<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Fans Blamed For Bypassing Bynum Isiah Thomas blamed the mean Knicks fans for his bypassing center Andrew Bynum in the 2005 draft for Channing Frye at No. 8. The Post reported at the time that Thomas, if Frye were off the board, would take Bynum (then 17), who dominated Eddy Curry yesterday with 13 points and 8 boards. "The only reason why we didn't take Bynum was because of his age," he said. "Because of New York, our crowd. ... It would be tough on a 17-year-old here in New York. The two-year beat-down in New York, I didn't know if he would have enough to come back out of it." -- New York Post</div>
Isiah's retarded. Why can't he just come out and admit when he's done something wrong? Sounds like something a little kid would do.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Andrew Bynum's development this season has been one of the positives of the Lakers' surprisingly successful start to the season. But though the Knicks had a chance to draft the young big man instead of Channing Frye with the eighth overall pick in 2005, Isiah Thomas says he wasn't sure the New Jersey kid could endure "the beat-down here in New York" he would have had to endure as a developing player. "The only reason why we didn't take Bynum was because of his age," Thomas said of Bynum, who was 17 at draft time. Thomas said he believed that the New York crowd would have been tough on Bynum in the two years that he would have had to develop. Thomas, who traded Frye to Portland last summer in the deal for Zach Randolph, said Los Angeles is a better situation for Bynum. Thomas says that's because of the presence of Kobe Bryant, who, some may remember, publicly criticized Bynum while trying to force a trade last summer. "Kobe makes all the difference," Thomas said. "When you're playing with a person such as him, you can hide a lot of things. He casts a big shadow and so you can do a lot of things and wait because of that guy named Bryant."</div> Link
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brian @ Dec 24 2007, 09:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Who did they draft? Channing Frye? Who??</div> Channing Frye, Nate Robinson and David Lee. It was an excellent draft for them.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Universe @ Dec 24 2007, 10:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brian @ Dec 24 2007, 09:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Who did they draft? Channing Frye? Who??</div> Channing Frye, Nate Robinson and David Lee. It was an excellent draft for them. </div> Channing was good his rookie year... I don't know what happened to him. When Robinson and Lee get minutes, they produce (i.e. last season for Lee; Robinson in April when everyone was injured.)
Not a bad call. Bynum probably wouldn't have developed in New York, and for what it's worth, he was/is immature. They had one of the better drafts of any team that year. Like MrJ said, Frye was great in his years with New York, a lot better than Bynum was for the Lakers for those years. Thomas has always been a decent talent scout. He just sucks at every other aspect of basketball management.
I thought Thomas was a very good coach in Indy. They blew up the team and rebuilt it during his time as coach. Too bad Bird didn't want any part of him. http://sportstwo.com/NBADB/Coach/THOMAIS01
Channing Frye was a promising rookie who couldn't defend. David Lee is an outstanding role player. Nate Robinson is someone with freakish athleticism but with a reputation with making bad decisions out on the court. Andrew Bynum will be better for all three. I don't understand the logic. Los Angeles isn't exactly Bismark, ND. It's the second largest media market I believe in the United States. How much money would the Knicks have saved if they had taken Andrew Bynum and passed up on Eddy Curry? Not to mention losing their lottery pick.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Dec 25 2007, 12:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Channing Frye was a promising rookie who couldn't defend. David Lee is an outstanding role player. Nate Robinson is someone with freakish athleticism but with a reputation with making bad decisions out on the court. Andrew Bynum will be better for all three. I don't understand the logic. Los Angeles isn't exactly Bismark, ND. It's the second largest media market I believe in the United States. How much money would the Knicks have saved if they had taken Andrew Bynum and passed up on Eddy Curry? Not to mention losing their lottery pick.</div> Nate's decision making has improved greatly and despite a low FG% (which generally improves towards the end of the season (see last year and the year before)), Nate's energy often ignites the Knicks to make a run, albeit in vain. Nevertheless, he always plays with heart. Bynum was a huge risk. He was 17 years old, extremely raw, and would be playing in the biggest, most scrutinized basketball stage in the world. I know LA is a big market also, but there really is no place like New York. Could Bynum deal with the nightly boos? What about Larry Brown, who had NBA veterans confused and losing their confidence? Eddy Curry would not have mattered either. Bynum was not ready to take on the reigns as the starting center in New York. Either way, Isiah would have tried to acquire Curry (he's been trying to get him ever since he took over the Knicks). In fact, towards the trade deadline there was a trade on the table: Crawford/Frye for Odom/filler, but Isiah requested Bynum, and the Lakers refused. And while I would have rather kept my lottery pick, it's not too bad considering how bad the 2006 draft was. And while Bynum has performed well thus far, the season is young. I remember last season he regressed as the season progressed. At the time, Frye was the right pick. In hindsight, Bynum was.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Dec 25 2007, 12:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Channing Frye was a promising rookie who couldn't defend. David Lee is an outstanding role player. Nate Robinson is someone with freakish athleticism but with a reputation with making bad decisions out on the court. Andrew Bynum will be better for all three. I don't understand the logic. Los Angeles isn't exactly Bismark, ND. It's the second largest media market I believe in the United States. How much money would the Knicks have saved if they had taken Andrew Bynum and passed up on Eddy Curry? Not to mention losing their lottery pick.</div> But like Thomas said, Los Angeles had Kobe, New York didn't. "Kobe makes all the difference," Thomas said. "When you're playing with a person such as him, you can hide a lot of things. He casts a big shadow and so you can do a lot of things and wait because of that guy named Bryant." Bynum's still overrated anyway. He's not as great as 90% of this board make him out to be, like Sean Williams, or how Tyrus Thomas used to be rated back on JBB. I understand the concept of potential, but some people take that and run with it, assuming that the player will fully maximize their potential and then some.
