Who would you keep, Kobe / Shaq

I'm a Laker fan, one of the biggest. And Kobe is my favorite player ever, I think he is the "Next Mike", face it, his numbers compare to his. ANd with all this Kobe / Shaq stuff, i wanted to post it. Me personally, i would rather trade Shaq, and KObe will automatically want to stay so the Lakers can be HIS team, and he can have his jersey sit next to that Chick Hearn banner. i just think Shaq is dominant but, he's not the one we want if you are in need of a win trailing by 4 in the fourth with 1 minute left. Here's proof, Shaq can't nail free throws, and Kobe, well........ the Denver game at home, the Detroit game at home ( thank god we didn't get swept ) and there's plenty more. But i just wanted to see what you guys would say.

shaq wants out, there really is no option, either try to keep kobe and lose shaq, or lose both is what this situation is looking like

As talented as Kobe is, I would say keep Shaq. Or at least I would have. With Shaq demanding a trade more than once since the conclusion of the Finals, it's pretty obvious that he's unhappy with management and wants out. With Kobe in a position to re-sign for 7 years and given the fact he's still only 25, I'd take my chances and trade Shaq...but trade him to the East if possible.

1st option: Keep both
2nd) Keep one trade the other\

Everyone knows that if the Lakers are going to get rid of one of them...they need someone in return...if the Lakers are planning long-term I'd say keep Kobe...If they want a ring in the next 2-3 years...keep Shaq and sign and trade Kobe

But the best option is to keep both of them!

Kobe. Shaq is more dominant but he is only going to be around for another 2 years.

Kobe on the other hand, will be around a lot longer. If they want to continue their dynasty, they are going to have to build around Kobe.

CORRECTION!

If the Lakers want to start a new longer dynasty than a new shorter one, they need Kobe. The Shaq-Kobe-Jax Dynasty officially ended last season...

If they keep Shaq they might have a dynasty for maybe 5 more years at the most...Kobe- maybe a dynasty for 10 years

But it depends on wat u call a dynasty...I would say winning three rings with the same team of course is a dynasty

Id Trade Shaq , and Kobe. Start fresh , get some people locked into long term deals. The Laker world as at a hault with this self richous bullshit they both have going on.

I'd keep Shaq. Kobe's performance is not consistent and depending on him alone to win games will never be a good idea. Shaq is a dominant player who can score even with 3 defenders on him. Lakers should build the team around Shaq and may succeed.

lets see... since im a kobe fan, i wouldnt even think twice of not choosing kobe over shaq... but if i was just a laker fan and not really a die hard kobe fan, i'd pick shaq cause he's the only player in the league that noone can stop...

but im still picking kobe..

(edit: i forgot to put the "not" in this sentence " wouldnt even think twice of not choosing kobe over shaq")

Last edited by The Game on Sat Jul 03, 2004 4:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If I had a choice, I would keep Shaq. It's hard to find a dominant player like he is and a huge body with so many athletic ability and intelligence that he has. You'd think he'd decline, but some of the best bigs in the history didn't decline at 32. However, in this situation, I would keep Kobe because you basically have no choice...

to be a dynasty you actually have to win..........

shaq = 5 year dynasty

kobe = 10 year mediocrity

ummmmmm, shaq.

Shaq,cuz big guys are the key to victory

i rekon keep shaq cause there arn't that many people in his position that can put it to the big man, yet there are a few people in kobes position that can take it to the "accused" so keep shaq n trade kobe!

Shaq is the more likely to yield championships...but Kobe will be around longer

to be a dynasty you actually have to win..........

shaq = 5 year dynasty

kobe = 10 year mediocrity

ummmmmm, shaq.

To what Stack42 said, Kobe will be around longer, but he won't win championships for you.

Big men > Little men.

Unless your little man's name is Michael Jordan.

Kobe.

Neither has won wituout the other. Hakeem had Cassell, Drexler, not like he did it alone. Guess who was alone? Patrick Ewing. He lost. Jordan had Pippen, Kukoc, Rodman, etc. He didn't do it alone. So of course Kobe won't. That's why you trade Shaq to get good VALUE so you can put a TEAM around Kobe. Kareem had Magic. Duncan had Robinson. The thing is, no one player can win by themselves. So to choose someone because the other won't win one for you "himself" is absurd and ridiculous. Decision making should be processed who whom you think you could build a competitive team around with a shot for the title better. With Shaq and Kobe it's really a lose lose. Shaq wants out but really, if you chose Shaq then who exactly do you have left on the team? However if you trade him, you get more value than you would get if you let Kobe walk.

uh huh, and what happens when little men don't have those great big men? hello allen iverson, hello tmac, hello paul pierce. Easier to get a great big man and decent swing men then win with great guard and decent big men. Patrick ewing wasnt exactly in hakeem, shaq, duncan, robinson or kareem territory either come to think of it.

you want kobe? take kobe, its not like i want la to win anyway You can have your flash and i'll happily take another championship in san antonio, baby. thank you jerry buss and mitch shitforbrains.

Sad part is, I do want LA to win.

Anyways, I don't see any championships in the near future.

Not unless they draft another O'Neal, Hakeem, Wilt, Kareem type player atleast.

Maybe Tim Duncan wants to live in sunny California.

How about Mr Garnett, any interest at all?

Jackal you gotta be kidding me. Here you are talking about the need for a big man, and you want Kevin Freaking Garnette? He's a SF who's 7FT! He's hardly a "big man" You could call him the modern day Patrick Ewing.

Besides, in the clutch I don't have much confidence in him.

Notice I mentioned Tim Duncan ahead of Garnett?

Duncan demands the double from time to time = winning.

Garnett is just the best overall player in the league besides Duncan, having one of the two along side Kobe wouldn't do much harm.

Edit, I forgot, Kobe would want out since he wouldn't be the "man" on the team.

I actually don't think the problem was neccessarily that Kobe was playing with a "superstar" it was who the superstar was. Kobe and Shaq's personalities clashed. When you have two players that good with huge ego's and then they have clashing personalities, well, you're going to have friction. But Shaq's main beef is with the management, not Kobe anyway and I'd have to agree.

Yeps, they handled the situation in the wrong way.

Anyways, we'll see.

Before Laker owner Jerry Buss left for Italy on vacation Kobe halfway committed to him, stating he'd remove himself from the free-agent market the moment Shaquille O'Neal vanished, a la Phil Jackson.

As much as I try to like this kid more than I do, I can't...I read these comments, and it just show's the level of ignorance & arrogance this kid possesses. He oozes arrogance.

At times, I'm in love with it at times I hate him for it. I'm torn between this guy...

Heh, you want probably one of the best coaches of all time gone...PLUS you want probably one of the best centers of all time, gone. Yeah, that's not arrogant.

Spare me the bullshit, not one comment will make me think otherwise, I think I'll head over to the letting off steam thread.

Where's the link for the quote?

http://www.nypost.com/sports/24396.htm