RealGM

Does anyone think LA would do that at this point? And if so, would we take the risk on this oft injured player. I ultimately don't think they would because money isn't an issue for them, and Bynum has the upside they want for years to come. But if they were, this could be intriguing to both.

It would be a high risk, high reward for us. It could make us a championship caliber team and it could weigh us down for years like Ak's contract has done if he stays injury prone.

Lakers wouldn't do it. Bynum has been a huge piece of their championship teams by creating mismatches with 2 legit 7 footers.

Lololololol....this would be a no-brainer for the Jazz, and the Lakers would never consider it. Both players have injury issues, Bynum is better AND plays a position that is almost impossible to find. Not to make fun, but this is a joke.

We'd need a couple of firsts for me to even consider it.

I wouldn't be interested. He's not only fragile but totally unprofessional. Bynum; for those with any doubt.

No to all AK trades. Simple as that.

ARE YOU KIDDING?? Who ever wouldnt do this trade for the jazz is stupid id eeven throw in crapper miles

The only reason I even remotely think LA might consider this is because Bynum has not been a factor for them in the finals the last couple of years because of his injuries and they still have won the championship.

Artest made a bigger difference for them than Bynum.

The key thing I believe is the frustration they feel that an often injured big man, who knows his team is disappointed in his health and rehab efforts decided this summer to postpone (ala Shaq) his surgery until right before the season so that he could go to the world cup this summer.

That shows very poorly for him. So poorly that you would almost question taking the risk on him if you are the Jazz.

The reason I would take the risk, is the upside factor of course but also the fact that I think Bynum is frustrated in LA because he wants a bigger starring role and he is mired behind Gasol and Kobe for sure and sometimes even by Artest and Odom.

I think he would blossom in Utah into a super star as the 2nd scoring option behind Big Al.

Does LA do it because of money, probably not. Do they do it at all? Probably not. But there is more to adding Ak's expiring than just money savings. They are frustrated with Bynum. I would throw in a Francisco Elson to the deal to give them a serviceable backup, and possibly Miles if Hayward shows potential.

ad lamor odim and fraceco elsten and its a deeel

Believe or not Lakers do this trade in a second! Bynum knee is still a big issue and he is likely out for 1-2 months and his knee may never be stable. He has an extremely large long term contract. No one in the league would touch Bynum right now. The Jazz would never do this deal!

If healthy, he is the perfect fit, but he is not healthy and may be worse off than Memo health wise as his knee is a chronic problem. You cant risk having to pay a large long term contract for someone with a serious long term injury who is lucky to play half the games each year.

I would do it just because if Bynum was healthy for a whole playoffs, we could actually beat the lakers and maybe win a championship after dwill / bynum / jefferson jell for awhile.

It beats our current prospects of 0. But LA would never do this. We dealt with AK's albatross contract, we can deal with Bynum's if the upside is interior defense (gasp!).

countrybama24 wrote:I would do it just because if Bynum was healthy for a whole playoffs, we could actually beat the lakers... It beats our current prospects of 0.

Perhaps more than most bigs, Bynum only plays D when he's motivated by involvement at the other end. He's neither clever (on-court) nor can he pass effectively, so how much ball could he get without it costing our brilliantly refined offense? I also imagine Phil Jackson et al would have little problem conjuring an effective game plan against their former charge, so I'll grant you a 5% chance of beating the Lakers with Bynum. Climb over that, with the other risks he brings, if you will.

nyjazzfan wrote:ARE YOU KIDDING?? Who ever wouldnt do this trade for the jazz is stupid id eeven throw in crapper miles

This guy has been bustin my balls all day.

Ern III wrote: [Bynum's] neither clever (on-court) nor can he pass effectively, so how much ball could he get without it costing our brilliantly refined offense?

This is the philosophical problem our front office has. We don't have to be a top 5 efficient offense, or average 100+ points per game. We need defense. We can't keep trying this philosophy where "every player must be well-rounded offensively and pass, shoot a little, and score." That gets us draft picks that don't emphasize defense, trades for offensively oriented personnel (i.e. Diaw), and generally an entire roster of offensively gifted but defensively limited players.

If you want to win a championship, you're gonna have to sacrifice some offensive efficiency to protect the rim. We're not gonna find a center who can pass well, has diverse offensive skills, plays good post defense AND can block shots. Those centers demand max money, are generally top 5 picks in the draft, and for the most part don't hit the free agency. The next best thing? A center who can defend the post, block shots, and is serviceable on offense (IE bynum).

Our center doesn't need a lot of touches. Our team does need a center who can block a damn shot, when it's the 4th quarter, and their guards are slashing to the rim at will. If not, we're just gonna be the Suns 2.0 who have a great offense, but can't get a damn stop in crunch time.

We dealt with Ronnie Brewer's horrible offense for 2 years, and thats at a position that generally demands more scoring (or at least shooting, hence the "S" in SG) than center. Ronnie couldn't shoot for ****, he's not a passer, and he needed to be assisted on 70% of his field goals. Can bynum do that? Yes. And it will disturb our offense even less because his defender has to stay at least somewhat close to bynum at all times, whereas Ronnie's defender could roam all over the court. If you leave bynum, he's getting a dunk or an offensive rebound (ronnie was only a threat for the former).

If you're number one priority in building a team (or making personnel decisions) is you wanna score 105 ppg and have the most efficent offense possible, you're never gonna have the personnel needed to advance in the post-season. We've tried offense first for almost a decade now. Lets try something else.

countrybama understands.

Sensible talk and, as I've expressed many times, I realise we could compromise a little offense for better defense, but I refer countrybama24 to the sentence prior to that which was quoted. Get the defensive center, just don't make it Bynum. For all his natural gifts he remains an unreliable chump.

im with soul patch on this one.

Ern III wrote:Sensible talk and, as I've expressed many times, I realise we could compromise a little offense for better defense, but I refer countrybama24 to the sentence prior to that which was quoted. Get the defensive center, just don't make it Bynum. For all his natural gifts he remains an unreliable chump.

Sure, I can totally understand the arg that Bynum will never be healthy (just like Oden), and thus is a bad move for the Jazz. I just think an argument that centers around "sure they're good at defense, but their offense is bad" isn't a reason to not trade for them. Bynum is an elite defender, and if there weren't health concerns, this trade would be a no brainer. I just think concerns about undermining our "brilliantly refined offense" are vastly overstated, and offensive production should be a distant second to defense presence when trying to find our center of the future.

Acceptable arguments (imo) against bynum are (1) he isn't that good at defense or (2) he's injured all the time. I disagree with 1, but I think ANY concerns about his lack of offensive production, and how that undermines the team's offense, are exaggerated and ultimately superfluous in building a championship team (you have other reasons for disagreeing with a bynum trade, I'm just disagreeing with one of your warrants). You said we could compromise a little offense for better defense, I think we should even take a risk and compromise a lot of our offense if it can get us a top 5 interior defense.

The flex is pretty durable, and it doesn't just fall apart with one offensive black hole. The system, dwill and al jefferson ensures our offense is gonna have at least a modicum of efficiency no matter how bad role players are. Our system inflates any players offensive potential but can't teach short, slow players how to block shots.

only if D. Williams is included with AK47

joe.linnen wrote:only if D. Williams is included with AK47

Lol. This thread probably deserves that response. As brittle as Bynum is, the Lakers obviously wouldn't consider trading him for AK for even a nanosecond.