The Best Argument To Take Derrick Rose You'll Hear

I actually watched the draft lottery, I had nothing better to do. It turned out to be the loudest I would yell for any of my teams in the past year. You see the sports gods punched me square in the crotch this year with a disappointing season from the White Sox, a Michigan team that lost to Appalachian State, the Bears who I'm currently pretending don't exist, and a young Bulls team that mailed it in worse than ESPN's Bill Simmons last year of columns.

So when the Bulls won the first pick, it was the first time I was standing and yelling for a sports team in a while. And I was not yelling "We got the 1!" or "We won the lottery!", I was yelling "We got Rose!". To me it was a foregone conclusion, but since so many people disagree, I'll explain why. Sit back and clap your hands for a head-to-head comparison which oddly hasn't been beaten into the ground at this point!

Scoring: Michael Beasley was a prolific scorer in college and is going to be a prolific scorer in the NBA. He will put up 20-25 a night, it just won't be as an unstoppable low-post presence. Watching him play in college, putting the ball on the blocks and backing opponents down was not his specialty. Beasley prefers to play some of Kevin Garnett's high post game mixing that in with a dominant midrange game and strong drives to the basket. Here's a comprehensive highlight reel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpyAf0Iz6UY. In the games he took over, think the Kansas game, he did so by pulling his game behind the arc and raining down from above. These are not knocks on him at all, but what the Bulls have been dying for is an Elton Brand or a Tim Duncan. Not a bigger Carmello Anthony or a more athletic Dirk Nowitzki, which is more the mold I see Beasley in. Derrick Rose's scoring fits more of that second banana type role, but he doesn't deserve the pile on that he gets for his jump shot. Even if it is poor, which recent workouts tend to contradict, he's the kind of a kid who would work on it until you respected it. Because he's big, physical, and knows how to work the lane, I see his scoring game comparing to Tony Parker's. He can still take over games and will score 16-18 a night, but he should not be the main scorer night in and night out.
Edge: Beasley.

Playmaking: Michael Beasley does not make his teammates better. He can absolutely put a team on his back, but he does not create better shots for the guys around him. That may be a product of his style of play, neither Dirk nor Anthony seem to make the guys around them that much better, or he may be selfish. I don't know, but the results are pretty clear. A team with inferior players, Wisconsin in the tourney, can double Beasley and his team is sunk. Derrick Rose is the opposite. It doesn't show that well in his stats, but watch the kid play. He drives to the basket and has great court vision, meaning guys like Gordon and Deng will be seeing a lot more open looks. Rose would also allow the Bulls to play a fast break offense that would highlight the strengths of Noah and Tyrus. Are you imagining the dunks that Tyrus throws down on lobs from Rose? Excuse me while I change my pants.
Edge: Rose.

Rebounding: As a PF, Beasley is naturally going to grab more boards than Rose. But they both rebound well for their position. If Rose pulls down 5 or 6 a game, totally possible, the rebounding upgrade tthe Bulls get at point might actually be bigger than what they get at PF. Beasley could also turn around and immediately pull down 12 a game. I don't think he will because he won't have stat padders like Sacramento University making him look Bill Russell. Sorry Sac U., I still plan on being your starting PG if it makes you feel better.
Edge: tie.

Defense: Rose. Not debatable.
Edge: Rose

Personality: There are two questions I consider when talking about NBA players personality: Can you go to war with this guy? And would you want this guy as your wingman when you went out? You can go to war with both players, they both want to win and both guys can carry a team. The second question is what separates the two. If you went to a bar with Derrick, he'd be willing to go over and break the ice for you, set you up for easy jokes, and generally make you look good. If you didn't walk out with a girl on your arm, he'd go over to the corner and literally cry into his beer. Maybe that's extreme, but if you failed it sure as hell wouldn't be Rose's fault. Compare that with Beasley. You and Beasley walk in, he immediately becomes the life of the place. Girls are interested in you as a byproduct of being interested in him. He takes the cream of the crop and you get the leftovers. It's not a terrible system, odds are you have an improved shot at finding someone. But what happens when you walk and the hottest, coolest girl in the bar takes an interest in you over Beasley? Would you be surprised if he came over and tried to steal her? Would you be surprised if he couldn't get her and decided to do something to you that rhymes with schmock flock? What if he decided you couldn't handle it and threw out the dreaded proposition of the "double team"? Is it all that unrealistic? I say no to that and no to a threesome with Michael Beasley (because I can't raise a question like that and not answer it.)
Edge: Rose

So according to my correct analysis, in Beasley you have a bigger Carmello Anthony or a more athletic Dirk Nowitzki. Kid's going to be an all star and might lead a championship team. If you want him to do that though, you need to pair him with someone like Rose. Rose is the kind of player that makes a team go, who makes everyone better, and who put a team on his back to boot. He's Tony Parker with Chris Paul vision. I personally see Rose as being a special player, the kind of player that wins championships. And that is the ultimate goal.