PDA

View Full Version : Kobe's legacy better off if he wasn't a Laker?



dnewguy
06-22-2010, 08:41 PM
Would Kobe have been better off winning championships with another team? A team that does not include the Bulls, Celtics, Lakers and Spurs. All those teams I mentioned have already had a special player or players that put their franchise on the map. If Kobe had played for a less popular franchise, it is arguable that he would be regarded as a top 5 player of all time but since he was with the Lakers, people tend to credit the franchise history of winning rather than Kobe's impact. Kobe is just one of many Laker greats, he would never be the greatest Laker, a feat he could have acheived with another team. The Spurs is mostly identified with Duncan, Bulls with Jordan, Wade with Heat and Lebron with Cavs. Did Kobe's legacy take a hit simply because he is a Laker?

Please I only want constructive replies, don't just look for a reason to bash the writer.

kblo247
06-22-2010, 08:53 PM
Not really as the Lakers are remembered for eras and an advantage Kobe has over most Lakers is that he has a building to call his own while the others shared the Forum. Staples will always be remembered as the house he and Phil really built

JordansBulls
06-22-2010, 08:54 PM
I think it means more personally if you win with an organization that wasn't a winning one before you came.


Examples: Bulls, Rockets, Pistons to name a few weren't really winning organizations ever until they got an elite star.

cmellofan15
06-22-2010, 08:57 PM
if he got 5 rings on the Hornets he would be less hated.

DCB/LAL
06-22-2010, 08:57 PM
I think it means more personally if you win with an organization that wasn't a winning one before you came.


Examples: Bulls, Rockets, Pistons to name a few weren't really winning organizations ever until they got an elite star.

Pretty much every Organization is like that except for the Lakers, Celtics and now you can add the Bulls and Spurs other than that no team has more than 3.

yojoe792
06-22-2010, 09:01 PM
Think about it like this:

Would you rather have the best house in Compton, or a great house in Beverly Hills?

JordansBulls
06-22-2010, 09:04 PM
Pretty much every Organization is like that except for the Lakers, Celtics and now you can add the Bulls and Spurs other than that no team has more than 3.

Yes right now you can say that.

I would say the winning organizations are:

Lakers
Celtics
Bulls
Rockets
Pistons
Spurs


I think 20 years since winning is good enough to say if an organization is a winning one or not.

So if your Franchise had won a title within 20 years of when the player on it now won, then it is a winning organization.

Hawkeye15
06-22-2010, 09:06 PM
maybe. The Laker are a winning organization, so its expected. That being said, its still very difficult to win. But sure, for entertainment purposes, if Kobe went to a cap strapped team that didn't have the resources to surround him with talent the majority of his career, and still won 5 rings, yes, his legacy would be higher. But in reality, its hard to win a ring no matter how you slice it

_KB24_
06-22-2010, 09:13 PM
Think about it like this:

Would you rather have the best house in Compton, or a great house in Beverly Hills?

lol this.

CowboysKB24
06-22-2010, 09:14 PM
Would Kobe have been better off winning championships with another team? A team that does not include the Bulls, Celtics, Lakers and Spurs. All those teams I mentioned have already had a special player or players that put their franchise on the map. If Kobe had played for a less popular franchise, it is arguable that he would be regarded as a top 5 player of all time but since he was with the Lakers, people tend to credit the franchise history of winning rather than Kobe's impact. Kobe is just one of many Laker greats, he would never be the greatest Laker, a feat he could have acheived with another team. The Spurs is mostly identified with Duncan, Bulls with Jordan, Wade with Heat and Lebron with Cavs. Did Kobe's legacy take a hit simply because he is a Laker?

Please I only want constructive replies, don't just look for a reason to bash the writer.

Kobe is arguable the best Laker right now. By the end of his career he will be the best. Magic and West already believe he is the best Laker. I understand that it would be weird if Magic said he was the best, but it is a credible source. He brought the franchise five rings, Finals MVP, etc, etc, the list goes on forever. I think accomplishing that would be a huge accolade for him.

If he went to another team and was the best player from that franchise, it would be less meaningful because there was no competition to be the best. Kobe is a top five player of this game of all time. There is no argument for that. By the end of his career he will have the most points as a Laker and have enough accomplishments to be the best Laker ever.

The only people who disagree with that are haters and just trying to discredit him.

dnl123
06-22-2010, 09:14 PM
Kobe wouldn't have won 5 championships on another team. He won the first three with one of the most dominant centers in the history of the NBA, and he's in a big market so his team has been able to get him good help for the last two championships. If he played on a small market team he wouldn't be as talked about either. I guess that means that he wouldn't be as hated, but he also wouldn't be as big of a name either. Also to clarify Kobe wouldn't be in the top 5 players in the history of the NBA no matter where he played. I think his legacy takes a hit because people are unfair to him. He gets compared to the greatest who has ever played. He's a very good player, but when you compare him to MJ it's not fair to Kobe because he falls short and that makes him look worse in the long run.

still1ballin
06-22-2010, 09:16 PM
no

dnl123
06-22-2010, 09:17 PM
Kobe is arguable the best Laker right now. By the end of his career he will be the best. Magic and West already believe he is the best Laker. I understand that it would be weird if Magic said he was the best, but it is a credible source. He brought the franchise five rings, Finals MVP, etc, etc, the list goes on forever. I think accomplishing that would be a huge accolade for him.

If he went to another team and was the best player from that franchise, it would be less meaningful because there was no competition to be the best. Kobe is a top five player of this game of all time. There is no argument for that. By the end of his career he will have the most points as a Laker and have enough accomplishments to be the best Laker ever.

The only people who disagree with that are haters and just trying to discredit him.


I could just as easily say the only people that think Kobe is one of the top 5 players of all time are homers that don't appreciate basketball history at all.

Teeboy1487
06-22-2010, 09:21 PM
I don't know because he plays for one of the most cherished and history rich franchises in sports. I think playing with the lakers have helped his legacy. Out of all the great players the lakers have had, he leads the franchise in scoring. That in of itself is truly remarkable considering the legends the lakers' organization have put on the court in history.

Also, playing for the lakers have even helped his legacy globally too. He is probably the most regarded player in the nba globally because of playing for the lakers. Right now, Kobe is considered a top 10-15 player of all time. That's a great legacy to me and he has played for the lakers his whole career. There is a reason guys like Lebron want to play for franchises like the Lakers, Knicks, and Bulls. If they win there, their legacy can pretty much be cemented.

However, I don't think playing for a low market team will hurt that much unless they lose every year. To me, superstars' legacies are predicated on winning championships inorder to be regarded among the Elite of all time.

Winning with bigger and more known franchises helps but it certainly doesn't hurt. JMO.

dnl123
06-22-2010, 09:23 PM
I don't know because he plays for one of the most cherished and history rich franchises in sports. I think playing with the lakers have helped his legacy. Out of all the great players the lakers have had, he leads the franchise in scoring. That in of itself is truly remarkable considering the legends the lakers' organization have put on the court in history.

Also, playing for the lakers have even helped his legacy globally too. He is probably the most regarded player in the nba globally because of playing for the lakers. Right now, Kobe is considered a top 10-15 player of all time. That's a great legacy to me and he has played for the lakers his whole career. There is a reason guys like Lebron want to play for franchises like the Lakers, Knicks, and Bulls. If they win there, their legacy can pretty much be cemented.

However, I don't think playing for a low market team will hurt that much unless they lose every year. To me, superstars' legacies are predicated on winning championships inorder to be regarded among the Elite of all time.

Winning with bigger and more known franchises helps but it certainly doesn't hurt. JMO.


Thank you very much for giving me hope that there may actually be intelligent Laker fans such as yourself....

kblo247
06-22-2010, 09:30 PM
I think being mentioned with Magic, West, Kareem, and those guys as the best Laker ever helps him in the long run because if you put him there you have to put him with the all time greats

RipVW
06-22-2010, 09:48 PM
Maybe it does...but it also cuts bot ways.

But Im going to approach this from a slightly different angle. Does everyone remember 1999 when you started seeing all these "Best _______ of the Century" polls? Do you remember this obsession with ranking stuff? Well, has it really stopped? We currently have a culture that feels compelled to rank stuff when enraptured by the moment. Not everyone is on board with this and so, therein lies another conflict where this is concerned. In this regard, it has less to do with Kobe than it does with the people who are slaves to the moment and the people who are annoyed by this.

Justice 84
06-23-2010, 12:42 AM
For most players, it helps their legacy to win in a city that doesnt have a long tradition of HOFers and championships. But for KObe, its actually helped his legacy playing for the Lakers. He has broken a majority of every individual all time Laker records, in the regular season and playoffs. And with his 5th title, he has propelled himself side by side with Magic as the Greatest Laker of all time. And as an individual player, if you are at the very top for such a historic and storied franchise, your legacy becomes that much stronger.

Lakers4ItAll
06-23-2010, 01:02 AM
if he got 5 rings on the hornets he would be less hated.

yep

Hellcrooner
06-23-2010, 01:02 AM
you always have to battle against GREAT legazyes in any franchise that was in the nba before 1988

Justice 84
06-23-2010, 01:28 AM
you always have to battle against GREAT legazyes in any franchise that was in the nba before 1988

Maybe but nothing like battling legacies on teams like the Lakers or Celtics. Where not even winning a couple of championships means much.

sunnydayin'zona
06-23-2010, 01:55 AM
first thing that came to mind is, what if he had done it on the knicks? i think he'd immediately be top 5 player ever.

i hate kobe because i'm a suns fan, but 5 and counting on the knicks would be legendary status for kobe. (well, even more so than now)

CALIABQLKRS
06-23-2010, 02:41 AM
Thank you very much for giving me hope that there may actually be intelligent Laker fans such as yourself....

Just to respond to your very intelligent answer.. Did you really have to say that? Seriously.. you just fall in the same category as those "intelligent" bandwaggon Lakers fans..

And to answer the OP's question.. Kobe has an amazing Legacy already.. After next year Kobe is going to be the greatest player on the best franchise in league history. You cant get much better than that..

And as far as his legacy being better if he was on like the Cavaliers(without Lebron), would he have a better rep? No. Cuz all the Lakers fans would hate him lol those same Lakers fans would be dissin him all the time.. and would say Lebron is the best because Lebron would probably be a Laker... So there will always be haters, cuz he is a great player. Same thing happened to MJ, but after MJ retired the 2nd time thats when EVERYONE realized that they witnessed the BEST player to play the game..

xbrackattackx
06-23-2010, 10:40 AM
if he got 5 rings on the Hornets he would be less hated.

Charlotte Hornets may still be around had they kept Kobe. He was a revenue waiting to happen.

S-Dot
06-23-2010, 10:44 AM
He was very fortunate to go to the Lakers for Vlade Divac back in '96. He plays for a storied franchise in Hollywood, and that summer of '96 they brought in Shaq who brought a tremendous fan base and publicity as well. He was a great player put in a perfect situation. Who knows what would happen if he actually stayed with Charlotte?

mavwar53
06-23-2010, 10:50 AM
yes to the original question, but would he have the rings probably not, so he probably wouldn't have much of a legacy

Da Knicks
06-23-2010, 11:01 AM
Kobe would of had a greater legacy in New York or Phily, reason is both are big markets that would still have a lot of fans and kobe would not be just another great player in a great franchise. He would be viewed more like a Jordan a player in a big market who made the team relevant no matter how much help he would have. If he went to a small market and won 5 rings he would be a god since that would be nearly impossible to do. Big Markets have the advantage of being on t.v. the most and having the league favor them just take a look at all the teams with championships. Only the spurs are a small market therefore had to get international players to try and expand the audience since they are not on t.v. as much as the big markets. The knicks will be viewed on 4 of the western states this year that is what a player wants, they need the exposure to get known and sell whatever it is they sell.

Saying this Kobe is known world wide because he is a laker but to the real nba fans we know who has it harder to win. The players that shine in a small market will always have it harder to win, big free agents do no want to sign in a small market team therefore the star of that team will never have the help necessary to win...

Hellcrooner
06-23-2010, 11:27 AM
something that is fun is how people think that he would win wherever.

Well im almos certain that had Raptors or Grizzlies taken him he would have not won jack.

And im 100% crtain if he was drafted by bulls Mj would ahve broken up completley his spirit in those three first seasons of his career so much that he would probably be playing the Korean league.

Being a star in this league has a LOT to do with LUCK on draft day.

DaBUU
06-23-2010, 01:15 PM
maybe. The Laker are a winning organization, so its expected. That being said, its still very difficult to win. But sure, for entertainment purposes, if Kobe went to a cap strapped team that didn't have the resources to surround him with talent the majority of his career, and still won 5 rings, yes, his legacy would be higher. But in reality, its hard to win a ring no matter how you slice it

how would his legacy be higher if say he won 5 rings in Portland or Seattle? He's the kind of freakin Los Angeles and is considered top 2-3 all time, how does his legacy get better than that, this is why the whole MJ shadow theory is bullcrap.

Da Knicks
06-23-2010, 01:19 PM
I dont think Kobe would be where he is at today without L.A. but the question was his legacy. Whoever would of ended up being in Kobes place would of being getting the attention he is getting. The question was would his legacy be the same and no it wouldnt in a small market it would be impossible to win, therefore the big market teams he could of gone to and had he won 5 championships with that could of made him look better would be new york and phily. Those cities would be the ones who could give him the exposure and hype he would need to be considered great. Its all about being at the right place at the right time...