Someone explain to me how Brook Lopez was a good pick at number 10?

whatever, these days 12-7 center is more than worth the 10th pick if you aren't passing on a potential all star (and i do think he could turn out to be better than that)
al horford got drafted 3rd. shelden williams and tyrus thomas went fourth. rafael araujo went 8th. channing frye too. ike diogu ninth. patrick o'bryant 12th.
big men are just much harder to find than perimeter players, and therefore more valuable. it's just the logic of the market. the demand is simply bigger than the supply. 12-7 big men get salaries in the 7-9 millions range nowadays.

the best player on the board was most probably bayless, but the're set at the PG so they passed. don't really know why you don't like the pick, especially considering he may have gone as high as third pick. it's more than decent value pick even if he turns out just alright.

Well I think he was a good pick because NJ needed bigs and the highest rated oen in the draft fell to them at number 10.

THE HIGHEST RATED BIG MAN IN THE DRAFT WAS AVAILABLE AT NUMBER 10.

Past highest rated big men included Okafor, Shaq, Bargnani, Kwame, Webber, Joe Smith, Yao, Kandi man, Kenyon, Oden, Bogut, Brand, Duncan, Milicic, Camby

ya know? its 50-50 hell be solid. But if he busts I cant say Id be mad. Raps and Wolves have had their share

[QUOTE=VCMVP1551]

By the way about 17 or 18 teams have centers who can give you 12 and 7.[/QUOTE]

Ok then don't have to list them.

So you say 12-13 is not about half the league??

taking a guy at 10, who might be better then 12-13 starting centers in the league is a very very good pick.

I can't believe this turned into a Chris Mihm lovefest. A guy whose best season was 9.8 ppg/6.7 rpg. Spare me

bust.

[QUOTE=Posterize246]I can't believe this turned into a Chris Mihm lovefest. A guy whose best season was 9.8 ppg/6.7 rpg. Spare me[/QUOTE]

Nobody said Mihm is a good player. Only that he was a very good pick at no7 in 2000.
That's why Lopez was a great pick at 10...

[QUOTE=VCMVP1551]Yes answer how he was a "good" or a above average pick at number 10 in a deep draft.

I'd love to hear that answer.

By the way about 17 or 18 teams have centers who can give you 12 and 7.[/QUOTE]
Again go look at recent draft history. It's become the norm for 7' centers with [I]at least[/I] average athleticism and post moves to be drafted in the top half of the first round.

It's really that simple. Whether or not Lopez will stink is irrelevant. His draft placement is in the range you would expect him to be selected.

[QUOTE=fefe]Nobody said Mihm is a good player. Only that he was a very good pick at no7 in 2000.
That's why Lopez was a great pick at 10...[/QUOTE]

How so considering this is a MUCH better draft and there is no guarantee Lopez will even be as good as Mihm.

[QUOTE=fefe]list 6 players that he is not hands down better (same level is good too, since you take the big man, so Jaric, DesMason types wont work.)[/QUOTE]

6 players from the 2000 draft that Mihm isn't hands down better than?

Easy


Kenyon Martin, Michael Redd, Mike Miller, Jamal Crawford, Hedo Turkoglu Joel Pryzbilla and even guys like Darius Miles and Quentin Richardson had seasons as good or better than Mihm.

There are plenty of scrubs who are 7 feet and have decent skills who are scrubs. Lopez is painfully slow, doesn't have a good vertical and he is as soft as a 7 footer can be.

[QUOTE=Da KO King]Again go look at recent draft history. It's become the norm for 7' centers with [I]at least[/I] average athleticism and post moves to be drafted in the top half of the first round.

It's really that simple. Whether or not Lopez will stink is irrelevant. His draft placement is in the range you would expect him to be selected.[/QUOTE]

Well if I don't see him being anything above a decent player and see a good chance he'll be a scrub then what's wrong with me saying I don't see how he's a good pick at 10?

[QUOTE=Da KO King]Again go look at recent draft history. It's become the norm for 7' centers with [I]at least[/I] average athleticism and post moves to be drafted in the top half of the first round.

It's really that simple. Whether or not Lopez will stink is irrelevant. His draft placement is in the range you would expect him to be selected.[/QUOTE]
That only gives a reason why he was picked at 10, not a "good" reason why he was picked at 10 like VC asked.

[QUOTE=VCMVP1551]Well if I don't see him being anything above a decent player and see a good chance he'll be a scrub then what's wrong with me saying I don't see how he's a good pick at 10?[/QUOTE]
Because you're talking about the future without even letting him play Summer League ball let alone real NBA ball. At this point only thing that can be discussed logically and fairly is his draft placement versus his ranking as a prospect.

I didn't like the pick, but Bill Cartwright is an absolute fantastic big man coach. I'm sure he'll find a way to patch up Brook's holes somewhat.

It's not a horrible pick. Not a great one with Bayless being available, but Thorn always drafted players who have high perceived value. I don't think we'll regret the pick anymore than Antoine Wright over Hakim Warrick.

We won't know for another few years, if he was a good pick or not.

I think we did explain pretty well, why people think he was a good pick at 10:

-was projected top3
-best big in the draft
-number 10 is not a high pick, and even if his ceiling is Chris Mihm (like the op suggested), he is still worth a no10 pick in a weak draft.
-he fills a need for new jersey, Lopez will get PT from the start (Bayless wouldn't)
-Nets need cap space for 2010, and taking Lopez will let them not have to sign Krstic. (they gave him a 2,7 mill qualifying offer, but probably wont match if someone offers anything close to MLE. If Krstic played well this year for the 2,7 he would warrant even more next summer.)

So was this a good explanation?

[QUOTE=Posterize246]That only gives a reason why he was picked at 10, not a "good" reason why he was picked at 10 like VC asked.[/QUOTE]
The wording of his subject is not the same as the tone of his initial post.

The initial post questioned why Brook Lopez was regarded as a good pick in the top 10. Questioning why New Jersey would do it was not done.

[QUOTE=wang4three]I didn't like the pick, but Bill Cartwright is an absolute fantastic big man coach. I'm sure he'll find a way to patch up Brook's holes somewhat.[/QUOTE]

Yeah but can you teach toughness? That's one of my biggest problems with Brook. If he isn't tough enough to dominate college big men inside and shoot over 50% then I don't know if he'll be tough enough to be the low post player the Nets need.

I think people are forgetting a couple things about Brook...

The kid is 20 years old coming off of his Sophmore year, only Freshman have more "potential".

Stanford was expected to suck. Brook was the one of the only offensive options on the team and was constantly double teamed, hurting his FG%.

It's the #10 pick... the Nets both filled a need and took arguably the BPA or the best big BPA. I wouldn't have minded Bayless, but Brook is still a good pick.

Starting calibur centers are rare, and the Nets did not arguably have one given Boone's limitations and Krstic's injury history and FA status. The rest of the bigs on the Nets are PFs. Brook is a rare "true" center.

All say and done the Nets added 3 players that combined for around 60 points and 25 rebounds in college... not a bad draft.