# D'Antoni - No Regrets Trading Balkman



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

> Renaldo Balkman. in an Internet report said Sunday that the Knicks "already" regret trading him to the Nuggets last summer.
> 
> 
> The 2006 first-round pick has played well in a reserve role for Denver, but Mike D'Antoni said there are "no regrets" and explained that Balkman, a 6-8 swingman, did not fit in the plans with the Knicks because Wilson Chandler and Danilo Gallinari were going to get the bulk of the minutes.
> "And to be honest with you," D'Antoni said, "I don't think [Balkman] would be a difference-maker." -- Newsday


http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/features/rumors


----------



## knicksfan (Jan 4, 2003)

Dumb D'Antoni. I liked him more than I do Gallo. Seriously though, we should have drafted Rondo over Balkman anyway.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Kidding right?*

If you or ANYONE liked Balkman the player over Gallo the player, they're complete basketball morons.


----------



## Kiyaman (Aug 14, 2006)

*U got to be....Kidding right?*



alphaorange said:


> If you or ANYONE liked Balkman the player over Gallo the player, they're complete basketball morons.


*Now that feeling is mutual!!! *

*The Tazman was NBA ready in his rookie season....*Dantoni tried replacing Balkman Tazman performance with Ewing Jr., Harrington, Tim Thomas, and Wilcox, this season. 
And sorry to say....but Chandler & Gallo overall talent would've been improving each game playing alongside of Balkman rather than his replacements this season.


----------



## Kiyaman (Aug 14, 2006)

USSKittyHawk said:


> http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/features/rumors



*Dantoni comment on Balkman only proves that he is only an offensive-minded coach. 

Dantoni is clueless on how to run a defensive-system and how to utilize defensive-minded players.*

Dantoni inhereted two rookie contract defensive bench players in 6.7 Balkman & 6.6 Collins whom could've been our tandem "stopers" off the bench vs oponents SF and Guards....inwhich they both showed to be the best defenders in our SLG vs centers, fowards, and guards. 
We had the chance to keep these cheap defensive players for two seasons and search for a shotblocker to compliment their performance this past offseason and regular season through trade or a signing...

*but defensive-minded our new regime is not.*


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Balkman is a scrub*

Good for maybe 6-8 minutes on a good team. The fact is that he hasn't improved one tiny bit in 3 years. Let's stop making him out to be more than he is. The reality is that Ewing2 offers more. If Balkman was a 2nd rounder, he's be in the D league. He'll have trouble getting a second contract.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

the simple truth is d'antoni and walsh made a mistake here and if they had it to do over they wouldn't have done the deal.

they said they did it because there would have been no time for balkman because they were deep at forward. and if their forwards had stayed healthy they may have been right.

the knicks were hit with alot of injuries , they were thin most of the year everywhere, they could have used the depth instead of trading balkman ...even if they still didn't want to pick up his option, they could have used him this season.

if they dont regret it they are idiots.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Why was it a mistake?*

If they wanted a guy like that, all they had to do was keep Ew2, plus he would have been cheaper.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

I gotta say that Walsh screwed the pooch on this one. I don't think trading Balkman was the issue; it was what we got in return-which was nothing- after giving up a guy that definitely can contribute to a winning team. It's clear that when given time, Balkman could produce big(he had a recent stretch where he averaged near a double double filling in for someone injuried). I personally think the guy is an excellent spark off the bench and think he would have made a big difference for us this year during dry spells. Not having him has made us to rely heavily on Nate for that change of pace we desperately needed so often at times this season.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*yeah, he had a good game*

But one or two games before that he got zeros across the board. No loss. Besides, how do we know that he didn't try to get other offers? I mean, the guy will be lucky to be in the league after his contract runs out.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: yeah, he had a good game*



alphaorange said:


> But one or two games before that he got zeros across the board. No loss. Besides, how do we know that he didn't try to get other offers? I mean, the guy will be lucky to be in the league after his contract runs out.


Well, Balkman only played 4 and 2 minutes respectively in those two games (which were not consecutive) February 6th and 18th. In spite of that, he still had 2 steals in that 4 minute game. The following series of games, he had several games where he either notched or approached a double double in limited minutes; far from the "good game" you alluded to in your title. We don't know whether there were other offers out there but what we do know is that we gave him away for nothing. In retrospect, I would have preferred keeping him than having that alternative, which offered no real benefit to us.

As much as you say he'll be lucky to get another contract, he's been recently praised by Denver newspapers for his play and has impressed others. I think the guy definitely will be around for some time because of the intangibles he brings to the game. I find it odd that you are thoroughly behind Patrick Ewing Jr., who has been a free agent all season and recieved no interest from other NBA teams and yet can not respect Balkman's value.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Why was it a mistake?*



alphaorange said:


> If they wanted a guy like that, all they had to do was keep Ew2, plus he would have been cheaper.


while neither of them are scorers , balkaman and ewings jr. have completely different skillsets, different strengths , and some differnt weaknesses.

and balkman has already proven he is an nba player ...how good of one is up for debate , ewing jr. has not , plus the exchange of ewing jr. for balkman isn't just their salaries , remember walsh and dantoni traded balkman for 2 guys for salaries sake, cutting balkman for ewingII isn't even a wash, it would have been cheaper to keep balkman than to cut his guarenteed deal and then sign PEthe 2nd


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Actually it was 3/27*

and you're right...it wasn't all zeros. He also had 3 PF in 12 minutes. You can also check the next 4 or 5 games after, and a few before...almost nothing. If he is good, he'd surely play more than 5 minutes, yes? Again, just agree to disagree. Time will tell.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Actually it was 3/27*



alphaorange said:


> and you're right...it wasn't all zeros. He also had 3 PF in 12 minutes. You can also check the next 4 or 5 games after, and a few before...almost nothing. If he is good, he'd surely play more than 5 minutes, yes? Again, just agree to disagree. Time will tell.


Everyone is entitled to an off game, especially when they are looking to make something out of 12 minutes of play. Personally, I don't believe that Balkmans worth is strictly measured by stats. He brings a lot of the intangibles that make the difference on plays and ultimately the game. As much as his minutes have not been consistent this year, I would imagine that a star like Carmelo Anthony might have a little something to do with that. Time will tell.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Let's be serious for a moment*

What is it that Balkman really brings? Scoring? no. Rebounding? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Defense? I have always felt his defense was a little over rated. Ball handling? Not bad on the break but otherwise middle of the road for a SF. Passing? More turnovers than assists. Hustle? Yes, yes, yes. IMO, people tend to romanticize what he really is because of the hustle and the unique appearance. I know that I did the same thing with Lee (because of the hustle). 

I saw enough of Ewing to know he is longer, has more vertical, is a bit quicker, also a good rebounder and hustle player. Balkman handles better and Ewing shoots better(not saying much). Ewing is also a very good defender.


----------



## Kiyaman (Aug 14, 2006)

*Re: Let's be serious for a moment*



alphaorange said:


> What is it that Balkman really brings? Scoring? no. Rebounding? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Defense? I have always felt his defense was a little over rated. Ball handling? Not bad on the break but otherwise middle of the road for a SF. Passing? More turnovers than assists. Hustle? Yes, yes, yes. IMO, people tend to romanticize what he really is because of the hustle and the unique appearance. I know that I did the same thing with Lee (because of the hustle).
> 
> I saw enough of Ewing to know he is longer, has more vertical, is a bit quicker, also a good rebounder and hustle player. Balkman handles better and Ewing shoots better(not saying much). Ewing is also a very good defender.



Balkman brings a little-bit of everything....but the best thing Balkman brings is his awareness and High IQ on both sides of the court....his ball handling and passing-skillz gives him the advantage to only take shots above his 51% shooting range. 

Balkman is the last Foward put on the Denver Roster....so his playingtime comes when injuries hit: Melo, or K-Mart, or Kleiza, or Birdman Chris Andersen, inwhich all 4 fowards are worth 28 or more mpg so Balkman have to be patient and respect the players in front of him. 
Will Denver resign Balkman in the 2010 FA offseasons? 85% yes. 

Would Balkman have given the Knicks a better performance than Q.Rich and Jefferies gave this season? 90% yes.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Baloney*

Balkman and high IQ don't belong in the same sentence. Now, Balkman and high...yes. BTW, it doesn't matter when you were put on the roster, meaning last forward brought in. If he was good, he'd play no matter when he was put on the team. He shoots 51% because he can't make anything outside of a dunk or 2 footer. If he took other shots, he'd be booted in a second.

Better than Qrich? That can't be a serious question. Better than Jeffries? In some ways, maybe but Jeffries had a longer and higher contract plus he is a more versatile defender.


----------

