# Celtics to sign Will Bynum?



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

> <table background="http://news.bostonherald.com/siteImages/sports_bg.gif" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td background="http://news.bostonherald.com/siteImages/sports_bg.gif" width="100%"></td></tr> <tr><td align="center" bgcolor="#cccccc" height="2" width="100%"><spacer type="block" height="2" width="1"></td></tr> </tbody></table>
> GT's Bynum gets an in-depth look
> 
> ​ *By **Steve Bulpett*
> ...


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

Good for Bynum if he does get signed because I really like his game but he seems similar to Banks and if Delonte and Banks are gonna play point shouldn't they be looking for an older point guard.


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

Starbury03 said:


> Good for Bynum if he does get signed because I really like his game but he seems similar to Banks and if Delonte and Banks are gonna play point shouldn't they be looking for an older point guard.


Delonte is a SG, but still unless it's a star rookie then yeah, they should look for a vet I would think unless they are positive Banks can handle it, which he may be able to.


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

If Delonte is gonna play shooting guard then it's not that bad because Bynum will be the 3rd string point gaurd.


----------



## DWest Superstar (Jun 30, 2005)

Bynum is a good pickup this means no more Banks


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Bynum is going to the NBDL and it's a solid pickup by the Celtics. You never know. Will could be the next John Bagley.


----------



## vadimivich (Mar 29, 2004)

Bynum will always be a crowd favorite because 5'10" guys who can throw down tomahawks in traffic are fun as heck to watch.

He will never be a large contributor until he improves his ball handling and overall game awareness.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

The roster limit is now 30 players, right?

If not, then how in the world have the Celtics signed like 15 players this off-season?


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

aquaitious said:


> The roster limit is now 30 players, right?
> 
> If not, then how in the world have the Celtics signed like 15 players this off-season?


14. Players who are allocated to the NBDL *do not* count on the active man roster.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

id be very happy with bynum...even tho we still need some vets


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

HKF said:


> 14. Players who are allocated to the NBDL *do not* count on the active man roster.


So the Celtics could sign 20 players and keep switching them with the injured...interesting...also did they get rid of the IL/IR?


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

aquaitious said:


> So the Celtics could sign 20 players and keep switching them with the injured...interesting...also did they get rid of the IL/IR?


Doubtful, because I don't think they can allocate 6 players to the NBDL (at least not in it's present state. 8 teams, with 7 more to be added next year). I think the max teams will be able to allocate will be 4-5, since NBA teams will be sharing a team.


----------



## CelticsSaint1977 (Jun 19, 2005)

Gerald Green said:


> Bynum is a good pickup this means no more Banks


 :banana: :banana: :clap: :clap: yeah! music to my ears...


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

CelticsSaint1977 said:


> :banana: :banana: :clap: :clap: yeah! music to my ears...


And we're going back to the lotttery.


----------



## CelticsSaint1977 (Jun 19, 2005)

aquaitious said:


> And we're going back to the lotttery.


wait, were going back to the lottery if we lose Banks...yea ok..I cant believe I just read that

wow, what is the name of that drink your guzzling? I need to go to the liquor store after work and purchase it.... :cheers:


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

I don't expect anything higher than the seventh seed and 43 wins.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

CelticsSaint1977 said:


> wait, were going back to the lottery if we lose Banks...yea ok..I cant believe I just read that
> 
> wow, what is the name of that drink your guzzling? I need to go to the liquor store after work and purchase it.... :cheers:


I'm sure a rookie PG and a 2nd year SG will lead us to the promise land. While our best point guard will be on the bench. Yup...


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Premier said:


> [sarcasm]I don't expect anything higher than the seventh seed and 43 wins.[/sarcasm]



There, fixed your post.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Milwaukee (Bobby Simmons, Desmond Mason, Andrew Bogut) is going to be bettter than the Celts next year.

As is Cleveland (LeBron, Hughes, and Z) and New Jersey (Richard Jefferson, Krstic, Jason Kidd, and Vince Carter).


----------



## DWest Superstar (Jun 30, 2005)

Is this what you think will happen if we lose Banks?


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

It'll happen even if we have Banks.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Bucks, Raptors, Cavs and the Celtics will be fighting for the 8th spot.

Heat, Pistons, Pacers, Bulls, Wizards, Nets, 6ers

are almost sure bets...but anything can happen.


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

Anyone who thinks Will Bynum will REPLACE Marcus Banks must be drinking some funny stuff, he's not even in Bank's league. He may someday earn the right to back up Marcus' backup. :cheers: 

The Wizards are going to be TERRIBLE next year now that they lost Hughes we don't need to worry about them. This is how I see the entire Eastern Conference breaking down for the end of year next season by record not divisions.

1. Nets 
2. Heat
3. Pistons (they are going to lose Larry Brown and he's key)
4. Pacers
5. Bucks
6. Celtics
7. Cavaliers
8. Bulls 
9. Magic
10. 76ers
11. Knicks
12. Wizards
13. Bobcats
14. Raptors
15. Hawks


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

whiterhino said:


> The Wizards are going to be TERRIBLE next year now that they lost Hughes we don't need to worry about them. This is how I see the entire Eastern Conference breaking down for the end of year next season by record not divisions.



the wizards r still going to be better than the celts next yr unless walker is back...and no im not being a toine fan right now thats just the fact...the wiz still have arenas and jamison which is a great duo...they def wont be a 4 seed but they will still be good...the bulls will be better than the toineless celts and the cavs should be too...if toine is brought back and we sign a decent vet the celts should be number 4 on that list...if not i put them at 8 or 9


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

The 6ers will also have a coach and a PF. More than half the blame should go towards OB for not utilizing Webber.


----------



## 22ryno (Mar 17, 2003)

I told you guys Bynum will impress. For the guy who thinks Banks far better than Bynum do you think that Ainge would sign an undrafted free agent if he wasn't worth it. Bynum must really be doing a number on him workouts.


----------



## DWest Superstar (Jun 30, 2005)

whiterhino said:


> Anyone who thinks Will Bynum will REPLACE Marcus Banks must be drinking some funny stuff, he's not even in Bank's league. He may someday earn the right to back up Marcus' backup. :cheers:
> 
> The Wizards are going to be TERRIBLE next year now that they lost Hughes we don't need to worry about them. This is how I see the entire Eastern Conference breaking down for the end of year next season by record not divisions.
> 
> ...


The Nets will be good, but not that good. Expect a 3 seed


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

22ryno said:


> I told you guys Bynum will impress. For the guy who thinks Banks far better than Bynum do you think that Ainge would sign an undrafted free agent if he wasn't worth it. Bynum must really be doing a number on him workouts.



i love bynum but theres a reason he wasnt drafted...he is not better than banks right now...if he was he would have been a late first early second round pick at the least


----------



## 22ryno (Mar 17, 2003)

Bynum has been defending well and running the team. He will get a shot to make the team.


----------



## BleedGreen (Jun 24, 2002)

Adding Bobby Simmons and Andrew Bogut doesnt put the Bucks at the 5th best team in the east. Not a chance. I'm not hating on the Bucks or anything but they wont be that good, and definitely not better than us.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

aquaitious said:


> Bucks, Raptors, Cavs and the Celtics will be fighting for the 8th spot.
> 
> Heat, Pistons, Pacers, Bulls, Wizards, Nets, 6ers
> 
> are almost sure bets...but anything can happen.


The Wizards, 76ers, and Bulls are sure bets? We have a better shot than all of those teams.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Premier said:


> The Wizards, 76ers, and Bulls are sure bets? We have a better shot than all of those teams.



Wizards are much more ready team than we are. We might have the talent, but we're definitly not better than them now.

76ers, have a coach, nuff said.

Bulls, you can make a case that Curry may leave, but that's a lot of talent on that team, and you don't just get 3rd/4th place in a NBA conference by accident.


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

BleedGreen said:


> Adding Bobby Simmons and Andrew Bogut doesnt put the Bucks at the 5th best team in the east. Not a chance. I'm not hating on the Bucks or anything but they wont be that good, and definitely not better than us.


They also got TJ Ford back and I put a LOT of stock in that, they were a playoff team with TJ with the same cast MINUS Simmonds and Bogut. TJ Ford if back to 100% will be HUGE for that team.


----------



## agoo (Jun 1, 2003)

I still don't think the 76ers are better than the Celtics. Nets, Miami, and Indy will take the divisions. Pacers are going to the playoffs. Cleveland and Chicago aren't locks like those other four, but the odds are in their favor. Philly, Boston, Milwaukee, and (yes I'm about to say it) Charlotte might be competing for the last two spots. Washington without Larry Hughes will collapse this season.

Back to the topic, we don't need another rookie point guard. We need to grab a vet to back up Marcus Banks.


----------

