# Kobe is avaiable....



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

according to Chad ford, the Lakers should try to trade Kobe. if he becomes avaiable this summer, do we go hard after him? would a deal like

gordon/resigned curry/nocioni +1 pick next season 

for kobe

get it done?


----------



## nanokooshball (Jan 22, 2005)

no.... curry & gordon > kobe IMO

reason kobe is struggling is cuz he doesnt have a scoring post player like shaq... he'd just struggle here if we didnt have curry

and if we got to keep curry and kobe and say deng and hinrich the only way this team could do fine is with the triangle offense


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Now that's a freaking top-notch 2 guard!

Have to think about who we would give up and who the LAKERS would want most... but damn.... yah... have to consider it big time.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Now that's a freaking top-notch 2 guard!
> 
> Have to think about who we would give up and who the LAKERS would want most... but damn.... yah... have to consider it big time.



curry is the definite must piece in any trades for kobe, and gordon is supremely talented, no.3 pick, i think lakers would want him too. now if they take deng too, then the bulls might reject, if they can leave us with deng, paxson might just pull the trigger. we would still end up with a very solid start lineup

kirk
kobe
deng
get marshall or SAR 
chandler


----------



## nanokooshball (Jan 22, 2005)

gordon is going to be a star in this league.... why replace him with kobe and give up curry?

where's our post offense? this team will go nowhere with kobe and no inside presence like i said


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Does it make me a total homer that the thought of trading Curry and Gordon for Kobe doesn't appeal to me?

Does it make me a Kobe-hater?

Or both? I'm not sure.

But I am sure that a team built around Kobe with insubstantial complimentary pieces is a team that is NOT as good as the current Bulls team.

And wouldn't Kobe and his ball dominating ways essentially negate Hinrich? Kobe isn't exactly making Butler - a very nice player - look all that good. So how would his presence impact Deng's game? Positively or negatively?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Ben Gordon/Kirk Hinrich/Tyson Chandler for Kobe Bryant

PG-Chris Duhon
SG-Kobe Bryant
SF-Luol Deng
PF-Antonio Davis? O?
C- Eddy Curry

that team could parade into the finals (if kicking Shaq in balls first)


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Does it make me a total homer that the thought of trading Curry and Gordon for Kobe doesn't appeal to me?
> 
> Does it make me a Kobe-hater?
> 
> Or both? I'm not sure.


No, I don't think it does. I'd lean towards keeping Curry and Gordon as well. If only because I like our current TEAM so much and would not want to watch and Iverson-led or Kobe-led team every night. I want the Bulls to win it all... not for the Bulls to be the vehicle Kobe needs to satisfy his massive ego.

The only guys I'd consider trading on this current Bulls team that could really get us anything are Duhon, Hinrich or Nocioni... unless superstars are involved... of course... since I am leery of Gordon and Curry for Kobe... perhaps I've been drinking the Bulls Kool-Aid.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

After what I've seen out of the Lakers this season, I have no interest in Kobe.

I guess I'm a "Kobe-hater" as well.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Kobe isn't going anywhere, but Gordon and Curry for Kobe makes us a contender. We'd have the best backcourt in the league, and a pretty damn good frontcourt still.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Kobe Bryant was a cornerstone of a 3-peat NBA Championship team, a proven clutch performer in pressure situations (we're not talking about a couple of regular season games in January and March here), and an undisputed top-5 NBA player. Gordon + Curry for Kobe? That's a such a no-brainer...


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Kobe isn't going anywhere, but Gordon and Curry for Kobe makes us a contender. We'd have the best backcourt in the league, and a pretty damn good frontcourt still.


Would we have the best backcourt in the league? Kobe and who? Hinrich? Hinrich couldn't be Hinrich playing next to Kobe. 

The problem with Kobe is he has proven to be the type of player that makes the other young talent around him worse. Not just "he doesn't make them better". He actually is making them worse.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Kobe is one of those players you go after.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Kobe is top 5, maybe top 3 talent in the NBA. Getting him no matter who you give up would have to be considered.

But it would be like starting all over (yet) again. We'd have to give up AT LEAST Eddy + Ben + whatever salary makes it work.

Then Skiles would have to go. If Kobe couldn't play for Phil (and reading about Kobe in Phil's last book was a stomach churning experience for this fan of "playing the right way") there is no way he plays for Skiles. 

And this team in general, built around the concept of fundamentals, team ball, "48 minutes of intensity" and all that stuff, would fall apart with Kobe being the floor general and all around "The Man."

Now if we are willing and able to get the Kobester and find a way to blow up the team and put pieces around him, coaches, and players, that suit him, well, you have to consider the possibility. He is still a young man and in the early part of his prime.

But I have to believe that bringing him in with the idea of plugging in "another piece to the puzzle" is an idea that is destined to blow up.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

I don't see Kobe moving this early. To chase Shaq out of town only to move Kobe the following summer? Nah...

But it could make for an interesting summer if he demands a trade. I fully expect KG to also demand a trade this summer.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey posted since I started writing the above. I think he and I are thinking more or less along the same lines.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Kobe Bryant was a cornerstone of a 3-peat NBA Championship team, a proven clutch performer in pressure situations (we're not talking about a couple of regular season games in January and March here), and an undisputed top-5 NBA player. Gordon + Curry for Kobe? That's a such a no-brainer...


Individually yes. But what's wrong with the current Lakers then? The Baby Bulls are a better team @ this point... and the Lakers have some legit talent on that squad.

Jordan went through the same phase Kobe is currently going through. He'll have to adapt to team ball in order to make his own title run. If he would make this adaptation... I'd do the trade. Kobe is too good. Just hard to say if he will.

EDIT
And... as to Kobe being a cornerstone of a title team... yes.... but SHAQ has made 3 guards now all-NBA. 2 of them have dropped off noticeably after he left. The third is still playing with him.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Would we have the best backcourt in the league? Kobe and who? Hinrich? Hinrich couldn't be Hinrich playing next to Kobe.


Putting Hinrich at the point full time while lessening his scoring load would do wonders for his game. He would control the tempo, play defense and be a playmaker the whole game. Push the rock and whatnot. That's Hinrichs game, with some shooting touch when he isn't in a slump (not very often this year). 



Ron Cey said:


> The problem with Kobe is he has proven to be the type of player that makes the other young talent around him worse. Not just "he doesn't make them better". He actually is making them worse.


This is a myth. Chucky Atkins is playing better this year than any other year, so is Chris Mihm. Butler is playing like he did his rookie year. The only player that's underachieving with Kobe is Lamar Odom, and that's Lamar Odom's problem because he doesn't know how to be a 2nd option. 

Kobe makes his team better, and that's why the Lakers have overachieved this year. Kobe is much better than anyone on our roster, and is better than Gordon at the things Gordon does best, while being a great defender at the shooting guard position and a great all around player. I'll take a Kobe for Gordon swap at the expense of Curry in a heartbeat.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Ron Cey said:


> And wouldn't Kobe and his ball dominating ways essentially negate Hinrich? Kobe isn't exactly making Butler - a very nice player - look all that good. So how would his presence impact Deng's game? Positively or negatively?


You might be right for all I know, but just from checking the stats, this is Caron Butler's best season. Presumably that could just be a result of Butler's development as 3rd year player.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

This is one of those things where people don't like Kobe, so they would rather not have him on the team even if he makes the team a lot better, because they would have trouble rooting for him. 

That brings up an interesting perspective in light of the talks that have been going around lately. Some people don't want Hinrich/Gordon traded because that's their favorite player, and it would make it harder to root for the Bulls. People always chime in with the argument that whatever makes the Bulls better should be done, we shouldn't be attached to players as much as we are attached to the *team*. 

Kobe would make the team better in a scenario trading two of our young guys (Gordon/Curry), so this shouldn't be any different. Anything that makes the team better should be done, right?


----------



## MVPKirk (Dec 17, 2004)

There is a fundamental flaw to this thread.

It is based on the speculation of Chad Ford. And Chad Ford is an idiot.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Then Skiles would have to go. If Kobe couldn't play for Phil (and reading about Kobe in Phil's last book was a stomach churning experience for this fan of "playing the right way") there is no way he plays for Skiles.
> 
> And this team in general, built around the concept of fundamentals, team ball, "48 minutes of intensity" and all that stuff, would fall apart with Kobe being the floor general and all around "The Man."
> 
> Now if we are willing and able to get the Kobester and find a way to blow up the team and put pieces around him, coaches, and players, that suit him, well, you have to consider the possibility. He is still a young man and in the early part of his prime.


Some good points here for sure, but if Pax, who is as much of a proponent of "playing the right way" as Skiles, was seriously interested in getting Kobe during the summer (with Skiles as the coach) then you would have to imagine that he thinks Kobe would make a good fit on this team.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Putting Hinrich at the point full time while lessening his scoring load would do wonders for his game. He would control the tempo, play defense and be a playmaker the whole game. Push the rock and whatnot. That's Hinrichs game, with some shooting touch when he isn't in a slump (not very often this year).


I totally agree that this is the best use of Hinrich's game. I can't wait until next year when he returns to the point guard spot where he belongs. But if he plays along side Bryant, he won't get the opportunity to control tempo, be a playmaker and push the rock. Kobe, ball in hand, makes all those decisions himself. 

When you imagine a Kobe/Hinrich backcourt, do you actually envision Kobe turning over the decision making duties to Hinrich and letting him run the offense? I don't.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

If we trade Curry and Gordon for Kobe, that would make us the Lakers of this year. It is essential not to give up Curry's inside scoring. 

btw, Kobe might just be the guy that fits PERFECTLY with Gordon in the backcourt. Kobe is the guy that can guard shooting guards, and play point guard on the offensive end.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Individually yes. But what's wrong with the current Lakers then? The Baby Bulls are a better team @ this point... and the Lakers have some legit talent on that squad.


I'm not so sure about that. The only other guy on the Lakers who would start for us is Lamar Odom. Deng and Hinrich are better than their Laker counterparts, and Chandler starting at C (this is assuming Gordon + Curry are gone in the trade) is a better player than Mihm. I especially like the idea of trading for Kobe and then adding Marshall or SAR with the MLE over the summer. That would certainly make our overall talent level better than the current Lakers, at least IMO. Of course the hard part, as you mentioned, would be for Skiles to make things run smoothly. 



> EDIT
> And... as to Kobe being a cornerstone of a title team... yes.... but SHAQ has made 3 guards now all-NBA. 2 of them have dropped off noticeably after he left. The third is still playing with him.


I will dispute you on this. Bryant's FG% has dropped off 1% point from last year, and 2% points from his career level. Otherwise there's not much difference in any other area.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> When you imagine a Kobe/Hinrich backcourt, do you actually envision Kobe turning over the decision making duties to Hinrich and letting him run the offense? I don't.


Kobe must be the most misunderstood player in the league if it's a common belief that he just holds the ball and wants to do everything himself. I've probably watched 50+ Lakers games this year, and Kobe has been a victim of circumstance, much like McGrady last year. He is a guy that did most of his damage off the ball for several years, since the offense in LA was run through Shaq. Kobe worked hard without the ball to get good shots. 

Rudy T is the one who wanted to isolate Kobe with the ball in his hands everytime. Rudy was absolutely starstruck with Kobe for some reason, and that's why he wasn't a good coach for the Lakers. He wasn't utilizing Kobe very well, because he just put the ball in his hands every play. 

In March (14 games), Kobe has averaged 30 points on 47% from the field, and only 3 turnovers. This is because they are running a different offense and even though their coach isn't very good still, he doesn't isolate Kobe everytime down. 

Yes, Hinrich would be the point guard and ballhandler with Kobe, and the fact that Hinrich can play a little shooting guard only makes it a better fit for when Kobe wants to be the ballhandler. The fact that Hinrich is an excellent passer only makes them a better fit.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

sloth said:


> If we trade Curry and Gordon for Kobe, that would make us the Lakers of this year. It is essential not to give up Curry's inside scoring.


Hinrich >>>>> Atkins. Much better player, much better fit. 
Kobe
Deng, Nocioni > Odom, Butler. In terms of how they fit, Odom and Butler need the ball in their hands a lot, and aren't good defenders. Deng and Nocioni are great defenders and don't need the ball a lot. 

Chandler, Harrington, Davis is a much better big man rotation than the one the Lakers have.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Kobe must be the most misunderstood player in the league if it's a common belief that he just holds the ball and wants to do everything himself. I've probably watched 50+ Lakers games this year, and Kobe has been a victim of circumstance, much like McGrady last year. He is a guy that did most of his damage off the ball for several years, since the offense in LA was run through Shaq. Kobe worked hard without the ball to get good shots.
> 
> Rudy T is the one who wanted to isolate Kobe with the ball in his hands everytime. Rudy was absolutely starstruck with Kobe for some reason, and that's why he wasn't a good coach for the Lakers. He wasn't utilizing Kobe very well, because he just put the ball in his hands every play.
> 
> ...



But to avoid that, it would probaly be best for the Bulls to keep Eddy Curry, and let him develop. A good inside-outside punch would be perfect for the Bulls. Along with Luol Deng, and if we can get Kobe for just Ben Gordon, Tyson Chandler, and something else, that would be amazing seeing Kirk-Kobe-Deng-Curry go at it. Kirk could just focus on letting Kobe do all the work, and focus on setting up Deng, Curry, and Kobe. Those 3 would probaly put in 60+ points combined, with Kirk chipping in his 10, and O, Du, AD, Noc, chipping in some points to make us around a 94-95 ppg, along with good defense.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

sloth said:


> But to avoid that, it would probaly be best for the Bulls to keep Eddy Curry, and let him develop. A good inside-outside punch would be perfect for the Bulls. Along with Luol Deng, and if we can get Kobe for just Ben Gordon, Tyson Chandler, and something else, that would be amazing seeing Kirk-Kobe-Deng-Curry go at it. Kirk could just focus on letting Kobe do all the work, and focus on setting up Deng, Curry, and Kobe. Those 3 would probaly put in 60+ points combined, with Kirk chipping in his 10, and O, Du, AD, Noc, chipping in some points to make us around a 94-95 ppg, along with good defense.


Our rebounding would be pretty horrible without Chandler, but we lose something valuable on the inside in either scenario (giving up Chandler or Curry), so I wouldn't be opposed to dealing Chandler instead of Curry.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Now I am not at all a Kobe fan but if Kobe is on trade market you can bet your life Paxson will at least give it a shot. He had really strong interest in Kobe this past summer. And you can bet Kobe would want to come here. A resigned Curry and Gordon for Kobe is an absolute no brainer. Then as someone said Donyell Marshall would be the MLE target to go alongside Chandler upfront. Combine that with bringing back Harrington and HOPEFULLY convincing Duhon to sign for cheap(the LLE) and we have a serious contender with much better depth, experience, and talent than Kobe has with the Lakers right now. Say what you want but Hinrich,Duhon,Kobe,Deng, and Nocioni on the wings would dominate on the defensive end. Combine that with what Chandler does on that end of the court and we would be a very strong defensive team.

Hinrich,Duhon
Bryant,Piatkowski
Deng,Nocioni
Marshall,Harrington
Chandler,Davis

Guys take off the Bulls colored sunglasses that is a great basketball team.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Individually yes. But what's wrong with the current Lakers then? The Baby Bulls are a better team @ this point... and the Lakers have some legit talent on that squad.


One other thing I should add is the Lakers are absolutely horrible defensively. Adding Bryant by giving up Curry/Gordon only makes our defense stronger.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> One other thing I should add is the Lakers are absolutely horrible defensively. Adding Bryant by giving up Curry/Gordon only makes our defense stronger.



I'm on board. I'd give up Gordon/Curry. I'd prefer Hinrich/Curry... and play Kobe/Gordon or start Duhon/Kobe. If we can get a reef or yell and have Chandler at the 5 with Deng... yah... i like it.

I was not talking about Kobe's stats as much as his reputation as a true superstar. IMO, you can't be an undisputed superstar until you put a team on your back and make a legit run for the title.

There have been a few expections... .but even Pippen made a nice run with the Bulls the year after MJ retired. But... he did need Kukoc to bail his *** out on the 1.8.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

Wow this talk is pretty silly. Kobe isn't even availible, it was just a suggestion by Chad Ford.

With that said, I don't want Kobe on our team. I like the nucleus we have.


----------



## nanokooshball (Jan 22, 2005)

here's what i would do:

gordon + curry + AD(they HAVE to go.... but i really want to keep curry)

sign obierto, marshall, and Shareef-Abdur-Raheem

lineup:

Hinrich/Duhon
Bryant/Whoever
Deng/Nocioni
SAR/Marshall
Tyson/Obierto

IDEALLY i would try for:

Duhon
Kobe
Deng/Nocioni
SAR/Marshall
Curry/Obierto


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

lol at all the people who want to keep curry because he's a good inside present and scoring. BUT, guys we are talking abiout KOBE BRyANT here!! u aint gonna get a supreme talent for scrubs. u need to give up something good. this is why i said curry is a must for any package for bryant. 

as far as gordon +curry for kobe,now thati think of, i would pull the trade in a heartbeat, like someone said earlier, kobe bryant makes us a contender with some supporting cast. nevermind this year's lakers, they are not playing with the right chemistry. and this bulls team minus curry/gordon would be a much better supporting cast than this years lakers. and i m sure kobe would learn alot from his past reputation, hes not gonna do anything further damaging his reputation. so i believe he will be a team player. as if hes not already is. he does pass whenever possible, jordan was by far a bigger ball hogger than kobe. and why wasnt jordan accused?? because the bulls were winning. wining cures everything. when u r winning, u r viewed as a dominant scorer. when u r losing, u r viewed as a ball hogger. look at AI, the year the sixers went to the finals, he was the mvp cause the sixers were winning, after the sixers falling over the last couple of years, hes the biggest ball hogger in the NBA. it's all about how the media writes and talks.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

CiMa said:


> Wow this talk is pretty silly. Kobe isn't even availible, it was just a suggestion by Chad Ford.
> 
> With that said, I don't want Kobe on our team. I like the nucleus we have.


yeah, for what it would take.

Curry, Chandler, Gordon, Deng, Hinrich core looks a lot better then a Kobe, Deng, and Chandler core.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Hinrich, Deng, Kobe, Chandler can be mentioned in the same breath as Paxson, Jordan, Pippen, Grant assuming Deng improves at the rate that all expect. Kobe is everything Gordon is in the clutch, plus more and his offensive talent is more than enough to make up for the loss of Eddy. Hell, some of you are forgetting that Kobe has that Jordanesque fadeaway on the block down pretty well and that we still have Othella.

But Kobe isn't on the block.


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

For some reason, I just don't see the Lakers trading Kobe... I think they may try to re-tool around him, try to get some much needed depth and upgrade at the point.

It may be someone like Odom who is the odd man out, and if that's the case, I wonder what they'd want for him. Personally I think he'd be a better fit for the Bulls anyways, even though he is a guy who likes the ball in his hands, he's also an excellent passer. I wonder if Hinrich/Noc/filler would get it done. I'd have to imagine the Lakers would want a big man too, but I just drool at the thought of:
Duhon/Gordo
Deng/Gordo
Odom/Deng
Chandler/Odom
Curry/Harrington (or maybe a FA big like SAR?)

I seem to remember rumors about Odom almost being dealt earlier in the year, and about discontent between him and Kob. but that may or may not be true, I don't follow the lakers that closely. Anyways, IMO if we were to look at someone from the Lakers, I'd see if Odom was avalible....


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

I would be setting my sights on KG instead of Kobe. I think KG will be available this summer and I think the Bulls have the assets to get him. Also, he would be a perfect compliment to Curry.

KG for Chandler, Gordon, filler


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

yes KG and curry would be the best front court in the NBA. KG is everything chandler is on the def end, slightly better rebounder and much better scorer and passer. but no way chandler/gordon gets the deal done. the wolves would want curry instead of chandler


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Garnett and Chandler would also be the best frontcourt in the league.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Of course, the reality of the situation is that the Bulls have a game plan in place. They will make no major acquisitions this summer, except to fill some holes with the MLE, etc, They will resign Curry and Chandler, and hopefully Duhon, and are waiting for sumer, 2006.

So put any thoughts of Kobe or KG this summer to rest and move on.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Of course, the reality of the situation is that the Bulls have a game plan in place. They will make no major acquisitions this summer, except to fill some holes with the MLE, etc, They will resign Curry and Chandler, and hopefully Duhon, and are waiting for sumer, 2006.
> 
> So put any thoughts of Kobe or KG this summer to rest and move on.


 The 2006 cap space plan sounds good in theory, but in reality the only player I like is Harrington. Our cap space should bring him here but I'm not sure where he fits with our 3/4 situation. And we still need a big 1/2.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Of course, the reality of the situation is that the Bulls have a game plan in place. They will make no major acquisitions this summer, except to fill some holes with the MLE, etc, They will resign Curry and Chandler, and hopefully Duhon, and are waiting for sumer, 2006.
> 
> So put any thoughts of Kobe or KG this summer to rest and move on.


Pax should be fired if he was this close-minded.

And the summer of 2006 blows.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Pax should be fired if he was this close-minded.
> 
> And the summer of 2006 blows.





> Player	Team	Type
> Kenny Anderson Atlanta Unrestricted Free Agent
> Chris Crawford Atlanta Unrestricted Free Agent
> Obinna Ekezie Atlanta Unrestricted Free Agent
> ...


Blows?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

MemphisX said:


> I would be setting my sights on KG instead of Kobe. I think KG will be available this summer and I think the Bulls have the assets to get him. Also, he would be a perfect compliment to Curry.
> 
> KG for Chandler, Gordon, filler


Why not both Kobe and Garnett?


----------



## Ja Rule (Mar 23, 2005)

sloth said:


> Why not both Kobe and Garnett?



How would you go about doing that? And who would still be around after making those trades?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

sloth said:


> Why not both Kobe and Garnett?


We don't have the salaries to match both under the current CBA.

To trade Curry, it'd have to be an S&T. Difficult to do.

But Kobe...

Do we really have anyone who'll ever be as good? Kobe's still REAL young, too. Strong defender, can play big guard or SF.

Hinrich and Kobe would give you a backcourt that plays solid D. We'd need some scoring from Deng, but I expect he'll be a lot better with a season under his belt.

The lineup would still need serious work, as we'd likely lose both Curry and AD to make this kind of deal match up.

Our lineup would be something like this:

Hinrich
Kobe
Chandler
Deng
Harrington

With nobody but Reiner to play backup C/PF.

We'd have to sign probably two more big men to make it work.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Blows?


 That's 2005 if I'm not mistaken


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

you don't trade a true post center for a guard...unless that true post center isn't all that talented and the guard is. In this case they areboth talented but Kobe is fully developed and Curry is still developing. I wouldn't do that deal at all. Kobe has issues, he is as egotistical as they come and how would that play on an unselfish hardworking team like Chicago? Plus we give up our version of Shaq AND a uber talented guard in Gordon? nope. It IS a no-brainer, just not in the way many of you have said it.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> That's 2005 if I'm not mistaken


I think you are right.

Here is the free agent list for summer 2006.

http://www.realgm.com/src_freeagents.php?year=2006

point remains the same.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> you don't trade a true post center for a guard...unless that true post center isn't all that talented and the guard is. In this case they areboth talented but Kobe is fully developed and Curry is still developing. I wouldn't do that deal at all. Kobe has issues, he is as egotistical as they come and how would that play on an unselfish hardworking team like Chicago? Plus we give up our version of Shaq AND a uber talented guard in Gordon? nope. It IS a no-brainer, just not in the way many of you have said it.


Normally, I agree.

But... shouldn't the Rockets in hindsight have drafted Jordan over Hakeem?

Perhaps the addition of Gordon in the trade is what puts it over the top to "DONT DO IT."

I'm torn by this idea.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> But... shouldn't the Rockets in hindsight have drafted Jordan over Hakeem?


Maybe, maybe not. Would Jordan still have become the G.O.A.T. if the Rockets had drafted him? The world will never know...


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

sloth said:


> Why not both Kobe and Garnett?



Lol! I don't think there'd be any other players on the roster after you match the salaries to acquire both players. All you guys need is one superstar. You've already got several players who have star-type potential so they should provide a solid supporting cast for the superstar.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

pass


----------



## BealeFarange (May 22, 2004)

I feel like I'm late to the party. I agree with K4E's post that Kobe's reputation as a ballhog that doesn't make his teammates better is largely mythical. He has great stats (yeah, I know) that include high assist totals and great efficiency. Butler and Atkins and Mihm have all found new life playing with Kobe...and it's somewhat predictable that Kobe and Odom don't mesh all that well. So, do we make this trade? In my opinion, of course we do. 

Sir Patchwork made a point about people not wanting to trade Ben/Kirk because those are their favorite players. Fair enough--that's why I didn't want to trade Jamal. I also would really hesistate to trade my current favorite player, Eddy Curry. It's just too good to pass up and, therefore, totally not on the table. 

I'm thrilled to have Eddy around and playing well.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

This is the only trade out there where I would consider a package of Gordon/Curry for a superstar. Bryant brings us a true clutch player. Defense and offense. No brainer. 

That being said, why would LA let shaq go one summer, then trade Bryant the next? Isn't the plan to build around Kobe?


----------



## Illstate2 (Nov 11, 2003)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I think you are right.
> 
> Here is the free agent list for summer 2006.
> 
> ...


Who that list would you pass on KG or Kobe for other than Shaq(unlikely), or Amare and Yao(not gonna happen, both restricted)?


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

ace20004u said:


> you don't trade a true post center for a guard...unless that true post center isn't all that talented and the guard is. In this case they areboth talented but Kobe is fully developed and Curry is still developing. I wouldn't do that deal at all. Kobe has issues, he is as egotistical as they come and how would that play on an unselfish hardworking team like Chicago? Plus we give up our version of Shaq AND a uber talented guard in Gordon? nope. It IS a no-brainer, just not in the way many of you have said it.



all ican say is lol.......................................a 26 year old best SG in the NBA, averages 28pts 6/6, supremely confident, clutch, good def, very good size, and someone thought a 15/5 center and a short combo guard who can score some in a hurry because he takes so many shots(no.1 in the NBA in FGA per 48min, am i correct, if not, ben is up there in top 5) are too much prize to pay for that SG.

once again people bring up the ego issue, WHO CARES!! kobe/shaq both had ego problems in L.A, they crushed through out the championship years, but they still stomped through rest of the league... TALENT is the most important thing. especially the best talent. and it's not like kobe is all that bad now. i would personally fly to chicago to welcome kobe in the airport if hes coming to the windy city.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Sith said:


> all ican say is lol.......................................a 26 year old best SG in the NBA, averages 28pts 6/6, supremely confident, clutch, good def, very good size, and someone thought a 15/5 center and a short combo guard who can score some in a hurry because he takes so many shots(no.1 in the NBA in FGA per 48min, am i correct, if not, ben is up there in top 5) are too much prize to pay for that SG.
> 
> once again people bring up the ego issue, WHO CARES!! kobe/shaq both had ego problems in L.A, they crushed through out the championship years, but they still stomped through rest of the league... TALENT is the most important thing. especially the best talent. and it's not like kobe is all that bad now. i would personally fly to chicago to welcome kobe in the airport if hes coming to the windy city.



Well, I think you underrating Curry for one thing. His stats don't tell the whole story, he is a dominating post presence that IMO, is very reminiscent to a young Shaq, perhaps he will even attain that level, even so, he is pretty good and getting better. Your right that Kobe is an awesome player, no doubt, nevertheless his team isn't winning and they have another star in Odom & a some skilled vets like Atkins on their roster. The ego question is a HUGE thing, why? Well, you see how LA finally ended up...Shaq ain't there anymore, why? Kobe.

In any case, I don't see the Bulls being nearly as good if we give up our only true post presence in Curry for a perimeter player.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

ace20004u said:


> Well, I think you underrating Curry for one thing. His stats don't tell the whole story, he is a dominating post presence that IMO, is very reminiscent to a young Shaq, perhaps he will even attain that level, even so, he is pretty good and getting better. Your right that Kobe is an awesome player, no doubt, nevertheless his team isn't winning and they have another star in Odom & a some skilled vets like Atkins on their roster. The ego question is a HUGE thing, why? Well, you see how LA finally ended up...Shaq ain't there anymore, why? Kobe.
> 
> In any case, I don't see the Bulls being nearly as good if we give up our only true post presence in Curry for a perimeter player.


there's a reason why the lakers chose kobe over shaq. because kobe is just that much more valueable right now due to his age. I never buy that it was kobe's fault that shaq left LA. it was shaq who wanted 3 year 90mil extension, now who would give him that at this point, especially after the lakers almost got swept by the pistons in the playoffs. a change was inevitable. u think the lakers management would know more about bball than us now..why did they choose kobe? and let phil and shaq go? if koke's ego problem was such a big problem that can "destroy" a team.. why did they trying everything to make him stay, same as the clippers, even agreeing to play near kobe's house. because they know in the NBA, special talents>>>>> everything. 
i dont think this year's lakers supporting cast is that good, lamar odom is very overrated, people like to see him as a versatile player, but i think he's more of tweener. yes he does average 10rebs a game, but he really isn't suited to play the PF position. as for being a SF, he will have tough time chasing around the smaller, faster SFs. people say when you are bigger, u can post people up thats true to some extent. if u r center or PF who are good low post scoring threat, then size is very important, and if u r a shooting guard who can shoot well, size is very important too, but PG and SF are the 2 positions where i feel like size is irrevelent. it's rare to see PGs and SFs posting up thruoght the ENTIRE game. yes when you are a small PG or SF, uget posted up once a while in a game, but what u make up on the other end like penetrating easier, being quicker, more than makes it up.

and lastly, its 99% possible that nobody on this bulls team will ever be as good as kobe bryant of the next 8 years. as for curry for shaq... well u guys know i m a big curry suppporter, i was one of the fews who believed him when you all wanted to trade him away. but thinking curry can attain shaq's level is laughable... 
to pass up on a once in a decade talent like kobe is simply a crime. i believe kobe, under right circumstance, could truly become the undisputed best player in the league. and of course, the most important thing is, even if we giveup gordon/curry, we still have an awesome supporting cast to put around kobe. kirk/degn/chandler are the ultimate role players. they know their roles, not trying to do too much, and they re very taletned and skilled too.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Kobe Bryant was a cornerstone of a 3-peat NBA Championship team, a proven clutch performer in pressure situations (we're not talking about a couple of regular season games in January and March here), and an undisputed top-5 NBA player. Gordon + Curry for Kobe? That's a such a no-brainer...


Undisputed means there is no dispute. I would suspect that Kobe Bryant would not make many top-5 lists in the stats community. He does not even make my top-10. It is hard to believe that a top-5 player cannot make the playoffs, playing with an All-Star power forward and decent talent at the PG, SF, and C positions. I think we have learned a lot this season about just how important Shaq was for making Kobe Bryant into the "star" he has become. He can do things that other players cannot, but he also hurts his teams a lot with poor shot selection and turnovers.

I also have my doubts that Kobe Bryant will ever be part of a contending team that does not include a Shaq-like player. I think Bryant brings a lot of baggage that would be a real problem for a young team like the Bulls.

One more point. Is Kobe Bryant's supporting cast any worse than the supporting cast that Scottie Pippen had the year Jordan first retired? Yet Scottie Pippen got that team into the playoffs and within a whisker of being a real contender. The Lakers this year with Bryant are not even really in playoff contention.


----------



## BealeFarange (May 22, 2004)

If you're saying, Dan, that Kobe isn't as good as Scottie Pippen then you'll get no argument from me. 

I do think, however, that the Laker's troubles this year are due as much to poor coaching, havnig NO center (look at Mihm before LA and tell me he's a real center...?) and Lamar Odom not fitting in as they are due to Kobe Bryant being selfish or underperforming. 

I think Pippen is one of the best players ever, bar none, and Kobe's not there. I do think he's close, though...he's fantastic.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Sith said:


> there's a reason why the lakers chose kobe over shaq. because kobe is just that much more valueable right now due to his age. I never buy that it was kobe's fault that shaq left LA. it was shaq who wanted 3 year 90mil extension, now who would give him that at this point, especially after the lakers almost got swept by the pistons in the playoffs. a change was inevitable. u think the lakers management would know more about bball than us now..why did they choose kobe? and let phil and shaq go? if koke's ego problem was such a big problem that can "destroy" a team.. why did they trying everything to make him stay, same as the clippers, even agreeing to play near kobe's house. because they know in the NBA, special talents>>>>> everything.
> i dont think this year's lakers supporting cast is that good, lamar odom is very overrated, people like to see him as a versatile player, but i think he's more of tweener. yes he does average 10rebs a game, but he really isn't suited to play the PF position. as for being a SF, he will have tough time chasing around the smaller, faster SFs. people say when you are bigger, u can post people up thats true to some extent. if u r center or PF who are good low post scoring threat, then size is very important, and if u r a shooting guard who can shoot well, size is very important too, but PG and SF are the 2 positions where i feel like size is irrevelent. it's rare to see PGs and SFs posting up thruoght the ENTIRE game. yes when you are a small PG or SF, uget posted up once a while in a game, but what u make up on the other end like penetrating easier, being quicker, more than makes it up.
> 
> and lastly, its 99% possible that nobody on this bulls team will ever be as good as kobe bryant of the next 8 years. as for curry for shaq... well u guys know i m a big curry suppporter, i was one of the fews who believed him when you all wanted to trade him away. but thinking curry can attain shaq's level is laughable...
> to pass up on a once in a decade talent like kobe is simply a crime. i believe kobe, under right circumstance, could truly become the undisputed best player in the league. and of course, the most important thing is, even if we giveup gordon/curry, we still have an awesome supporting cast to put around kobe. kirk/degn/chandler are the ultimate role players. they know their roles, not trying to do too much, and they re very taletned and skilled too.



I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I think Kobe is definitley good...but also a headcase. And I can easily see Curry becoming close to Shaq in terms of dominating games. I really don't think it is all THAT much of a stretch. I'm an Odom fan, I think his natural position is sf, some of your points on him are well taken but I still think if Kobe really is as good as you claim, he should make the playoffs with the roster he has in LA, no excuses. I guess I am foolish but I wouldn't trade this teams top two young players who are still a work in progress for a guy who has undeniable talent but also a lot of baggage.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> Undisputed means there is no dispute. I would suspect that Kobe Bryant would not make many top-5 lists in the stats community. He does not even make my top-10. It is hard to believe that a top-5 player cannot make the playoffs, playing with an All-Star power forward and decent talent at the PG, SF, and C positions.


When you say the Lakers as a team have decent talent, I assume you're only looking at their offensive capabilities. They are a dreadful defensive team and that's been the main part of their downfall this season. I would not call that a great supporting cast at all.

And I would be interested in seeing your top-10 list of players. 



> I think we have learned a lot this season about just how important Shaq was for making Kobe Bryant into the "star" he has become. He can do things that other players cannot, but he also hurts his teams a lot with poor shot selection and turnovers.


There's no question that playing with Shaq makes a player better, but a Shaq-less Kobe Bryant (43% FG, 28.1 pts, 6.0 reb, 6.0 ast) is still pretty darn good. And consider that since every other player in the Lakers starting lineup is shooting above their career FG%, I would say that Kobe's presence has somewhat helped them.



> One more point. Is Kobe Bryant's supporting cast any worse than the supporting cast that Scottie Pippen had the year Jordan first retired?


That Bulls team had a lot of smart and experienced championship players. I think there's something to be said about that. A couple of weeks ago I watched a San Antonio team without Manu or Duncan take Phoenix down to the wire.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

interesting stuff guys. Kind of coincidental : 



> On paper, it seemed asif Odom had a chance to be Scottie Pippen to Bryant's Michael Jordan. In reality, he has proved to be more like Toni Kukoc, who never could seem to find his niche.
> 
> When Bryant is out of the lineup, as he was with that sore ankle for a while, Odom handles the ball more and becomes a different player, slashing to the hoop, scoring consistently and making effective passes.
> 
> ...


http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/2005/03/29/sections/sports/sports/article_460580.php

The article was about the Lakers missing Jerry West more than Shaq.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> When you say the Lakers as a team have decent talent, I assume you're only looking at their offensive capabilities. They are a dreadful defensive team and that's been the main part of their downfall this season. I would not call that a great supporting cast at all.
> 
> And I would be interested in seeing your top-10 list of players.
> 
> ...


Odom, Grant, and Butler were key components of a good defensive team in Miami last season. Atkins has been considered a decent defender throughout his career. And Mihm is not that different from a lot of starting centers in this league. One has to wonder why this group, along with Bryant, is such a poor defending team this season. One might speculate that it is because these players don't like playing with Bryant, and that is resulting in them not playing as hard on the defensive end as they have in the past.

I would say that Garnett, Duncan, Kirilenko, Ginobili, and James definitely are more effective players for their teams than Kobe is for the Lakers. I would say that Marion, Nowitski, McGrady, and Kidd are most likely more effective than Kobe. I would put Kobe near the bottom of a group including Pierce, Shaq, Carter, and Baron Davis in terms of effectiveness. Now is it possible that Kobe is more effective than my results suggest? Of course, but he is a pretty long way from making the top-5.

And I agree that many of Kobe's teammates are having better years on the offensive end this season, but most are young players in bigger roles this season. It is not surprising that they are playing better this season.

All of that said, it would be fun to watch Skiles bench Kobe for taking ill-advised shots. And to see how Kobe reacted to that. I bet we would start to hear about how Kobe played under Jackson and shouldn't have to put up with crap from Skiles. And it would not be surprising to me if that led to the other Bulls players expending less effort on the court, especially on the defensive end. Kind of like a certain team that the Kobe plays for this season.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Hey Dan R. Just for comparison.... where do you have Gordon and Curry in your effectiveness ranking?


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Hey Dan R. Just for comparison.... where do you have Gordon and Curry in your effectiveness ranking?


I have Gordon in the top-100. With the normal improvement of a rookie, he could end up in the ballpark of Kobe Bryant. Curry, on the other hand, is very low and has been for a very long time. Any way I look at it, Curry never rates highly. That said, these ratings are a bit out of date as they run only through the All-Star break. Updating them, I suspect, would improve Curry and Gordon, but knock Bryant down a bit.

But the biggest problem with Bryant is that I would worry that he could make Skiles into a less effective coach, which might result in the Bulls being a much less effective defensive team. That kind of result is a little tough to pick up in my effectiveness ratings.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Dan, you're one of my favorite posters, but you're wrong about the Lakers this year. They have very little talent. Chucky Atkins is not a bad player, but only as a bench player, he has to be one of the 5 worst starting point guards in the league. 

Butler is a decent player, but if you're starting him at small forward, there are probably 25+ teams starting a better small forward than you. Butler is more of a 6th man. 

At power forward, they have Odom, but Odom is an underachiever this year. Why? because he struggles as a 2nd option. He needs the ball in his hands to be effective, now those who hate Kobe will blame this on Kobe's selfishness, but if Odom was playing with Shaq, Duncan, McGrady or any other player who has the ball in their hands a lot (with good reason), he would struggle. We saw it last year with Dwyane Wade, in the playoffs, when he became the #1 guy. Odom struggles as the 2nd option, and we're seeing it this year. 

Chris Mihm is probably the biggest surprise for them, but he still only plays 25 minutes per game, and is still more of a bench player. He has never played more than 22 minutes per game in his career before this year. 

Then their bench is horrible, I don't know how else to put it. The coaching has been horrible, the defense has been horrible. Add to the fact that this Lakers team *was* a playoff team before Kobe went down for a month, and they changed their coach and system. This Lakers team *overachieved* this year, but they just didn't have enough talent to overachieve enough. Shaq, Duncan and Garnett are probably the only players who could have put this team in the playoffs, maybe Nowitzki. I don't think any other players could have come close to putting this team in the playoffs.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

I agree with Mr. Patchwork, at least regarding Odom. When they made the trade, I thought the Lakers did the best they could to give Kobe a running mate, and that as a pair they'd make each other better. That hasn't been the case. Odom needs the ball in his hands to play well. What I think the Lakers should try out, as soon as the playoffs are out of reach, is putting Odom at point forward in the true Scottie Pippen role, and letting Kobe create his offense off the ball. See just how good of a passer/decision maker Odom is, and see how Kobe does when he's not dominating the flow of the offense quite as much to get his points. In this scenario, Odom is SF, and you can plug Brian Grant in at starting PF, and have Butler play heavy minutes as the 6th man. It also limits Atkins to being a spot-up shooter, but that's one of the few things he CAN do, to that's probably a positive. 

If that setup crashes and burns, maybe they should think about trading Odom before his value slips too much.


----------

