he did but he backed off it. He was understandably frustrated at the time. Every relationship has its rough points
You raise an interesting point, but I'm not sure I agree. Are the Knicks really known for anything other than reckless spending? They're a destination city, not a destination team. Look at it this way, the Lakers are so hated and feared by our fan base that many here are openly rooting for them to make the playoffs just so they don't rebuild as quickly through the lottery. No one has thought that way about the Knicks since Ewing nearly 30 years ago. Stars go to LA because they know they'll be in the Finals, and they'll get paid better than anywhere else.
That's going back a long ways, and even so, I'm not sure it's true. Alan Houston wasn't a MVP caliber guy, nor was a broken down Larry Johnson. Who else? Sure, NYC is always going to draw pretty good talent, but not the game changers that the Lakers always manage to secure.
Who are all these game changers? Dwight Howard couldn't wait to get out of town as a free agent. Kobe joined the Lakers in the draft. The last big name free agent the Lakers signed was Shaq almost 20 years ago. Well I guess they got a 38 year old Steve Nash, and similarly old Karl Malone and Gary Payton to sign there. Guys way on the wrong side of 35 who were just a name. That actually sounds a bit like the Knicks.
My hatred of kobe stems from a larger overall hatred of the Lakers that threatens to dwarf mother earth.
How did you forget Gasol? And people are quick to forget how good that Malone/Payton team was before Malone got injured late in the playoffs. The Lakers history is littered with Hall of Famers acquired for pennies on the dollar. Then there's the guys like Glen Rice that are stars elsewhere and take secondary roles to win a ring.
Lakers get what they want when they need it. The league makes sure of that. If LA doesn't do well, the league loses interest from the LA Market. They can't have that.
The Lakers traded for Pau Gasol, they didn't sign him. They had huge expiring contracts and Memphis were cheapskates. It had nothing to do with free agent allure of the Lakers brand. With the new CBA the Lakers won't have the same advantage of outspending teams as back then. Yes the Malone Lakers were a great team but any team that had Shaq those years would've been a great team. Malone wasn't a top player at that point. He was a good starter but I'm not worried at all about the Lakers adding players like him as a 3rd fiddle.
Who said anything about free agents only? Hell, they traded for Kobe, too, and that's the subject of the thread! The point is, they consistently figure out how to acquire the most elite of talent, and they pay whatever it takes to continue doing so. The Clippers have all the same advantages but until recently were known as notorious cheapskates. They sure weren't a destination team. Image makes a huge difference in who you can bring in.
Yeah, I couldn't remember if it was ACL or Achilles, so I just went with knee. Not technically correct, but I was trying to keep it general (should have just said "leg").
