Rick Bucher: Kobe "Demands" Trade

<div class="quote_poster">Chutney Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">How do you come to that conclusion? I think he cares a lot about how crappy his situation is, but isn't willing to go back on his contract. Anybody can whine their way to a championship contender. It doesn't mean as much, IMO.


Hindsight is always 20/20. The Lakers tried to build a contending team, they just failed horribly. Kobe should have to grin and bear it.

The VC situation obviously influenced how I think about this, but it hasn't made me irrationally biased. I just can't stand this double standard. Carter's gotten a tremendous amount of criticism for what he did (all justified, IMO). But why do we spare Kobe? VC's situation was ten times worse than Bryant's. He spent a longer amount of time with a crappier team, that went through 2 GM's and 3 different coaches. Kobe spends 3 years on a team that won't make a trade for a big-name player (all of them had question marks), has still gotten to the playoffs twice and suddenly we should feel sorry for him because his "prime is being wasted"? What's the point in even signing a player to a long-term contract if they can ditch your team whenever the hell they feel like it?</div>Wow, very good comparison between Carter's situation and Kobe' situation. I don't think I could have written that.

EDIT: Some good points brought up by Brian too. It would feel bad to have your best friend traded to another team.

I never know which side to side with the players (not having the talent around them), or the management (the players are employed and should do their job).

 

<div class="quote_poster">Brian Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">When Kobe signed on with the team, he was promised a contender. That's why he signed, otherwise, he'd probably go elsewhere.
</div>

Sorry, but I don't buy that. Did Kobe really think a team revolving around him, a young Butler, a known inconsistent performer in Odom, Chucky Atkins, Chris Mihm and other spare parts would amount to a "contending" team?

Even with the Kwame trade, I still don't believe that he bought that. There's a reason that he's pushing for these changes right now, because he knows this roster isn't going anywhere.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> The only reason why Kobe resigned in the first place was because the management guarenteed him a winning team. </div>

Once again, I find that hard to believe. I love Kobe, but it would be safe to assume that he wanted to prove to people that he could do just fine without Shaq. I'm not saying he drove Shaq out of LA, I believe Shaq and the circumstances that surrpunded the Lakers at the time were responsible for that. However, if he really wanted to be on a winning team, he would have signed with the Los Angeles Clippers, since the Clippers offered more legit peices (especially Elton Brand) than the Lakers for him to work with.

Kobe signed with the Lakers more likely because a) they offered him the most money, it gave him the oppurtunity to build his own team and c) he was a lifelong Laker fan.

Kobe's mentality is to be the greatest player in the league and build from nothing to something, just like Michael did. Unfortunetly, the management of the Lakers at this time do not share his vision. Jordan did not appreciate the trade for Bill Cartwright (MJ lost Oakley in that deal), nor was he sold on Pippen, but the Bulls at that time adapted quickly to Chicago's failures and moves such as those were what propelled the Bulls to the next level. I can't say the same for the Lakers' management.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Mamba Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Why don't you buy that? The organization has had their opportunities, but they've passed up on them. Baron Davis, Carlos Boozer, Ron Artest, Jason Kidd.

Plain and simple. Kobe resigned with the organization because they promised they'd attempt to get him the pieces. They have had plenty of opportunities to get their pieces...but have turned them down for the future team...which is ridiculous.</div>

Yeah, looking out for the future is ridiculous. Why would any team want to do that?

Baron Davis, Carlos Boozer, and Ron Artest had plenty of issues when they were getting traded. It looks bad now because they all got put into good spots, but they easily could have been busts and you complaining about them now. Also what were the possible deals put on the table for each of them? That will likely tell us why a deal didn't occur.

Also I am almost positive that I heard that Rob Thorn was the one that nixed the Kidd deal, not Kupchak.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Chutney Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">How do you come to that conclusion? I think he cares a lot about how crappy his situation is, but isn't willing to go back on his contract. Anybody can whine their way to a championship contender. It doesn't mean as much, IMO. </div>

At the same time, any superstar can sign with a talented team like the Clippers or Bulls, so does that mean as much if he would have gotten a title there?

Aren't you one that (for example) believes the MVP format is fine? You have penalized Kobe in the past due to his supporting cast, I think that is kind of hypocritical of you.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">
Hindsight is always 20/20. The Lakers tried to build a contending team, they just failed horribly. Kobe should have to grin and bear it. </div>

Actually, Kobe doesn't have to do anything except follow the exact semantics of his contract. The Lakers decided to give Kobe a guaranteed contract, no where is he obligated to give it his all every night. If Kobe feels like taking a few nights off, then the Lakers should have to bear that as well (in a hypothetical situation). Instead of having to resort to this, the Lakers should be reasonable and let Kobe go.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">
The VC situation obviously influenced how I think about this, but it hasn't made me irrationally biased. I just can't stand this double standard. Carter's gotten a tremendous amount of criticism for what he did (all justified, IMO). But why do we spare Kobe? VC's situation was ten times worse than Bryant's. He spent a longer amount of time with a crappier team, that went through 2 GM's and 3 different coaches. Kobe spends 3 years on a team that won't make a trade for a big-name player (all of them had question marks), has still gotten to the playoffs twice and suddenly we should feel sorry for him because his "prime is being wasted"? What's the point in even signing a player to a long-term contract if they can ditch your team whenever the hell they feel like it?</div>

I don't know, VC plays in the East and it is much easier to get past the first round over there. I think Kobe is embarrassed that he can't even get to the second round. VC is also vastly overrated statistically, he isn't an MVP caliber star that is suffering. The situation isn't the same.

Why does the NBA give guaranteed contracts in the first place? It's not like Kobe has to average even 20 PPG to earn that cash. Signing any sort of player is a risky process, that is just part of the business.

In conclusion though, I'm still cool with Kobe staying in LA of course.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Mamba Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Is it normal to build for the future? Yeah, if you don't have the best player to grace the court since MJ on your team. You build around that. If you're a young, wishy wash team like Orlando (who is coming up), Charlotte, Washington, etc. you build for the future because you've got young amazing talent. When you've got a Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan, Dwyane Wade, LeBron James on your team...you build to win now. L.A. is about championships. The media cares about championships...not the future. The occasional fan cares about championships, it's the die hard fans that care about both.

You've got the best player in basketball...you build around him, not around some 19 year old player with the occasional good game but has shown a piss poor attitude and the mental toughness just above Kwame Brown's.

Kupchak had no say in the Kidd deal. He wanted to offer Bynum, Jim Buss said no. That is why Thorn nixed the deal. You do know that Jason Kidd, the night before the deadline, went to bed ready to be traded to L.A., right?

Plain and simple...this organization has let Kobe Bryant and the fans down. They don't care, though. They make their multi-million dollars at the expense of mediocrity. A one and done playoff appearance is fine with Jerry and Jim Buss, they get their money. It's not alright for Kobe or the fans.</div>

You aren't going to get a superstar player for Aaron McKie, Kwame Brown, Chris Mihm, Jordan Farmar and 1 draft pick. That was the deal that the Lakers proposed for Kidd. Throw Bynum in there and you have Odom basically playing center for your team. Also looking back at the thread(I read all 6 pages of the Official Kidd to the Lakers thread), Laker fans were 100% against trading Bynum for Kidd saying that they were giving up too much for Kidd.

The deal the Lakers proposed for Boozer was Chris Mihm and Brian Cook.

I couldn’t really find a good thread on JBB for the Artest deal, but from what I was reading one of the main pieces was Devean George, lol.

The other GM’s basically laughed in the Lakers faces for their offers.

You need to part with something valuable to get a superstar player. Lamar Odom is a horrible piece to get for a rebuilding team. Kwame Brown, Andrew Bynum would have to be the start of a trade for them, but I just don't really see anything else on the Lakers that would entice a team to trade a superstar for. You would have to throw in multiple 1st rounders and more at least to get any of these superstars you are talking about. You are likely not going to just rob someone of a deal because you are the Lakers. Your trade bait flat out isn't good right now.

 

<div class="quote_poster">GatorsowntheNCAA Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">You aren't going to get a superstar player for Aaron McKie, Kwame Brown, Chris Mihm, Jordan Farmar and 1 draft pick. That was the deal that the Lakers proposed for Kidd. Throw Bynum in there and you have Odom basically playing center for your team. Also looking back at the thread(I read all 6 pages of the Official Kidd to the Lakers thread), Laker fans were 100% against trading Bynum for Kidd saying that they were giving up too much for Kidd.

The deal the Lakers proposed for Boozer was Chris Mihm and Brian Cook.

I couldn?t really find a good thread on JBB for the Artest deal, but from what I was reading one of the main pieces was Devean George, lol.

The other GM?s basically laughed in the Lakers faces for their offers.

You need to part with something valuable to get a superstar player. Lamar Odom is a horrible piece to get for a rebuilding team. Kwame Brown, Andrew Bynum would have to be the start of a trade for them, but I just don't really see anything else on the Lakers that would entice a team to trade a superstar for. You would have to throw in multiple 1st rounders and more at least to get any of these superstars you are talking about. You are likely not going to just rob someone of a deal because you are the Lakers. Your trade bait flat out isn't good right now.</div>
I completely agree with you man. Some of the Lakers' fan aren't being realistic with themselves. Outside of Kobe, LO, Bynum, we have no valueble trade asset that will interest other teams. C'com guys, do you think other teams are that dumb? No organizations want to help the Lakers. Lets face it, we screw up dating back to the Shaq trade. We should, I mean NEVER should acquire Brain Grant. The dude took a big junk of our salary cap and as it turned out, we waived him to save our tax dollar. Basically it is bad management and being unlucky for 3 years post-Shaq's era. We could have gotten Leandron Barbosa, yet we settle for Brain Cook. Who to blame? We have too many different personnel in the front office. Jim Buss loves Bynum, Phil Jackson only wants player that fit his triangle, Dr. Buss doesn't want to go over the luxary tax except for the right player. I mean how can Mitch satisfies all three of them? It basically giving Mitch this option, you can trade Kwame, Cook, Smush, Sasha, Shammond, our 19th first round draft pick. Who wants that crap? Nobody!

Then again, it all comes down to being the unfortunate team. We want J-Kidd, yet we don't want to give up Kwame/Bynum (our best frontline). We want Ron Artest, but we can't give up Bynum. Do anybody remember the reason we trade Caron Butler for Kwame Brown? I think most of you forgot that at the time, Phil and even us said we wanted a big player. And at the time, we were stuck with too many SFs. So yes, it was a good trade. Most of us even admmitted that and now after the Kwame's experience didn't work out, we blamed the Lakers? C'com give me a break.

We need to be realistic, we are SCREW UP BIG TIME! This team shoulds have tank for Oden and have a turn of event, but you know Kobe, that is unacceptable. I don't see us competing for championship until the 2008 when Ron Artest or perhap KG opts out and decides "hey, let joins the Lakers and I'll take a huge paycut to win a championship". Otherwise we are screw up with hoping Bynum turns out to be the players all of us hoping for, that is at least an allstar.

 

<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">At the same time, any superstar can sign with a talented team like the Clippers or Bulls, so does that mean as much if he would have gotten a title there?

Aren't you one that (for example) believes the MVP format is fine? You have penalized Kobe in the past due to his supporting cast, I think that is kind of hypocritical of you.</div>
It's not the same thing. They get to choose those teams when their contracts run out and are free agents. It's part of the rules and every player will have to go through the process at some point in their career. Once they sign that contract, they are obligated to honour it and play it out until the end. Breaking their end of the deal by forcing a trade, is essentially cheating in my eyes.

I don't think the MVP format is fine, but I do agree with the emphasis they put on team success (what you're referring to, I suppose). How's that hypocritical? Not every good player will have the luck of playing for a championship team and not every good player will have the opportunity to win the MVP award. That's just how the league works.


<div class="quote_poster">Quoting huevonkiller:</div><div class="quote_post">Actually, Kobe doesn't have to do anything except follow the exact semantics of his contract. The Lakers decided to give Kobe a guaranteed contract, no where is he obligated to give it his all every night. If Kobe feels like taking a few nights off, then the Lakers should have to bear that as well (in a hypothetical situation). Instead of having to resort to this, the Lakers should be reasonable and let Kobe go.</div>
Well no he doesn't, but that's not what I'm focusing on. I'm arguing that he has no right to force a trade once he's signed a contract.

Of course he doesn't have to give his all once he's signed his contract. Lots of players do that and, as frustrating as it is, its their choice to do that. However, I'm assuming that you brought that up because you believe that the Lakers' front office has done the same thing. They haven't. They've tried to build a championship team, but have just failed at it. It'd be the equivalent of a player signing a contract and not being good enough to earn the money he was given.



<div class="quote_poster">Quoting huevonkiller:</div><div class="quote_post">I don't know, VC plays in the East and it is much easier to get past the first round over there. I think Kobe is embarrassed that he can't even get to the second round. VC is also vastly overrated statistically, he isn't an MVP caliber star that is suffering. The situation isn't the same.

Why does the NBA give guaranteed contracts in the first place? It's not like Kobe has to average even 20 PPG to earn that cash. Signing any sort of player is a risky process, that is just part of the business.

In conclusion though, I'm still cool with Kobe staying in LA of course.</div>
(This all applies to Brian's post as well). I'm not saying that both players are exactly the same. The reason I brought that situation up is to point out a double standard that most people have. Why is one player criticized so heavily for his actions and one (hypothetically) given sympathy? VC was in a situation so much worse than Kobe's and, honestly, Kobe Bryant has not had it that bad. He's only played through one season where his team has not made the playoffs and has won 3 championships. Some franchise players don't even get the chance to accomplish a small percentage of the success he's experienced. And now that he's been unable to win a championship after he signed a contract, we should feel sorry for him? I'm sorry, but he had his chance to put himself in a situation where he could win a title and he decided that the Lakers could do it. That's his mistake and he should have to live with it. And really, he's made it that much more difficult on the management by expecting to be in the playoffs so soon. The post-Shaq Lakers were a terrible team with very few resources to work with. They needed to rebuild, but felt pressure from the media, the fans, and Kobe to contend as quickly as possible. As a result, they are now in a situation where they still have very few attractive pieces and are capped out. If it weren't for an very good draft pick (Bynum) they would have virtually nothing.

Long-term contracts will always be risky for teams. Things like injuries, motivation, or an underachieving player could always potentially mess things up. But a player forcing a trade should not be considered one of the risks. If a team signs a player to a contract, they should be able to expect him to honour that commitment and play out the years that he's signed for, regardless if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Chutney Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">It's not the same thing. They get to choose those teams when their contracts run out and are free agents. It's part of the rules and every player will have to go through the process at some point in their career. Once they sign that contract, they are obligated to honour it and play it out until the end. Breaking their end of the deal by forcing a trade, is essentially cheating in my eyes.</div>

So if Kobe were to play for the Spurs this year (after having signed there as a free agent at an earlier date), winning a ring there wouldn't be a diluted accomplishment? In either situation (forcing a trade or playing for the Spurs), a championship should be less admired according to your logic (because any bloke can sign onto a championship caliber roster or force a trade there).

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">
I don't think the MVP format is fine, but I do agree with the emphasis they put on team success (what you're referring to, I suppose). How's that hypocritical? Not every good player will have the luck of playing for a championship team and not every good player will have the opportunity to win the MVP award. That's just how the league works.</div>

Well I assume you believe it isn't Kobe's fault if he has bad teammates around him, correct? Then why shouldn't he have been the MVP or at least ahead of Nash these last two years? Thus your ideas seem to contradict themselves.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">
Well no he doesn't, but that's not what I'm focusing on. I'm arguing that he has no right to force a trade once he's signed a contract.

Of course he doesn't have to give his all once he's signed his contract. Lots of players do that and, as frustrating as it is, its their choice to do that. However, I'm assuming that you brought that up because you believe that the Lakers' front office has done the same thing. They haven't. They've tried to build a championship team, but have just failed at it. It'd be the equivalent of a player signing a contract and not being good enough to earn the money he was given.
</div>


You've mentioned "honor" before, right? Wouldn't it be honorable of the Lakers to not waste Kobe's prime while they are in rebuilding mode?

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">(This all applies to Brian's post as well). I'm not saying that both players are exactly the same. The reason I brought that situation up is to point out a double standard that most people have. Why is one player criticized so heavily for his actions and one (hypothetically) given sympathy? VC was in a situation so much worse than Kobe's and, honestly, Kobe Bryant has not had it that bad. He's only played through one season where his team has not made the playoffs and has won 3 championships. Some franchise players don't even get the chance to accomplish a small percentage of the success he's experienced. And now that he's been unable to win a championship after he signed a contract, we should feel sorry for him? I'm sorry, but he had his chance to put himself in a situation where he could win a title and he decided that the Lakers could do it. That's his mistake and he should have to live with it. And really, he's made it that much more difficult on the management by expecting to be in the playoffs so soon. </div>

Let's not kid ourselves, many rambling idiots on ESPN/youtube/etc. think Kobe doesn't deserve those three rings. His situation isn't the same as others who have won three championships (Shaq was a very dominant player). Not only that, but Kobe hurt his stats by having to play with that other immature brat (Shaq needs the ball all the time), so it was an unfortunate situation.

Kobe would establish his legacy to any hater if he were to win again with a JO/old-KG caliber player.

And btw, Kobe can basically lead a team to the playoffs by himself, so why would it be ridiculous for him to want management to get him deeper into the post-season?

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">
The post-Shaq Lakers were a terrible team with very few resources to work with. They needed to rebuild, but felt pressure from the media, the fans, and Kobe to contend as quickly as possible. As a result, they are now in a situation where they still have very few attractive pieces and are capped out. If it weren't for an very good draft pick (Bynum) they would have virtually nothing.
</div>

Yeah, sounds like the Lakers should trade Kobe out of respect then.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">
Long-term contracts will always be risky for teams. Things like injuries, motivation, or an underachieving player could always potentially mess things up. But a player forcing a trade should not be considered one of the risks. If a team signs a player to a contract, they should be able to expect him to honour that commitment and play out the years that he's signed for, regardless if that's a good thing or a bad thing.</div>

It's honorable to permanently tarnish one's legacy? Don't the Lakers have to rebuild over the course of 3-5 years anyway (to really become contenders)?

They might be better off just letting Kobe go, if I didn't believe that then I wouldn't be arguing with you.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">A source tells Peter Vecsey of the New York Post that Kobe Bryant informed Lakers' ownership he would approve a trade to one specific team.

The source did not know which team Bryant marked.</div>
Source

Wasn't he really close to signing with Chicago a couple offseasons ago?

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting huevonkiller:</div><div class="quote_post">So if Kobe were to play for the Spurs this year (after having signed there as a free agent at an earlier date), winning a ring there wouldn't be a diluted accomplishment? In either situation (forcing a trade or playing for the Spurs), a championship should be less admired according to your logic (because any bloke can sign onto a championship caliber roster or force a trade there).</div>
No I don't think that would be diluted. Look, I never said that playing on a stacked team is like cheating. I said that bending the rules and forcing a trade to a stacked team is like cheating. If a team assembles multiple superstars through free agency, trades, the draft, etc., it should be commended and I wouldn't hold it against them. If a player gets tired of a losing situation and complains his way to a title, than I do think its tarnished a bit.

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting huevonkiller:</div><div class="quote_post">Well I assume you believe it isn't Kobe's fault if he has bad teammates around him, correct? Then why shouldn't he have been the MVP or at least ahead of Nash these last two years? Thus your ideas seem to contradict themselves.</div>
That doesn't make any sense. Yes, I don't believe that its Kobe's fault that his teammates are so terrible, and yes, he is losing an opportunity to win the MVP award because of that. Unfortunate? Yes. Unfair? Not at all. A player usually has to be in the right situation to win an MVP and, like I said earlier, not all players get to be that lucky. That's just the harsh reality of the NBA. Not every great player will have the opportunity to win a title, not every great player will have the opportunity to win an MVP award, and we shouldn't let them break the rules because of that fact.

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting huevonkiller:</div><div class="quote_post">You've mentioned "honor" before, right? Wouldn't it be honorable of the Lakers to not waste Kobe's prime while they are in rebuilding mode? </div>
It would be ideal for Kobe and his fans. But, the Lakers need to/should think about their team's success before that of any individual player. If they believe that they need Kobe in order to win, then they shouldn't be forced to trade him just because he's disgruntled.

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting huevonkiller:</div><div class="quote_post">Let's not kid ourselves, many rambling idiots on ESPN/youtube/etc. think Kobe doesn't deserve those three rings. His situation isn't the same as others who have won three championships (Shaq was a very dominant player). Not only that, but Kobe hurt his stats by having to play with that other immature brat (Shaq needs the ball all the time), so it was an unfortunate situation.

Kobe would establish his legacy to any hater if he were to win again with a JO/old-KG caliber player.

And btw, Kobe can basically lead a team to the playoffs by himself, so why would it be ridiculous for him to want management to get him deeper into the post-season?</div>
So we should disregard everything in order to allow Kobe to silence all the doubters and critics? Since when did Kobe's personal legacy gain precedence over the rules? As I stated earlier, Kobe had his chance to choose his situation. He made a decision and, looking back, it looks like he made a mistake. But that's his fault. Now he has to follow through with the committment he made, even if its not ideal.

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting huevonkiller:</div><div class="quote_post">Yeah, sounds like the Lakers should trade Kobe out of respect then.</div>
The Lakers should do what is in their best interests. If they think they can be in a better situation by trading Kobe, they should go ahead and do that. If they think they have no chance of getting equal value and are better off keeping him, they should be allowed to do that.

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting huevonkiller:</div><div class="quote_post">It's honorable to permanently tarnish one's legacy? Don't the Lakers have to rebuild over the course of 3-5 years anyway (to really become contenders)?

They might be better off just letting Kobe go, if I didn't believe that then I wouldn't be arguing with you.</div>
It's honourable to live up to a commitment that you've made. The Lakers were in a pretty bad situation after the Shaq trade, even before Kobe signed with them. If he's so preoccupied with his legacy, shouldn't he have realized how difficult it would be to rebuild the team?

Hey, I'm not arguing whether or not Kobe should be traded. I am arguing that Kobe shouldn't be the one to make that decision. That's the job of the Laker's front office.

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting shapecity:</div><div class="quote_post">The key difference I see with Kobe and Vince is the effort Kobe puts forth during the season and in the offseason. He's battling every minute on the court, but Vince often took nights off.

Chutney, I understand where you're coming from with honoring one's contract. Normally I would agree, but you also have to see it from Kobe's point of view. The Lakers brought him back to build a championship team around him without a plan in place.

Mitch Kupchak admitted the Lakers had no idea what they wanted to do when they unloaded Shaq. They had no blueprint and the result has been bad decision after bad decision.

You have a power struggle taking place within the organization with Jim Buss and Phil Jackson.

Jim Buss wants to make his own legacy with Andrew Bynum, and PJax and Kobe want to win now.

It has to be a frustrating environment when you're franchise is in disagreement on the direction of how to get to a title. Jr. seems to be willing to wait for Bynum, because Kobe Bryant is still part of Daddy's and Jerry West's legacy.

If you're Kobe and you know you're good enough to win a title with the right coach and players, you're busting your butt off, and you have someone with other ideas about where to take the franchise AT YOUR EXPENSE, wouldn't you want out?

It's a two way street between franchise and their players. If Kobe wasn't committed to winning then I would bash him for this trade demand. I don't really like the fact he's gone public with his frustrations, but I'm not going to blame him for wanting to leave when the Lakers front office doesn't have their act together.

The Lakers brought back Kobe and PJax to win now. If these plans have now changed and they want to win with Bynum, then you better clean house now and get all you can for Kobe and also get rid of PJax. Start acquiring players to compliment Bynum's game and cross your fingers Bynum delivers in another 3 or 4 seasons.</div>
I don't want it to look like I'm equating Kobe with these players (VC, T-Mac, 'Zo, etc.), because I'm not. Especially now that its clear that Bucher twisted his words around, I'd probably compare Kobe to KG. Both players are in terrible situations, both play their hearts out every night, and both are being punished for making a mistake when they signed their contract. I feel for both of them, but I still don't agree that they have the right to weasel their way out of that situation. It sets up a horrible precedent (or in the NBA's case, reinforces one).

Look, I actually understand your situation (as fans) a lot more than you'd think. I'm a Maple Leafs fan and our management is just as incompetent, splintered, and useless as yours (maybe even moreso). They are content with jacking up ticket prices every year and presenting a borderline playoff team, because they know they can get away with it in a huge hockeytown. They refuse to rebuild, because they are afraid to give the fans a few years of really crappy hockey, even if they know that they can never win a championship following their current path. And, as a Mats Sundin fan, I feel sorry for him and wish he weren't stuck in such a terrible situation. But I don't think he should be allowed to demand a trade and force his way out. I hope they trade him away (much like most of you hope the Lakers make a decision either to build a winner now or trade Kobe away), but that should always be the decision of the front office. Sports are just like that. Not everyone gets to be in an ideal situation and, because they don't have any front office authority, players can get stuck in situations that they don't want to be in. And honestly, the way you described the post-Shaq Lakers, you really have to question why Kobe decided to return.

 

<div class="quote_poster">shapecity Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">The key difference I see with Kobe and Vince is the effort Kobe puts forth during the season and in the offseason. He's battling every minute on the court, but Vince often took nights off.

Chutney, I understand where you're coming from with honoring one's contract. Normally I would agree, but you also have to see it from Kobe's point of view. The Lakers brought him back to build a championship team around him without a plan in place.

Mitch Kupchak admitted the Lakers had no idea what they wanted to do when they unloaded Shaq. They had no blueprint and the result has been bad decision after bad decision.

You have a power struggle taking place within the organization with Jim Buss and Phil Jackson.

Jim Buss wants to make his own legacy with Andrew Bynum, and PJax and Kobe want to win now.

It has to be a frustrating environment when you're franchise is in disagreement on the direction of how to get to a title. Jr. seems to be willing to wait for Bynum, because Kobe Bryant is still part of Daddy's and Jerry West's legacy.

If you're Kobe and you know you're good enough to win a title with the right coach and players, you're busting your butt off, and you have someone with other ideas about where to take the franchise AT YOUR EXPENSE, wouldn't you want out?

It's a two way street between franchise and their players. If Kobe wasn't committed to winning then I would bash him for this trade demand. I don't really like the fact he's gone public with his frustrations, but I'm not going to blame him for wanting to leave when the Lakers front office doesn't have their act together.

The Lakers brought back Kobe and PJax to win now. If these plans have now changed and they want to win with Bynum, then you better clean house now and get all you can for Kobe and also get rid of PJax. Start acquiring players to compliment Bynum's game and cross your fingers Bynum delivers in another 3 or 4 seasons.</div>



Before Bynum gets better, Kobe will get worse. For Kobe to be there when/if Bynum wins a championship, will be in awhile. Kobe I think understands that and wants to win before he retires and/or leaves the Lakers. He wants vets around him. I think for the Lakers to win now, young guys arn't gunna help them that much, becuase the young players they get arn't the greatest. I hope KObe gets his wish and is traded to a team that will win right now.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Mamba Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Everything I've heard has stated that that Caron Butler was the main piece in the Boozer deal. Caron and Chris Mihm. At the time, that was a very respectable offer for Boozer, but the Lakers didn't pull the trigger.</div>

Boozer was a huge risk, probably a bigger risk then reward at the time and I don't know how he would have done in LA. He started to excel when Deron Williams became a GREAT PG and Okur took pressure off of him with the inside/outside game. I don't see the Lakers having those pieces that would have really made it possible for Boozer to reach the level that he currently is on. He was one of the most overpaid players in the NBA at the time and it would have crippled the Lakers cap wise if he didn't turn out. It looks bad in hindsight because of the impact that Boozer is having on these playoffs(and regular season), but no one knew he was gonna be this good. Honestly, at the time the Lakers would likely have been better off not making the trade.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I've never heard George was the piece for Artest. From what I remember, it was Odom.</div>

Well Odom made $6-8 mil more than Artest and I don't think anyone was thinking at the time that the Pacers should have given up more than Artest for Odom. You would have had to give up more, IMO and that would have pretty much forced Indiana to trade their entire team to get close salary wise.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">In the Kidd deal, everybody knew that the Nets wanted Bynum. That would've gotten the deal done, but the Lakers refused to let go of Bynum. It's ridiculous. They've got their hope tied up in this 19 year old kid who moves like Brendan Haywood out on the court. I don't know what the Lakers see in him talent wise (I've given up on Bynum, I need to see more) and I don't see why other teams have pushed for him. But hey, if other teams are going to push for him...we can trade him while his value is still high.</div>

Go back to that Kidd thread. I don't remember 1 single Laker fan on board for trading Bynum for Kidd. They felt giving up a 19 year old big man wasn't worth trading for a 34 year old legend. You expected to get him for your garbage and of course the Nets weren't going to accept.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Why would a team want Odom? It's a gamble. If you get the Odom in Miami, then you've got yourself a borderline all-star. The problem with Odom is his game doesn't fit in the triangle and doesn't compliment Kobe's.</div>

I understand why a good team would want to try to acquire Odom, because he could be a good player, but u do agree that Odom is not a franchise player correct? Why would a team that was trying to rebuild want to pay $28 mil for 2 years for a possible borderline all-star? You do understand that teams when they rebuild try to get young talent and expiring deals correct? (Not sure if Laker fans realize this because their franchise has luckily never really had to rebuild in the modern era) So why would they want Lamar Odom? It just doesn't make sense for a team that is planning on rebuilding. Now if Manu Ginobili(as an example, not saying this trade would be worth it or anything) was disgruntled and wanting to get out of SA they might try to get someone who could work for them, such as a Lamar Odom, because they won't be rebuilding and still have pieces such as Duncan and Parker and wouldn't have to rely on Odom to be a star and if he doesn't work out they could just let him go or dangle his expiring contract out for someone who would work out better in a year.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I don't think it's hard to believe that the Lakers have got a good shot at Jermaine if they offer Odom, Bynum, and Kwame. Hell, they might have to take Tinsley's ugly contract from the Pacers. Stephen Jackson has said that Jermaine would like to play in NY or LA. If Jermaine goes and asks for a trade, I think Indiana would try to get him where he wants to go, out of respect for him.</div>

Jermaine and Randolph are the only 2 people that I see the Lakers even having a chance of acquiring. I was mainly talking about franchise players like Pau and KG. Pacers really want to get Danny Granger more time and I really think that they like Ike Diogu. They both play Odom's positions. In order for them to do that trade I bet you would have to take either Troy Murphy or Mike Dunleavy's contract(if they take Odom for you). You might have to give up a 1st as well. Here is a successful trade scenario that I did on Realgm Trade Checker....

Indiana Trade Breakdown
Outgoing

Jermaine O'Neal
6-11 C from Eau Claire (HS)
19.4 ppg, 9.6 rpg, 2.4 apg in 35.7 minutes

Mike Dunleavy
6-8 SF from Duke
12.8 ppg, 5.3 rpg, 2.8 apg in 31.5 minutes
Incoming

Lamar Odom
6-10 PF from Rhode Island
15.9 ppg, 9.8 rpg, 4.8 apg in 39.3 minutes

Kwame Brown
6-11 C from Glynn Academy (HS)
8.4 ppg, 6.0 rpg, 1.8 apg in 27.6 minutes

Andrew Bynum
7-0 C from St. Joseph (HS)
7.8 ppg, 5.9 rpg, 1.1 apg in 21.9 minutes

2007 Draft #19 Pick
0-0 from
No games yet played in 2006/07
Change in team outlook: -0.1 ppg, +6.8 rpg, and +2.5 apg.



L.A. Lakers Trade Breakdown
Outgoing

Lamar Odom
6-10 PF from Rhode Island
15.9 ppg, 9.8 rpg, 4.8 apg in 39.3 minutes

Kwame Brown
6-11 C from Glynn Academy (HS)
8.4 ppg, 6.0 rpg, 1.8 apg in 27.6 minutes

Andrew Bynum
7-0 C from St. Joseph (HS)
7.8 ppg, 5.9 rpg, 1.1 apg in 21.9 minutes

2007 Draft #19 Pick
0-0 from
No games yet played in 2006/07
Incoming

Jermaine O'Neal
6-11 C from Eau Claire (HS)
19.4 ppg, 9.6 rpg, 2.4 apg in 35.7 minutes

Mike Dunleavy
6-8 SF from Duke
12.8 ppg, 5.3 rpg, 2.8 apg in 31.5 minutes
Change in team outlook: +0.1 ppg, -6.8 rpg, and -2.5 apg.


Successful Scenario
Due to Indiana and L.A. Lakers being over the cap, the 25% trade rule is invoked. Indiana and L.A. Lakers had to be no more than 125% plus $100,000 of the salary given out for the trade to be accepted, which did happen here. This trade satisfies the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.


Not to mention are you guys sure you really want Jermaine O Neal in LA? Assuming Kobe accepts his player option you guys will basically not be able to do any move what so ever minus the MLE and with the way you have used the MLE the last couple of years I don't know if I would trust it. You would have 2 stars that make over 20 mil through the 09-10 season and personally I don't think a JO and Kobe duo (because that's basically what it would be without any other talent) can surpass the Spurs, Mavs, or Suns. Maybe not even the Jazz/Rockets either. Not to mention salary cap wise you would have to take Tinsley's, Murphy's, or Dunleavy's monster contracts, so you guys will be close to the cap with only 3 players. I'm not sure if it's the best move for the Lakers tbh. You will certainly improve, but I don't know if the improvement will allow you to be contenders in the West where all teams are improving. I don't think the move would make you good enough to overcome the handcuffs that you would have on making ANY moves what so ever.

 

Good comparisons with Pierce, Garnett, and Mats Sundin by Chutney and Shape.
<div class="quote_poster">GatorsowntheNCAA Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Well Odom made $6-8 mil more than Artest and I don't think anyone was thinking at the time that the Pacers should have given up more than Artest for Odom. You would have had to give up more, IMO and that would have pretty much forced Indiana to trade their entire team to get close salary wise. </div>I think you are right that trading for Jermaine O'Neal is a risky trade, just because the Lakers will have two players with huge contracts.

Regarding the Artest trade. From what I remember when Artest was on the block, trades that would have worked would be

Artest + Foster for Odom
Artest + Croshere for Odom

And you can add cash or picks to even things out.