PDA

View Full Version : Summer of '03, Lakers offer Cavs 25 year old Kobe for 18 year old Lebron, who accepts



JordansBulls
12-04-2012, 04:03 PM
Let's say it is the Summer of 2003 and Cleveland has the #1 pick like they did, would both teams agree on a trade with a 25 year old Kobe part of the equation for a 18 year old Lebron? Who accepts, who declines?

Which is more likely to happen?

Both teams would agree on Trade
Cleveland would Agree on Trade, while LA Lakers would decline it
Cleveland Declines Trade, while LA Lakers would Accept it
Both Teams would Decline Trade

At this time the Lakers had been dethroned as champions going out in round 2. Not sure if there was any legit discussion of trading Kobe at the time, but would LA had entertained the idea or would Cleveland have done it?

Raps18-19 Champ
12-04-2012, 04:05 PM
Lakers Accept while Cleveland declines.

Cleveland doesn't trade a hometown superstar while Lakers look to trade 1 of Shaq/Kobe because of the feud.

Sactown
12-04-2012, 04:08 PM
They would of dealt Kobe, Phil wasn't crazy about Kobe's antics and Lebron just had to much hype, I actually think Cleveland would decline because Lebron was such a home town hero.

Bruno
12-04-2012, 04:09 PM
wasn't kobe in the last year of his deal? it would have had to have been a re-sign and trade?

Gram
12-04-2012, 04:11 PM
JordansBulls still putting the wrong threads in the wrong forums. ;)

Bruno
12-04-2012, 04:11 PM
how about after the summer of 2004? that would have been interesting.

dnewguy
12-04-2012, 04:11 PM
dumb thread

Bruno
12-04-2012, 04:16 PM
dumb thread

then don't comment.

do not come into threads looking to de-rail them. i see threads i dont like everyday, i ignore them.

Chronz
12-04-2012, 04:16 PM
Neither

Cavs wouldnt want a 1 year rental. Lakers were looking to win titles and I doubt they had the balls to go all out rebuild around a once a generation talent like James with 2 of them still on their squad.

Chronz
12-04-2012, 04:16 PM
how about after the summer of 2004? that would have been interesting.

NTC ?.p

Sactown
12-04-2012, 04:23 PM
Neither

Cavs wouldnt want a 1 year rental. Lakers were looking to win titles and I doubt they had the balls to go all out rebuild around a once a generation talent like James with 2 of them still on their squad.

I actually really think Phil would of tried to push it through.

KB-Pau-DH2012
12-04-2012, 04:24 PM
These hypothetical threads never end well. :pity:

sep11ie
12-04-2012, 04:25 PM
Which team would get HCA faster?

Lakers
Cavs
Both
Neither

king4day
12-04-2012, 04:25 PM
The hype around Lebron was too great to deal him. Kobe was priming but Cleveland wasn't ready to win yet.
I say neither team does it but MAYBE LA considers it.

uncleben989
12-04-2012, 04:33 PM
dumb thread

only thing more annoying than dumb threads, are the idiots who post the fact in them instead of keeping it to themselves.

and cavs decline. kobe was superdiva at the time and lebron was the secondcoming

PleaseBeNice
12-04-2012, 04:36 PM
It really depends on HCA to be honest. But the Cavs decline. LBJ was a hometown hero, and viewed as the next Jordan. You dont trade away the "next MJ" who is 7 years younger than the player you would acquire.

justinnum1
12-04-2012, 04:36 PM
Cle declines. Kobe needs a star big to win a ring, and cleveland only had boozer, who is far from a star a big.

Raps18-19 Champ
12-04-2012, 04:38 PM
Cle declines. Kobe needs a star big to win a ring, and cleveland only had boozer, who is far from a star a big.

He became an all star the season after, didn't he?

Avenged
12-04-2012, 04:40 PM
Neither team proposes this trade. Both teams decline if such a trade were proposed.

JiffyMix88
12-04-2012, 04:41 PM
both will dencline

Kobe and Shaq were still together and LeBron is from Ohio and was very hyped up, too tough for Cleveland to trade a promising superstar for a second fiddle to shaq

Teeboy1487
12-04-2012, 04:44 PM
As a Lakers fan, no way in hell I would trade a prime Kobe. Just ridiculous.

Munkeysuit
12-04-2012, 04:44 PM
And miss out on one of the greatest NBA story lines ever? HELL NO! my sanity needed "the decision" to happen, my heart needed to know Kobe would never win again until Pau showed up.

Bruno
12-04-2012, 04:48 PM
Cle declines. Kobe needs a star big to win a ring, and cleveland only had boozer, who is far from a star a big.

interesting you say that.

go compare Boozers and Gasols lines from 2006-2011. it's pretty similar.

Raps18-19 Champ
12-04-2012, 04:49 PM
interesting you say that.

go compare Boozers and Gasols lines from 2006-2011. it's pretty similar.

I believe he way saying at that moment in time.

nickdymez
12-04-2012, 04:53 PM
Cle declines. Kobe needs a star big to win a ring, and cleveland only had boozer, who is far from a star a big.

This is a silly comment seeing as thought Lebron left Cleveland because he couldnt win a ring and went and played with a top 3 player in the league and a top 15 at the time.

Bruno
12-04-2012, 04:55 PM
I believe he way saying at that moment in time.

if that's what he's saying then his comment doesn't make any sense. The Cavs had just finished well under .500.

obviously the addition of one all-star wouldn't have made them championship contenders the very next season- things would have had to brew over the next several seasons. point being, boozer may have stayed.

rawz
12-04-2012, 04:55 PM
there was sooooooo much hype around Lebron then.. everyone was talking about him. he would have been probally the 1st overall pick has a junior in high school. dont think the cavs would do it.

Hawkeye15
12-04-2012, 05:03 PM
Neither

Cavs wouldnt want a 1 year rental. Lakers were looking to win titles and I doubt they had the balls to go all out rebuild around a once a generation talent like James with 2 of them still on their squad.

pretty much this.

knicks=love
12-04-2012, 05:19 PM
i remember kobe rumors around 03ish, possibly 04 or 05. i know there were a few reports the knicks were trying to trade for him and let houston go, but they either fell through or were BS reports. i was also in middle school when this happened so idk.. (can someone back that up?)

for this though, i couldn't see either team making this deal. lebron was from akron, and kobe was the face of the franchise at the time. cavs needed lebron more than they needed kobe, if that makes any sense.

knicks=love
12-04-2012, 05:20 PM
but could you imagine a prime shaq with a young lebron? :faint:

farren.louis
12-04-2012, 05:28 PM
Kobe is the most overrated player ever.. he jacks up shots and they just happen to go in he's never touched 48% FG shooting nor 6ast or carried a team through the playoffs.. unlike dwayne and lebron

nickdymez
12-04-2012, 05:29 PM
Kobe is the most overrated player ever.. he jacks up shots and they just happen to go in he's never touched 48% FG shooting nor 6ast or carried a team through the playoffs.. unlike dwayne and lebron

:facepalm:

JasonJohnHorn
12-04-2012, 05:32 PM
I think the Lakers would have taken that deal, but I believe that Cleveland would have declined.

I think LAL would want the younger player and they still had Shaq... where as I think the Cavs would not want to worry about keeping Bryant in free agency and risk trading away the pick for a guy that would just leave in free agency.

I'm inclined to believe that both teams would stick with what they got, but part of me thinks that LAL would have been willing to move Kobe for LBJ, I think in part because of the division Kobe created in the locker room.

Interesting to consider what would have happened had that trade gone through. Shaq likely would have retired in LAL, and LBJ would like be looking at re-building mode right now, but would also likely have two or three rings already. Would certainly change how people see him.

Sactown
12-04-2012, 05:34 PM
Kobe is the most overrated player ever.. he jacks up shots and they just happen to go in he's never touched 48% FG shooting nor 6ast or carried a team through the playoffs.. unlike dwayne and lebron
This post is just insanity, as much as I like to correct crazy Kobe homers, but this is over the top.

Avenged
12-04-2012, 06:43 PM
"He jacks up shots and they just happen to go in" lmao. Yeah, luck has been by his side for 17 years! He sold his soul to the devil. Illuminati.

Bruno
12-04-2012, 06:43 PM
"He jacks up shots and they just happen to go in" lmao. Yeah, luck has been by his side for 17 years! He sold his soul to the devil. Illuminati.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqvvOD4bdRs

Quinnsanity
12-04-2012, 06:49 PM
Are people seriously saying the Cavs would decline this? Remember, before LeBron played a game he was just a prospect. And amazing prospect, but still just a prospect. Kobe was arguably the best player in the league and only 25. Kobe at the time was a GUARANTEED 10 years of superstardom, LeBron was a very promising question mark. This is essentially like saying last summer the Hornets would have rather had Anthony Davis than Dwight Howard with an extension. Without the gift of hindsight there is NO WAY the Cavs turn this trade trade. The Lakers meanwhile were still contending and just signed Payton and Malone (or were about to depending on the date). Assuming Kobe's rape trial isn't an issue at this point, there is no way the Lakers take this deal.

Quinnsanity
12-04-2012, 06:49 PM
Kobe is the most overrated player ever.. he jacks up shots and they just happen to go in he's never touched 48% FG shooting nor 6ast or carried a team through the playoffs.. unlike dwayne and lebron

Dumb ***.

John Walls Era
12-04-2012, 06:57 PM
Lakers wouldn't. Can't trade Kobe when he was entering his prime.

Cavs wouldn't. Lebron generated too much interest and buzz from locals. He was also considered the next phenom.

Il Mago50
12-04-2012, 06:58 PM
Cleveland only accepts if Chris Mihm is part of the deal.

Lakers only accept if Rob Babcock accepts the position of GM instead of Mitch Kupchek

pedrofan45
12-04-2012, 07:05 PM
I voted that they both would, but then thought about it and realized that lakers would, the cavs wouldn't. Kobe was looked as insane back then, but he was second fiddle to Shaq and did create controversy. Lebron was looked at as the next MJ, why wouldn't the Lakers do this? Of course some prospects don't pan out. But then there are athletes like Lebron, Sidney Crosby, and Peyton Manning that you just know will be the greatest in the league without a doubt.

Lake_Show2416
12-04-2012, 07:10 PM
Kobe entering his prime for an unproven rookie? Cavs take it right away, Lakers laugh

Hawkeye15
12-04-2012, 07:15 PM
Are people seriously saying the Cavs would decline this? Remember, before LeBron played a game he was just a prospect. And amazing prospect, but still just a prospect. Kobe was arguably the best player in the league and only 25. Kobe at the time was a GUARANTEED 10 years of superstardom, LeBron was a very promising question mark. This is essentially like saying last summer the Hornets would have rather had Anthony Davis than Dwight Howard with an extension. Without the gift of hindsight there is NO WAY the Cavs turn this trade trade. The Lakers meanwhile were still contending and just signed Payton and Malone (or were about to depending on the date). Assuming Kobe's rape trial isn't an issue at this point, there is no way the Lakers take this deal.

Kobe was also needing a new deal at the end of that season, so he would have left Cleveland after one year. Why throw away at least 4 years from the best prospect in 2 decades, for a one year rental?

Hawkeye15
12-04-2012, 07:16 PM
Kobe entering his prime for an unproven rookie? Cavs take it right away, Lakers laugh

most teams would actually think about it, considering Kobe was going to command HUGE money. But the Lakers don't care about money, so yeah, this would have never gone through from the Lakers perspective.

LoveMeOrHateMe
12-04-2012, 07:17 PM
Lakers Accept while Cleveland declines.

Cleveland doesn't trade a hometown superstar while Lakers look to trade 1 of Shaq/Kobe because of the feud.

Lol your joking right? The cavs would have jumped on that deal as soon as it would've been offered lakers on the other hand wouldn't have gambled on lebron
They would have kept kobe

LoveMeOrHateMe
12-04-2012, 07:21 PM
Kobe entering his prime for an unproven rookie? Cavs take it right away, Lakers laugh

This anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional!

Best player in the game at the time top 2 at worst for the most hyped player ever that could have easily flopped in the NBA hmm the choice is obvious to me

Borough
12-04-2012, 07:21 PM
I feel like both teams would accept it
Lakers wanted to move on and Cleveland wanted a star

Johann
12-04-2012, 07:45 PM
2003.

Raptors trade 27 year old Vince Carter for 18 year old Lebron James from Cleveland.

Deal?

Hawkeye15
12-04-2012, 07:48 PM
Lol your joking right? The cavs would have jumped on that deal as soon as it would've been offered lakers on the other hand wouldn't have gambled on lebron
They would have kept kobe

again, I don't think either side does it. Cleveland would have traded away the most highly though of prospect in 2 decades, for seemingly a one year rental on Kobe. The Lakers would be trading away a superstar entering his prime, for a prospect.

Neither does it.

JJ_JKidd
12-04-2012, 08:30 PM
They would of dealt Kobe, Phil wasn't crazy about Kobe's antics and Lebron just had to much hype, I actually think Cleveland would decline because Lebron was such a home town hero.

back then

LAKERMANIA
12-04-2012, 08:32 PM
Well in 2003 I'd like to think that the Lakers organization was sold on Kobe, but lets say they offered anyway, I would think that Cleveland would turn it down, Lebron was not only a hometown guy, I'm pretty sure Cleveland knew he was going to be the next big thing..

DumDum
12-04-2012, 08:32 PM
THIS THREAD IS A LAKER strokE FEST

amos1er
12-04-2012, 08:46 PM
The Lakers would have never even considered that. Kobe was the best player in the NBA at the time as was just coming off a three peat. Why trade away the best wing player since Jordan for an unproven asset. Not even worth discussing any further IMO.

LoveMeOrHateMe
12-04-2012, 08:49 PM
The Lakers would have never even considered that. Kobe was the best player in the NBA at the time as was just coming off a three peat. Why trade away the best wing player since Jordan for an unproven asset. Not even worth discussing any further IMO.

This

lakerboy
12-04-2012, 08:51 PM
Good thing the trade didn't push through. Lakers went to 4 more NBA finals with Kobe after this period of time.

Celtics33
12-04-2012, 08:59 PM
I see Lakers accepting while the Cavs would have declined.

netsgiantsyanks
12-04-2012, 09:13 PM
cavaliers decline without a second thought, lebron was the second coming of jesus when he got drafted, plus he was from ohio.

NYKNYGNYY
12-04-2012, 09:15 PM
I think the cavaliers say no , like everyone was saying he was a home town kid fresh out of high school with more hype then anyone ...I think the lakers would do it , good thread idea though

Hawkeye15
12-04-2012, 09:44 PM
The Lakers would have never even considered that. Kobe was the best player in the NBA at the time as was just coming off a three peat. Why trade away the best wing player since Jordan for an unproven asset. Not even worth discussing any further IMO.

meh, subjective dude.

JordansBulls
12-04-2012, 11:52 PM
2003.

Raptors trade 27 year old Vince Carter for 18 year old Lebron James from Cleveland.

Deal?
Probably not. Unless Vince was a perenial MVP candidate.

Sly Guy
12-05-2012, 12:25 AM
both decline. Kobe's a laker for life, and a important part of their championship teams of the time. No way they mess with that winning formula regardless of the drama [until ironically the next year].

Cavs have their hometown phenom, and a solid future for the franchise. No way they give that up either.

jerellh528
12-05-2012, 12:28 AM
Hard to tell an unproven rookie for a player people were then comparing to Jordan.. I don't know :/

THE MTL
12-05-2012, 12:29 AM
I say neither team because the Lakers were in a win-now mode with Kobe in his absolute prime which is Top 10 NBA player of alltime.

While Lebron James was the most hyped rookie ever who Cavs could cornerstone a franchise, brand, etc. And the future was infinite with such a player.

Ill21
12-05-2012, 12:35 AM
I think both teams decline

BULLSFAN0810
12-05-2012, 04:15 AM
Both decline ...Kobe was killing it living up to aire comparison...LBJ was just a phenom with super hype/potential. If anything,Clevland woul;dve traded LBJ in a heartbeat. LA wouldnot have traded a tested. considedred the best player in exchange for a unproven commodity..DUMB BUSSINESS. LA WOULD NOT TRADE KOBE AT THAT TIME FOR LBJ STRAIGHT UP...IT WOULDNT BE A 2 SIDED DEAL WHERE CLEVLAND HAD ANY SAY OR WOULDVE GOTTEN ANYTHING EXTRA. LA WOULDVE GOTTEN LBJ AND SOME PICKS/MONEY

dalton749
12-05-2012, 04:41 AM
kobe would have left them in a second

kyubi256
12-05-2012, 05:47 AM
Face of both franchises... Neither accept

Mcdoh
12-05-2012, 06:22 AM
both decline

Kyben36
12-05-2012, 07:14 AM
cavs take Kobe IMO. but lakers dont offer him.

Kobe is the proven best player in the league at that time. for an unproven rookie would be an easy choice IMO.

_KB24_
12-05-2012, 02:18 PM
"Put me in the East and watch what happens" - Jellybean

It's scary to think what Kobe would have done in the East back then, it was pathetically weak.

Andrew32
12-05-2012, 02:32 PM
cavs take Kobe IMO. but lakers dont offer him.

Kobe is the proven best player in the league at that time. for an unproven rookie would be an easy choice IMO.

...?
Kobe was the 5th best player in the league in 03.

DanG
12-05-2012, 02:39 PM
Both decline.

Money_23
12-05-2012, 02:39 PM
definitely would have altered history if this was done.

JordansBulls
12-05-2012, 02:59 PM
cavs take Kobe IMO. but lakers dont offer him.

Kobe is the proven best player in the league at that time. for an unproven rookie would be an easy choice IMO.

Not over Tim Duncan in 2003 who won both league and finals mvp and was the only star on his team that season.

SirSkyHook
12-05-2012, 03:20 PM
but could you imagine a prime shaq with a young lebron? :faint:

Yes, A Shaq who couldnt make freethrows with a Lebron who couldnt make freethrows or jumpers. Shaq's frustrations would have still been there. He also would have attack Lebron like he did with Kobe and Penny as soon as there popularity grown which would have led with the Lakers still chosing the younger star and trading Shaq. Than Lakers have to wait for Lebron's game to mature to properly fit a star with him that compliments his game so they can win. Not much would have changed.

Now you put an pist off priming Kobe with Boozer, Big Z and shooters all around him in an inferrior East at the time, your talking about damage. Ricky Davis would come off the bench as a spark player, a few defensive moves hear and there and your talking rings. Say Cavs meet Spurs in 07 with Kobe as the Spurs killer who wins. It would be like the 08 Lakers team vs the Spurs a 4-1 victory imo.

Andrew32
12-05-2012, 03:30 PM
Shaq's frustrations would have still been there.
What frustrations? The only frustrations Shaq had stemmed from not being fed consistently in the post.

There is zero chance Lebron would choose not to feed Shaq so he could gun for high point totals.


He also would have attack Lebron like he did with Kobe and Penny as soon as there popularity grown.
Shaq and Penny were close.
Shaq never attacked Penny and their relationship never soured even after O'neal left Orlando.

Shaq never cared about Kobe being popular.
He cared about Kobe playing selfishly and not consistently keeping him fed in the post.

Lebron is not a selfish player and he would listen to Phil Jackson and run the offense through Shaq while playing off of him and still getting 20-30ppg on insane efficiency.

By 06 when Shaq wouldn't be the better offensive anchor anymore Lebron would take over as the #1 with Shaqs blessing.

SirSkyHook
12-14-2012, 05:31 PM
What frustrations? The only frustrations Shaq had stemmed from not being fed consistently in the post.

There is zero chance Lebron would choose not to feed Shaq so he could gun for high point totals.


Shaq and Penny were close.
Shaq never attacked Penny and their relationship never soured even after O'neal left Orlando.

Shaq never cared about Kobe being popular.
He cared about Kobe playing selfishly and not consistently keeping him fed in the post.

Lebron is not a selfish player and he would listen to Phil Jackson and run the offense through Shaq while playing off of him and still getting 20-30ppg on insane efficiency.

By 06 when Shaq wouldn't be the better offensive anchor anymore Lebron would take over as the #1 with Shaqs blessing.

Soooo wrong Shaq did attack penny read the 13th or 14th paragraphs...

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/138560-diesel-still-trucking-at-37

Shaq and Kobe fued is well documented but wiki does a good job of it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaq%E2%80%93Kobe_feud

In this situation your just switching Kobe and Lebron.

Mypoint was that Lebron couldnt shoot, so he would have needed to attack the paint to score other than fast breaks and guess who was clogging the paint. Shaq would not have gave up position so Bron can attack the rim consistanly, and If he did it would be hack Shaq and Hack a Bron because theyre both poor freethrow shooters.

Also Shaq having a guy on his team deemed the chosen one would not have set well with him. Ther would have been beef cuase by Shaq and he would have still been sent away. Regardless of how unselfish you find Lebron their game would not have meshed.

ILLUSIONIST^248
12-14-2012, 05:44 PM
What frustrations? The only frustrations Shaq had stemmed from not being fed consistently in the post.

There is zero chance Lebron would choose not to feed Shaq so he could gun for high point totals.


Shaq and Penny were close.
Shaq never attacked Penny and their relationship never soured even after O'neal left Orlando.

Shaq never cared about Kobe being popular.
He cared about Kobe playing selfishly and not consistently keeping him fed in the post.

Lebron is not a selfish player and he would listen to Phil Jackson and run the offense through Shaq while playing off of him and still getting 20-30ppg on insane efficiency.

By 06 when Shaq wouldn't be the better offensive anchor anymore Lebron would take over as the #1 with Shaqs blessing.

Tell me more ms.cleo

True Sports Fan
12-14-2012, 06:39 PM
I don't see either agreeing. Lakers would decline, because Kobe has proven he's a star, while Cavaliers decline because like mentioned before, Kobe is expiring and Lebron is a considered a home town hero. Or was at least.

STA_PLAR
12-14-2012, 07:06 PM
Both would have done it if they knew the outcome...While Kobe was great in LA....LeBron is gonna be great for years to come. Kobe had already won 3 and I think Lebron will get at least 1 more.

On the other hand CLE may have been able to keep their star haha

Andrew32
12-14-2012, 07:56 PM
Soooo wrong Shaq did attack penny read the 13th or 14th paragraphs...

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/138560-diesel-still-trucking-at-37

A bleacher report with no sources? :laugh2:

Shaq and Penny were always close.
They never had any beef.

Penny publicly came out saying he was shocked and saddened when he found out O'neal had signed with the LA Lakers.

Shaq and Penny even did a TV show recently and they were palling around with eachother on the set.


In this situation your just switching Kobe and Lebron.
No you're not. Lebron isn't an introverted prick with a superiority complex.

He wouldn't worry about his role on the team or scoring 40-50ppg when he has the most dominant scoring C of his generation by his side.

He would feed O'neal and they would maintain a great relationship like they had in the late 00's when they eventually did team up.


Mypoint was that Lebron couldn't shoot, so he would have needed to attack the paint to score other than fast breaks and guess who was clogging the paint.
Shaq kept the lanes cleared and defenses off balance.
He made it much easier for Kobe and Wade to drive to the basket.

Shaq never "clogged the paint" due to his mobility.

So... yeah that is bullcrap.


Shaq having a guy on his team deemed the chosen one would not have set well with him.
Ther would have been beef cuase by Shaq and he would have still been sent away.
Why is that? Unless Lebron refused to listen to Phil and run the offense correctly there would be no reason for them not to get along nor would there be any fighting behind closed doors or in the media.


Regardless of how unselfish you find Lebron their game would not have meshed.
Yeah... unfortunately D-Wade proved you wrong in 05 and 06 when he and Shaq ran the league.
Any decent wing player + Shaq = contender.

Shaq + Kobe = beef

Shaq + Penny = friends
Shaq + Wade = friends
Old Shaq + Lebron = friends
Old Shaq + Pierce = friends

Kobe was the only one he didn't get along with because Kobe is a freakin arrogant douche who doesn't respect authority.

tapajafri
12-14-2012, 10:31 PM
there's no way the cavs trade 18 year old lebron with his passing ability and team mentality for kobe and his selfish reputation from back then, in the midst of a feud with another superstar (shaq)

It's all about the team.

The lakers on the other hand would be pushing to get Lebron for Kobe. They knew they had to get rid of one of the two.... and Shaq was clearly the better player back then. Nobody knew that Shaq would fall of the map in a few years while bryant was still going strong. Not to mention Lebron had a great team mentality and a good attitude and mindset whereas bryant had that reputation.

Andrew32
12-14-2012, 10:49 PM
Lebron would have been perfect.
Even as a rookie he was a great passer and super unselfish.

Shaq ends up averaging 40ppg against the Pistons without Kobe playing keep away and Malone doesn't get injured?
Night night.

SirSkyHook
12-14-2012, 11:22 PM
Lebron would have been perfect.
Even as a rookie he was a great passer and super unselfish.

Shaq ends up averaging 40ppg against the Pistons without Kobe playing keep away and Malone doesn't get injured?
Night night.

Ok dude i get your point. Dont agree with it but i get it. I think your delusional to thinking Shaq is a godd teammate and you serverly overrating Lebron, but hey that just my opinion.

Andrew32
12-14-2012, 11:32 PM
I think your delusional to thinking Shaq is a godd teammate.
Shaq made life easy for his teammates on the court.
He was also generally a nice, big hearted guy who got along well with most guys he played with.

He was the leader on 6 different teams and 3 different franchises that made the Finals.

Sure the way he reacted to Kobe's immaturity in 03 and 04 was wrong.
He reacted to immaturity with some immaturity of his own and a good leader shouldn't do that but at the same time I feel he was partially forced into that position by the management and coaching who weren't correcting the issue.

Perhaps the team was simply doomed because Kobe was gonna be Kobe and no one could change him.

Still to call Shaq a bad teammate or leader due to that is silly.
Over his career he has usually only shown positive quality's in that respect.

numba1CHANGsta
12-14-2012, 11:46 PM
From 03-10
Lakers: 3 Finals appearances, 2 Championships
Cavs: 1 Final appearance, 0 Championships

If both players were traded, the result would have been 1-2 championships each for both teams, screw that home hero crap, look what LeBron ended up doing to the Cavs lol if the Cavs were smart enough they would have gone with a win now mentality with Kobe since he was in his prime. Shaq would have stayed in LA and win championships with LeBron, at least 2-3

lamar2006
12-15-2012, 01:10 AM
doesnt matter Stern would have vetoed the trade.

Ty Fast
12-15-2012, 01:44 AM
imagine if this trade happened and la kept shaq and phil jackson

Arch Stanton
12-15-2012, 01:49 AM
In hindsight (this thread) the Cavs should make the trade. They didn't win a championship with LeBron, so why not try Kobe. I'm not saying they would net a different result but we know what happens with one scenario.

tapajafri
12-15-2012, 03:25 AM
andrew32 is right.

tapajafri
12-15-2012, 03:27 AM
In hindsight (this thread) the Cavs should make the trade. They didn't win a championship with LeBron, so why not try Kobe. I'm not saying they would net a different result but we know what happens with one scenario.

Nobody knew that was going to happen back in 2003,

but damn, if the cavaliers could go back in time, maybe they DO pull that trigger and give up JJ Hickson to get Amare aka Lebron's help. It still baffles me how Cleveland wasn't willing to give up Hickson and a potential trade for Amare or Bosh. Maybe if they supplied Lebron with the right players, he'd still be a Cav.

Arch Stanton
12-15-2012, 03:38 AM
Nobody knew that was going to happen back in 2003,

but damn, if the cavaliers could go back in time, maybe they DO pull that trigger and give up JJ Hickson to get Amare aka Lebron's help. It still baffles me how Cleveland wasn't willing to give up Hickson and a potential trade for Amare or Bosh. Maybe if they supplied Lebron with the right players, he'd still be a Cav.

Haha... I cannot believe people still bring this up. Sure, I understand LeBron needed more help. But there was never a deal in place in which JJ Hickson netted them Amare or Bosh (a new rumor I never heard). And even if that were the case would Amare actually help... Amare doesn't seem to fit in well with Melo and NYK thus far, so why would it be different with LeBron?

I thought that was the point of the thread? If you could redo would you? I would only because I know what happens with LeBron.

JordansBulls
12-16-2012, 10:03 AM
Lebron would have been perfect.
Even as a rookie he was a great passer and super unselfish.

Shaq ends up averaging 40ppg against the Pistons without Kobe playing keep away and Malone doesn't get injured?
Night night.

Shaq wasn't going to average 40 ppg on the Pistons. He didn't get it in the other finals when he was clearly the best player on the floor why would he be able to do so against the Pistons and Ben Wallace?