Should an NBA team trade their superstar legend in order to rebuild?

[Street Hunger]

When Kobe's Lakers clearly weren't going to contend for a championship, should the Lakers have considered trading him?

When Stephen Curry's Warriors are not competing for a championship anymore should the team consider trading him?

The Warriors are playing well lately so this is not a perfect example but you get the idea.

There's no perfect answer to this but I'm thinking that if a team has one of their greatest players of all time and the guy is clearly a legend, maybe he should never be traded?

I don't know what the cutoff should be.

[beasted]

Typically the rule of thumb is you don't trade the franchise icon until they ask for a trade.

Even when they want to trade them, such as when Portland made a bunch of rebuild moves under the disguise of competing, you cannot outright just decide to trade him. The fans will turn on you.

[elementally morale]

As for me, it depends on personality. You don't trade a guy like Duncan or Dirk. Those guys are about TEAM and that is a culture. It's good for the fanbase and it's good for the rebuild once the star is in decline. You can absolutely trade someone who is more about himself. The guy that was good while he was actually good.

[Xiao Yao You]

As for me, it depends on personality. You don't trade a guy like Duncan or Dirk. Those guys are about TEAM and that is a culture. It's good for the fanbase and it's good for the rebuild once the star is in decline. You can absolutely trade someone who is more about himself. The guy that was good while he was actually good.

unless the package is too great to turn down I guess

4 firsts 3 unprotected, a pick swap, the teams recent 1st and 3 rotation players :(

[Full Court]

Generally, no. However, seeing how Lebron is a team cancer who will throw anyone under the bus to take the blame off himself, I'd make an exception in his case if I were the Lakers.

[Xiao Yao You]

Generally, no. However, seeing how Lebron is a team cancer who will throw anyone under the bus to take the blame off himself, I'd make an exception in his case if I were the Lakers.

more that he's old, injured, highly payed and they are mediocre

[Full Court]

more that he's old, injured, highly payed and they are mediocre

I'm specifically referring to the passive aggressive statements he makes to the press, complaining when he doesn't get what he wants (like signing Kyrie), leaving before the rest of the team while the game's still going on during an embarrassing loss, etc. He makes it obvious he doesn't give a crap about the team, but only about how they make Lebron look.

If it were just a franchise player who's old and not as good anymore, I'd say keep him for the reasons Elementary Morale mentioned.

[iamgine]

Depends on how popular the player is. In Kobe's case, he was really popular worldwide that trading him would be a negative on the team's bottom line. Not to mention after he retires, you'd want to claim that player's legacy in perpetuity.

Now imagine if Kobe was traded in 2013 against his will. It would be hard to manage the PR nightmare that follows for a long long time.

[L.Kizzle]

No, you keep them unless they don't want to be kept.

Ewing and Olajuwon finishing their careers in Toronto and Orlando was wild.
I'm not sure if Drexler and Wilkins asked for trades. I know Barkley did.
Steph is not going anywhere.

[Xiao Yao You]

Made sense for the Mailman to leave with Stockton retiring

[90sgoat]

I think the team legend should either ring hunt or accept a lesser role, even a bench role.

They shouldn't try to be the main focus. Kareem and Duncan are good examples of how to handle that.