On further consideration, maybe Kobe Bryant should sit out the season.If the Lakers aren't serious about trying to compete, then why waste his best years? Say what you will about the Chicago Bulls and breaking up the team or any of the criticisms that endured during their championship years: They never put Michael Jordan in a position where he couldn't win every year once he did. They never experimented and never rebuilt. They brought in veterans and took chances on talent to go for it every day.
You'd have difficulty saying that about the Lakers, and while I may not have gone about protesting the way Bryant did in dialing up talk radio stations — unless I could win a trip to Tijuana by being the 15th caller to guess Jerry Buss' blood alcohol level — he may have a point.
We haven't heard much from Bryant about his plans for this season since the blowup in the spring, when he told various media outlets he doesn't intend to return to the Lakers and wants to be traded, ostensibly to the Bulls.
The Bulls, like several teams, made perfunctory inquiries, but were told Bryant was not available.
Bryant then went to play for Team USA in the Olympic qualifier. He declined to discuss his Lakers situation, saying he didn't want to detract from the U.S. team, but then his play said all that needed to be said.
He was easily the best player on the U.S. team that swept to first place in the tournament. True, the field was weak, but the U.S. team was strong and Bryant shone brightest. He was the team's only true two-way player, as ferocious on defense as he was skilled on offense. He scored from everywhere, as we've seen before, and again left little doubt that while he may not be the most popular, or certainly obliging, player, he is the most talented in the NBA today.
He turned 29 last month, and the Lakers are squandering the best part of his career.
Perhaps Bryant would be better off sitting out a year, just preparing for the 2008 Olympics, perhaps doing some commercials and appearances. He wouldn't make close to the almost $20 million he'd have to forfeit. But he'd save his body and let it recover and perhaps extend his career on the other end.
Meanwhile, it would leave the Lakers as hopeless also-rans, and raise good questions among ticket holders that perhaps their money would be better spent elsewhere. Perhaps buying more political influence and getting those good sleeping arrangements like during the Clinton administration.
The Bulls, like several teams, made perfunctory inquiries, but were told Bryant was not available.
Bryant then went to play for Team USA in the Olympic qualifier. He declined to discuss his Lakers situation, saying he didn't want to detract from the U.S. team, but then his play said all that needed to be said.
He was easily the best player on the U.S. team that swept to first place in the tournament. True, the field was weak, but the U.S. team was strong and Bryant shone brightest. He was the team's only true two-way player, as ferocious on defense as he was skilled on offense. He scored from everywhere, as we've seen before, and again left little doubt that while he may not be the most popular, or certainly obliging, player, he is the most talented in the NBA today.
He turned 29 last month, and the Lakers are squandering the best part of his career.
Perhaps Bryant would be better off sitting out a year, just preparing for the 2008 Olympics, perhaps doing some commercials and appearances. He wouldn't make close to the almost $20 million he'd have to forfeit. But he'd save his body and let it recover and perhaps extend his career on the other end.
Meanwhile, it would leave the Lakers as hopeless also-rans, and raise good questions among ticket holders that perhaps their money would be better spent elsewhere. Perhaps buying more political influence and getting those good sleeping arrangements like during the Clinton administration.
Buss likes to say he is the poorest of the NBA owners, though not with teenaged dates. But it's a crime to watch the Lakers worry about paying the luxury tax and cutting corners with one of the most lucrative and valuable franchises in the NBA. They should be spending millions more, if necessary, to produce the product their market pays for like few others.
First of all, this apparent love affair with Andrew Bynum is lunacy.
Here's a 19-year-old with some pro promise who is three to four years away from being a serious contributor. This supposedly is the lost treasure of Jim Buss, the heir apparently. Jim Buss seems to be convinced he has the next, well, someone.
What he's got is a kid who might be producing when Phil Jackson is gone and Bryant is sliding downward. Are Jackson and Bryant supposed to wait patiently while some kid may develop?
First of all, this apparent love affair with Andrew Bynum is lunacy.
Here's a 19-year-old with some pro promise who is three to four years away from being a serious contributor. This supposedly is the lost treasure of Jim Buss, the heir apparently. Jim Buss seems to be convinced he has the next, well, someone.
What he's got is a kid who might be producing when Phil Jackson is gone and Bryant is sliding downward. Are Jackson and Bryant supposed to wait patiently while some kid may develop?
It's unbelievable, especially because there appears to be a market for Bynum.
The Nets admitted they offered Jason Kidd last February, and Bryant loves playing with Kidd. But the Lakers were probably right to pass on that one. Two great guards isn't quite enough. You also need some size.
There's an obvious deal out there for the Lakers to give them a chance to compete now and give Bryant a high quality player to play with, which all the successful great ones have had and Bryant hasn't had since Shaquille O'Neal was traded. The Lakers insist Bryant didn't force out O'Neal. But even if he did, it's hardly a reason now to leave Bryant on a talent island.
Like Scottie Pippen likes to say, how many titles did Jordan win without him?
Back to Jordan, it wasn't until Pippen developed into a perennial All-Star that the Bulls began to become a serious championship contender. And when they did, they got veterans every year, not babies. Bobby Hansen after the first title, Rodney McCray, Trent Tucker and Darrell Walker in 1992, Ron Harper after that, then Larry Krystkowiak, Dennis Rodman, Robert Parish, Steve Kerr, Bill Wennington, Randy Brown and Joe Kleine. They cut first round picks without inviting them to training camp. Forget potential: You try to win every year you have the best player in the league on your team.
Unless, apparently, you are the Lakers.
The Nets admitted they offered Jason Kidd last February, and Bryant loves playing with Kidd. But the Lakers were probably right to pass on that one. Two great guards isn't quite enough. You also need some size.
There's an obvious deal out there for the Lakers to give them a chance to compete now and give Bryant a high quality player to play with, which all the successful great ones have had and Bryant hasn't had since Shaquille O'Neal was traded. The Lakers insist Bryant didn't force out O'Neal. But even if he did, it's hardly a reason now to leave Bryant on a talent island.
Like Scottie Pippen likes to say, how many titles did Jordan win without him?
Back to Jordan, it wasn't until Pippen developed into a perennial All-Star that the Bulls began to become a serious championship contender. And when they did, they got veterans every year, not babies. Bobby Hansen after the first title, Rodney McCray, Trent Tucker and Darrell Walker in 1992, Ron Harper after that, then Larry Krystkowiak, Dennis Rodman, Robert Parish, Steve Kerr, Bill Wennington, Randy Brown and Joe Kleine. They cut first round picks without inviting them to training camp. Forget potential: You try to win every year you have the best player in the league on your team.
Unless, apparently, you are the Lakers.
Bryant did keep quiet and go along for a few seasons, which he had to do after his sexual assault trail and dropped charges in Colorado.
He did so, but the Lakers hardly responded in kind.
Yes, the Lakers were decimated by injuries last season after a good start, but they hardly were one of the top teams in the Western Conference. And still Bryant was left without a true second option.
He did so, but the Lakers hardly responded in kind.
Yes, the Lakers were decimated by injuries last season after a good start, but they hardly were one of the top teams in the Western Conference. And still Bryant was left without a true second option.
The deal sitting there the Lakers must make and which seems reasonable for both teams is for the Indiana Pacers' Jermaine O'Neal.
It's clearly time for O'Neal to leave the Pacers, which he brings up about every three to four months. The Pacers aren't going anywhere, especially with O'Neal. O'Neal's a big name player, though not quite with the game to match.
He's talented, no question. But he's one of those guys, sort of like Kevin Garnett, who needs to be with a better player. They score, rebound and make plays, but they can't carry a team or really finish a game. O'Neal has shown that since the Pacers turned the team over to him after going to the Finals in 2000. True, Ron Artest was a big distraction, but the Pacers also were at their best in that era when Artest was at his best. When he wasn't, O'Neal wasn't good enough.
But put him with Bryant and you have a comfort zone for O'Neal and finally a star to play with. And Bryant gets a teammate to score and defend and block shots, and then leave the finishing to him.
The Pacers have time, so Bynum makes sense for them. You can grow him with a young core instead of marking time just trying to get the eighth spot.
As for Kidd, it seems unlikely the Nets would deal him now that it seems like they have a legitimate chance to win the East with the return of Nenad Krstic.
Big time players who might be available, like Shawn Marion and Andrei Kirilenko, aren't quite good enough to support Bryant or provide that true additional option.
So here's the obvious deal: O'Neal for Lamar Odom (who was best in Miami when he could control the ball and the team), Bynum and someone like Brian Cook, a useful big man shooter to equalize the salaries. Perhaps Kwame Brown and Troy Murphy could be added to give the Pacers a little future salary cap relief.
If the Lakers don't do something on that scale, they'd be doing themselves and their fans a bigger disservice than they are doing Bryant. Players like Bryant come along rarely. Yet, the Lakers act like after Kobe there'll be another. They always got great players, so they assume they always will. They are wrong. If they waste Bryant's last few years with a mediocre roster or in a feud, they'll regret it for years. Bryant owes the Lakers two years and he'll have to give it to them under his contract. But they could have six or seven more years of excellence with a healthy and happy Bryant, and it's a crime to waste that. Perhaps it's the fans who should be demanding the trade to Chicago.
It's clearly time for O'Neal to leave the Pacers, which he brings up about every three to four months. The Pacers aren't going anywhere, especially with O'Neal. O'Neal's a big name player, though not quite with the game to match.
He's talented, no question. But he's one of those guys, sort of like Kevin Garnett, who needs to be with a better player. They score, rebound and make plays, but they can't carry a team or really finish a game. O'Neal has shown that since the Pacers turned the team over to him after going to the Finals in 2000. True, Ron Artest was a big distraction, but the Pacers also were at their best in that era when Artest was at his best. When he wasn't, O'Neal wasn't good enough.
But put him with Bryant and you have a comfort zone for O'Neal and finally a star to play with. And Bryant gets a teammate to score and defend and block shots, and then leave the finishing to him.
The Pacers have time, so Bynum makes sense for them. You can grow him with a young core instead of marking time just trying to get the eighth spot.
As for Kidd, it seems unlikely the Nets would deal him now that it seems like they have a legitimate chance to win the East with the return of Nenad Krstic.
Big time players who might be available, like Shawn Marion and Andrei Kirilenko, aren't quite good enough to support Bryant or provide that true additional option.
So here's the obvious deal: O'Neal for Lamar Odom (who was best in Miami when he could control the ball and the team), Bynum and someone like Brian Cook, a useful big man shooter to equalize the salaries. Perhaps Kwame Brown and Troy Murphy could be added to give the Pacers a little future salary cap relief.
If the Lakers don't do something on that scale, they'd be doing themselves and their fans a bigger disservice than they are doing Bryant. Players like Bryant come along rarely. Yet, the Lakers act like after Kobe there'll be another. They always got great players, so they assume they always will. They are wrong. If they waste Bryant's last few years with a mediocre roster or in a feud, they'll regret it for years. Bryant owes the Lakers two years and he'll have to give it to them under his contract. But they could have six or seven more years of excellence with a healthy and happy Bryant, and it's a crime to waste that. Perhaps it's the fans who should be demanding the trade to Chicago.
by Sam Smith
MSNBC
No comments:
Post a Comment