Sports Ilustrated senior writer Ian Thomsen covered the 2004 NBA Draft in New York City. He answers some of the more intriguing questions that arose from this year's casting call for new talent.

SI.com: What is your overall impression of the 2004 NBA Draft?

With Ben Gordon joining Kirk Hinrich and Jamal Crawford, the Bulls might have the league's most versatile backcourt. AP

Thomsen: It was very unpredictable. Right up until draft time there was trade talk. The moves by Dallas (trading for the No. 5 selection) and Chicago (taking the seventh pick from Phoenix) changed things up a bit. Dallas also tried to trade the No. 5 pick and Antoine Walker to Golden State for the 11th pick and a few players from the Warriors. And as far as the actual selections, people generally knew which players would be taken in the top 20 but nobody knew the order they were going to be selected.

SI.com: What were the biggest surprises?

Thomsen: Nobody really knew what Atlanta was going to do with the sixth pick. I think Cleveland was looking to take Josh Childress at No. 10, but even a couple of hours before the draft the Cavaliers still weren't sure what Atlanta was going to do. As it turned out, Atlanta took Childress, which was fine with Cleveland, who was happy to take Luke Jackson.

Another surprise was Seattle's selection of Robert Swift. He was one of three players the Sonics were looking at there, but they've rarely taken a high-school guy before. That they've taken one at this time, with coach Nate McMillan in the final year of his contract, is an interesting development.

Overall, though, there were no real shockers. Nobody came out of the blue in this draft. It was just the order that was somewhat surprising.

SI.com: Are there any trades from draft night still in the works?

Thomsen: I don't think so in the immediate future. Later this summer, I think we're going to see Indiana doing something with Ron Artest or Al Harrington or both. There will also be a lot of talk about Shaquille O'Neal and what the Lakers are going to do. Will Dallas be willing to trade Dirk Nowitzki, along with Steve Nash, to get him? And of course there's the question of whether or not the Lakers are willing to give up Shaq. It depends on who the Lakers hire as their new coach and if that coach can repair the problems between Shaq and Kobe Bryant.

SI.com: Did Dallas do enough in the draft to get Shaq without having to give up Nowitzki?

Thomsen: As far as trading Shaq goes, the first order of business is for the Lakers to decide whether or not they want to trade him in the first place. I think L.A. might still want to keep him, unless they become convinced that they are better off taking his salary and splitting it among two or three very good players, rather than all of it on the most dominant player in the league

First the Lakers have to decide if their association with Shaq has run its course. They have to ask themselves if the team would be better served taking his monster salary and spreading it among two or three very good players. If they think they are better off with a team based around Shaq and Kobe -- if they think they can still win championships that way -- then they have to decide if they can keep Shaq happy in Los Angeles. Can they keep him motivated and keep Shaq and Kobe on the same page, so they don't want to tear each other's heads off? Once the Lakers decide Shaq's future with the team, then we get to assess whether Dallas has done enough, and has enough, to entice the Lakers. Of course if the Lakers feel they have to trade Shaq that opens up quite a different scenario than if Dallas is trying to pry Shaq away, which would force the Mavericks to include Nowitzki in their offer. But if the Lakers put Shaq on the market and tell people he's not coming back next year, then L.A. is in the position of having to take the best offer, which would create a bit more flexibility for Dallas.

SI.com: What team had best draft?

Thomsen: Chicago did very well. Ben Gordon is a player whom a lot of teams coveted because so few guys are ready to step in and play immediately on the NBA level, especially one with a championship pedigree who is known for working hard. Gordon is cut from the same cloth as Kirk Hinrich; both are tough, reliable gym rats, true basketball guys. And Hinrich is the player whom Chicago coach Scott Skiles and GM John Paxson like the most on that team. So I think Gordon will fit very well there. Now the Bulls can go into the offseason with the knowledge that if they trade Jamal Crawford, they'll be OK because they have Gordon and Hinrich in that backcourt. And if they keep Crawford, they'll have a three-guard rotation in which all three guys can play both backcourt positions.

For all of the flexibility Gordon will provide, Chicago's biggest need was on the wing, and Luol Deng (who came via the No. 7 pick Phoenix traded to the Bulls) was the best wing player in the draft. A lot of people feel he will be a future All-Star. As much as the Chicago wanted to use this draft to add veteran help -- something it wasn't able to do -- the Bulls did the next best thing: they got two young players in this draft who should really help them.

The other team that did very well was Utah. The Jazz took Kris Humphries (whom Boston wanted at No. 15) with the 14th pick. He'll be able to help them very quickly. He's a tough guy, has a nose for the basket and seems like a Jerry Sloan type of guy. They also added Kirk Snyder, who's a great talent who slipped in this draft. He'll make them much more athletic.

SI.com: What teams had a poor draft?

Thomsen: The team that had some bad luck was Boston. The three players I think the Celtics would have liked to get were Swift, Sebastian Telfair and Humphries. Those guys went at Nos. 12, 13 and 14 before Boston picked at 15. That left Boston to take Al Jefferson, who will be a very solid power forward and should have a long career in the league, but I don't think he was at the top of its list. But that's how it goes when your first draft pick is No. 15.

As for the other teams, we're not going to know for another perhaps four years how most of these guys pan out. These guys are all just so young and unfinished.

SI.com: Did the large number of high school players in the first round surprise you?

Thomsen: This isn't a new trend. The draft is all about futures now. That's what the teams are looking at and how the general managers are being judged. And in this climate, as crazy as it sounds, it's easier to sell Sebastian Telfair straight out of high school as a guy who's going to get better than college senior Jameer Nelson, who is what he is. Nelson is sort of a dinosaur in this draft. (To be honest, part of the reason Nelson went a No. 20 -- to Denver, and later Orlando via trade -- is his size. Plus, if they had a sprint between Telfair and Nelson, Telfair would win.) But the draft has become an exercise in predicting the future; it's not a judgment of what's happened in the past anymore. A lot of people don't like it, but they all cooperate in it.

SI.com: Who will emerge as the best talent to come out of this draft?

Thomsen: When you put together his size, his athletic talent and what appears to be a very positive attitude, the most dominant player in the draft is Dwight Howard. A lot of people in the league, though, feel that Shaun Livingston, three or four years from now, has the potential to be the point guard of his generation. Still another guy who I believe will be very good very soon is Deng. From everything I hear he has the makings of a future All-Star. Finally, there's Swift, the center whom Seattle selected. With his feel for the game as a passer and a shot-blocker, he has the makings of a very intriguing player. He also was very smart in choosing to not work out for teams before the draft. It seemed like the less he showed, the more intriguing he became.

SI.com: Why was there so much trade talk heading into the draft?

Thomsen: It's because, as one executive put it to me, this is now a draft of agendas, it's not a draft of straight talent. Every team has a different goal it's trying to pursue. Half of the league wants to win now and half wants to win three or four years from now. As a result, two teams will look at the same player and see totally different things.

There were also wildly divergent opinions about the value of these players because it was a futures market and teams were trying to predict what players would become. There were great differences of opinion about how valuable certain players were. So teams were left discussing internally where they needed to go in the draft to get the guy that they wanted, yet no one could be sure if that guy would be available because they didn't know what the team in front of them was thinking. It was just a very complicated draft and this is how it's going to be from now on unless an age rule is mandated, which I doubt will happen.

Sports Illustrated senior writer Ian Thomsen covers the NBA beat for the magazine and is a regular contributor to SI.com.