# When do we trade kobe



## ii9ce (Feb 1, 2005)

lakers traded shaq, housten traded hakeem, newyork trade ewing, jazz malone ..the list gose on.

most franchises make a decision when they think they'v got all they can out of their superstar. they either trade for an up and coming star or go into rebuild mode. 

i was just wondering how far into the futrue do you guys think the lakers franchise will be willing to trust the rigns to kobe. when will they start thinking of drafting or trading for the next franchise player. 

or have they already in Bynum?


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Yeah, Bynum could certainly be considered their attempt at their next franchise player. I think they're always looking for that other superstar, as any team that wants to win championships is. That's just a given. 

As far as Kobe is concerned, from what I can gather (no-trade clause, Jerry Buss' comments), Kobe isn't going anywhere anytime soon barring a catastrophic injury.


----------



## kamego (Dec 29, 2003)

Kobe will play out this current contract atleast, maybe even longer with LAL. After trading Shaq and I don't see any Laker offical giving up on Kobe any time soon.


----------



## clien (Jun 2, 2005)

yeah, i think kobe will retire a laker and go out much like reggie did


----------



## ii9ce (Feb 1, 2005)

clien said:


> yeah, i think kobe will retire a laker and go out much like reggie did


kobe's game is about slashing and cuting, reggie's style of coming off screens made is easier for him last longer in the L. 

kobe puts a lot of pressure on him body, i hope he last as long as reggie. i dought it tho


----------



## The One (Jul 10, 2005)

Kobe is not going anywhere...or at least I hope not because that bynum pick made me think about what their plan is. Maybe if Phil and kobe don't get along they could trade Kobe and still have a franchise player in the making. hhmm...raises an eyebrow doesn't it


----------



## LamarButler (Apr 16, 2005)

> kobe's game is about slashing and cuting, reggie's style of coming off screens made is easier for him last longer in the L.


Well Reggie's style is a lot more tiring while Kobe's style would cause more injuries.


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

lakers wont trade kobe, he will walk away as a free agent in 5 years from now


----------



## Unique (Apr 13, 2005)

Cris said:


> lakers wont trade kobe, he will walk away as a free agent in 5 years from now


lakers sign him to a 7 year deal...how can he walk away..


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

they signed him a 6 year deal with a player option for the 7th, he signed that last year subtract one year and you have 5 years left

and he wont exercise that option... well i guess we have to see his worth 5 years down the road... 24,806,250 is a lot of dough


----------



## NOODLESTYLE (Jan 20, 2005)

when we trade for Lebron James.


----------



## SoCalfan21 (Jul 19, 2004)

ii9ce said:


> lakers traded shaq, housten traded hakeem, newyork trade ewing, jazz malone ..the list gose on.
> 
> most franchises make a decision when they think they'v got all they can out of their superstar. they either trade for an up and coming star or go into rebuild mode.
> 
> ...


well the day the lakers trade kobe will indeed be the day mcdonalds and burger king merge into one

PS: Jazz didnt trade malone


----------



## Shady* (Jul 3, 2005)

He Will Retire In La
Mark My Words


----------



## AUNDRE (Jul 11, 2005)

NOODLESTYLE said:


> when we trade for Lebron James.


hahaha

Lebrons comin to play wit our team in 2 years.................. U Mad???


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

He'll be traded when he stops making his teammates better....er wait that's how it is now.....

He'll be traded when he can't win a title without the help of another superstar....er wait again that's how it is now. 


Seriously I think he'll test the free agent market as soon as he can again because like it or not, Kobe so far has been all about Kobe. I think he'll end up going to a team that is contending, maybe that's the Lakers though, so maybe he'll stay.


----------



## onelakerfan (Nov 11, 2004)

This thread was made by a Laker hater, it should be CLOSED. No more of this BS


----------



## H.O.V.A. (Jul 13, 2005)

Once Laker fans stop overrating him as the next G.O.A.T.

Which won't be happening for quite some time.


----------



## clien (Jun 2, 2005)

fEDITu


----------



## ii9ce (Feb 1, 2005)

onelakerfan said:


> This thread was made by a Laker hater, it should be CLOSED. No more of this BS


for your info, am actually huge lakers fan, have been since show time with magic j. 

unlike yourself, i believe a franchise is bigger than any one player, even kobe. at some point the lakers will need to look out for its on interest/future.

dont get me wrong, i love kobe and i dont think there is a bigger talent out there, but i love the lakers more and if there comes a time when kobe can no longer produce and we have the opportunity to bring in the next/future franchise player at his expense, we have to do it. :brokenhea


----------



## The One (Jul 10, 2005)

Wow, I feel bad...because Kobe was the main reason why I am a Laker fan :shy:


----------



## Lakers Own (Mar 3, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> He'll be traded when he stops making his teammates better....er wait that's how it is now.....
> 
> He'll be traded when he can't win a title without the help of another superstar....er wait again that's how it is now.
> 
> ...


Don't hate on our team just cause yours sucks. It's been a year without Shaq.


----------



## MarioChalmers (Mar 26, 2004)

clien said:


> yeah, i think kobe will retire a laker and go out much like reggie did


What do you mean? He'll go out losing? Well, I agree. 

Seriously though, what kind of Kobe team do you guys see winning a championship? I mean, put decent support players around Kobe, and I still don't see the Lakers winning a championship. He needs someone else, someone he can defer to. Dare I say, Kobe would be a second option on a championship team.


----------



## Unique (Apr 13, 2005)

can sum body close this thread...laker haters are juss comin here and spamming it up


----------



## shobe42 (Jun 21, 2002)

gian said:


> What do you mean? He'll go out losing? Well, I agree.
> 
> Seriously though, what kind of Kobe team do you guys see winning a championship? I mean, put decent support players around Kobe, and I still don't see the Lakers winning a championship. He needs someone else, someone he can defer to. Dare I say, Kobe would be a second option on a championship team.


if we want championship advice a heat fan would probably not be the right person to ask


----------



## onelakerfan (Nov 11, 2004)

shobe42 said:


> if we want championship advice a heat fan would probably not be the right person to ask


ya, a I'm a laker fan and i got question, ya hmm, how do you win a ring, heat


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

gian said:


> What do you mean? He'll go out losing? Well, I agree.
> 
> Seriously though, what kind of Kobe team do you guys see winning a championship? I mean, put decent support players around Kobe, and I still don't see the Lakers winning a championship. He needs someone else, someone he can defer to. Dare I say, Kobe would be a second option on a championship team.


He'll probably do much, much better than Wade and the Heat, be it this year or 10 years in the future.


----------



## LA68 (Apr 3, 2004)

Shaq is the only great one they did trade. I don't get this thread at all. You can't compare the Lakers to loser franchises. Kareem, Magic, Worthy,West, Chamberlain, Mikan.. They all retired Lakers. The Celtics were the same way. 

Notice the Heat have not signed Shaq yet ??? As time goes by, people will see the reasons the big man was dealt.


----------



## MarioChalmers (Mar 26, 2004)

Is this Laker mentality? So what, I'm a Heat fan, does that permit people to bash me when I talk about the Lakers seriously? 

And yes, those comments are uncalled for and stupid.


----------



## MarioChalmers (Mar 26, 2004)

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I'll give 'some people' (*wink*) the benefit of the doubt here. I'm asking the Laker fans what a championship team built around Kobe would look like. Now if someone can give me a decent answer (so far, Laker fans are 0 for 3, I won't compare it to Kobe's FG numbers for now) I'd appreciate it greatly. 

Give me a damn championship team built around Kobe. That's it. I'm not saying that you need Shaq or whatever, maybe you're all defensive and blinded by the drama in lala land, but I'm damn serious. 

And you guys wonder why no one takes you seriously.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

gian said:


> Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I'll give 'some people' (*wink*) the benefit of the doubt here. I'm asking the Laker fans what a championship team built around Kobe would look like. Now if someone can give me a decent answer (so far, Laker fans are 0 for 3, I won't compare it to Kobe's FG numbers for now) I'd appreciate it greatly.
> 
> Give me a damn championship team built around Kobe. That's it. I'm not saying that you need Shaq or whatever, maybe you're all defensive and blinded by the drama in lala land, but I'm damn serious.
> 
> And you guys wonder why no one takes you seriously.


No one will take you seriously when you come to a Laker board to start trouble. Reread your first post in this thread if you're still confused (you really shouldn't be). 

And I'd take Jordan's supporting cast for Kobe with Phil Jackson as head coach, they'd win at least 4 or 5 titles.


----------



## MarioChalmers (Mar 26, 2004)

EHL said:


> No one will take you seriously when you come to a Laker board to start trouble. Reread your first post in this thread if you're still confused (you really shouldn't be).
> 
> And I'd take Jordan's supporting cast for Kobe with Phil Jackson as head coach, they'd win at least 4 or 5 titles.


Reread my first post in this thread and note that I wasn't being serious until the second paragraph. If by 'trouble' you mean, 'a different point of view' then yes. You guys are too critical with regards to Kobe. 

Regarding this matter, I've looked at it from a totally unbiased (well, I tried) point of view and that's what I came up with. Kobe just isn't fit to lead a team to a championship. He's around the same level as T-Mac, and T-Mac has Yao. I don't know, it's like I'm using the same arguments over and over again. However, after all the arguing and reading, I'm not convinced that the Lakers should build around Kobe. 

All personal **** aside, what do you guys think? Would you rather the Lakers build around Kobe? Or would you want the Lakers to get a star of almost the same level? Does a "Scottie Pippen" still exist in the basketball world? A guy with such skill deferring to one man?


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

gian said:


> Reread my first post in this thread and note that I wasn't being serious until the second paragraph. If by 'trouble' you mean, 'a different point of view' then yes. You guys are too critical with regards to Kobe.


Fine, you can ignore that first post and I can still reference your previous post where another unnecessary shot was taken at a Laker player. Unless you truly believe coming to a Laker board and talking smack about their best player isn't trolling. But I guess you'd welcome Shaq bashing on the Heat board? No, obviously not. 



> Regarding this matter, I've looked at it from a totally unbiased (well, I tried) point of view and that's what I came up with. Kobe just isn't fit to lead a team to a championship. He's around the same level as T-Mac, and T-Mac has Yao. I don't know, it's like I'm using the same arguments over and over again. However, after all the arguing and reading, I'm not convinced that the Lakers should build around Kobe.


You haven't listed a single good reason why. But OK. 



> All personal **** aside, what do you guys think? Would you rather the Lakers build around Kobe? Or would you want the Lakers to get a star of almost the same level? Does a "Scottie Pippen" still exist in the basketball world? A guy with such skill deferring to one man?


Scottie wasn't great because he "deferred" he was great because he did everything well. Shoot, pass, score, and especially defend. It had little to do with "deferring". If the Lakers get enough good defenders they'll win a title, that's how it's done nowadays. Whether or not you think Kobe can lead a team to a title is irrelevant; he can and will if he gets the proper supporting cast. Just as Pippen would have had he had enough good players around him in 94 without Jordan.


----------



## MarioChalmers (Mar 26, 2004)

EHL said:


> Fine, you can ignore that first post and I can still reference your previous post where another unnecessary shot was taken at a Laker player. Unless you truly believe coming to a Laker board and talking smack about their best player isn't trolling. But I guess you'd welcome Shaq bashing on the Heat board? No, obviously not.


When has bashing a player normally ever been trolling? I'm trying to start a logical conversation here, and you guys start bashing me. I said that I think Kobe Bryant is a second option on a championship team, what's wrong with that? 

Because he's not? Then give substantial proof, or at least some arguments. If you read my initial post, it wasn't the most polite way to say it, but it wasn't trolling either. Then you read the replies of the Laker fans, and you don't care that *they're* the ones starting trouble? 

Bash Shaq on the Heat board and you'll probably get counter arguments at least. Has it never been argued that Kobe can't lead a team to a championship by himself? Is it that ridiculous that a logical response can't be crafted in defense of the Lakers' best player? 

As a moderator, EHL, do you think this: 


> He'll probably do much, much better than Wade and the Heat, be it this year or 10 years in the future.


is a fit response to a poster "starting trouble"? If said poster is indeed starting trouble, then you're only adding onto the trouble. Great job. 



> Scottie wasn't great because he "deferred" he was great because he did everything well. Shoot, pass, score, and especially defend. It had little to do with "deferring". If the Lakers get enough good defenders they'll win a title, that's how it's done nowadays. Whether or not you think Kobe can lead a team to a title is irrelevant; he can and will if he gets the proper supporting cast. Just as Pippen would have had he had enough good players around him in 94 without Jordan.


This is arguable. Most people on this board will say that Scottie deferred to Michael. If you compare the stats of 94-95 to 95-96, I think it's pretty evident. But would you say that Pippen had an ego back in Chicago? Maybe it's deferring, maybe it's a lack of too much ego, I don't know, but Scottie didn't mind playing in Michael's shadow. 

Here's an interesting question: "If you placed Kobe instead of Jordan in the 95-96 Bulls team, would they still win a championship?" 

Personally, I think if Kobe improves well enough, maybe, but not at his current state.


----------



## Mrdectown (May 28, 2005)

Does anybody else find very hard to even read Gian's post with that big giant annoying avatar? It throughs off the color of this site.


----------



## al3usive (May 11, 2005)

keep dreaming indeed


----------



## West44 (Jun 29, 2005)

> Here's an interesting question: "If you placed Kobe instead of Jordan in the 95-96 Bulls team, would they still win a championship?"


This was the first year of their second 3 yr run. They went 72-10. 

They'd be right there with Kobe, Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc, and Luc Longley. Rodman was coming off four consecutive yrs as the leading rebounder in the league and the greatest defender ever IMO. Pippen was in his prime and Kukoc was widely recognized as the best player from Europe. Longley was 7'2", big, and had a consistent 15 ft shot. With Jackson as coach, I think they would have won it all. 

They'd have a good chance today. Look at the Spurs matchups. Rodman in his prime would give Duncan fits. Pippen vs Ginobili, Longley vs Nazr, and Kobe vs anyone.

Another interesting thing to note is there was no true point guard on the team in the traditional sense. Kobe would be plugged in at the point on this team which may happen this year too.

To get with the thread, Kobe fits in LA well and likes it here and he'll stay. He even considered playing for the Clippers just to stay in the area. I don't believe he has the team loyalty of a Reggie Miller and will definitely bolt at some point though.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> When has bashing a player normally ever been trolling? I'm trying to start a logical conversation here, and you guys start bashing me. I said that I think Kobe Bryant is a second option on a championship team, what's wrong with that?


No actually, you said something about comparing 0-3 to his FG%. Come on now, you know you said it, get over it. 



> Because he's not? Then give substantial proof, or at least some arguments. If you read my initial post, it wasn't the most polite way to say it, but it wasn't trolling either. Then you read the replies of the Laker fans, and you don't care that they're the ones starting trouble?


How could those fans _start_ trouble when you in fact started it. That doesn’t make any sense gian. 



> Bash Shaq on the Heat board and you'll probably get counter arguments at least. Has it never been argued that Kobe can't lead a team to a championship by himself? Is it that ridiculous that a logical response can't be crafted in defense of the Lakers' best player?


You gave an opinion that wasn’t backed up by anything. If you’re going to say he’s nothing but a 2nd option, that’s fine. I was commenting on your previous shots at him, and you damn well know what they were, stop playing innocent. 



> is a fit response to a poster "starting trouble"? If said poster is indeed starting trouble, then you're only adding onto the trouble. Great job.


Yeah, that’s my policy; if you don’t have enough respect for the board, you aren’t going to get any back. Simple as that. Hopefully you’ve learned. 



> This is arguable. Most people on this board will say that Scottie deferred to Michael. If you compare the stats of 94-95 to 95-96, I think it's pretty evident. But would you say that Pippen had an ego back in Chicago? Maybe it's deferring, maybe it's a lack of too much ego, I don't know, but Scottie didn't mind playing in Michael's shadow.


Er, Scottie’s offensive stats weren’t much better between 94-95 and 95-96. Here, I’ll list them for you: 21.4 ppg (48%FG) and 5.2 apg in 94-95 versus 19.4 ppg (46.3%FG) and 5.9 apg. And his previous two seasons were also quite comparable. 



> Here's an interesting question: "If you placed Kobe instead of Jordan in the 95-96 Bulls team, would they still win a championship?"
> 
> Personally, I think if Kobe improves well enough, maybe, but not at his current state.


That 95-96 Bulls team had a prime Pippen and Rodman. Damn right they’d win the title with Kobe (at least in this era). I don’t see any logical reason to think why not. In addition, I haven’t heard why you think it’s so impossible for him to be a first option. He was a first option last season and put up 28/6/6.


----------



## MarioChalmers (Mar 26, 2004)

EHL said:


> How could those fans _start_ trouble when you in fact started it. That doesn’t make any sense gian.


I started trouble? Prove it. And if Laker fans are such mature fellas, they wouldn't respond to a guy 'starting trouble'. Unfortunately, they did. 



> You gave an opinion that wasn’t backed up by anything. If you’re going to say he’s nothing but a 2nd option, that’s fine. I was commenting on your previous shots at him, and you damn well know what they were, stop playing innocent.


What I get from this is: "You're a Heat fan so you can't talk on the Lakers board!!!". I've said a lot of stuff about Kobe, but does that mean that whenever I criticize him I do it to piss Laker fans off? Nu uh. 

I didn't back my opinion up with anything, but that warrants a "why?" response, not a "The Heat suck anyway" response. Compared to a lot of people, I stated my opinion politely, even if it was short of explanation. 



> Yeah, that’s my policy; if you don’t have enough respect for the board, you aren’t going to get any back. Simple as that. Hopefully you’ve learned.


I see you've edited out the moderator part. Good job again. Let's see, if I don't have enough respect for this board, I wouldn't be typing this argument with you. 

Here's what I said: 


gian said:


> Seriously though, what kind of Kobe team do you guys see winning a championship? I mean, put decent support players around Kobe, and I still don't see the Lakers winning a championship. He needs someone else, someone he can defer to. Dare I say, Kobe would be a second option on a championship team.


Tell me if that's disrespecting the board. I apologize if it is, but from a non-Laker fan's point of view, I don't think it is. 



> Er, Scottie’s offensive stats weren’t much better between 94-95 and 95-96. Here, I’ll list them for you: 21.4 ppg (48%FG) and 5.2 apg in 94-95 versus 19.4 ppg (46.3%FG) and 5.9 apg. And his previous two seasons were also quite comparable.


I guess so. You're right because in 94-95 Pippen averaged 21.4 PPG *8.1 RPG* 5.2 APG *2.94* SPG and *1.13* compared to 95-96's 19.4 PPG 6.4 RPG 5.9 APG 1.7 SPG and .74 BPG. He had a better FG% and FT% too. Offensive stats weren't much better (but they were still better), but he dominated on the defensive end. 



> That 95-96 Bulls team had a prime Pippen and Rodman. Damn right they’d win the title with Kobe (at least in this era). I don’t see any logical reason to think why not. In addition, I haven’t heard why you think it’s so impossible for him to be a first option. He was a first option last season and put up 28/6/6.


I guess they'd win the championship then. Next up, would they have gone 72-10? 

28/6/6 on a non-playoff team. Injury argument? I guess it's valid, but if they did make the playoffs, they wouldn't have been any higher than the 6th seed. 

I might be wrong, he might improve and bring LA a championship. But Laker fans, look deep inside your hearts. Do you really see it happening? Kobe's team defeating Duncan, Garnett, T-MacYao, Dirk or Amare? And all those teams have better supporting casts except for the Wolves. That's why I find it incredibly unlikely unless Andrew Bynum turns out to be a baby-Shaq.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

gian said:


> I might be wrong, he might improve and bring LA a championship. *But Laker fans, look deep inside your hearts*. Do you really see it happening? Kobe's team defeating Duncan, Garnett, T-MacYao, Dirk or Amare? And all those teams have better supporting casts except for the Wolves. That's why I find it incredibly unlikely unless Andrew Bynum turns out to be a baby-Shaq.


Sorry, G, but whenever i "look inside my heart", i see a happy, extended Shaq in the local Burger King asking the waiter to bring TWO of each from the menu and putting it all in Riley's bill...


----------



## MarioChalmers (Mar 26, 2004)

PauloCatarino said:


> Sorry, G, but whenever i "look inside my heart", i see a happy, extended Shaq in the local Burger King asking the waiter to bring TWO of each from the menu and putting it all in Riley's bill...


Aww...

Here's a song you can listen to 

Peace. :clown:


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

gian said:


> Aww...
> 
> Here's a song you can listen to
> 
> Peace. :clown:


A Lindsay Lohan tune, heh?

Go back to bed before i belt you!


----------



## Unique (Apr 13, 2005)

PauloCatarino said:


> A Lindsay Lohan tune, heh?
> 
> Go back to bed before i belt you!


lmao


----------



## onelakerfan (Nov 11, 2004)

any fan can come to this board and post, don't discourage discussion


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> I started trouble? Prove it.


Well OK, that’s easy. I’ll even quote it for you: 



clien said:


> yeah, i think kobe will retire a laker and go out much like reggie did





you said:


> What do you mean? He'll go out losing? Well, I agree.


If you can’t see how that’s starting trouble, I can’t help you. 



> And if Laker fans are such mature fellas, they wouldn't respond to a guy 'starting trouble'. Unfortunately, they did.


No, it’s quite natural for fans to retaliate when a poster breaks the rules by baiting. 



> What I get from this is: "You're a Heat fan so you can't talk on the Lakers board!!!".


I said no such thing. See clien’s comment and then your response above. If you were “kidding”, you should use emoticons, they are helpful for Internet discussions where you can’t see a person’s mannerisms or hear their tone of voice.



> I've said a lot of stuff about Kobe, but does that mean that whenever I criticize him I do it to piss Laker fans off? Nu uh.


The fan reaction to your post had nothing to do with your opinion on him not being a capable 1st option. It had to do with your initial comment, and then was further propagated by your “0-3 FG%” comment. 



> I didn't back my opinion up with anything, but that warrants a "why?" response, not a "The Heat suck anyway" response. Compared to a lot of people, I stated my opinion politely, even if it was short of explanation.


The retaliation had nothing to do with your opinion from what I can see. But since we’re on the subject, what is your reasoning anyway?



> I see you've edited out the moderator part. Good job again.


What? What should I have addressed about your “moderator” comment? Enlighten me. There was nothing there that I needed to address from what I read. 



> Tell me if that's disrespecting the board. I apologize if it is, but from a non-Laker fan's point of view, I don't think it is.


This is baiting right here: _What do you mean? He'll [Kobe] go out losing [at the end of his career]? Well, I agree._

So is this: _ Now if someone can give me a decent answer (so far, Laker fans are 0 for 3, I won't compare it to Kobe's FG numbers for now) I'd appreciate it greatly._

These are not comments from someone that wants to have a serious discussion, IMO. 



> I guess so. You're right because in 94-95 Pippen averaged 21.4 PPG 8.1 RPG 5.2 APG 2.94 SPG and 1.13 compared to 95-96's 19.4 PPG 6.4 RPG 5.9 APG 1.7 SPG and .74 BPG. He had a better FG% and FT% too. Offensive stats weren't much better (but they were still better), but he dominated on the defensive end.


Are you saying Scottie deferred to Jordan defensively and on the boards? The only usage of the word “defer” that I know of refers to offensive production, which for Pippen was very nearly identical between his Jordan and non-Jordan years, in terms of FG%, FT%, PPFGA, and PPG. 



> I guess they'd win the championship then. Next up, would they have gone 72-10?


No, probably not. They would have won 60 something games, because Kobe obviously does not = Jordan, and he probably would have missed some games too (Kobe wasn’t nearly the iron man Jordan was).



> 28/6/6 on a non-playoff team. Injury argument? I guess it's valid, but if they did make the playoffs, they wouldn't have been any higher than the 6th seed.


What’s the difference? This isn’t the Hawks, where stats are basically meaningless. He’s a proven first option, he’s going to put up roughly the same numbers next year (barring injury) and if Kupchak puts better players around him, he’ll take them to the playoffs, and if he gets really good players, a championship. He already proved he can perform in the playoffs, to the tune of 3 titles. First option or Second option doesn’t mean anything, it’s just a label that doesn’t point to any single ability a player lacks. 



> I might be wrong, he might improve and bring LA a championship. But Laker fans, look deep inside your hearts. Do you really see it happening? Kobe's team defeating Duncan, Garnett, T-MacYao, Dirk or Amare?


Definitely. He just needs a good supporting cast. And when did KG, Tmac, Yao, Dirk or Amare do a damn thing in the playoffs that Kobe hasn’t done? 



> And all those teams have better supporting casts except for the Wolves. That's why I find it incredibly unlikely unless Andrew Bynum turns out to be a baby-Shaq.


Well, that’s kind of an odd statement, since the offseason isn’t nearly finished and Kobe is 26. He’s not exactly running out of time unless you think he’ll be decrepit by 30.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

lakers can't trade kobe. kobe will trade them first if he catches wind of such an insidious plan.


----------



## shobe42 (Jun 21, 2002)

gian said:


> Give me a damn championship team built around Kobe. That's it. I'm not saying that you need Shaq or whatever, maybe you're all defensive and blinded by the drama in lala land, but I'm damn serious.


you want one??? take the 2004-05 Miami Heat drop Wade, add Kobe... run the offense around Kobe...NBA Champions!


----------



## shobe42 (Jun 21, 2002)

gian said:


> I might be wrong, he might improve and bring LA a championship. But Laker fans, look deep inside your hearts. Do you really see it happening? Kobe's team defeating Duncan, Garnett, T-MacYao, Dirk or Amare? And all those teams have better supporting casts except for the Wolves. That's why I find it incredibly unlikely unless Andrew Bynum turns out to be a baby-Shaq.


why look inside my heart when i've already seen most of this...

Duncan... did it.
Garnett... did it.
Yao...did it.

oh **** he did all those in the same playoff run... and *he was* the focus and centerpeace of the 03-04 Lakers...

T-MAC... no he couldn't possibly beat the great McGrady, especially when looking at all the previous success the guys had in the playoffs... i mean one year he almost beat the Hornets!!!

Dirk... you're kidding right... this guy was fighting thru the first round when Kobe was knockin in game winning shots over Duncan

Amare...if he has beaten duncan and KG well why not Amare too...


----------



## shobe42 (Jun 21, 2002)

i dont really get ur argument... with the current lakers will kobe win a title hell no? 

nobody could...

can he be the centerpiece and win a title... ofcourse theres probably 30 players who could be the center peace and win... whats ur argument... 

i mean u guys got beat by a team whos centerpeace is Chauncey Billups (atleast offensively) does that make him a hall of famer??? hell no...

i really dont get what youre trying to say???

if ur trying to say he cant be the best player on a championship team well check 2001-2002 when they won their 3rd...

or look at it this way if u take billups off detroit and put on Kobe... they'd still have won and he'd be the best player


----------



## MarioChalmers (Mar 26, 2004)

EHL the post is too damn long to quote, so I'll just respond. 

The first part wasn't baiting because it wasn't serious at all. Blame your diction if you consider it baiting. I apologize if it didn't come off as a joke, but you know what I said, and if emoticons speak louder than words, I'm sorry. 

And retaliate by breaking the same rules? That's awesome, you're such a great moderator! 

Honestly, I can't give any less of a ****. Just because I'm a Heat fan, you take all my words and twist it and interpret it any way you want. And of course, this is your territory, and we're supposed to love Kobe. 

I also said that I won't compare it to Kobe Bryant's FG%. Blame me if you need emoticons for jokes, but I was kidding. Christ, no one can have a decent conversation with you. It's like someone mentions the Lakers and you immediately attack the Heat. 

You know what I mean when I talk about Pippen deferring to Michael Jordan. I mean, it's just that you want to disprove my points so much that you go out of your way sometimes. Scottie deferred to Michael, ask around and people will agree. 

As to the basketball-related arguments, how is Kobe a proven first option?


----------



## MarioChalmers (Mar 26, 2004)

shobe, I've been arguing that Kobe needs a star of the same caliber to win a championship. I'm sorry if that wasn't established. Kobe never beat any of those players by himself. If you don't hate Shaq as much as most Laker homers do, I think you'd know what I'm talking about. 

Also, I think it's quite arguable that if Duncan was on the Lakers instead of Kobe, they'd have a chance at winning a title. So "nobody could" doesn't really sound right. 

Shobe, please give Shaq the credit he deserves. You may hate him now because of the entire contract thing, and that's totally understandable, but he was a huge reason for your title runs. I'm saying it now as a fact, Shaq was the centerpiece of the Laker championships.


----------



## shobe42 (Jun 21, 2002)

gian said:


> Also, I think it's quite arguable that if Duncan was on the Lakers instead of Kobe, they'd have a chance at winning a title. So "nobody could" doesn't really sound right.


i dont think they would have a chance... i think thats a ridiculous statement... as patchwork said in another thread... the fact that kobe had this team in the playoffs (6th seed) till the coach quit and he got injured was amazing...



> Shobe, please give Shaq the credit he deserves. You may hate him now because of the entire contract thing, and that's totally understandable, but he was a huge reason for your title runs. I'm saying it now as a fact, Shaq was the centerpiece of the Laker championships.


As a player i have never liked Shaq... always felt he could have been more... now i cheered for him and supported hm obviously but by 2002 Kobe was becoming the best player on the team (and well deserved)...


----------



## MarioChalmers (Mar 26, 2004)

shobe42 said:


> i dont think they would have a chance... i think thats a ridiculous statement... as patchwork said in another thread... the fact that kobe had this team in the playoffs (6th seed) till the coach quit and he got injured was amazing...


This isn't a shot on Kobe's ego or playing style, but I think that Tim Duncan would work a lot more with Lamar Odom. I think a team with Duncan/Odom/Butler would be expected to be the 4-6 seed, while it's surprising that Kobe had the Lakers at such a spot. I just think that Duncan would allow most of the other Lakers to step up. Don't get me wrong, Kobe is great, but at PF, Duncan is at a better position to improve his teammates. 



> As a player i have never liked Shaq... always felt he could have been more... now i cheered for him and supported hm obviously but by 2002 Kobe was becoming the best player on the team (and well deserved)...


keyword in your argument is: "becoming". Eventually, Shaq would start sucking, but during the championship run, Shaq was the best player on the team, well, maybe that's arguable, but Shaq was the first option. There we go. The offense revolved around Shaq, and that's what first option usually implies.


----------



## shobe42 (Jun 21, 2002)

gian said:


> keyword in your argument is: "becoming". Eventually, Shaq would start sucking, but during the championship run, Shaq was the best player on the team, well, maybe that's arguable, but Shaq was the first option. There we go. The offense revolved around Shaq, and that's what first option usually implies.


okay but in the 03-04 season Kobe was the 1st option and the offense revolved around him... they beat duncan, garnett, and yao in those playoffs the first three guys on ur list


----------



## Unique (Apr 13, 2005)

this is very entertaining watching u guys argue but i agree wit shobe


----------



## MarioChalmers (Mar 26, 2004)

shobe42 said:


> okay but in the 03-04 season Kobe was the 1st option and the offense revolved around him... they beat duncan, garnett, and yao in those playoffs the first three guys on ur list


Alright, that's fine, because I was saying : "First option on a *championship* team" and 03-04 wasn't really a championship year. No offense to Laker fans. (see, I'm nice)


----------



## Unique (Apr 13, 2005)

gian said:


> Alright, that's fine, because I was saying : "First option on a *championship* team" and 03-04 wasn't really a championship year. No offense to Laker fans. (see, I'm nice)



not a championship team? GP kobe george karl malone and shaq isnt a championship team?


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

gian said:


> The first part wasn't baiting because it wasn't serious at all. Blame your diction if you consider it baiting.


Why would I blame _my_ diction when it wasn’t clear from _your_ diction that it wasn’t baiting? Clearly other fans on the board saw it the same way. 



> I apologize if it didn't come off as a joke, but you know what I said, and if emoticons speak louder than words, I'm sorry.


I’m not sure how this helps your argument, you openly baited. Was “seriously now” supposed to indicate that you were totally joking? Not very clear, but OK. 



> And retaliate by breaking the same rules? That's awesome, you're such a great moderator!


Actually yes, this is accepted by other mods (not all) that if you’re going to bait posters you aren’t going to receive any respect. 



> Honestly, I can't give any less of a ****. Just because I'm a Heat fan, you take all my words and twist it and interpret it any way you want. And of course, this is your territory, and we're supposed to love Kobe.


Oy. Nice way to misinterpret everything that has been said. 



> I also said that I won't compare it to Kobe Bryant's FG%. Blame me if you need emoticons for jokes, but I was kidding.


Please, take this excuse making garbage someplace else. If, say, a Laker fan went to the Heat board and started making unflattering jokes about Shaq, that’s trolling and they should expect to get flamed by Heat fans. I’d personally reprimand that Laker fan for performing such an action, and I have in the past (Lunatic).. 



> Christ, no one can have a decent conversation with you. It's like someone mentions the Lakers and you immediately attack the Heat.


Not really, you’re exaggerating and you know it (well hopefully you do).



> You know what I mean when I talk about Pippen deferring to Michael Jordan. I mean, it's just that you want to disprove my points so much that you go out of your way sometimes. Scottie deferred to Michael, ask around and people will agree.


This just screams defeat. If you don't want to address my points individually just say so, but don't make up some BS excuse about how I’m just trying to disagree with you for the sake of disagreeing. 



> As to the basketball-related arguments, how is Kobe a proven first option?


Did you watch the 2001 or 2002 playoffs? Case closed.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> The offense revolved around Shaq, and that's what first option usually implies.


No, first option usually implies that a player is given the ball automatically as a first option. During the 2001 and 2002 postseason (especially 01), it was clear that Kobe was hot and he was given more touches and more shots than Shaq. That, to me, is a pretty clear first option, or at worst option 1a or 1b. 

You've still yet to support any of your reasoning about Kobe not being able to be a first option. But hey, that's because you're a Heat fan and there's a conspiracy against you guys to make you look bad here right? Psssst.


----------



## MarioChalmers (Mar 26, 2004)

EHL said:


> Why would I blame _my_ diction when it wasn’t clear from _your_ diction that it wasn’t baiting? Clearly other fans on the board saw it the same way.


Just because a lot of Laker fans see it one way, doesn't mean it's right. Read the dictionary, and read essays and all of that other **** they have at the library, then blame yourselves for misinterpreting me. Diction isn't opinion, diction is proper wording and indeed factual. 




> I’m not sure how this helps your argument, you openly baited. Was “seriously now” supposed to indicate that you were totally joking? Not very clear, but OK.


Yes.




> Actually yes, this is accepted by other mods (not all) that if you’re going to bait posters you aren’t going to receive any respect.


Aww, to uphold the integrity of the board? Still, a good job. 



> Please, take this excuse making garbage someplace else. If, say, a Laker fan went to the Heat board and started making unflattering jokes about Shaq, that’s trolling and they should expect to get flamed by Heat fans. I’d personally reprimand that Laker fan for performing such an action, and I have in the past (Lunatic)..


Whoops, compare *my* posts to Lunatic's? Can you even prove that he was joking? I might have joked a bit, but most of my points have been serious.



> This just screams defeat. If you don't want to address my points individually just say so, but don't make up some BS excuse about how I’m just trying to disagree with you for the sake of disagreeing.


Everything does. Again, surveying is a proper form of research and information gathering. Maybe we should both ask people whether Pippen deferred to Jordan or not? 



> Did you watch the 2001 or 2002 playoffs? Case closed.


Whole games, whole games, not fourth quarters.


----------



## MarioChalmers (Mar 26, 2004)

Lakermike05 said:


> not a championship team? GP kobe george karl malone and shaq isnt a championship team?


Yep.


----------



## Unique (Apr 13, 2005)

gian said:


> Yep.


anyone can post here as long as they don't break the rules and are respectful


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Just because a lot of Laker fans see it one way, doesn't mean it's right. Read the dictionary, and read essays and all of that other **** they have at the library, then blame yourselves for misinterpreting me. Diction isn't opinion, diction is proper wording and indeed factual.


It’s easily arguable you didn’t use proper diction. *That* isn’t the least bit debatable, and neither was your 0-3 comment. 



> Aww, to uphold the integrity of the board? Still, a good job.


Yeah, it’s pretty clear. Hopefully you understand the rules now. 



> Whoops, compare my posts to Lunatic's?


You were never compared to Lunatic. Reread what I said if you’re still confused. 



> Can you even prove that he was joking? I might have joked a bit, but most of my points have been serious.


You gave no indication your 0-3 comment was a joke. The difference is Lunatic didn’t backpeddle and say “I was just kidding man!”. 



> Everything does. Again, surveying is a proper form of research and information gathering. Maybe we should both ask people whether Pippen deferred to Jordan or not?


Maybe you should address my points about Pippen first before you deflect this conversation any further. If you can’t, just say so, and we’ll move on. 



> Whole games, whole games, not fourth quarters.


Sad. Kobe and Shaq scored about as many points and took about as many shots as the other in both the 2001 and 2002 postseasons. Not a 1st option? Splitting hairs.

And you've still yet to give any good reason why he's not capable of being a 1st option.


----------



## MarioChalmers (Mar 26, 2004)

EHL said:


> It’s easily arguable you didn’t use proper diction. *That* isn’t the least bit debatable, and neither was your 0-3 comment.


Uh huh. 

I didn't think that I would have to break it down for you. 

"Seriously now" always implies that anything beforehand was not serious and therefore should not be taken seriously. Get it now? 




> Yeah, it’s pretty clear. Hopefully you understand the rules now.


Right. Attacking other posters is good as long as that poster is a Laker fan. Check. 




> You gave no indication your 0-3 comment was a joke. The difference is Lunatic didn’t backpeddle and say “I was just kidding man!”.


In your quest to prove a Heat fan wrong, you take everything he says and turn it into something bad. Are you a lawyer? Or at least a media man? 



> Maybe you should address my points about Pippen first before you deflect this conversation any further. If you can’t, just say so, and we’ll move on.


You never addressed mine either. Care for a survey?



> Sad. Kobe and Shaq scored about as many points and took about as many shots as the other in both the 2001 and 2002 postseasons. Not a 1st option? Splitting hairs.


Oh sure, they pass it to Kobe inside and he immediately gives all the other teammates open shots. Man! If Kobe doesn't touch the ball in one possession, it's a bad possession, even if Shaq gets a higher percentage shot inside. Based on FG% and overall impact on the game, Shaq was the first option. No question about it. The offense was built around him, not Kobe. 



> And you've still yet to give any good reason why he's not capable of being a 1st option.


1st option on a championship team. He has never been a first option on a championship team, ever.


----------



## MarioChalmers (Mar 26, 2004)

Lakermike05 said:


> edit


Am I not allowed to post here? I haven't attacked anyone at all. 

Besides, Kobe made himself the first option in the Finals, look what happened. A team that lost to Detroit 4-1 is *not* a championship team. They're a runner-up team.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Uh huh.
> 
> I didn't think that I would have to break it down for you.
> 
> "Seriously now" always implies that anything beforehand was not serious and therefore should not be taken seriously. Get it now?


No, since “seriously now” is sometimes used as a transition between paragraphs not related to former statements, like “but”, “although”, “anyhow”, “continuing”, etc. Plus, this is hardly the place to joke about it, you don’t go on a Heat board and make Shaq jokes or on a Spurs board to make Duncan jokes. 



> Right. Attacking other posters is good as long as that poster is a Laker fan. Check.


No. :laugh:



> In your quest to prove a Heat fan wrong, you take everything he says and turn it into something bad. Are you a lawyer? Or at least a media man?


Oy. Deflect deflect deflect. 



> You never addressed mine either. Care for a survey?


I’m not interested in a “survey”, otherwise I’d be an ESPN drone. I’m interested if you are able to carry on a discussion, and in this case, the Pippen discussion has been completely one-sided, since you’ve refused to address any of my previous points. 



> Oh sure, they pass it to Kobe inside and he immediately gives all the other teammates open shots. Man! If Kobe doesn't touch the ball in one possession, it's a bad possession, even if Shaq gets a higher percentage shot inside. Based on FG% and overall impact on the game, Shaq was the first option. No question about it. The offense was built around him, not Kobe.


This doesn’t really address my statement. Did Kobe and Shaq in fact score and shot the ball about as much as the other during the 2001 and 2002 postseasons? Of course, that’s indisputable. “Throwing the ball into Shaq” often doesn’t prove he was a first option, just as Jackson putting the ball in Pippen’s hands first to facilitate before Jordan didn’t mean Pippen was the first scoring option on the Chicago Bulls during the 1990’s. This is not really hard to understand gian. 



> 1st option on a championship team. He has never been a first option on a championship team, ever.


And, yet again, you’ve failed to address a single thing. Are you really going to sit there and just say “Well, he wasn’t a first option IMO, so he CAN’T be”? Yeah, well, I guess that’s the best I can expect from you.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

gian said:


> Am I not allowed to post here? I haven't attacked anyone at all.
> 
> Besides, Kobe made himself the first option in the Finals, look what happened. A team that lost to Detroit 4-1 is *not* a championship team. They're a runner-up team.


Kobe made himself a first option during the 01 WCSF against the Spurs (who were favored to win that year) and swept them by an average of 20 ppg. It's so funny (actually, sad) that you would point out the worst series of his career while ignoring all the other great postseason series he had when he was clearly being fed as a first option.


----------



## MarioChalmers (Mar 26, 2004)

EHL said:


> Kobe made himself a first option during the 01 WCSF against the Spurs (who were favored to win that year) and swept them by an average of 20 ppg. It's so funny (actually, sad) that you would point out the worst series of his career while ignoring all the other great postseason series he had when he was clearly being fed as a first option.


I never brought it up, Lakermike brought it up. 

However, the offense revolved around Shaq for most of that year. Every game counts. (As I explain in my next post)


----------



## MarioChalmers (Mar 26, 2004)

EHL said:


> No, since “seriously now” is sometimes used as a transition between paragraphs not related to former statements, like “but”, “although”, “anyhow”, “continuing”, etc. Plus, this is hardly the place to joke about it, you don’t go on a Heat board and make Shaq jokes or on a Spurs board to make Duncan jokes.


No it's not. "but", "although", "anyhow", "continuing" all imply pretty try going back on topic after straying a bit. But "seriously now" is used to dispel a non-serious statement before the current one. And "not serious" should not be taken seriously. 



> I’m not interested in a “survey”, otherwise I’d be an ESPN drone. I’m interested if you are able to carry on a discussion, and in this case, the Pippen discussion has been completely one-sided, since you’ve refused to address any of my previous points.


Hahaha, I'm not interested in referring to a survey. Why don't we make a survey here in BBB.net and have an argument where you don't judge a debate you partake in. 



> This doesn’t really address my statement. Did Kobe and Shaq in fact score and shot the ball about as much as the other during the 2001 and 2002 postseasons? Of course, that’s indisputable. “Throwing the ball into Shaq” often doesn’t prove he was a first option, just as Jackson putting the ball in Pippen’s hands first to facilitate before Jordan didn’t mean Pippen was the first scoring option on the Chicago Bulls during the 1990’s. This is not really hard to understand gian.


Here's how it goes. Throw it into Shaq, if no one helps, he scores. If someone helps, he rotates it, gets an open guy for the shot. It's not that hard to understand EHL.  



> And, yet again, you’ve failed to address a single thing. Are you really going to sit there and just say “Well, he wasn’t a first option IMO, so he CAN’T be”? Yeah, well, I guess that’s the best I can expect from you.


I failed to address a single thing? Well, I guess that's what you think. You can't really judge that since you're too emotionally attached to the Lakers. Again, I'm not using logical fallacies to back up my arguments. Can anyone ever tell if he can be a first option? Has he ever been consistent enough with his explosive scoring? It's always been like that IMO. Shaq brought the consistency, Kobe brought the explosive power. Combine that, and you have a championship team. They relied on Shaq most times, but Kobe would dominate certain periods of the game. That doesn't mean he's the first option though. 

"Well he wasn't a first option IMO, so he CAN'T be" isn't all that false. I mean, it's too early to tell of course, and you don't know better than I do. He hasn't done it before, and I don't think he did a very good job this year, therefore, I have my hypothesis. We'll see what happens won't we? And after all, this is just my opinion.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

gian said:


> I never brought it up, Lakermike brought it up.
> 
> However, the offense revolved around Shaq for most of that year. Every game counts. (As I explain in my next post)


Most of the regular season? Sure, I can buy that. During the postseason, where championships are won? Nope. 



> No it's not. "but", "although", "anyhow", "continuing" all imply pretty try going back on topic after straying a bit. But "seriously now" is used to dispel a non-serious statement before the current one. And "not serious" should not be taken seriously.


Argue this all you want, the point remains the same; you normally wouldn't go onto a Laker board to make Kobe jokes unless you were looking for trouble, just as you wouldn't go on a Heat board to make unflattering Shaq jokes or on a Spurs board to make unflattering Duncan jokes. I can't possibly see how you could deny this.



> Hahaha, I'm not interested in referring to a survey. Why don't we make a survey here in BBB.net and have an argument where you don't judge a debate you partake in.


Er, what? What part of “argue my points” don’t you understand? 



> Here's how it goes. Throw it into Shaq, if no one helps, he scores. If someone helps, he rotates it, gets an open guy for the shot. It's not that hard to understand EHL.


Putting the ball into Shaq’s hands first is no different than the Bulls continuously putting the ball in Pippens’ hands to initiate the triangle offense for every single one of their 6 championship runs. Was Pippen a first option because he got the ball all the time, and often times first? No. 



> I failed to address a single thing? Well, I guess that's what you think. You can't really judge that since you're too emotionally attached to the Lakers.


Look, just say “I don’t have a leg to stand on” if you can’t support an argument. Don’t participate in a discussion if you can’t finish it off with something better than “You’re too much of a fan”. 



> Again, I'm not using logical fallacies to back up my arguments. Can anyone ever tell if he can be a first option? Has he ever been consistent enough with his explosive scoring? It's always been like that IMO. Shaq brought the consistency, Kobe brought the explosive power. Combine that, and you have a championship team. They relied on Shaq most times, but Kobe would dominate certain periods of the game. That doesn't mean he's the first option though.


He was for many various periods during the 01 and 02 title runs, so I don’t see why he can’t replicate that again. All he needs is a supporting cast to get him there, just as Jordan, Magic, Bird, etc. needed one. I’m not sure what you’re arguing really, that Kobe doesn’t have the energy or will or something? What’s your premise, that Kobe is not capable of scoring enough points as a first option (which I don’t understand, as he did so all of last season putting up 28/6/6 with first option defensive attention).



> "Well he wasn't a first option IMO, so he CAN'T be" isn't all that false. I mean, it's too early to tell of course, and you don't know better than I do. *He hasn't done it before*, and I don't think he did a very good job this year, therefore, I have my hypothesis. We'll see what happens won't we? And after all, this is just my opinion.


Your opinion is that he can’t do it, it’s not opinion that he hasn’t before; it’s fact that he has. I don’t know what to tell you other than look up the stats. Or perhaps, order the championship DVD sets yourself and calculate Kobe’s possession ratio relative to Shaq.


----------



## MarioChalmers (Mar 26, 2004)

EHL said:


> Most of the regular season? Sure, I can buy that. During the postseason, where championships are won? Nope.


Read the latter part of my post. Shaq was the anchor, Kobe was just a sparkplug (a very good one at that). 




> Argue this all you want, the point remains the same; you normally wouldn't go onto a Laker board to make Kobe jokes unless you were looking for trouble, just as you wouldn't go on a Heat board to make unflattering Shaq jokes or on a Spurs board to make unflattering Duncan jokes. I can't possibly see how you could deny this.


EHL argues. 
Gian argues. 
Gian wins. 
EHL says: "argue this all you want, but blah blah blah" 

You know this won't happen again though, it's too much trouble having you guys on my tail. 



> Er, what? What part of “argue my points” don’t you understand?


Aww :sad: Just because you can't understand something doesn't mean it doesn't mean anything. 



> Putting the ball into Shaq’s hands first is no different than the Bulls continuously putting the ball in Pippens’ hands to initiate the triangle offense for every single one of their 6 championship runs. Was Pippen a first option because he got the ball all the time, and often times first? No.


So Kobe was the first option? Howso? They'd give him the ball and set three screens? Kobe isn't the team's first option, he gets the ball and tries to score. He's an option, a weird one, but not the first one. 



> Look, just say “I don’t have a leg to stand on” if you can’t support an argument. Don’t participate in a discussion if you can’t finish it off with something better than “You’re too much of a fan”.


Scared of em' surveys I see. You know how it'll go.  



> He was for many various periods during the 01 and 02 title runs, so I don’t see why he can’t replicate that again. All he needs is a supporting cast to get him there, just as Jordan, Magic, Bird, etc. needed one. I’m not sure what you’re arguing really, that Kobe doesn’t have the energy or will or something? What’s your premise, that Kobe is not capable of scoring enough points as a first option (which I don’t understand, as he did so all of last season putting up 28/6/6 with first option defensive attention).


28/6/6, awesome numbers, but they didn't win enough to convince me. Paul Pierce does well to (not to the same magnitude) but they don't win. Is he a first option on a championship team? 

Various periods are just that, various periods. If he can replicate those 'periods' consistently, then maybe he can be a #1 option. 



> Your opinion is that he can’t do it, it’s not opinion that he hasn’t before; it’s fact that he has. I don’t know what to tell you other than look up the stats. Or perhaps, order the championship DVD sets yourself and calculate Kobe’s possession ratio relative to Shaq.


If it is in fact... erm... a fact, then more people would be convinced of it. Ask around and find that it is not a fact no matter how many times you tell yourself that.


----------



## Lakerman33 (Oct 16, 2004)

Kobes A laker for life.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

you never trade a player like kobe , but the lakers traded Shaq so you never know .


----------



## West44 (Jun 29, 2005)

Hey guys, great teams usually have more than one great player. If not, many very good ones and excellent chemistry.

Kareem needed the Big O and then Magic. Wilt needed West and vice versa, Bird & Mchale and a strong supporting cast, Isiah & Dumars & Rodman, Jordan & Pippen & Rodman, Duncan & Gianobili.

Why are we splitting hairs over what option Kobe was. He was absolutely a huuuuge factor in three consecutive championship runs. Gutsy, driven, and clutch. One of the greatest finals performers ever. If he gets close enough to even smell another championship run he'll be huge all over again. And if the Lakers build a strong enough supporting cast even w\o another big star he will carry them on his back to another title. :cheers:


----------



## AutoShackMotorSports (May 25, 2005)

> Whole games, whole games, not fourth quarters.


Oh yeah that's right, games are won during the 1st-3rd quarters. If Shaq is so "great" How come he never played during the end of games and Kobe was the centerpoint of the offense? When has Shaq ever made a game winner? Remember Gian, Shaq was a very integral piece of our championships...but he didn't do it alone. Yeah Shaq might block a shot from time to time but we had damn good defensive players like Harper, Fox, Horry and Grant. You're obviously trolling judging from your first post (which by the way was not a comment, more like an OPPORTUNITY to attack Kobe) But what have YOU guys won? You're not a championship team (you lost to Detroit) and Shaq, well Shaq's Shaq there's nothing anyone can do about that. We'll see in two or three seasons how you feel about Shaq then when he's playing second fiddle to DWade (by the way, I bleed purple and gold but am a huge DWade fan, you should be lucky that our GM didn't have the b*lls to make sure that DWade should be included in the Shaq trade) Bottomline, Gian, all you Heat fans owe US Laker fans a favor for trading Shaq to you (Pat Riley is still very close to Jerry Buss, you don't think that had anything to do with it?) Stop trolling in our boards or at least stop making snide remarks about Kobe. Just focus on your own team, LakerLunatic doesn't represent all of us. Stop acting like Shaq.


----------



## MarioChalmers (Mar 26, 2004)

West44 said:


> Hey guys, great teams usually have more than one great player. If not, many very good ones and excellent chemistry.
> 
> Kareem needed the Big O and then Magic. Wilt needed West and vice versa, Bird & Mchale and a strong supporting cast, Isiah & Dumars & Rodman, Jordan & Pippen & Rodman, Duncan & Gianobili.
> 
> Why are we splitting hairs over what option Kobe was. He was absolutely a huuuuge factor in three consecutive championship runs. Gutsy, driven, and clutch. One of the greatest finals performers ever. If he gets close enough to even smell another championship run he'll be huge all over again. And if the Lakers build a strong enough supporting cast even w\o another big star he will carry them on his back to another title. :cheers:


This is what I was talking about. Kobe needs another Shaq-level player to win a championship. He's a first option if you guys want to get the 5th or 6th seed, but he can't be the only option if you guys want a championship. Believe me, I wanna see the Lakers in the playoffs too.


----------



## Unique (Apr 13, 2005)

gian said:


> This is what I was talking about. Kobe needs another Shaq-level player to win a championship. He's a first option if you guys want to get the 5th or 6th seed, but he can't be the only option if you guys want a championship. Believe me, I wanna see the Lakers in the playoffs too.


whats that lindsay....you dont care wat gian says either cuz all that comes out of his mouth is BS....


----------



## MarioChalmers (Mar 26, 2004)

AutoShackMotorSports said:


> *Oh yeah that's right, games are won during the 1st-3rd quarters.* If Shaq is so "great" How come he never played during the end of games and Kobe was the centerpoint of the offense? When has Shaq ever made a game winner? Remember Gian, Shaq was a very integral piece of our championships...but he didn't do it alone. Yeah Shaq might block a shot from time to time but we had damn good defensive players like Harper, Fox, Horry and Grant. You're obviously trolling judging from your first post (which by the way was not a comment, more like an OPPORTUNITY to attack Kobe) But what have YOU guys won? You're not a championship team (you lost to Detroit) and Shaq, well Shaq's Shaq there's nothing anyone can do about that. We'll see in two or three seasons how you feel about Shaq then when he's playing second fiddle to DWade (by the way, I bleed purple and gold but am a huge DWade fan, you should be lucky that our GM didn't have the b*lls to make sure that DWade should be included in the Shaq trade) Bottomline, Gian, all you Heat fans owe US Laker fans a favor for trading Shaq to you (Pat Riley is still very close to Jerry Buss, you don't think that had anything to do with it?) Stop trolling in our boards or at least stop making snide remarks about Kobe. Just focus on your own team, LakerLunatic doesn't represent all of us. Stop acting like Shaq.


Yes, games are won in all quarters. The first quarter is as important to win as the 4th. 

I never said Shaq was the only piece of the championship, I'm just saying that the offense ran through him rather than Kobe. He impacted the game offensively and defensively more than Kobe. Of course, Kobe was a god from time to time, but Shaq was the constant. 

Why should Heat fans owe Laker fans for trading them Shaq? It's not like they had a state-wide poll on who to trade Shaq to or whatever. Heat fans owe Laker fans nothing. 

Besides, I focus on the Lakers because I still care about the Lakers. I'm loyal to the former Heat players that are now in LA. I don't know, I might not have said it the best way but all I'm saying is that the Lakers need another superstar for a championship. Even Jordan had Pippen.


----------



## Unique (Apr 13, 2005)

gian said:


> Yes, games are won in all quarters. The first quarter is as important to win as the 4th.
> 
> I never said Shaq was the only piece of the championship, I'm just saying that the offense ran through him rather than Kobe. He impacted the game offensively and defensively more than Kobe. Of course, Kobe was a god from time to time, but Shaq was the constant.
> 
> ...


pippens not a superstar jimbo...u just proved ur self wrong....jordan was the superstar as is kobe ....pippen is no superstar.....didnt u just say the kobe needs another superstar to win?


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Read the latter part of my post. Shaq was the anchor, Kobe was just a sparkplug (a very good one at that).


Sorry, but you’re wrong, never happened. 



> EHL argues.
> Gian argues.
> Gian wins.
> EHL says: "argue this all you want, but blah blah blah"
> ...


Don’t deflect the discussion; just admit that you unnecessarily trolled/baited the board, as my Heat and Spurs examples quite accurately portray. You know better. 



> Aww Just because you can't understand something doesn't mean it doesn't mean anything.


Is this your way of saying “You’re right, I give up”?



> So Kobe was the first option? Howso? They'd give him the ball and set three screens? Kobe isn't the team's first option, he gets the ball and tries to score. He's an option, a weird one, but not the first one.


Still haven’t addressed anything I’ve said. They took roughly the same amount of shots in the 01 and 02 postseasons and scored about the same number of points. Both those seasons were title runs, as you “mandated” was necessary to prove how Kobe could be a first option on a championship team. You claim otherwise, with your sole argument being “They dumped the ball into Shaq therefore he is the first option”, completely ignoring the fact that that by itself doesn’t prove he was a first option, otherwise people would consider Pippen a first option in Chicago because he was always initiating the offense and handling the ball for most of a ball game. 



> Scared of em' surveys I see. You know how it'll go.


Gian, you can’t even address the points of a discussion without asking for other members of BBB.net to hold your hand. It’s quite clear you’ve lost at this point, and will continue to lose if you don’t address any of the points made. 



> 28/6/6, awesome numbers, but they didn't win enough to convince me. Paul Pierce does well to (not to the same magnitude) but they don't win. Is he a first option on a championship team?


Paul Pierce has never proven himself in the playoffs as a first option, while the same is not true of Kobe Bryant. Additionally, your argument falls flat on its face (as usual), as you’ve completely failed to mention what exactly prevents a player from putting up 28/6/6 on a 34 win lottery team versus 28/6/6 on a 54 win championship team. Until you answer that question, your argument will continue to look fishy. 



> Various periods are just that, various periods. If he can replicate those 'periods' consistently, then maybe he can be a #1 option.


Replicate them when? In the postseason? Like he did in 01, 02, 03, 04, etc.? Yeah, sure, whatever you say. 



> If it is in fact... erm... a fact, then more people would be convinced of it. Ask around and find that it is not a fact no matter how many times you tell yourself that.


I tend not to converse with people who didn’t actually witness the events in question, so it is indeed hard to carry on a conversation with such people (yourself) in that instance. As is, you’ve offered no proof he wasn’t a first option, while I have. And that, sir, is yet another fact.


----------



## rebelsun (Nov 25, 2003)

...when Kobe turns 38.


----------

