Lebron for Kobe

by CHAWKZILLA on Jun 16, 2009 11:55 PM PDT

I brought this up a work and it started a fierce debate. I thought it might be a fun debate.

If you were the Cleveland GM, would you trade Lebron James (almost 26 years old) for Kobe Bryant (almost 31 years old)? There are several factors to this. Kobe is signed through 2011, but can opt out( I'm a little confused about when Kobe can opt out.). Lebron is a free agent after next year, and probably is going to leave. Yes I know Kobe would be furious. Does Kobe have a no trade clause? Not sure.

My thinking is if Lebron went to LA he would definitely resign. Kobe most likely would not resign with Cleveland either, but you may have him for one more year then you would've had Lebron. No doubt Kobe is the best in the NBA.

What about if you were the Laker's Gm?

Do you think long term and trade for Lebron? Or keep the older Kobe who is in his prime?

It must suck right now to be Cleveland's GM.

Which way would you go?

This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!

Tweet Comment 34 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I want the deal that has LeBron James in my possession at the end. If I’m the Lakers, I’d do it. If I’m the Cavaliers, I’d pass.

The Ultimate Opportunist

by Rated-R Superstar on Jun 17, 2009 12:00 AM PDT reply actions

are you high?

by arsunik on Jun 17, 2009 12:10 AM PDT reply actions

Kobe definitely does have a no-trade clause.

"We Deserve"

by YaHeard on Jun 17, 2009 12:10 AM PDT reply actions

It comes down to this

If your Cleveland’s GM, Do you take Lebron for 1 more year or Kobe for 2?
If your the Laker’s GM, the only player that might prevent rioting is Lebron.

As the Laker’s GM I’d trade Kobe for Lebron, then fake my own death and go into hiding.

As Cleveland’s GM if I have any tiny feeling Lebron is leaving, I’m taking Kobe for 2 years. That is probably the only player that might be acceptable to Cleveland fans and might ease their pain.

by CHAWKZILLA on Jun 17, 2009 12:21 AM PDT reply actions

Lebron is not going to leave.

That’s a fact. That is truth. Truth shall set you free. I repeat. Lebron will stay a Cavalier.

by ZaMzAm FiRe on Jun 17, 2009 12:37 AM PDT reply actions

I don’t think LeBron will leave. I think Kobe can opt out THIS year, but if he does it will only be so that he can sign an extension with LA.

Thing A

by sam23 on Jun 17, 2009 1:42 AM PDT reply actions

Fellas!

The point is to play along with the scenario. We all think that Kobe will opt out to extend with the Lakers to keep Odom and Ariza. I don’t think Lebron is going to stay in Cleveland.

It’s all for fun.

Imagine your the GM sitting at your desk and your phone rings. It’s the Laker’s GM offering Kobe. What would you do?

Same scenario as the Laker Gm, call from Cleveland offering Lebron.

by CHAWKZILLA on Jun 17, 2009 2:01 AM PDT reply actions

Lebron is on my team.

by ZaMzAm FiRe on Jun 17, 2009 2:12 AM PDT up reply actions

I take Lebron. Either way. Lebrons only 24, by the way.

1 year of Lebron and just the possbility of resigning him >>> Kobe. Lebron will only get better, by the way, while Kobe only gets older.

by Missing Barry on Jun 17, 2009 7:06 AM PDT reply actions

C'mon, dude: 24 is "almost 26."

I pretty much stopped caring at that point.

Thing 1

by Sleepy Freud on Jun 17, 2009 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions

Lebron = best player in the NBA

Kobe might not even be the best player on his team.

I’d rather have LeBron for one.

by Ronaldinho on Jun 17, 2009 9:27 AM PDT reply actions

you obviously don’t watch LA.

13 points in 39 seconds. Enough said.

by Duhoh on Jun 17, 2009 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions

Kobe’s probably the best player on the team, but not by as wide a margin as a lot of people think. Gasol and Odom are a very close #2a and 2b. Without those guys, Kobe barely sniffs the playoffs, let alone the finals.

The Kobe v. LeBron “question” is pure ESPN hype. Age issues aside, LeBron right now is the more efficient, more productive, more dominant, more valuable player, and it’s not that close. I might rather have Kobe take a hypothetical “last shot” but that’s a very specific instance. I’d rather have Anthony Morrow shoot decisive FTs than LeBron.

Ignoring the fact that Kobe would never approve such a deal, I don’t see how trading the Best Player in the NBA for a slightly worse player who’s over 6 years older, beginning the decline phase of his career, and has one more year on his contract is an interesting topic for debate at all. It’d be a no-brainer for the Lakers and suicide for the Cavs.

Thing 1

by Sleepy Freud on Jun 17, 2009 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs

that pretty much says it all.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on Jun 17, 2009 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions

Debate settled

by Captain Jack on Jun 17, 2009 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions

“I might rather have Kobe take a hypothetical "last shot" but that’s a very specific instance.”

Kobe gets WAY too much credit for this. He actually has a pretty bad FG% in these types of situations.

by Missing Barry on Jun 17, 2009 7:26 PM PDT up reply actions

melo and lebron actually have way better “clutch stats”.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on Jun 17, 2009 8:11 PM PDT up reply actions

We remember the ones Kobe hits, but we quickly forget when he gets blocked from behind by Turkoglu…

by Missing Barry on Jun 18, 2009 6:52 AM PDT up reply actions

melo and lebron actually have way better "clutch stats".

And almost no one has “clutch stats” that are statistically significantly different from how they behave at other times.

[Before anyone jumps on this to tell me that they know someone is clutch, be certain you know what “statistically significantly different” actually mean. It doesn’t say that it can’t be true. It says that we can’t determine if it’s true or just a product of the (in such a case) small sample size.]

by jae on Jun 18, 2009 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions

Hmm, dunno where to find it but I’m under the impression (as in, I think I’ve read a study) teams in general shoot a worse % at the end of a quarter than they normally do. The problem with this is obviously how much of that is because players like Kobe choose to go 1 on 1 (where he shoots a lower %), and how much has to do with the clock winding down.

When it comes to clutch situations, I have a strong belief (this part untested) that players, physically, cannot change their performance. If you hit 40% open 3’s normally, you should hit 40% open 3’s in a “clutch” situation. I guess I would give some room for it to change due to physical conditions like being tired at the end of the game. That said, I do believe decision making can change, for better or worse, in clutch situations. Some players may choose go 1 on 1 when they normally wouldn’t because it’s a low % shot for them (and so they’ll shoot a lower % than normally), while others may, more often than they normally would, choose to try to get where they want on the court, like Lebron going to the rim instead of settling for a 3, where he’ll shoot a higher %.

by Missing Barry on Jun 18, 2009 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions

One more note: I would think defensive effort would affect shooting %’s, and I would assume most defenders will give more effort on the last possession of a quarter than they would on average the rest of the game.

by Missing Barry on Jun 18, 2009 2:08 PM PDT up reply actions

that’s fair. in the limited sample size, melo and lebron put up off the charts numbers, but i suppose that the limited sample size makes it hard to call that statistically significant. still, i can’t help but be impressed when i see melo’s ridiculous .583 3pt% or pretty much everything about what lebron has done in (what 82games.com calls) the clutch.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on Jun 18, 2009 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions

and to copy Missing Barry-

one more note: i love that crawford has the 13th most points in the nba in the “clutch”, but on such awful, awful shooting percentages that i had to stare at them for a minute. though, in fairness, his passing numbers look really good in that time frame.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on Jun 18, 2009 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions

correction: 13th most points in the nba per 48 minutes. that’s important to note.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on Jun 18, 2009 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions

Actually, I live in LA.

And I watch more of the Lakers than I do any other team. Not by choice, mind you.

Gasol is arguably more important to the Lakers success than Kobe. Of course, he’s not as photogenic, and he’s not the media presence Kobe is.

Kobe is undeniably the team’s leader … he’s the one everyone defers to, and he’s the player they’ve built around. Unfortunately, he’s the leader in bad ways, as well: the team takes its mercurical approach to defense from their star, and their penchant for mailing in games. But they also take their work ethic from him.

Gasol earned the team about 3 more wins than Kobe did this year. Sure, stats aren’t the be-all, end-all here, but Gasol’s .567 (.100 higher than Kobe’s) was the foundation of their offense.

Again: not flashy. Gasol didn’t sell as many shoes or as many jerseys, and the Lakers don’t win the title without both of them. But there is a very reasonable argument to be made that Gasol is the Lakers best player.

by Ronaldinho on Jun 17, 2009 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions

Kobe is undeniably the team’s leader … he’s the one everyone defers to

Because if he wasn’t the center of attention, he’d throw a tantrum.

You have been DFiBrillated.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 18, 2009 7:47 AM PDT up reply actions

Kobe might not be the best player on the team?

Blinded by your hate for Kobe and the Lakers

by Tim Bug on Jun 17, 2009 9:50 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs

Kobe gets a LOT of credit for being on winning teams in the general press. If your teams are winners, you’re remembered for the clutch shots you hit. But hits are a lot more memorable than misses.

I mean, everybody remembers Jordan’s game winner over Ehlo in 1989. We can probably all picture it. But who here can picture the shots he missed which would have won other games in the series, or which would have won games in the Detroit series?

He missed multiple game winners in those playoffs. But what do we remember? The shot over Ehlo.

The same with Kobe. For most of his career, Kobe has been considered a much better player than say, Paul Pierce or Ray Allen. What he’s done on the court doesn’t really justify such an assessment, except for the championships. But Paul Piece never – until last year – had the luxury of being the second-best player on his team.

Pau Gasol is really, really, really good – and I don’t think most people appreciate that since for a variety of reasons (he’s ugly, he’s not very “athletic”, and he played on a series of mediocre memphis teams). But you could make a pretty strong argument that he’s the most consistent post scorer of the last decade! I would never say he’s a better all-around player than Duncan or Garnett, but he’s been a better post scorer than either of them (taking slightly fewer shots but making a higher percentage of them).

So, no, saying Kobe might not be the best Laker is not about “hating” – it’s about understanding the game of basketball and realizing just how good another Laker happens to be.

by Ronaldinho on Jun 17, 2009 9:28 PM PDT up reply actions

Seriously buddy

You have been DFiBrillated.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 18, 2009 7:51 AM PDT up reply actions

AYE

ill trade moped for kobe and lebron

We USED to Believe...
WE DEMAND IMPROVEMENT!

by RunNdGun on Jun 17, 2009 9:40 PM PDT reply actions

i wouldn't trade kurz for either one

by ZaMzAm FiRe on Jun 17, 2009 10:46 PM PDT up reply actions

Kobe's contract

allows him to opt out this season and in 2010. So either way you’d only have the player for a year if you were the Cavs.

by LakerFan24 on Jun 17, 2009 10:23 PM PDT reply actions

If I'm Cavs, I keep LeBron

Unless I plan on blowing up the whole team this offseason.

A little consistency probably gives them a better chance to win in 2010 versus changing the whole dynamic with Kobe.

Even if LeBron walks, if they can get a championship or atleast a finals appearance in 2010, the franchise will be in a better position overall.

by warriorsvictim on Jun 18, 2009 11:53 AM PDT reply actions

Blowing up the Cavs would be an admission that they do not really believe that they can ever be a serious contender. The odds that they can get more production out of whomever they get in exchange for Lebron is real real real low. It’s just hard to replace the best (* sensu lato meaning one of the very top guys who could be the best player on a championship team) player in the game and not wind up worse for it.

It’s a tough bind for the Cavs as it’s very possible that he walks in a year leaving them with nothing, but trading him essentially says “you know what? We can live with trying our damnedest to be a playoff team who don’t do much more than that and we’re going to gamble away the short window we’ve got for a title in exchange for a potentially safer long term position that isn’t likely to sniff the finals again.” The prospects or second rate stars they’d get for Lebron might enable them to string out some playoff appearances where Lebron’s uncompensated departure would leave them looking at the lottery, but given how rare actual championship opportunities are (especially if you aren’t the Lakers, for some reason that I can only attribute to deals with satan) they should hold Lebron, bank on the fact that they can offer him more than anyone else and hope for the best.

by jae on Jun 18, 2009 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions