I would if the team was struggling but 67 wins in the regular season coming off a narrow loss the year before in the finals...man you just tinker, not blow that up, IMO. DD
The only reason Kobe is considered a one man team is because his team technically is devoid of any substantial talent. You take Kobe away from the team and they can be potentially worse than the Hawks. The times he let others take over, they lost... You work with what you have. The first Laker's/Suns series does not count because the Suns had no big men that year, but still had to ability to make adjustments to win. And no, the best regular season team does not equate to the best team in the playoffs. The Spurs and Lakers in prior seasons cruised through the season, but to only take it up a notch in the playoffs. Exchanging Terry/Howard for Kobe does not make the team worse by any stretch of the imagination. To me. The first round upset was enough to tell Dallas that they need a player like Kobe.
This makes no sense. You do understand that Kobe isn't a free agent, right? All he has is a right of refusal, which I doubt he would use if traded to Chicago, a much better trade partner for the Lakers. Thus, Kobe's 1st option may be Dallas, but that certainly doesn't mean it's his most likely destination.
We traded Thorpe, an important part of the championship team, for Clyde Drexler, an over the hill superstar, and won. BTW, the Mavs aren't blowing up the team. Terry is expendable. Harris has been eating up his PT already. Howard is the only important piece they give up. That's why it would be a robbery if the trade came true as rumored.
Too much frikin' drama or me, man. It's like Dancing with the Stars had got Cuban desperate to make a splash elsewhere
Yes, it worked for that one year, but we had to come from the 6th seed to do it in a historic never before or after type of run. I just think Dallas would be making a big mistake, therefore, I hope they do it. DD
Yes it makes perfect sense. He said he wants to play for either Dallas or Chicago. Of course he isn't going to turn down a trade with Chicago. But you can't just come in here and say he would like to play with PHX, Houston, Atlanta, etc. That's just stupid.
I think Dallas would be making a even bigger mistake if they had the opportunity but refused to make that trade.
Yep, I respect that, it is all a matter of opinion. We are just on opposite sides of the coin, at least you didn't come in here saying...."Your Points have been proven wrong...yadda...yadda..yadda...." We are all just speculating, and opinionating... DD
Wait, who the hell said that? not the guy you were responding to anyway. The article said Kobe's no. 1 option was Dallas. emjohn (who had been arguing that Chicago was a more likely destination than Dallas) said: You responded directly to this quote with: You're clearly saying that Kobe going to Chicago would make no sense, since his top choice was already reported in the article (which emjohn was referring to) to have been Dallas. That's when I said: . To which you now say that Dallas AND Chicago are his top choices and a bunch of other teams that neither I, nor emjohn were even suggesting, are less likely to get him (and no ****, btw). All of a sudden your college analogy turns into, "If you had the ability to choose any college to attend in this country, why wouldn't you go to your top choice, or a second option that isn't your top choice but it acceptible and more likely? Going anywhere else makes no sense to me." Yeah, whatever.
Clyde wasn't over the hill when we got him, just he looked over the hill with his hair loss. He was over the hill, when we played the Lakers in the playoffs and he missed that dunk on the fast break. he couldn't "GLYDE" anymore. Send Kobe east. No way on earth I want to see him with the Mavs.
part of me doesnt want kobe to go to the mavs, but then I realize that they are going to have to tear up their entire system to get him, so id support it. possible short-term success, but almost guaranteed long-term turmoil.
remember the hall-of-fame lakers getting dismantled by the pistons in '04? or how about the ridiculously high-payroll yankees getting killed every year? no amount of money or talent can compensate for chemistry and understanding developed over time. in a best case scenario- they wont be amazing in the begging of the season, then will get hot at the end of the year and in the postseason and will lose in the second round of the playoffs. thats what i think would happen. not to mention the voids left by howard and terry, and not having a first round pick for 2 years? if i were dallas, i wouldnt look to make such a drastic move.
What is their "system"? Compared to other NBA teams, the Mavs offense is almost basic playground. Kobe would fit right in. And I'll say this again: Some of you are severely overestimating the players chemistry on the Mavs. Unfortunately for them, Avery Johnson is both the heart and brains of that team. Long term, as in 3/4/5 years, who knows what the effect would be. But this year and next, the Mavs would be better with Kobe than with Josh Howard and Jet Terry.
A nice read and some thoughts that have been kicked around here often enough. As a matter of fact, this has probably been posted here. Ignore it if it has. From the Chicago Tribune via the Los Angeles Times... COMMENTARY It's time Jackson was challenged By Rick Morrissey Special to The Times October 24, 2007 Some of us -- the dark, cynical people who haunt this planet -- would like to see Coach to the Stars Phil Jackson take on a real challenge. That challenge would be to coach a team that did not have a slam-dunk Hall of Famer or two on the roster. It's why we're rooting for Lakers owner Jerry Buss to trade Kobe Bryant, the best player in the NBA, for several good players. And let old Phil coach 'em up, as coaches like to say. You would think this might appeal to someone like Jackson, who always is seeking lofty mountains, spiritual peaks and the kind of highs that come only through much effort or excellent soil. Jackson would point out he hasn't exactly had an All-Star team the last two seasons, and he would be correct. He also hasn't gotten very far in the playoffs. Surround Bryant with the likes of Luke Walton and Lamar Odom and there's no need to have a discussion about whether the victory parade route should wind past Grauman's Chinese Theatre. But the one thing that is not on Jackson's resume is "builder." No matter how much he has accomplished, he always will be looked upon as the coach lucky enough to have had Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Shaquille O'Neal and Bryant on his various rosters. It's hard not to be considered obscenely rich when your name is Rockefeller. Bum Phillips once said of Don Shula, "He can take his'n and beat your'n, and he can take your'n and beat his'n." You would be hard-pressed to find many people who are positive Jackson could take your'n and beat his'n. Unless your'n included Kevin Garnett, Dwyane Wade and Steve Nash. Jackson's historical nemesis, Red Auerbach, probably would have run into the same trouble, but he never seemed quite as calculating as Jackson. When Jackson was considering his options after his Bulls days were over, he went to the team that was loaded with talent. He wanted nothing to do with the Nets, who wanted him badly but had the unmistakable look of Loserville. That decision made Jackson no different than any other clear-thinking coach. But it left open the door for those of us who wonder how much skill it takes to lead some of the greatest players in NBA history to victory. If the Lakers traded Bryant to the Bulls for Kirk Hinrich and Luol Deng, wouldn't it be delicious to watch Jackson try to mold a team out of some very nice, but not great, talent? It's hard to picture anyone winning a title with the current Lakers roster. You have a lopsided team with Bryant in one corner setting up shop in his own vast universe. It limits Jackson, and it's why Bryant can score 81 points in one game, as he did in 2006. But give Jackson a near star such as Deng, a very solid pro like Hinrich and some other good players, and perhaps we'll have a fairer idea of just who and what Jackson is. Some of us have had our fill of hearing about Jackson's abilities as master psychologist, as the only guy who could make Kobe and Shaq coexist and the guy who could get Dennis Rodman to put down his eyeliner and mirror in time for the game. While not to completely disregard the Dr. Phil skills, we would like to see exactly how deep the Coach Phil skills run. Fielding a team without a superstar is a challenge. If Jackson indeed likes to challenge himself, there has to be a part of him that would want to see Bryant go. Any trade involving Bryant would have to involve some decent talent, enough talent to allow a determined coach to begin the arduous task of molding a winner. Jackson has all those championship rings, nine of them, but wouldn't it be fascinating to watch him operate without the glitz of big stars on his team? It's not as if gold-standard players tarnish a coach's image. But they do make you ask questions about his ability. So we might get to see what's under Jackson's mask. Is it a coach or a maitre d'? Rick Morrissey is a columnist for the Chicago Tribune. http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp...y?coll=la-headlines-sports&ctrack=3&cset=true
That article above fails to mention that Doug Collins, Stan Albeck, and Kevin Loughery failed while Phil succeeded in the Jordan era and where Del Harris and Kurt Rambis failed while Phil succeeded during the Kobe/Shaq era. Just because he usually doesn't get involved in player personnel decisions and roster movements doesn't mean he just sat back and watched Jordan Shaq et al win rings. Just like the article mentioned, I'd like to see Red Aurbach make winners out of the Nets circa 1999. In fact would he even take the job? No, I think he would have done the same as Phil.
