# Trading Kobe Bean Bryant



## KDOS (Nov 29, 2005)

Lets say Kobe officialy states he wants out of the Lakers organization this coming season, would you support his decision? Or would you deem the guy as a primadonna?

Also I would like to play the devils advocate at this point because its just too tempting.


Say we do trade Kobe, who would you want in return? (Be realistic if possible)


----------



## koberules24 (Nov 12, 2006)

First off the initial ESPN report that we've been posting about was just revealed to be exaggerated and fabricated by an over-eager ESPN staff that like nothing more than to see Kobe leave the Lakers. In Mike Bresnahan's most recent interview Kobe clarifies his stance on a trade by saying that only if the lakers *DON'T PURSUE* Jerry West will he make such a demand. Kobe understands that they can't force West to take up the job.

Secondly Jerry Buss would have to be a well known heroine addict to be able to swallow the idea. 

Thirdly, they're attendance would hit an all-time low and they would be driven out of L.A faster than when the Rams traded Eric Dickerson and then later choked in the NFC Championship game against 49ers and then demanded a **** load of money to fund a new stadium for their crappy team...... ****ing Georgia Frontiere


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

if kobe wants to go, then that's fine. it's gotta be a young talent that we receive for him though.


----------



## KDOS (Nov 29, 2005)

afobisme said:


> if kobe wants to go, then that's fine. it's gotta be a young talent that we receive for him though.


Anyone in mind?

For some reason, Chicago's package IMO is simply the most attractive. Heard some proposal from Portland fans too, which isnt too shabby.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Trading Kobe Bean Bryant would be the stupidest thing the Los Angeles Lakers could do.


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

what's the chicago package? i agree though. chicago is the team in the best situation to make a trade for any team with a player who has a huge contract. would it be luol deng + gordon + filler for kobe?

i think in 2 years, kobe will demand a trade. our salary cap situation just isn't desireable. i'll be fine with it too, as long as we get someone good in return (for the future).

i don't think mitch is as bad as everyone is making it seem (really bad = isiah thomas)... but he should definitely be replaced, he's just way too passive. seems as if he's almost too afraid to take a risk. the only major move he made in the post-shaq era is trading caron for kwame, which turned out to be a bad move. i'm still indifferent to that decision though. we had no bigs, and an overload in the small forward position.


----------



## lakers_less_340+ (Aug 3, 2005)

koberules24 said:


> First off the initial ESPN report that we've been posting about was just revealed to be exaggerated and fabricated by an over-eager ESPN staff that like nothing more than to see Kobe leave the Lakers. In Mike Bresnahan's most recent interview Kobe clarifies his stance on a trade by saying that only if the lakers *DON'T PURSUE* Jerry West will he make such a demand. Kobe understands that they can't force West to take up the job.
> 
> Secondly Jerry Buss would have to be a well known heroine addict to be able to swallow the idea.
> 
> Thirdly, they're attendance would hit an all-time low and they would be driven out of L.A faster than when the Rams traded Eric Dickerson and then later choked in the NFC Championship game against 49ers and then demanded a **** load of money to fund a new stadium for their crappy team...... ****ing Georgia Frontiere


On the Rams, Georgia orchestrated that to get out of the remainder of the lease!


----------



## Drk Element (Nov 10, 2004)

Basel57 said:


> Trading Kobe Bean Bryant would be the stupidest thing the Los Angeles Lakers could do.


Agreed.


----------



## Carbo04 (Apr 15, 2005)

Basel57 said:


> Trading Kobe Bean Bryant would be the stupidest thing the Los Angeles Lakers could do.



Ditto.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Not dumber than trading Shaq.


----------



## P-Rez25 (Nov 24, 2006)

only if we can get a D-Wade or LeBron which wont happen. other than that the package would have to be impressive for me to give my stamp of approval...


----------



## DANNY (Aug 9, 2005)

There's probably only a small amount of teams Kobe will accept a trade to anyways... however assuming that we can trade him anywhere we wanted to, i would say we must get atless one franchise young player and a couple of draft picks. Perferably bigs like Dwight Howard or Chris Bosh. Then you have to ask the queestion, is this a no brainer deal for the magic or the raptors? look at how much these two players improved the last couple of years and you wonder how good they'll be in the future.

we'll never get equal trade value for kobe in terms of talent, therefore the best way to compensate for the loss is to trade a young big.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Causeway said:


> Not dumber than trading Shaq.


I think it would be for the fact that when we traded Shaq, we still had someone of Kobe's caliber. If we got rid of Kobe, the Lakers would be even worse in my opinion.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/6856248?MSNHPHMA

Kobe yearns for West but doesnt wants to retire a Laker.


Bryant: Lakers could use jolt from West 
Posted: 9 hours ago 



Kobe Bryant's may have wanted to be The Man in L.A., but now he's longing for the days when another man called the shots.


Bryant told the Los Angeles Times on Sunday that former Lakers general manager Jerry West would be a possible solution to fix the team's current woes.

"My feeling on Jerry West is I trust him completely," Bryant said, according to the paper. "I don't want to get into people believing me to be bashing anybody. (Current GM Mitch Kupchak) is a great guy. All I can go by is what has happened with this team the last two years, and I know Jerry West is a guy who's great at what he does.

"He wants to win and he wants to win right now. I can roll with that, even if we don't have the complete turnaround we're hoping to have this summer. Just having him back in the nucleus will help."

West, the current GM of the Grizzlies, will complete his contract with Memphis on July 1, but Lakers officials refused comment to the Times on the subject.

*Bryant made it clear that his future with the team did not depend on West's return.

"I would love for him to be a part of this," Bryant said, according to the report. "But it's not something where I demand he comes here. All I can do is offer my thoughts. I love being a Laker. I want to retire a Laker. I want to fix this thing, or at least help any way I can."*


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

Kobe has two years left on the no trade clause, so all of the leverage is his. If we're going to trade a superstar again, at least get a decent deal this time. Chicago would be the most likely choice. Just give me a contender and I don't give a damn who is on this team.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

Bartholomew Hunt said:


> Kobe has two years left on the no trade clause, so all of the leverage is his. If we're going to trade a superstar again, at least get a decent deal this time. Chicago would be the most likely choice. Just give me a contender and I don't give a damn who is on this team.


I'd be willing to trade Kobe if we fire Mitch first and get a good GM in. At least that way we would get good value for him. If chicago offers Luol Deng, Tyrus Thomas and Hinrich I would consider it. But if we keep Mitch, we'd probably end up getting eddy curry and steve francis.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Basel57 said:


> I think it would be for the fact that when we traded Shaq, we still had someone of Kobe's caliber. If we got rid of Kobe, the Lakers would be even worse in my opinion.


When the Lakers traded Shaq, they went from a championship team to a border-line playoff team. They _might _get worse if Kobe gets moved, but they'd go from a team that can't get out of the first round, to maybe a team that can't get in the first round. Not as far as a fall from "grace".


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Causeway said:


> When the Lakers traded Shaq, they went from a championship team to a border-line playoff team. They _might _get worse if Kobe gets moved, but they'd go from a team that can't get out of the first round, to maybe a team that can't get in the first round. Not as far as a fall from "grace".


3 years removed from the trade, will Shaq (paying with a siperior cast than the Lakers' of his day) ever play on the Finals again?


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

PauloCatarino said:


> 3 years removed from the trade, will Shaq (paying with a siperior cast than the Lakers' of his day) ever play on the Finals again?



Who knows. He did already win a title with the Heat. But what does that have to do with the topic?


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Causeway said:


> Who knows. He did already win a title with the Heat. But what does that have to do with the topic?


You are right. I misdirected my response.

Still, it wasn't the loss of Shaq that made the Lakers from a championship team to a border-line playoff team. It was the loss of Shaq AND Karl Malone AND (to a lesses extente) Gary Payton AND the inability to reshuffle that did it.

Back to the topic:

Obviously, trading Kobe would be a major error. First, you just don't trade arguably the best player in basketball. Second, if you do so, you certainly won't get equal value in return. If Kobe forced the issue, it would be even worse, it would be Shaquille all over again: teams waiting along to see how desperate the Lakers' brass would be to make something happen instead of risking playing a disgruntled Kobe.

As far as i'm concerned, this is an non-issue. Kobe won't jump ship. And the Lakers don't need a major overhaul in the roster, They just need to find a way to get Elton Brand.


----------



## Piolo_Pascual (Sep 13, 2006)

chicago has the most attractive offer. 

kirk, luol deng + ben wallace

ben gordon,thabo,tyrus + 1st rd pick

nocioni, gordon or kirk, luol deng


any of these packages along with probably luke, lamar odom, andrew bynum, farmar, turiaf, radmanovic (give or take one of these players may be packaged with kobe) _*can definitely put the lakers in a much, much better position.*_

if you dont think so, then you're definitely a kobe homer.


----------



## Piolo_Pascual (Sep 13, 2006)

PauloCatarino said:


> You are right. I misdirected my response.
> 
> Still, it wasn't the loss of Shaq that made the Lakers from a championship team to a border-line playoff team. It was the loss of Shaq AND Karl Malone AND (to a lesses extente) Gary Payton AND the inability to reshuffle that did it.



LOL


it wasnt the loss of shaq that made the lakers from a championship team to a border line playoff team?:lol: 


dude the very next season, shaq was still a monster, he was considered by many to be that years MVP (went to nash) and you're telling me that shaq wasnt the reason la became a borderline playoff team?


gary payton and karl malone was the difference you say?:lol: payton was playing on his very last dead legs the past 3 years and malone, i mean c'mon now, MALONE and Kobe are not a championship calibre duo.


----------



## Piolo_Pascual (Sep 13, 2006)

Basel57 said:


> Trading Kobe Bean Bryant would be the stupidest thing the Los Angeles Lakers could do.


if you're a LAKER fan, then you know trading Kobe is not the stupidest idea.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

aznzen said:


> LOL
> 
> 
> it wasnt the loss of shaq that made the lakers from a championship team to a border line playoff team?:lol:
> ...


Reading compreension needed, young grasshopper.

In 2002-2003, SHAQ and KOBE lost in the Semis to the Spurs.
In 2003-2004, SHAQ and KOBE ans KARL ans GARY list in the FINALS to the Pistons.


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

aznzen said:


> chicago has the most attractive offer.
> 
> kirk, luol deng + ben wallace
> 
> ...


Just because someone may disagree with you, that the Lakers will be worse, their Kobe homers? Cmon now...


----------



## koberules24 (Nov 12, 2006)

KOBEDUNKEDONSHAQ said:


> Anyone in mind?
> 
> For some reason, Chicago's package IMO is simply the most attractive. Heard some proposal from Portland fans too, which isnt too shabby.


*Oh wow! Let's take some trash from Portland! I find it a little convenient that the Kobe haters of the world are now clamoring for him to come to their crappy franchise (just like they did three years ago: hypocrisy). Kobe hasn't even asked to be traded yet and already you guys are dealing him.* *As I said before Ric Bucher's ESPN report WAS VERY INACCURATE in that Bryant never said that he wants to be traded if the Lakers don't hire West but rather if they don't attempt to pursue him, which all indications thus far indicate they will!*


----------



## koberules24 (Nov 12, 2006)

aznzen said:


> if you're a LAKER fan, then you know trading Kobe is not the stupidest idea.


*No that would be if you're a crack addict.* *There's a big difference between having a hard on for Shaq and being a Laker fan. This is pretty sad. It's like all the pathetic Shaq fans are now trying to take revenge b/c their favorite player was a sell-out. 

*And if you think I'm being irrational by saying that then maybe you shouldn't come up with such insane ideas.*


----------



## Piolo_Pascual (Sep 13, 2006)

PauloCatarino said:


> Reading compreension needed, young grasshopper.
> 
> In 2002-2003, SHAQ and KOBE lost in the Semis to the Spurs.
> In 2003-2004, SHAQ and KOBE ans KARL ans GARY list in the FINALS to the Pistons.


how can you even state reading comprehension is an issue, when you didnt even state your case clearly to begin with? all you said is that shaq is not the reason, without fully explaining its scenario? 


also La's series loss with the spurs does not justify LA's overall capability as a much lesser team than the one that preceeded them after their previous loss with the spurs.


bottom line?

Shaq is th reason la is not a contender the previous 2 years, not because karl or gary didnt play for los angeles


----------



## Piolo_Pascual (Sep 13, 2006)

Eternal said:


> Just because someone may disagree with you, that the Lakers will be worse, their Kobe homers? Cmon now...


dissect the trade proposal and tell me that that roster is far worst than the current lakers.


go!


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

aznzen said:


> how can you even state reading comprehension is an issue, when you didnt even state your case clearly to begin with? all you said is that shaq is not the reason, without fully explaining its scenario?
> 
> 
> also La's series loss with the spurs does not justify LA's overall capability as a much lesser team than the one that preceeded them after their previous loss with the spurs.
> ...


I don't know what it's so (apparently) difficult to grasp. The reason the Lakers went to the Finals against the Pistons was because they were not playing Samaki Walker at the 4 nor a scrub sharing PG duties with Fisher. they went to the Finals because tehy were a BETTER team than the one who lost to the Spurs the year before.

And the enhancement of the team had little to do with Shaq and Kobe. But with the betterement (sp?) of the other spots.

Fact remains that Shaq couldn't bring LA another ring. Playing with a prime Kobe.


----------



## Piolo_Pascual (Sep 13, 2006)

koberules24 said:


> *No that would be if you're a crack addict.* *There's a big difference between having a hard on for Shaq and being a Laker fan. This is pretty sad. It's like all the pathetic Shaq fans are now trying to take revenge b/c their favorite player was a sell-out.
> 
> *And if you think I'm being irrational by saying that then maybe you shouldn't come up with such insane ideas.*



1. not a shaq fan
2. hows that an insane idea when practically almost all fans from both fan base as well as sports analysts are viewing the possibility and its realistic value are legitimate?


c'mon throw me some better and logical reasoning than that


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

aznzen said:


> if you're a LAKER fan, then you know trading Kobe is not the stupidest idea.


I am a LAKER fan, and I think trading Kobe makes no sense. That's my opinion on it.

I've been a Lakers fan before Kobe was there, and I'll be a Lakers fan long after he's gone. But trading him right now, while he is still the best player in the league, would not be very smart to me. Even if we did get a package of Deng, Gordon, etc. I don't see that elevating the Lakers much higher than where they are at right now.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

Causeway said:


> Not dumber than trading Shaq.


First of all the Celtics can go to hell and got what they deserved in the draft. Second of all Shaq was screaming "Show me the money!" to Dr. Buss in the pre-season...you don't do that, and 3rd, another player we got in the Shaq trade was Kobe, because he would have been gone if Shaq wasn't. Have fun with your 5th pick. HA HA HA HA HA


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

DaRizzle said:


> First of all the Celtics can go to hell and got what they deserved in the draft. Second of all Shaq was screaming "Show me the money!" to Dr. Buss in the pre-season...you don't do that, and 3rd, another player we got in the Shaq trade was Kobe, because he would have been gone if Shaq wasn't. Have fun with your 5th pick. HA HA HA HA HA


No need to get on him because he's a Celtics fan. That has nothing to do with the topic at hand.


----------



## Piolo_Pascual (Sep 13, 2006)

Basel57 said:


> I am a LAKER fan, and I think trading Kobe makes no sense. That's my opinion on it.
> 
> I've been a Lakers fan before Kobe was there, and I'll be a Lakers fan long after he's gone. But trading him right now, while he is still the best player in the league, would not be very smart to me. Even if we did get a package of Deng, Gordon, etc. I don't see that elevating the Lakers much higher than where they are at right now.


you didnt really give out any reasoning as to why a new set of roster combined with some of the current lakers is not as better.


im waiting/


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

aznzen said:


> you didnt really give out any reasoning as to why a new set of roster combined with some of the current lakers is not as better.
> 
> 
> im waiting/


My main reasoning behind it is that if Phil stays coach, and a trade like that goes through, it takes a while to learn the Triangle System. Kobe has it perfected right now. Bringing in other players in a trade for Kobe will probably make things tough for the Lakers. 

And I just don't think Deng/Gordon etc. have the leadership ability to make the Lakers go far with a lineup that would also include Odom, Walton, Radmanovic, etc. Sure, Kobe might not yet be the leader that we've all wanted, but he's still a great leader in my opinion. 

I just don't see a trade involving Kobe working out for the Lakers in the next few years.


----------



## Piolo_Pascual (Sep 13, 2006)

PauloCatarino said:


> I don't know what it's so (apparently) difficult to grasp. The reason the Lakers went to the Finals against the Pistons was because they were not playing Samaki Walker at the 4 nor a scrub sharing PG duties with Fisher..


very conveninet for you to put samaki and derek into the line up when you know horace grant, rob horry and ron harper were better options to disprove your point. 



PauloCatarino said:


> they went to the Finals because tehy were a BETTER team than the one who lost to the Spurs the year before..
> 
> In 2002-2003, SHAQ and KOBE lost in the Semis to the Spurs.
> In 2003-2004, SHAQ and KOBE ans KARL ans GARY list in the FINALS to the Pistons


how about the previous 3 years where they won three straight titles?
malone nor payton was not a laker, so i dont see that as avalid excuse.

playing the history and roster game, only shows and proves that malone or payton was not much of a difference maker.


PauloCatarino said:


> Fact remains that Shaq couldn't bring LA another ring. Playing with a prime Kobe.


a prime kobe and a declining shaq still has a better chance of competing rather than a prime kobe and lamar odom.


----------



## Piolo_Pascual (Sep 13, 2006)

Basel57 said:


> My main reasoning behind it is that if Phil stays coach, and a trade like that goes through, it takes a while to learn the Triangle System. Kobe has it perfected right now. Bringing in other players in a trade for Kobe will probably make things tough for the Lakers.
> 
> And I just don't think Deng/Gordon etc. have the leadership ability to make the Lakers go far with a lineup that would also include Odom, Walton, Radmanovic, etc. Sure, Kobe might not yet be the leader that we've all wanted, but he's still a great leader in my opinion.


lol

thats one of the weakest excuse by current laker fans. "triangle takes a while to be perfected"


FYI: the triangle does not need to be perfected in order for a team to be successful. im a chicago bulls fan, trust me i know how Phil jackson took over a disgrunteld and beaten bulls in the 90's and *only after ONE Training Camp, the bulls immediately won the title that year*.

*coincidentally, majority of they key players with the lakers only had ONE training camp with jackson and his staff to learn the system before winning 3 consecutive titles*


so you see, that excuse doesnt do well in this debate.


also how can you bring leadership in this debate, true every team needs one but id rather have a team full of capable and talented individuals running the team rather than a team with a "leader" and a bunch of role players.


nowadays, a team with no legitimate superstar can with a title, the pistons are a living proof that a group of skilled individuals can win.


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

aznzen said:


> lol
> 
> thats one of the weakest excuse by current laker fans. "triangle takes a while to be perfected"
> 
> ...


Your sitting there arguing with us, a team that your imagining in your head, that the Lakers will be better with Ben Gordon, Deng, etc. (which they very well may be) acting like the Lakers will get both of those guys, or something along the lines of Ben Gordon or Deng with Hinrich. I'm thinking realistic deals here, and there is no way the Bulls are going to give up two of the three big names on their name (Deng, Gordon, and Hinrich), IMO.

The Lakers will be getting the bad end of the deal with whatever team they trade with, as they are the ones who will need to find a team to trade with.

FYI the Bulls didn't win a championship their first year with Phil Jackson. It was the year after, so it wasn't immediately...


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

aznzen said:


> dissect the trade proposal and tell me that that roster is far worst than the current lakers.
> 
> 
> go!


Never said they would be worse, I was making a generalization, on you calling people homers if they don't agree with you...


----------



## Piolo_Pascual (Sep 13, 2006)

Eternal said:


> Your sitting there arguing with us, a team that your imagining in your head, that the Lakers will be better with Ben Gordon, Deng, etc. (which they very well may be) acting like the Lakers will get both of those guys, or something along the lines of Ben Gordon or Deng with Hinrich. I'm thinking realistic deals here, and there is no way the Bulls are going to give up two of the three big names on their name (Deng, Gordon, and Hinrich), IMO....




your sitting there arguing denying the undeniable truth that its proven that kobe and his current roster cannot bring the lakers past mediocrity,so its simply not just an imagination in your case but rather a refusal to admit facts presented to you by history.


you dont think chicago will not give up a 6th man player like gordon and a player like luol deng for the best player in the league? i dont know what logical thinking you have but any gm in this world would do such trade immediately.


miami gave up 2 of their three biggest names when shaq was traded, houston did the same when they acquired mcgrady, so dont act as if its such a strange transaction in this day and age.

.


Eternal said:


> FYI the Bulls didn't win a championship their first year with Phil Jackson. It was the year after, so it wasn't immediately...


I type too fast for my own good sometimes, i meant jackson spent a whole season before giving them a run for a trophy. 


its still by far not a "long time" like most of you guys are claiming.


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

aznzen said:


> your sitting there arguing denying the undeniable truth that its proven that kobe and his current roster cannot bring the lakers past mediocrity,so its simply not just an imagination in your case but rather a refusal to admit facts presented to you by history.


I'm definitely not arguing that the Lakers can get past being an average to mediocre team, without changes. They don't need to involve trading Kobe though.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

Basel57 said:


> No need to get on him because he's a Celtics fan. That has nothing to do with the topic at hand.


Uh...what?!?!?!?!? Are you gonna defend communism and Satan next? He is a C E L T I C S fan!!! Last time I checked they are the Lakers all time mortal enemy! Stomp them while they are down!


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

KOBEDUNKEDONSHAQ said:


> Anyone in mind?
> 
> For some reason, Chicago's package IMO is simply the most attractive. Heard some proposal from Portland fans too, which isnt too shabby.


someone just reminded me of rashard lewis. 

it makes sense, at least for now. 

rashard lewis and earl watson for bynum, kwame, and radmanovic. if sonics get durant, they may not need lewis. they also want to get rid of watson, since they already have ridnour. lakers get a good point guard along with rashard.

haven't looked much into it, so i may look like a fanboy for this proposal.


----------



## KDOS (Nov 29, 2005)

koberules24 said:


> * I find it a little convenient that the Kobe haters of the world are now clamoring for him to come to their crappy franchise (just like they did three years ago: hypocrisy). Kobe hasn't even asked to be traded yet and already you guys are dealing him*


*


Its a natural occurence with fan base loyalty. Some Laker fans hates Steve Nash or Wade or Lebron, but given a chance to have those same player/s suit up for this organization and you'll defintely see a quick change of heart. Its not a mystery nor it should be a deemed a hypocrisy.


No one is dealing Kobe, its the offseason for the Lakers, and its going to be a long one, definitely nothing wrong with creating a topic for debate or discussion purposes rookie.*


----------



## KDOS (Nov 29, 2005)

afobisme said:


> someone just reminded me of rashard lewis.
> 
> it makes sense, at least for now.
> 
> ...


I like the deal simply because we'll get a quality PG in return, but we're essentially trading too much bigs for small in return, Rashard is what 6'10?, but he's more of a perimeter player and frankly I dont see an overall huge difference with Radmanovic and Lewis skill wise, give or take Rashards glaring advantage is his athleticism over Vlad. So in a sense we are trading Bynum and Kwame for Watson.


I said somewhere that a AS calibre type of player paired with a healthy LO and KB should be a great improvement (somewhere along that line), but I have a feeling that a Lewis,Odom and Bryant will still be insufficient to get them to the championship level. It may get them to a 2nd tier level, but really whats the point of improving at this particular point if their not going to take a shot of going all the way?


I hope we can get a legitimate low post presence and a solid and experienced PG.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

DaRizzle said:


> First of all the Celtics can go to hell and got what they deserved in the draft. Second of all Shaq was screaming "Show me the money!" to Dr. Buss in the pre-season...you don't do that, and 3rd, another player we got in the Shaq trade was Kobe, because he would have been gone if Shaq wasn't. Have fun with your 5th pick. HA HA HA HA HA


There's one of you on every board. Not even worth a response.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

KOBEDUNKEDONSHAQ said:


> I like the deal simply because we'll get a quality PG in return, but we're essentially trading too much bigs for small in return, Rashard is what 6'10?, but he's more of a perimeter player and frankly I dont see an overall huge difference with Radmanovic and Lewis skill wise, give or take Rashards glaring advantage is his athleticism over Vlad. So in a sense we are trading Bynum and Kwame for Watson.
> 
> 
> I said somewhere that a AS calibre type of player paired with a healthy LO and KB should be a great improvement (somewhere along that line), but I have a feeling that a Lewis,Odom and Bryant will still be insufficient to get them to the championship level. It may get them to a 2nd tier level, but really whats the point of improving at this particular point if their not going to take a shot of going all the way?
> ...


That trade would also put us back where we were two years ago with Caron. Three perimeter players with no interior presence. I would LOVE to add Rashard to the squad but i would like to keep either Bynum or Kwame.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Why would we need to trade for Rashard Lewis? He's a free agent...


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

DaRizzle said:


> Uh...what?!?!?!?!? Are you gonna defend communism and Satan next? He is a C E L T I C S fan!!! Last time I checked they are the Lakers all time mortal enemy! Stomp them while they are down!


Maybe so, but you don't need to come across as someone who is baiting, and try and act civilized toward other fans.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

Basel57 said:


> Why would we need to trade for Rashard Lewis? He's a free agent...


because he would demand more than we could offer because of our cap restriction. It would be a sign and trade.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Oh okay; makes sense. I was confused there for a bit.


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

Rashard Lewis is not much better than Caron Butler. I don't understand the point of trading all the team's big guys for essentially the same player they had 3 seasons ago, putting the team back at square 1, bad defensively with no front court.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

Causeway said:


> There's one of you on every board. Not even worth a response.


*edit*

And Eternal...I'm not trying for low blows here, nor threats. I just hate the Celtics and anyone who chimes in on the Shaq trade when they don't have a full view of the circumstances. Shaq= Dead horse...stop beating it.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

DaRizzle said:


> *edit*
> 
> And Eternal...I'm not trying for low blows here, nor threats. I just hate the Celtics and anyone who chimes in on the Shaq trade when they don't have a full view of the circumstances. Shaq= Dead horse...stop beating it.


For what it's worth, and I doubt it's even worth it, but my initial Shaq comment was in response to someone stating that trading Kobe would be the worst trade LA ever made. The response was relevant to the post, and the thread.


----------



## koberules24 (Nov 12, 2006)

*Have you guys been snorting coke since Shaq left or something?* 
*Hmmm.... a few holes in your brain?* *Just stop making retarded threads. We are all now dumber for having listened to these proposals.*


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

aznzen said:


> LOL
> 
> 
> it wasnt the loss of shaq that made the lakers from a championship team to a border line playoff team?:lol:
> ...


The point isn't the very next season, Shaq wanted a huge extension that just wasn't going to happen. Look at him now, he took a "paycut" that still pays him around 20 mil per year for 5 years or something like that. Look at his play the last two seasons, is that worth that sort of money? Look at Kobe on the other hand who has improved every year since the Shaq trade and doesn't look like hes slowing down anytime soon, at least not for another 2-3 years (barring injury). 

Trading Shaq wasn't a mistake, trading Shaq for Lamar Odom/Caron Butler/Brian Grant was the mistake. Also, Payton wasn't on his last legs the 3 years prior to joining the Lakers, the year before, he averaged 20/4/8 on the Bucks. He had troubles grasping the offense but he hardly played like a scrub until the finals when Chauncey Billups schooled him like a d-leaguer. Malone also played well for the Lakers that season.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

The Lakers have ZERO leverage in this situation.

You can cross Ben Gordon and Luol Deng off of all trade proposals. Lakers are a fringe playoff team, that will probably fall out with the improvement of the Sonics and Blazers, as well as a rebound from the Clippers. Bulls are a team on the uprise, trying to compete for a title. They aren't going to be trading their two best players, who are both on the verge of stardom (Who are 24/22). Deng/Gordon is probably the hardest working duo in the league. 

In addition, you factor in Kobe has the no trade clause. He is picking what team he wants to go to from the latest reports, and all reports indicate Chicago. He isn't going to want to be going to a gutted Chicago, which by trading both Gordon/Deng would just end up becoming a fringe playoff team. Its just not going to happen. Kobe Bryant has spoken highly of Gordon and Deng in the past. He has spoken down about Hinrich. Obviously Gordon/Deng (as well as Thabo) are going to be the guys that Kobe wants to keep. Gordon, Deng, Thabo, three of the hardest working, biggest gym rats in the league. These are the types of guys that Kobe is going to want on his team. Kobe, with his competitive drive, would probably push these three guys games to the next level, with potentially 3 superstar level players for the Bulls there 1-3, or worst case, 1 superstar, and 2 allstar level players. Thabo has the tools to be a special player as well. 

Ben Wallace wouldn't really make sense for the Lakers, so I guess we can cross him out.

Trading Kobe, Lakers aren't going to be looking to compete. They will be in rebuild mode. Now they would enter what was essentially a one year rebuilding mode.

The trade would likely be:

Bulls Trade:

Kirk Hinrich (11 million)
Tyrus Thomas (3.5 million)
PJ Brown (Sign and Traded, 9.5 million for one year)
2008 Draft Pick (Unprotected)

Lakers Trade:

Kobe Bryant (19.5 million)

Now Kirk Hinrich is BYC, so his contract in a trade is only worth 5.5 million. By signing for 9.5 million, PJ Brown's new contract has less than a 20% raise on his previous year contract, therefore he is not BYC.

So the numbers come out to 5.5 + 3.5 + 9.5 = 18.5

The salaries coming in can only be 125% + 100,000 of the outgoing contracts.

18.5 * 1.25 = 23.125

So now here the trade extends to two players going out for the Lakers.

Bulls Trade:

Kirk Hinrich
Tyrus Thomas
PJ Brown
Viktar Khryapa (1.9 million)
2008 Pick

Lakers Trade: 

Kobe Bryant
Vladmir Radmanovic (5.6 million)

So.... (5.5 + 3.5 + 9.5 + 1.9) *1.25 = 25.5. The incoming would be 25.1. The trade works under the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Now where does this leave the Lakers going into the next offseason?

Kirk Hinrich- 10 million
Tyrus Thomas- 3.7 million
Lamar Odom- 14.6 million
Andrew Bynum- 2.8 million
Brian Cook- 3.5 million
Jordan Farmar- 1 million
2007 Draft Pick- 1 million (around there)
----------------------------------------
Total: 36.6 million

Lakers tank next season (maybe they don't have to....)

They get a top 4 draft pick.
They also have the Bulls pick at 25. 

They're rookie is looking at about 4.5 million on the rookies.

So they are at 41.1 million about.

They have a young core of: Kirk Hinrich, OJ Mayo/Derrick Rose, Lamar Odom, Tyrus Thomas, and Andrew Bynum.

The cap will probably be at around 58 million. Lakers would have about 16.9 million in capspace.

The 2008 free agency class includes:

Al Jefferson- Restricted
Andre Iguodala- Restricted
Baron Davis- Unrestricted
Dwight Howard- Restricted
Elton Brand- Unrestricted
Emeka Okafor- Restricted
Gilbert Arenas- Unrestricted
Jason Kidd- Unrestricted
Jermaine O'neal- Unrestricted
Josh Smith- Restricted
Kevin Martin- Restricted
Richard Hamilton- Unrestricted
Nenad Krstic- Unrestricted
Ron Artest- Unrestricted
Shaun Livingston- Restricted
Shawn Marion- Unrestricted
Tim Duncan- Unrestricted


----------



## KDOS (Nov 29, 2005)

CubanLaker said:


> That trade would also put us back where we were two years ago with Caron. Three perimeter players with no interior presence. I would LOVE to add Rashard to the squad but i would like to keep either Bynum or Kwame.


Pretty much.


----------



## KDOS (Nov 29, 2005)

Mebarak, you're practically telling us that neither Ben Gordon or Luol Deng should be shipped for Kobe.


Basically your proposal and the main players in the deal are Kirk Hinrich and Tyrus Thomas for Kobe?


----------



## elcap15 (Aug 8, 2006)

Trading Kobe is just crazy talk.


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

Did you see the trade proposal on Mike and Mike in the Morning?

Chicago trades:
Ben Gorden, Luol Deng, and Ben Wallace.

LA trades:
Kobe Bryant and Andrew Bynum.

They were acting like this was some sort of dead even trade and Jalen Rose suggested that there is no way Chicago takes this deal. The national media is ****ing stupid, and no I'm not just now figuring that out.


----------



## bigbabyjesus (Mar 1, 2003)

I don't know if it would be dumb at all, as some of you are sayin.. Think of the package of young players/picks you can get for him? I mean, honestly, do you think the core you have right now is headed for a championship? Maybe once Bynum develops, but that could be a while, and I don't know if Kobe will be that patient..

Honestly, just for example, imagine this..

Portland sends the #1 pick, Brandon Roy for Kobe Bryant..
Would they be dumb enough to do that? Probably.. 

Trade Lamar for a PG possibly?
if not its still a great young lineup of

Farmar/Smush
Roy
Durant
Odom
Bynum

now THATS a beauty lineup


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

bigbabyjesus said:


> I don't know if it would be dumb at all, as some of you are sayin.. Think of the package of young players/picks you can get for him? I mean, honestly, do you think the core you have right now is headed for a championship? Maybe once Bynum develops, but that could be a while, and I don't know if Kobe will be that patient..
> 
> Honestly, just for example, imagine this..
> 
> ...


Did you just suggest Smush would be with the Lakers next season? :lol: 

But honestly, I still wouldn't do it.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

KOBEDUNKEDONSHAQ said:


> Mebarak, you're practically telling us that neither Ben Gordon or Luol Deng should be shipped for Kobe.
> 
> 
> Basically your proposal and the main players in the deal are Kirk Hinrich and Tyrus Thomas for Kobe?


Maybe the Bulls have some players worth having a look in a trade.

But they can't put forth an adequate offer for Kobe Bryant.

Seriously: Kirk Hinrich and some Tyrus dude? for Kobe Bryant?


----------



## bigbabyjesus (Mar 1, 2003)

Basel57 said:


> Did you just suggest Smush would be with the Lakers next season? :lol:
> 
> But honestly, I still wouldn't do it.


.. I don't know? Is he a free agent or something?


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

We here all hate Smush, and the Lakers have already said he won't be back next season.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

bigbabyjesus said:


> I don't know if it would be dumb at all, as some of you are sayin.. Think of the package of young players/picks you can get for him? I mean, honestly, do you think the core you have right now is headed for a championship? Maybe once Bynum develops, but that could be a while, and I don't know if Kobe will be that patient..
> 
> Honestly, just for example, imagine this..
> 
> ...


That trade would never happen. Kobe would not allow the trade to happen. 

He has a no trade clause. You guys have to keep in mind that with his no trade clause, he gets to dictate what team he goes to, and in some ways he can dictate on which players are involved. You aren't going to be getting full value for him if he goes on hiatus and burns all bridges. John Paxson is a smart man. Ben Gordon and Luol Deng are his prized posessions, he's not giving them up. His other prized posession, Tyrus, is the only one with a chance of leaving in a trade. Paxson will know that Kobe can prevent any trade, and if Kobe is sitting there and the Lakers are starting 2-16, while Kobe sits at home, he knows that eventually the Lakers will have to pull the trigger on a deal with Chicago if thats what he wants, severely devaluing what the Lakers get in return. Kobe isn't going to be doing the Lakers any favors here. 

In addition, that Gordon/Deng/Wallace trade is ridiculous. I take it most of you haven't watched Bulls basketball in a while. Ben Gordon and Luol Deng are major studs, and could be considered better than Kobe in a 2-3 years. 

There is a reason why the Bulls are a better team than the Lakers, and I doubt they'll be crazy about giving up the three best players on their superior team, for the best player and an average big man on a lesser team. 

Paxson will gladly take his chances of Tyrus becoming a superstar before he deals one of Gordon/Deng in a trade for Kobe....who would be demanding a trade in this scenario.


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

Mebarak said:


> The Lakers have ZERO leverage in this situation.
> 
> You can cross Ben Gordon and Luol Deng off of all trade proposals. Lakers are a fringe playoff team, that will probably fall out with the improvement of the Sonics and Blazers, as well as a rebound from the Clippers. Bulls are a team on the uprise, trying to compete for a title. They aren't going to be trading their two best players, who are both on the verge of stardom (Who are 24/22). Deng/Gordon is probably the hardest working duo in the league.
> 
> ...


Unless the NBA and players union alter the CBA, players who are involved in 'sign and trade's have to sign a contract of at least 3 years.

For your cap figure, you have forgotten to factor cap holds again.

-Petey


----------



## KirkHinrich#12 (Mar 4, 2004)

First off the Bulls aren't going to trade either Hinrich or Deng. Gordon is very much the key piece since he would be replacing the SG/scoring load loss of Kobe. I know this isn't a good thing to say over here, but the Lakers really don't have any leverage in the deal since it is dealing with only one team. So basically Gordon and a player like Noc/Thabo, and the #9 pick might do. Heck even Tyrus might be in the deal.

I know you guys want young guys in the deal, but at the same time the Bulls aren't going to give up to much of their top youth in the first place. Secondly Kobe wouldn't want to go to the Bulls if they gave up the likes of two of Hinrich, Gordon, or Deng.


----------



## ElMarroAfamado (Nov 1, 2005)

trading KObe woah.....


----------



## The One (Jul 10, 2005)

ESPN Trade Machine.

The end result is The lakers having Garnett and Ben gordan after trading kobe and scrubbs. This also greatly solves a money issue in denver, the bulls can't complain either. But the wolves do get slapped in the face with this trade though.


----------



## Maddocks (Jun 16, 2006)

the nuggets would never allow that nugget sasha vujacic on their team. kobe is not going to leave the lakers, he will die one.


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

Mebarak said:


> That trade would never happen. Kobe would not allow the trade to happen.
> 
> He has a no trade clause. You guys have to keep in mind that with his no trade clause, he gets to dictate what team he goes to, and in some ways he can dictate on which players are involved. You aren't going to be getting full value for him if he goes on hiatus and burns all bridges. John Paxson is a smart man. Ben Gordon and Luol Deng are his prized posessions, he's not giving them up. His other prized posession, Tyrus, is the only one with a chance of leaving in a trade. Paxson will know that Kobe can prevent any trade, and if Kobe is sitting there and the Lakers are starting 2-16, while Kobe sits at home, he knows that eventually the Lakers will have to pull the trigger on a deal with Chicago if thats what he wants, severely devaluing what the Lakers get in return. Kobe isn't going to be doing the Lakers any favors here.
> 
> ...


I don't know whats funnier, you thinking that the Bulls will get Kobe for chump change, or that you thinking Ben Gordon or Luol Deng will be better than Kobe in 2-3 years.


----------



## DANNY (Aug 9, 2005)

Trade Kobe and get him out of this ****hole


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

As a Laker and Kobe hater nothing makes me happier than to read this. That being said I think the Lakers should try to target Atlanta

I'm not sure they would bite, but if so LA could end up with 

Kobe

for

Joe Johnson
Marvin Williams
Josh Smith
#3 (Brandan Wright?)
#11 (Hawes maybe....Law maybe...)


Its' not earth shattering, and there is no name like KG coming back but it's not bad


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

Kobe to Seattle for the Kevin Durant and Shard. I cant believe i just proposed a Kobe trade! 

Sad sad day in LA...


----------



## nguyen_milan (Jun 28, 2005)

CubanLaker said:


> Kobe to Seattle for the Kevin Durant and Shard. I cant believe i just proposed a Kobe trade!
> 
> Sad sad day in LA...


If he wants to get out and go to Seattle I say **** him, at least go to some contenders to worth all the **** with the fans now.


----------



## Scholar (Mar 27, 2005)

CubanLaker said:


> Kobe to Seattle for the Kevin Durant and Shard. I cant believe i just proposed a Kobe trade!
> 
> Sad sad day in LA...


Kobe and RayRay might even be more fun than Kobe and Shaq.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

Kobe be traded is not a sure thing and I would not be suprised if he is still in a Laker uniform next year.

That said, here are my preferences
chicago-Deng, Tyrus Thomas, draft pick +cap filler (most likely going to be big ben or hinrich), use the draft pick to get corey brewer
atlanta-a package for josh smith, 3rd pick, 11th pick, Marvin williams sounds ok
I'd draft Brandan Wright at #3, then grab Julian Wright or Brewer if either one falls, or most likely crittenton or acie law there


----------



## MrCharisma (Feb 6, 2005)

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2886927



> Later, Bryant talked to Dan Patrick on ESPN Radio and seemed to reconsider slightly.
> 
> "I'm so tired of talking," Bryant said. "It's tough. I always dreamed about retiring as a Laker. I just hope and hope that something can be resolved. Something can be figured out. Just something so I can stay here and be in this city and be with the team I love."
> 
> ...


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

MrCharisma said:


> http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2886927


Glad Kobe is reconsidering things.

Hopefully this wakes up the Lakers organization and gets the ball rolling.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

There are some delusional proposals rattling around in this thread. I think the Lakers have more leverage than settling for Hinrich and Tyrus. Good grief.

Here's a fairer one I posted in the main NBA Forum, that I'm sure will have some of my fellow Nuggets fans chewing on my ankles.

Kobe (and possibly a future #1) to Denver for Carmelo Anthony and Kenyon Martin.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Bartholomew Hunt said:


> Kobe has two years left on the no trade clause, so all of the leverage is his. If we're going to trade a superstar again, at least get a decent deal this time. Chicago would be the most likely choice. Just give me a contender and I don't give a damn who is on this team.


Yes, definitely. Unfortunately, I don't see this FO capable of getting equal value, or even near it, for Kobe. Much like the Shaq trade. 

Luckily, though, I don't see Kobe wanting out unless something really bad goes down...like Jerry Buss getting a DUI.


----------



## eymang (Dec 15, 2006)

Ben Gordon, Ben Wallace, #9 pick for Kobe

sign below please


----------



## DANNY (Aug 9, 2005)

eymang said:


> Ben Gordon, Ben Wallace, #9 pick for Kobe
> 
> sign below please


:takes a **** on the paper:


----------



## ii9ce (Feb 1, 2005)

Mebarak said:


> The Lakers have ZERO leverage in this situation.
> 
> You can cross Ben Gordon and Luol Deng off of all trade proposals. Lakers are a fringe playoff team, that will probably fall out with the improvement of the Sonics and Blazers, as well as a rebound from the Clippers. Bulls are a team on the uprise, trying to compete for a title. They aren't going to be trading their two best players, who are both on the verge of stardom (Who are 24/22). Deng/Gordon is probably the hardest working duo in the league.
> 
> ...


:clap: I take my hat off to ya bro. That is the best trade propsal and breakdown I'v seen since this whole Kobe thing started. If am the laker gm, I'll do it. with 19mil to offer, the lakers can get any of these guys. They will be competing in 2 to 3 years.


----------



## nguyen_milan (Jun 28, 2005)

No radio today, Im bored... 























or not.


----------

