Who was the Finals MVP every time the Lakers won? And please don't compare Jordan and Kobe in the clutch. Kobe always takes it upon himself, Jordan would make passes in clutch situations too. I expect Kobe to do very little without Shaq on his team. I think he's in for a rude awakening next season. I predict a lot of 50 point efforts in losses...
Shaq's the MVP when it comes to the Finals because he's playing against the LEast, Bryant is always the MVP of the Western Conference Playoffs. Who compared him to Jordan? Not me, however he is the most clutch player in the NBA, nobody can dispute that. The Lakers will be fine as long as they get some size, even if they don't I still can't see them under .500 barring any major injuries.
HA! HA! When's the last time Reggie Miller hit a game winning shot? Hmm... Against the Suns a few years ago? In that time Jermain O'neal has had more, so Bryant still gets the nod, at least IMO.
Fine. Doesn't compare to the buzzer beaters Kobe has been hitting lately, but ok. Bryant still has a MUCH MUCH stronger case for most clutch player in the NBA.
Kobe will continue to dominate -- he's just an amazing all-around player. He'll be a 30/5/5 for another 10 years, and those are eye-popping statistics. As good as that is, though, he'll never reach Jordanesque heights until he learns to trust his teammates. If he couldn't trust Shaq, the chances of that happening are pretty small. But I'd still take 10 years of near-Jordan production instead of 3-4 years of an injury-prone big man who refuses to keep himself in shape. The Lakers did what they had to do to keep Kobe. His demands were amazingly arrogant and completely selfish, but Buss did what he had to do. Kobe just wasn't going to play with Shaq, and he forced Buss to make a decision. It sucks for Lakers fans to get Lamar Odom and trash for the most dominant big man since Wilt Chamberlain, but there was really no other choice.
I've already made my opinion known in another thread: "The thing that has p!ssed me off more than anything else about this is that people are making judgement on the Phil/Shaq/Kobe divorce as if it is all about next season...idiots like Chad Ford who say Kobe should have picked the Clips b/c they provide a better situation. That is the biggest load of crap...how can he even begin to suggest that any team run by Donald Sterling will be better than the Lakers? That's like saying A-Rod should have gone to the Marlins, rather than the Yankees, because the Marlins have a better team RIGHT NOW (since they won the Series). Whether or not any of the Heat players amount to anything, why do people want to assume the Lakers will stop going all-out to remain an elite team throughout the rest of Kobe's stay there? They have a history of finding superstars and winning championships...it started way before Shaq...and it will continue well after he is gone. What if the Lakers wait a year or two, see if the players mesh, and if not, use their assets and cap money to sign another superstar big man, a la Shaq in 1996? Is L.A. going to stop becoming a premier player location because Shaq and Phil aren't there?...Of course not. I, for one, think Dr. Buss, Kupchack and the Lakers front office maybe a very prudent, shrewd business move in deciding to end the Shaq era in favor of a new Kobe-led era. Although he may be a remotivated monster for another year or two, what about in four years when Shaq will be 36? And still pulling down $30 million or more? With or without Kobe, that team would have a Shaq-sized albatross, then have to start from scratch anyway when that deal expired... WHY NOT START THE JOB NOW? With Kobe in tow, the Lakers have guaranteed themselves one of the top 5 players in the league for the next 6 years, at least. With Shaq and Phil, they may have remained a contender for another year or two, but after that, in the 2006-07 season, they would have to start all over without any marquee veteran to lead this new team. On the other hand, the Lakers have instead positioned themselves to completely reconstruct a new team around Kobe. This way, by the time that same 2006-07 season roles around, they could have a young, experienced team just hitting its prime, yet still anchored by one of, if not THE, premier perimeter player of his era in Bryant. And Kobe will STILL be only 28! I am convinced, if it truly did come down to Shaq&Phil vs. Kobe&Rudy that the Lakers made the right choice. And so did Kobe. I know that big men like Shaq are rare. But big men like Rasheed and Ben Wallace are not, and they were good enough to win a title last year without any single teammate in Kobe Bryant's class (don't even try to say Rip or Billups, neither are even close to top 5). If a team with Sheed and Ben on the inside can defeat a Shaq-led Lakers team in the Finals, why is it mandatory to pair a dominant big man with Kobe? There are plenty of PF's who could team with Kobe for a championship, and I see no reason to think the Lakers wouldn't go all out to get one of them."
