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

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

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.

---

"No basis" my arse?!? I just told you objectively (as I have cited Laker sources in an article) how Phil and Kobe didn't want such a young, inexperienced player as Bynum and wanted immediate help as they were a win now team, that only GM Kupcake disagreed, that they collectively carried more weight than Kupcake, especially after making the playoffs and demonstrating they could be a win now team, and that Harrington and Childress would be win now players for LA. But that's "no basis"?!? Can you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth?

Quote:

---

You have your own opinion/version of the situation, nothing more.

---

BULLSHIT! I have cited and linked words of an inside LA Laker source citing that Phil didn't want to draft Bynum and that Kobe wanted to win now!

Quote:

---

To insist that a deal would have been a sure thing was, as you say, nonsense. You said it yourself.

---

I never said it would be a sure thing (whatever that is?). Name one GD time I ever suggested such a thing. Just ludicrious your insinuations and mischaracterizatiøns.

I said that we should make the offer, make the offer public, and make LA turn us down. They would have to seriously consider such an offer because of how much it would help them NOW. And with Phil and Kobe in better standing after a playoff appearance, Kupcake likely wouldn't get his (presumed) way. At least half the time you won't get your man if you won't make the deal. Bynum was a great fit for us so make a good deal to get him.

...

Quit being a GD BK apologist with empty rhetorical arguments like "there was no basis for thinking a deal possible", "the deal wasn't a sure thing", etc. If anything these utter mischaracterizations of my position and certainly resemble opinions more than what I have posted. I've at least linked an article citing that hat Phil Jackson didn't want to draft Bynum and wanted more immediate help. what have you done? IGNORED IT!

The article also coincides with Phil Jackson's reputation and Kobe's desire to win now. GET a clue and quit kissing BK's ass øn this one. At some point he's got to be held accountable for a team designed for mediocrity and not contention. These mistakes øf omission, wrong "philosophy, amongst others may not seem of signifigance to you but at some point you're looking at a repetitive 40 win team and wondering what happened to all the rebuilding momentum we had with high lotto pick after pick after pick after pick, former all-stars to trade, massive cap space, etc. At some point you are going to have a mediocre team to examine and you won't be able to with all the muddy water of GM-defending rhetoric you've created.

Unfortunately, revisionist history is going to be prefered by many here over facing the many mistakes management is making. Some even including such lame rhetorical arguments like "well, it's not like BK could get a legit center because there was 'no basis' to think one was ever available", "there was 'no sure thing' deal BK turned down that would have improved the team", or even "well, he was a project center at the time. Nobody knew he would turn out to be so good. Nobody." NØN-[censored]-sense! It is his job, his charge to get this rebuilding right! Quit the GD excuses!

And why? Maybe because people don't like hearing the opinion that we have lost our rebuilding momentum and BK is not the guy to get it back. Maybe people don't want to believe that. Maybe people dont' like me saying it. Fine, but don't make lame ass excuses all over the map for why a GM might not make certain moves representative of the move needed to be made (GET A CENTER IN HERE FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!), just say, "I don't wish to believe that now".

Final_quest, you don't want to believe I even have any objective evidence even though I've cited objective evidence. That's just ridiculous and on top of it you have utterly no objective evidence to support the contrary. It shouldn't require objective evidence for you to realize we needed interior defense at the center position more than a Pf. This is the crux of my discusion of both Bynum and Sene, but you won't even acknowledge that mistake øn BK's part. You line up the BK excuses, ready for when the team reaches mediocrity and sputters so you can demønstrate how no øne could have seen or done anything to avoid mediocrity, that there was 'no basis' this, "no sure thing" that, "no certainty" anywhere...Hell, if you create enough pseudo-doubt and muddy the water enough even OJ Simpson gets off but we all know the man is guilty. There isn't a body yet. There's still some life in the Hawk's rebuilding effort, but it's condition is guarded. Mediocrity is as good as a life lost in this analogy and should we end up there like I believe, don't hide behind your multiple versios of "there was nothing BK could do".

W

[Diesel]

It's very simple Walter.... You are detached from reality. Here's why.

Earlier in this thread, you said:

Quote:

---

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

---

These are your exact words... You're saying it's a shame that we didn't get the trade that you proposed... EVEN THOUGH the Lakers would never have gone for it.. How Detached from reality is that...

OK... Let Diesel play the "We could have got game".

Damnit, We could have gotten Dwayne Wade for Al.

We could have gotten Chris Bosh for Childress and Salim.

We could have gotten Chris Paul for Salim Stoudamire!

SHAME WE DIDN'T

I think my point is made. You can continue your personal attacks without confronting the truth now!

[Final_quest]

Quote:

---

Final_quest, you don't want to believe I even have any objective evidence even though I've cited objective evidence. That's just ridiculous and on top of it you have utterly no objective evidence to support the contrary.

---

You have got to be one of the most absurd and entertaining web posters we have here. Although, I see a risk in you getting banned at some point.

So now non-rumored trades need objective evidence to support a position they weren't a possibility. Nobody discussed this trade, but we need objective evidence to prove it was not a possibility? That's very funny.

I think your objective evidence is rather weak, but I'm not going to convince you of that. It's funny that no team wanted to take a potential franchise center if he was available. Care to explain how that would be the case.

If LA was shopping Bynum and couldn't get what they wanted for him it means he isn't regarded as a prospect in the same light you see him in. The other possibility is that he is totally off limits and not on the market altogether.

My own opinion is that no team would have traded two solid, starter caliber, players for a lottery ticket, but I don't have to be right to think what you're saying is outlandish.

In addition I see your need to connect my disgust at you passing off your fantasy trade as a reality to my being a BK apologist equally absurd. Your logic is as follows anyone who does not support my fantasy trade is an absolute, blind BK follower. My opinion is that you don't use valuable assets on lottery tickets like Bynum and Sene.

Reading Hollinger the other day he made the point that center prospects picked late in the lottery have an abysmal track record. Still another point is that it seems ownership demanded we take no salary back with Harrington, and BK would not have been able to execute your fantasy trade simply because of that.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

If LA was shopping Bynum and couldn't get what they wanted for him it means he isn't regarded as a prospect in the same light you see him in. The other possibility is that he is totally off limits and not on the market altogether.

---

I do think there is a middle ground that someone can believe that a player might be available but only if they initiate the trade conversation.

However, objective evidence doesn't seem to support Bynum being available:

June 27, 2006

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/sport...cle_1194467.php

Quote:

---

But Lakers general manager Mitch Kupchak said Monday he has reassured Bynum, 18, that there is no plan to trade him - even though Kupchak has fielded a slew of inquiries in the past month about Bynum.

"No discussions of a trade," Kupchak said.

---

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/content?statsId=3936

Quote:

---

Lakers general manager Mitch Kupchak said that he's not planning on trading Bynum

---

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=nba&id=2502320

Quote:

---

While Kupchak made clear there are no guarantees, he was quite specific regarding the 18-year-old Bynum, taken with the 10th overall pick in last year's draft.

Kupchak said Bynum has grown an inch during the offseason, putting him over 7 feet tall.

"We're not going to trade Andrew," Kupchak said. "We're very

happy with his progress."

---

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Kupchak says Jackson was on board all the way, but others aren't as sure. Afterward, someone asked a Laker official if Jackson had been against taking Bynum.

"I'm sure he was," the official said.

---

Phil didn't want Bynum. Kobe and Phil want to win now. You can't sit on your hands waiting on other GMs to find the situation to exploit. You must make offers. In this case a very good one still, as Kupcake wouldn't give up on Bynum without enough in return, but the deal was possible based upon Phil's disdain for rookies and this pick, his and Kobe's limited timeline, and the Laker's win now possibilities given last year's playoffs. The deal (or moves) was possible like many deals for centers (Pryz, Nene, Magliore, others) were, none of which this GM got done.

W

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

It's funny that no team wanted to take a potential franchise center if he was available. Care to explain how that would be the case.

---

The same reasoning 8 teams passed on Dwayne Wade, 9 for Paul Pierce, 16 for Josh Smith, etc. It's sometimes the GM "gang mentality that gets in the way, afraid to make the somehow "risky" pick (Bynum was the youngest player ever drafted.). Sometimes it's for other reasons, but players are overlooked every year. It would be foolish to dismiss them because of their draft position entirely. But then again, foolish seems to fit here.

Quote:

---

If LA was shopping Bynum and couldn't get what they wanted for him it means he isn't regarded as a prospect in the same light you see him in.

---

LA wasn't "shopping" Bynum but you don't have to be "shopped" to get traded. Many trades are made as a result of making a team an offer they can't refuse, one they never thought of, yet one that helps your team.

Quote:

---

The other possibility is that he is totally off limits and not on the market altogether.

---

The other possibility Michael Jackson is the world isn't black or white (didilidido-didi-di whew!). There's enough space between a team shopping a player and a player being off limits to drive a hole in the ozone layer through it.

Quote:

---

My own opinion is that no team would have traded two solid, starter caliber, players for a lottery ticket, but I don't have to be right to think what you're saying is outlandish.

---

Hmm? Both of our "two solid, starter caliber, players" we list as a third string Sf, 2nd string Sg behind two uber prospects and a 40 MPG iron-man soon all-star and a 20-something pick now. Interesting how you characterized them. "Fair and balanced" are we? In this same light "Salim is a starting caliber sniper".

Final, you don't have to like it but your "no basis" BS is utterly off base. You can't make an argument without implying two players that either aren't or won't being on our team (as Childress will leave) are somehow more valuable now or later to us than the ideal center prosepect for us. You don't like high upside prospects? Fine. Stay the course towards mediocrity. Just don't [censored] when you get it.

W

[Buzzard]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Kupchak says Jackson was on board all the way, but others aren't as sure. Afterward, someone asked a Laker official if Jackson had been against taking Bynum.

"I'm sure he was," the official said.

---

1st off where is your link to the above quote?

Phil didn't want Bynum. Kobe and Phil want to win now. You can't sit on your hands waiting on other GMs to find the situation to exploit. You must make offers. In this case a very good one still, as Kupcake wouldn't give up on Bynum without enough in return, but the deal was possible based upon Phil's disdain for rookies and this pick, his and Kobe's limited timeline, and the Laker's win now possibilities given last year's playoffs. The deal (or moves) was possible like many deals for centers (Pryz, Nene, Magliore, others) were, none of which this GM got done.

W

---

2nd What is your point? Are you really arguing that your guess about a fantasy trade is possible just because Phil Jackson and Kobe possibly did not like Bynum. And finally, you have no idea what BK tried or did not try. You are just bashing him because you are guessing he did not go after Bynum. You might as well be guessing that he did and bashing Kupchac for turning down BK's offer. This stance of yours concerning trades for centers that should have, would have, and could have is really out there Walter. Even for you....

[gsuteke]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Kupchak says Jackson was on board all the way, but others aren't as sure. Afterward, someone asked a Laker official if Jackson had been against taking Bynum.

"I'm sure he was," the official said.

---

1st off where is your link to the above quote?

Phil didn't want Bynum. Kobe and Phil want to win now. You can't sit on your hands waiting on other GMs to find the situation to exploit. You must make offers. In this case a very good one still, as Kupcake wouldn't give up on Bynum without enough in return, but the deal was possible based upon Phil's disdain for rookies and this pick, his and Kobe's limited timeline, and the Laker's win now possibilities given last year's playoffs. The deal (or moves) was possible like many deals for centers (Pryz, Nene, Magliore, others) were, none of which this GM got done.

W

---

2nd What is your point? Are you really arguing that your guess about a fantasy trade is possible just because Phil Jackson and Kobe possibly did not like Bynum. And finally, you have no idea what BK tried or did not try. You are just bashing him because you are guessing he did not go after Bynum. You might as well be guessing that he did and bashing Kupchac for turning down BK's offer. This stance of yours concerning trades for centers that should have, would have, and could have is really out there Walter. Even for you....

---

you guys give Diesel a pass for trying to pawn off the same crap.

[Final_quest]

Quote:

---

Hmm? Both of our "two solid, starter caliber, players" we list as a third string Sf, 2nd string Sg behind two uber prospects and a 40 MPG iron-man soon all-star and a 20-something pick now. Interesting how you characterized them. "Fair and balanced" are we? In this same light "Salim is a starting caliber sniper".

Final, you don't have to like it but your "no basis" BS is utterly off base. You can't make an argument without implying two players that either aren't or won't being on our team (as Childress will leave) are somehow more valuable now or later to us than the ideal center prosepect for us. You don't like high upside prospects? Fine. Stay the course towards mediocrity. Just don't [censored] when you get it.

W

---

I'm not sure if that is coherent or if we are talking about the same thing. I thought your fake trade was Al and Childress for Bynum. I don't know who you think I'm talking about. Al is certainly starter caliber. Childress you can debate about, but if you don't think he is why do you care if we lose him or not?

Again we see your logical fallacies in play, this is called a false dilemma. You either agree with my trade scenario or you don't like high upside prospects. Anyways, my initial point was that you're being absurd when you hold a GM accountable for not making a trade that you have invented, which has nothing to do with my personal feelings about trading two possible starters for a boom or bust prospect.

All the objective evidence points towards the slimmest of chances of your trade working out. For one, the fact that we were not willing to take back salary for Al ends the chances from the get go.

You have been called out for complaining about a trade that had no chance of going down. I've got no problems with holding BK responsible for things that have happend or not being aggressive enough with getting the right players. However when someone holds the GM accountable for something that has only faint basis in reality what I can I tell you?

[Guest Walter]

...when you look at all the quality center prospects BK has failed to acquire. Since we can't mind read we can't be absolutely certain that BK hasn't wanted all of them (smirk), but I can be 100% certain that he didn't get a single one of them. And hey, we instead traded Al for less, payed more for SW than we should, and built a mediocre team.

It's clear what BK can't do and can from this. Get less, pay more, at best build mediocrity, and not come remotely close to filling the needs for this team that he himself created with 5 consecutive forward drafts.

W

[Johnnybravo4]

Quote:

---

...when you look at all the quality center prospects BK has failed to acquire. Since we can't mind read we can't be absolutely certain that BK hasn't wanted all of them (smirk), but I can be 100% certain that he didn't get a single one of them. And hey, we instead traded Al for less, payed more for SW than we should, and built a mediocre team.

It's clear what BK can't do and can from this. Get less, pay more, at best build mediocrity, and not come remotely close to filling the needs for this team that he himself created with 5 consecutive forward drafts.

W

---

Failed to acquire center prospects? You mean like Zaza Pachulia?

I mean how many center prospects do you want?

[Guest Walter]

...getting too little for Al, spending too much on SW, and building a truly at best mediocre team who will soon lose its young talent due to its misusing it.

I use Sene, Bynum, Nene and Pryz even, interchangably to indicate that the appropriate center exists and has been available to at least some degree and in at least two if not three cases readily within our grasp.

Bynum and NeNe both could have been had in a trade, Sene in the draft, and Pryz in FAcy. We could have acquired a Pf in FAcy for much less. Drew Gooden? FAR better efficiency than SW, equal rebounder, better scorer, and he wouldn't have cost a pick at all. PJ Brown as a stop gap role playing Pf. Wilcox. Others. We could play ZaZa there alot also if we had signed a better, more defensively capable center.

Anyhow, BK has had more chances than one can conceive to right this rebuilding effort and instead he sails for mediocrity. Deep down inside you know it, but you'd rather debate the "certainty" one cannot have about BK intentions. His results are a mediocre team. You don't need three top 6 picks, other 1st rders, all the cap space in the world, and many players to trade to reach that meager level. Had we merely kept SAR, Theo, JT (or traded them for equal talent, not gutted the team in order to move up in the draft), and added just JS we'd be where we are today or better with similar long-term prospects for a title.

W

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Failed to acquire center prospects? You mean like Zaza Pachulia?

I mean how many center prospects do you want?

---

ZaZa is a very good BU, starter worthy only alongside an all-star true Pf, and alongside JS and MW is a hybrid center joke.

But to answer your question? One fewer than we have Sf prospects. How many of them does a team need?

W

[OmniDweller]

Ican't agree with you more. Whoever produces will play. Let's not start this (BS) before the season opener even starts. Remember we are Hawks Fans United. Let 's find something positive to talk about, not topics to divide and enrage us. This year is going to be special just watch and see.