Anonymous asked: But the Bucks made the playoffs. That's what matters. The Kings and Warriors didn't.

I understand that, but for this point to be valid, it's assuming that each of the three were drafted into the same situation. If that were the case, and Jennings took his team to the playoffs when Tyreke and Curry didn't, then it's a valid point. Jennings was drafted 10th, Tyreke 4th (even though the Kings had the worst record in the league) and Curry 7th, so going into the season, the Bucks had a better team because they finished with a better record than the Kings and Warriors the previous season. It is not Tyreke's and Curry's fault that their teams are bad.

Anonymous asked: Has James Harden's rookie season been a disappointment? Where would this team be with Evans or Curry?

I don't know if it was a disappointment, but I don't know if this is the right situation for him. With Sefolosha inked long term, and the Thunder's commitment to defense, I don't know if Harden will ever get the chance to fully reach his potential in OKC.

As for the Tyreke vs. Curry on the Thunder debate, I actually was talking to someone on NT about this. I said that the Thunder would be more dangerous with Curry, he said Tyreke.

My reasoning: I think that the Thunder desperately need another scorer and perimeter threat. Curry and Tyreke can both be the second scorer to Durant, but Curry would be the perimeter threat that they need. Also, Curry is a much better distributor than Evans. Curry can play the point and let Westbrook slide to the two or he can play off the ball. Tyreke dominates the ball and that would take away touches from Durant. Tyreke and Westbrook together would have to be the worst shooting backcourt in the league.

I'm glad this is a discussion though because I wouldn't be able to imagine the Warriors without Curry right now.