Andrew Bynum

[BallSoHard]

What drama? Again was there any drama with Beasley and Memphis?

Also Bynum was in the conversation as the best 5 in the game just a few years ago. Calling this deal a low ceiling one is questionable. He's at an age most players start to enter their primes. I'm not even saying sign him we don't need him. But I don't see any logic in the reasoning against doing something like a 1 year non-guarenteed league min deal. It really doesn't hurt the team at all.

The drama that sees them never getting more than a 1 year deal. You honestly think a good 7 footer is a FA this late if he doesn't bring risk to the table?

This isn't NBA2k where you just grab top rated guy. You don't want these guys coming in and potentially messing up a good locker room then cut them. Sometimes damage is done before you cut. What happens if there's a joe horn willie road situation with one of these two, then we cut him; is that still 0 risk ? (Just an extreme example)

They won't make a big impact on our team therefore they're not worth any risk. And despite you saying there's no risk there is. We just disagree there.

[da ThRONe]

The drama that sees them never getting more than a 1 year deal. You honestly think a good 7 footer is a FA this late if he doesn't bring risk to the table?

This isn't NBA2k where you just grab top rated guy. You don't want these guys coming in and potentially messing up a good locker room then cut them. Sometimes damage is done before you cut. What happens if there's a joe horn willie road situation with one of these two, then we cut him; is that still 0 risk ? (Just an extreme example)

They won't make a big impact on our team therefore they're not worth any risk. And despite you saying there's no risk there is. We just disagree there.

Really Joe Horn/Willie Roaf. Is that the best defense you have LOL? People make far too many wild assumptions about people they don't even know. You don't make roster moves based on who might sleep with who's wives. The whole locker chemistry thing is over blown.

[Mythrol]

Really Joe Horn/Willie Roaf. Is that the best defense you have LOL? People make far too many wild assumptions about people they don't even know. You don't make roster moves based on who might sleep with who's wives. The whole locker chemistry thing is over blown.

It is? What happened to the Pacers this playoffs?

[BallSoHard]

Really Joe Horn/Willie Roaf. Is that the best defense you have LOL? People make far too many wild assumptions about people they don't even know. You don't make roster moves based on who might sleep with who's wives. The whole locker chemistry thing is over blown.

It was an example and it was stated as extreme; so no it's not my only defense. I had about 3 paragraphs worth of it. This is a trend with you. Picking out 1 or 2 things in an entire argument to make yours. Meanwhile you're making wild assumptions that they aren't a problem when past history shows they are. If people don't make decisions based off of locker room chemistry, then why is Bynum not on a team? Why does beasley only get signed to teams with rock solid locker rooms? You're reaching.

[N.O.Bronco]

It is? What happened to the Pacers this playoffs?

Or on the opposite end, the Spurs.

The idea that chemistry is a minimal factor when determining to sign talent is right up there with some of the more ludicrous contrarian stances Da Throne has stood by.

It's like I agree with his initial point - that he would be ok with Bynum on a small non-guaranteed contract - but then he takes it to another level that just leaves me shaking my head a bit.

[N.O.Bronco]

It is? What happened to the Pacers this playoffs?

Or on the opposite end, the Spurs.

The idea that chemistry is a minimal factor when determining to sign talent is right up there with some of the more ludicrous contrarian stances Da Throne has stood by.

It's like I agree with his initial point - that he would be ok with Bynum on a small non-guaranteed contract - but then he takes it to another level that just leaves me shaking my head a bit.

[da ThRONe]

It was an example and it was stated as extreme; so no it's not my only defense. I had about 3 paragraphs worth of it. This is a trend with you. Picking out 1 or 2 things in an entire argument to make yours. Meanwhile you're making wild assumptions that they aren't a problem when past history shows they are. If people don't make decisions based off of locker room chemistry, then why is Bynum not on a team? Why does beasley only get signed to teams with rock solid locker rooms? You're reaching.

1st I never said chemistry wasn't important just overblown. On the right contract a "team cancer" can quickly be removed. I don't see how a couple of weeks of a bad player can ruin a season I really don't.

As for the Pacers this is an example of how these things can't be predicted. Not that it doesn't happen. Are we calling Paul George a team cancer now?

I can't tell you why Bynum isn't on a roster. He may not want a non guarantee deal or maybe he's holding out for more then the league min who knows? I'm sure his reputation is affecting his status in the league. None of this changes the fact that chemistry is completely over blown.

[da ThRONe]

Or on the opposite end, the Spurs.

The idea that chemistry is a minimal factor when determining to sign talent is right up there with some of the more ludicrous contrarian stances Da Throne has stood by.

It's like I agree with his initial point - that he would be ok with Bynum on a small non-guaranteed contract - but then he takes it to another level that just leaves me shaking my head a bit.

You say the Spurs I saw the O'Neal/Bryant Lakers. If anything I would credit the Spurs success more to on court chemistry not locker room chemistry.

[N.O.Bronco]

1st I never said chemistry wasn't important just overblown. On the right contract a "team cancer" can quickly be removed. I don't see how a couple of weeks of a bad player can ruin a season I really don't.

As for the Pacers this is an example of how these things can't be predicted. Not that it doesn't happen. Are we calling Paul George a team cancer now?

I can't tell you why Bynum isn't on a roster. He may not want a non guarantee deal or maybe he's holding out for more then the league min who knows? I'm sure his reputation is affecting his status in the league. None of this changes the fact that chemistry is completely over blown.

Chemistry is important.

Chemistry is overblown.

Now you're just talking out of both sides.

[NOLA_Dave]

The Pelicans should have no interest in someone like Bynum.

[da ThRONe]

Chemistry is important.

Chemistry is overblown.

Now you're just talking out of both sides.

No either I'm not expressing myself well enough or you are failing to comprehend.

Chemistry is important, but if some of you think bringing in someone like Beasley or Bynum in for a few days/weeks can cause irreparable damage to said chemistry then it's being way over blown.

[BallSoHard]

1st I never said chemistry wasn't important just overblown. On the right contract a "team cancer" can quickly be removed. I don't see how a couple of weeks of a bad player can ruin a season I really don't.

As for the Pacers this is an example of how these things can't be predicted. Not that it doesn't happen. Are we calling Paul George a team cancer now?

I can't tell you why Bynum isn't on a roster. He may not want a non guarantee deal or maybe he's holding out for more then the league min who knows? I'm sure his reputation is affecting his status in the league. None of this changes the fact that chemistry is completely over blown.

[AKpelicanfried]

No either I'm not expressing myself well enough or you are failing to comprehend.

Chemistry is important, but if some of you think bringing in someone like Beasley or Bynum in for a few days/weeks can cause irreparable damage to said chemistry then it's being way over blown.

I think people get what your saying. but Bynum just sucks... and is not worth the time. would rather put in effort and time to develop someone who has more potential. in other words, i'd rather have Whithey than Bynum...

[da ThRONe]

I think people get what your saying. but Bynum just sucks... and is not worth the time. would rather put in effort and time to develop someone who has more potential. in other words, i'd rather have Whithey than Bynum...

This is the funny part I don't want Bynum either. My thing is I wouldn't care if Demps decide to bring him in on a fully non guaranteed contract. I don't see the harm in it. This was the OP question.

[Tin_Food]

This is the funny part I don't want Bynum either. My thing is I wouldn't care if Demps decide to bring him in on a fully non guaranteed contract. I don't see the harm in it. This was the OP question.

Yeah I think this is perhaps what people are getting confused about, I just don't see any point on bringing Bynum here given our position, if there was a SF equivalent (that i liked, ie not Beasley haha) then I might consider it a bit more seriously. Maybe a Gerald Green type (before he became a solid player).

[RaisingTheBar]

I'm just going to make it simple and say NO without any explanation.