What does Kobe think about his 3 Championships?
Moderators: Clav, Domejandro, ken6199, bisme37, Dirk, KingDavid, cupcakesnake, bwgood77, zimpy27, infinite11285
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 15,740
- And1: 3,129
- Joined: Jun 27, 2006
-
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 3,812
- And1: 1
- Joined: Dec 16, 2005
When Shaq and Kobe are your best players, you don't need guys like Odom and Bynum as your third and fourth. And you really think George was their 4th best player? In what year? Guys like Robert Horry, Ron Harper, Brian Shaw, Derek Fisher, Glen Rice, Rick Fox, Horace Grant were not stars but they were far from scrubs.
I'm refering to the last few years of the Shaq-Kobe era so that's basically after Rice left. At the end it was all scrubs. The guys who were the second and third stringers for the first two championship teams were starting (Fish, Samaki Walker, Madsen, George etc.). that's pretty sad.
Jerry Buss doesn't care about spending money if it means championships, the only thing at the time was that it didn't matter.
Obviously that not true if they let all the good role players walk and refused to use their MLE and LLE for several seasons. Kobe wouldn't have blown up this summer if Buss wasn't such a cheap ass. We would have been fine if they would have used their expirings (Vlade, Mckie etc.) and the MLE to grab some decent players instead of trying to start D-leaguers (Smush over Spree, Daniels, Watson, Stevenson, and Banks anyone???) or just signed Caron to the long-term deal he was asking for... we all knew he was going to be a very good player and he was Kobe's best friend on the team... didn't matter to Buss because he was trying to save money long-term.
Oh how nice it would have been to have Brian Grants contract a couple years back too.
$20 bucks says they let Odom walk at the end of next season.
Shaq and Kobe were good enough, that they didn't need more talent. What was the point of spending more money if they were already good enough to win titles? And the reason they didn't win the last 2 years was not cause of a lack of a talent.
Clearly they did need talent if Sacramento was suddenly going from getting swept to taking them to 7 games. The Spurs kicked our ass too. Even in the exit interview Kobe and Phil were basically begging for some more talent. You can't expect to win chips against Tim Duncan when you're guarding him with Slava, Madsen, and Samaki Walker.
Ummm, no. A steal? It would be a great trade, but for PRIME Shaq? I wouldn't call that a steal. The only way trading PRIME Shaq is a steal if you get a top 10 player of all-time in their prime + more.
I think we can win 70 next year if everyone stays healthy. 72 isn't out of reach considering we won 57 this year, started 9-8, Bynum only played in 45 games, and Gasol only in 25 or so.
"I'm sure they'll jump off the bandwagon. Then when we do get back on top, they're going to want to jump back on, and we're going to tell them there's no more room." - Kobe in March of 2005
-
- Sixth Man
- Posts: 1,814
- And1: 124
- Joined: Aug 22, 2007
Bgil wrote:When Shaq and Kobe are your best players, you don't need guys like Odom and Bynum as your third and fourth. And you really think George was their 4th best player? In what year? Guys like Robert Horry, Ron Harper, Brian Shaw, Derek Fisher, Glen Rice, Rick Fox, Horace Grant were not stars but they were far from scrubs.
I'm refering to the last few years of the Shaq-Kobe era so that's basically after Rice left. At the end it was all scrubs. The guys who were the second and third stringers for the first two championship teams were starting (Fish, Samaki Walker, Madsen, George etc.). that's pretty sad.
Fish wasn't a scrub, and neither were all the other guys I mentioned. Of course there were some scrubs, just like there's scrubs on every team including championship teams. But it was more then a team of Shaq + Kobe + a bunch of scrubs, it was more like Shaq + Kobe + clutch shooters + experienced veterans + few scrubs.
Bgil wrote:Jerry Buss doesn't care about spending money if it means championships, the only thing at the time was that it didn't matter.
Obviously that not true if they let all the good role players walk and refused to use their MLE and LLE for several seasons. Kobe wouldn't have blown up this summer if Buss wasn't such a cheap ass. We would have been fine if they would have used their expirings (Vlade, Mckie etc.) and the MLE to grab some decent players instead of trying to start D-leaguers (Smush over Spree, Daniels, Watson, Stevenson, and Banks anyone???) or just signed Caron to the long-term deal he was asking for... we all knew he was going to be a very good player and he was Kobe's best friend on the team... didn't matter to Buss because he was trying to save money long-term.
Oh how nice it would have been to have Brian Grants contract a couple years back too.
$20 bucks says they let Odom walk at the end of next season.
I'm talking about if they're close to winning titles. After Shaq left, there was no point in bringing everyone back, cause they were in a bit of a rebuilding mode. If Buss was really that cheap, you think he would've traded for Gasol and taken on about an extra $40 million, especially when Bynum was expected to come back? And I highly doubt they let Odom walk if they are a championship team next year which is very likely. Right now they have 3 players in the 12-20 million per year range, and Bynum looks like he could be added to that list. That doesn't sound like someone who is cheap.
Bgil wrote:Shaq and Kobe were good enough, that they didn't need more talent. What was the point of spending more money if they were already good enough to win titles? And the reason they didn't win the last 2 years was not cause of a lack of a talent.
Clearly they did need talent if Sacramento was suddenly going from getting swept to taking them to 7 games. The Spurs kicked our ass too. Even in the exit interview Kobe and Phil were basically begging for some more talent. You can't expect to win chips against Tim Duncan when you're guarding him with Slava, Madsen, and Samaki Walker.
Ummm, didn't they beat the Kings? It was enough to win a title. And yes, the Spurs beat them in 03, and then what happened? The Lakers went off and got Gary Payton and Karl Malone. I know they came cheap, but I don't remember any other free agents out at the time that they could've went after, and if they are coming cheap, I don't see the problem. Its not like either one of those guys were coming off bad seasons.
Bgil wrote:Ummm, no. A steal? It would be a great trade, but for PRIME Shaq? I wouldn't call that a steal. The only way trading PRIME Shaq is a steal if you get a top 10 player of all-time in their prime + more.
I think we can win 70 next year if everyone stays healthy. 72 isn't out of reach considering we won 57 this year, started 9-8, Bynum only played in 45 games, and Gasol only in 25 or so.
What is that have to do with anything? Like I said that is in no way a steal of a trade. Maybe your definition of a trade steal is different. I think of Kwame for Gasol, Vlade for Kobe, Herschel Walker for like 10 players that ended up winning multiple Super Bowls. No way is a trade involving a Prime Shaq is a steal for the team that gave him up.
-
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,281
- And1: 436
- Joined: May 02, 2007
Gasol, Lamar, Bynum, and Farmar for Prime Shaq? Do you think that in 10 years, anyone will be mentioning any of those guys as a top 10 player ever? Do you think that any of these guys will be the most unstoppable players in the league at any given time? Do you think that any of these players will LEAD 3 different teams to 6 NBA Finals appearances, win 3 Finals MVP's, and dominate the league for any given season?
Let's not forget that Shaq, while past his prime, is still a threat to average a double double, and with some tweaks, is still on a team that is capable of winning it all. Debate that as you may, but they still have one of the best PF's in the game and one of the best PG's in the game along with Shaq. A few tweaks here and there, and they could be right there.
But to say that trading a prime Shaq for those guys is ridiculous. A better argument would be to trade prime Shaq for prime Kobe. But there, you're not comparing apples and apples.
One point- replace Kobe with TMAC in the seasons in question, and the Lakers probably still win a couple. Replace Shaq with Ming in those years, and honestly, what do you think would happen???
Kobe is great, and probably one of the greatest ever, but to say he is better than MJ at this point is borderline sacreligious.
Let's not forget that Shaq, while past his prime, is still a threat to average a double double, and with some tweaks, is still on a team that is capable of winning it all. Debate that as you may, but they still have one of the best PF's in the game and one of the best PG's in the game along with Shaq. A few tweaks here and there, and they could be right there.
But to say that trading a prime Shaq for those guys is ridiculous. A better argument would be to trade prime Shaq for prime Kobe. But there, you're not comparing apples and apples.
One point- replace Kobe with TMAC in the seasons in question, and the Lakers probably still win a couple. Replace Shaq with Ming in those years, and honestly, what do you think would happen???
Kobe is great, and probably one of the greatest ever, but to say he is better than MJ at this point is borderline sacreligious.
-
- Banned User
- Posts: 6,570
- And1: 7
- Joined: Sep 14, 2006