Fair enough. Gasol before the Lakers wasn't trash; don't get me wrong. I'm just trying to make the distinction between real superstar big men like Yao, Shaq, Duncan, KG, Dirk. Before he came to the Lakers, Gasol was probably a top 20-25 NBA player like a Carlos Boozer. Good but not great.
You're ignoring the changes to the NBA from the early part of the 2000s to today. When the Lakers won those championships with Shaq/Kobe, it was still a big man's league. There's a reason Shaq and Tim Duncan combined for five straight titles/Finals MVPs. The 2000-2002 version of Kobe could not have led a team to a title.
I can't really agree. The Pistons in 2004 had Ben Wallace, who is a good player but not great. He wasn't even a true big man (I think he was something like 6'6 or 6'8 with high shoes or something like that).
There's so many things wrong with using that one example to counter my point. First, as anyone who watched basketball that year will tell you, the Pistons didn't win the 2004 NBA title. The Lakers lost the 2004 NBA title. They choked away the Finals. That title easily should have gone to Shaq's team again. Second, one example of a team without a dominant big man does not negate my point. Third, you're leaving out the fact that the Pistons had Rasheed Wallace, a player who, when motivated, has been one of the best two-way big men in the game. Fourth, 2004 was actually after the rule changes were implemented that started the NBA down the road to being a league dominated by guards/wings.
I use that point because you said there's no way Kobe/Gasol could have won. We just don't know. They could have been the Pistons of 2004 for all we know. If the Lakers had traded Gasol for Shaq instead, who knows maybe Kobe would have 9 rings. And then again, maybe they'd have 0 rings. We just don't know.
