Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bynum is much better than Olawankandi( spelling?) ever was, but I'm beginning to suspect his body cannot stand the rigors of an NBA season playing starter minutes. And I've read somewhere that he has one of those injuries that will be problematic for as long as he's playing. So who knows if you ever get a full season out of this guy where he can give you 35 minutes a night and high production. At 23, the high instances of lower body injuries isn't a good sign, especially when you're 7 foot and carrying alot of weight on your torso.
I don't have to get over anything. In fact you said a similar thing in the previous post...
"Compared to centers of the 90's - yea Bynum doesn't stack up."
....so don't know what the purpose of your reply to me was. Comparing players past and present is as old as sports itself.
Guess the sarcasm got lost in the text...
I wasn't actually comparing Bynum to the past, I was more or less agreeing with the idea that the Bynum and the rest of today's "centers" aren't like they were in the 90's. The bigger point to that was that it's irrelevant to this discussion. You can't compare Bynum in today's NBA to (insert prominent center) of the 90's or earlier. It's a different NBA. Centers had more offensive influence in the game back then. Guards didn't dribble the air out of the ball then shoot from 30 feet like they do today. There were better big-man teachers back then. There are just fewer big men, let alone average to good big men, in the league today. Heck, there are 7 footers today that shoot from the perimeter... The comparison is lame. No, Bynum won't stack up to the guys of the 90's because it was a different game then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dub D
Hes not a good center. He is a reserve center. He could and people thought he would become a good center hence the attention but he is too injury prone.
He's a reserve center for other teams in other situations...
I get it. You're banging on the hype. That's a different argument than mine, I guess. Overrated based on someone else's judgment? Can't be mad at that since evaluating talent is far from an exact science. Teams miss on "talent" all the time. And Bynum wasn't even that bad of a miss. You can't really predict "injury prone"... And even if you could, you can't predict how efficient a player will be given the limited time he'll be available. And talent is separate from injury prone. Staying injury free isn't a talent. We know Bynum is talented on the floor. So the Lakers still did okay.
And wasn't Olowakandi (I don't know the spelling either) in a situation where he was expected to contribute more to his team? Bynum doesn't have that pressure. I'm sure they'd like for him to do more and play 82 games and all the rest. But that isn't his reality and they can get by without that. The Lakers are smarter than most teams and didn't put all their eggs into Bynum or Kobe or whoever to be the savior. They probably expect the minimum from Bynum (knowing what they know now) so they stack up by going out to get Gasol, Odom, etc. Bynum may never be fully healthy, ever. But so far, what he is is serviceable. Anything more than the 20-25 minutes Bynum gives in the playoffs is icing on the cake.
You can't really predict "injury prone"... And even if you could, you can't predict how efficient a player will be given the limited time he'll be available.
Let me clarify this before someone else tries to hammer me...
You can predict potential injury. But you can't predict when it will happen. You can't always predict specifically what will happen or the circumstances in which it will happen. You can't always predict whether or not it will happen over and over again. Every body is different, heals different, etc. There are quantifiable measures like body type, leg length, amount of playing time, etc that go into it. But there are too many intangibles to ever be exact. Science is nowhere near that yet. Any prediction would be an educated guess at best.
Everyone needs to remember that Phil Jackson knows that the regular season is really a glorified pre-season for the elite teams and that being healthy and peaking at the end is what is critical.
The Lakers can play without Bynum for a good portion of the season and then bring his injury prone butt in for the latter part of the season and the playoffs....as opposed to bringing him back off surgery and then running him for a full season and hoping he holds up.
He'd be hard to trade with his injury history and fits a need for the Lakers right now as they just need him healthy for the finals. When his contract ends if he hasn't put the injury bug behind him he will get a much smaller deal.
If you followed the Bulls back in the day, the injury list was a nice way to give guys a rest break without making fans or the NBA angry.
I wasn't actually comparing Bynum to the past, I was more or less agreeing with the idea that the Bynum and the rest of today's "centers" aren't like they were in the 90's. The bigger point to that was that it's irrelevant to this discussion. You can't compare Bynum in today's NBA to (insert prominent center) of the 90's or earlier. It's a different NBA. Centers had more offensive influence in the game back then. Guards didn't dribble the air out of the ball then shoot from 30 feet like they do today. There were better big-man teachers back then. There are just fewer big men, let alone average to good big men, in the league today. Heck, there are 7 footers today that shoot from the perimeter... The comparison is lame. No, Bynum won't stack up to the guys of the 90's because it was a different game then.
Yeah, I'm not familiar enough with your posting to spot the sarcasm.
Bynum is a classic back to the basket center, in which case even though the game itself is a bit different now than in the 90's, you can still do an apples to apples comparison with other back to the basket players from then. Now, if we're comparing someone like Dirk to say, Hakeem, then yeah the comparison is invalid because Dirk despite his height has a perimeter based game. But comparing Bynum to say Hakeem isn't invalid at all because they're both back to the basket centers from the modern era. And the 90's is still recent enough to be considered the modern era. It's not like we're comparing Bynum to George Mikan here.
Yeah, I'm not familiar enough with your posting to spot the sarcasm.
Bynum is a classic back to the basket center, in which case even though the game itself is a bit different now than in the 90's, you can still do an apples to apples comparison with other back to the basket players from then. Now, if we're comparing someone like Dirk to say, Hakeem, then yeah the comparison is invalid because Dirk despite his height has a perimeter based game. But comparing Bynum to say Hakeem isn't invalid at all because they're both back to the basket centers from the modern era. And the 90's is still recent enough to be considered the modern era. It's not like we're comparing Bynum to George Mikan here.
Okay, I get where you are coming from. I was saying in regards to him being overrated today, compared to today's centers, he's not overrated (unless you compare him to the hype he came in with, then I don't bother arguing that opinion). I totally get comparing Bynum's style of play to the 90's centers because his game is more like them.
I'd like to adjust my original opinion on this. Yes Bynum's handling of this situation and others are unprofessional. Yes it's poor judgment. I don't disagree with that...
But the idea of trading him is a little much. When he's healthy, he's one of the best in the league and fits pretty well in the starting rotation for the Lakers. It also makes the bench significantly stronger because Odom willingly comes off the bench. They won 2 championships and been to one more in the last few years. So, in my opinion, it's worth it. The key in the quote above is "almost" referring to Bynum being a liability. If Bynum was supposed to be the center-piece and go-to scorer, then I would have a huge problem with it. But the Lakers have had the best team (arguably) over the last several years. Bynum isn't the first or second option and they have a couple big-man combinations with Gasol, Bynum, and Odom that are (obviously) sufficient with Kobe, Fisher, Artest, Phil Jackson, etc. Bynum's behavior isn't exactly the making of a champion, but you'll never find a championship team with 12 Kobe Bryant-type hard working guys.
And he only needs to be healthy for the playoffs...
Watch the lakers make a move for Melo and trade Bynum to Denver.
I just don't see that one happening.
-Lopsided trade
-Western Conference rival
-Need more depth at PF\C than at Melos position
-Melo kinda redundant to the Laker's guard situation
-Haven't looked closely but probably no room to make trade with salary cap differential without having to bundle a lot of players.
With that said, the Miami development has to have the Lakers looking to upgrade and not just stand pat...I just think they don't have much room to manuever at this point.
With that said, the Miami development has to have the Lakers looking to upgrade and not just stand pat...I just think they don't have much room to manuever at this point.
The Lakers added Steve Blake, Shannon Brown, and Theo Ratliff this off-season...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
