Again, you choose to ignore what you want. When a guard loses mobility he becomes something totally different. We can keep bull ting around if you want.
Pau + Odom + Bynum + Sasha + Famar = still yet to win a le. Do they have a good future? Yes. Are they nearly good enough to guarantee "2008 dominance and at least 3 future les"? No.
I will take an all-time great and a good role player over two above average players any day. Give me someone who has won a le over someone who could possibly. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush (in this case Pau and Bynum)
If you want to bring up the injury excuse, we could say the same about Bynum or Kobe's pinkie on his shooting hand.
Are you saying that Duncan + Fabricio is better than Pau + Bynum? That is laughable to me (not the Duncan part but Fabricio?)
If so we can agree to disagree and can bump this thread in a few months to see how it's doing.
So when is Kobe's surgery? Because Manu wants to send him a get well card. He knows how hard surgery can be on a high-level player.
Ya, and getting an injured player sucks, especially when you can make a trade that would not of happened (which your own front office said) that allows you to put in a better player. That would be like Manu going down and we make a trade for T-Mac without giving up anything.
If you watched the Finals and the Olympics, you can see Kobe just isn't shooting well. If your shooting hand has a limp finger, I'd think you wouldn't shoot as well as if you had all working fingers to balance the ball.
When did the front office say they wouldn't have made the trade if Bynum didn't get hurt? Kwame for Pau sounds like a no-brainer to me no matter what team it is.
A pinkie? Where in fact Kobe performs better? That's no injury. That's an ailment, learn the difference. Gino had and has what people who play sports call an injury. Please, stop with this absurdity.
If Bynum would've played, he takes someones minutes, lineups change, so there's no way you can determine his performance and team performance based on speculation. What you are doing with Bynum is attempting to prove a negative, good luck with that.
Yes I am. Are you saying you would rather have two above average players over one of the best players ever and an average player? If so, that is laughable to me.
It is the sum of the whole, the synergies. You can build around Duncan and Oberto and still win a le. You can not build around Pau + Bynum and win (at least it has not been proven). Lets put it this way since we are so into speculation: Pau + Bynum + Kobe is <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Duncan + Oberto + Kobe. So hence, Duncan and Oberto are better because even if you put another superstar like Kobe with Duncan, it would be over. You can not say that with your duo.
Since when is needing surgery an ailment? Bumps and bruises are ailments, requiring surgery is an injury.
You say Kobe performs better, under that same reasoning, Manu doesn't have an injury cuz he scored 30 in game 3 of the WCF. How can you have an "injury" and still score 30?
Manu and Kobe are both hard-nosed players who play through injuries.
If Manu played, he would've taken someone's minutes as well and lineups change. What if he played and sucked? What if he played and was great? Nobody knows that's why injury cards suck.If Bynum would've played, he takes someones minutes, lineups change, so there's no way you can determine his performance and team performance based on speculation. What you are doing with Bynum is attempting to prove a negative, good luck with that.
You were the one that played the injury card, I didn't bring it up.
Duncan is a great player, don't get me wrong...he just doesn't have a good duo going on.
Pau + Bynum should average 37 points, 25 rebounds
Duncan + Fabricio should average 25 points + 15 rebounds
I would easily take Pau+Bynum+Kobe right now over Kobe+Duncan+Oberto
Alright, so we disagree, I'll bump this thread for you in a few months and see how your boy Fabricio is lighting it up in San Antonio this year.
Last edited by Allanon; 09-15-2008 at 06:14 PM.
There is a big difference between the pinky and the ankle. That pinky is an ailment, he keeps delaying treatment, even in the offseason, it isn't as serious.
The ankle is a very unique area, Explanation you say? Sure.
The last season I played, I had a teammate who played on a broken ankle. I'm sorry, let me repeat, ON A BROKEN ANKLE. He was a slasher guard who could dunk and float like it was nothing. During the time of his injury of course he couldn't perform as such, as a result of playing on it he can no longer play. The point here is, you can play on a broken ankel which is certainly an injury. Blasted ligaments certainly are an injury.
If manu played? What are you talking about? You just got done saying he played in the series.
That deal would have not been on the table. The Lakers were already in first place and not looking to do a deal. They were looking for other pieces to fill in some spots, but none of that magnitude. Once they saw Bynum hurt, they made calls to find another very solid player that could keep them in the number one spot. That is when they found Memphis.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042202903.html
It is also funny how everyone in Laker land forgets that Kobe wanted Bynum's ass shipped out of town. He reamed him in public radio, tv and to fans. Now Bynum is the savior????
Kobe's ligament in his finger IS blasted, that's why he requires surgery to fix it....it won't heal on its own. "Los Angeles Lakers guard Kobe Bryant has been diagnosed with a complete tear of the radial collateral ligament, an avulsion fracture, and a volar plate injury at the MCP joint of the small finger of this right hand, it was announced today"
Also, Didn't Manu also delay/almost forego surgery saying he was fine?
Last edited by Allanon; 09-15-2008 at 06:23 PM.
"When Andrew got hurt, we became more aggressive, but we were having discussions before he got hurt," Kupchak said. "We desperately needed a big player. We really could've gotten away from winning, the way we were. We didn't want to lose another season." "
I never forgot that and neither has Kobe. He conceded that he should shut up and stick to playing rather than being a GM. That is why he has become alot more likeable this year.It is also funny how everyone in Laker land forgets that Kobe wanted Bynum's ass shipped out of town. He reamed him in public radio, tv and to fans. Now Bynum is the savior????
Yes, Bynum really is the savior. I and other Laker fans here said all last year the Lakers probably wouldn't win it all unless Bynum was playing in the Playoffs.
Did manu have surgery? Yes. Did Manu play on his ankle and re aggrivate it? Yes. Are the Olympics a opportunity you shouldn't pass up b/c you may never play again? Yes.
If Kobe's Pinky was as serious as he implies he'd have surgery. It's better for his team in the long run to correct this AILMENT immeadiately. What happened is this, he noticed he could still perform and knock down four point plays in clutch situations as NORMAL. He noticed he could slash drive and DUNK with this Pinky with certain and same ease. So yeah, I may delay surgery as well if it isn't that serious.
Your missing the point. The numbers statistically may be better, but that does not mean you can win with them. It is not about Oberto lighting it up. He does lots of things that help a team win and when you place him alongside Duncan it helps. So you are saying you would rather have Pau + Bynum + J.R. Smith than Duncan + Matt Bonner+ Bynum? I mean, Pau and JR's + Bynums combined numbers would be better right? No, because that team, although the numbers are better would not win a le. Duncan's team would. Hence, if you are concerned with winning les and not stats, Duncan + Oberto is better.
It looks like its normal because it's Kobe but he plays through it even though it probably hurts like .
Using your reasoning...Manu still looked like Manu in the Olympics prior to him re-agravating it...I think he was the leading scorer in the Olympics. So obviously Manu playing in the WCF only had an "ailment" as well according to your reasoning.
"Gasol likely wouldn't have become a Laker if third-year center Andrew Bynum hadn't suffered a bone bruise and dislocated his left knee on Jan. 13 in a game against the Grizzlies."
If the reporter who was interviewing Mitch, wrote this doesn't that tell you something?
"Lakers General Manager Mitch Kupchak -- whom Bryant openly criticized last summer for failing to ship Bynum in exchange for Jason Kidd -- quietly worked out a deal for Gasol in exchange for Brown, Javaris Crittenton, Aaron McKie, the draft rights to Gasol's brother, Marc, and two first-round draft picks. Asked if he would've made the trade with a healthy Bynum, Kupchak said: "That's a good question. I don't know."
""When Andrew got hurt, we became more aggressive, but we were having discussions before he got hurt," Kupchak said. "We desperately needed a big player. We really could've gotten away from winning, the way we were. We didn't want to lose another season."
All that means is what I have said. They were talking to teams about trades, not Memphis. When Bynum got hurt, they had to go after a bigger fish to stay on top and that is when Memphis (who was in turmoil with Pau) got called. I have heard this on many sports shows and from your front office and the article proves it.
Pau + Bynum + J.R. Smith
Duncan + Matt Bonner+ Bynum
No, that isn't the same, you have a Duncan level player that needs to be offset by a Kobe or DWade. For clarification:
I would take this mix over Duncan+Fabricio+Kobe:
Pau+Bynum+Kobe
Pau+Bynum+LeBron
Pau+Bynum+DWade
Fabricio is obviously the weakest link in any of these arguments, it sure ain't Pau or Bynum.
Or switch it around Duncan+Bynum+Kobe I would take over:
Pau+Fabricio+Kobe
Pau+Fabricio+LeBron
Pau+Fabricio+Dwade
Last edited by Allanon; 09-15-2008 at 06:36 PM.
See what happens when you use facts and not speculation?
1) We know the Lakers were pursuing a big man
2) We don't know if Pau was in the conversation
3) Mitch conceded that they wouldn't win without another big man
I don't know that the Lakers would have traded for Pau or not. The fact is we don't know. Anything else other than Mitch saying "No" is speculation and I've never seen Mitch being quoted as saying "No, we would not have traded Pau for Kwame if Bynum didn't get hurt".
An injury is an injury no matter who it is.
Manu Reaggravated his injury after having time off. You are forgetting the unique attributes of the ankle.
I don't Kobe keeling over, clutching his pinky at all. I see no evidence besides a ty tape job that Manu plays with normally and has in the past. I see no reaggravation during actions which should certainly cause an aggravation such as a thunderous dunk. Manu reaggravated his ankle by simply driving--Which mean use of the ankle..Kobe uses the pinky, nothing.
So, we can keep deviating from the original topic if you want.
That is funny. Duncan and Kobe are better than any of the players on that list. So having a player like Oberto, who may not score a lot will more than offset either Pau or Bynum. That is the point.
So Duncan crushes Bynum or Pau and Oberto is more than capable of guarding either or. He might not dominate, but he will do all the things necessary to win. Then Kobe beats Wade or Lebron. So you are saying that either Bynum or Pau vs Oberto is enough to off set the domination of either Bynum or Pau by Duncan AND the domination of Wade or Lebron by Kobe?
Uhm, you're the one who said Kobe's injury is not an injury just because he hasn't had surgery. The man has a torn pinky with "blasted ligaments" only held in place by tape and that's not an "injury".
I say both Manu + Kobe have injuries and both play through them. Both Kobe + Manu say they are "fine" but fans like to make excuses for them.
I just showed you an article that says differently. The writer that was interviewing Mitch came to that conclusion after asking him point blank questions. I have heard him talk about it, along with other journalists who interviewed him. All teams are always looking to get better or at trade scenarios. So you can speculate all your b.s. but when I give you something in which there is concrete evidence, with maybe only minor room for interpretation, you say unless he is quoted exactly as saying no, it does not count?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote