Kenyon Martin: why u no want me?

Texas Lakers Fan wrote:

last stand wrote:Don't want his cancerous self here just to be a 5th big. Not worth the risk

What risk?

He's a cancerous personality.

Don't like him

None of these reasons are good enough to pass on getting him for vet minimum. They are funny, perhaps, but not valid. He can help the team win. I don't like him either, but when it comes to basketball I care more about winning. Kmart is not going to be my 'beer buddy' or anything, I don't care.

last stand wrote:

Texas Lakers Fan wrote:

last stand wrote:Don't want his cancerous self here just to be a 5th big. Not worth the risk

What risk?

He's a cancerous personality.

Don't like him

Except he's not. What exactly has he done that was so camcerous? Bottomline is he's still a terrific defender/rebounder and if the opportunity presents itself we should sign him.

Kenyon Martin. Hate him for the same reason I hated Matt Barnes. If he can bring rebounding and shot blocking for us then I could learn to put that aside. Barnes has been inconsistent for us offensively and honestly Ebanks is a superior one on one defender from what I saw against OKC last year. We won't expect much offense from Kenyon so I'm for signing him.

Rooscooter wrote:

Doc Brown wrote:
Reasons you don't want Martin....

1.) Earl Clark brings the average age of team down

2.) He's a "fugazy"

3.) Crazy stalker chicks would stab D12

4.) He's a freak

You forgot his mother.....

legitimate concerns if you ask me

KareemTheGreat33 wrote:Choose the Knicks, you belong there you freak

Yep...we don't need him.

I prefer a backup PG or someone who is younger and is not often injured thanks...

any source that he wants to play for us?

to mutch buzz you are making guys

Kubbas wrote:any source that he wants to play for us?

to mutch buzz you are making guys

Well this isn't a source but I saw on twitter last night from one of the NBA Beat writers that a lot of us on her follow say that his family does live in LA so that could be a factor

Battle Tested20 wrote:

Kubbas wrote:any source that he wants to play for us?

to mutch buzz you are making guys

Well this isn't a source but I saw on twitter last night from one of the NBA Beat writers that a lot of us on her follow say that his family does live in LA so that could be a factor

I read that as well.

He'd def help for the time Dwight will miss, but after that he wouldnt really play significant minutes. He'd play 3rd PF (Pau/Jaminson/Kenyon). The only time he'd get is when Jaminson is in foul trouble. But wouldnt bring offense...

IDK who else we need on our roster? We have pretty good backups at SG,PF,C. Blake is the weak link, and Ebanks is borderline...have yet to see what he improved. So i'd say the only weakness is Blake. So why do we need Kenyon?

Where is this "Dwight will miss time" coming from? Preseason is what, 2 months from now? Dwight would have rested 6 months already at its start.

KareemTheGreat33 wrote:Where is this "Dwight will miss time" coming from? Preseason is what, 2 months from now? Dwight would have rested 6 months already at its start.

They said they're hopeful he'll be ready, but it's no guarantee. Depth is always a good thing.

On 710 this morning they had a couple doctors on and one of them, who was a back specialist, stated how he believes Dwight can be ready by opening night.

XXIV wrote:On 710 this morning they had a couple doctors on and one of them, who was a back specialist, stated how he believes Dwight can be ready by opening night.

XXIV wrote:On 710 this morning they had a couple doctors on and one of them, who was a back specialist, stated how he believes Dwight can be ready by opening night.

I tend to think he can be back then, but we can't know for sure. And even if he does it's no guarantee that he'll be in game condition with his typical strength and power. I'd rather have depth than lean on Gasol too much who has shown that he can't really handle it.

therealdeal wrote:

XXIV wrote:On 710 this morning they had a couple doctors on and one of them, who was a back specialist, stated how he believes Dwight can be ready by opening night.

I tend to think he can be back then, but we can't know for sure. And even if he does it's no guarantee that he'll be in game condition with his typical strength and power. I'd rather have depth than lean on Gasol too much who has shown that he can't really handle it.

I agree. After four months of just sitting around it's highly likely he will lose some of his strength and explosiveness, however during the press conference he stated he hasn't lost any weight. That statement really surprised me, because usually after not working out for a month you tend to lose a bit of weight. I'm assuming he's able to do some workouts in order to maintain his build, therefore decreasing the amount of work and time he'll need to return to form.

Texas Lakers Fan wrote:

last stand wrote:

Texas Lakers Fan wrote:

last stand wrote:Don't want his cancerous self here just to be a 5th big. Not worth the risk

What risk?

He's a cancerous personality.

Don't like him

Except he's not. What exactly has he done that was so camcerous? Bottomline is he's still a terrific defender/rebounder and if the opportunity presents itself we should sign him.

Actually he's never really been a great rebounder.

Just over 7 rpg for his career. Not amazing, by any stretch of imagination. But not bad either. His solid defense is his greatest strength right now.

karacha wrote:Just over 7 rpg for his career. Not amazing, by any stretch of imagination. But not bad either. His solid defense is his greatest strength right now.

It's definitely decent considering he's also played some SF throughout his career. One reason I really want him is because of how much of a nuisance he is for the opposition, we could really use another player like that.

XXIV wrote:On 710 this morning they had a couple doctors on and one of them, who was a back specialist, stated how he believes Dwight can be ready by opening night.

Dr. Klapper?

Edit, I miss spelled his name

D.B. Cooper wrote:

XXIV wrote:On 710 this morning they had a couple doctors on and one of them, who was a back specialist, stated how he believes Dwight can be ready by opening night.

Dr. Clapper?

No it was someone else, even Klapper was asking him questions.

therealdeal wrote:

JGC wrote:Having said that, Howard is NOT a more efficient scorer than Bynum is. I'm not sure exactly how you want to define efficiency, but you can't look at FG% alone (unless it is only convenient for one to do so). Based on last year's numbers, if you gave both players the same number of shots and FTs, Bynum would have produced more points. That makes him more efficient offensively.

That does not make sense. Production does not equal efficiency. Kobe Bryant can score 27 points on 43% shooting, but that wouldn't make him more efficient than Paul Pierce who scores 22 points on 45%. Efficiency is not dictated by output, it's dictated by the amount of output in comparison to the amount of work/effort (shots) being put into the equation.

Efficiency actually is dictated FG%.

Right. Which is why Bynum is more efficient offensively than Dwight. Given the same amount of Fg and FT shots, Bynum scores more. Bynum has a higher TS% than Dwight. You're not taking FT shooting in to account but you have to if discussing offensive efficiency since FT% is a component of offense.

JGC wrote:

therealdeal wrote:

JGC wrote:Having said that, Howard is NOT a more efficient scorer than Bynum is. I'm not sure exactly how you want to define efficiency, but you can't look at FG% alone (unless it is only convenient for one to do so). Based on last year's numbers, if you gave both players the same number of shots and FTs, Bynum would have produced more points. That makes him more efficient offensively.

That does not make sense. Production does not equal efficiency. Kobe Bryant can score 27 points on 43% shooting, but that wouldn't make him more efficient than Paul Pierce who scores 22 points on 45%. Efficiency is not dictated by output, it's dictated by the amount of output in comparison to the amount of work/effort (shots) being put into the equation.

Efficiency actually is dictated FG%.

Right. Which is why Bynum is more efficient offensively than Dwight. Given the same amount of Fg and FT shots, Bynum scores more. Bynum has a higher TS% than Dwight. You're not taking FT shooting in to account but you have to if discussing offensive efficiency since FT% is a component of offense.

If you want to argue TS% that's one thing, but you really need to stop trying to say that someone with a lower FG% is a more efficient player by that metric. It's quite silly.

So if Bynum takes more shots he'd score more?

That's completely false. Bynum struggled to even get post position the more shots he took and the longer he stayed on the floor because he has poor stamina

If Bynum takes more shots his efficiency will drop because he just doesn't have the stamina to sustain great post position, handle primary option attention, and be a defensive anchor