if lakers lose, what about kobe?

[playstation]

does that change the odds of him leaving in your mind? by how much?

and, what about shaq's father's comments yesterday?

The plot has thickened!

 

[George O'Brien]

If the Lakers exit quickly, I think it will have more impact on Malone and Payton than Kobe. Malone and Payton might stick it out for another year if they won - but I don't think they are happy and losing will make it worse.

With Kobe, his issues are more complex. However, if he gets the blame for losing he may be more motivated to leave.

 

[elindholm]

I think if the Lakers win, Bryant will stay for sure.

If they lose, they might blow up the team. Payton would be gone for sure, in spite of his "promise" to follow Malone. Malone might retire. O'Neal looks unmotivated (he was good in the middle quarters yesterday, but terrible in the first and mediocre in the fourth), and if Jackson calls it quits, it wouldn't surprise me that much to see O'Neal retire too. Under all those circumstances, Bryant might be the one to stay, since it would be undeniably his team at that point.

My assertion all along that Bryant would stay with the Lakers has been based on the assumption that they would win this year's title. If that proves to be incorrect, I think everything is a lot less clear. One thing that's certain is that next year's Lakers won't look like this year's Lakers if they don't get it done now.

 

[F-Dog]

I think it works the other way around, actually--if the Lakers get spanked, Kobe is more likely to stay.


If the Lakers win this year, or if they come very close, that means that management has an incentive to try and keep everybody around, which is exactly what Kobe doesn't want. (I'm sure Kobe would prefer to stay much more if the team is willing to play by his rules.) If they prove they can't compete with their current roster, though, it probably drives them into rebuilding mode--I mean, there aren't two more HOFers left to pick up this summer.

Kobe looks better (and Shaq looks worse) to a team that's rebuilding...

 

[Chaplin]

I think it works the other way around, actually--if the Lakers get spanked, Kobe is more likely to stay.


If the Lakers win this year, or if they come very close, that means that management has an incentive to try and keep everybody around, which is exactly what Kobe doesn't want. (I'm sure Kobe would prefer to stay much more if the team is willing to play by his rules.) If they prove they can't compete with their current roster, though, it probably drives them into rebuilding mode--I mean, there aren't two more HOFers left to pick up this summer.

Kobe looks better (and Shaq looks worse) to a team that's rebuilding...

But Shaq is virtually untradeable with his contract, which means unless Shaq retires, he will remain a Laker next year. Does Kobe want that? My guess would be no.

 

[F-Dog]

But Shaq is virtually untradeable with his contract, which means unless Shaq retires, he will remain a Laker next year. Does Kobe want that? My guess would be no.

My guess is that Shaq is more tradeable than you think.

 

[elindholm]

My guess is that Shaq is more tradeable than you think.

Really? To whom? Keep in mind that his current contract is up in 2006 and he's been pretty equivocal about whether he'll keep playing after that, so any team trading their future for him has to believe they're very close to winning now.

The only team I can think of with enough talent and salary to make it work is Dallas, and I really can't see O'Neal working for Mark Cuban.

 

[F-Dog]

My guess is that Shaq is more tradeable than you think.

Really? To whom? Keep in mind that his current contract is up in 2006 and he's been pretty equivocal about whether he'll keep playing after that, so any team trading their future for him has to believe they're very close to winning now.

The only team I can think of with enough talent and salary to make it work is Dallas, and I really can't see O'Neal working for Mark Cuban.

It depends on what kind of talent you're talking about. What if the Lakers aren't looking for a superstar in return?

I could see Denver, Portland, Memphis, Detroit, Indiana, and/or Chicago putting up attractive offers, if they wanted to do so. "Trade Shaq, and he'll come back angry and destroy the entire league" is a myth with some drawing power IMO.

 

[jf-08]

It depends on what kind of talent you're talking about. What if the Lakers aren't looking for a superstar in return?

I could see Denver, Portland, Memphis, Detroit, Indiana, and/or Chicago putting up attractive offers, if they wanted to do so. "Trade Shaq, and he'll come back angry and destroy the entire league" is a myth with some drawing power IMO.

personally, I think the LA market needs the "Star Power" that they have in either Shaq or Kobe.

IMO, I don't think that they can afford to lose both of them.

 

[elindholm]

O'Neal has said several times that he won't play for any coach other than Jackson. If he's traded, I can easily imagine him either retiring or "playing" by going through the motions at half speed. Not a bad gig for $60-whatever million over two years.

If I were a team with significant young talent, no way would I trade my entire franchise for O'Neal.

 

[minercon]

Wow...I knew that California had water problems, but the Lake(r)s are actually going to dry up. As long as they don't rob us of our reservoirs, I don't care what they do.

 

[F-Dog]

O'Neal has said several times that he won't play for any coach other than Jackson. If he's traded, I can easily imagine him either retiring or "playing" by going through the motions at half speed. Not a bad gig for $60-whatever million over two years.

If I were a team with significant young talent, no way would I trade my entire franchise for O'Neal.

I don't think Indiana would dump JO or Denver would give up Carmelo. The question is whether teams would trade $30m worth of cap space and not-lousy contracts for Shaq, and I think the answer is yes.

Would Indiana trade Croshere, Bender, Al Harrington, Scot Pollard and Jeff Foster to the Lakers for Shaq and Brian Cook? I think they would, and I think the Lakers would be willing to take it, too, if the other option was losing Kobe and getting nothing in return.

Portland could make any number of trades for Shaq--Theo Ratliff, Shareef and the Nanny Stopper is a trade they'd do, and Damon Stoudamire's and Dale Davis's contracts are both highly expendable. If the Lakers could just move Shaq for expiring contracts, they'd have monster cap room in 2005--Kobe could try his hand at selling the franchise to the players he'd like to work with.


If the price goes low enough, other teams will be willing to take the risk of taking on Shaq. If the Lakers get swept and Kobe delivers an ultimatum, the Lakers' price for Shaq could get awfully low. That's my take on the situation, anyway.

Phil Jackson is gone after this year if they lose, IMO, regardless of what Shaq says. Phil has no taste for the 'down' portion of the roller-coaster ride.

 

[slinslin]

And Indiana would have only 8 players left on their roster and that includes Fred Jones, Jamaal Tinsley, Anthony Johnson, Primoz Brezec, Reggie Miller, Ron Artest, Shaq, Jermaine.

Why would the team with the best record this season do that.

 

[F-Dog]

And Indiana would have only 8 players left on their roster and that includes Fred Jones, Jamaal Tinsley, Anthony Johnson, Primoz Brezec, Reggie Miller, Ron Artest, Shaq, Jermaine.

Why would the team with the best record this season do that.

Because they won't win the title this year, is why.

The Pacers would still have the MLE to fill out their roster through free agency, and they could do a lot worse than having Shaq, JO and Artest as the team's core.

 

[slinslin]

A 35 years old little motivitated never in shape once dominant player I would never consider a core.

And what are the Pacers going to get for the MLE? Not much at all.

And Shaq hasn't won a championship in the past seasons. And that's with Kobe Bryant and this season Kobe, Payton and Malone.

 

[F-Dog]

And what are the Pacers going to get for the MLE? Not much at all.

Well, you know Karl Malone will be looking for a contender to latch onto.

 

[George O'Brien]

Well, you know Karl Malone will be looking for a contender to latch onto.

If Malone wanted to play on a contender, I'm sure the Mavs would sign him in a heartbeat. I'm not sure it would be enough to bet him a ring, but they would be vastly more competative.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

The Lakers are not going to trade Shaq unless they get the other teams BEST player, not to mention 2-4 solid, young players.

Think about it, why would LA give up Shaq for such little in return.

Also, if Shaq retires, he will pull a Hakeem, and just say he is retiring. His deal will remain on the books until it expires, no way Shaq gives up 60 million.

Personally, if the Lakers want to rebuild, trades really aren't the way to do it IMO. At least not involving Shaq. The trade would have to be so large scale, they would be forced to take back some less than attractive players/contracts. It would be better to sign and trade Kobe, where they could choose their young talent, and not have to take back any bad deals.

Also, IF the Lakers want to blow it up, they will have to wait till Shaqs deal expires. Think about the FA splash they will make in 2006 with 30 million coming off the books. It isn't like they are in danger of loosing money the next two years. It would be better for them to just start from scratch (either with Kobe, or players from a sign and trade).

 

[playstation]

IMO for the lakers (assuming they lose to SA), this summer will be a high stakes game of poker. They're not trading ANYONE, they'll let Phil go (i bet malone and payton are out as well), offer Kobe the max, and cross their fingers. If he wants to leave, he'll leave. He'll have to settle for less money wherever he goes, but maybe its not worth the crap he'd have to put up with to stay in Lakerland. what are your thoughts on that?

 

[George O'Brien]

Latest rumors are that Phil Jackson is asking $10 million to return next year. If he is serious, it sounds more like he is forcing the Lakers to let him go without him having to "quit".

I think Payton is gone and Malone is likely to retire. Kobe will return but only if he gets to pick the coach.

 

[Joe Mama]

I think as long as Phil Jackson is not the coach next year and Shaquille O'Neal and Karl Malone are still there that Gary Payton will be back with the Lakers. IMO GP is only a better-than-average point guard when he is allowed to dominate the ball offensively.

Joe Mama

 

[George O'Brien]

I think as long as Phil Jackson is not the coach next year and Shaquille O'Neal and Karl Malone are still there that Gary Payton will be back with the Lakers. IMO GP is only a better-than-average point guard when he is allowed to dominate the ball offensively.

Joe Mama

GPs reputation was built on his defense, but he was a big scorer for most of career. I hadn't realized just how much he dominated the ball until I looked at his stats. Two years in particular stand out because it was when he was named to the Olympic team.

Between 92-93 season and 02-03 he never averaged less than 19 ppg. In 99-00 he averaged 24.2 ppg on 41.8% (8.9 asssists) and in 00-01 he averaged 23.1 ppg on 41.1% (8.1 assists).

During those years, Brent Barry was the "shooting guard" but only averaged 11.8 ppg in 99-00 and 8.8 ppg in 00-01. Of course he shot 46.3% in 99-00 and 49.4% in 00-01.

I suspect that GP will do better playing on another team - one that needs a lot of scoring fromt he PG.