phone when I saw his name come across the screen as the Bull's pick at 49. I want to throw up.
JamesOn Curry was a great pick for the Bulls at 51, especially since I think he will be the replacement for the most overrated Bull at the moment, Ben Gordon. Ben Gordon will be traded at some point in the off season in my opinion. For the last two weeks I knew the all the KG and Kobe rumors involving the Bulls were bullshit. Now I myself am praying Paxson might have a plan gor Garnett. Here out this trade idea- Gordon, Nocioni( after a sign and trade), Noah and maybe a sign and trade with PJ Brown for Garnett. I think Gordon, Nocioni and Noah would make good building blocks for Minnesota. All it takes is the salary match.
I am just hoping for Noah to be off the Bulls. Aaron Gray is a broke dick( that means injury prone) and slow and most of all, BAD. Ben Gordon being traded though is something I really do believe will happen. JamesOn Curry is the exact same type of player as Ben Gordon. With Gordon becoming a free agent after this year, he is going to want big bucks. Save the cap space by unloading him, and use him as bait for an inside scorer. Who the hell is going to score inside for us when we have Tyrus Thomas, Ben Wallace, and fuckhead Noah on the floor.
Like I wrote yesterday, Noah may turn in to a great defensive player. He does bust his ass on the court, but I hate him and he doesn't help us with inside scoring. Paxson knows we still need a player in the paint who can put up points. I think the Bulls blew way too many games last year after they had a big lead because the outside shooting went cold and they had no one to lean on inside to get points.
Third biggest kick in the nuts of the night- When Brandan Wright was selected the pick in front of the Bulls ( by Jordan). I was floored when I had to say that Jordan got the steal of the draft. I was so excited when he was still on the board at 8, and kept telling my brother Jordan would fuck it up and pick Noah. Then the booya network guys said Jordan was big on Noah. Jordan pulled off the biggest steal of the night by taking Brandan Wright. Then what does he do? He sticks his head up his ass and trades the kid for Jason Richardson. I think Jason Richardson is a terrific player, but his contract is ridiculous and Wright is going to be a STAR. Great move by Golden State.
Worst Bulls Draft in History.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
NBA DRAFT PREVIEW
Tomorrow is the NBA draft and I wanted to go on record with my thoughts about certain players my Chicago Bulls might draft tomorrow. Before I do that, let me inform you on some of my previous draft thoughts from years past.
I wanted Lamar Odom when the Bulls had the number one pick in 99. I was praying the Bears would draft Tommie Harris and Greg Olsen. I wanted Chris Simms over Rex Grossman and Cadillac Williams over Cedric Benson. I hated the Bulls picking Jay Williams over Drew Gooden. I threw a tantrum practically when the Bears drafted Cade McCLOWN. I knew Hester would be fun to watch and I also said Adam Morrison was going to be a bust( then again, Michael Jordan was picking him so that one was kind of obvious.) So I am not perfect by far, but I feel I am a pretty good judge of talent.
This article is not about Oden or Durant. They are both going to be great players in my opinion. Oden reminds be of David Robinson and Durant reminds me of, well, no one comes to mind for him. Maybe a quicker, better ball handling skilled but weaker version of Dirk Nowitski. That sounds pretty good. They will each have very good, if not hall of fame, careers.
First let me start with who I pray the Bulls don't draft. Joakim Noah. I despise this kid. His defensive game is good, and if he gets stronger he could develop into a Marcus Camby type player. But he has no shot on offense and will just get energy points( dunks off rebounds and loose balls) for the next couple years and the Bulls need someone who can put up points in the paint soon. We already have Tyrus Thomas as a high energy guy with no outside shot( atleast he does not have one yet, but he is still young.) Speaking of Tyrus Thomas, I wanted Lamarcus Aldridge instead..
But the main reason I don't want the Bulls to draft him is because I think he is an arrogant, egotistical jackass. Every time I see him on my television I get angry. Just search him on youtube dancing and tell me you don't want to punch him in face. If he is still on the board when the Bulls are on the clock, I might have a nervous breakdown.
Al Horford and Brandan Wright are by far the next two best players in this draft. Brandan Wright is the only person I have ever thought has the potential to be a Tim Duncan type player. Now I think Tim Duncan is one of the two best power forwards of all time( Karl Malone is the other), so I am not saying Wright will be another Tim Duncan. But he could be looked at in six to eight years as a perennial all-star and MVP candidate. There is also a chance his career could look remarkably similar to someone like Drew Gooden I think he will atleast land somewhere in between.
Speaking of Karl Malone, that is who Al Horford reminds me of. I think he will wind up being similar to Carlos Boozer. How many people out there wouldn't take Carlos Boozer on your team.
Mike Conley Jr has a really bad outside shot at the moment for a point guard. But he can work on that. A comparison is hard for Conley as well. I think he has the potential to be similar to Kevin Johnson( who was an unbelievable point guard who never gets mentioned in the "best of all time" conversation, but he should be. He has been so underrated since he retired.) He does need to reach that potential however. Right now he is a top twelve point guard in the NBA.
Spencer Hawes might be pretty good. I haven't seen him that much but what I hear is encouraging. He could also turn out to be Michael Doleac. Corey Brewer will have a productive NBA career, and might end up scary good if he gets a little stronger. He could be a poor man's Scottie Pippen. I would take that on my team any day.
Acie Law will have a solid career. Could end up like Derek Fisher or could be as good as Chauncey Billups. Yi Jinlan has potential to be a very dynamic player who will present match up problems much like Nowitski does. But he has to get stronger and get better against a way higher level of competition. I like his upside a lot, and I would really like the Bulls to draft him if he is available at nine and no one else I have praised above is available.
Last but not least. Two sleeper picks ( late first rounders who might end up all stars)- Tiago Splitter and Javaris Crittenton. Twenty Two hours until the Draft. Please Paxson, no Noah.
I wanted Lamar Odom when the Bulls had the number one pick in 99. I was praying the Bears would draft Tommie Harris and Greg Olsen. I wanted Chris Simms over Rex Grossman and Cadillac Williams over Cedric Benson. I hated the Bulls picking Jay Williams over Drew Gooden. I threw a tantrum practically when the Bears drafted Cade McCLOWN. I knew Hester would be fun to watch and I also said Adam Morrison was going to be a bust( then again, Michael Jordan was picking him so that one was kind of obvious.) So I am not perfect by far, but I feel I am a pretty good judge of talent.
This article is not about Oden or Durant. They are both going to be great players in my opinion. Oden reminds be of David Robinson and Durant reminds me of, well, no one comes to mind for him. Maybe a quicker, better ball handling skilled but weaker version of Dirk Nowitski. That sounds pretty good. They will each have very good, if not hall of fame, careers.
First let me start with who I pray the Bulls don't draft. Joakim Noah. I despise this kid. His defensive game is good, and if he gets stronger he could develop into a Marcus Camby type player. But he has no shot on offense and will just get energy points( dunks off rebounds and loose balls) for the next couple years and the Bulls need someone who can put up points in the paint soon. We already have Tyrus Thomas as a high energy guy with no outside shot( atleast he does not have one yet, but he is still young.) Speaking of Tyrus Thomas, I wanted Lamarcus Aldridge instead..
But the main reason I don't want the Bulls to draft him is because I think he is an arrogant, egotistical jackass. Every time I see him on my television I get angry. Just search him on youtube dancing and tell me you don't want to punch him in face. If he is still on the board when the Bulls are on the clock, I might have a nervous breakdown.
Al Horford and Brandan Wright are by far the next two best players in this draft. Brandan Wright is the only person I have ever thought has the potential to be a Tim Duncan type player. Now I think Tim Duncan is one of the two best power forwards of all time( Karl Malone is the other), so I am not saying Wright will be another Tim Duncan. But he could be looked at in six to eight years as a perennial all-star and MVP candidate. There is also a chance his career could look remarkably similar to someone like Drew Gooden I think he will atleast land somewhere in between.
Speaking of Karl Malone, that is who Al Horford reminds me of. I think he will wind up being similar to Carlos Boozer. How many people out there wouldn't take Carlos Boozer on your team.
Mike Conley Jr has a really bad outside shot at the moment for a point guard. But he can work on that. A comparison is hard for Conley as well. I think he has the potential to be similar to Kevin Johnson( who was an unbelievable point guard who never gets mentioned in the "best of all time" conversation, but he should be. He has been so underrated since he retired.) He does need to reach that potential however. Right now he is a top twelve point guard in the NBA.
Spencer Hawes might be pretty good. I haven't seen him that much but what I hear is encouraging. He could also turn out to be Michael Doleac. Corey Brewer will have a productive NBA career, and might end up scary good if he gets a little stronger. He could be a poor man's Scottie Pippen. I would take that on my team any day.
Acie Law will have a solid career. Could end up like Derek Fisher or could be as good as Chauncey Billups. Yi Jinlan has potential to be a very dynamic player who will present match up problems much like Nowitski does. But he has to get stronger and get better against a way higher level of competition. I like his upside a lot, and I would really like the Bulls to draft him if he is available at nine and no one else I have praised above is available.
Last but not least. Two sleeper picks ( late first rounders who might end up all stars)- Tiago Splitter and Javaris Crittenton. Twenty Two hours until the Draft. Please Paxson, no Noah.
Friday, June 8, 2007
Chief of Staff
News out of Washington today is that General Peter Pace is about to be replaced as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Since we are engaged in unpopular military engagements in the middle east, it has been reported that instead of initiating the confirmation process for General Pace, the White House has decided to choose someone else to nominate for the position.
While I understand the politics in a confirmation process, I disagree with this idea. Yes, General Pace is one of the most recognizable faces of the fiasco in Iraq. Because of that, the nomination proceedings in front of Congress would most likely become a Bush administration bash. But instead the White House has decided to replace a Marine Corps General with a Navy Admiral. This is something I strongly disagree with.
It is not that I disagree with replacing General Pace. I think change can only help our military. Also, putting a new face in front of the camera to answer questions about Iraq will give the White House some political breathing room for a few weeks. But I do disagree with an Admiral in the position of chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
My belief is simple. Only an Army or Marine Corps General should be the chair of the JCS. While I acknowledge that every member and former member of a branch of the military has a bias towards their branch, that bias has nothing to do with my view.
The chairman of the JCS is an advisory position to the White House. It does not command wars. But the top military advisor to the White House should be an expert on how the military is being deployed and an expert on ground tactics, especially when over one hundred thousand soldiers and marines are on the ground in foreign soil. A career Air Force or Naval officer, unless a former Seal team member, does not have the resume that meets that criteria.
This belief also extends to the DOD. The Secretary of Defense should also meet this criteria. When Donald Rumsfeld was named Secretary of Defense, I was dissapointed to say the least. How does being a in the Navy for two years while not at war prepare you to be in charge of the Pentagon. I understand that Rumsfeld is not the only defense secretary without major military experience, but it is the most recent example. Both political parties have made the secretary of Defense a ceremonial position within the government and that has hurt our military.
While I understand air supperiority is a major part of past and future conflicts, without soldiers and marines ON THE GROUND being utilized to their full potential, a war can not be waged to perfection. And without knowledge of what it is like to be on the ground during a conflict, you can not be expected to know what to advise the commander in chief. Without good advice, what kind of advice does the President have left to listen to.
While I understand the politics in a confirmation process, I disagree with this idea. Yes, General Pace is one of the most recognizable faces of the fiasco in Iraq. Because of that, the nomination proceedings in front of Congress would most likely become a Bush administration bash. But instead the White House has decided to replace a Marine Corps General with a Navy Admiral. This is something I strongly disagree with.
It is not that I disagree with replacing General Pace. I think change can only help our military. Also, putting a new face in front of the camera to answer questions about Iraq will give the White House some political breathing room for a few weeks. But I do disagree with an Admiral in the position of chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
My belief is simple. Only an Army or Marine Corps General should be the chair of the JCS. While I acknowledge that every member and former member of a branch of the military has a bias towards their branch, that bias has nothing to do with my view.
The chairman of the JCS is an advisory position to the White House. It does not command wars. But the top military advisor to the White House should be an expert on how the military is being deployed and an expert on ground tactics, especially when over one hundred thousand soldiers and marines are on the ground in foreign soil. A career Air Force or Naval officer, unless a former Seal team member, does not have the resume that meets that criteria.
This belief also extends to the DOD. The Secretary of Defense should also meet this criteria. When Donald Rumsfeld was named Secretary of Defense, I was dissapointed to say the least. How does being a in the Navy for two years while not at war prepare you to be in charge of the Pentagon. I understand that Rumsfeld is not the only defense secretary without major military experience, but it is the most recent example. Both political parties have made the secretary of Defense a ceremonial position within the government and that has hurt our military.
While I understand air supperiority is a major part of past and future conflicts, without soldiers and marines ON THE GROUND being utilized to their full potential, a war can not be waged to perfection. And without knowledge of what it is like to be on the ground during a conflict, you can not be expected to know what to advise the commander in chief. Without good advice, what kind of advice does the President have left to listen to.
Monday, June 4, 2007
Debate Thoughts
Well the second democratic presidential debate took place last night on CNN. Was there a clear cut winner in the debate? NO. Was there a person that destroyed his chance of becoming president? Not really, since realistically only three people really have a chance of winning the democratic nomination. But if I had to choose who did the worst in the debate, it would be the person who I believe would make the best candidate, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico.
Richardson is not as polished a public speaker as the other candidates. Any time he answers a question, he stumbles around words, appears flustered and takes a while to think before he speaks. I am not sure if this is to blame on Richardson or his team of advisors for doing a terrible job of debate prep. But no matter who is to blame, it just looks bad, and unfortunately substance and resume does not make someone president.
I was entertained by John Edwards during the debate. As I type this right now, Hillary Clinton is way ahead of Obama and Edwards in the polls. All three candidates have put forth individual plans for universal health care. All three oppose the war in Iraq. So not much seems to seperate the top three candidates. With Hillary understanding this, and understanding her lead in the polls, she kept stating that the beliefs on the stage were very similar, and the real differences lie between democrats and republicans.
Former Senator Edwards also understands that he is way behind and has to do something to get back in the thick of the race. So he repeatedley stated that the American people need to realize that there are significant differences between himself and the two front runners. I am not an Edwards fan. I believe Richardson, Clinton, Dodd and Biden are all far superior candidates. But Edwards does have an idea of what is going on. His true aspiration is to become the next president, which I can't say is true off all eight candidates that graced the CNN stage last night.
Joe Biden has performed great in both debates so far. At first I had a big problem with Biden's plan for Iraq, believing it would cause more instabillity in the region, especially with Turkey. But the more I think about it, the more appealing it is looking to me. I haven't jumped on the three partition bandwagon yet, but I am not throwing rocks at it anymore.
Senator Biden is one person I believe is not really running for president. He refuses to challenge Senator Clinton on anything, and has given her praise time after time. I think he sees the writing on the wall. Clinton will be the nominee, and if she wins, Senator Biden wants a high profile job within the future Clinton administration. How does Secretary of State Biden sound?
Senator Biden has been the most honest person with the public. He speaks the truth, not just crap people want to hear. Last night when he said people need to face the facts that troops will be in Iraq for a while and they need to be funded, that was a very candid statement for a democratic debate. I wish Biden had a chance of winning the nominee, because I believe he would make a great president. But polling numbers don't lie, and unless Obama, Edwards and Clinton all have huge scandals hit them, Biden has no chance in hell. Even if the top three all became scandal ridden, Biden still wouldn't have a chance because then Al Gore would jump in and grab the nomination within hours of declaring.
As we sit on June 4th, 2007, Hillary Clinton is running one of the smartest campaigns in a while. Her people understand that the change n Congress in November was the country rejecting republicans. So she has not attacked her democratic opponents, instead choosing to make this a democratic versus republican issue. As long as she stays ahead, there is no reason to attack a fellow democrat. She just needs to keep reminding voters that our country has been lied to and led astray by a REPUBLICAN president. Independent voters seem to be listening.
Richardson is not as polished a public speaker as the other candidates. Any time he answers a question, he stumbles around words, appears flustered and takes a while to think before he speaks. I am not sure if this is to blame on Richardson or his team of advisors for doing a terrible job of debate prep. But no matter who is to blame, it just looks bad, and unfortunately substance and resume does not make someone president.
I was entertained by John Edwards during the debate. As I type this right now, Hillary Clinton is way ahead of Obama and Edwards in the polls. All three candidates have put forth individual plans for universal health care. All three oppose the war in Iraq. So not much seems to seperate the top three candidates. With Hillary understanding this, and understanding her lead in the polls, she kept stating that the beliefs on the stage were very similar, and the real differences lie between democrats and republicans.
Former Senator Edwards also understands that he is way behind and has to do something to get back in the thick of the race. So he repeatedley stated that the American people need to realize that there are significant differences between himself and the two front runners. I am not an Edwards fan. I believe Richardson, Clinton, Dodd and Biden are all far superior candidates. But Edwards does have an idea of what is going on. His true aspiration is to become the next president, which I can't say is true off all eight candidates that graced the CNN stage last night.
Joe Biden has performed great in both debates so far. At first I had a big problem with Biden's plan for Iraq, believing it would cause more instabillity in the region, especially with Turkey. But the more I think about it, the more appealing it is looking to me. I haven't jumped on the three partition bandwagon yet, but I am not throwing rocks at it anymore.
Senator Biden is one person I believe is not really running for president. He refuses to challenge Senator Clinton on anything, and has given her praise time after time. I think he sees the writing on the wall. Clinton will be the nominee, and if she wins, Senator Biden wants a high profile job within the future Clinton administration. How does Secretary of State Biden sound?
Senator Biden has been the most honest person with the public. He speaks the truth, not just crap people want to hear. Last night when he said people need to face the facts that troops will be in Iraq for a while and they need to be funded, that was a very candid statement for a democratic debate. I wish Biden had a chance of winning the nominee, because I believe he would make a great president. But polling numbers don't lie, and unless Obama, Edwards and Clinton all have huge scandals hit them, Biden has no chance in hell. Even if the top three all became scandal ridden, Biden still wouldn't have a chance because then Al Gore would jump in and grab the nomination within hours of declaring.
As we sit on June 4th, 2007, Hillary Clinton is running one of the smartest campaigns in a while. Her people understand that the change n Congress in November was the country rejecting republicans. So she has not attacked her democratic opponents, instead choosing to make this a democratic versus republican issue. As long as she stays ahead, there is no reason to attack a fellow democrat. She just needs to keep reminding voters that our country has been lied to and led astray by a REPUBLICAN president. Independent voters seem to be listening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)