Knicks on top of Kobe Bryant's and Jermaine O'Neal's wish lists?

Isiah Thomas is right now willing to trade anyone as ESPN said it. BUT Kobe's number #1 target is Chicago due to their extreme young talents. Isiah Thomas has a lot of interest in Kobe, also Marbury said he wants Kobe.

 

<div class="quote_poster">LBJ2006MVP Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Dude Jamal was injured most the season so relax.... not forgetting his 50+ point game! When did Gordon have that? If you're willing to part with Deng,Gordon and the pick for Kobe it will a good trade for the Lakers of course but that would leave Kobe with what Kirk and rookie thomas? which is almost the same thing as having Bynum and Kobe on the same team.</div>

What does his efficiency rating have to do with him being out for most of the year? I didn't count his total points scored, it's based on the games you played.

Wow, he scored 50 points once? Dude, I take back everything I said, I didn't realize a single game performance can make you so much better than another player.

If we were to part ways with Deng and Gordon, our team would look like this.

Kirk
Kobe
Nocioni
Thomas, Brown, or MLE
Ben Wallace

That right there can get us to the ECF at least. Comparing that situation to Bynum and Kobe is laughable.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">
Let's summarize a lot of reason why Kobe will want New York more than any team on the league:

Money: No team in the league has more, can offer more, have a bigger exposure than New York. New York is the media center, not Holywood. TV and print media advertising > movies.

Legacy: We have a very short list of top players. Willis Reed and Patrick Ewing are the top Knicks, with a very distant Walt Frazier at third. Kobe comes here, he's automatically right there at the top. He just need one ring and depending on how he gets it, he might top Reed for that spot.

Image: Kobe is the biggest villain in the NBA right now. Everyone wants to find fault with this guy. But if he moves here, he instantly gets the media on his side even if they take pot shots at him, they still want him to succed if he's here.

Coach: Let's start with the coach. Kobe will be calling the shots here. Isiah is a player's coach. He'll never be a drill sargent type and right now, it looks like he's the only coach in the NBA who's like this. If you're a superstar with a huge ego, there's no other player coach around.

Teammates: Eddie Curry will never be a Captain. He's character isn't one. Steph is willing to play second banana to Kobe in this point of his career. And since we're loaded in roleplayers at all the other position, no trade scenario can devastate us when trading for a superstar. Hell, even after this trade, we can still go after Ron Artest. That's how deep we are right now.

__________________</div>

Firstly, I was never arguing with you about where Kobe wants to play, rather which team the Lakers would trade with (and the fact you seem to think Jamal Crawford is a superior player to Ben Gordon), which is just not true. I'm sure Kobe would love to play in NY, it's the biggest stage, you guys do have some talent, and he'd pretty much be the boss. But, you're team isn't that good to begin with, so unless you totally rape the Lakers, how much better can you really get?

How the hell would demanding a trade to NY help his image from where it's at right now? He bitched his way from the opposite coast to play on the biggest stage in the world? That would make him less of a villain? If anything the media would jump on it and make him look like an asshole even moreso.

He's an extremely competitive guy, you don't need a player coach to keep him happy. He has been interviewed by the Bulls and loves Paxson and Skiles' philosophy, and Skiles isn't exactly a "player coach."

And it's not like anyone's stopping him from being the main dude in Chicago.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Ed! Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">LOL.

Jamal Crawford demands double teams now?

Trust me, Ben Gordon has wayyy more value than Jamal ever has been, will be, could have been, etc.

Please, you're questioning BEN GORDON's shot selection while defending Jamal? Trust me, I know Jamal's game, if theres any big knocks on his game, it's his inconsistency and shot selection. Ben Gordon is already 7th all time in 3 pt. field goal percentage, if he's taking bad shots, I haven't seen them. He shot 45% this year, 5% better than Jamal. Crawford is an innefficient volume scorer who's total efficiency rating is much lower than Jamal's. He plays more minutes, scores less, and gets similar APG/REB.</div>
I agree with most of this. While Jamal is a good player and a great scorer when he’s feeling it, Ben Gordon has more trade value, especially since he’s the better scorer, is younger, and is still on his rookie contract. However, I think the 7th all-time statistic is a bit misleading. Gordon is definitely on pace to having a high 3P% but it isn’t fair to compare his three-year percentage to someone with 10+ years. But anyway, I don’t think the Knicks will offer Crawford though.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">It's not like people don't know Wallace doesn't score. He never has, never will. He's a multiple time winner of the Defensive Player of the Year, and an extremely valuable interior presence. Granted, I don't think a rebuilding Lakers team would be thrilled to take them onto their roster, but to think that throwing some above average talents with Lee is going to stop the Lakers from getting one or two of Ben Gordon / Luol Deng / Andres Nocioni, then you are kidding yourself.</div>
Like you said, the Lakers don’t want Wallace; he’s 33-years-old and is due $44-million on his recently-signed contract. He’s the type of player you acquire if you are looking for a missing piece to a potential championship-contending roster, not if you are trying to rebuild. From what I hear, the Bulls don’t want to give up both Gordon AND Deng. Nocioni is almost 28, so I don’t see him being an ideal player the Lakers want to build around. If the Bulls are willing to give up Deng and Gordon, then it will be better than any package the Knicks can put together. But if they do something like Gordon/Wallace/Nocioni, then I definitely see the Frye/Lee/Robinson/Francis package being better since the Lakers get younger more talented and shed some salary in the near future.

 

<div class="quote_poster">MrJ Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I agree with most of this. While Jamal is a good player and a great scorer when he?s feeling it, Ben Gordon has more trade value, especially since he?s the better scorer, is younger, and is still on his rookie contract. However, I think the 7th all-time statistic is a bit misleading. Gordon is definitely on pace to having a high 3P% but it isn?t fair to compare his three-year percentage to someone with 10+ years. But anyway, I don?t think the Knicks will offer Crawford though.
</div>
Thing is, Gordon's already taken 1000+ threes, and is on pace to have taken more than Steve Kerr, who is #1 on the list, by his 5th year. Most of the other guys on the list are specialists, and not the #1 option on offense.
<div class="quote_poster">MrJ Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">
Like you said, the Lakers don?t want Wallace; he?s 33-years-old and is due $44-million on his recently-signed contract. He?s the type of player you acquire if you are looking for a missing piece to a potential championship-contending roster, not if you are trying to rebuild. From what I hear, the Bulls don?t want to give up both Gordon AND Deng. Nocioni is almost 28, so I don?t see him being an ideal player the Lakers want to build around. If the Bulls are willing to give up Deng and Gordon, then it will be better than any package the Knicks can put together. But if they do something like Gordon/Wallace/Nocioni, then I definitely see the Frye/Lee/Robinson/Francis package being better since the Lakers get younger more talented and shed some salary in the near future.</div>
Yea, Wallace is somewhat of a drag to have on a rebuilding team, and I really doubt the Bulls are willing to part with him either. He won't be traded until maybe his 4th year, when he's a big expiring contract. I don't think we have the necessary contracts without destroying our team or resigning PJ Brown to something similar to what he had before, and have him agreeing to going to a rebuilding LA. Personally, I'd rather see a trade for a big than Kobe, it closes the window on us from having a competitive team for most of the next decade, while with Kobe after around 2010, he'll start declining.

I'd still welcome him with open arms of course, because it is Kobe after all.