On the Kobe trade demand

by wraith on May 31, 2007 12:12 AM EDT Comment 5 comments

Editor's note: Taken from the diaries. Discuss.

In the line of Mr Bryant's demand to be traded, ignoring the subsequent back-pedaling and the overall slim chances of it to happen anyways, comes this part of Bill Simmons Basketball Blog:

(C) Sadly, tragically, there's no conceivable scenario in which the Knicks can offer a decent enough package for Kobe. They're not getting him for a Jamal Crawford-David Lee-Nate Robinson-Quentin Richardson package, and they're not getting the Lakers to bite on Stephon Marbury unless they can frame Kupchak for murder and blackmail him with the photos between now and June 30. It's not happening. Sorry, Knicks fans.

Question is:
Am I really sorry? Should anyone be? Is that package palatable? What would you give up for Mamba?

Give your thoughts!

My opinion:

Giving up the whole roster not playing the center position, retaining Francis and Starbury... no friggin' way. It would cost the Knicks the energy players, which I like to see, and see them getting better.

0 recs | Comment 5 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Completely agree

One player is one player, and sacrificing the entire direction of the team for one guy is not okay in my book. We don't have the pieces to go after Kobe, and I'm almost glad.

Posting and Toasting: Unabashed Knicks fanaticism with the occasional poop joke.

by Seth on May 31, 2007 7:09 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

True

But you have to admit that Kobe playing half his games at MSG would be wild. The place would be crazy. I'm not sure they could keep Kobe Knicks jerseys in stock if this deal went down. As a side note this is a pretty good example of why I am not a GM. As much as I know that Kobe is a great player, if I were running the Lakers I would make this trade because of my blind faith in David Lee. I threw in Robinson and Francis to make the salaries match. I would then get fired but not care. Where was I?

Celtics '08 or bust. Are you on the bandwagon?

by Jim Weeks on May 31, 2007 9:32 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Close but no cigar

I've got to admit, that this deal is nearly getting it done for me... Hell, I'd take it in a nano...I think the bulk of time I'd need to agree is to regroup from the shock that Kupchak would let himself be so blatantly robbed (w/o any offense to Lee, this would be an absolute heist)

Cya Wraith

by wraith on May 31, 2007 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

They should at least think about trading Kobe

I guess right now it looks like he's not going to be traded. I, for one, am in the (vast) minority that thinks that they should trade Kobe if their goal is to win a championship (sooner rather than later). However, it is worth noting that the Lakers do have very high ticket prices, and it will be tough to sell out the Staples Center if they don't have a superstar like Kobe. And if the Lakers try to trade Kobe for a superstar straight up (and they would never be able to get Wade, LeBron, Arenas, Garnett or Yao), I think that would be really dumb. They would have to get a packaged deal of 2 or 3 very good players or two great players.

In my opinion, the Lakers suck right now and there is absolutely no way that they can turn themselves into a contender within the next two years (when Kobe can opt out) unless Bynum magically becomes a first-team all NBA player. There has never been a team in NBA history that won a title with one (non-center) superstar and a bunch of mediocre players like the Lakers have now. I'm actually in the exact same position with the Cavs: They will never legitimately contend for a title unless LeBron has at least one great player around him. I don't even know if the Cavs would make the playoffs in the Western Conference. Even getting Jerry West back wont help them in such a short amount of time. What has Jerry West's great achievements as a GM been (post-'95)? He traded for Shaq (there's no way they can trade for even a second-team NBA player without giving up Bynum, let alone a dominant center) and he drafted Kobe (who took way more than two years to become a truly great player.)

I think that if the Lakers offerred Kobe (and Kwame, I guess) for Josh Howard and Jason Terry, for McGrady and Battier or for Marion and Barbosa, that would be a mutually beneficial trade. The Lakers would be better off and in a better position to rebuild to the point where they could win a championship. The only problem is that if those trades occurred, I have a hard time believing that Dallas, Houston or Phoenix wouldn't win a championship, and that would be pretty embarassing for the Lakers (especially since the same thing happened when they traded Shaq). I don't think that any team in the East has enough to get Kobe (if the Bulls gave up Gordon, Deng and something else I don't think they would be better off).

by Bronson Johnson on May 31, 2007 1:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't care

To be honest, lets face it, we're not going anywhere. I watch this team for fun rather than for success, and little would be more fun than having a hall of fame player on the Knicks, whether it be Kobe, KG, shit, even JO who isn't going anywhere near the hall. I remember how excited I was the day the Knicks got Steph, and with Kobe, we might not be good, but at least we'd make the playoffs probably.

The Son of Dippin.

by Barnesgasm on May 31, 2007 8:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs