# What Are Your Opinions of Kobe?



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Considering that Kobe asked to be traded a couple weeks ago and apparently has not relianted on those demands, what your opinions of him? Would you trade him? Will he booed if he doesn't get traded? Can he be forgiven?


----------



## Unique (Apr 13, 2005)

Kobes not on my good side anymore. We'lll see.


----------



## ¹²³ (Jan 8, 2003)

If he doesn't get traded he won't be booed, but if he gets his way and starts next season on another team he will be booed.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

A lot of players in the NBA act like babies. Kobe's one of them. But the difference (and the thing that matters) is that he is one of the best players in the NBA. 

And I would think when you have one of the best players and coaches in the game that would be the time to try and go for the championship but I guess our drunk owner and his horse training son feel we have a better chance of winning later with a teenage player who spends his practice time eating fruit loops.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

He's still my favorite player in the league, and I still like the guy.


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

Basel57 said:


> He's still my favorite player in the league, and I still like the guy.


Same with me. I can tell he wants to win and won't settle anything less then winning. So for me it's hard to hate somebody like that.


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> A lot of players in the NBA act like babies. Kobe's one of them. But the difference (and the thing that matters) is that he is one of the best players in the NBA.
> 
> And I would think when you have one of the best players and coaches in the game that would be the time to try and go for the championship but I guess our drunk owner and his horse training son feel we have a better chance of winning later with a teenage player who spends his practice time eating fruit loops.


I second this. 

Kobe is being a baby, but its impossible to blame him. Yes, he has a contract to honor, but he was told that the Lakers would try to win if he resigned, they would get the right players around him and get back to elite status. Kobe could have gone to the Clippers, played with a great supporting cast around him, and probably would have made at least the WCF by now.


----------



## Dominate24/7 (Oct 15, 2006)

I'd be more ticked off with a superstar happy to collect a huge paycheck and meander in mediocrity. I have way more reservations about our front office. They need to surround Kobe & Phil with competitors.


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

Dominate24/7 said:


> I'd be more ticked off with a superstar happy to collect a huge paycheck and meander in mediocrity. I have way more reservations about our front office. They need to surround Kobe & Phil with competitors.


exactly. (see Timberwolves)


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Eternal said:


> Same with me. I can tell he wants to win and won't settle anything less then winning. So for me it's hard to hate somebody like that.


He would of won more with Shaq as a teammate.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

TwinkieFoot said:


> Considering that Kobe asked to be traded a couple weeks ago and apparently has not relianted on those demands, what your opinions of him? Would you trade him? Will he booed if he doesn't get traded? Can he be forgiven?


IMHO, this season will be crutial to Kobe Bryant's legacy. It's time to put up or shut up for him. If the Lakers are healthy all season long, there's no reason Kobe Bryant doesn't lead this team to second-round contention. If he fails, i excpect him to demand (even more vehemently) a trade in the next off-season.

Personally, i've never liked the guy. I respect his game, though...


----------



## ¹²³ (Jan 8, 2003)

> Kobe Bryant was born in the Year of the Horse and the month of the Snake. As I've said before in other charts, the Horse wants to love and be loved. They ache to be in relationship, and yet because of this, their destiny often seems to be without partners...oh! the diabolical machinations of the Universe! They are the type of kids who have imaginary friends, so as to have someone to "talk to". Last Year was the Year of the Horse. Rather than the Horse being at home, it seems to start a 12 year cycle all about love and relationships and how we are going to handle them. For Kobe, he has Uranus in Scorpio in the 3rd house, where the Horse energy overlays from the Chinese chart. That would say that Uranus was triggered to expose whatever might be hidden.
> 
> The 4th house has the Sheep as the power animal for Kobe. That's the sign of victim or victor...predator or prey. Mom was suppose to have taught him to be neither, but to raise himself to a position where neither affected him. But this is her issue and if she felt victimized she passed that on to him. Now with Pluto on Neptune with the Sheep overlay, being victimized certainly looks obvious.


link


----------



## nguyen_milan (Jun 28, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> He would of won more with Shaq as a teammate.


I respect your opinion but I disagree. I just dont think we could win with Kobe & Shaq again with the weaker and weaker supporting cast from 99-03, well except 2004.

About the original subject, I really dont like the way he did it but **** it, Im running out of patience too. We arent ****ing improve in 3 years. Of course I dont think we could win the title now but I want to see improvements, injury excuse or not but it is clearly that with the way our team goes, another 1st round exit is 90% certainly.
And I dont think that Kobe mad because that we are not a contender now, he is mad because in 3 years we are still at ground freaking zero.

In the end, **** the future! The future is now, I dont give a **** about our future in 7 or 10 years, lets just give Kobe and Phil the chance to compete now, if they fail, fine, let it go and built it from begin.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

nguyen_milan said:


> I respect your opinion but I disagree. I just dont think we could win with Kobe & Shaq again with the weaker and weaker supporting cast from 99-03, well except 2004.
> 
> About the original subject, I really dont like the way he did it but **** it, Im running out of patience too. We arent ****ing improve in 3 years. Of course I dont think we could win the title now but I want to see improvements, injury excuse or not but it is clearly that with the way our team goes, another 1st round exit is 90% certainly.
> And I dont think that Kobe mad because that we are not a contender now, he is mad because in 3 years we are still at ground freaking zero.
> ...


I say give it just another season.
I fiercely believe that if all things work out the right way, this roster is not that bad.
And by "all things working out" i mean:
- Radman regaining it's touch from deep;
- The improvement of Walton and Brown;
- Fisher being able to stay in fron of opposing PGs;
- Bynum turning into a steady contributer and improving his defense;
- Farmar or Javaris providing some offense in the second unit;
- And, off course, Kobe adjusting to the team's needs more than trying to make the team adjust to him.

A Fisher/Kobe/Odom/Kwame/Bynum starting 5 at the end of the season, if they all can gel, and Farmar/Javaris, Walton, Radman and Mihm from the bench shoud make this team tough to beat.

If this season doesn't work out, yes, the Lakers' should go other ways and trade Odom, Bynum or both. IF Kobe stays.


----------



## ceejaynj (Oct 9, 2005)

Trade him. I have zero tolerance for cry babies...especially those that are multi-millionaires.


----------



## Dominate24/7 (Oct 15, 2006)

PauloCatarino said:


> A Fisher/Kobe/Odom/Kwame/Bynum starting 5 at the end of the season, if they all can gel, and Farmar/Javaris, Walton, Radman and Mihm from the bench shoud make this team tough to beat.


That would be cool, but Kwame neither has the skill set nor desire to play the 4. Plus, offensively I think the Lakers would be stagnant without Luke on the floor.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Dominate24/7 said:


> That would be cool, but Kwame neither has the skill set nor desire to play the 4. Plus, offensively I think the Lakers would be stagnant without Luke on the floor.


Kwame Brown is an awfull center. All he does adequately is guard people one-on-one. He doesn't rebound very well, he doesn't block shots, he doesn't know how to finish in traffic. He is a waste playing the 5.

I would like Odom to do "the Worthy": you recieve the ball down low, you test your defender and wether you attack or create for others. If Odom can do it, i would rather have Kwame and Bynum battling in the post, with Kobe ad Fisher hanging in the perimeter.

Walton is a good guy to have on the offensive end. But he brings nothing to the other side of the court. Walton shouldn't be appointed to do the "point-forward" deal, but Odom.

This starting 5 would be more muscular, have more height, and maybe able to stop the lay-ups drills every team gets going on while facing the Lakers.


----------



## Dominate24/7 (Oct 15, 2006)

Perhaps, we can agree that Kwame is a waste either position? You're probably right that on the whole, he's awful 5, but you need all those skills for the 4 also. Plus I cringe every time I see him spot up for a jumper. 

I like your idea for Odom. I think that he does a better job creating his own shot and creating for others in the post. 

I slightly disagree with your assessment of Walton's defensive prowess. He's no lockdown defender or Rick Fox, but from the games I saw (I admit they were few), he was one of the more consistent team defenders we had. He's not a bad defensive rebounder for a 3 either. It would be nice to have Walton and Odom on the floor to board and help get us transition baskets.


----------



## ceejaynj (Oct 9, 2005)

Dominate24/7 said:


> That would be cool, but Kwame neither has the skill set nor desire to play the 4. Plus, offensively I think the Lakers would be stagnant without Luke on the floor.


Agreed. IMO...Kwame is never going to be any better at any spot than he is now. As for Luke, we need him on the floor. Luke brings smarts to the offense, is an excellent passer, and has developed a nice little turn around jumper from inside 10 feet. Other than Kobe and LO, he was the most consistant Laker last season.


----------



## Mateo (Sep 23, 2006)

Fisher was really bad last year, worse than Parker. PG is the #1 concern for this team.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

nguyen_milan said:


> I respect your opinion but I disagree. I just dont think we could win with Kobe & Shaq again with the weaker and weaker supporting cast from 99-03, well except 2004.
> 
> About the original subject, I really dont like the way he did it but **** it, Im running out of patience too. We arent ****ing improve in 3 years. Of course I dont think we could win the title now but I want to see improvements, injury excuse or not but it is clearly that with the way our team goes, another 1st round exit is 90% certainly.
> And I dont think that Kobe mad because that we are not a contender now, he is mad because in 3 years we are still at ground freaking zero.
> ...


The Heat went to game 7 of the conference finals following the Shaq trade.

Lakers won 30 games. 

I don't see how you disagree with me.

A lineup of Atkins, Kobe, Jones/George/Walton, Cook and Shaq would of not only made the playoffs, but probably the second round.


----------



## Dominate24/7 (Oct 15, 2006)

Jamel Irief said:


> The Heat went to game 7 of the conference finals following the Shaq trade.
> 
> Lakers won 30 games.
> 
> ...


Yes, the Heat made it to the conference finals, but that was due to a few factors. For one, the Heat were able to orchestrate a huge 5 team blockbuster following the Shaq trade that got them Walker, Williams, and Posey for Jones, R. Butler, 2nd round picks, and spare parts. When was the last time that our FO was able to do something like that? Our supporting cast was getting more and more depleted. As great as Malone and Payton looked on paper, they were both getting pretty long in the tooth, and by no means were they a long-term solution.

I have my doubts that a lineup that showcases Brian Cook as the starting power forward and a Jones/George/Walton platoon at the 3 would make it to the second round. That is a very depleted lineup. I also wonder if Shaq would have been in the same condition for us as he was with the Heat


----------



## DANNY (Aug 9, 2005)

Dominate24/7 said:


> Perhaps, we can agree that Kwame is a waste either position? You're probably right that on the whole, he's awful 5, but you need all those skills for the 4 also. Plus I cringe every time I see him spot up for a jumper.
> 
> I like your idea for Odom. I think that he does a better job creating his own shot and creating for others in the post.
> 
> I slightly disagree with your assessment of Walton's defensive prowess. He's no lockdown defender or Rick Fox, but from the games I saw (I admit they were few), he was one of the more consistent team defenders we had. He's not a bad defensive rebounder for a 3 either. It would be nice to have Walton and Odom on the floor to board and help get us transition baskets.


Yes, Kwames awful but then playing the 5 makes him look serviceable since he gets to play against scrubs half the time. 

And yes, I agree Lukes not that bad on defense. Obviously he's going to get burn by the likes of Lebron and Carmelo but against others he atless stays with his man and doesnt make commit defensive mistake. 

I dont know the exact statistical figures, but watching many laker games last year, I notice that we were much effective when odom, walton and kobe were on the floor. Having three playmakers really make a difference.


----------



## DANNY (Aug 9, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> The Heat went to game 7 of the conference finals following the Shaq trade.
> 
> Lakers won 30 games.
> 
> ...


I don't see that lineup beating either the suns, mavs, or spurs in a 7 game playoff series. Meaning that team wouldn't of advanced pass the 1st round.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Dominate24/7 said:


> Yes, the Heat made it to the conference finals, but that was due to a few factors. For one, the Heat were able to orchestrate a huge 5 team blockbuster following the Shaq trade that got them Walker, Williams, and Posey for Jones, R. Butler, 2nd round picks, and spare parts. When was the last time that our FO was able to do something like that? Our supporting cast was getting more and more depleted. As great as Malone and Payton looked on paper, they were both getting pretty long in the tooth, and by no means were they a long-term solution.
> 
> I have my doubts that a lineup that showcases Brian Cook as the starting power forward and a Jones/George/Walton platoon at the 3 would make it to the second round. That is a very depleted lineup. I also wonder if Shaq would have been in the same condition for us as he was with the Heat


You are incorrect. The 5 team trade was the season AFTER the Shaq trade. When the Heat took the Pistons to 7 games the starting lineup was Damon Jones, Wade, Eddie Jones, Haslem and Shaq.


----------



## Dominate24/7 (Oct 15, 2006)

Yup, you're right. I appear to be losing track of time. Still, that line-up doesn't look bad for an EC team.


----------



## nguyen_milan (Jun 28, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> You are incorrect. The 5 team trade was the season AFTER the Shaq trade. When the Heat took the Pistons to 7 games the starting lineup was Damon Jones, Wade, Eddie Jones, Haslem and Shaq.


So? Eddie Jones, Haslem still better than anyone in our roster beside Kobe and Shaq


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

nguyen_milan said:


> So? Eddie Jones, Haslem still better than anyone in our roster beside Kobe and Shaq


Yeah? And the gap between 30 wins and one win from the NBA finals is drastically huge.


----------



## nguyen_milan (Jun 28, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> Yeah? And the gap between 30 wins and one win from the NBA finals is drastically huge.


I dont know what you are arguing for?
You want to say that the Lakers keep Shaq would make us being closer a contender now right? 
A better team is right, but not a contender and that team would have no trade pieces no cap room whatsoever and keeping Shaq mean Shaq signing an extension for about 30 mil :lol: 2nd round is maybe but you cant get further than that.
Spinning if you want but "A lineup of Atkins, Kobe, Jones/George/Walton, Cook and Shaq" would not one win from the Final, especially in the West. 

And you know what? We had 2 best players in the NBA, we kept one, traded the other. It was not like MJ or Magic retired, they were gone but here we still have the best player in the NBA and get the talents back from the trade. So after 3 years we still back at ground zero is unacceptable.


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

it's not black and white with kobe.. 

he's not good or bad, but rather good and bad. i think a lot of his actions are molded around how people will perceive him (it gets to him), and some other good things he does are from just he himself.

he's almost as bad as the media makes him appear, but at the same time much better..


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

nguyen_milan said:


> A better team is right, but not a contender and that team would have no trade pieces no cap room whatsoever and keeping Shaq mean Shaq signing an extension for about 30 mil :lol: 2nd round is maybe but you cant get further than that.
> Spinning if you want but "A lineup of Atkins, Kobe, Jones/George/Walton, Cook and Shaq" would not one win from the Final, especially in the West.


Who is spinning what except for you? All I said is the Lakers would win more if they had Shaq. PERIOD.

Remember all Kobe supposedly cares about is winning.


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

As a player, Kobe is one of the best and I would much rather have him on the Lakers than any other team. But he has really soured on me to the point where I really don't like him. I don't buy his "win at all costs" deal his plays considering the, "I don't want to be a sidekick anymore" quote. And no, I don't think he ran Shaq out of town. It just contradicts everything he claims to be about. Lakers fans have put him with TONS of **** for sticking up for Kobe. I don't think he really cares that much about us.


----------



## ElMarroAfamado (Nov 1, 2005)

i think he should stop being a little ***** 
i mean **** he makes 20million dollars a year and he complains about the ****ing talent when ihs contract doenst make it that easy to sign anyone he should just play and be a spoiled supertstar with no talent around him .. . . . . 
like KG in Minnesota....
cuz he is gonna leave anyway so **** him
hes great and all but ima be a Lakers fan with him or without him


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

best player in the league...wouldn't say that he is miles ahead, but significantly better than the wade/lebron/carmelos of this league...for now...


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Who is spinning what except for you? All I said is the Lakers would win more if they had Shaq. PERIOD.
> 
> Remember all Kobe supposedly cares about is winning.


Yes, but winning titles. Not a few more regular season games just to be bounced out of the 1st round of the playoffs. Considering Shaq's pathetic shape when he was with the Lakers, the result would not have been much different then it was the past few years, except maybe 5 or 7 more wins in the regular season.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> Who is spinning what except for you? All I said is the Lakers would win more if they had Shaq. PERIOD.
> 
> Remember all Kobe supposedly cares about is winning.


You've been carrying that grudge for such a long time it grew handles, JI!!!

Fact is, if the Lakers had kept Shaq, they would of lost Kobe. That's what was the likely scenario. So, the Lakers kept the younger, hungrier superstar. How many games do you think the Kobe-less Lakers would win? And how far would they go in the West?

And look at Shaq, now. A shell of his former self. How much talent were the Lakers to gather around him to make the team comtend when he skips 20 ganmes a season and, at best, is a 20-10 center?

Yeah, the Lakers should have kept Shaq, allright.


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

PauloCatarino said:


> You've been carrying that grudge for such a long time it grew handles, JI!!!
> 
> Fact is, if the Lakers had kept Shaq, they would of lost Kobe. That's what was the likely scenario. So, the Lakers kept the younger, hungrier superstar. How many games do you think the Kobe-less Lakers would win? And how far would they go in the West?
> 
> ...


He's arguing that Kobe should have insisted that Shaq remain a Laker and be fine with it for the sake of winning. It's a good point, but I would disagree because of these reasons:

1. Kobe, Shaq, and utter **** is not going to make it through the Western Conference.
2. Shaq committed to fitness out of spite against the Lakers. He wanted to prove them wrong, plain and simple. If Shaq stays in LA, his shape continues to get worse and worse and we stay mediocre, with no flexibility to improve due to his monstrous extension demands.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Bartholomew Hunt said:


> He's arguing that Kobe should have insisted that Shaq remain a Laker and be fine with it for the sake of winning. It's a good point, but I would disagree because of these reasons:
> 
> 1. Kobe, Shaq, and utter **** is not going to make it through the Western Conference.
> 2. Shaq committed to fitness out of spite against the Lakers. He wanted to prove them wrong, plain and simple. If Shaq stays in LA, his shape continues to get worse and worse and we stay mediocre, with no flexibility to improve due to his monstrous extension demands.


I don't want to judge JI unfairly, so if it's the case please correct me. But i am under the impression that JI still believes that Kobe ran Shaq out of town. When in the reality (for all counts) it was a scenario of EITHER Shaq or Kobe hone.

If that's not JI's reasoning, i apologize.

About the rest of your post, i am tentative to disagreeing. Having lost an NBA Final, IMHO Shaq would want another go at a ring. And, funny but's true, both players' games complemented eachother's greatly. Shaq would probably coast through the regular season (wjile the main scoring barrage would come from Kobe) and give it all in the playoffs. And no, i don't think they would need that great of a supporting cast to get to the Finals.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> You've been carrying that grudge for such a long time it grew handles, JI!!!
> 
> Fact is, if the Lakers had kept Shaq, they would of lost Kobe. That's what was the likely scenario. So, the Lakers kept the younger, hungrier superstar. How many games do you think the Kobe-less Lakers would win? And how far would they go in the West?
> 
> ...


I swear to god, I can never mention Shaq in this forum without people losing their wits and going off tangents. Everytime I say the word I get "Shaq lover" and "let it go" and other crap.

IF KOBE LEFT BECAUSE SHAQ STAYED IT MEANT KOBE DID NOT ONLY CARE ABOUT WINNING.

Pay attention to this next line:
<u>
The fact that Kobe did not demand Buss keep Shaq is why I feel Kobe doesn't only care about winning.</u>

Im not saying the Lakers should of kept him or that Kobe forced him out.

EDIT- I see that Bart at least got my point. Glad to see I am making some sense.


----------



## Mateo (Sep 23, 2006)

2004 team fell apart. They ran out of productive players due to making too many mistakes in the draft (something that has continued, though not to the same degree due to higher picks). I don't think things would have been significantly different had they kept the team together.


----------



## AllEyezonTX (Nov 16, 2006)

Super player/horrible teammate


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

AllEyezonTX said:


> Super player/horrible teammate



kobe is not a horrible teammate, he just has horrible teammates...


----------



## The One (Jul 10, 2005)

Bartholomew Hunt said:


> Lakers fans have put him with *TONS of ***** for sticking up for Kobe. *I don't think he really cares that much about us*.


BH, you are a good friend, and as a friend of yours I have to say "Oh Boo Hoo". First of all, nobody had to stick up for kobe and take **** if they didn't want to. And who cares if Kobe doesn't _care _about us. His job is to show up every game and play hard (entertain) for us.
Post like this happens when we allow sports player to become more than our entertainment pleasure.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

The One said:


> BH, you are a good friend, and as a friend of yours I have to say "Oh Boo Hoo". First of all, nobody had to stick up for kobe and take **** if they didn't want to. And who cares if Kobe doesn't _care _about us. His job is to show up every game and play hard (entertain) for us.
> *Post like this happens when we allow sports player to become more than our entertainment pleasure.*



only natural, isn't it? maybe something's wrong with me, but when the clippers lose, i don't think to myself, "oh well, it was only for entertainment"...

a lot of us posters care more about our respective teams than your average fan...i don't know about you, but i tend to punch and throw things when my team loses...my wall is full of holes and my remote control doesn't work anymore...:whoknows:


----------



## The One (Jul 10, 2005)

bootstrenf said:


> only natural, isn't it? maybe something's wrong with me, but when the clippers lose, i don't think to myself, 1. "*oh well, it was only for entertainment*"...
> 
> 2. a lot of us posters care more about our respective teams than your average fan...i don't know about you, but i tend to punch and throw things when my team loses...my wall is full of holes and my remote control doesn't work anymore...:whoknows:


1. Of course. Losing isn't very entertaining, but I wasn't talking about losing or NBA teams.
2. I was more talking about NBA players. It's one thing to be mad a team for losing (I get mad too), it's another thing to get upset at a single player over stuff that may not have anything to do with the game it's self. IMO As long as they play, I'm fine, the players could do whatever they want; it's their life to live.


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

The One said:


> BH, you are a good friend, and as a friend of yours I have to say "Oh Boo Hoo". First of all, nobody had to stick up for kobe and take **** if they didn't want to. And who cares if Kobe doesn't _care _about us. His job is to show up every game and play hard (entertain) for us.
> Post like this happens when we allow sports player to become more than our entertainment pleasure.


You don't think putting money, time, and support into your favorite team requires some sort of loyalty? Players get ultra pissed when they think fans cross on them, why can't it work the other way? Pure entertainment? Sure, that is logical. But try explaining that logic to the diehard fans. Whether or not it makes sense doesn't matter. This is what fans have done since waaaaay back in the day and it will continue to be this way. I'll kindly disagree with your opinion.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

Bartholomew Hunt said:


> You don't think putting money, time, and support into your favorite team requires some sort of loyalty? Players get ultra pissed when they think fans cross on them, why can't it work the other way? Pure entertainment? Sure, that is logical. But try explaining that logic to the diehard fans. Whether or not it makes sense doesn't matter. This is what fans have done since waaaaay back in the day and it will continue to be this way. I'll kindly disagree with your opinion.


I agree with this. Kobe owes the Lakers fans more than most because they stuck by him in very ugly times. During the whole rape trial stuff, and the Shaq/PJ and Kobe feud.


----------



## KDOS (Nov 29, 2005)

Never understood why people have their eyes set on Kobe when it comes to faults and all. Its hard to blame Kobe or have ill feelings towards the man who has been simply crying out for help.


And how can you dispute that?


Phil Jackson's recent statement has further proved what the real culprit in this game has been doing all along.


They are LYING.


They have been lying not only to two of the most prominent figures in the franchise (Phil and Kobe) but most especially for the very same fans who has been supporting the franchise for years,decades and for god knows how long when they said they are committed to winning, and are devoted to building around one of the most highly regarded skilled athlete of our era.


Kobe isnt the one here who signed a fat paycheck and comes up to training camp out of shape. If anything, the dude has always been ahead of the pack. Kobe has been very much dedicated in winning, he comes in tip top shape and sets record setting numbers, while also leading the hapless roster in the playoffs. He does this paddling his own canoe numerous times.



What's wrong in this hollywood picture is we have a bunch of people in this organization, who doesnt know how to set their priorities, and has deceit fans in delivering their promise.




Some people hates Kobe for the precise reason why he's being adored. HE wants to win, and his willing to achieve that under any circumstances, whether its to satisfy his unquenchable thirst for glory or to simply prove to anyone that he can win again, it should'nt really matter. What matters is that we have a player of his magnitude fighting to earn the ultimate glory in this league.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

KOBEDUNKEDONSHAQ said:


> Never understood why people have their eyes set on Kobe when it comes to faults and all. Its hard to blame Kobe or have ill feelings towards the man who has been simply crying out for help.
> 
> 
> And how can you dispute that?
> ...


Pretty much exactly how i feel.:clap:


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

KOBEDUNKEDONSHAQ said:


> Never understood why people have their eyes set on Kobe when it comes to faults and all. Its hard to blame Kobe or have ill feelings towards the man who has been simply crying out for help.
> 
> 
> And how can you dispute that?
> ...


Very well put.


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

my problem with saying that management has deliberately lied to kobe, phil, and the fans... is that it doesn't make sense for them to build a mediocre team.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

The One said:


> 1. Of course. Losing isn't very entertaining, but I wasn't talking about losing or NBA teams.
> 2. I was more talking about NBA players. It's one thing to be mad a team for losing (I get mad too), it's another thing to get upset at a single player over stuff that may not have anything to do with the game it's self. IMO As long as they play, I'm fine, the players could do whatever they want; it's their life to live.



fair enough...


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> I swear to god, I can never mention Shaq in this forum without people losing their wits and going off tangents. Everytime I say the word I get "Shaq lover" and "let it go" and other crap.
> 
> IF KOBE LEFT BECAUSE SHAQ STAYED IT MEANT KOBE DID NOT ONLY CARE ABOUT WINNING.
> 
> ...


Here I think you are COMPLETELY wrong. Why would demanding to keep Shaq imply a desire to win. Demanding to keep Shaq would mean an out of shape center taking up 20 - 30 mm in contract space that misses 30 games int he regular season. 

Demanding to keep a lazy Shaq only shows a desire to make the playoffs a few times with the knowledge that you are going to get knocked out, because he isn't the worth the money and he showed no effort in staying in shape.


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

afobisme said:


> my problem with saying that management has deliberately lied to kobe, phil, and the fans... is that it doesn't make sense for them to build a mediocre team.


Exactly. I'm not buying the fact that they trot out Kobe to put fans in the seats. Why pay Phil 10 million per year if that's the case? That doesn't make any sense. I will more than agree to the fact that the front office makes stupid decisions. I fail to see all of these accusations of deceit. It just seems a little silly. Mitch/Buss/etc decided a while ago to build a team through a collection of a role players and allow them to build chemistry together. Look at any multiple championship team and you will see that the collection of players had plenty of time to gel. Not through wild trades and overhauling the roster. Now, did they put together the right group of players to compete for multiple championships? No. But that's not the point. What you should see is that the front office has done what they thought was necessary to build such a team. They want to win. So all of the theories about using Kobe and being content with mediocrity, I just don't see it. Yes, they promised a significant trade. After trade leverage stook a stab in the heart, every single team lowballs us. Who again wants to trade Odom and Bynum for JO? Kobe shouldn't be *****ing about the front office not putting together a winner when they stood by him and assisted him during the rape trial. Seems kind of ****ty.


----------



## DANNY (Aug 9, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> I swear to god, I can never mention Shaq in this forum without people losing their wits and going off tangents. Everytime I say the word I get "Shaq lover" and "let it go" and other crap.
> 
> IF KOBE LEFT BECAUSE SHAQ STAYED IT MEANT KOBE DID NOT ONLY CARE ABOUT WINNING.
> 
> ...


kobe did not demand buss to keep shaq because he probably knew shaq was going to come to camp overweight 400lb.

what was shaq's motivation for going to camp in top notch shape? he would of been sitting on a 30 million extension, while eating donuts as if there was no tomorrow.

let it go, shaq lover. :biggrin:


----------



## The One (Jul 10, 2005)

Bartholomew Hunt said:


> Kobe shouldn't be *****ing about the front office not putting together a winner when they stood by him and assisted him during the rape trial. Seems kind of ****ty.


Yeah it does seem ****ty but what does rape trial support have to do with Winning Basketaball games? I'm being very cynical here, but let's say you are putting a price for how the team supported and helped Kobe during the trial. Are you saying the Kobe's repay is to stay quiet if he feels insulted(which in this case is building a bad team for him)? The reasons why I don't agree with this is because:

1. (IMO)From what I saw, the Lakers did not do anything different than what any other NBA team would do for their franchise players who are in trouble (that they want to keep).

2. (IMO) The Lakers support had no effect of the outcome of the situation. They just said publicly that there are on his side and let him play ball through court hearings.(Now if they did do more, please correct me.)

3. The team did not confirm their actions as a returnable favor; in other words, they did not says to Kobe, "You owe us one"

On the moral side, however, it would look better to us fans and Kobe if Kobe Bryant shut up, but what we may think doesn't matter, because as long as we are not part of the organization or in part of Kobe Bryant's life, we don't know **** - thus we can't proclaim **** and say that is the standard.(<- now this isn't direct at you, BH. This for everybody )


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

The One said:


> Yeah it does seem ****ty but what does rape trial support have to do with Winning Basketaball games? I'm being very cynical here, but let's say you are putting a price for how the team supported and helped Kobe during the trial. Are you saying the Kobe's repay is to stay quiet if he feels insulted(which in this case is building a bad team for him)? The reasons why I don't agree with this is because:
> 
> 1. (IMO)From what I saw, the Lakers did not do anything different than what any other NBA team would do for their franchise players who are in trouble (that they want to keep).
> 
> ...


Didn't you just lecture me about sports just being entertainment?  Lets say your house burns down and a friend helps get you back on your feet and shows support. You remain loyal to him because of this support. Then he begs to play on your flag football team and promises to play well, only to completely suck ***. You go on a tirade to all of your friends ripping him and decide to quit the team and play for another. You sell your friend out and your other pals on the team that have supported you(the fans).


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

KennethTo said:


> Here I think you are COMPLETELY wrong. Why would demanding to keep Shaq imply a desire to win. Demanding to keep Shaq would mean an out of shape center taking up 20 - 30 mm in contract space that misses 30 games int he regular season.
> 
> Demanding to keep a lazy Shaq only shows a desire to make the playoffs a few times with the knowledge that you are going to get knocked out, because he isn't the worth the money and he showed no effort in staying in shape.


You can bash Shaq all you want, but I still don't see how you can possibly argue that the Lakers wouldn't win more games with him at center instead of Kwame.


----------



## The One (Jul 10, 2005)

Bartholomew Hunt said:


> 1. Didn't you just lecture me about sports just being entertainment?
> 
> 2. Lets say your house burns down and a friend helps get you back on your feet and shows support. You remain loyal to him because of this support. Then he begs to play on your flag football team and promises to play well, only to completely suck ***. You go on a tirade to all of your friends ripping him and decide to quit the team and play for another. You sell your friend out and your other pals on the team that have supported you(the fans).




1. So and? 

2. I appreciate the analogy, but you know I like to argue so.... This is why this analogy can't work (IMO of course). Your analogy reverses the roles a bit. Here Kobe is a football player while his problem is another player so in this sence, yes, Kobe is being a complete an total *******. But the real situation is between an owner and an employee thus the circumstance could be different (IMO). But this all does not matter anyway because like I said, we don't know what the hell went on in the organization. I think people just cannot understance and support how somebody would say such things about an owner who has support him through something a whole lot worse (rape trial). To me that right there shows we MAY not know what else could have went on....and personaly I like it this way because I can now focus on what really matters to me: my entertainment :biggrin:. Will Kobe show up and play like his contract says he should (Until he gets traded)? We'll soon find out.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> You can bash Shaq all you want, but I still don't see how you can possibly argue that the Lakers wouldn't win more games with him at center instead of Kwame.


I have to say I agree,I'm a kobe fan but for Kobe to say all I care about is winning earlier this summer is a BOLD FACE LIE, because he didn't say one word to keep Shaq here. 

Shaq here means the lakers make a couple more title runs. That should be undisputable no matter how you feel about Shaq. 

I'm not sure it would have mattered had he spoke up for Shaq but using his leverage being the more valuable part of the 2 might have helped. Buss might not have risked losing Kobe. 

Kobe cares about winning NOW that he see's how hard it is by himself.

But I don't think its unreasonable for him to wanna climb the mountain as the 1st option. His legacy would have been all about Shaq being the man and his ego couldn't accept that. 

He has been elevated in stature since Shaq left. But he knows he wants MJ type credit and that only comes with winning. 

But he can't keep spinning this I'd do anything to win crap when its clear he didn't. 

I've come around to your side on this issue to a point. 

But lets be real Buss wasn't gonna pay Shaq and thats probably the bottome line. Kobe said Buss told him that in feb, when in fact when Shaq called Buss out in the preseason about PAY ME that relationship was a wrap then.


----------



## The One (Jul 10, 2005)

jazzy1 said:


> I have to say I agree,I'm a kobe fan but for Kobe to say all I care about is winning earlier this summer is a BOLD FACE LIE, because he didn't say one word to keep Shaq here.
> 
> Shaq here means the lakers make a couple more title runs. That should be undisputable no matter how you feel about Shaq.
> 
> ...


 The Kobe Psychic  I believe you forgot to put a huge (IMO) next to this post. Like I said before, we do not know **** about what happend in the lakers camp then so stop acting like you do know.


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

The One said:


> The Kobe Psychic  I believe you forgot to put a huge (IMO) next to this post. Like I said before, we do not know **** about what happend in the lakers camp then so stop acting like you do know.


i agree with what jazzy is saying. i dont understand what you're saying though.

we know 2 things. kobe says "i'll do whatever it takes to win, it's the first and foremost important thing"

yet kobe didn't even push to keep shaq, even though he knew shaq was going to be traded?

he also said that he knew nothing about the shaq trade until the season was over. he was apparently at baskin robins getting ice cream when he found out. but earlier this summer he goes on to say that he knew about the shaq trade way before it happened. wtf?


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

afobisme said:


> i agree with what jazzy is saying. i dont understand what you're saying though.
> 
> we know 2 things. kobe says "i'll do whatever it takes to win, it's the first and foremost important thing"
> 
> ...


How do you know he didn't push to keep Shaq?... None of us will never know the truth, at least not for awhile. We may hear something about what really happened after Shaq and Kobe retired, possibly if someone writes a book or whatnot, but right now, no one knows what happened.


----------



## LamarButler (Apr 16, 2005)

My prediction is that Kobe stays a Laker.

I think all the expectations on Bynum has made him hungry and he's probably working on his game now. With this current roster, he's our best hope. We can't depend on Lamar or Kwame to change their games, or expect any of our other guys to contribute more than their talent allows. I predict he earns the starting spot 20 games in and averages 12, 9 and 2 blocks a game for the season. If this does happen, then it'll give the Lakers a real chance to make the 2nd round.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

jazzy1 said:


> I have to say I agree,I'm a kobe fan but for Kobe to say all I care about is winning earlier this summer is a BOLD FACE LIE, because he didn't say one word to keep Shaq here.


It goes both ways, in fact. What did Shaq to stay in LA? Whet did he do to patch the relantionship between both? Who was the older guy?



> Shaq here means the lakers make a couple more title runs. That should be undisputable no matter how you feel about Shaq.


Although the Lakers would still be contenders for a couple of years, it's reaonable to doubt they would win again. And the bottom line here is winning championships, not 5 or 6 more regular season games or going one or two more rounds in the playoffs.

If they had stayed together, how would Shaq had come to play? Why should we expect he would have put the effort he did in the off-season after been traded to the Heat? 



> I'm not sure it would have mattered had he spoke up for Shaq but using his leverage being the more valuable part of the 2 might have helped. Buss might not have risked losing Kobe.


Yes, Kobe speaking up could have helped. But i don't think Kobe would say the things Shaq wanted to hear, like "Shaq, don't go. This is YOUR team and we all know it. You are the Franchise player. We need you. I'll play second-fiddle quietly and never again adress your work ethic".

But in the end, it wouldn't have mattered, IMHO. Buss wasn't paying Shaq what he wanted.



> Kobe cares about winning NOW that he see's how hard it is by himself.


I don't think one can dispute Kobe's drive for success. All his career he has showned he wants to win badly. His crazy work-outs in the off season, his constant development of new aproaches to the game, etc., etc.. Buy yes, karma is a *****. And now Kobe is been asked to carry a franchise Shaq-like and now he sees how hard it is. 



> But I don't think its unreasonable for him to wanna climb the mountain as the 1st option. His legacy would have been all about Shaq being the man and his ego couldn't accept that.
> 
> He has been elevated in stature since Shaq left. But he knows he wants MJ type credit and that only comes with winning.


IMHO, this is the reason i fully expect Kobe will play like hell in the following season. In his mind, he knows that he can go to a superior team, with 1 or 2 other stars, be the Franchise player and win championships. But it wouldn't be the same as carrying the Shaqless Lakers to the championship. The challenge he has with the Lakers is enormous, and Kobe's the kind of guy to take it. Still, time is ticking and he still needs help on the roster. Hence, is frustration.



> But he can't keep spinning this I'd do anything to win crap when its clear he didn't.
> 
> I've come around to your side on this issue to a point.


We'll see this season what Kobe Bryant is all about. The Lakers roster is weak, but if everybody stays healthy, Kobe is the kind of player that can make things happen. And he knows, after his public diatribes about being traded, Laker fans expect him to put up or shut up. 

I'm expecting big things of Kobe this year.



> But lets be real Buss wasn't gonna pay Shaq and thats probably the bottome line. Kobe said Buss told him that in feb, when in fact when Shaq called Buss out in the preseason about PAY ME that relationship was a wrap then.


Yup. Let's be real, here. The Lakers are one of the most sucessfull sport franchises. i would bet my life that many people talked to Shaq about staying. Magic, Mitch, teammates, friends, whatever. But he wanted to get payed. And Buss wasn't going to break the bank for him. And only money could have made Shaq change his mind.


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

Eternal said:


> How do you know he didn't push to keep Shaq?... None of us will never know the truth, at least not for awhile. We may hear something about what really happened after Shaq and Kobe retired, possibly if someone writes a book or whatnot, but right now, no one knows what happened.


because of what kobe has said? oh, and what phil has said in his book too.

not to mention that the two were feuding for the most part of that year.. doubt kobe would have really said anything to keep shaq.


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

afobisme said:


> because of what kobe has said? oh, and what phil has said in his book too.
> 
> not to mention that the two were feuding for the most part of that year.. doubt kobe would have really said anything to keep shaq.


Kobe has never said he pushed to keep Shaq, or pushed to get rid of him.


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

Eternal said:


> Kobe has never said he pushed to keep Shaq, or pushed to get rid of him.


Quote from Kobe:



> I'm tired of being a sidekick.


He remarked that Shaq coming back would have an affect on his decision to return to LA, but not Phil. That's from the Last Season. I think that sums up how Kobe felt. With him saying that, it's hard for me to give him the benefit of the doubt when he claims that winning is everything and nothing else matters. For the record, I still think trading Shaq was the right decision, just not for the return we got.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Bartholomew Hunt said:


> Quote from Kobe:
> 
> 
> 
> He remarked that Shaq coming back would have an affect on his decision to return to LA, but not Phil. That's from the Last Season. I think that sums up how Kobe felt. With him saying that, it's hard for me to give him the benefit of the doubt when he claims that winning is everything and nothing else matters. For the record, I still think trading Shaq was the right decision, just not for the return we got.


History DOES repeat itself. 

Once upon a time, a guard with great potential entered the NBA to a team who had a larger-than-life superstar center with a bit of atitude. The guard, who only wanted to win, played the sidekick role for some years, till it was his time to shine. The Center understood it, and happyly (sp?) helped the young guard make their team win.

Kobe is Magic; Shaq is Kareem. What is the difference? One of them refused to play along to the sake of the team. 
Who was it?


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

Bartholomew Hunt said:


> Quote from Kobe:
> 
> 
> 
> He remarked that Shaq coming back would have an affect on his decision to return to LA, but not Phil. That's from the Last Season. I think that sums up how Kobe felt. With him saying that, it's hard for me to give him the benefit of the doubt when he claims that winning is everything and nothing else matters. For the record, I still think trading Shaq was the right decision, just not for the return we got.


We can imply it, doesn't mean he wanted Shaq out for sure.  Even though that's probably the case.

I'm glad we got rid of him regardless, even though like you I don't like what we got in return.


----------



## The One (Jul 10, 2005)

Bartholomew Hunt said:


> Quote from Kobe:
> 
> 
> 
> With him saying that, it's hard for me to give him the benefit of the doubt when he claims that winning is everything and nothing else matters. For the record, I still think trading Shaq was the right decision, just not for the return we got.


Assuming that we know whats going on, How come it can't be that Kobe thought Shaq was not doing his best to win games (overweight, demanding money ect.) In this case kobe decision is based on winning. You guys see Shaq and immediately declare that nobody should think of him as non-winning material. If that's how Kobe felt, (whether foolish or not), then he had winning on his mind. period.


----------



## nguyen_milan (Jun 28, 2005)

He said he didnt want to be a sidekick so what? Did that mean he want Shaq out? IMO it is only part of, he wanted to be a clear 1st option, not 1b behind a fat and lazy Center. And if Phil gave him that role I dont think he minded playing with Shaq, but Phil was always sided with Shaq and he was fed up with it.


----------



## dime (Aug 16, 2007)

kobe is the best player i have seen


----------



## LoyalBull (Jun 12, 2002)

A few things have to be conceded at this point.

1.) The Move of Shaq was largely Buss's decision. It was supposedly a "money" issue. However, the move of Shaquille has done little to decrease laker payroll (with the exception of the luxury tax amnestry rule that Grant provided). 

2.) Kobe likely would not have resigned with the Lakers had a deal with Shaq not taken place when it did. He "was a clipper" right until the trade with Shaquille went down. Then he was a Laker again. 

3.) Kobe has admitted that he was tired of playing in Shaq's shadow. Admitted the thing that drove him crazy was his peers saying they would have won a title if they played with Shaquille. Suffice to say... Kobe wasn't necessarily a DIRECT reason for Shaquille leaving... but he certainly did not contribute to him staying one iota.

4.) Kobe Plus Shaq (no matter who took the reigns) would have made the team competitive for the title for the last 3 years instead of 1 lotto trip and 2 first round ousters. 

5.) The Lakers faced a very real sceanrio 3 years ago where they would have traded Shaq and Kobe could have walked. They rolled the dice and were able to retain Kobe who has come into his prime as the best player in today's game. However, they very well may be facing the same scenario.

6.) Even in the title runs, Buss/Mitch were more fortunate that they had a combo of Shaq (best player in the game at the time) and Kobe (likely the 2nd best player in the game) and Phil (best coach in the game). Surrounding them with cagey vet role players was key. But lets not mistake that with proactivity to making the team "better". 

7.) Shaq long rued Mitch/Buss for not improving the team and counting on "him" to be GM as well. Which he did. The famous "pay me Motha______" got him loads of hate when demanding payment/help. Kobe is essentially finding out that Buss/Mitch have never been particuarlly proactive at increasing the talent base of this team as they have been raising ticket prices.

8.) Those that chided Shaq should be doing the same to Kobe. Both of the methods have a bit to be desired. However, one can assume that Buss's opinion on building a contender are a tad different than say Cuban's (rightfully so to some extent.)


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

Eternal said:


> Kobe has never said he pushed to keep Shaq, or pushed to get rid of him.


yeah, that's right.

the topic of discussion was whether kobe really wanted to win. jazzy said if he really wanted to win, he would have pushed to keep shaq. that was the whole point.



The One said:


> Assuming that we know whats going on, How come it can't be that Kobe thought Shaq was not doing his best to win games (overweight, demanding money ect.) In this case kobe decision is based on winning. You guys see Shaq and immediately declare that nobody should think of him as non-winning material. If that's how Kobe felt, (whether foolish or not), then he had winning on his mind. period.


well, they did get to the finals on a hobbled team.. plus kobe already won 3 championships with shaq.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

The One said:


> The Kobe Psychic  I believe you forgot to put a huge (IMO) next to this post. Like I said before, we do not know **** about what happend in the lakers camp then so stop acting like you do know.


Yeah okay bury your head in the Sand man. I'm a Kobe guy I've argued for Kobe in this place forever, I love the guy as a player he's my favorite in the game right now. But lets not be blind here. 

His rant this summer was total nonsense can we not even as fans see that. 

He wanted to win as option 1 he said so, how is that psychic, when he said I'm tired of being a sidekick wasn't that what he is saying.

Kobe's rant was driven by all the credit Lebron was getting for his big game against Detroit. 

There were no makeable deals this summer to make McHale wasn't gonna deal with us seriously and the Pacers are trying to rob us in the JO deal. So we're stuck. 

Mitch should have made moves the last couple years for Artest and Boozer but he balked because of money a directive Buss sent down and thats the nottomeline. 

So we are where we are, Kobe see's no real hope, PJ wants to coach but wants a real shot at the title and Lakers fans are left crossing their fingers Bynum becomes a phenom fast.


----------



## The One (Jul 10, 2005)

jazzy1 said:


> 1. Yeah okay bury your head in the Sand man. I'm a Kobe guy I've argued for Kobe in this place forever, I love the guy as a player he's my favorite in the game right now. But lets not be blind here.
> 
> 2. His rant this summer was total nonsense can we not even as fans see that.
> 
> ...


1. My head bury buried in Sand? I'd say it's more of me washing me hands of the matter. My stance has always been that 'I don't care' so I really haven't fully supported any side of this argument.


2. Total nonsense? Do you think that Buss did a good job these past years? - Becuase I beleive that was all Kobe was complaining about.


3. Your quotes were,


> ....for Kobe to say all I care about is winning earlier this summer is a BOLD FACE LIE, because he didn't say one word to keep Shaq here....


 AND


> ....Shaq here means the lakers make a couple more title runs. That should be undisputable no matter how you feel about Shaq...


 AND


> ...he can't keep spinning this I'd do anything to win crap when its clear he didn't...


 This is not a 'read between the lines' deal here; hense why I called you a psychic. We all know that Shaq on a team makes it competitve but that does not mean that Kobe felt that way. It could be posible that Kobe felt Shaq was a problem to their success, however very foolish, this would still shows a desire for perfection and winning.


> Kobe cares about winning NOW that he see's how hard it is by himself


 Another statement that needs an (IMO).


> His legacy would have been all about Shaq being the man and his ego couldn't accept that


do we really know this?


> But he knows he wants MJ type credit


 Again, do we really know? How do we know what Kobe really wants?


4. Can we say, speculation? this is another (IMO) statement of yours that should be noted.


5., 6., and 7. those statements right there show how Kobe's actions are not TOTAL nonsense. Whatever the reasons may be, kobe feels trapped on a bad team (think Charles Barkley).


The point I'm trying to make here is that nobody right now can declare anything true since we really do not know - unless you are a psychic


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

You can't really believe that Kobe thought Shaq was a problem bliocking the Lakers success,Thats more crazy and psychic than anything I said. 

Do you really believe with what Kobe said this summer that he thought the Lakers would be beter off with Shaq gone and brian grant and Chris Mihm as the center. 

If you believe Kobe believe's that your head is buried deep. 

One thing Kobe's never been is a stupid guy and if he believed that he is stupid and I've never heard Kobe described that way. 

Do we really know if Kobe's legacy would have been all about Shaq getting the credit for them winning titles I'd say a resounding yes, AI, Pierce, Tmac and others said these things over the years when Kobe was playing with Shaq so the general fan impression during that time was that Shaq was the catalyst and Kobe was a 2nd fiddle something he stated that he no longer wanted to be. 

And of course Kobe wants to be considered the greatest, he wants to follow in the MJ footsteps. 

And the Barkley argument is bogus, Charles never played on a great team he was trapped on a bad team being drated into a tough situation, Kobe put himself in the trap.


----------



## The One (Jul 10, 2005)

jazzy1 said:


> 1. You can't really believe that Kobe thought Shaq was a problem bliocking the Lakers success,Thats more crazy and psychic than anything I said.
> 
> 2. Do you really believe with what Kobe said this summer that he thought the Lakers would be beter off with Shaq gone and brian grant and Chris Mihm as the center. If you believe Kobe believe's that your head is buried deep.
> 
> ...


1. I was just *suggesting* an alternative because you were only using two things to support your claim: 1. Kobe's "I'm tired of being a Sidekick" quote and 2. Your conclusion that Shaq never blocks team success. What I did was took Kobe's "Lazy Shaq" description and showed how Kobe may have thought about shaq during that time(blocking team success). Even though that thinking is nonsense, it is still a possiblity; just like how Kobe only thinking about himself during that time is still a possiblity. We Just Don't Know.....

2. May you please rephrase this question?

3. true, but my concern was you statement that "his (Kobe's) ego couldn't except that". We Don't Know This.

4. We don't know this either. I'm sure quite a few people thought that Kobe's outburst was stupid.

5. You are looking at this at an ultimate perspective; the point is they both feel trapped on a bad team.


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

i remember coming across an article where kobe overtly lashes out against shaq.. i think it was in the 03-04 season near x-mas time. he said shaq was lazy, yet demanded the offense run through him and that was just unacceptable.. so yeah.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

OMG what is happening to my favorite sport?!? The athletes are a bunch of b#^&%@s and the refs fix the games...Oh boy


----------



## LoyalBull (Jun 12, 2002)

*4. One thing Kobe's never been is a stupid guy and if he believed that he is stupid and I've never heard Kobe described that way. *

The problem is... he has kind of insinuated that himself. Not stupid per say... but ignorant.

The problem I have with Kobe recently isn't so much demanding out (afterall, calling out the owner publically worked to move Shaq to a championship level team). Rather, it was with the feigned "I didn't know", "I have nothing to do with..." act.

Kobe basically is lashing out in regards to things most fans ALREADY knew. 

The "rebuild" wasn't really possible via the magical 2007,0r 2008 plan. That was mere public hope fodder to keep (apparently unwitting) fans from freaking out. 

It became painfully apparent (When Buss elected to take the amnesty cut for one year on Grant's deal rather than use it as a major trade piece) that Buss wasn't willing to spend in excess of the huge payroll he already had via the old Portland/Dallas/New York way of dealing expiring contracts and bringing in hefty long term deals for talented players.

Kobe wanted his own team, and he was impulsive enough to "believe" things that no one with half a basketball understanding of the CBA or their cap space situation could see? 

Where was hope to come from? 

Sure you can argue the Butler trade (which he apparently "didn't know" about).

Or the Kidd deal (which apparently "he had no input on".)

Or any number of situations where Kobe seeks to exclude himself from any knowledge or responsibility. 

As a leader, and as someone who wants to win... you must be accountable. And while Kobe has more than lived up to his "role" as a player, you don't get paid 140+ million (BY ANYONE) without it meaning that you are committed to the company/franchise/group.

I don't care that he is saying "we need to improve"... but thats not what he is saying.

He is saying... "I was lied too", "I don't know", "I don't ahve any power", "I didn't see this coming"... AND I WANT OUT!.

Thing is... when are we supposed to believe that Kobe (a smart guy) finally "wised up" to the state of the franchise, the level of talent and the fianncials behind the cap flexabililty the franchise has to manuver?

"This summer"? Mid-way through last year? 3 seasons ago?

The act of saying "who me?" "didn't know" "I was fooled" is simply an act of an individual who is seperating himself from accountability. Its basically "I want out" when the realties (directly OR indirectly) of the state of the franchise have a TON to do with the realities (over the years) of Kobe Bryant.

His "I didn't know and I wised up" act wears thin as it insults the intellegence of those that know that he HAD to know what WE knew at the very minimum. How can Kobe NOT have known what any astute basketball fan could have told him? The feigned ignorance of this to provide a "poor me, this is why I want out" is what is most offensive.

In the end, Kobe knew the realtities ahead of time. Knew the money situation. Knew what talent was on the roster. Knew the character of the people he signed a 140 million dollar deal with (as he just saw how they treated Shaq). The reality was that Kobe didn't think any of that was mattered. Kobe thought (as great ones do) that he could overcome them.

But he was wrong. So in the end its not "I didn't know, and I want out" as much as it is "I was wrong, and I want out."

While that seems a slight difference in concept... it makes all the difference in accountability and reasonability to offer the rationales he has as an excuse to want out.

Thats what makes his statements (to the fan) so insulting. Not so much "I don't have help and I want to win" but the statements of "I didn't know".

Of course you did Kobe. You just thought you were good enough to overcome those issues.

3 straight years without a playoff advancement tends to change that perception.


----------



## KDOS (Nov 29, 2005)

Bartholomew Hunt said:


> Exactly. I'm not buying the fact that they trot out Kobe to put fans in the seats. Why pay Phil 10 million per year if that's the case? That doesn't make any sense..


Why not? Lakers' franchise like any other franchise thrives on stars. Its Hollywood and Buss has a an objective to fill seats in the Staples, and no other superstar in this era can do this better than Kobe and no other coach has a much more attractive resume than Phil. Jeanie Buss has mentioned this, the fact that Kobe stays as a Laker automatically generates millions of revenues from their fans.


So now, why hire one of the greatest coach in this era and pay him 10 million a year? Well then, why sign the best player primed for championship and surround him with incapable youngsters, when its clear as a day that supposedly, the team's priorities is to win now.


See, the Front Office has been contradicting every move they make. They know full well, that a group of Smush,Kwame,Luke Walton Lamar Odom is not going to get them any further, especially in the deep and mighty west. 



The very moment LA F/O has decided not to trade Andrew Bynum for Jason Kidd established the fact that they are building for the future. And to me that is a blatant move compromising the very reason why they signed two heavyweights at the first place.


Boston got it right. Paul Pierce who is within Kobe's caliber threathened the team with a trade, and 2 months after that Ainge surrounded him with Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen and has recently signed James Posey. They rolled the dice and took a gamble. Can we honestly say that the front office took such a risk?




Bartholomew Hunt said:


> Mitch/Buss/etc decided a while ago to build a team through a collection of a role players and allow them to build chemistry together.


Whatever, its clear after the first season under Jackson that changes needs to be made. Its not just a matter of signing Radmanovic either. 




Bartholomew Hunt said:


> Look at any multiple championship team and you will see that the collection of players had plenty of time to gel..


Chemistry is important, but talent is equally needed when building a championship team. You dont sign a few d-leaguer type of players, cross your fingers and hope for Kobe to carry the load alone.




Bartholomew Hunt said:


> Kobe shouldn't be *****ing about the front office not putting together a winner when they stood by him and assisted him during the rape trial. Seems kind of ****ty.


 *Kobe was accused. Of course they would support him. It would be to the best interest of the team to support Kobe. Its standard, I dont think any team out there would not support their respective athletes given the situation arises...being convicted is another thing.


At the end of the day, ask youself


Do you feel shotchanged by Kobe's ability to perform or by the managements inability to surround him with capable role players?


----------



## KDOS (Nov 29, 2005)

nguyen_milan said:


> He said he didnt want to be a sidekick so what? Did that mean he want Shaq out? IMO it is only part of, he wanted to be a clear 1st option, not 1b behind a fat and lazy Center. And if Phil gave him that role I dont think he minded playing with Shaq, but Phil was always sided with Shaq and he was fed up with it.



This is something people have been overlooking numerous times just to prove their case.


Kobe said he does not want to be a sidekick anymore, well whats wrong with that? Shaq has been the numero uno option for the Lakers. Its apparent that Kobe is ready for prime time and take this team under his wing, and all Shaq had to say is "I dont have any problem with that"...


Shaq then decided that the Lakers, regardless will still be his team. So he got shipped, and what happens? he then willingly bowed down to a much younger and less proven player in Wade? Non Sense.


I mean, c'mon now. There should be brotherhood from the get go. Shaq could've easily come to Phil and Kobe and say "y'know what, Kobe's a very capable player to lead this team, I dont mind taking a backseat from a player who went though countless battles with me. I had my glory, now he can have his"


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

KOBEDUNKEDONSHAQ said:


> Why not? Lakers' franchise like any other franchise thrives on stars. Its Hollywood and Buss has a an objective to fill seats in the Staples, and no other superstar in this era can do this better than Kobe and no other coach has a much more attractive resume than Phil. Jeanie Buss has mentioned this, the fact that Kobe stays as a Laker automatically generates millions of revenues from their fans.
> 
> 
> So now, why hire one of the greatest coach in this era and pay him 10 million a year? Well then, why sign the best player primed for championship and surround him with incapable youngsters, when its clear as a day that supposedly, the team's priorities is to win now.


Again, people do not come to the game to see Phil Jackson. They generate revenue from Kobe, but Phil?



> See, the Front Office has been contradicting every move they make. They know full well, that a group of Smush,Kwame,Luke Walton Lamar Odom is not going to get them any further, especially in the deep and mighty west.


I agree, there is no way that group will get us deep into the West. To say that the front office knows full and well that it won't work is assuming a lot. Management is inept, we know that. The point that I tried to make that you missed was that the front office believes they are doing what it takes to build a contender. That point alone shows that they are not simply using Kobe to generate revenue. Whether or not we AGREE that the Lakers are properly building a contender is completely irrelevant.



> The very moment LA F/O has decided not to trade Andrew Bynum for Jason Kidd established the fact that they are building for the future. And to me that is a blatant move compromising the very reason why they signed two heavyweights at the first place.


This I completely disagree with. In order to complete that deal, Kwame would have to be included. That's both C's for Kidd. Let's have a look at the lineup.

C - Turiaf
PF - Odom, Cook, Radmanovic(injured at the time)
SF - Luke, Evans
SG - Kobe, Smush, Sasha
PG - Kidd, Farmar, Shammond

The Nets struggled in the East because of their thin frontcourt. In the West, this frontcourt gets absolutely raped. With Kidd's albatross contract, the Lakers have very little flexibility with the roster to add the necessary frontcourt pieces(much like the Nets). We're stuck. I thought we were trying to win championships?



> Boston got it right. Paul Pierce who is within Kobe's caliber threathened the team with a trade, and 2 months after that Ainge surrounded him with Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen and has recently signed James Posey. They rolled the dice and took a gamble. Can we honestly say that the front office took such a risk?


Paul Pierce has made these threats to no avail in the past. His threat had very little to do with the Celtics making that trade. I'll tell you what may have influenced it. Danny Ainge dangerously close to the axe. Doc Rivers dangerously close to the axe. Factor in an old buddy of Danny named Kevin McHale, who is going to lose his job regardless after this season, and you have a nice one-sided trade. Bad example.




> Whatever, its clear after the first season under Jackson that changes needs to be made. Its not just a matter of signing Radmanovic either.


Give me a break. I was one of the very few who called for changes. Everybody else was gung-ho about this core after a very strong second half and a near victory over the Suns in the first round. Add in a healthy Mihm, improved Luke, supposed sharpshooter in Radmanovic, supposedly improved Kwame, a more confident and refined Odom, and another year under the triangle for everybody. People were EXCITED about this team at the beginning of this past season and still were into the 26-13 start. It was a much different tune. Things were steadily moving in the right direction, and the front office supposedly doesn't care about winning? Come on now. Nobody was jumping off the bridge until just a few months ago. Don't act like this has been building over time. 



> Chemistry is important, but talent is equally needed when building a championship team. You dont sign a few d-leaguer type of players, cross your fingers and hope for Kobe to carry the load alone.


I agree with this. However, I don't think this lineup was Kobe a few D-Leaguers. That is vastly overexaggerating and does nothing for the arguement. See my reasoning above for why the front office may have felt things were moving in the right direction.



> *Kobe was accused. Of course they would support him. It would be to the best interest of the team to support Kobe. Its standard, I dont think any team out there would not support their respective athletes given the situation arises...being convicted is another thing.


Right. Kobe should not feel an ounce of loyalty towards the Lakers because they simply followed procedure and obligation by supporting him.  I'd say they stepped way out of their boundaries to help out the star.




> At the end of the day, ask youself
> 
> 
> Do you feel shotchanged by Kobe's ability to perform or by the managements inability to surround him with capable role players?


Instead I'll ask myself, do I feel shortchanged by the fact that Kobe once again alienated(mainly the fans) everybody to get his way. I love his game and the excitement he has brought me over the years. I have always taken his back when controversey has repeatedly followed him. I'm tired of it. Kobe Bryant is not bigger than this organization. Some fans obviously think so. My top preference would be to put a much better cast around Kobe and put the trophy back where it belongs. Hopefully management can do it, but it's not like we have a whole lot of leverage right now.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> It goes both ways, in fact. What did Shaq to stay in LA? Whet did he do to patch the relantionship between both? Who was the older guy?


Again, people say the name Shaq and people get off track.

Who cares what Shaq did or didn't do to get out of LA? Kobe is the one claiming he only cares about winning, therefore he should of done everything he reasonably could of to keep Diesel.... or at least make SOME effort.

It's like if Kidd was a free agent and Kupchak did nothing to try to recruit him. Would you say it "went both ways Kupchak wasn't convincing and Kidd didn't do anything to come here" or be pissed at Kupchak for making no effort to win?


----------



## KDOS (Nov 29, 2005)

Bartholomew Hunt said:


> Again, people do not come to the game to see Phil Jackson. They generate revenue from Kobe, but Phil?.


Phil Jackson's arrival, confirms stability. And the fans were all longing for one after one very disastrous season in where we see Hamblem and Tomnajovich took a shot in coaching this team.

I remember there was a poll back then, and an overwhelming response from season ticketholders was to bring back Jackson. One way or another, I feel his addition along with Kobe's firepower has a lot to do with the fans further support of the franchise.





Bartholomew Hunt said:


> I agree, there is no way that group will get us deep into the West. To say that the front office knows full and well that it won't work is assuming a lot..


Not at all. You're not a GM. Ill assume here for a minute that you're not an NBA scout either, among others. But its crystal clear that even on a fan's point of view such as yourself and you look at this team, you know that this team has absolutely no chance in winning the title.


But then people will often say, well they can make the playoffs, but honestly, is this what defines this franchise? A playoff team?


Dont tell me its irrelevant, because if you're satisfied with a playoff appearance, then you need to sort out priorities as a fan.





Bartholomew Hunt said:


> Whether or not we AGREE that the Lakers are properly building a contender is completely irrelevant.


The odds of a 7-8 seed team winning the championship is far and beyond the boundaries of reality in this league.

Dont tell me its irrelevant, because if you're satisfied with a playoff appearance, then you need to sort out priorities as a fan.




Bartholomew Hunt said:


> This I completely disagree with. In order to complete that deal, Kwame would have to be included. That's both C's for Kidd. Let's have a look at the lineup.
> 
> C - Turiaf
> PF - Odom, Cook, Radmanovic(injured at the time)
> ...


Jason Collins was offered as well from what I heard. I was an advocate of denying the trade due to the fact that I hate how NJ was treating our offer.
But looking at how effective Kidd has been, there are times where I wish LA took the bait and 



Bartholomew Hunt said:


> I thought we were trying to win championships?
> 
> So in that case, we hope for the best that Kwame would turn into a 15 and 10guy?
> 
> ...


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

KOBEDUNKEDONSHAQ said:


> Phil Jackson's arrival, confirms stability. And the fans were all longing for one after one very disastrous season in where we see Hamblem and Tomnajovich took a shot in coaching this team.
> 
> I remember there was a poll back then, and an overwhelming response from season ticketholders was to bring back Jackson. One way or another, I feel his addition along with Kobe's firepower has a lot to do with the fans further support of the franchise.


Great. The idea all along was to place a mediocre team out onto the floor and make money off of Kobe while keeping the fans fooled because Phil was hired. I'll buy it.




> Not at all. You're not a GM. Ill assume here for a minute that you're not an NBA scout either, among others. But its crystal clear that even on a fan's point of view such as yourself and you look at this team, you know that this team has absolutely no chance in winning the title.


To the vast majority of us, yes it is clear. We have already come to the conclusion that management is inept, so why is it so far-fetched to believe that the team put together with time and growth(developed into chemistry) could not contend for a championship(IN MANAGEMENT'S EYES, NOT MINE). 



> But then people will often say, well they can make the playoffs, but honestly, is this what defines this franchise? A playoff team?
> 
> 
> Dont tell me its irrelevant, because if you're satisfied with a playoff appearance, then you need to sort out priorities as a fan.


You're completely missing my point. We are debating whether or not management believes this team can eventually contend for a championship. If they do believe it, then it disproves the accusations of simply putting on a Kobe show to generate revenue. THEREFORE, our opinion on whether or not this team can contend is indeed irrelevant to this discussion. Never once have I ever insinuated that I'm satisfied with playoff appearances. Do not put words in my mouth.



> Jason Collins was offered as well from what I heard. I was an advocate of denying the trade due to the fact that I hate how NJ was treating our offer.
> But looking at how effective Kidd has been, there are times where I wish LA took the bait


You are right, there are times when I wish we would have made that trade. Kidd spoonfeeding the ball to Kobe would have been magical at times. But it was not a no-brainer like everyone makes it out to be for the very reasons I posted above. 



> So in that case, we hope for the best that Kwame would turn into a 15 and 10guy?


Huh? I've been screaming all along that Kwame's expiring contract should be used as trade bait. But not along with Bynum for guards. The last thing we need is to try to win the West with guards and Brian Cook like players in the frontcourt.



> LOL. Pierce signed his extension not even two years ago. he has never asked or demanded a trade
> 
> Paul has expressed his concern and his state as a Celtic, but its the first time he actually went all out ala Kobe this summer by telling his agent that if he does not get another star quality type of player, he would ask for Ainge for a trade. This is actually a good example of how LA should treat this Kobe situation even before all this hoopla occured. But now its too late.


Exactly what deals would you have done this summer? Bynum/Odom for O'Neal? We weren't getting Garnett because of the McHale/Ainge connection. I still stand by the fact that Ainge and Rivers agreed to pull the trigger to save their jobs. If Kupchak were facing that sort of pressure(and he was calling the shots over Jim), similar things would happen. I hardly see Pierce's public demands in the same light as Kobe's. When Kobe said, "do something, and do it now." I wasn't too upset. The radio tour was way over the top. We had ZERO leverage whatsoever unless you would rather make desperation moves.



> Oh you mean, the thread you made last year early season,ranting about trading Kwame? That change?


WTF ever dude. Go bump that thread and see the basis of it. Ranting my ***. At the time, Mihm was close to a comeback(before his ankle failed again) and Bynum was emerging early in the season. I pitched the fact that we jump the gun and trade Kwame's close to expiring contract because we were possibly going to have two serviceable C's(three if you count Turiaf in spot minutes). Funny how people seem to agree with that now.




> Its natural for fans to support the team when their winning, despite of it all. There was always a room for improvement. You dont really expect that fans to moan and b*tch when their playing winning basketball, dont you?


Umm... Yes. My point was that this was not budding over time. A lot of people were very satisfied with the moves and non-moves management had made to steadily improve the team. My point is that now people are acting like Mitch and company have sat on their asses perfectly content with mediocrity when in reality, quite a few people were actually satisfied with the PROGRESS. I'll go ahead and exclude myself as one of these people.



> Ok maybe I was being polite, so now Ill just forget that and lay out the facts.Kobe was playing with a healthy mix of D Leaguer class type of players, busts and one a bunch of athletes who cannot execute the very fundamentals of the game. Smush is one of them, he made huge strides but quickly went back into his useless kind of form. We have Kwame, whose been nothing but great, this guys is the real deal, we should offer an extension BTW. Cook one of the best rebounding and shooting big man. Vujacic, the euro sensation who is steadily proving the domainating presence of european trend. We also have a very talented guard but obviously not ready to handle the pressure that comes along in running the point for a team, when Smush decides that he's not going to play. Our biggest and brightest asset was 19 y/o and could barely play 20 mins of high level basketball.
> 
> 
> Tell me, is this your idea of a championship team?


Not sure what the point of this is. I never claimed that this was a championship team. There are a few D-League quality players on this team, but to call it Kobe and a collection of them is a huge stretch. You named off a few scrubs, great. Look around the rosters. Nearly every team has them. We don't have any second-tier players, but this team is not completely comprised of scrubs. I'm certainly not satisfied with it. Again, when things were going well, nearly everybody thought this group was headed in the right direction. There was even a time where everybody was hanging on Bynum's nutsac and he was completely untouchable. Fickle.




> What do you expect, Kobe is the biggest name on the FA market the following year. This league is all about the money, and if Kobe is proven not guilty (and he was) its only right that the Lakers shows all the support now in order for them to have any other leverage in gaining and winning him back.


Right. The intentions were self-indulging, so Kobe owes no loyalty whatsoever.




> When has Kobe alienated the fans in such a major scale like this? I cant seem to remember. And dont take it personally, Kobe has'nt stolen your source of livelihood. if anything He's just merely shaking things up when its obvious that the team's eyes,ears and mouth are not functioning to its appropriate level.
> 
> 
> Kobe's exposing the very reason why this organization is not in good hands (Jim Buss). No one said that he's bigger than this franchise, but when one of the main character involved in operation is in the act of digressing, I think we should all at least give him credit for that.


Kobe is a pretty aloof, that should be no secret. That's what I mean by alienating everybody. The Odom article that came out this past summer where Lamar said something to the effect of, "Kobe called me, so I knew something had to be wrong." Read the article for the full context of the quote. Kobe has sold it to everybody that these two are fire and ice, such great friends. Why lie? I've never seen him take responsibility for a mistake or bad game. He'll throw someone else under the bus before doing that(blaming everyone else when Wade torched LA and he shot horribly). Now, the guy cannot do everything like he's been asked to do so many times. That's not fair. But at show an ounce of humility once in a while(and dont act it for the cameras). And you're right, Kobe is not stealing my livelihood. What he does should not affect me. Tell that to hordes of other Lakers fans. It's pretty much Lakers fan suicide to criticize Kobe you know. I'm not talking about being an idiot troll like we've dealt with for so long, but he really has become immuned to everything negative.


----------



## The One (Jul 10, 2005)

Bartholomew Hunt said:


> That's not fair. But at show an ounce of humility once in a while(and dont act it for the cameras).


If that's the case, Kobe will never be able to prove his humility showing...since we only see him on camera


----------



## KDOS (Nov 29, 2005)

Bartholomew Hunt said:


> Great. The idea all along was to place a mediocre team out onto the floor and make money off of Kobe while keeping the fans fooled because Phil was hired. I'll buy it.


Great, so the idea all along was to sign Kobe and bring Phil, surround them with mediocre and inexperienced players, watch as all the other elite teams in the West keeps on improving, reaching all areas to make sure their 50-60 win team improve even further, while the Lakers a 40 win team should be happy and content,refusing to make a deal even when a sensible one is on the table. That sounds like a plan. But I wont buy it.






Bartholomew Hunt said:


> To the vast majority of us, yes it is clear. We have already come to the conclusion that management is inept, so why is it so far-fetched to believe that the team put together with time and growth(developed into chemistry) could not contend for a championship(IN MANAGEMENT'S EYES, NOT MINE)..


Well since you agree, dont you think its also far fetch to believe that LA of all franchise has not been very active with their Off season moves? Seriously now, for a team _supposedly_ gunning for a chip, I could say they are non chalant and has been taking the teams lack of depth very lightly. Dallas, Phoenix, Houston, even Denver are all making sure that some major changes are made. 







Bartholomew Hunt said:


> You're completely missing my point. We are debating whether or not management believes this team can eventually contend for a championship. If they do believe it, then it disproves the accusations of simply putting on a Kobe show to generate revenue. THEREFORE, our opinion on whether or not this team can contend is indeed irrelevant to this discussion. Never once have I ever insinuated that I'm satisfied with playoff appearances. Do not put words in my mouth..


Im not missing your point. And Im not going to stick for what I clearly see is not . Circa 1990-2003





Bartholomew Hunt said:


> You are right, there are times when I wish we would have made that trade. Kidd spoonfeeding the ball to Kobe would have been magical at times. But it was not a no-brainer like everyone makes it out to be for the very reasons I posted above.


Well that at least settles it. I wish the management just did it, Kidd,Odom,Kobe sounds like fun.








Bartholomew Hu Exactly what deals would you have done this nt said:


> summer? Bynum/Odom for O'Neal?


See this is the reason why the Lakers are in such a mess.


F/O disregarded a lot of opportunity when they had a chance to make this a winning team. Now when they lost all leverage, they represent an organization with no structure and no cap relief.




Bartholomew Hunt said:


> We weren't getting Garnett because of the McHale/Ainge connection. I still stand by the fact that Ainge and Rivers agreed to pull the trigger to save their jobs. If Kupchak were facing that sort of pressure(and he was calling the shots over Jim), similar things would happen. I hardly see Pierce's public demands in the same light as Kobe's. When Kobe said, "do something, and do it now." I wasn't too upset. The radio tour was way over the top. We had ZERO leverage whatsoever unless you would rather make desperation moves.


I never said we are getting Garnett. I dont even know why his name was somehow brought up in this debate. I was merely setting an example how one team can make changes over night if they wish to. I dont even know why Mitch's decision power was dragged here as well, when we all know that Kupchak has as much authority as the next poster in this board.


The team has ZERO leverage because of the management's refusal to set their priorities to begin with. Buss has been dictating what's wrong and what's right. And from what I heard...he's not very fond of Mr.Bryant. And with that in effect, I can honestly say that they really have no intention of building around Bryant anymore. 




Bartholomew Hunt said:


> WTF ever dude. Go bump that thread and see the basis of it. Ranting my *** at that time


Well that thread was relly pre mature. You were ranting about Kwame early into the season. I agree with you about your concern, but man your timing is way off...






Bartholomew Hunt said:


> Not sure what the point of this is. I never claimed that this was a championship team. There are a few D-League quality players on this team, but to call it Kobe and a collection of them is a huge stretch.


I was just reiterating my point since you want specifics. I could actually keep on going but I dont have time.



Bartholomew Hunt said:


> You named off a few scrubs, great. Look around the rosters.



LOL. Since the very definitive purpose of this debate is winning a championship, why dont you take a look at the roster and tell me how many of these players are really qualified for contention.


Sure every basket has its own bad apples, but in this case, a lot of our bad apples are being relied upon to make key contributions.




Bartholomew Hunt said:


> Nearly every team has them. We don't have any second-tier players, but this team is not completely comprised of scrubs..


I never said they are a bunch of scrubs, sometimes, when I write a exage a bit, but seriously here, when the team's second scoring option refuses to be more productive offensively, you are then left to rely at a 6th man type of player to take over after Kobe, after then you would have to question the teams's overall stand, and unable to resisit the urge to ask help yourself ...why are we still the same team?







Bartholomew Hunt said:


> Right. The intentions were self-indulging, so Kobe owes no loyalty whatsoever.


What more loyalty do you want? He comes in tip top shape with the exception of last year when he went through a surgery. He's a good model citizen and has been expanding youth services throughout the world. Whether its for his own good, it does'nt matter. What people should remember is that he comes in shape, ready to play. All that other thing should'nt matter, and plus Kobe signed with the Lakers didnt he?







Bartholomew Hunt said:


> Kobe is a pretty aloof, that should be no secret. That's what I mean by alienating everybody.


So what? Why does his aloofness bother you? Do you hang with him everY weekends? Who cares, also first you said he alienated the fans again, but now you're including everybody.

He comes to play in the court End of story. It should'nt really matter to us how he acts in his personal time.



Bartholomew Hunt said:


> The Odom article that came out this past summer where Lamar said something to the effect of, "Kobe called me, so I knew something had to be wrong." Read the article for the full context of the quote. Kobe has sold it to everybody that these two are fire and ice, such great friends. Why lie? I've never seen him take responsibility for a mistake or bad game. He'll throw someone else under the bus before doing that(blaming everyone else when Wade torched LA and he shot horribly). Now, the guy cannot do everything like he's been asked to do so many times. That's not fair. But at show an ounce of humility once in a while(and dont act it for the cameras). And you're right, Kobe is not stealing my livelihood. What he does should not affect me. Tell that to hordes of other Lakers fans. It's pretty much Lakers fan suicide to criticize Kobe you know. I'm not talking about being an idiot troll like we've dealt with for so long, but he really has become immuned to everything negative.


Whatever man. I just dont really care much about what these articles say. For the most part it is written and its set-up to people to use their own interpretation. Each and every writer has their own agenda. Sometimes, people are just reading too much between the lines.

Also Kobe has every right to criticize, afterall he's the leader, the captain and the best player on this squad, almost every given night. Sure he's not flwaless, but his positive impact far outweighs the negative. No one here can honestly say that the team has lost games because of Kobe, nn fact its the other way around.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Again, people say the name Shaq and people get off track.
> 
> Who cares what Shaq did or didn't do to get out of LA? Kobe is the one claiming he only cares about winning, therefore he should of done everything he reasonably could of to keep Diesel.... or at least make SOME effort.
> 
> It's like if Kidd was a free agent and Kupchak did nothing to try to recruit him. Would you say it "went both ways Kupchak wasn't convincing and Kidd didn't do anything to come here" or be pissed at Kupchak for making no effort to win?


The only thing that matters in winning is the title, to Kobe, and to most Laker fans (I could be wrong), not winning a few more games in the regular season and getting nowhere. You are again making an assumption (one I think is completely wrong) that Shaq at 30 mm at his shape and attitude would have made that more likely.

If Kobe had insisted on keeping Shaq, that would have showed to me that he felt it was better to keep the status quo and hide behind someone's shadow even if he knew it meant for the remainder of any contract shaq stayed, the lakers would have had no shot at the title.

The only mistake the Lakers made, was not trading shaq earlier and getting more value (I made countless posts about this, but they should have traded him about Shaq's comments about delaying his surgery because he was on "company time").


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> Again, people say the name Shaq and people get off track.
> 
> Who cares what Shaq did or didn't do to get out of LA? Kobe is the one claiming he only cares about winning, therefore he should of done everything he reasonably could of to keep Diesel.... or at least make SOME effort.


I don't get your point about "winning" and "keeping Shaq". I don't know if it's what you are emplying, but i'd bet Kobe WASN'T thinking at the time something like: "heck, i want my own team, so i don't care if Shaq splits and the Lakers become a mediocre team for severall seasons"... And THAT would, indeed, fit your reasoning...
Fact is that the Lakers didn't get eqaul value for Shaq in the trade. And that is what made the team lose after it. Kobe didn't have much say in the matter (regarding player swaps), i assume...

Fact is (IMHO), if the Lakers did recieve equal value in the trade (say, something the likes of JKidd and (an healthy) Kenyon Martin - for argument's sake), wouldn't the Lakers still be championship contenders? 

IMHO, your whole "Kobe doesn't care about winning because he didn't do a thing to keep Shaq" reasoning would fly IF Kobe, AT THE TIME, prefered being The Man in a losing team than trying to keep Shaq. I don't have ANY evidence that it was Kobe's train of thought. Do you have any?


----------



## HallOfFamer (May 26, 2003)

He has the most talent in the world, best skillset, top 5 as far as bad attitudes go though.


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

KOBEDUNKEDONSHAQ said:


> Great, so the idea all along was to sign Kobe and bring Phil, surround them with mediocre and inexperienced players, watch as all the other elite teams in the West keeps on improving, reaching all areas to make sure their 50-60 win team improve even further, while the Lakers a 40 win team should be happy and content,refusing to make a deal even when a sensible one is on the table. That sounds like a plan. But I wont buy it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was just trying to argue the fact that management feels that this core can contend. We all obviously disagree with that.


----------

