^^I think they say no. I think if there was an opportunity to do a trade of Bynum for Bosh then the Lakers would think about it… but I honestly don’t see them trading Bynum for a guard. The Lakers need the two big men as starters so Odom can come off the bench… thats what I think
.greg.
Without hesitation. Are you kidding me? If I was GM I’d say no in a heartbeat. Bynum’s value on the Lakers with the current make up of the team is way higher than Parker’s value would be.
Again, did you watch the playoffs? We came up against every fast awesome athletic point guard in the league with Derek Fisher, Shannon Brown and Jordan Farmar; no disrepsect to my man Fish but these guards (Westbrook, Williams, Nash, and Rondo) killed them. And you know what? The Lakers still won. Why? Size.
Why would the Lakers trade size and not gain size in return? Why would revert to a strategy that the other teams employ that did not get them to a championship?
If you are even asking this question (Parker for Bynum); you would not make a good GM; keep your day job 
If you look at the NBA Champion teams from the past 10+ years there is a reoccurring theme… Dominant big men.
1999 San Antonio Spurs Duncan, Robinson
2000 Los Angeles Lakers Shaq, Horry
2001 Los Angeles Lakers Shaq, Horry
2002 Los Angeles Lakers Shaq, Horry
2003 San Antonio Spurs Duncan
2004 Detroit Pistons Wallace, Big Ben
2005 San Antonio Spurs Duncan
2006 Miami Heat Shaq
2007 San Antonio Spurs Duncan
2008 Boston Celtics KG, Posey
2009 Los Angeles Lakers Gasol, Odom
2010 Los Angeles Lakers Gasol, Bynum, Odom
all of those teams had big men who made the difference. Obviously there were other players and factors that went into these teams winning but a dominant big man and another good supporting big man equal playoff success
.greg.
[quote]ADvanced TS wrote:
[quote]tmoney1 wrote:
Alright we’ll start with LeBron:
I can all but guarantee you he’s not staying in Cleveland. My guess is NJ. Him and Jay-Z are boys, new owner in Prokhorov, new coach in Johnson (which players in Dallas liked AJ) and a team that already has a decent core with Harris and Lopez. Harris I think would be the perfect sidekick for LBJ. They also have the #3 pick in the draft, hopefully they pick Derrick Favors from Ga. Tech. So you’re looking at Courtney Lee, Devin Harris, LBJ, Favors and Lopez as the starting five. Looks decent to me.
D-Wade: staying in Miami
Bosh: he’ll go where another big star is. My guess is the Heat with D-Wade
Amare: Bulls
Dirk: Suns (replaces Amare, reunite with Nash for one last title run)
Joe Johnson: stays in ATL
Allen and Pierce: both stay in Boston
Manu: Spurs for life
Fisher: stays with Lakers
Phil Jackson: coaches Lakers next season[/quote]
So Donnie Walsh spends the past few years clearing cap space for 2 max guys this year and they get…?
[/quote]
I guess no one according to me haha.
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]tmoney1 wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
That sucks about Bosh’s comments. I thought he was cooler than that. Oh yeah, I just got back from CO man. It’s gorgeous out there![/quote]
Yeah didn’t think he was like that, but oh well. Glad you liked it out in CO, did you go to Estes Park again with your GF?[/quote]
Yeah man, we spent 2 nights in Boulder, one in Ft. Collins, one in Estes and one in Denver. It was awesome. Hope all is well on your end homey. Be easy. Also, I really like that more people on T-Nation are getting involved on talking ball. It used to be pretty slim pickins around here. Glad everyone [even the trolls] have something to say. [/quote]
Awesome man, I’m about 25 miles from Ft. Collins. Let me know next time you’re here and maybe we can get together.
Completely agree re: more people talking ball. Usually it was just me, you and a couple of other guys. The first three NBA Playoff threads were pretty slim in terms of discussion and reads. This year blew the top off as we filled two threads with almost 2000 posts. Let’s do it bigger next year!
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
[quote]randman wrote:
Alright, can we all take off of our retarded caps for a moment?
There is no way the Lakers are trading Bynum for any type of guard whatsoever. Did you all just watch the same playoffs I did? It was the Lakers size which ended up being the biggest factor that trumped everything else. Yes, even a hobbled Bynum was highly effective at playing defense, getting rebounds and making Pau’s job easier down low.
The ONLY acceptable trade for Bynum is another comparable big man, that’s it. I can guarantee that Mitch Kupchak is not and will not trade Bynum for any guard at all.
And I’m willing to bet they’ll get some veteran point guard who will take less money with the opportunity to win a championship with the Lakers if they can’t trade for one.[/quote]
I dunno, if the Spurs call up the Lakers and say, “Parker for Bynum, straight-up,” do the Lakers say no?
[/quote]
They definitely say no. Bynum is too valuable to the Lakers.
If I remember correctly, Jason Kidd almost went to the Lakers a few years ago. The Nets said they wanted Bynum; the Lakers said we’ll give you anyone but Bryant and Bynum. So the Lakers value Bynum greatly.
[quote]randman wrote:
Again, did you watch the playoffs? We came up against every fast awesome athletic point guard in the league with Derek Fisher, Shannon Brown and Jordan Farmar; no disrepsect to my man Fish but these guards (Westbrook, Williams, Nash, and Rondo) killed them. And you know what? The Lakers still won. Why? Size.[/quote]
Interesting, I was under the impression that the Lakers won because they had the two best players in the series, one of whom happened to be a guard.
Bynum averaged 8.6 points and 6.9 rebounds per game in the playoffs and 7.4 points and 5.1 rebounds in the Finals. He was a nice complementary piece, but certainly not one of the 5 best players in the series. Tony Parker won a (somewhat dubious) Finals MVP and averages over 18 points per game in the playoffs for his career.
I’m not saying it’s an obvious deal, or that I would necessarily trade Bynum for Parker if I were the Lakers. You can make the argument that Bynum is still developing and, if he can stay healthy, can be a top-5 big man (at least offensively) in the league. And that the chance to have a dominant big man is more valuable than the certainty of having a very good (but not great) guard.
But let’s take off the yellow-and-purple-tinted sunglasses here and realize that Bynum has never even started more than 65 games in a season yet, and has some serious health issues. He’s only 22, but is that a good thing (because he’s obviously developing) or a not-so-good thing- because if you’re 7’ and having health problems at 22, things may not improve down the road. As of right now, Bynum is still very much a role player.
[quote]gregron wrote:
If you look at the NBA Champion teams from the past 10+ years there is a reoccurring theme… Dominant big men.
1999 San Antonio Spurs Duncan, Robinson
2000 Los Angeles Lakers Shaq, Horry
2001 Los Angeles Lakers Shaq, Horry
2002 Los Angeles Lakers Shaq, Horry
2003 San Antonio Spurs Duncan
2004 Detroit Pistons Wallace, Big Ben
2005 San Antonio Spurs Duncan
2006 Miami Heat Shaq
2007 San Antonio Spurs Duncan
2008 Boston Celtics KG, Posey
2009 Los Angeles Lakers Gasol, Odom
2010 Los Angeles Lakers Gasol, Bynum, Odom
all of those teams had big men who made the difference. Obviously there were other players and factors that went into these teams winning but a dominant big man and another good supporting big man equal playoff success
.greg.[/quote]
While I agree that history’s shown that dominant big men win championships, I’d argue that Gasol isn’t really a dominant big man. He’s definitely one of the best in the league, but if he got traded to a team that wasn’t so stacked, like say Toronto, I can’t really see him carrying them into the playoffs the way Shaq could in his prime. Or Tim Duncan.
If anything the current Lakers are the only team other than Jordan’s Bulls that have shown they could win without a beast at centre.
[quote]gregron wrote:
If you look at the NBA Champion teams from the past 10+ years there is a reoccurring theme… Dominant guards.
1999 San Antonio Spurs Johnson, Elliott
2000 Los Angeles Lakers Kobe, Glen Rice
2001 Los Angeles Lakers Kobe, Fisher
2002 Los Angeles Lakers Kobe, Fisher
2003 San Antonio Spurs Parker
2004 Detroit Pistons Billups, Hamilton
2005 San Antonio Spurs Parker, Manu
2006 Miami Heat Wade
2007 San Antonio Spurs Parker, Manu
2008 Boston Celtics Pierce, Allen
2009 Los Angeles Lakers Kobe
2010 Los Angeles Lakers Kobe
all of those teams had guards who made the difference. Obviously there were other players and factors that went into these teams winning but a dominant guard and another good supporting wing equal playoff success
.greg.[/quote]
FTFY
I don’t think Bynum could really get you much of anything on the market, big player or small. He’s a decent player but he’s injury prone, and has 2 or 3 years left on a contract that at this point is clearly overpaying him.
I remember thinking about whether the Rap’s could feasibly get Bynum and maybe another player in return for Bosh, but I honestly found it difficult to see why we’d want him at all.
Something I’m using to help keep track of things as far as which teams have enough money, how long players’ contracts are and for how much, etc.
[quote]LarryDavid wrote:
If anything the current Lakers are the only team other than Jordan’s Bulls that have shown they could win without a beast at centre.[/quote]
Gasol basically averaged a 20/10 in the playoffs the last two years; sure he’s not quite as dominant as Kobe, but was either the best or 2nd-best big man in the playoffs, depending on how you feel about Dwight Howard’s performance.
However, go back to the '89 Pistons and the only teams that have won without a dominant guard are the '99 Spurs (best guards were Avery Johnson and Sean Elliott who were good but not great) and the '94 Rockets (Maxwell and Kenny Smith). You might be able to lump in the '04 Pistons, but Hamilton took over in the playoffs and Billups was huge as well.
On the flip side, the '04 Pistons did not have a dominant big man (Big Ben was a beast defensively but worthless with the ball in his hand and Sheed was far from dominant), neither did any of the 6 Bulls championship teams or the '89 or '90 Pistons.
So 2 teams have won championships without dominant guards, but 9 teams have won without dominant big men.
But really, it has nothing to do with big men vs. guards. It just has to do with building teams around great players. You need a star who’s a top-5 (or maybe even top-3) guy in the league, a secondary star who can take over one or two games, and then a solid supporting cast, usually with one guy who wouldn’t be considered a star but could elevate his game at times to pick up the top 2.
'89 and '90 Pistons had the Isiah as Batman, Dumars as Robin and guys like Lambier, James Edwards, Rodman, Aguirre and Vinnie Johnson.
We all know about the Bulls. Their lineups were basically the blueprint for what I’m talking about.
The Spurs had Duncan as the go-to guy, Robinson as the 2nd-banana for the 1st championship, and then Parker filling that role later and supporting guys such as Manu, Bowen, Finley, Stephen Jackson, etc.
The Heat had Wade with Shaq as the supporting guy and the refs as crucial role players
Celtics had Pierce + KG and Allen, Rondo, Posey, etc.
Lakers have Kobe + Gasol with Odom, Artest, Fisher, Bynum, etc. Before that it was Shaq with Kobe as the supporting guy.
The only teams that didn’t win this way I think were the '94 Rockets as Hakeem was the only real star (although they were deep with guys like Cassell, Horry, Thorpe, Maxwell, etc.), and the '04 Pistons, who didn’t have a top-5 guy, they just had an extremely deep team and two guys in Hamilton and Billups who could score late and some shut-down defenders like Prince and Wallace.
Of the last 21 championship teams, 13 have featured a guard as the best player and 8 featured a big man. I don’t really think you can say that a team wins with big men or with guards; you win with a good balanced teams with one superstar and (at least) one very strong complimentary player and a bunch of role players who fit well together.
Fuck it, you win.
randman wrote:
Again, did you watch the playoffs? We came up against every fast awesome athletic point guard in the league with Derek Fisher, Shannon Brown and Jordan Farmar; no disrepsect to my man Fish but these guards (Westbrook, Williams, Nash, and Rondo) killed them. And you know what? The Lakers still won. Why? Size.
Interesting, I was under the impression that the Lakers won because they had the two best players in the series, one of whom happened to be a guard.
Bynum averaged 8.6 points and 6.9 rebounds per game in the playoffs and 7.4 points and 5.1 rebounds in the Finals. He was a nice complementary piece, but certainly not one of the 5 best players in the series. Tony Parker won a (somewhat dubious) Finals MVP and averages over 18 points per game in the playoffs for his career.
I’m not saying it’s an obvious deal, or that I would necessarily trade Bynum for Parker if I were the Lakers. You can make the argument that Bynum is still developing and, if he can stay healthy, can be a top-5 big man (at least offensively) in the league. And that the chance to have a dominant big man is more valuable than the certainty of having a very good (but not great) guard.
But let’s take off the yellow-and-purple-tinted sunglasses here and realize that Bynum has never even started more than 65 games in a season yet, and has some serious health issues. He’s only 22, but is that a good thing (because he’s obviously developing) or a not-so-good thing- because if you’re 7’ and having health problems at 22, things may not improve down the road. As of right now, Bynum is still very much a role player.
I can’t believe you are still giving any merit to this point whatsoever. It has nothing to do wih purple and gold tinted sunglasses, I has to do with logic and lack of stupidity. Bynum is one of two true centers in the league right now. Your grabbing at statistics like that is objectively going to make your point between Bynum and Parker. This isn’t baseball, it’s basketball.
Getting rid of a starting center with lots of upside potential even with injury concerns for an aging point guard would be insane. You don’t give up talented size unless you get talented size in return. Burn this in your brain please, your grasping fo straws here. Changing ou Bynum for a point guard completely changes up the make up of that team; and not for the better. Please stop the insanity of defending this idiotic idea. It has no merit whatsoever.
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
Lots of info…
…Of the last 21 championship teams, 13 have featured a guard as the best player and 8 featured a big man…[/quote]
No one ever said that the big man had to be the featured player or the best player on the team. I just said that no team in the past 12 years (i believe thats how far I went back) have won a championship without good players with size… and most had multiple big men. Its a team sport and there are 5 guys on the court so obviously all have to contribute to win but teams without good-great players with size HAVENT won in the past decade.
.greg.
^ What he said.
You also have to consider defensive rule changes when comparing back before 00-02ish(those 3 years all had numerous rule changes referred to as the Shaq rules, plus the changes to hand checking[only allowed below the free throw line]). Comparing lineups that won with/without those rules is not the best idea.
^^Agreed. The game goes through changes. Teams with big men used to win (wilt, bill russel, kareem) then we all know about Jordans Bulls winning 6 titles without great big men (although Rodman/grant were beasts and kinda filled the role defensively of a big man) and now in the current game its size that’s winning titles.
I’m sure it’ll come back around and teams without good big men will be winning rings but its just not happening these days.
.greg.
haha the Lakers just won a fucken championship and we’re already talking about next season! This is what happens in all professional sports. The fun is in the journey; 81 games plus some. Hey the Lakers won and I’m disappointed the Celts couldnt pull it off but I had fun watching NBA basketball this year no matter what. Sure it wasnt as good as years before but its still basketball; the game I love.
I don’t really care where all these dudes go but id be very happy to see a distribution where they improve the NBA product as a whole.
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
I don’t really care where all these dudes go but id be very happy to see a distribution where they improve the NBA product as a whole.[/quote]
Who let David Stern into this thread…