Hino - 02 November 2007 07:30 AM
The same man crush again over Kobe. More cliches and dated pop references. How about a nice shout out to the Eagles, the band not the football team.
You can check out of Kobe anytime you like. But you can never leave.
Was this just a pop culture reference following the “Kobe Bryant Highway”, or was it a real curiosity about really happened in that Colorado hotel room?
Do the Bulls need a player that can get his own shot? I think we can agree on that. Can they win a title this year, this year, with the team that they have assembled? I think we can agree that no is the appropriate answer there as well.
Now, for the $60,000,000 question: Do you completely mortgage a potentially bright future for a disgruntled superstar? A superstar that ran, perhaps the biggest immovable force in the lane of his time, off because he could not co-exist with him. Do you continue to go after him and have that be a distraction for a team that needs to get off to a hot start?
Worse yet, do you make the deal because Tinky “demands” it?
IS Bryant good. Yes. Is he the best player in the game? Perhaps. Can he be a disgruntled prima-donna? Appears so. So to paraphrase the most despised columnist* in Chicago, “Will you get good Kobe or disgruntled Kobe?”
There has to be a logical reason why the deal wasn’t made. And unfortunately, we may never be privy to that reason.
In all honesty, let’s not pin that issue of Shaq leaving LA on Kobe...that was Dr. Buss’ idea because Shaq missed half a season and didn’t get himself into shape for consecutive seasons after they won their last title. As a matter of fact, Kobe and Shaq spoke about it earlier this year, and Shaq accepted it as truth…
You can’t blame Kobe for the Shaq-Kobe Feud - From Wikipedia:Shaq-Kobe Feud
The 2002-2003 NBA season began with the three-time defending champion (Lakers) getting off to one of their worst starts ever. The team was several games under .500, and many wondered if they would even make the playoffs. Shaquille O’Neal was sidelined with a toe injury. O’Neal could have had surgery on his toe early in the summer (which would have allowed him to return to playing sooner), but he decided to wait and have the surgery performed not long before the Lakers’ pre-season training camp began. He said, “I got hurt on company time, so I’ll heal on company time.”
Just prior to the start of the 2003-2004 season, O’Neal and Bryant began feuding once more. The opening salvo, at least publicly, came from O’Neal at the start of the Lakers’ pre-season training camp. With Bryant absent from camp due to his legal situation and his recovery from knee surgery, O’Neal answered questions about the Lakers’ not having their whole team together yet in camp by pointedly insisting that the whole team was in fact there. Though never mentioning Bryant by name, O’Neal’s comments seemed clearly intended to belittle Bryant’s importance to the team.
When Bryant joined the Lakers in camp, O’Neal told reporters Bryant should look to be more of a passer than a scorer until Bryant’s knee was fully healed. Bryant took offense, and fired back that he did not appreciate unsolicited advice from O’Neal on how to play the guard position.
O’Neal then responded that he would voice his opinions as he saw fit because the Lakers were his team. He said that if Bryant, who would be a free agent at the season’s end, didn’t like what O’Neal had to say, Bryant should just leave the team.
After the loss, the division between O’Neal and Bryant came to a head. At the news conference after the final game, O’Neal addressed the uncertainty around Coach Phil Jackson’s now-expired contract, and Bryant’s impending free agency, which meant either or both might not return to the Lakers the next season. With regard to the issue of people possibly leaving the team, O’Neal commented that he understood that everyone would need to do what was best for themselves, then adding “including me.” That last comment was telling because there had previously been no significant speculation about O’Neal’s future with the team, as he was under contract with the Lakers for two more years.
Eventually Jackson, a favorite of O’Neal, was not offered a new contract by the Lakers. Many assumed that this was because of Bryant, who had at times voiced displeasure with Jackson’s offensive scheme. O’Neal, who wasn’t notified of the move and learned of it by watching television, asked for a trade, making it clear that he felt the Laker organization was making moves designed primarily to placate Bryant.
Now on to the Bulls, where is the potentially bright future for this team to be any better than it already is? It has NO STAR POWER...and you have to have that to win in the NBA. And, unless we’re willing to make a deal to get that player (someone else even if it’s not Kobe) then this will be a “nice” little team of jump shooters with no post presence, and no rings.
The logical reason that the deal wasn’t made is because LA wanted Deng and Paxson wasn’t budging on that (I can’t blame him). I’m not saying give away the franchise for Kobe and make them the Lakers Midwest, but for all of those who are just NO KOBE ALL THE TIME...it just makes no sense…
I live in Indianapolis...I hate the Pacers so their demise has been my joy. However, this team is going to be just like they were...year after year they make the playoffs, challenge for an Eastern Conference title, maybe make a finals appearance (like Cleveland last year), then they age and it’s all over. How fun is that?
