As soon as the rumors emerged that the Lakers were considering trading Andrew Bynum for Carmelo Anthony, a source from within the organization shot it down; claiming that the team would not trade the big man. That isn't sitting too well with Bill Plaschke, who wonders why the Lakers wouldn't trade the injury plagued Bynum for a much bigger star in Anthony.
How are you going to build a franchise around a player who has spent six years here without one defining moment? The answer is, you can't. And when the Lakers responded to Tuesday's Internet buzz by saying they would never trade Bynum to Denver for Carmelo Anthony, I was struck with one more question.
Why not?
There are times when I agree with Bill Plaschke, but I don't agree with his argument here. I understand that Carmelo Anthony will always be the better "alpha dog" for an NBA team, but that isn't what the Lakers need right now. While Kobe Bryant is still around, the Lakers need players that fit next to him, not players who replicate what he brings to the game. Out of context, Bynum isn't nearly as good as Carmelo. But given the rest of the Lakers team, Bynum might be a better fit.
He also points out that the Lakers have struggled on the perimeter much more than they have struggled inside.
The Lakers are near the top of the league in rebounding but are only 15th in the league in field goal percentage in the fourth quarter of games they trail.
Well don't you think those league leading rebounding numbers would drop without Bynum? The Lakers don't need help inside because they already stout there. Trading Bynum would mean sacrificing their biggest strength, outside of Kobe arguably, for a redundant player. And I'm not even sure that Kobe would let 'Melo shoot the ball in the fourth quarter of a game in which they trail.
I'm not saying I wouldn't trade Andrew Bynum for Carmelo Anthony, I just don't think that Bill Plaschke is advocating that trade in the right way. His point might be sound, but his reasoning is not.