Many here must have a problem reading. EVERYONE here thinks Frye should and will contribute immediately. The problem is, BRIGGS has put a minimum for his rookie production at 14, 8.5, and 1.5! That is totally unreasonable for a #8 pick! He tries to justify it by saying that Isiah said he woulda picked him with the #1 if he had it and so on. All of that is irrelevant, he didn’t have the #1 he had the #8 and thats what Frye was, a #8!

Contributing immediately and 14, 8.5, 1.5 are not the same thing!!!!!
^^^^^These numbers are more or less parallel with Emeka Okafor’s 15,11, and 1.5 on an expansion team and they are on par with Amare's 13.5,8.8, and 1 on a lottery team. These numbers are also better than Dwight Howards 12, 10, 1.5 on a veteran, almost-playoff team.


If Frye is making meaningful contributions on both ends of the court and we are winning, that is what is most important to me. Some here are obsessed with setting a high statistical bar, just so they can say I told you so and gloat. Now folx are saying Arizona is a top flight program when some of these same people talk about how Arizona has never put out any good bigs. Which one is it, because you can’t have it both ways? Or maybe you can, because there is a cult following here for the things some people say no matter how ridiculous.

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by Pharzeone:

[quote]Posted by nyvector16:

Although most posters on this thread have some valid points..
I think most are not taking into account the biggest reason We chose Frye over Bynum...
Bynum is a RISK... a BIGGGG Risk...
it will probably be a while before we have a pick as high as 8.
Isiah needed to Add Height...
Bogut was obviously not an option.
Frye has played 4 years in college and has a developed Basketball IQ.
Bynum has the tools... but not the experience and is more of a long term project... that may turn out great.. or may turn out to be another Kwame(tons of expectations with not so much production)...
To hold up Frye's name in some kind of impending IT crucification is a lil negatively biased at best... or just plain Anti-Knick at worst...
We should at least wait until All-Star weekend to talk informatively and intelligently about what it is we have in Frye...

Based on what Briggs scouting on both Frye and Bynum. I expect Bynum to have a much better rookie year than Bynum. Briggs said that Bynum is not a project center, he mentioned that if he was he would not considered him for the eighth pick. Most scouts/gms disagree, so that is all I am interested in. Frye is a college senior, so he should be expected to contribute more right away, if he doesn't then Isiah looks like a fool, if Bynum doesn't contribute right away, Briggs looks silly. It is that simple for me. Both Isiah and Briggs said that the other choice was a skilled guy which is kind of like an out but its fair. I don't care what numbers either one puts up but the other has to put better numbers.


No I never said that. I said Bynum 10-12 minutes YR 1 20- 25 min YR 2 starter YR 3. But I do expexct Bynum to be a contributor off the bench, not just a body. I expect the same thing Biendrins did in GS.

But you DO feel that Bynum is head and shoulders better than Frye. If that's the case, Bynum should display this when he is in the game no matter how many minutes he gets verse Frye. After all, neither player has played in the NBA. Amare hadn't played in the NBA either but he man handled people the way you feel Bynum can man handle people. From your point of view and based on what you've said Bynum should do nothing less than what Amare has done. After all, the finished produced that you have pridicted is 'Amare like'. In that scenario we should be seeing Bynum dominate out of the box no matter if his playing time is low or not. Based on how great you and some other people on this board feels he will be, he deserves some pressure too.

Truthfully, he WILL have pressure on him based on the fact that it is known now that this was NOT phil's choice and people keep saying that the Lakers made a mistake. Jim Calhoun said Bynum was making a mistake. The Lakers will be a highly visible team next season. So if you ask me, there IS alot of pressure on Bynum.

So let the games begin!

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by Pharzeone:

[quote]Posted by nyvector16:

Although most posters on this thread have some valid points..
I think most are not taking into account the biggest reason We chose Frye over Bynum...
Bynum is a RISK... a BIGGGG Risk...
it will probably be a while before we have a pick as high as 8.
Isiah needed to Add Height...
Bogut was obviously not an option.
Frye has played 4 years in college and has a developed Basketball IQ.
Bynum has the tools... but not the experience and is more of a long term project... that may turn out great.. or may turn out to be another Kwame(tons of expectations with not so much production)...
To hold up Frye's name in some kind of impending IT crucification is a lil negatively biased at best... or just plain Anti-Knick at worst...
We should at least wait until All-Star weekend to talk informatively and intelligently about what it is we have in Frye...

Based on what Briggs scouting on both Frye and Bynum. I expect Bynum to have a much better rookie year than Bynum. Briggs said that Bynum is not a project center, he mentioned that if he was he would not considered him for the eighth pick. Most scouts/gms disagree, so that is all I am interested in. Frye is a college senior, so he should be expected to contribute more right away, if he doesn't then Isiah looks like a fool, if Bynum doesn't contribute right away, Briggs looks silly. It is that simple for me. Both Isiah and Briggs said that the other choice was a skilled guy which is kind of like an out but its fair. I don't care what numbers either one puts up but the other has to put better numbers.


No I never said that. I said Bynum 10-12 minutes YR 1 20- 25 min YR 2 starter YR 3. But I do expexct Bynum to be a contributor off the bench, not just a body. I expect the same thing Biendrins did in GS.

I don't think this is accurate. I remember you stated that Bynum is not a project center so he is worthy of the 8th selection in the draft. You said if you considered him a project no way you take him there. To me those numbers you just gave, I considered to be a project, if Frye gets those type of minutes then Frye selection at 8 is ridculous especially for a team that is need of a center. To me the same goes for the Lakers as well. For me Marvin Williams has more upside than Bogut but Bogut is more NBA ready than Williams so its makes sense that the Bucks a team that needs a center desperately takes the most ready player. Teams that are contenders can afford to take projects and wait on them.

[quote]
Posted by Killa4luv:

Many here must have a problem reading. EVERYONE here thinks Frye should and will contribute immediately. The problem is, BRIGGS has put a minimum for his rookie production at 14, 8.5, and 1.5! That is totally unreasonable for a #8 pick! He tries to justify it by saying that Isiah said he woulda picked him with the #1 if he had it and so on. All of that is irrelevant, he didn’t have the #1 he had the #8 and thats what Frye was, a #8!

Contributing immediately and 14, 8.5, 1.5 are not the same thing!!!!!
^^^^^These numbers are more or less parallel with Emeka Okafor’s 15,11, and 1.5 on an expansion team and they are on par with Amare's 13.5,8.8, and 1 on a lottery team. These numbers are also better than Dwight Howards 12, 10, 1.5 on a veteran, almost-playoff team.


If Frye is making meaningful contributions on both ends of the court and we are winning, that is what is most important to me. Some here are obsessed with setting a high statistical bar, just so they can say I told you so and gloat. Now folx are saying Arizona is a top flight program when some of these same people talk about how Arizona has never put out any good bigs. Which one is it, because you can’t have it both ways? Or maybe you can, because there is a cult following here for the things some people say no matter how ridiculous.


I think people tend to forget WE ARE a lottery team, we have not been a .500 team or won a playoof game going on 5 years. Channing Frye BETTER get 30+ minutes, in fact, the new coach who we install HAS to be on BOARD with this. He's a 4 YR CBB lottery pick player going to a team with a pirse poor frontline. If Herb is NOT willing to guarantee that Frye will play 30 minutes, he should take his arse on the next plane out.

Posted by BRIGGS:

I think people tend to forget WE ARE a lottery team, we have not been a .500 team or won a playoof game going on 5 years. Channing Frye BETTER get 30+ minutes, in fact, the new coach who we install HAS to be on BOARD with this. He's a 4 YR CBB lottery pick player going to a team with a pirse poor frontline. If Herb is NOT willing to guarantee that Frye will play 30 minutes, he should take his arse on the next plane out.

The new coach should be playing Frye 30+ especially with the roster we have now. We are in total and complete agreement on that. There is not one player on our squad who should be playing ahead of him at the 5.

[quote]Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by Killa4luv:

Emeka okafor was the #2 pick overall.
Emeka Okafor was the best player on an expansion, lottery team.

To compare their first years without taking these facts into account would be crazy. Channing is going to be the number 4 or 5 option on offense.

Also, #8 is not high lottery by any stretch of the imagination. The lottery is 14 spots and #8 is on the 2nd half of those spots; which means #8 is either late, or more accurately mid-lottery.




so what, youre flipping me out names like howard abnd stoudemire who came directly from HS -this guys is older than both of them right now


14-15 points 7-8 rebounds and 1.5 blocks is reasonable expectation in 30+ minutes for a high lottery pick big man. what else is there to say? Sorry 9 points 5 rebounds doe not cut it. I dont expect him to be a 20-10 player, at BEST an 18-9 player--so subtract 20% and you get 14-15 and 7

Did you ignore everything he wrote and just repeat the view that you're obsessively stuck to??? How is a "high" lottery pick? Why are we even comparing him to the #2 pick of last year's draft?

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 07/05/2005 17:50:28]

Posted by Allanfan20:

I think you're ignorning eachother. Briggs never did compare him to Emeka, and Briggs and Killa have a different view of what a "High" lotto pick is.

That's not a question of one's "view." There are 14 lottery teams. Pick eight is FACTUALLY not a high lottery pick. It's factually either mid or late depending on whether you want to divide the lottery in halves or in some other number.
You're right about Briggs not comparing him to Emeka. I should have worded the question, "Why are we even expecting Frye to put up similar (except rebounding) #s to last year's #2 pick?" It gets the same point across as the original question, but that would be more accurate if you want to be picky.


[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 07/05/2005 18:04:30]

Posted by Allanfan20:

I think you're ignorning eachother. Briggs never did compare him to Emeka, and Briggs and Killa have a different view of what a "High" lotto pick is.

I don't think Channing should be expected to score 15 ppg off the bat, but I think the rest of his expectations are fair. I just don't agree that he seems to be really harsh on the guy, b/c of what Isiah said.

Briggs has brought up Emeka a zillion times when talking about Frye over the past few months.

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by Allanfan20:

I think you're ignorning eachother. Briggs never did compare him to Emeka, and Briggs and Killa have a different view of what a "High" lotto pick is.

That's not a question of one's "view." There are 14 lottery teams. Pick eight is FACTUALLY not a high lottery pick. It's factually either mid or late depending on whether you want to divide the lottery in halves or in some other number.
You're right about Briggs not comparing him to Emeka. I should have worded the question, "Why are we even expecting Frye to put up similar (except rebounding) #s to last year's #2 pick?" It gets the same point across as the original question, but that would be more accurate if you want to be picky.

Thank you for explainifying (G.W. Bushism) that sir!!!!!!!!!