kg for odom + bynum..

[LA.MJ&KB#1]

Keep Bynum he will be a great player.. You would be able to build a team around him. Kobe, will play for another 7 years a least...So win now or win later its ok with me because I will always be a laker fan.

[Loki]

garnett isnt better than kobe, :stupid: at that suggestion.

Hmm? Kobe has been better than Kobe for all of one season. KG has been better than Kobe for 6 seasons prior to that. KG has had, by far, the more impressive individual career (counting statistics/individual accomplishments, not rings). Hence, KG is better than Kobe. If you want to only count last season (when I admit Kobe > KG), then why not count this season, when KG > Kobe by quite a bit? Sorry, but one season doesn't make Kobe > Garnett overall.

The reason your post is beyond retarded is Kobe had 2 years to lead a team with absolutely no inside presence in a tough conference filled with big man

There's a difference between having an "inside presence" and having a 25/15/5/3 big man. Why does he need the latter and not just the former? He has an inside presence right now with Kwame and Bynum (14.1 pts/18.1 reb/2.6 blk between them). Of course everyone needs help to win, but why does Kobe need a dominant (not just serviceable, like he has now) big man?


And then, even when some Laker fans talk about having, say, KG and Kobe on the same team, they still want more! They talk about how weak their PG and SF positions are. Apparently they feel that the only way they can win is to have studs at every position, as if all championship teams have/had that luxury.

[lakers-city]

Hmm? Kobe has been better than Kobe for all of one season. KG has been better than Kobe for 6 seasons prior to that. KG has had, by far, the more impressive individual career (counting statistics/individual accomplishments, not rings). Hence, KG is better than Kobe. If you want to only count last season (when I admit Kobe > KG), then why not count this season, when KG > Kobe by quite a bit? Sorry, but one season doesn't make Kobe > Garnett overall.

yeah, better individual numbers on losing teams who miss the playoffs or get blown away in the 1st round, why discount kobe's rings and playoffs success ? because it clearly makes him better than garnett ? rings and playoffs success is what makes duncan and shaq better than garnett as well, not their numbers.

[vert48]

[QUOTE=Se

[04mzwach]

no trades are happening with KG in 'em this season for sure.

[Loki]

yeah, better individual numbers on losing teams who miss the playoffs or get blown away in the 1st round, why discount kobe's rings and playoffs success ? because it clearly makes him better than garnett ? rings and playoffs success is what makes duncan and shaq better than garnett as well, not their numbers.

Because KG didn't have Shaq. What sort of postseason success has Kobe had post-Shaq? KG has led his team further than Kobe has as the #1 guy. That's why I discount it.

And you're wrong -- both Duncan and Shaq had more statistically impressive careers than KG, and both have more accomplishments (beyond rings) to boot. So no, it's not just their championships which make them better than KG. And lol @ "losing teams" -- Garnett, prior to last year, did not have a losing season since 1997, his second year in the league. In addition, he's won 50+ games 4 times, including 58 games one year and a trip to the WCF. Kobe has notched seasons of 34 and 45 wins as the leader of his team thus far.


Kobe has not had the more impressive individual career. He has had (slightly) the more impressive overall career than Garnett, because of his 3 rings. But last season -- the one season where Kobe was better than Garnett individually -- does not negate 6 of the last 7 years where KG > Kobe individually.

[TheBynumProject]

Bill Simmons is the best basketball writer at ESPN

For sure. Big fan of his. He really loves the game.

[lakers-city]

Because KG didn't have Shaq. What sort of postseason success has Kobe had post-Shaq? KG has led his team further than Kobe has as the #1 guy. That's why I discount it.

And you're wrong -- both Duncan and Shaq had more statistically impressive careers than KG, and both have more accomplishments (beyond rings) to boot. So no, it's not just their championships which make them better than KG. And lol @ "losing teams" -- Garnett, prior to last year, did not have a losing season since 1997, his second year in the league. In addition, he's won 50+ games 4 times, including 58 games one year and a trip to the WCF. Kobe has notched seasons of 34 and 45 wins as the leader of his team thus far.


Kobe has not had the more impressive individual career. He has had (slightly) the more impressive overall career than Garnett, because of his 3 rings. But last season -- the one season where Kobe was better than Garnett individually -- does not negate 6 of the last 7 years where KG > Kobe individually.

ok, the shaq reason, allright, why no mention of kobe having absolutely no talent around him AT ALL and leading the lakers singlehandedly to the post season ? the year kg got past the 1st round (finally !!) he had cassell and spreewell who were playing great, hell cassell is still playing great, and when cassell went down injured the wolves didnt advance any further, coincidence ?

[hotsizzle]

Because KG didn't have Shaq. What sort of postseason success has Kobe had post-Shaq? KG has led his team further than Kobe has as the #1 guy. That's why I discount it.

And you're wrong -- both Duncan and Shaq had more statistically impressive careers than KG, and both have more accomplishments (beyond rings) to boot. So no, it's not just their championships which make them better than KG. And lol @ "losing teams" -- Garnett, prior to last year, did not have a losing season since 1997, his second year in the league. In addition, he's won 50+ games 4 times, including 58 games one year and a trip to the WCF. Kobe has notched seasons of 34 and 45 wins as the leader of his team thus far.


Kobe has not had the more impressive individual career. He has had (slightly) the more impressive overall career than Garnett, because of his 3 rings. But last season -- the one season where Kobe was better than Garnett individually -- does not negate 6 of the last 7 years where KG > Kobe individually.

this is the arguement i hate when we're talking about kobe. magic had kareem. jordan had pippen. bird had mchale. shaq had kobe. but for some reason, the other second fiddles (kareem, Pippen, mchale) get more credit and you hear people saying well, put iverson with shaq and it equates to 3 rings.

I agree with the last statment though..if kobe and kg were to retire today, kobe would be ranked higher.

[rezznor]

people don't try to annoint pippen and mchale as the best in the league like they do for kobe. kobe is better then them tho.

[lakers-city]

yeah but some people give more credit to those players than they do with kobe, when its obvious kobe was a much better 2nd option than they were.

[rezznor]

i agree that kobe is a better second option then mchale and pippen, not so sure about kareem. he's still not on jordan's level though noone is yet. (lebron and kobe being the closest)

[lakers-city]

when kareem was "the man" he was flat out better than kobe and even shaq for that matter, but on kareem's late years when he was the 3rd option behind magic and worthy he wasnt nearly on kobe's level because of his age.

[hotsizzle]

i agree that kobe is a better second option then mchale and pippen, not so sure about kareem. he's still not on jordan's level though noone is yet. (lebron and kobe being the closest)

I agree with that

[miles berg]

The Lakers would be crazy to turn down KG for Odom/Bynum.

What are the odds that Bynum is ever as good as Zydrunas Ilagauskas? Bynum is a solid prospect that has never had higher trade value. The Lakers would be an elite team with Kobe and KG, immediately up there with the Mavs and Spurs.