Wed May 05, 2004 2:32 am
Just a note to Magius...the Lakers have played Houston what, 9 times this season (including playoffs)? That's 9 games out of 91...a tenth of the games....Shaq may be the reason Yao didn't dominate (except he did a couple times, great defense by Shaq, he shut him down 
), but Kobe is the reason the Lakers won. As someone else said, Malone was guarding Yao half the time, Shaq was playing weakside D...which is important, but Yao wasn't being guarded by Shaq. Also, why would Kobe Bryant guard Yao? That would be idiocy...I didn't notice that till I reread your post...6'7 guard vs. 7'5 center...yeah...
With all of that being said, Shaq is the most dominant player in the league, and he's very, very important to the Lakers and their success, as he is the FOCAL POINT OF THE OFFENSE. However, Kobe Bryant is more important than Shaq because if he plays poorly, the Lakers will probably lose. If Shaq plays poorly, Kobe tries to pick up the slack and can score more points in less time than Shaq, and he can hit free throws. That's why I feel that Kobe Bryant is more important than someone who is aging, overweight, and on the downside of his career (even though he can put up 30 on any given night...).
The rest of the argument doesn't concern me...
Now back to the trade...
I don't think that trade is too likely. I think a trade with New York would much more likely, as they actually have some players that would fit into the triangle based around Shaq. Of course, they would be screwed in a few years, but TMac would probably opt out of his contract if he was traded anyway because he wasn't 'the man.' It seems like a fairly good trade on paper, but I don't see Kobe wanting to go to such a small market like Phoenix, and for some reason I see him switching coasts. Like I said earlier, I see Kobe in a Knicks uni next year...
), but Kobe is the reason the Lakers won. As someone else said, Malone was guarding Yao half the time, Shaq was playing weakside D...which is important, but Yao wasn't being guarded by Shaq. Also, why would Kobe Bryant guard Yao? That would be idiocy...I didn't notice that till I reread your post...6'7 guard vs. 7'5 center...yeah...
With all of that being said, Shaq is the most dominant player in the league, and he's very, very important to the Lakers and their success, as he is the FOCAL POINT OF THE OFFENSE. However, Kobe Bryant is more important than Shaq because if he plays poorly, the Lakers will probably lose. If Shaq plays poorly, Kobe tries to pick up the slack and can score more points in less time than Shaq, and he can hit free throws. That's why I feel that Kobe Bryant is more important than someone who is aging, overweight, and on the downside of his career (even though he can put up 30 on any given night...).
The rest of the argument doesn't concern me...
Now back to the trade...
I don't think that trade is too likely. I think a trade with New York would much more likely, as they actually have some players that would fit into the triangle based around Shaq. Of course, they would be screwed in a few years, but TMac would probably opt out of his contract if he was traded anyway because he wasn't 'the man.'
It seems like a fairly good trade on paper, but I don't see Kobe wanting to go to such a small market like Phoenix, and for some reason I see him switching coasts. Like I said earlier, I see Kobe in a Knicks uni next year...
Wed May 05, 2004 3:02 am
Kobe going to the knicks?? For who??
I dont think hes going anywhere (maybe jail...) but my fav player in my fav team would be nice.
I dont think hes going anywhere (maybe jail...) but my fav player in my fav team would be nice.
Wed May 05, 2004 3:07 am
I brought up Michael Jordan because another person brought up number "25" then brought up number 23.
I said Guards cannot win championships, MJ being an exception. I stand by what I say, Kobe will not lead a team to victory.
Ehm, what are you blabbing about MJ & Pippen? Don't you understand the meaning of regardless? I said Pippen was a star even though he played along side MJ. If there was no MJ, Pippen would still be a good player. In other words a star, so I dont see the point in you bringing up MJ on his "vacation". You just said what I said, Pippen is a good player with or without MJ. Brush up on your english.
About the end of discussion thing, it was meant for me. Not for you...I meant I will stop discussing if you cannot comprehend that the players came for Shaq, not Kobe. Once again, your interpretation of what I was trying to say, was wrong.
I said Guards cannot win championships, MJ being an exception. I stand by what I say, Kobe will not lead a team to victory.
Ehm, what are you blabbing about MJ & Pippen? Don't you understand the meaning of regardless? I said Pippen was a star even though he played along side MJ. If there was no MJ, Pippen would still be a good player. In other words a star, so I dont see the point in you bringing up MJ on his "vacation". You just said what I said, Pippen is a good player with or without MJ. Brush up on your english.
About the end of discussion thing, it was meant for me. Not for you...I meant I will stop discussing if you cannot comprehend that the players came for Shaq, not Kobe. Once again, your interpretation of what I was trying to say, was wrong.
Wed May 05, 2004 7:25 am
shane, we have different opinions, end of story, lets not waste time arguing because i have a feeling neither of us will budge 
as for the trade, if i were the management of phoenix i dont know if i would give up that much for kobe, they seem to be growing as a unit very nicely. most of the time good teams are built through patience, id prefer developing amare as the clear cut number one. on the other hand a kobe-stoudemire unit would be okay, and it would be fun to watch tmac-shaq annihlate kobe-stoudemire
as for the trade, if i were the management of phoenix i dont know if i would give up that much for kobe, they seem to be growing as a unit very nicely. most of the time good teams are built through patience, id prefer developing amare as the clear cut number one. on the other hand a kobe-stoudemire unit would be okay, and it would be fun to watch tmac-shaq annihlate kobe-stoudemire
Wed May 05, 2004 9:30 am
i think that 'the shining' would have to agree to a SAT if one were to go down. and i don't see him doing any favors for the lakers organization, especially if the team he would be heading to has the cap space to sign him outright
btw- phoenix would have the cap to go after him if they could find a taker for their 1st round pick + jahidi white.
and you build great teams around superstars. of their core, i think only stoudemire has the makings. without marbury, marion was exposed as no more then an excellent role player making max money. why not go after mcgrady or paul pierce?
btw- phoenix would have the cap to go after him if they could find a taker for their 1st round pick + jahidi white.
if i were the management of phoenix i dont know if i would give up that much for kobe, they seem to be growing as a unit very nicely. most of the time good teams are built through patience, id prefer developing amare as the clear cut number one
and you build great teams around superstars. of their core, i think only stoudemire has the makings. without marbury, marion was exposed as no more then an excellent role player making max money. why not go after mcgrady or paul pierce?
Wed May 05, 2004 11:50 am
i dunno its just me, id prefer building around one franchise player than mixing everything up and confusing the system. sometimes good core players who are willing to play within a system and know their role are more valuable than superstars. but youre right, most teams need 2 superstars to win so that said, pierce or mcgrady in phoenix would be better for me than kobe if i were the phoenix gm because both have already proven they're very good alone and now just want to win. kobe is not in that category, if he leaves la it will be for personal glory.
and yes i do think tmac wants to win, seriously you couldnt blame tmac for leaving toronto -- if orlando gave you more money and a guarantee that you would at least start wouldnt you leave to? and orlando wasnt just a wasteland where tmac would put up good numbers and lose, it had a good blueprint at the time -- tmac wasnt going to be the #1 option anyway, hill was, things didnt turn out that way though. imagine if duncan had came to orlando too and hill hadnt gotten injured. that would be a legendary team. anyway you cant label tmac as selfish for leaving toronto, everybody leaves toronto, people are just more bitter towards tmac because he turned out to be better than carter.
and yes i do think tmac wants to win, seriously you couldnt blame tmac for leaving toronto -- if orlando gave you more money and a guarantee that you would at least start wouldnt you leave to? and orlando wasnt just a wasteland where tmac would put up good numbers and lose, it had a good blueprint at the time -- tmac wasnt going to be the #1 option anyway, hill was, things didnt turn out that way though. imagine if duncan had came to orlando too and hill hadnt gotten injured. that would be a legendary team. anyway you cant label tmac as selfish for leaving toronto, everybody leaves toronto, people are just more bitter towards tmac because he turned out to be better than carter.
Wed May 05, 2004 3:32 pm
magius wrote:i dunno its just me, id prefer building around one franchise player than mixing everything up and confusing the system. sometimes good core players who are willing to play within a system and know their role are more valuable than superstars. but youre right, most teams need 2 superstars to win so that said, pierce or mcgrady in phoenix would be better for me than kobe if i were the phoenix gm because both have already proven they're very good alone and now just want to win.
k i understand your point. considering how the sun's current system is only 3/4 seasons old and that the current core has been together about the same amount of time, i don't see how signing or trading for another superstar would 'mix' or 'confuse' the 'system'.
it's good that phoenix has this wealth of young talent, the only problem with that is since they all are playing big minutes, it will be very difficult to develop all them.. ie like the clippers and bulls. i think it's almost a stretch to try this with 3 players, the suns are doing this with 5 (amare, jj, barbosa, lampe, cabarkapa), even more if you count marion and that euro guy pg they got from ny.
given the suns current situation, it's worth it to try and get a superstar in the backcourt