Midseason trades and Championships

[Reality]

To get more money.  A player's existing team (or the one who last held his contract for UFA) can offer up to 120% of previous contract plus 12.5% raises.  Any other team can only offer the max under the collective bargaining agreement and 10% raises. 

Ah, so for more money for himself.  Now that is making sense.

I can't believe you seriously asked that question.

Why, you're sometimes a source of accurate information.  Westkoast has very valuable computer related information.  WoW used to be good for getting Staples ticket prices information.  Jomal can keep us abreast of Metamucil price influxes.  I value eveyone on the board.

So either way Kobester could have been traded. 
What timeframe did Joe have in mind?

[Lurker]

So either way Kobester could have been traded. 

Every player in the NBA CAN be traded.  Michael Jordan "could have been" traded.  No one is arguing that point...except maybe you.

The issue is whether AT THAT TIME it made sense for the organization to make a trade. 

[Reality]

So either way Kobester could have been traded. 

Every player in the NBA CAN be traded.  Michael Jordan "could have been" traded.  No one is arguing that point...except maybe you.

Spare me.  It's all you Lakers have been arguing for the past three years and certainly past few weeks continuing on this thread.

The issue is whether AT THAT TIME it made sense for the organization to make a trade. 

Breakthru!!!  You and WoW.  Two in one day.  WooHoo!! 

[westkoast]

So either way Kobester could have been traded. 

Every player in the NBA CAN be traded.  Michael Jordan "could have been" traded.  No one is arguing that point...except maybe you.

Spare me.  It's all you Lakers have been arguing for the past three years and certainly past few weeks continuing on this thread.

The issue is whether AT THAT TIME it made sense for the organization to make a trade. 

Breakthru!!!  You and WoW.  Two in one day.  WooHoo!! 

You really are that dense?  Or are you just THAT delusional?  It's not 'so either way kobe could be traded' more like 'so either way kobe COULDNT be traded'

The Lakers had a chance to trade Kobe in the middle of the 03-04 year as he was under contract with them.  The Lakers were playing good basketball and Kobe himself was torching the league (this is when he first started his scoring barrage).  No reason to make a trade hence the 'making sense' part from Lurker.  There was also a hold up of Kobe being able to opt out of his contract so he can make more money.  Most big names do this, in order to get more money, so like Lurker said this messes up the Lakers ability to trade him.  This also keeps the other team from saying yes to a trade.  We know you think the Lakers control David Stern, the weather, political events, and the refs but they do not actually control other GMs and teams to the point where they can push a player onto them who wants to opt out.

Now fast forward to the finals.  If the Lakers win the title then it doesn't make sense for the organization to make a trade.  They don't.  Kobe then opt's out of his contract and is not tied to any single organization, at all.  Teams can't try to trade him or trade for him.  He is not obligated to do anything for any team.  Heck he doesn't even have to return to the NBA.  Teams cannot do anything with Kobe Bryant.   They can only try to get him to sign with their squad.  The way the Lakers got him to sign was offer him max money and put a NO TRADE clause in his contract.  That means he can say NO TRADE.  So that means there is no way to trade him.

Why is this so hard for your to understand?

[WayOutWest]

The Lakers had a chance to trade Kobe in the middle of the 03-04 year as he was under contract with them.

Does anyone remember Kobe making it known at the begining of the season that he was going to opt for FA?  They even rehashed the story durring the All-Star break, talking about Kobe's L4L was in direct conflict with his opting out of his contract to become an FA that summer.

P.S.

96

[Joe Vancil]

I would never have suggested to trade Kobe IN-SEASON during '03-04.  The Lakers, when healthy, were the team to beat that year.

I'm suggesting that the Lakers should have worked out a sign-and-trade POST-SEASON '03-04, leveraging that only in that manner would Kobe get the maximum salary, along with the ability to sign for 7 years.  Anything else, Kobe would lose a 3% salary increase per year (can't remember if it's 10% vs. 13% increase, or 7% vs. 10% increase, but it's 3% difference), and would lose a year off of his contract.  Plus, and I'm not sure if this would fit Kobe's situation at the time, I'm pretty sure there's a difference between what the current team can offer and a new team can offer based on what the last contract was - which means it's important to get max-dollars and bigger raises now just to get better contracts later.  That's a significant amount of money.  Kobe hadn't yet realized he couldn't carry a team by himself, and the money - especially in the light of the rape case and him needing to rebuild his image after losing endorsements - would have played a big part.  The Lakers wouldn't have gotten equal value for Kobe, but they would have gotten reasonable value - enough to, say, keep them competitive in 2004-05.

Kobe's own ego would have tripped him up...he'd be willing for the team he was going to to dump a superstar just so he could have the spotlight - because - and this is important - the only reason I'd have gone this route was because KOBE WOULDN'T RE-SIGN IF SHAQ WAS STAYING.  If Shaq wasn't an issue, there'd have been no need to trade Shaq just to get Kobe to re-sign.  In other words, the initial difference in attitude would have long-lasting repercussions in addition to the immediate issue at hand.

[westkoast]

I would never have suggested to trade Kobe IN-SEASON during '03-04.  The Lakers, when healthy, were the team to beat that year.

I'm suggesting that the Lakers should have worked out a sign-and-trade POST-SEASON '03-04, leveraging that only in that manner would Kobe get the maximum salary, along with the ability to sign for 7 years.  Anything else, Kobe would lose a 3% salary increase per year (can't remember if it's 10% vs. 13% increase, or 7% vs. 10% increase, but it's 3% difference), and would lose a year off of his contract.  Plus, and I'm not sure if this would fit Kobe's situation at the time, I'm pretty sure there's a difference between what the current team can offer and a new team can offer based on what the last contract was - which means it's important to get max-dollars and bigger raises now just to get better contracts later.  That's a significant amount of money.  Kobe hadn't yet realized he couldn't carry a team by himself, and the money - especially in the light of the rape case and him needing to rebuild his image after losing endorsements - would have played a big part.  The Lakers wouldn't have gotten equal value for Kobe, but they would have gotten reasonable value - enough to, say, keep them competitive in 2004-05.

Kobe's own ego would have tripped him up...he'd be willing for the team he was going to to dump a superstar just so he could have the spotlight - because - and this is important - the only reason I'd have gone this route was because KOBE WOULDN'T RE-SIGN IF SHAQ WAS STAYING.  If Shaq wasn't an issue, there'd have been no need to trade Shaq just to get Kobe to re-sign.  In other words, the initial difference in attitude would have long-lasting repercussions in addition to the immediate issue at hand.

The couldn't work out a sign and trade that would have worked for the following reasons:

Most of the summer was spent just trying to get him to sign as he opt'd out literally right after they lost the finals to Detroit.  The reason the Lakers were able to sign him aside from being able to offer the most money is the fact they gave up the only no trade clause in the league.  That was a major factor in Kobe signing the contract because it gave him pretty much full control of his career.  The no trade clause had more to do with him resigning then Shaq leaving.  Reason being?  Kobe couldn't be put in the spot Shaq was if he had the no trade clause.

[Skandery]

The no trade clause had more to do with him resigning then Shaq leaving.  Reason being?  Kobe couldn't be put in the spot Shaq was if he had the no trade clause.

Couldn't he have just negotiated this aspect with his sign-n-trade team, also?

[Lurker]

The no trade clause had more to do with him resigning then Shaq leaving.  Reason being?  Kobe couldn't be put in the spot Shaq was if he had the no trade clause.

Couldn't he have just negotiated this aspect with his sign-n-trade team, also?

Part of the issue was that Kobe REALLY wanted to stay in LA for the media spotlight.  Why do you think the only team he showed any interest in was the Clippers?

Bottom line is that Kobe tried to manipulate the situation and the Lakers brass bought into it.  At that time it made sense to keep the younger superstar who worked hard as opposed to the aging one that seemed to take longer every year to get into top shape.  And looking back it is great to say that Shaq went on and won a ring but there is no way to know if the same would have happened if he had stayed in LA.  Also it could have worked out that a new team for Kobe could now be enjoying a 3-peat.  That is one of the problems with what if...the possible outcomes 3-4 years later using hindsight as a filter can be basically unlimited.

[westkoast]

The no trade clause had more to do with him resigning then Shaq leaving.  Reason being?  Kobe couldn't be put in the spot Shaq was if he had the no trade clause.

Couldn't he have just negotiated this aspect with his sign-n-trade team, also?

Not when his wife was telling him she wants to stay in LA to be by her family.

I also don't see how it makes sense even from the Lakers stand point to do a sign and trade then.  Who could they have possibly got to fill his role?   You guys keep talking like its possible but have not brought up a single player, scenario where it would work.   Who at the time even had the cap space to pay Kobe upwards towards 20 million a year?  Who was a better perimeter player coming off that 03-04 season?  As for the no trade, it's easy to say he could have negioated it with any other team but it doesn't seem like any teams really like to do that.  Kobe has the only no-trade clause in his contract and has been the only player with one for years if I am not mistaken.

You guys seem to forget that Shaq was the first choice to be moved mid-season as his conditioning was once again a factor on their regular season at the same time  Kobe was scoring 160 pts in 5 games or whatever it was.  The only thing that could have saved him was winning a championship.  Jerry Buss had his mind made up that he did not want to pay Shaq that huge extension and the fact he tried to check Buss' ego.  Why would they do a sign and trade for another player if they wanted to move from Shaq regardless?  Jerry Buss went on record saying he didn't want to pay that kind of money to Shaq and that prompted the whole 'PAY ME MY F*#@(*$ MONEY' after his dunk in a game.

[Skandery]

As for the no trade, it's easy to say he could have negioated it with any other team but it doesn't seem like any teams really like to do that.

I was just asking a question. <sheeesh!>

[westkoast]

As for the no trade, it's easy to say he could have negioated it with any other team but it doesn't seem like any teams really like to do that.

I was just asking a question. <sheeesh!>

lol I didn't mean to come off like that it just seems like beating a dead horse with this topic.

The Heat can't do anything without Wade.  The Lakers haven't done anything without two superstars.   Kobe couldn't have been traded and Shaq/Buss were aleady laying the seeds to part ways.  I am kind of with JoMaL when he said it's beyond boring talking about it now.

I was just waiting for Reality to say 'Oh Phil Jackson wanted to move Kobe for Jason Kidd' when it's clear the Lakers front office doesn't even want to move Andrew Bynum for Kidd.

[Reality]

I was just waiting for Reality to say 'Oh Phil Jackson wanted to move Kobe for Jason Kidd' when it's clear the Lakers front office doesn't even want to move Andrew Bynum for Kidd.

  Another Wild Blue YAWNder.
westkoast

Jason Kidd 1999-2000 = same upside as Jason Kidd 2007.

 
Rrrrright.

[WayOutWest]

I also don't see how it makes sense even from the Lakers stand point to do a sign and trade then.

This is a dead horse.  Kobe announced BEFORE the start of the 03-04 season that he WOULD NOT sign an exention with the Lakers, he was going to opt out and test the FA market after the 03-04 season.  He also stated that he wanted to see what the Lakers were going to do about PJ's contract, he wanted to see if the Lakers were going to stay competitive.  The big talk durring the 03-04 All-Star game was Kobe, they rehashed the announcement he made before the start of season and made it seem like it was breaking news.  Why would any team want to trade for Kobe if he was going to be an FA after the season. 

Can somebody give me some scenarios where you trade the kind of talent you need to land a Kobe if he is a FA after the season?  Who is that deperate to clear cap room?  The Lakers got torpedoed before the season even started.

[westkoast]

I was just waiting for Reality to say 'Oh Phil Jackson wanted to move Kobe for Jason Kidd' when it's clear the Lakers front office doesn't even want to move Andrew Bynum for Kidd.

  Another Wild Blue YAWNder.
westkoast

Jason Kidd 1999-2000 = same upside as Jason Kidd 2007.

 
Rrrrright.

Oh so Kobe in 99-2000 = Andrew Bynum in 05-06

RRiiiiiight.

Tard class is dismissed, you can go eat glue in the sandbox now reality.