How do you think the Lakers would have done with Kobe & CP3 together?

[Stringer Bell]

With the veto being brought up quite a bit, I'm just curious on your viewpoints on how they would have worked on a team chemistry/style level.

Also, the Hornets owners must have been doing some lousy work to being in such financial trouble that the NBA owned them.


There have been murmurs about insolvent teams for the past few years, but now we have a smoking gun. The Hornets were about to default on loans to the NBA, and were operating at a loss to their ownership. According to financial documentation obtained by Deadspin, "as of June 30, 2009, the partners' deficit totaled $83 million (slide 14)." On a year-to-year basis the losses were more mild -- and acceptable when you consider that a team generally appreciates in value over time -- but $83 million is a big number, even for a group of millionaires.

If nothing else, the Hornets give the NBA significant leverage coming into this summer's collective bargaining negotiations. When David Stern talks of the failed economics of the current agreement, he now has "Exhibit A" to point to.

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2010/12/8/1863933/new-orleans-hornets-nba-ownership-relocation

http://nypost.com/2015/12/09/how-one-vetoed-trade-derailed-lakers-changed-nba-forever/

[Levity]

it would have worked. kobe was never a fan of play making. more so forced into that role by phil. so with cp3 being go-to playmaker, kobe would have been allowed to get in good position in his spots, exerting less energy throughout the season. kobe would have still played like kobe (taking every shot he deemed "makeable"), but cp3 would have still played like cp3, getting the whole team involved.

that deal also included howard (pre injury). there was a potential dynasty there. instead all 3 of their careers have been on a downward slope since then (less so cp3)

[Haymaker]

it would have worked. kobe was never a fan of play making. more so forced into that role by phil. so with cp3 being go-to playmaker, kobe would have been allowed to get in good position in his spots, exerting less energy throughout the season. kobe would have still played like kobe (taking every shot he deemed "makeable"), but cp3 would have still played like cp3, getting the whole team involved.

that deal also included howard (pre injury). there was a potential legacy there. instead all 3 of their careers have been on a downward slope since then (less so cp3)

No. Kobe wouldn't have worked without the ball. Even with Nash, who was one of the best willing passers in the league Kobe had to have the ball in his hands. They would've butted heads.

[SilkkTheShocker]

it would have worked. kobe was never a fan of play making. more so forced into that role by phil. so with cp3 being go-to playmaker, kobe would have been allowed to get in good position in his spots, exerting less energy throughout the season. kobe would have still played like kobe (taking every shot he deemed "makeable"), but cp3 would have still played like cp3, getting the whole team involved.

that deal also included howard (pre injury). there was a potential dynasty there. instead all 3 of their careers have been on a downward slope since then (less so cp3)


lol

[Levity]

No. Kobe wouldn't have worked without the ball. Even with Nash, who was one of the best willing passers in the league Kobe had to have the ball in his hands. They would've butted heads.

not entirely true. when nash was first traded to the lakers, kobe gave him full control of the offense. that only lasted 1.25 games before nash took a knees to the shin from lilard and missed a handful of weeks after that. upon return, kobe again put the ball in nashs hands. but nash wasnt able to stay healthy and missed more time.

upon his return (again), he was given playmking duties, but at this point he was still injured and it showed. nash WASNT able to get by any defender, EVEN WITH A SCREEN. so dantoni had nash play off ball as a shooter (to some success). nash was never able to stay healthy with LA. and as a result, was nver able to play the role the team, including kobe, wanted for him.

so im glad you enjoy rewriting history. but this is what happened.

russels rookie season, kobe gave him the keys to the offense. rookie dangelo russel, who like old man nash, couldnt break down a defender. but kobe didnt take the ball out of his hands. instead, the team gave clarkson the ball while kobe fought for position 15 ft out

[Quickening]

They don't get out the western conference, Kobe was basically a passenger defensively so would negate Howard's impact on the defensive end...and I don't think he would like CP3 being the star of the team.

They wouldn't of got past the likes of the Spurs or OKC.

[Haymaker]

not entirely true. when nash was first traded to the lakers, kobe gave him full control of the offense. that only lasted 1.25 games before nash took a knees to the shin from lilard and missed a handful of weeks after that. upon return, kobe again put the ball in nashs hands. but nash wasnt able to stay healthy and missed more time.

upon his return (again), he was given playmking duties, but at this point he was still injured and it showed. nash WASNT able to get by any defender, EVEN WITH A SCREEN. so dantoni had nash play off ball as a shooter (to some success). nash was never able to stay healthy with LA. and as a result, was nver able to play the role the team, including kobe, wanted for him.

so im glad you enjoy rewriting history. but this is what happened.

russels rookie season, kobe gave him the keys to the offense. rookie dangelo russel, who like old man nash, couldnt break down a defender. but kobe didnt take the ball out of his hands. instead, the team gave clarkson the ball while kobe fought for position 15 ft out

Kobe is not an offball player man. He gave Nash the ball for courtesy. Kobe worked best with a PG like Fisher who did some pg duties but mainly brought down the ball and let Kobe operate while spoting up for threes.