|
A more direct response to Kid Robb and Gonzo...
The way I got caught up on the Kobe bandwagon is because people on this board were appalled that the Lakers would choose Kobe over Shaq, but to me it is a completely rational decision.
Its hard to say how good the Lakers would be if they kept Shaq and let Kobe walk. If they had really good luck on the free agent market they may have been a title contender, but its all really up in the air. Much of the Lakers success this year comes from Lamar Odom, who the Lakers wouldn't have.
I am going to assume that they still had a good team, maybe finish 4th in the West (realistically). They may have won another title in the next four/five years, but with the way the NBA is looking now you really can't say. I don't think they could dominate like they did during the three-peat because there are so many top tier teams now. Then after five years we will assume that if Shaq hasn't retired, he will be pretty ineffective by that point. Then you look around the league and Kobe Bryant hasn't even started his decline yet. He would be young thirties with a good five more years left. The talk on these boards is almost like if you don't have Shaq on your team you can't win a championship. Well a certain SG and SF combo won six together in Chicago a few years ago so I wouldn't say Kobe in incapable of winning another one.
At least in my opinion, Kobe is a step above T-Mac of Ray Allen or any of those other hot SG/SF types. I consider Kobe the third best player in the league behind Duncan and KG, and I have to assume that I am not the only one who thinks that (Lakers). So basically I think the way that the Lakers were looking at it is that if they kept Kobe, they would have a good 10 more years to find somebody to put him with. If they keep Shaq, they have maybe 5. Thats just what I think they were thinking.
|