I know a lot of poster won't like this but

[Johnnybravo4]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What was Zaza's PER?

---

Not bad relatively, but he's older than Bynum, has had more (professional ball with regards to SW) experience than the others, has less upside than Bynum, and is a hybrid center incapable of aligning with MW and JS at the forwards.

I'll take the almost equally as good 19 yr old that doesn't sit our best talent, who has the most uupside, and who can justify a 2, Sf starting lineup.

W

---

What is your fascination with young stiffs? Are you sure youre not really Sen Foley?

[Final_quest]

Quote:

---

Uh, we could've gotten Bynum for Al and Childress. Shame we didn't.

---

I knew this would happen. All of the sudden a fantasy trade in your imagination becomes reality.

Care to provide your link for what your claim is based on. If not please explain how you are certain this was a deal that LA would have accepted.

I'm not even sure it would have been a good trade, but I'm nearly 100% certain this fantasy trade was never close to reality.

[gsuteke]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

SW has a 11.17 PER and Bynum has a 10.7 PER in the preseason. Considering Bynum is 3 years younger and less experienced and we wouldn't have issue with benching MW or JS, I'd

d@mn

sure rather have him than SW!

W

---

in case you run a bit low there's a sale on negativity on aisle 3

---

Would you rather have a 19 yo Bynum (eventually starting) at center with MW and JS starting or an equally productive 23 yo SW at Pf with ZaZa and JS or MW starting? It's seems easy to me, but of course you can't handle the truth without crying foul about the messenger.

Answer the F-ing question.

W

---

Walter please hold onto what little bit of credibility you still have on this board by refraining from cursing at me.

If you need some help formulating your feelings on this matter into type please contact someone such as AHF. he seems like the do-gooder type.

Now to address your question Walter it is of no consequence who I want. The 2006 Hawks roster is intact at this point. if you would like to know my feelings on Bynum check my posts during the Harrington saga.

As for now though I will not make a fool out of myself by continuously doing the equivalent of yelling "fire" on this forum.

Sit back, relax, get back on the meds and enjoy the ride Walter.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

What is your fascination with young stiffs? Are you sure youre not really Sen Foley?

---

NOT merely a mediocre one...preferably one where JS and MW can start at forward because I believe that is the best means to our contending given we would not likely get their value in return in trade or if lost to FAcy.

I think contention through this prefered means requires a dominant, true center capable of holding down the post. No offense to ZaZa, but he cannot do that.

Bynum BTW is statistically as good as SW this preseason. I'll take my "stiff" 4 years younger, 4 1/2" taller, with infinately more upside, and one better for the team. Wouldn't you? Wouldn't everyone? I'm sure no amount of rational thinking would get you to answer in the affirmative, but others, perhaps.

[Final_quest]

Quote:

---

What is your fascination with young stiffs? Are you sure youre not really Sen Foley?

---

It's called believing the fantasy, and ignoring the reality.

Fantasy: All we have to do is find a young center wasting away on someone's bench that will dominate on offense and defense.

Reality: If that center existed no way would any team let them go, and it wouldn't matter who we played at SF and PF because we would have a franchise player.

Finding the player you are talking about is what every team in the league is trying to do. Centers that dominate with rebounding, defense, and post scoring are solutions for any team's situation, not just ours.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Finding the player you are talking about is what every team in the league is trying to do. Centers that dominate with rebounding, defense, and post scoring are solutions for any team's situation, not just ours.

---

Neither Kobe or Phil wanted a 19 y/o center there. They wanted immediate help. Has Phil EVER played a player under 23 YOA? Seriously. It goes against his philosophy.

We wouldn't trade Childress, either if it wasn't for having 2 better Sf prospects and a great Sg, just like LA wouldn't trade Bynum if they weren't a win now team with Phil and Kobe wanting to win now. WE would trade Childress and they would trade Bynum despite the ideal. Get out of your vacuum and realize teams often make moves based upon what their team needs and not what some notion of conventional wisdom indicates. Al Harrington and Childress would have been a talent coup for LA and Bynum would have be a potential roster fixer for us. Win/win. Now we're wondering fi our team is ever going to look like much less act like a title contender.

W

[thesheedera]

Quote:

---

Bynum BTW is statistically as good as SW this preseason.

---

You do realize how completely insignificant this is?

We have a young developing center in Zaza. Just because Bynum fits the measurables to be a "two way dominant center", he hasn't shown enough skills to project as a dominant anything, offensively or defensively. At least we've seen Zaza produce and imporve, Bynum is still a COMPLETE unknown.

I like Bynum, but I will never understand your obsession with him.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

You do realize how completely insignificant this is?

---

Perhaps like enzymes are insignificant catalysts. Maybe a small piece to you but freeing up the team to play a 2 Sf starting roster and the players to play their primarily perimeter oriented game, without fear of conceeding the post would be invaluable.

Quote:

---

We have a young developing center in Zaza.

---

Keep him. Just don't count on a front line of ZaZa and SW to title contend.

Quote:

---

Just because Bynum fits the measurables to be a "two way dominant center", he hasn't shown enough skills to project as a dominant anything, offensively or defensively. At least we've seen Zaza produce and imporve, Bynum is still a COMPLETE unknown.

I like Bynum, but I will never understand your obsession with him.

---

There is no sure thing here, but considering he is statistically near equal to SW already and not far behind ZaZa either, I'd rather take my chances on a player that COULD make us contenders, who is bigger, potentially better, younger, and less experienced indicating feven more room for improvement, than one currently better who cannot make us contenders.

We are a 26 win team. We cannot trade Al for nothing, bench our best prospects, and expect a ZaZa, SW frontline to make us contenders. YOU KNOW THIS, but for whatever reason people make excuses for BK not getting it done and done right.

W

[Final_quest]

Quote:

---

Al Harrington and Childress would have been a talent coup for LA and Bynum would have be a potential roster fixer for us. Win/win.

---

So again, how can you substantiate with complete certainty that this trade was a reality? You can post your opinion all day, but it won't convince me and hopefully anyone else that a random internet poster's trade proposal is a real life certainty.

Regarding Bynum. This is a separate topic from your nonsense-fake-confirmed-trade-fantasy. I can't take a couple youtube clips and determine that he is a future franchise player. I hope GMs put more care and analysis into their personnel decisions, but I just have to question what your basis is for your projections of Bynum's game are.

[thesheedera]

Hang on, I was referring to how insignificant preseason stats are, they don't prove that Bynum is anything at all. A small indication that he's impoving, but he doesn't "compare" with Zaza due to it. Statistically he doesn't compare to Zaza in any way shape or form as an NBA player.

You want to jump from 26 wins to championship team by getting one 19 year old center that averaged 1.6 ppg and 1.7 rpg as a rookie??? I like Bynum too, would love to have him, but he wouldn't make our team any better for a long time, and possibly never. YOU KNOW THIS! Bynum wouldn't guarantee a damn thing, except that we'd have one more guy on the roster not allowed to buy beer.

[Traceman]

taken Roy (and possibly Foye) instead of Shelden. If JJ couldn't make the conversion to full time PG, why are you so SURE that Roy (or even Foye) could have? If they couldn't have, we would have been stuck with an even worse situation because playing either of them a lot would have likely resulted in JJ (our best player BY FAR) playing away from his natural position. Down the road, the possibility that someone would be looking to go elsewhere would still exist. Roy (or Foye) could have looked to leave to get out of JJ's shadow or if Roy (or Foye)was great, then Smoove or Marvin could have looked to leave because JJ was playing more SF to make room for Roy (or Foye).

The reality is that unless we had taken a true PG (Marcus Williams or Rondo) or a true Center (O'Bryant or Sene) at #5, we were going to have PT issues. At least Shelden's skills go toward addressing our biggest weakness last year which was lack of interior toughness/lack of interior D. Time will tell if it was the right decision.

[Peoriabird]

Quote:

---

There is no sure thing here, but considering he is statistically near equal to SW already and not far behind ZaZa either, I'd rather take my chances on a player that COULD make us contenders, who is bigger, potentially better, younger, and less experienced indicating feven more room for improvement, than one currently better who cannot make us contenders. W

---

Chicago felt the same way about an undersized power forward and ended up with an oversized stiff that they were happy to get rid of this year for a bag of chips!

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Al Harrington and Childress would have been a talent coup for LA and Bynum would have be a potential roster fixer for us. Win/win.

---

So again, how can you substantiate with complete certainty that this trade was a reality?

---

There is no such thing as complete certainty or at least absolute certainty so what you are asking for is nonsense.

I am certain that Phil Jackson lobbied against drafting Bynum, that Kobe reportedly wanted immediate help, that they both see now as the time to win together, and that everyone knows Bynum won't be ready for a full load of responsibility for several years. I also know that Childress and Harrington could help LA out more than Bynum can NOW.

These are either certainties or opinions shared by most everyone, making for a consensus where "complete certainty" is not possible. The facts are that it was a perfect storm for acquiring Bynum. He wouldn't be "cheap" but Al Harrington's value to us wasn't deemed squat so what loss would he have been. Childress? Again, deep on our bench. What loss to us?

Quote:

---

I just have to question what your basis is for your projections of Bynum's game are.

---

The NBA on NBC. It's the GD LA Lakers. They play on national TV frequently. It only takes a few times watching Bynum to realize that the kid (and that's what he is) has some serious potential to go along with his dreamy size. Of course, you want "complete certainty" so would it convince you if I was Hiro, time traveled to the future, and saw the player Bynum came to be. I mean come on. Get a grip.

Bynum is as good/productive as SW is now. If that isn't proof enough for you, watch him. If you don't believe Phil and Kobe wanted help NOW, get a clue. If you don't believe they have more power than GM Kupcake, another clue. It would still have taken the right deal, but we were positioned in the perfect storm to give it to them.

W

[gsuteke]

how come you have no interest in talking about the Hawks that are on the floor tonight?

[Final_quest]

Quote:

---

There is no such thing as complete certainty or at least absolute certainty so what you are asking for is nonsense.

---

Exactly, now you get it!! Not really, but you at least said it. You have no basis for claiming that we could have traded Harrington for Bynum.

You have your own opinion/version of the situation, nothing more. To insist that a deal would have been a sure thing was, as you say, nonsense. You said it yourself.

[gsuteke]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

There is no such thing as complete certainty or at least absolute certainty so what you are asking for is nonsense.

---

Exactly, now you get it!! Not really, but you at least said it. You have no basis for claiming that we could have traded Harrington for Bynum.

You have your own opinion/version of the situation, nothing more. To insist that a deal would have been a sure thing was, as you say, nonsense. You said it yourself.

---

Walter has become a bombthrower. you people keep giving him the platform to throw them from.

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

I knew this would happen. All of the sudden a fantasy trade in your imagination becomes reality.

---

EXACTLY...

The only person I ever remember saying Al/Childress for Bynum is Walter. Moreover, the salaries could have never matched. Walter doesn't argue the facts, he just changes the reality.

[Diesel]

It is the delusion that Walter so strongly believes that makes this funny.

If there was a young Hakeem sitting on somebody's bench... Would they just give them to us because we're the Hawks???

It's easier to find a virgin prostitute than to find a Big Man with all the attributes that Walter is talking about. Moreover, when you do find something similar, no team is just going to give them to you... regardless of what you offer. I've said this before...

Swingmen are a dime a dozen!

[Peoriabird]

Quote:

---

easier to find a virgin prostitute than to find a Big Man with all the attributes that Walter is talking about. Moreover, when you do find something similar, no team is just going to give them to you... regardless of what you offer. I've said this before...

Swingmen are a dime a dozen!

---

That is why we should have drafted Sene

SEA 3 0 8.7 1.000 .000 .500 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.67 3.00 2.0

We could have used this two way dominate center this year!

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

EXACTLY...

The only person I ever remember saying Al/Childress for Bynum is Walter. Moreover, the salaries could have never matched. Walter doesn't argue the facts, he just changes the reality.

---

Yes, I was the only person to state the specific trade of Al/Childress for Bynum/FILLER (the later you changed the reality on).

I never said this was a rumor. I said it should be. I said that we should whole-heartedly go after (a player like) Bynum øn a team like LA because it was a rare example of the type player we needed and situation we could exploit for øur team advantage.

So what exactly about the reality have I changed but your misrepresenting WHAT I SAID? At least try and get it right, Diesel, before you comment upon "reality". You've never once approached reality so no worries with your missing it here.

W