Posted by technomaster:

I can't really say much about Chandler at this point, but he seems to sport a pretty complete skill set. It's tough to gauge whether he'll be a bench player, a starter, or a star down the road. He seems to have the tools to contribute at the NBA level. He could easily settle in as an average starting SF (13ppg/5rpg) or maybe he could become more like a Ron Artest...

Comparing him to Noah isn't fair to either of them - they play different positions. I don't think Noah has superstar potential. He doesn't really have dominant offensive skills, and i don't really think he'll develop them. I don't think he's a truly dominant rebounder or shot blocker. I tend to think his upside is more along the lines of an Antonio Davis or more recently, a Varajao.

Regarding Balkman vs Thomas - I think Balkman could potentially be a bigger contributor. Yes, Thomas is younger and is an elite leaper, but Balkman seems to have elite lateral movement and high basketball IQ. In fact, that bball IQ might be what will ultimately sets Balkman apart from Thomas. Thomas might be just another Stromile Swift - elite athleticism, but none of the smarts to take full advantage of his physical ability. Too early to tell. Basketball IQ can increase from experience, but Balkman seems wired for basketball.

Posted by JohnWallace44:

Posted by Solace:

Posted by JohnWallace44:

What does this post even mean?

Its really curry,chandler, balkman vs thomas, noah, timmy, sweetney

No it's not and that wasn't the intent of the post either.

How many times until you guys acknowledge that Balkman was NOT part of the Curry trade and we traded a $13 MM expiring for a $13 MM expiring and Toronto wanted a year of salary relief, especially since they waived Davis. Ugh. Drilling this point home is like talking to brick walls. Maybe next we can throw David Lee into the trade, since we're just naming random players as part of the trade.

If you want to have that discussion: It's Eddy Curry, Wilson Chandler vs. Tyrus Thomas, Joakim Noah, Mike Sweetney, and a few second rounders. You might still like our package, you might not. Whatever the case, this thread is clearly on a different topic.

OK, so Mardy was the pick from the Curry trade... that just means that this topic makes even less sense. We're comparing our two young small forwards against Chicago's young power forwards? Pointless...

Posted by islesfan:

Noah and Thomas. It's not even remotely close.

This is the type of question that can only be asked on a NY Knicks fan board.

Posted by Solace:

Typical question with loaded intent.

Anyway, here's the deal. Tyrus Thomas and Joakim Noah are #2 (technically #4, but really a #2 with the trade) and #9 picks, respectively. Renaldo Balkman and Wilson Chandler are #20 and #23 picks, respectively. Lottery picks are expected to be better, significantly better. Now, Noah has bust potential, but Chandler has more bust potential than Noah, IMHO.
(snip!)

Posted by Solace:

Posted by technomaster:

Tyrus Thomas is a #4 pick, plain and simple. I don't see how it can be argued any other way. The Bulls should have used their #2 overall pick to choose him directly if that were the case.

You clearly do not understand how draft day trades work. #4 picks are in a different salary bracket than a #2 pick. That was the reason for the trade. That's all. The Bulls had the #2, the information was that the Bobcats weren't taking Tyrus either way, but might take Aldridge, so Portland initiated a trade to make sure they got their player, and they paid to make that move. But, if not for Portland's involvement, Tyrus was going #2, since they had no interest in Aldridge or anyone else at that slot.

Posted by technomaster:

Regarding lottery status: the theory goes is that lottery picks are "surer" things. There's no guarantee on anything, but there's more consensus about their current capabilities, their upside, or both. Basically, there's a better chance that you'll get something for your pick - and that something will be statistically better than otherwise.

However, in nearly every draft in recent memory, we've seen more than our fair share of non-lottery players perform better in the long run than lottery picks.

By no means is this a scientific study, but looking at the truly elite players in the NBA (all NBA teams). It seems like #1 overall picks are much more likely to get on all-NBA teams than other picks (makes sense). Interestingly, outside of Jason Kidd, you don't see a whole lot of #2 overall picks on the all-NBA team.

In 06-07, 2/5 of the all-NBA 1st team were non-lottery (Kobe/Nash). Beyond that, only Arenas was non-lottery. 5/15 were non-lottery picks. (it's pretty sick that neither Kidd nor Carter were worthy of all-NBA team selection)

In 05-06, 2/5 of the all-NBA first team were non-lottery picks (Kobe/Nash). Of the all-NBA teams that year, 5/15 players were non-lottery (the others were Big Ben, Marion, and Arenas). 6/15 players were former #1 overall picks.

In 04-05, Nash was the only non-lottery player on the 1st team. 5/15 were non-lottery.

In 03-04, Kobe was the only non-lottery player on 1st team. 4/5 players on the 2nd team were non-lottery. Overall, a whopping 7/15 were non-lottery players. Only 3 were #1 overall picks.

I agree there's no guarantees. But after what we know *today*, it would seem a no brainer and a stupid question to ask. You could ask this: "Will DJ Strawberry be a better pick than Greg Oden"? Well, it's certainly possible. Sure, why not. But hell, is it likely? Not even close to being likely. And that's all we can realistically go on.