PDA

View Full Version : Can Kobe get his 6th ring?



FriedTofuz
08-25-2014, 10:35 PM
Personally, with how stacked the west has become and how injuries have plagued Kobe, I'm not sure at what level he'll be performing at and what are his goals at this point. Realistically, he will not win a championship next year, and high draft picks and Free agency are the only hope to change the Lakers quickly. Personally, I want Kobe to somehow get his 6th and pass MJ on the all time scoring list and hear the discussions of where he ranks all time. I dont see it happening, but I'd like for it occur.

mightybosstone
08-25-2014, 10:49 PM
The only logical answer at this point is "no." The Lakers have roughly a zero percent chance of winning the title this season and Kobe's contract and the lack of quality free agents next summer and the lack of assets on the Lakers means L.A. is extremely unlikely to contend next year as well. The only way I see Kobe winning a title is after that contract is up if the Lakers can somehow add a superstar and get him to sign at a discount or if he's willing to play a backup role somewhere else at a discount.

The likely answer is "no," but you never really know how things will play out. The better question would be "Will Kobe ever win a title as a No. 1 ever again?" And the answer to that question is an almost certainly definitive "no."

alexander_37
08-25-2014, 10:59 PM
Kobe could have his best year ever and they could still easily miss the playoffs.

Phantom Dreamer
08-25-2014, 11:23 PM
Kobe could have his best year ever and they could still easily miss the playoffs.Kobe, at 36, on one leg, isn't having his "best year ever".

Ariza's Better
08-26-2014, 12:18 AM
If he is traded to the spurs.

Phantom Dreamer
08-26-2014, 12:22 AM
No team is trading for Bryant, especially the smartest organization in the NBA.

bucketss
08-26-2014, 12:32 AM
maybe if he accepts a second option role, 3rd maybe depending on his injury

Dade County
08-26-2014, 12:44 AM
Only if he joins the HEAT and backs up Wade.



:laugh:

curtcocaine
08-26-2014, 12:44 AM
If he plays in 3 years for the vet min on the Warriors yes.

asandhu23
08-26-2014, 12:52 AM
no. his era is nearing the end.

GREATNESS ONE
08-26-2014, 01:51 AM
:laugh2: love it.

jerellh528
08-26-2014, 02:23 AM
Of course he can. "Impossible is nothing"

Iron24th
08-26-2014, 03:57 AM
If he plays in 3 years for the vet min on the Warriors yes.

:laugh: good one!

Munkeysuit
08-26-2014, 05:12 AM
ALL LOVE, but the answer is NO, unless he joins up with KD and OKC or the Spurs? there is no way he is winning another ring with the Lakeshow...no disrespect.

Goose17
08-26-2014, 05:30 AM
No. West is stacked. They don't have time to rebuild and Kobe will never take a Tim Duncan type role on the Lakers anyway. He'll never take a back seat and let someone else shine. It's just not in his nature, he's too competitive.

He will retire with 5 and maybe get one as a coach or more likely, a GM.

72 Wins
08-26-2014, 08:41 AM
No F'n chance as a Laker.

NoahH
08-26-2014, 10:10 AM
No team is trading for Bryant, especially the smartest organization in the NBA.

Yup. I read this week on anonymous GM said Kobe has 'zero trade value.'

Burkey3472
08-26-2014, 10:22 AM
Kobe isn't leaving the Lakers so that means he won't be winning another title. He will be ending his career on a poor team which is a shame for such a great player.

c.c.
08-26-2014, 10:57 AM
If he's a sixth man

ManRam
08-26-2014, 11:52 AM
If he leaves LA in 2016 and goes to a team that's already ready to win. That's the only way I see it being possible.

FriedTofuz
08-26-2014, 12:24 PM
what are the lakers chances of signing Free agents to help contend over the next 2 years?

LakersEaglesLA
08-26-2014, 12:27 PM
The only logical answer at this point is "no." The Lakers have roughly a zero percent chance of winning the title this season and Kobe's contract and the lack of quality free agents next summer and the lack of assets on the Lakers means L.A. is extremely unlikely to contend next year as well. The only way I see Kobe winning a title is after that contract is up if the Lakers can somehow add a superstar and get him to sign at a discount or if he's willing to play a backup role somewhere else at a discount.

The likely answer is "no," but you never really know how things will play out. The better question would be "Will Kobe ever win a title as a No. 1 ever again?" And the answer to that question is an almost certainly definitive "no."

I remember not too long ago people were saying the same thing abt Duncan (how did that turn out) when you have all-time greats playing for great organizations they usually find a way. I heard Kobe Looks great in work outs let's see how he looks in game action we definitively say he won't win as a #1 again. That would actually be Fair and unbiased

LakersEaglesLA
08-26-2014, 12:35 PM
I lot of Rockets fans saying it wont happen as a Laker, that doesnt even make sense considering the way the Lakers always bounce back. Why does a first round exit have Rockets fans so arrogant

KnicksorBust
08-26-2014, 12:39 PM
No team is trading for Bryant, especially the smartest organization in the NBA.

Yup. I read this week on anonymous GM said Kobe has 'zero trade value.'

Why do you think Phil went off the record?

mightybosstone
08-26-2014, 12:50 PM
I remember not too long ago people were saying the same thing abt Duncan (how did that turn out) when you have all-time greats playing for great organizations they usually find a way. I heard Kobe Looks great in work outs let's see how he looks in game action we definitively say he won't win as a #1 again. That would actually be Fair and unbiased

Duncan was willing to take a huge pay cut for his franchise, which allowed them to keep guys like Parker and Manu (who are also playing under their value), while adding other pieces and improving their depth. On the flip side, Kobe is making $48 million these next two seasons and the Lakers just overpaid guys like Nick Young and Jordan Hill.

Duncan had two Hall of Famers and one of the greatest coaches in NBA history around him. Kobe has..... Jeremy Lin. These are two completely different situations, and I don't think you can compare the two.

It is fair to say that we should wait and see, though, as you said. The Lakers could sign a big name next offseason or make a big splash with a trade for another superstar. Or maybe Kobe takes a discount for one last contract which gives the Lakers more wiggle room to add pieces in place. But as currently constructed and given their current roster situation, I think it would be damn near impossible for the Lakers and Kobe to win a title in the next two years.

jaydubb
08-26-2014, 12:56 PM
I lot of Rockets fans saying it wont happen as a Laker, that doesnt even make sense considering the way the Lakers always bounce back. Why does a first round exit have Rockets fans so arrogant

Hey I like the lakers eagles and dodgers too :cheers:

I don't think it's just rocket fans tho, I think it's pretty unlikely that Kobe gets #6.. I think he could get it as a 2nd option getting a superstar to play with Kobe is his last chance IMO.. That's not likely to happen tho :/

mightybosstone
08-26-2014, 12:59 PM
I lot of Rockets fans saying it wont happen as a Laker, that doesnt even make sense considering the way the Lakers always bounce back. Why does a first round exit have Rockets fans so arrogant

What does the Rockets losing in the first round of the playoffs have anything to do with this thread? Also, why are you lashing out at Rockets fans when multiple people have essentially said the same thing?

And I don't buy that just because the Lakers have had a history of "bouncing back" that they necessarily will anytime soon. If you look at the history of the franchise, all of their success since 1980 has been dependent on two draft picks (or draft day selections): Magic Johnson and Kobe Bryant. Sure, they traded for Kareem and Shaq, but it wasn't until they drafted Magic and Kobe that those teams started to win titles.

Notice that the least successful period for the Lakers was in the 90s after Magic retired and before Kobe was drafted. That's what the Lakers are looking at right now. Once Kobe falls off from being a No. 1 guy (which may have already happened), it's going to take another acquisition of a great young superstar for the Lakers to get back to the promised land again.

LakersEaglesLA
08-26-2014, 01:10 PM
What does the Rockets losing in the first round of the playoffs have anything to do with this thread? Also, why are you lashing out at Rockets fans when multiple people have essentially said the same thing?

And I don't buy that just because the Lakers have had a history of "bouncing back" that they necessarily will anytime soon. If you look at the history of the franchise, all of their success since 1980 has been dependent on two draft picks (or draft day selections): Magic Johnson and Kobe Bryant. Sure, they traded for Kareem and Shaq, but it wasn't until they drafted Magic and Kobe that those teams started to win titles.

Notice that the least successful period for the Lakers was in the 90s after Magic retired and before Kobe was drafted. That's what the Lakers are looking at right now. Once Kobe falls off from being a No. 1 guy (which may have already happened), it's going to take another acquisition of a great young superstar for the Lakers to get back to the promised land again.

It's pretty obvious the Lakers know how to get to the promise land they have played in half of the finals in the new millennium. And just won a title 4 seasons ago. They have earned the right to retool. So many fans of other teams constantly bash them even tho there teams haven't got it right in their lifetime.

LakersEaglesLA
08-26-2014, 01:16 PM
Duncan was willing to take a huge pay cut for his franchise, which allowed them to keep guys like Parker and Manu (who are also playing under their value), while adding other pieces and improving their depth. On the flip side, Kobe is making $48 million these next two seasons and the Lakers just overpaid guys like Nick Young and Jordan Hill.

Duncan had two Hall of Famers and one of the greatest coaches in NBA history around him. Kobe has..... Jeremy Lin. These are two completely different situations, and I don't think you can compare the two.

It is fair to say that we should wait and see, though, as you said. The Lakers could sign a big name next offseason or make a big splash with a trade for another superstar. Or maybe Kobe takes a discount for one last contract which gives the Lakers more wiggle room to add pieces in place. But as currently constructed and given their current roster situation, I think it would be damn near impossible for the Lakers and Kobe to win a title in the next two years.

Time will Tell!

mightybosstone
08-26-2014, 01:17 PM
It's pretty obvious the Lakers know how to get to the promise land they have played in half of the finals in the new millennium. And just won a title 4 seasons ago. They have earned the right to retool. So many fans of other teams constantly bash them even tho there teams haven't got it right in their lifetime.

But the past does not dictate the future. Especially in sports. The Celtics were the most dominant team in all of professional sports from the 60s to the 80s. Russell retired in 69 and they were able to win two titles with Hondo, Cowens and Tiny. Then they rebuild again in the 80s around Bird, McHale and Parish. But after Bird fell off, they went like 20 years without winning a championship and that squad's stretch of success was a fairly short one.

All sports are cyclical and even a large market team like the Lakers can fall off and have a decade or two mediocre teams. It wouldn't be unheard of, and it already happened to them in the 90s. So I fail to see why that's such a shocking suggestion. It's funny to me that you called out Rockets fans for being "arrogant," when you're the one assuming the Lakers will be winning titles again soon just because they're the Lakers. That's the epitome of arrogance.

Goose17
08-26-2014, 01:17 PM
It's pretty obvious the Lakers know how to get to the promise land they have played in half of the finals in the new millennium. And just won a title 4 seasons ago. They have earned the right to retool. So many fans of other teams constantly bash them even tho there teams haven't got it right in their lifetime.

Ten of those championships were under Jerry though (RIP), unfortunately his son doesn't have the same skillset his father had. Jeanie is a question mark.

I personally feel Lakers fans take it for granted how difficult it can be to rebuild because they've had it so easy for so long.

Face it, that contract Kobe is on has crippled their ability to bring in a high quality supporting cast. After Nash retires they will be able to bring in one big gun. But filling the rest of that roster won't be easy.

And a lot of these stars have big ego's. They won't all be ecstatic to play second fiddle to old man Kobe.

On top of all that the West is deep, really deep. Deeper than it has been for a while. You have to be playing around .600 ball to even compete for a playoff seed.

LakersEaglesLA
08-26-2014, 02:04 PM
But the past does not dictate the future. Espeocially in sports. The Celtics were the most dominant team in all of professional sports from the 60s to the 80s. Russell retired in 69 and they were able to win two titles with Hondo, Cowens and Tiny. Then they rebuild again in the 80s around Bird, McHale and Parish. But after Bird fell off, they went like 20 years without winning a championship and that squad's stretch of success was a fairly short one.

All sports are cyclical and even a large market team like the Lakers can fall off and have a decade or two mediocre teams. It wouldn't be unheard of, and it already happened to them in the 90s. So I fail to see why that's such a shocking suggestion. It's funny to me that you called out Rockets fans for being "arrogant," when you're the one assuming the Lakers will be winning titles again soon just because they're the Lakers. That's the epitome of arrogance.

Actually the Lakers have always contended in every decade. 5 in 50's before Bill Russell and Celtics, lost to Celtics 8 times in 60's, won 1 in 72, lost to Knicks early 70's, won 5 and played in 8 in 80's, lost 1 in 90's and from 96 with Shaq Kobe and Eddie Jones Van Exel we were contenders. 2000's won 5 and lost 2. So by my calculation the Lakers Never go more then 5 yrs without contending even if we dont win it. Not arrogant its fact. So when espn and NBA tv ex players that are now analyst who hate the Lakers because they stopped them from winning championships get up there and say the Lakers are a mess and done for years consider the source. We have same Gm and same city and tradition. Players will always want to be Lakers so this retooling that we are doing will be shorter then anylists or non Lakers fans are predicting.

Vinylman
08-26-2014, 02:05 PM
Not on the Lakers

The better question is whether he will ever play another playoff game.

WadeKobe
08-26-2014, 03:48 PM
Over the next two years he is under contract? No chance

As a star in this league leading his team? No chance.

As a backup 3 or 4 years down the road contributing 20mpg? Anything is possible.

mightybosstone
08-26-2014, 04:01 PM
Actually the Lakers have always contended in every decade. 5 in 50's before Bill Russell and Celtics, lost to Celtics 8 times in 60's, won 1 in 72, lost to Knicks early 70's, won 5 and played in 8 in 80's, lost 1 in 90's and from 96 with Shaq Kobe and Eddie Jones Van Exel we were contenders. 2000's won 5 and lost 2. So by my calculation the Lakers Never go more then 5 yrs without contending even if we dont win it.
Not arrogant its fact.
Okay. So let's say the Lakers were last contenders in 2011-12, which is a pretty fair assessment considering they were awful last year and barely made the playoffs the year prior. Based on your infallible logic, they're going to contend two years from now in 2016-17. Kobe will be 38 and they'll pretty much have nobody on the roster at that point aside from Nick Young and Julius Randle.

For the Lakers to contend, they'll need to be at least a top 4 seed in a ridiculously stacked conference, meaning they'll probably need at least 50-55 wins. What are they going to do in the next two years that will make them that good of a basketball team? Is Lebron coming to LA? Is Durant? Because barring at least one, probably two significant signings, LA is not contending by then.


Not arrogant its fact. So when espn and NBA tv ex players that are now analyst who hate the Lakers because they stopped them from winning championships get up there and say the Lakers are a mess and done for years consider the source. We have same Gm and same city and tradition.
So did Boston. So do a lot of great franchises that go through slumps. It happens to everybody and the Lakers are no different. Just because you were successful doesn't mean you will be successful. You have to keep drafting well and making smart moves and adding talent. Being a great market isn't enough to win you championships or the Knicks would have had a hell of a lot more success.

Also you're forgetting the fact that the Lakers aren't the only legitimate franchise in LA anymore. If someone wants to play basketball in LA, there's a far better, far sexier franchise they can suit up for.


Players will always want to be Lakers so this retooling that we are doing will be shorter then anylists or non Lakers fans are predicting.
I can't really blame you for being this arrogant because your favorite team has been so good for so long, but hopefully this stretch will humble you a little bit. Maybe it will make you realize that most fans don't get to enjoy titles every decade and that most franchises work damn hard and value every championship trophy like it's the Holy Grail. Or maybe three years from now you'll be talking about how they're definitely going to contend the next season. :shrug:

LakersEaglesLA
08-26-2014, 04:54 PM
Okay. So let's say the Lakers were last contenders in 2011-12, which is a pretty fair assessment considering they were awful last year and barely made the playoffs the year prior. Based on your infallible logic, they're going to contend two years from now in 2016-17. Kobe will be 38 and they'll pretty much have nobody on the roster at that point aside from Nick Young and Julius Randle.

For the Lakers to contend, they'll need to be at least a top 4 seed in a ridiculously stacked conference, meaning they'll probably need at least 50-55 wins. What are they going to do in the next two years that will make them that good of a basketball team? Is Lebron coming to LA? Is Durant? Because barring at least one, probably two significant signings, LA is not contending by then.


So did Boston. So do a lot of great franchises that go through slumps. It happens to everybody and the Lakers are no different. Just because you were successful doesn't mean you will be successful. You have to keep drafting well and making smart moves and adding talent. Being a great market isn't enough to win you championships or the Knicks would have had a hell of a lot more success.

Also you're forgetting the fact that the Lakers aren't the only legitimate franchise in LA anymore. If someone wants to play basketball in LA, there's a far better, far sexier franchise they can suit up for.


I can't really blame you for being this arrogant because your favorite team has been so good for so long, but hopefully this stretch will humble you a little bit. Maybe it will make you realize that most fans don't get to enjoy titles every decade and that most franchises work damn hard and value every championship trophy like it's the Holy Grail. Or maybe three years from now you'll be talking about how they're definitely going to contend the next season. :shrug:

First of all the Clippers are not sexier than the Lakers. Coming from a racist owner and Never having even played in a championship series is not better or sexier than the Lakers in any fashion. The difference is not even measurable between Lakers/Clippers. Secondly I don't know exactly who the Lakers will ad or who they will draft in the coming years all I know is they are pretty smart and I trust them. And no way are the Lakers gonna let the NBA screw them again at next cba contract. Dan Gilbert (Cleveland) and Pat Reily (Miami) are doing exactly what they cried abt the Lakers doing.

nickdymez
08-26-2014, 10:37 PM
The only logical answer at this point is "no." The Lakers have roughly a zero percent chance of winning the title this season and Kobe's contract and the lack of quality free agents next summer and the lack of assets on the Lakers means L.A. is extremely unlikely to contend next year as well. The only way I see Kobe winning a title is after that contract is up if the Lakers can somehow add a superstar and get him to sign at a discount or if he's willing to play a backup role somewhere else at a discount.

The likely answer is "no," but you never really know how things will play out. The better question would be "Will Kobe ever win a title as a No. 1 ever again?" And the answer to that question is an almost certainly definitive "no."

You must be hawkeyes dupe.

nickdymez
08-26-2014, 10:39 PM
People who use Kobes contract as a reason really have no clue at all

mightybosstone
08-26-2014, 10:55 PM
First of all the Clippers are not sexier than the Lakers. Coming from a racist owner and Never having even played in a championship series is not better or sexier than the Lakers in any fashion. The difference is not even measurable between Lakers/Clippers. Secondly I don't know exactly who the Lakers will ad or who they will draft in the coming years all I know is they are pretty smart and I trust them. And no way are the Lakers gonna let the NBA screw them again at next cba contract. Dan Gilbert (Cleveland) and Pat Reily (Miami) are doing exactly what they cried abt the Lakers doing.

Remind me to remind you about this whole thing in three years when the Lakers still suck.

cmellofan15
08-26-2014, 11:36 PM
You must be hawkeyes dupe.

you must be bitter.

flea
08-26-2014, 11:44 PM
Maybe if he accepts a role like Vince Carter as the 6th or 7th most important player on a good team. Considering he demanded to be paid like $30 million for his one-footed late 30s though, I doubt it. He'll chuck away his career for LA while they collect lottery picks year after year.

nickdymez
08-26-2014, 11:44 PM
you must be bitter.
Lmao. Why am I bitter?

Chavacano
08-27-2014, 12:39 AM
No but one can hope.

basketfan4life
08-27-2014, 09:16 AM
Remind me to remind you about this whole thing in three years when the Lakers still suck.
Man, i like you as a poster and read your posts. But i think you are terrible with predictions. You were all over the people who said Houston- Portland series is the most probable upset, called them haters. Guess what happened?

Now you are claiming the Lakers will suck 3 years from now, which happens to be one of the 2 most successful franchises and almost never has long sucking periods.

Actually, not only Lakers, i'd probably don't bet against any franchise 3 years from now, because things change in the NBA faster than ever.

WadeKobe
08-27-2014, 11:14 AM
People who use Kobes contract as a reason really have no clue at all
Enlighten us. How does paying 1/3 of your salary cap to a 36 year old coming off of two season ending injuries, who likely isn't a top25 player in the NBA NOT cripple your chances of winning?

nickdymez
08-27-2014, 11:37 AM
Enlighten us. How does paying 1/3 of your salary cap to a 36 year old coming off of two season ending injuries, who likely isn't a top25 player in the NBA NOT cripple your chances of winning?
Whatever. They could get another max contact player, build chemistry in the next two seasons and be right there when kobe comes off the books to sign another max player. But whatever

LakersEaglesLA
08-27-2014, 11:53 AM
Enlighten us. How does paying 1/3 of your salary cap to a 36 year old coming off of two season ending injuries, who likely isn't a top25 player in the NBA NOT cripple your chances of winning?

Who in the Hell made up the Stupid prediction that Kobe is likely to be a non top 25 player. This guy is soo skilled as long as he suits up he is one of the best players in the league. Duh that's why the Lakers gave him that contract I'm sure they know Kobe better than you do. Do me a favor and watch some games this season before you come on here talking CRAZY abt Kobe

TheIlladelph16
08-27-2014, 12:08 PM
Enlighten us. How does paying 1/3 of your salary cap to a 36 year old coming off of two season ending injuries, who likely isn't a top25 player in the NBA NOT cripple your chances of winning?

Notice he replies with absolutely nothing of substance (to a legitimate question) even after he made the comment from his pedestal of greater knowledge? I would think someone who has a clue would have an answer of substance instead of childish retorts.

RowBTrice
08-27-2014, 12:14 PM
Only if he joins the HEAT and backs up Wade.



:laugh:

Trolling!

WadeKobe
08-27-2014, 01:04 PM
Who in the Hell made up the Stupid prediction that Kobe is likely to be a non top 25 player. This guy is soo skilled as long as he suits up he is one of the best players in the league. Duh that's why the Lakers gave him that contract I'm sure they know Kobe better than you do. Do me a favor and watch some games this season before you come on here talking CRAZY abt Kobe

Kobe isn't superman. Decline is a real thing. Age is a real thing. Injuries are a real thing.

We will be lucky if Kobe is 80% as productive this year as he was 2 years ago. That's just a statistical, physiological reality. That puts him around the 25 range in total WS.

nickdymez
08-27-2014, 01:29 PM
Kobe isn't superman. Decline is a real thing. Age is a real thing. Injuries are a real thing.

We will be lucky if Kobe is 80% as productive this year as he was 2 years ago. That's just a statistical, physiological reality. That puts him around the 25 range in total WS.
Good thing no one cares about WS but you, Hawkeye, chronz, manram , JasonJohnhorn, and mightyboss

Sadds The Gr8
08-27-2014, 02:23 PM
Over the next two years he is under contract? No chance

As a star in this league leading his team? No chance.

As a backup 3 or 4 years down the road contributing 20mpg? Anything is possible.
This

mightybosstone
08-27-2014, 09:49 PM
Man, i like you as a poster and read your posts. But i think you are terrible with predictions. You were all over the people who said Houston- Portland series is the most probable upset, called them haters. Guess what happened?
And I was right at the time. The Rockets had been the superior team most of the season and had played better in their head-to-head matchups. Anyone playing the odds would have picked the odds. Just because you pick the odds and lose doesn't make your predictions terrible. And, frankly, most of the people who were picking against the Rockets had been posters who had been trolling roster fans for the better part of the season.


Now you are claiming the Lakers will suck 3 years from now, which happens to be one of the 2 most successful franchises and almost never has long sucking periods.
Mostly I'm just trolling that guy, because he's spent the last few pages being a gigantic arrogant douche. But even if I did predict that the Lakers would suck in three years, that wouldn't be a bad prediction. Again, I'm playing the odds. As of right now, the Lakers have only two players on the roster in 2016-17: Nick Young and Julius Randle. Unless Randle turns out to be a superstar, that's not a great start to a contending team. Kobe will also be 38, there are hardly any big names in free agency next year and the Lakers have hardly any assets right now.

Anybody betting on the side of caution and playing the odds would bet on the Lakers to not be a contender in 2016-17. That's not being a hater or making a wild prediction. That's using the information in front of you to make a logical choice. Most non-Lakers fans would agree with that statment.


Actually, not only Lakers, i'd probably don't bet against any franchise 3 years from now, because things change in the NBA faster than ever.
Except I'm not betting anything, and it was just a general statement based on hard facts. If you asked me to pick 10 teams that should be good in three years, I could look at the facts and tell you that teams with young talent and with superstars are likely to be considered for that list. If you asked me to pick 10 teams that likely would not be very good in three years, I would look at teams with few assets, hardly any young talent and no superstars. That's what the Lakers are starting to look like right now.

RollingWave
08-27-2014, 09:56 PM
If he does it's probably because he plays after this contract on a smaller deal.

I think it's possible, but it's all just blind faith at this point

slashsnake
08-27-2014, 11:29 PM
Notice he replies with absolutely nothing of substance (to a legitimate question) even after he made the comment from his pedestal of greater knowledge? I would think someone who has a clue would have an answer of substance instead of childish retorts.

Absolutely Kobe's contract is a detriment to them being better and winning. Look at that team. The Lakers, arguably the most storied franchise in the NBA, and every players dream destination. And his 2nd best option on that team is Boozer. #3 is Lin. Really?? In a division where good talented young teams like a healthy Phoenix and New Orleans might not make it?

I love Kobe, he doesn't back down from anything. And he deserves every dime of his deal and then some. But yes, that deal is going to make it VERY hard for him to make the playoffs with that team, much less win another ring.

basketfan4life
08-28-2014, 02:36 AM
And I was right at the time. The Rockets had been the superior team most of the season and had played better in their head-to-head matchups. Anyone playing the odds would have picked the odds. Just because you pick the odds and lose doesn't make your predictions terrible. And, frankly, most of the people who were picking against the Rockets had been posters who had been trolling roster fans for the better part of the season.

I can't believe you are saying that you were right even now. Of course rockets were better most of the season and that is why it's called an upset. That was the concept there. It's true for all of the match ups.


Mostly I'm just trolling that guy, because he's spent the last few pages being a gigantic arrogant douche. But even if I did predict that the Lakers would suck in three years, that wouldn't be a bad prediction. Again, I'm playing the odds. As of right now, the Lakers have only two players on the roster in 2016-17: Nick Young and Julius Randle. Unless Randle turns out to be a superstar, that's not a great start to a contending team. Kobe will also be 38, there are hardly any big names in free agency next year and the Lakers have hardly any assets right now.

I wasn't aware that you were trolling him. Actually not having many players tied up long term is the strong
suit the Lakers have for 2017.


Anybody betting on the side of caution and playing the odds would bet on the Lakers to not be a contender in 2016-17. That's not being a hater or making a wild prediction. That's using the information in front of you to make a logical choice. Most non-Lakers fans would agree with that statment.
Except I'm not betting anything, and it was just a general statement based on hard facts. If you asked me to pick 10 teams that should be good in three years, I could look at the facts and tell you that teams with young talent and with superstars are likely to be considered for that list. If you asked me to pick 10 teams that likely would not be very good in three years, I would look at teams with few assets, hardly any young talent and no superstars. That's what the Lakers are starting to look like right now.
Betting or not? The thing is, the information you have now doesn't tell that much for 3 years from now. That is what i am trying to say. Let's look at your own teams situation. 3 years before you got Harden, Harden was nobody. A year before you got Howard, it seemed impossible for you to get Howard.

Or in 2007, the Lakers had almost no one with value other than Kobe, Odom was too inconsistent to be a second option, Bynum was always injured and too young. And that Lakers team somehow got Gasol and went on to 3 straight finals and won 2 the coming years.

Look at the Cavs 3 months ago and now. With Miami going it's 4th finals in 4 years, lbjs supposed to be best buddy wade on the same team, no one would predict all these to happen for them. They got number 1 pick, than lebron, then kevin love and they are the favourites to win the east now.

Accept it or not, things happen so fast in the NBA, predicting that a team will suck 3 years from now is empty talk.

mightybosstone
08-28-2014, 08:20 AM
I can't believe you are saying that you were right even now. Of course rockets were better most of the season and that is why it's called an upset. That was the concept there. It's true for all of the match ups.
Let's move past this. It's irrelevant to the thread anyway.


I wasn't aware that you were trolling him. Actually not having many players tied up long term is the strong suit the Lakers have for 2017.
If this were the Jerry Buss Lakers with Kobe or Shaq on the roster, I would agree with you. But Kobe's contract will be up, he'll be 38 and we have no idea if he'll want to play again. Also, Kobe won't be the guy at that point in his career that will be good enough to entice other superstars to come to the franchise. If the Lakers add any superstars before that 2016-17 season, it will have to be because the Lakers were able to convince players to do it with little to no assets on the roster. If you're being honest with yourself, do you really like those odds right now?


Betting or not? The thing is, the information you have now doesn't tell that much for 3 years from now. That is what i am trying to say. Let's look at your own teams situation. 3 years before you got Harden, Harden was nobody. A year before you got Howard, it seemed impossible for you to get Howard.
But Morey had accumulated a TON of assets. That's how you trade for superstars. And right now the Lakers best assets are probably Randle and their next two first round picks. Except those picks aren't likely going to be high enough to make an immediate difference or to trade for a superstar unless they get extremely lucky in the lottery like Cleveland did.


Or in 2007, the Lakers had almost no one with value other than Kobe, Odom was too inconsistent to be a second option, Bynum was always injured and too young. And that Lakers team somehow got Gasol and went on to 3 straight finals and won 2 the coming years.
But Kobe was a superstar player in his prime, Odom was a great No. 3 playing out of his role and Bynum was an extremely talented young center with crazy high upside. That was a good team waiting on that No. 2 piece. Also, the Lakers had assets to deal for Pau, like his brother.


Look at the Cavs 3 months ago and now. With Miami going it's 4th finals in 4 years, lbjs supposed to be best buddy wade on the same team, no one would predict all these to happen for them. They got number 1 pick, than lebron, then kevin love and they are the favourites to win the east now.
They got extremely lucky and lucked into some amazing assets. If they don't get Wiggins, Lebron may not have ended up a Cavalier. But they were also pretty terrible those last few years and finished in the bottom 5-8 teams every season in order to get those high picks. Kobe will likely make these Lakers teams just good enough to win 40 games and end up with the 10th-12th pick. So those picks are extremely unlikely to amount to anything in the draft or in terms of the open trade market.


Accept it or not, things happen so fast in the NBA, predicting that a team will suck 3 years from now is empty talk.
But this isn't about the fact that there are unknowns in the NBA. That's obvious. OKC could lose Durant and Westbrook in the next three years and be a cellar dweller again. Harden and Howard could both bold the Rockets to go elsewhere. Or Lebron could decide he doesn't want to re-sign in Cleveland after all. Of course those chances are there, just like there's a chance that Kobe could give us 3-4 more years of prime Kobe, Julius Randle could end up being one of the best players from this draft and the Lakers could luck into a No. 1 pick in the next two seasons. I'm not saying the Lakers can't, but be good in three years. I'm saying that isn't very likely right now, which is exactly what I was spent multiple pages trying to explain to that other poster.

All of those possibilities are there, but my prediction wasn't based on the hypothetical. My prediction was just an educated assumption based on everything I know, which is that the Lakers have almost no assets, Kobe will be 38 and not under contract, the only two players under contract are Randle and Young (who isn't any good) and this is the Jerry Buss Lakers any more. Frankly, if this was the roster situation of probably any other team in the league, you'd agree with me and so would most Lakers fans.

basketfan4life
08-28-2014, 08:43 AM
But Morey had accumulated a TON of assets. That's how you trade for superstars. And right now the Lakers best assets are probably Randle and their next two first round picks. Except those picks aren't likely going to be high enough to make an immediate difference or to trade for a superstar unless they get extremely lucky in the lottery like Cleveland did.


But Kobe was a superstar player in his prime, Odom was a great No. 3 playing out of his role and Bynum was an extremely talented young center with crazy high upside. That was a good team waiting on that No. 2 piece. Also, the Lakers had assets to deal for Pau, like his brother.


They got extremely lucky and lucked into some amazing assets. If they don't get Wiggins, Lebron may not have ended up a Cavalier. But they were also pretty terrible those last few years and finished in the bottom 5-8 teams every season in order to get those high picks. Kobe will likely make these Lakers teams just good enough to win 40 games and end up with the 10th-12th pick. So those picks are extremely unlikely to amount to anything in the draft or in terms of the open trade market.

everything you wrote in this part is like saying there are tons of ways to build a team, which is on the same page with what i say. Of course there is an explanation for everything happened, that is why they happened.


But this isn't about the fact that there are unknowns in the NBA. That's obvious. OKC could lose Durant and Westbrook in the next three years and be a cellar dweller again. Harden and Howard could both bold the Rockets to go elsewhere. Or Lebron could decide he doesn't want to re-sign in Cleveland after all. Of course those chances are there, just like there's a chance that Kobe could give us 3-4 more years of prime Kobe, Julius Randle could end up being one of the best players from this draft and the Lakers could luck into a No. 1 pick in the next two seasons. I'm not saying the Lakers can't, but be good in three years. I'm saying that isn't very likely right now, which is exactly what I was spent multiple pages trying to explain to that other poster.


All of what you wrote here proves my point. And the bolded part, you said that the lakers will suck 3 years from now and that is why i quoted you, if you were talking about likelihood of things i wouldn't replied you anyways.


All of those possibilities are there, but my prediction wasn't based on the hypothetical. My prediction was just an educated assumption based on everything I know, which is that the Lakers have almost no assets, Kobe will be 38 and not under contract, the only two players under contract are Randle and Young (who isn't any good) and this is the Jerry Buss Lakers any more. Frankly, if this was the roster situation of probably any other team in the league, you'd agree with me and so would most Lakers fans.
I wouldn't, that's why exactly i said don't bet against any team for a 3 year period and i'm not exactly a Laker fan, I live in Europe so it's more about Kobe to me. We are talking about a time that Kobe probably be retired, so i can't give a less **** about the Lakers in '17.

todu82
08-28-2014, 12:12 PM
Nope unless he leaves the lakers which I doubt happens.

mightybosstone
08-28-2014, 01:49 PM
everything you wrote in this part is like saying there are tons of ways to build a team, which is on the same page with what i say. Of course there is an explanation for everything happened, that is why they happened.
But you completely glossed over the main factor in the success of all three of those teams: assets. Those three teams had a lot of solid assets, whether it was personnel, draft picks or overseas prospects. This current Lakers team has hardly any assets at all. That's the thing that you're just not getting.


All of what you wrote here proves my point. And the bolded part, you said that the lakers will suck 3 years from now and that is why i quoted you, if you were talking about likelihood of things i wouldn't replied you anyways.
That's because you focused on a single post of my mine from a conversation that lasted multiple pages. If you look back, you'll see that's exactly what I was arguing. The likelihood that the Lakers will be successful in three years, not that the Lakers necessarily would or wouldn't be successful.


I wouldn't, that's why exactly i said don't bet against any team for a 3 year period and i'm not exactly a Laker fan, I live in Europe so it's more about Kobe to me. We are talking about a time that Kobe probably be retired, so i can't give a less **** about the Lakers in '17.
Okay. But forget what you would or would not bet. That's beside the point. A guy walks into your home puts a gun to your head and says, "Will the Lakers be a contending basketball team in the 2016-17 season? If you're wrong, I'm going to come back here in three years and shoot you in the face." What's your best educated guess?

basketfan4life
08-29-2014, 02:32 AM
Mighty, everything i wrote is because you said the lakers will suck 3 years from now. And i think i made my point.

slashsnake
08-29-2014, 03:55 AM
Mighty, everything i wrote is because you said the lakers will suck 3 years from now. And i think i made my point.

I think they will have a shot by then. Kobe will be off the books (or the 3rd longest playing player ever, which is pretty doubtful), and they'll have a lot of space to rebuild. LA can do that pretty quickly through FA. Figure a lottery pick or two as well between now and then, things should be pretty good there.

kobe4thewinbang
08-29-2014, 11:23 AM
FriedTofuz:

LOL, cool sig pic but that chick totally overshot that second kick.

Anyway...I doubt Kobe will win a 6th ring. The Jordan comparisons are stupid. He has five and has had a fantastic career full of shocking moments. I believe Kobe will pull off an upset or two and hit a big shot or three before he calls it a career.

But championship? Nah...I do hope they don't lose by 50 again to the Clippers though.

SportsFanatic10
08-29-2014, 11:28 AM
not unless he plans to play after his current ridiculous contract is up. the team is handcuffed until then and i think he plans to retire then anyways so i'm gonna say no. there is a chance he could get it as a cheaper hired gun on a contender or something later on though obviously if he chose to pursue it.