Jump to content
TSM Forums
Sign in to follow this  
JohnnyBlaze

Where does Kobe Go?

Recommended Posts

Humanoid, I am not going to quote that because it is huge, but basically the Bulls and Suns would destroy their team chemistry and take at least another year to get together again.

 

The Suns lose too much defensively, The Bulls come out raping everyone in that deal and the Lakers are left with no scorers outside of Barbosa.

 

Once again, the Suns trade the Lakers the Hawks pick next year, two first rounders this year, Barbosa, and Marion and its a better deal for them. All they would have to give up is Kobe. THe Suns on the other hand, and this is assuming they are going to sign Grant Hill like all signs point to, have a lineup of:

 

Amare, Marion, Hill, Bryant, Nash with Diaw, Kurt Thomas and James Jones(realistically) coming off the bench. I say realistically because D'antoni isn't going any deeper than 8, even though he should play Banks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admit that it has its flaws but it's the best I could come up with as far as salaries working out.

 

When you say the Suns lose too much defensively, 1) since when have they ever cared about defense and 2) I assume all you mean by that is that they're losing Bell. Kurt Thomas is good defensively, but he's never fit in with the team to being with. He was good in the Spurs series, but their title hopes are not going to hinge on Kurt Thomas' defense.

 

How does it destroy Phoenix's team chemistry in the least? The three most important players plus Diaw all remain, and they still play the same style. The whole point was that they're acquiring guys that will fit perfectly in their system. It would not set them back a year.

 

If anything, trading Marion, as has been rumored, would be the backbreaker. Obviously, yeah, your proposed core of Nash, Kobe, and Amare craps on anything. But there's no way the Lakers trade Kobe to nearby Phoenix. If he's going anywhere, they're shipping him to the east.

 

I don't think the Bulls come out way ahead in my proposed deal like you seem to think because it really leaves them with nothing up front. It gives them a great 1-2-3 and not much else, almost like a superior version of the Nets (Hinrich/Kobe/Deng - Kidd/Carter/Jefferson). And if they're "raping everyone" like you think, why do you also think it would upset their chemsitry so much? Seems to be a contradictory statement. The main guys they're losing have only been there for one season anyway (Wallace, Thomas), and then they're upgrading with Kobe over Gordon. They keep their emerging star forward and their point guard. How exactly does that ruin the chemistry?

 

Also, I don't know if it was you specifically, but I remember reading something on here where the consensus among multiple people seemed to be that Hinrich should be untouchable and Gordon is way more expendable. That's a load of crap. Hinrich is a good player and all, but Gordon is a star in the making. As in, multiple-year All Star, option #2 on a legit contender someday. Again, I don't know if it was you, but I think a lot of people here severely undervalue Ben Gordon. Especially with the way he'd fit with Nash, that would be a tremendous pick up for Phoenix. Whether it's enough to give up Barbosa and Bell is certainly debatable, but it's not like they're getting some scrub back.

 

Banks is terrible; I don't think D'Antoni should play him. But he might not have a choice. He really needs to do a better job of keeping Nash fresh for the playoffs.

 

I hadn't heard the Grant Hill rumor. That's an interesting one. Not sure how I feel about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were the Suns I wouldn't give up Barbosa for Gordon straight up, much less in a deal involving Bell also. Everything I've seen tells me Barbosa is a better player than Gordon, especially on the defensive end. Gordon is only good for putting up points, and there were games last year where Barbosa was absolutely unstoppable on offense...driving, finishing, passing, shooting from outside, the only reason he didn't put up Gordon's PPG is because the Suns have so many scorers.

 

As for the picks, there's no reason to give up #'s 24 and 29 to move up to 19 in this draft unless it's entirely need based or due to an infatuation with a specific player. There'll be just as good of players available at 24 as there is at #19, probably as deep as 29 as well. This is one of those drafts where some of the late first rd and 2nd round picks will end up having better careers than guys in the teens and early 20's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only included the draft picks as a way to get the Lakers both of Phoenix's picks so they would have three total. You could just as easily change my scenario to have the Lakers keep their #19 pick without affecting the whole thing much.

 

And I agree, #19 to #24 isn't a huge gap, but you never know, it could make a difference. Marcus Williams had no business slipping all the way to #21 (I believe) last year. Sometimes good players slip into the 16-20 range, but I doubt they'll make it all the way to 24.

 

As for Barbosa for Gordon straight up, I can't agree with you there. I take Gordon every time. And I say that not because of the PPG numbers. I understand that Barbosa plays on a loaded team and that's why he doesn't score as much. In fact, I mentioned I think Barbosa would be good for 20 PPG on the Lakers.

 

Granted, they're different players. Barbosa is better at getting to the basket, yes. But I think Gordon's pretty underrated on here as far as other parts of his game go. He's not just a shooter. The assists will come, and he's really not bad defnsively. I don't know where that comes from.

 

To say you wouldn't give up Barbosa and Bell for Gordon is completely understandable. And again, we're not just talking about Barbosa vs. Gordon. I believe the partnership of Gordon and Nash together would be better than that of Barbosa and Nash. I just think Gordon and Nash would compliment each other perfectly.

 

As a whole, the deal I proposed would give the Suns more depth, which I think they need. I really do think Radmonovic would actually play well on that team, Duhon would be a solid back up PG instead of the awful Banks, and Gordon could contribute everything Barbosa does for them now. And in order to get that depth, you're giving up Raja Bell. I'm not saying it's a no-brainer- they are giving up a lot because Barbosa and Bell are very valuable. But keeping their big three, getting deeper, and adding two parts that fit (Radmonovic, Duhon), while providing a perfect compliment to Nash at SG is at least worth thinking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest George's Box

I always think Barbosa's first name is Adrian, thus confusing him with Adrienne Barbeau. How odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

We get raped in that gigantic three way deal. Yeah, let's trade our best energy player. Let's also trade two good shooters. Not to mention trading the best player in the world. And let's also get the number 5 pick in next year's draft as a result of that shitty deal. No thanks.

 

Also, Barbosa would not get to the basket all the time with the Lakers. We don't play a drive down the lane offense. I would not touch that deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is true. I was surprised to hear arguments against the Bulls doing that deal, but the Lakers I can understand. When I looked at it, I figured the Lakers were getting hosed the most. I don't actually think they'd ever make that trade, just because they're not getting a star player back.

 

Of course this is also the franchise that turned Shaq into Lamar Odom and Kwame Brown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I think the priority list for the Lakers goes like this when it comes to trading Kobe.

 

1. Get lots of young talent that will let us stay under the luxury tax until they mature and then re-sign them or trade them.

 

2. Build around Andrew Bynum, by seeing if the young talent that we get fits with him, and if not, trade them for different players in straight swaps.

 

3. Do the trade before the draft.

 

4. Get a first rounder or two in the trade, trade one with our 19th for a proven player like Artest, who Phil seems to like.

 

5. Get an expiring.

 

6. Get a star player. I don't think the front office cares about that, to be honest.

 

I think the Lakers had this shit planned out from the moment that they re-signed Kobe. They knew that the best way to build for the future (which is what Kobe's mad about, mind you) was to con Kobe into re-signing here, and then move him for young talent that we could cultivate and bring into their own here, and winning a few titles with those players once they hit their prime. If Bynum pans out...this is going to be another golden era. If not...back to the drawing board, hopefully with an entirely different front office, ownership included. We've gotta keep Brian Shaw around for when Phil retires.

 

If Bynum doesn't pan out, no matter what happens with the Kobe deal, we are fucked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you say the Suns lose too much defensively, 1) since when have they ever cared about defense and 2) I assume all you mean by that is that they're losing Bell. Kurt Thomas is good defensively, but he's never fit in with the team to being with. He was good in the Spurs series, but their title hopes are not going to hinge on Kurt Thomas' defense.

 

Since they were statistically one of the better defensive teams in the league last year and have a all defensive first teamer and Marion(who should have been on the team) and Thomas, all of which are damn good defenders. Saying THomas never fit in with the team is...well...ignoring that he fit in with the team. After being destroyed last year by Kwame Brown, Elton Brand and any other big in the playoffs, it was obvious that a big man defender was needed, and since Amare can't defend ME, Thomas is pretty much the Phoenix front line defender. Bottomline, plus/minus, the Suns play better with Kurt than without him. The team you proposed has Amare and no one else is over 6'9 (maybe radmanivic, but come on, you would be hard pressed to name a point guard that couldn't post him up). And they are supposed to win in the west, where every team has a serviceable big man you have to defend. No....that doesn't work at all.

 

How does it destroy Phoenix's team chemistry in the least? The three most important players plus Diaw all remain, and they still play the same style. The whole point was that they're acquiring guys that will fit perfectly in their system. It would not set them back a year.

 

You traded the entire team. Yes, there would be chemistry issues when they are all used to playing together. Gordon doesn't fit in the Suns scheme. Neither does Radmanvic. Hell, neither does Cook for that matter. People seem to think that phoenix's system is simply run around like a idiot and launch threes. Thats not the case. Rad and Cook have shown the basketball IQ of a turnip, and Gordon isn't a catch and shoot player, he is a shoot off the dribble player, often created in one on one situations, and no one in phoenix really goes one on one outside of Nash in switch situations.

 

I don't think the Bulls come out way ahead in my proposed deal like you seem to think because it really leaves them with nothing up front. It gives them a great 1-2-3 and not much else, almost like a superior version of the Nets (Hinrich/Kobe/Deng - Kidd/Carter/Jefferson). And if they're "raping everyone" like you think, why do you also think it would upset their chemsitry so much? Seems to be a contradictory statement. The main guys they're losing have only been there for one season anyway (Wallace, Thomas), and then they're upgrading with Kobe over Gordon. They keep their emerging star forward and their point guard. How exactly does that ruin the chemistry?

 

Um, your trade kept the PJ Brown, gave them Kurt Thomas and Ronny Turiaf. That would be one of the better defensive front courts in the NBA. And both Thomas and Brown have expiring contracts saving them almost, what, 25+ million in cap space after next season. AND they still have Nocioni? Yeah. The are raping everyone on that team. And how does it ruin chemistry? Kobes game would negate Dengs game(and Gordons too) and to some extent Hinrichs until they learned to play with him. Kobe has only played in the triangle since coming into the league, and thats not what they would be running in Chicago, thus Kobe would have to adjust. OR they would bring in the triangle and the other players would have to adjust. In other words, chemistry issues. Kobes talents would blend in with the Suns offense, and it would blend in with the stand and watch offense of the Knicks, but not so much with the Bulls.

 

Also, I don't know if it was you specifically, but I remember reading something on here where the consensus among multiple people seemed to be that Hinrich should be untouchable and Gordon is way more expendable. That's a load of crap. Hinrich is a good player and all, but Gordon is a star in the making. As in, multiple-year All Star, option #2 on a legit contender someday. Again, I don't know if it was you, but I think a lot of people here severely undervalue Ben Gordon. Especially with the way he'd fit with Nash, that would be a tremendous pick up for Phoenix. Whether it's enough to give up Barbosa and Bell is certainly debatable, but it's not like they're getting some scrub back.

 

Hinrich is should be untouchable. Gordon is way more expendable. If Gordon's shot is off, he offers nothing else on the court, and you would be hard pressed to show any evidence stating otherwise. Hinrich is one of the better on the ball defenders in the league, and can run a offense much better than Gordon when his own shot is off. Gordon can shoot the shit out of the ball and thats about it. They wouldn't be getting a scrub back, but they would be losing a first team all defensive player in the backcourt for a guy that can't guard anyone in the back court. With your trade Phoenix goes from being a "bad defensive team" to being a bad defensive team(minus the quotes which would mean it is actually true).

 

Banks is terrible; I don't think D'Antoni should play him. But he might not have a choice. He really needs to do a better job of keeping Nash fresh for the playoffs.

 

In games Banks got more than 20 min of PT, he averaged 15 points and 6 assist for the suns this year. Basically, when the kid played he played well. He committed one sin in D'antonis offense and thats stopping the ball. It would hit him and there would be a hesitation and that screwed up the entire offense. He was just new to it. He needs to adjust. That is all. This is the same offense that saw Barbosa really sucking for 2 years there too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the topic of trades, here's one I came up with the help of the ESPN machine

 

MEM: Hakim Warrick, Damon Stoudamire, Brian Cardinal, #4 pick, future conditional first or 2nd

 

for

 

PHI: Andre Miller, Kevin Ollie, #12, #38

 

Pau Gasol gets the veteran help he's asking for plus the Griz are able to add some young talent, the 6ers leverage their surplus of picks to move up to an impact spot while keeping their #21 and #30 picks, add an exciting young player in Warrick, and take on two solid vets with fairly reasonable contracts

 

I've been trying to swing a 4 team trade with LA, NY, Sacramento and Minnesota but it's too damn complicated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am against anything that keeps Kevin Ollie in the NBA. Next to Anthony Carter and Ira Newble, I don't think I could respect any NBA players game less than Kevin Ollie.

 

I do think the Griz would be better served at looking for some defensive help at the two guard and just get rid of Stromile Swift(I think he just brings the team down). They have a glut of big men, and all of them can actually play. back court wise, they need health. Kyle Lowery was looking like a big fucking steal until the injury, and Damon isn't a bad vet to have around....I don't think Andre Miller plays as well on a team with a extablished post threat. He is more of a uptempo, fast break guard.

 

 

...

 

Do they have a coach in Memphis yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the priority list for the Lakers goes like this when it comes to trading Kobe.

 

1. Get lots of young talent that will let us stay under the luxury tax until they mature and then re-sign them or trade them.

 

2. Build around Andrew Bynum, by seeing if the young talent that we get fits with him, and if not, trade them for different players in straight swaps.

 

3. Do the trade before the draft.

 

4. Get a first rounder or two in the trade, trade one with our 19th for a proven player like Artest, who Phil seems to like.

 

5. Get an expiring.

 

6. Get a star player. I don't think the front office cares about that, to be honest.

 

Ric Bucher says that #6 is actually their first priority, which is why they won't deal him to the Bulls. Unless the Suns are really offering what Ripper has said includes Marion, Barbosa and the draft picks, I attempt to bleed everything I can out of the Bulls.

 

I don't really want to believe that Kobe will disrupt the Lakers' chemistry next season if he stays, but if Buss doesn't make a move that will persuade Kobe to stay, the wheels are going to come off that wagon by December, if they haven't already.

 

EDIT: The reason that the Bulls are over the cap, is that ESPN hasn't factored in the players that have player or team options. The Bulls can move P.J. Brown and/or Nocioni in a S&T, which the Lakers should really consider. If the time comes when you need to move Kobe, those contracts will be worth something next season (in PJ's case).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why you're being so defensive. Hope you know I'm not trying to attack you personally or anything. Just debating a few points.

 

First off, let me say that as far as discussing the trade goes, it's an exercise in futility anyway. I doubt Kobe will get moved, but if he does, the following will hold true:

 

1. It will be to an Eastern Conference team.

2. It is very unlikely the Lakers will get anything approaching equal value back.

3. It will likely have to be a 3 (or more) team deal because no single team, especially in the East, can afford to give up enough to get Kobe and then still have enough left to be a contender once they get him.

 

That said, remember, this is the NBA. There are bad trades all the time. Very rarely are there good trades that help all parties. Teams that trade away superstars almost never get enough in return. Shaq, Iverson, and McGrady are examples of this just in the past few years.

 

There are a number of reasons my trade would never happen, but it's not like there are a ton of deals on the table that actually do make sense. Short of getting LeBron or Wade, which isn't happening, the Lakers are going to take a hit if they deal Kobe. While some of my suggestions may have been unrealisitc, so is your idea of Kobe, Nash, and Amare ever taking the floor together. Neither one is going to happen.

 

You do have some valid points, but there are others I disagree with.

 

Since they were statistically one of the better defensive teams in the league last year and have a all defensive first teamer and Marion(who should have been on the team) and Thomas, all of which are damn good defenders. Saying THomas never fit in with the team is...well...ignoring that he fit in with the team. After being destroyed last year by Kwame Brown, Elton Brand and any other big in the playoffs, it was obvious that a big man defender was needed, and since Amare can't defend ME, Thomas is pretty much the Phoenix front line defender. Bottomline, plus/minus, the Suns play better with Kurt than without him. The team you proposed has Amare and no one else is over 6'9 (maybe radmanivic, but come on, you would be hard pressed to name a point guard that couldn't post him up). And they are supposed to win in the west, where every team has a serviceable big man you have to defend. No....that doesn't work at all.

 

First off, understand that I am actually a Suns fan. Nash was my favorite player in the league while he was on Dallas so since he went to Phoenix and blew up, I've been pulling for the Suns. There's no one in the league I want to see win a ring more than Nash. So don't assume I'm someone that's never seen them play and think they just heave up threes. I've actually defended their defense many times. Most people see the final score, see that they gave up 104 points, and assume they can't play D. What people don't realize is that if they scored 124 and gave up 102, they actually did quite well, because their style leads to quicker possessions and more of them, so naturally the final score will be higher. I get that. And I agree that Marion was robbed with the first-team defense business.

 

You are right that giving away Thomas without getting another big man back would not work. With Amare as the only guy over 6'9, they'd be at a disadvantage (although I believe Diaw and Marion are only an inch shorter than Thomas). The only reason I incorporated Thomas into my fantasy trade is because Chicago was giving up so many big men that I felt they needed one back, and it helped the salaries even out. But you're right, not having another big man would be a problem.

 

Still, I think you're overrating his contributions to the team a little. I'm not saying he's worthless, but the way that team is structured, they only have 6 players that are vital to their success, and he's not one of them. He's missed 45 games the last two years and they don't miss him the way they'd miss one of the big six. Also note that his minutes were down significantly this year. Last year they made it to the West finals without him, and they beat the aforementioned Kwame and Brand in doing so. As far as him not fitting on the team, all I mean is he's not exactly interchangable with the clear-cut top six. And as good of a defender as he may be, you're not going to see him get crunch time minutes because he's not a part of their best lineup.

 

You traded the entire team. Yes, there would be chemistry issues when they are all used to playing together. Gordon doesn't fit in the Suns scheme. Neither does Radmanvic. Hell, neither does Cook for that matter. People seem to think that phoenix's system is simply run around like a idiot and launch threes. Thats not the case. Rad and Cook have shown the basketball IQ of a turnip, and Gordon isn't a catch and shoot player, he is a shoot off the dribble player, often created in one on one situations, and no one in phoenix really goes one on one outside of Nash in switch situations.

 

You could say that about every team in the league that ever adds two new players to the rotation. That still doesn't explain chemistry issues. I did not trade the entire team. Bell and Barbosa are not the entire team. And Banks doesn't play enough to matter. Six guys on the team matter. Keeping four of them, including the best three, would not dramatically alter the chemistry as you're suggesting. As long as D'Antoni, Nash, Marion, and Amare are still there, the chemistry is fine. Cook is a non-factor. I included him for salary reasons. He'd be the ninth or tenth guy on that depth chart and wouldn't play under D'Antoni so he's irrelevant. I'm not a big Radmonovic fan either, but his one strength is shooting. Call me crazy, but I think it's a good thing to pair another shooter with Nash.

 

Just because Gordon can shoot off the dribble doesn't mean he can't catch and shoot. He can shoot off the dribble and he can create his own shot. And this is a bad attribute to have? That he's not limited to just being a standard catch and shoot guy is a bad thing? Also, he may not be as good as Barbosa in this area, but Gordon absolutely is capable of getting into the paint when he wants to.

 

Um, your trade kept the PJ Brown, gave them Kurt Thomas and Ronny Turiaf. That would be one of the better defensive front courts in the NBA. And both Thomas and Brown have expiring contracts saving them almost, what, 25+ million in cap space after next season. AND they still have Nocioni? Yeah. The are raping everyone on that team. And how does it ruin chemistry? Kobes game would negate Dengs game(and Gordons too) and to some extent Hinrichs until they learned to play with him. Kobe has only played in the triangle since coming into the league, and thats not what they would be running in Chicago, thus Kobe would have to adjust. OR they would bring in the triangle and the other players would have to adjust. In other words, chemistry issues. Kobes talents would blend in with the Suns offense, and it would blend in with the stand and watch offense of the Knicks, but not so much with the Bulls.

 

But the trade also got rid of Ben Wallace and Tyrus Thomas. Substituting Kurt Thomas and Turiaf for Tyrus Thomas and Ben Wallace does not exactly put them over the top as some sort of defensive juggernaut. And PJ Brown is 65 years old. While it would be a good defensive frontcourt, they still would not have solved their problem of finding a low-post scoring threat. Not sure where you're getting 25 million from Kurt and Brown, but the expiring contracts are a fair point because they are valuable.

 

I still don't understand how you can complain that it ruins the chemistry and they're ripping everyone off in the same breath. I think chemistry is important too, but I think you're misrepresenting it here. Before this season, Wallace, Tyrus Thomas, and PJ Brown had never played with the Bulls. Those were three brand new frontcourt players. By your logic, at this time last year, adding them would have been damaging to the chemistry. And yet now, you don't want to break them up because they supposedly have great chemistry. Why is it that three new players last year didn't screw up the chemistry, but two new players this year will? That just doesn't make sense. Just because a team changes some of its parts doesn't automatically mean there will be chemistry problems, especially if the core remains in tact. If that were the case, no team would have chemistry because everybody changes teams so frequently anyway. They are pros. They will adjust.

 

As for Kobe negating Deng, that's interesting because this actually occured to me. He never blended well with Odom. And he didn't exactly play nice with Caron Butler, which makes me wonder if he's capable of playing alongside another big-time small forward.

 

Hinrich is should be untouchable. Gordon is way more expendable. If Gordon's shot is off, he offers nothing else on the court, and you would be hard pressed to show any evidence stating otherwise. Hinrich is one of the better on the ball defenders in the league, and can run a offense much better than Gordon when his own shot is off. Gordon can shoot the shit out of the ball and thats about it. They wouldn't be getting a scrub back, but they would be losing a first team all defensive player in the backcourt for a guy that can't guard anyone in the back court. With your trade Phoenix goes from being a "bad defensive team" to being a bad defensive team(minus the quotes which would mean it is actually true).

 

Time will tell on this one, but I have a very hard time believing Kirk Hinrich will prove to be a better NBA player than Ben Gordon. Now if you want to argue expendable in the sense that Hinrich is a point guard, then that's one thing. If the idea is that a solid point guard is more valuable than a good shooting guard in a league full of swingmen, I can understand that angle. But all things being equal, I'll take Gordon any day.

 

You're attacking me for the misconception that Phoenix is poor defensively (which I don't even agree with) but you're making a big misconception yourself. That Gordon is just a one-dimensional player that's only good for shooting threes is way off base. Steve Kerr he is not. I will admit that he's struggled at times, especially his rookie year. At first he turned the ball over way too much and had virtually no assists. He's been inconsistent at times but he's constantly improving. Once he gets the consistancy down, he'll reach another level. He's already on his way. You say if his shot his off he doesn't offer anything else. First off, it's becoming less and less frequent that he can't find his shot. He had a stretch of something like 23 out of 25 games this season where he scored 20 or more. He can go off for 40 on any given night. And if he doesn't he can absolutely still be an asset. Let's not forget how clutch the guy is. He's Mr. 4th quarter. Maybe he's not the defensive player that Hinrich is, but he's hardly a bad defender. And he doesn't run an offense like Hinrich does because he's not a true point guard.

 

Gordon's major obstacle is that he's somewhat limited by the fact that he's a tweener. A two-guard in a point guard's body. He's never going to pull down 6 boards a game like a Ray Allen-type but that's okay. The thing about Hinrich is that I think we know exactly what he is already. He's a good player who probably won't get much better than he already is. That's not a knock on him. I like Hinrich. He's good. But Gordon has steadily improved, and hasn't even really found his role quite yet. I think we're only seeing Gordon scratch the surface of what he can become while Hinrich is pretty close to his ceiling. Just my opinion. Time will tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, you said the suns losing too much defensively wouldn't be a big deal because they don't care about playing defense. That sounds like saying they are a bad defense team to me. In your trade, the only decent defender on the team is Marion and Diaw on some nights. Nash is a great off the ball defender, and then after that you plummet to no one who plays anything resembling defense at all. You can't win just outscoring people. You have to get stops and that team couldn't stop anyone.

 

And chemistry issues. Its like this, Chicago would either have to change offenses COMPLETELY, or add Bryant to their offense. Their offense now has Hinrich as the primary ball handler, and Deng curling off alot of screens on each wing, which would be Bryants place in their offense. If they continued to run their same offense without Ben Gordon to stretch the floor away from Deng(now Bryant) then it doesn't run as effectively. Basically they would have to adjust BIG time to utilize both players. Yes...there will be chemistry issues. Adding big men that do the same thing as the big men the year before (really what is the difference between the Role of Wallace and Thomas over Chandler?) isn't the same as rehauling your offense. They would win games, but they would be taken apart by a more experienced team in the playoffs. Chemistry shows itself when the team is in trouble and you don't have someone going off and doing their own thing because they aren't used to or don't trust the new offense.

 

I don't see how this affects me saying that they are raping everyone on the deal. I said they would lose ONE year. In year two of this deal, the suns probably lose Gordon, who would be a free agent, because they wouldn't be able to afford to resign him, thus they will lose all their draft picks and the one good player they get in this deal. Then they have traded Barbosa and Bell for Bryan Cook and Radmanavic. The lakers get screwed from the start so it doesn't get any better. The Bulls would have Hinrich, Bryant, Deng, Turiaf, maybe Nocioni and still have cap space. They are coming out like bandits in this deal.

 

I know Gordon isn't just a three point shooter. But he is just a scorer. He is a shorter Michael Redd, no more, no less. Although Redd is a little bit better of a defender. Gordon does not stay in front of quick guards and big guards muscle him around. For the BULLS he is certainly more expendable. Maybe not for another team. If this was, say, Houston, no, you move Hinrich. But really, the guy is just a scorer...a damn good one, but just a scorer. They could take Salim Stoudimire for Atlanta and probably get similar results honestly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vitamin X

And, as for the Kobe saga we keep forgetting about...

 

Bryant says he apologized to Kupchak

By JOHN NADEL, AP Sports Writer

July 5, 2007

 

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Although he didn't rescind his trade request, Kobe Bryant softened his stance somewhat Thursday night, saying he had apologized to Los Angeles Lakers general manager Mitch Kupchak in person for the way he handled his upset feelings five weeks ago.

 

"I just felt like as a man, it was important for me to tell him, `I'm sorry it came out that way,"' Bryant said at a lightly attended news conference at Loyola Marymount, where he spoke mainly about his camp for youngsters at the school this week.

 

Bryant said that while he could have called Kupchak, it was important he speak with him face-to-face.

 

"I was frustrated, I was venting," Bryant said.

 

When asked whether he still wanted out, Bryant replied: "I haven't thought about that in a long, long time. I've kind of stepped away from that. I've concentrated on Team USA. What I say is what I say. We'll just have to see where it goes."

 

The U.S. national team begins practice July 20 in Las Vegas.

 

Bryant, the NBA's leading scorer the past two seasons, complained about a lack of talent around him at season's end, and said May 30 he wanted to be traded, adding nothing could change his mind.

 

Despite that request, the Lakers have made clear that trading Bryant isn't in their plans. Bryant is owed $88.6 million over the next four seasons, but could terminate his contract in two years.

 

The Lakers haven't won a playoff series since reaching the NBA finals in 2004 for the fourth time in five years. With Bryant and Shaquille O'Neal leading the way, they won three straight championships from 2000-02.

 

O'Neal was traded to Miami in July 2004, a day before Bryant signed a seven-year, $136.4 million contract to remain with the Lakers, who haven't won a playoff series since O'Neal left.

 

Bryant said he hasn't spoken with Derek Fisher since Monday, when Fisher was released by the Utah Jazz so he can concentrate on finding the best care for his 11-month-old daughter, who has cancer in her left eye.

 

Fisher said he wants to live in one of the six or seven cities being considered for Tatum's care. Bryant and Fisher were teammates and, from all indications, good friends while playing with the Lakers from 1996-2004 -- the first eight seasons of their NBA careers.

 

Kupchak didn't rule out the possibility of a return to the Lakers for Fisher, who signed with Golden State as a free agent after the 2003-04 season and was later traded to Utah.

 

Bryant said 450 kids aged 8-to-18 attended his camp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×