# California Dreamin'



## wilon_1 (Jul 25, 2002)

ESPN Inside reports that some of Kobe's team mates are saying he will be leaving LA this summer to sign with the Knicks..I am almost 100% sure that will never happen...But imagine if he did? He and Starbury running down court together?


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

I saw that article as well.....They mentioned that LA would take Alan Houston in return....

I think its more likely an AI for Kobe swap occurs,thogh Phillys treatment of him was really bad,and Kobe would LOVE playing in NYC...Ild love to see it....


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Oh boy, here come the rumors again.

Lets see, so our starting lineup next year will be:

Marbury
Kobe
Walker
Rasheed
Dampier

Right?


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

You can Keep Shimmy..Ill take TT...For that matter,here is my team

Marbury
Kobe
Damp
TT
Sweetney


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Just shows how stupid some Lakers or rumor makers are.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

The assertion that Houston would work well in the triangle is a fallacy to begin with. The triangle is designed around multi-dimensional players who can create and play D, in the mould of MJ, Pippen, Kobe, etc.

Houston's game is most analagous to Steve Kerr, who was a sub. I don't even remember if he was even their 6th man... maybe seventh or eight... making him more part of the "octogonal" offense.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> Houston's game is most analagous to Steve Kerr


you mean to tell me he is not 100 million times better??????


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

Playing the Triangle offense has nothing to do with players being able to play defense. Phil Jackson wants player that can play d, thats all. The triangle is more about motion in a particular manner than players creating one on one.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Yes, my phrasing made it seem as though defense is part of the offense, which I know it is not. But my point was that Houston misses the mark in Jackson's offensive and defensive structure.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

Actually rotating is Houston's best defensive skill.

And Shaq needs a 3pt gunner. Kobe and Payton are ok shooters, but they aren't capable of shooting .400+. The Lakers biggest weakness right now is their lack of perimeter shooting. Shaq needs a Dennis Scott/Glen Rice again.


----------



## dcrono3 (Jan 6, 2004)

I would personally LOVE a Kobe-Houston trade, but I think it seems a bit far-fetched. The Lakers are rumored to be able to get AI instead, though Kobe isn't very popular in Philly right now. It is Kobe's hometown though, so I think he could win the fans back. Anyway, Kobe would make the Knicks a legit contender IMO. We would have the best backcourt in the NBA with Marbury and Kobe. TT would be a great #3 option, KT would be productive, Sweetney could develope nicely and NAzr could be decent. Our big men would probably be our greatest weakness, but the Bulls never really had a good bigman either (if you consider Rodman as a good bigman, the Bulls didn't have him for their first few championships). We could be a championship quality team and would definately be a high seed in the east. However, we probably would have to give up some more stuff before the Lakers would say yes to a trade. They could want Sweetney, and that would be bad. More draft picks gone? Possible for a Kobe. 

And what about our outside game? Zone busters? Kobe could I guess, but without Houston we have no real pure shooters IMO. Kobe would be worth it though IMO. I just pointed it out since some ppl have been saying the Knicks have no outside shooting with KVH gone and Houston hurt. I was kind of suprised some of those ppl didn't mention it.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

I admit, with TT as a third option, the team would be tough. Find a way to get Dampier and they are a contender. I also think AI is not a good match for Shaq. He indeed does need the floor spaced so it is harder to double and triple without penalty.


----------



## The True Essence (May 26, 2003)

why the hell would you worry about a zone buster when Kobe can walk right through any teams zone and make a poster of any teams big man? Tim Thomas is a good three point shooter, and....and who cares. Kobe > ALL. Of course, the chances of him coming here are like .0000003 so oh well. And if we get him he'll probably end up serving time which would suck more.


----------



## dcrono3 (Jan 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>PennyHardaway</b>!
> why the hell would you worry about a zone buster when Kobe can walk right through any teams zone and make a poster of any teams big man? Tim Thomas is a good three point shooter, and....and who cares. Kobe > ALL. Of course, the chances of him coming here are like .0000003 so oh well. And if we get him he'll probably end up serving time which would suck more.





> And what about our outside game? Zone busters? Kobe could I guess, but without Houston we have no real pure shooters IMO. Kobe would be worth it though IMO. I just pointed it out since some ppl have been saying the Knicks have no outside shooting with KVH gone and Houston hurt. I was kind of suprised some of those ppl didn't mention it.



If you will reread my post a bit, you can see that I agree with you that Kobe would be worth losing Houston. As I said I just thought that others would bring it up as why we shouldn't trade Houston. We will lose a lot of out outside shooting, by Kobe is worth it. TT is a decent 3pt shooter, but I wouldn't call hima zone buster yet. TT = streaky 3pt shooter, like Rashard Lewis. I couldn't understand why Lewis was in the 3pt contest and Houston not (even though Houston was injuried) Lewis and TT can make the 3pter at a decent clip, but you woulnd't want them to be shooting when your team is down 3 with 5 seconds to go. You want a shooter like Houston, a pure shooter. It's just my opinions anyway. I agree with you that the chances of Kobe coming are next to none.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> The Lakers are rumored to be able to get AI instead


Houston is a better fit. There won't be any chemistry issues regarding who gets the ball. Remember, the Lakers already have Payton. AI handling the ball will disgruntle Payton, AI shooting the ball too much will disgruntle Payton AND Shaq. And then there's Karl Malone to worry about too. The talent is certainly there, but it's too delicate a balance to make it worth while. Nevermind that Iverson still doesn't help the perimeter shooting. Houston doesn't rebound or pass well, but neither did Glen Rice, and that didn't stop the Lakers from winning 67 games and the championship, with Rice from averaging 17 ppg. I can picture that kind of winning situation because it has already happened for the Lakers. Iverson is too much of an experiment.


----------



## hatnlvr (Aug 14, 2003)

This would be a dream come true (Starbury and Kobe=the best backcourt in the league). 

But all actuality is 99% it won't happen. The Lakers would only pull a move like this if Kobe was going to leave (read Phoenix) with no compensation, I still think Kobe wants to stay with the Lakers.

Let's also not forget Kobe wants his own team and if my memory serves correct the Knicks are now Marbury's team.

Just my $.02


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> 
> Houston is a better fit. There won't be any chemistry issues regarding who gets the ball. Remember, the Lakers already have Payton. AI handling the ball will disgruntle Payton, AI shooting the ball too much will disgruntle Payton AND Shaq. And then there's Karl Malone to worry about too. The talent is certainly there, but it's too delicate a balance to make it worth while.


While your logic is basically sound, but you have to consider that Shaq's contract is up in two short yearsalong with health concerns, Payton may not even be around next year, and Malone may not either if he has further health issues (at 41). They need to add some long term talent, cause everyone else may be a rental. So taking a 33 year old vet with shot knees is a rather questionable move when surely they'll be offered younger talent. I can't imagine that people Like Redd, and Allen, wont be offered too. Who would you choose?



> Houston doesn't rebound or pass well, but neither did Glen Rice, and that didn't stop the Lakers from winning 67 games and the championship, with Rice from averaging 17 ppg.


It also didn't stop them from moving him out at their earliest convenience.


----------



## The True Essence (May 26, 2003)

> the Knicks are now Marbury's team.


well, bringing Kobe would make him a role player. All great teams had more than one great player, and i dont see why Kobe wouldnt want to come here if we had some money. Kobe = Top 5 nba player. Marbury = top 20??? so i dont see any problem there


----------



## NYKBaller (Oct 29, 2003)

We get Kobe, you know Dampier and Rasheed would come also. They all want a championship, might pull a Lakers offseason-minus the injuries!


----------



## dcrono3 (Jan 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> 
> Houston is a better fit. There won't be any chemistry issues regarding who gets the ball. Remember, the Lakers already have Payton. AI handling the ball will disgruntle Payton, AI shooting the ball too much will disgruntle Payton AND Shaq. And then there's Karl Malone to worry about too. The talent is certainly there, but it's too delicate a balance to make it worth while. Nevermind that Iverson still doesn't help the perimeter shooting. Houston doesn't rebound or pass well, but neither did Glen Rice, and that didn't stop the Lakers from winning 67 games and the championship, with Rice from averaging 17 ppg. I can picture that kind of winning situation because it has already happened for the Lakers. Iverson is too much of an experiment.


Except Payton is really unhappy in LA, and I really see Payton opting out after this season, and there is a possibilty that Malone will opt out too. With Shaq's injury problems, and Kobe, Malone, and Payton gone, would you rather have AI or Houston? AI would pass more if he Shaq on the team. Face it, the Sixers' really had no stars on their team that could score reliably (KVH no, Big Dog no too). If AI had Shaq, he would pass more like he did with the Dream Team. Think of it, AI drives, draws a bunch of defenders, and dishes off an easy pass to Shaq for a dunk? Sounds good to me. I think AI would be a good fit with Shaq, even if I don't want to see AI traded tp the Lakers.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

AI leaves it all on the floor, no doubt. But with questions about his conditioning and career length because of how he plays, not to mention his attitude about practice, I don't think he is as sought after as you might think. Sources around the league insist that past and present players have a hard time playing with him.


----------



## dcrono3 (Jan 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>alphadog</b>!
> AI leaves it all on the floor, no doubt. But with questions about his conditioning and career length because of how he plays, not to mention his attitude about practice, I don't think he is as sought after as you might think. Sources around the league insist that past and present players have a hard time playing with him.


True, Iverson is becoming injury-prone, but what about Houston. Iverson should have the longer career, since he is younger and Houston is injuried too. Lakers would probably like IVerson instead of Houston.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

people go see teams like philly, orlando, and even the lakers, to see dynamic action figures. those guys put butts in seats. ain't nobody trading no superstars for old broken jumpshooting allan houston - i don't care how much you may like him. those teams have fans to answer to.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> i don't care how much you may like him. those teams have fans to answer to.


Hmmmmm.....

Are you implying the Eisly led Knicks were not exciting or a huge fan draw???


----------



## vandyke (Jan 8, 2004)

But does anybody really think there is enough basketball to go around in a Starbury-Kobe backcourt, it would be interesting to see but could they both co-exist?


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> While your logic is basically sound, but you have to consider that Shaq's contract is up in two short years


He wants an extension.



> It also didn't stop them from moving him out at their earliest convenience.


It didn't stop them from winning fewer games the next season either. Originally they were slated to get Christian Laettner in the Ewing trade, and then settled for Horace Grant. They needed a PF upgrade to replace AC Green, and they had depth at SF (Fox and George).


----------



## Fordy74 (May 22, 2002)

I dont care how good Kobe is, I really dislike him so much that I dont want to see him come here.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!It didn't stop them from winning fewer games the next season either. Originally they were slated to get Christian Laettner in the Ewing trade, and then settled for Horace Grant. They needed a PF upgrade to replace AC Green, and they had depth at SF (Fox and George).


Yes dear, but there is a context to all of this. The SG position. What SGs have executed the triangle best? MJ and Kobe. Which the worst (at least for Phil)? Rice.

Which does Houston most resemble?


----------



## Knicksbiggestfan (Apr 29, 2003)

I'd give up starbury for Kobe in a heatbeat. Kobe is the best 2 guard in the league.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> I'd give up starbury for Kobe in a heatbeat. Kobe is the best 2 guard in the league.


Wow,thats an interesting thought....

Does Kobe play the 1,2,or 3..or it doesnt matter,hes that good...


----------



## The True Essence (May 26, 2003)

> ain't nobody trading no superstars for old broken jumpshooting allan houston - i don't care how much you may like him. those teams have fans to answer to.


Kobe will opt out of his contract, and demand a sign and trade to New york(or wherever he wants), where the lakers HAVE to trade him here or let him walk, not trade him wherever they want to. The only deal they could get is Houston. better to get him then just let Kobe walk for nothing. Its not like they would have a choice, its watever Kobe wants.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>PennyHardaway</b>!
> 
> 
> Kobe will opt out of his contract, and demand a sign and trade to New york(or wherever he wants), where the lakers HAVE to trade him here or let him walk, not trade him wherever they want to. The only deal they could get is Houston. better to get him then just let Kobe walk for nothing. Its not like they would have a choice, its watever Kobe wants.


Well that's a different scenario than the one we've been talking about (where Phil WANTS Houston) but I'll play along. Sure, if Kobe is gonna put the strangle on that changes things. But here are my issues with that scenario.

1) Players don't like to *demand* that they uproot the historical franchise player of another team. It's uncouth, and puts you on a fast track to enemies.

2) I've heard nothing other than that badly written rumor to suggest Kobe wants to play for NY.

3) There are more talent rich options for him. He wants to win.

4) What makes you say that if Kobe demands a trade here it would be for Houston and not Marbury? (and I agree with KBF, I've got no problem trading the 2nd best PG for a top 5 in league guy) You just don't let a hall of famer, son of Jordan, go for a one trick pony limping toward retirement. Kobe for Houston would rank as one of the worst deals in NBA history. The Lakers have been around. Jerry Buss has more knowlege in his little pinky than Dolan has ever bought, sold or fired.

I think I had more points but lost them, but that's enough to make a point.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

Last year Kobe played the 1, 2, and 3 simultaneously.


----------



## Knicksbiggestfan (Apr 29, 2003)

I just want to make sure we are all on the same page, whenever you have the oppurtunity to pick up someone in the top 1 of their respected position, you do it and sort things out later. We all agree on that correct?



As for Kobe's position, kobe does it all, one of the reasons the lakers sucked against the full court press last year, was that Kobe had to do all the ball handling and then start running the triangle, it was to much for any one player to do.


So again, if we have a chance to get the guy we do it. No questions, no chemistry nothing, get him sort it out later.


Though I do believe him and starbury would have a real difficult time sharing the ball, they both really like to dominate it.


----------



## epic (Mar 16, 2004)

the lakers aren't going to do a sign and trade. kobe will either re-sign or walk. 

no way he'll be in NY next year. he's bound to resign, especially when the lakers win it all again this year.


----------

