Who should the Lakers have retained Kobe or Shaq?

Question

NO ONE WORD REPLIES! Spare us your post if you can't back up your choice with reasoning.

Answer 1

Kobe. Plain and simple.

What has Shaq done since June 2004? Zip. (the Mavs choked last year, plain, simple, well, maybe a little help from the refs who thought Wade was wearing a Bulls #23 Jersey for the last 4 games, if Kobe had that kind of love from the refs, he'd be putting up 70 a night).

Kobe is a gem of a basketball player who 99.9% of the league cannot guard, cannot provide an answer to, cannot team or man defend. He has shown his resilience through personal, physical setbacks, shown he can score at will, pass and defend and rebound with the best of the guards in the league and can defer to teammates (IF HE ONLY HAD ANY QUALITY TEAMMATES!).

Shaq had Penny, Shaq had Kobe, Shaq has Flash (what a turd of a name Flash is, love the guy, but 'Flash'? Who made that one up, Sonny Vacarro?). Shaq is a 50% FT shooter, a horrible rebounder, plays sloppy defense and his bench:court ratio is 2:1, he's what they refer to in the real estate biz as The Money Pit.

Kobe has shown that he can, at will, dominate entire games and double/triple teams (witness the Friday night shots at the end of regulation and in OT, single handedly beating the Trailblazers on Friday after getting home at 630am from Denver, then lighting up the Wolves on Sunday, virtually solo). Kobe has shown a certain level of class and dignity when the league's players, fans and even officials have targeted him for retribution (never have I heard of a retroactive foul given to a player a day after the game is over, if that happened to Sir Michael, he'd have cried for a week).

LA LOVES KOBE. The World hates Kobe. That feeds this man to greater and greater heights.

You can knock him for not sharing the ball, but if you had it, would you outlet pass to Kwame? Smush? Sasha? Sounds like the 2nd coming of the Supremes, not quality basketball role players.

You can knock him for taking too many shots. Ok. If you had a guy that can put up 81, 65, 50 pts a game, would YOU tell him not to shoot the ball given your other options (Kwame, Smush, Sasha, Rony, ay...yay...yay).

You can knock him for not being a leader, but his teammates will tell you he is the CONSUMMATE leader, kicks you in the tail when you screw up and has your back when you do well.

You can say he only shines under Jackson, well, I can say without Kobe, the Lakers are manhandling the Celts for the #1 pick. They are THAT BAD without Kobe.

You can say he is aloof, reserved, an enigma, has no 'street cred', whatever, but this guy has been a professional since age 17, when Shaq was trying to get his fat hands out of his momma's cookie jar in high school. He made mistakes, but none like Stephen Jackson, or Sebastian Telfair, or Ruben Patterson, or Latrell Sprewell, or Michael Jordan (a notorious womanizer).

Honestly, if you were Jerry Buss, and you looked at Shaq, and you looked at Kobe, the choice ....I mean...WHAT CHOICE?

Thanks for asking the question, but you knew the answer beforehand I imagine. The world has never seen basketball played the way Mr. Bryant plays it, and I mean NEVER.

Answer 2

the lakers definately made the right choice by keeping Kobe rather than Shaq. First of all Kobe was younger and had plenty of years left to turn into a greater bball player while Shaq was getting older and was less athletic than he used to be. I guarantee the Lakers would be in a deeper hole now if Shaq was there over Kobe. The only reason why Shaq won a ring with the Heat was because he had the second best player in the league on his team which is Dwade, of couse Kobe is #1. Honestly I think Miami could have won that ring without Shaq, all they needed was Alonzo Mourning. At this day and age Shaq certainly could not lead a team on his own like Kobe is capable and has been capable of doing. Do you think at 36 years of age Shaq can score 81, 65, and 50 points in a game in order to win? of course not. The lakers definately made the correct decision.

Answer 3

The best thing to do was to keep the team intact. However, we all know it couldn't be done with the egos these guys had. With that in mind... The Lakers made the right move by keeping Bryant. He is much younger and is just entering the peak of his career. It makes more sense anyway you look at it. Shaq had maybe 3 or 4 years of "good" basketball left in him at the time. Kobe had half of his career ahead of him. If they were both 23 years old, I would take Shaq hands down. They're both wonderful talents that are rarely seen in this league. However, you can't overlook the age difference and the stage at which they were at in their career. Therefore... I would take Kobe.

Answer 4

i hear this question a lot and i always hear the same responses and mine is never the same. i dont understand how the answer isnt clearly shaq. just recently wade was hurt and everyone freaks out!!! omg can the heat stay afloat without wade?!?!?! shaq returned the heat have now won 9/10 and it seems as if walker, williams, haslem, and the others whichhave been struggling all magically play better. some may see this as a coincidence. i see it as shaq being the player in the league that makes his team best because he draws triple teams with every touch. as to how i see the lakers should have kept him. if the lakers had traded kobe they would have gotten good players in return. as we have learned from the past if shaq has good players around him then he is on a dominating team because he makes them even better. shaq+any 2 good players=high chance of championship. as for asking if shaq could score 81 to win a game or 65 or w/e the answer is no however he could score 30 and give the players around him a chance to win the game. also lets not forget kobes performances were not in the playoffs they were against portland and toronto. ive also determined that all great scorers (like kobe) have good shooting days where they score whenever they want. my example for this is when george gervin and david thompson were in a race for the scoring title the last day of the season and both players scored 53 points in one half and i believe thompson ended with 73 so its not like great scorers cant score when they want

Answer 5

Kobe. Shaq was starting to age. Also Shaq looked really good in the league just because in this era there are not many centers that can contest him. Kobe is a franchise player who can pass, rebound, and score. He is clearly one of the best players in the league. Look at Shaq now, his knees are going to give in because of all that weight and now he is injury prone. And look at Kobe, just had back to back 50+ pt games.

Answer 6

they did the right thing in keeping kobe, after all how much longer can shaq last? if the lakers kept shaq, their future might not be as good as it is with kobe. kobe is still relatively young and one of the best today. besides, i dont know how good the lakers would have been with just shaq since he is obviously on the decline.

Answer 7

Shaq has declined as a player since he was with Miami. If the Lakers would have kept him, he would have still declined as a player, except with a Laker uniform. So, they made the right decision by keeping Kobe.

Answer 8

Stars are an puffed up way of with the intention that a collection might win a championship. in reality, between the communities that gained a championship and have been in championship rivalry do no longer possibly have one genuine huge call on the group and nevertheless are waiting to prevail. This group of direction is the Detroit Pistons and the Cavs making it to the Finals additionally teach that a collection would not choose stars basically sturdy gamers around them. look on the Lakers 2004 group that the starless Pistons gained in an disillusioned. You had Shaq whilst he grow to be nevertheless dominant, Kobe, Malone, and Payton. those, have been 4 destiny HOF gamers that ought to no longer get it achieved. a super-huge call group might seem sturdy on paper, yet chemistry won't mesh and the actuality of their success would not pan out because it does in the delusion of their success. The Lakers i think of missed out in acquiring Mike Miller he's an all-huge call able participant, yet no longer a super-huge call they ought to have made a run for him. he's the genuine device his shot is ill makes Sasha look concepts-lifeless to the sport of basketball. Plus, he's a super rebounder for a SF gets like 6.7 a sport. you ought to have unloaded Walton, Radmanovic, etc or basically contain him in the Gasol commerce because of the fact they play nicely at the same time. he's likewise offensively extra perfect than Odom and can commence at SF whilst Odom is 6th. Oh, nicely you Lakers had your threat your loss and T-Wolves earnings.

Answer 9

Kobe
and of course dont say both because they hate each other

Shaq needed to find another all-star but that would share ball and do what he needed and shaq needed to win the game

Answer 10

kobe he is younger and will be around to lead the lakers longer than shaq would have