PDA

View Full Version : Ask the Pacers: Larry Bird on youth and rebuilding



dadscout
08-01-2007, 09:21 AM
Question for Larry Bird | July 31, 2007
<HR>Q. I know you have said that you don't plan on rebuilding this franchise; however, after discussions with many Pacers fans the overall consensus seems to be to start over. The team may struggle at times over the next couple of years, but watching young players grow and seeing them progress would be much more entertaining than watching the current team (Danny Granger is a perfect example of watching a player grow and enjoying it). So, would you ever consider making some deals to bring in youth and future draft picks in order to build for the future? (From Aaron in Indianapolis)
A. If you look at our team now, we're very high on Ike (Diogu), we're very high on (Danny) Granger, we're very high on Shawne Williams. We've got a core of young guys here we think we can develop with our veteran players to move forward. If we can make some trades to get some draft players and go after players we want, we'll do that. Question for Larry Bird | July 31, 2007
<HR>http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/ask_the_pacers.html

Is Larry changing his mind?

Pacers#1Fan
08-01-2007, 09:39 AM
Larry is being Larry... indecisive.

Hicks
08-01-2007, 09:40 AM
I don't think anything's changed. He's saying that he's happy with the youth on this team with that trio of guys, but at the same time he's not so attached to them to label them untouchable. If we were offered an all-star player for one of them or a combination, I doubt he'd say no if that all-star fit at all.

Unclebuck
08-01-2007, 10:18 AM
Let's not read too much into his comments. In fact lets not read anything into his comments. Obviously he put only a moments thought into his response

bellisimo
08-01-2007, 10:22 AM
maybe Larry should have pursued a career in politics...talk about sitting on the fence!

Tom White
08-01-2007, 10:27 AM
Is Larry changing his mind?

Maybe, but the new one probably wont work any better.

ChicagoJ
08-01-2007, 10:50 AM
Should the new slogan be "New management, but still in love with the idea of playing five forwards at once"?

When's the last time we even had a young guard we were excited about? Jalen Rose? Nah, he was a forward. Micheal Williams? We didn't draft him but we did give him a shot in the lineup when Vern got hurt. Reggie Miller?

DisplacedKnick
08-01-2007, 10:53 AM
Should the new slogan be "New management, but still in love with the idea of playing five forwards at once"?

When's the last time we even had a young guard we were excited about? Jalen Rose? Nah, he was a forward. Micheal Williams? We didn't draft him but we did give him a shot in the lineup when Vern got hurt. Reggie Miller?

240 replies on this thread: http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?t=32627

If that's not excited, I don't know what is. :p

bellisimo
08-01-2007, 11:22 AM
i was rather excited to have Tinsley and the first couple of months were definitely in honeymoon mode...if only he could've managed to stick to that level of ballin'...

Hicks
08-01-2007, 11:24 AM
Yeah, I think Tinsley was the last big "wow" guard we drafted or otherwise acquired. Of course, to most he's flamed out.

ChicagoJ
08-01-2007, 11:47 AM
And prior to Tinsley... it was a long, long time ago.

JayRedd
08-01-2007, 12:15 PM
And prior to Tinsley... it was a long, long time ago.

Ann Meyers?

Mourning
08-01-2007, 12:32 PM
maybe Larry should have pursued a career in politics...talk about sitting on the fence!

:nod: My thoughts exactly!

LAKERERIC
08-01-2007, 12:49 PM
It's all about direction. I promise, if the Lakers do not get better this year, and Bynum plateus, then they should consider making a deal like the Wolves did to get the rebuilding process in full swing. Kobe will be looking at an opt out that year, and if they are still no better off, you may as well change the direction. The Pacers are there now. Their best hope to get to a title level is to wait out these vet teams for the next 2-3 years and be ready to burst out. Look at the Wolves: They have Foye, Green, Brewer, Jefferson, McCants. Will they be out of the playoffs the next 2-3 years? Probably. But they'll get in the lottery and those young, talented players will get better. Indiana, if they accepted Bynum, Crittenton, Kwame, Cook, 2 #1s for JO, their roster would rival the Wolves: Granger, Diagu, Bynum, Crittenton, Williams, Dunleavy. You can probably ticket the lottery for the next year or two, but the arrow is really pointed up. You have a young, talented player at every position, plus 2 extra #1 choices. If I were a Pacer fan, I would support this deal because the upside longterm of the deal defeats any negative downside that I see, because even the most intelligent Pacer fan would have to admit that the Pacers are a very borderline playoff team at this point, with JO possibly, not probably, but POSSIBLY leaving at the end of the season.

rexnom
08-01-2007, 12:54 PM
The difference between us and the Wolves is that we have too many vets: Tinsley, Dunleavy, JO, Murphy, Foster, now Kareem Rush...they may be role-player/barely starter quality but they are still vets. Unless we can get rid of them all in one off-season, I don't see the point. Also, it's nice to bring along the young guys slowly. I think having Diogu back up JO for a while could be a very good idea.

Also, with this team, we're still going to get a good pick next year...it's not like we're sitting on a 50-win roster here.

LAKERERIC
08-01-2007, 12:58 PM
The difference between us and the Wolves is that we have too many vets: Tinsley, Dunleavy, JO, Murphy, Foster, now Kareem Rush...they may be role-player/barely starter quality but they are still vets. Unless we can get rid of them all in one off-season, I don't see the point. Also, it's nice to bring along the young guys slowly. I think having Diogu back up JO for a while could be a very good idea.

Also, with this team, we're still going to get a good pick next year...it's not like we're sitting on a 50-win roster here.

You're right. So, you may as well get the youth movement going behind them. Obviously, Dunleavy, Murphy, Tinsley are not friendly contracts. But these guys are good enough to play with the young players and keep you respectable. But, the organization would have more optimism in the future with a solid, young, developing core. Unless you guys want to trade Granger, Williams and another couple of your players to try to get a really good compliment for Jermaine, I would deal him. The Wolves probably should have done this last offseason.

Tom White
08-01-2007, 01:06 PM
It's all about direction.

Speaking of direction, it seems to me that you are trying every road you can to get to a singular destination. The problem is that you just wind up making the same old rejected offer.

Will Galen
08-01-2007, 02:04 PM
It's all about the Laker's, I promise!

Fixed!

LoneGranger33
08-01-2007, 02:08 PM
Travis Best.

rexnom
08-01-2007, 02:39 PM
Travis Best.
Heywoode Workman.

We are just naming random Pacer pgs, right?

ChicagoJ
08-01-2007, 03:13 PM
Travis Best.

Travis Worst? Travis Bust? Travis Dribble? The Walking, Talking Shot Clock Violation? He was a #25 pick - probably would've been a lottery pick and still starting in the NBA if he were tall enough to play SG. Doesn't really count, though.

LAKERERIC
08-01-2007, 04:17 PM
Speaking of direction, it seems to me that you are trying every road you can to get to a singular destination. The problem is that you just wind up making the same old rejected offer.

I guess you can reject it. I can respect that. But it takes courage as an orgainzation to say: "It's time to rebuild." The Wolves did it. The Pacers can stick with what they have, and my team has its own problems, but I will be very surprised if the Pacers ever get a better offer than the Lakers', if that is on the table. I just don't see the real risk in that deal for the Pacers, since they are not close to title contention with or without JO. The Lakers, with JO-LO-Kobe, are a top 5 NBA team. Without JO, they are top 10-12. The trade helps Indi in the future and LA now. Oh well, I guess I can understand why you guys are sick of the Lakers fans. But I still say this trade could very well happen.

NuffSaid
08-01-2007, 05:43 PM
Is Larry changing his mind?

maybe Larry should have pursued a career in politics...talk about sitting on the fence!
I don't think he has changed his mind nor do I think he's sitting on the fence. Bird has had the same stance since the season ended.

From the June 26, 2007 interview, "So Far, O’Neal Trade Rumors Just That (http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/So Far, O’Neal Trade Rumors Just That)":

"Am I shopping Jermaine? We listen to everything that comes our way but as far as calling people and putting him out there on the block, no."

From the July 23, 2007 interview, "Bird Sees Big Impact from Small Moves (http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/diener_070723.html)":

When asked about JO's return in the wake of trade rumors although they had simmerred in the days since the draft, Bird said, "I've said it all along: I hope so," Bird said. "I look forward to having him back in the mix."

The same comment by Bird was expressed the very next day in an interview on IndyStar.com, "No Names, No Problems (http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070724/SPORTS04/707240357/1088/SPORTS04)".

So, no. I don't think Bird has changed his mind or is riding the fence at all concerning JO. I think he's doing what he's always done: state the value of his players while making it clear that very few, if any, are untouchable, but will only trade them if the right pieces are available for the right price.

Bynum Brigade
08-01-2007, 06:06 PM
I don't think he has changed his mind nor do I think he's sitting on the fence. Bird has had the same stance since the season ended.

From the June 26, 2007 interview, "So Far, O’Neal Trade Rumors Just That (http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/So Far, O’Neal Trade Rumors Just That)":

"Am I shopping Jermaine? We listen to everything that comes our way but as far as calling people and putting him out there on the block, no."

From the July 23, 2007 interview, "Bird Sees Big Impact from Small Moves (http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/diener_070723.html)":

When asked about JO's return in the wake of trade rumors although they had simmerred in the days since the draft, Bird said, "I've said it all along: I hope so," Bird said. "I look forward to having him back in the mix."

The same comment by Bird was expressed the very next day in an interview on IndyStar.com, "No Names, No Problems (http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070724/SPORTS04/707240357/1088/SPORTS04)".

So, no. I don't think Bird has changed his mind or is riding the fence at all concerning JO. I think he's doing what he's always done: state the value of his players while making it clear that very few, if any, are untouchable, but will only trade them if the right pieces are available for the right price.

Bird's perception of the right price is what could have changed.

beast23
08-01-2007, 06:39 PM
I guess you can reject it. I can respect that. But it takes courage as an orgainzation to say: "It's time to rebuild." The Wolves did it. The Pacers can stick with what they have, and my team has its own problems, but I will be very surprised if the Pacers ever get a better offer than the Lakers', if that is on the table. I just don't see the real risk in that deal for the Pacers, since they are not close to title contention with or without JO. The Lakers, with JO-LO-Kobe, are a top 5 NBA team. Without JO, they are top 10-12. The trade helps Indi in the future and LA now. Oh well, I guess I can understand why you guys are sick of the Lakers fans. But I still say this trade could very well happen.You know, I'm right in Tom White's category.

Jeez... expand your views a little for a change.

Every single thing you say about the Pacers and their possibilities on your proposed trade could be said about the Lakers. Can't you see that?

It takes courage for an organization to say it's time to rebuild. Check.

The Lakers can stick with what they have, and my team (Pacers) have their own problems, but there is no way in hell that the Lakers will get a better offer than the Pacers (which would include both Bynum and Odom). Check. Woops... no check. The Lakers better acquire another star or they MAY have problems with Kobe.

I think the Pacers are MUCH worse with the trade that you propose. Indeed, the Lakers probably would be a top 5 team. Without the trade, you are absolutely freakin' dreaming if you think the Lakers are a top 1-0-12 team. The would be a middle of the pack team, 15-18 and struggling to even make the playoffs.

All I ask is that you truly try to see the trade from a Pacer perspective, and attempt to make it stand up against the Pacers announced goal for the season (making the playoffs).

With JO, the Pacers will struggle to make the playoffs. With your trade proposal in place, the Pacers have no chance of making the playoffs.

For what it's worth, I believe that any potential two-team trade favors the Pacers if both Odom and Bynum are included. Without both, I believe any two-team trade even more heavily favors the Lakers. I'm implying that a 3-team trade is probably necessary to help matters work out.

However, I believe with the temperamental Kobe in a Lakers uniform, there are much greater risks for the Lakers if this trade does not take place than for the Pacers. Not just regarding making the playoffs, but also for the possibility that no trade might also mean that the Lakers would be forced to trade Kobe. If no trade is made, the Pacers continue to struggle (heck we will be challenged this season with or without the trade) .... but we really don't have to worry about JO as some seem to think... at least not until his contract is up in another 2 years following this season.

But again... try for once to invision yourself in front of your TV with a Pacers jersey on... what trade would you be willing to complete in light of the fact that Bird/JOB/Walsh have promised the fans that the Pacers will do everything possible to make the playoffs this season?

beast23
08-01-2007, 06:40 PM
Larry is being Larry... indecisive.I don't think it's Larry being idecisive. I think it's Larry being illusive.

Bball
08-01-2007, 06:42 PM
I don't think it's Larry being idecisive. I think it's Larry being illusive.

Yeah... and elusive too! ;)

-Bball

beast23
08-01-2007, 10:08 PM
Yeah... and elusive too! ;)

-Bball
Thanks.

Between the lips mumbling what I was typing, the fingers fumbling for the keys and the brain totally fumbling the spelling to begin with.... well you get it. Thanks for the correction. :o

LAKERERIC
08-01-2007, 11:52 PM
You know, I'm right in Tom White's category.

Jeez... expand your views a little for a change.

Every single thing you say about the Pacers and their possibilities on your proposed trade could be said about the Lakers. Can't you see that?

It takes courage for an organization to say it's time to rebuild. Check.

The Lakers can stick with what they have, and my team (Pacers) have their own problems, but there is no way in hell that the Lakers will get a better offer than the Pacers (which would include both Bynum and Odom). Check. Woops... no check. The Lakers better acquire another star or they MAY have problems with Kobe.

I think the Pacers are MUCH worse with the trade that you propose. Indeed, the Lakers probably would be a top 5 team. Without the trade, you are absolutely freakin' dreaming if you think the Lakers are a top 1-0-12 team. The would be a middle of the pack team, 15-18 and struggling to even make the playoffs.

All I ask is that you truly try to see the trade from a Pacer perspective, and attempt to make it stand up against the Pacers announced goal for the season (making the playoffs).

With JO, the Pacers will struggle to make the playoffs. With your trade proposal in place, the Pacers have no chance of making the playoffs.

For what it's worth, I believe that any potential two-team trade favors the Pacers if both Odom and Bynum are included. Without both, I believe any two-team trade even more heavily favors the Lakers. I'm implying that a 3-team trade is probably necessary to help matters work out.

However, I believe with the temperamental Kobe in a Lakers uniform, there are much greater risks for the Lakers if this trade does not take place than for the Pacers. Not just regarding making the playoffs, but also for the possibility that no trade might also mean that the Lakers would be forced to trade Kobe. If no trade is made, the Pacers continue to struggle (heck we will be challenged this season with or without the trade) .... but we really don't have to worry about JO as some seem to think... at least not until his contract is up in another 2 years following this season.

But again... try for once to invision yourself in front of your TV with a Pacers jersey on... what trade would you be willing to complete in light of the fact that Bird/JOB/Walsh have promised the fans that the Pacers will do everything possible to make the playoffs this season?


Don't think for one second that the thought of dealing Kobe has not entered my head. In fact, if the Lakers don't get a JO type of deal AND they are out in round 1 without much hope for upward mobility, trading Kobe next offseason may even be in the Lakers' best interest. And this is a guy that has helped the Lakers win rings and is one of the best to ever lace them up.

Of course, I think the trade will help the Lakers. Over the next three years. It is worth the potential of Crittenton and Bynum, as well as 2 draft picks, to give Kobe an opportunity to compete for a title. As for your comment about being a Pacer fan, I say I would want what is best for the franchise.

I am not fans of the Pacers like you guys so I don't know everything. The reason I am over here, and I can't speak for other Laker fans who are arguing themselves over this deal as you are, is that I view the deal as realistic. The Lakers are no great team but they are in a position to make a deal for a player that can improve their chances, and if the Pacers could make a deal that you felt was realistic and could put you in the hunt, they should do it.

I think the Lakers are in go for it now mode, where the Pacers would be better served to add young talent. I also think very highly of Crittenton's potential. Obviously, he is a rookie. But I have watched him and Gerald Green, and I think they are absolutely in the same level of talent. In fact, the Pacers would probably take JC because of all their wings.

Bynum is not as proven as Jefferson, but his year 2 numbers were better than Jefferson's. He is also a true center. If the Pacers could pick and choose one of the two to add to their roster, I am not convinced they would not choose Bynum to pair with Diagu.

Throw in Kwame, Cook, and the 2 number 1s and that is fair. JO is not the player KG is. I am not convinced the Lakers are offering this just as I am not convinced the Pacers would accept it, but big NBA deals are so few and far between you get excited when you think they may happen. If nothing is done by mid August it probably won't happen. I think it happens in the next week if it does.

ChicagoJ
08-02-2007, 12:58 AM
You mean the guy who rode Shaq's shirt tail to a few rings, right?

You guys have had Magic, Kareem, West, Shaq, and Wilt, among others.

I figure you'd know the real champions from the posers. Hint: Kobe is a poser.

You really would be better off dumping him and starting over with Bynum + Crit plus whatever prospects Kobe could bring in a trade, and take advantage of Brown's expring contract next season, and trade Odom someplace he really wants to go. But I will enjoy it much more if you keep him and implode.

Hicks
08-02-2007, 01:01 AM
Kobe is far from a poser. He's a terrific player.

ChicagoJ
08-02-2007, 01:08 AM
Sure.

But what has he ever won without Shaq? Not a single playoff series.

He's a hall of famer, but the Lakers have had a bazillion of those. Kobe is barely in the top-ten of all-time Lakers players, but he described Kobe as "one of the best to ever lace them up."

Kareem, Shaq, Wilt, West, Baylor, Magic, and of course Mikan were better. Goodrich and Worthy were comparable "second bananas" to Kidobe. Of course, they were "third bananas" but that's a tribute to how stocked the 70s and 80s Lakers were.

Kstat
08-02-2007, 01:11 AM
Jay, Kobe's the 2nd-best player ever to play his position.

And no, neither Goodrich nor Worthy could hold Kobe's jock. Come on.

I'd also add, Jordan never won a playoff series without Pippen, either.

ChicagoJ
08-02-2007, 01:20 AM
Jay, Kobe's the 2nd-best player ever to play his position.

No.


And no, neither Goodrich nor Worthy could hold Kobe's jock. Come on.

Don't kill my hyperbole. I was enjoying that one. I guess I was doing my best Pacersin2033 impression, if he can say JO was never good at offense then someone can get away with saying that, right? :tongue:


I'd also add, Jordan never won a playoff series without Pippen, either.

When did Jordan play a playoff series in his prime without Pippen. That's not a real comparison.

Shaq has carried Penny, Kobe, and Wade to The Finals.

Not my fault the Lakers traded their real star and kept the very-good-player-posing-as-a-star player on their roster instead.

Kstat
08-02-2007, 01:24 AM
No.



Um, yes. You can't name a more accomplished shooting guard in NBA history than Kobe Bryant, outside of Michael Jordan. In fact, it isn't even CLOSE.

Jerry West comes about as close as possible, and Kobe blows him out of the water in every category.

This really isn't even a debate, Jay. You can't question Kobe as the 2nd best 2-guard ever. He has far too much proof in his corner.

ChicagoJ
08-02-2007, 01:32 AM
Where are you putting Oscar? PG?

If that's the case, where are you putting Magic? Second best PG?

I gotta think about that some more. I don't think its a nobrainer, but I think you can make a case for a number of players. It will depend partly on whether he ever wins another playoff series to escape from Shaq's shadow.

Kstat
08-02-2007, 01:33 AM
Where are you putting Oscar? PG?

If that's the case, where are you putting Magic? Second best PG?

I gotta think about that some more. I don't think its a nobrainer, but I think you can make a case for a number of players. It will depend partly on whether he ever wins another playoff series to escape from Shaq's shadow.

Of course Oscar was a PG. So was Magic.

Kobe could retire tomorrow and he'd have that title. He has nothing left to prove.

I also refuse to hold someone's quality teammates against them. Otherwise, All those guys you just mentioned would be downgraded as well.

ChicagoJ
08-02-2007, 01:37 AM
I agree. Some revisionists like to make Oscar a SG to make room for Magic on the first-team all-time list.

Let's put it this way, there are a number of SGs I've liked better than Kidobe. But part if that is because I just don't see Kobe as "clearly better" than them (Mitch, Drexler, even Dumars), just more hyped.

Kstat
08-02-2007, 01:38 AM
Kobe's personal and team accomplishments dwarf the three guys you just mentioned.

None of them have three rings, none of them have led the NBA in scoring, none of them have ever approached 81 points in a single game.

ChicagoJ
08-02-2007, 01:42 AM
Kobe would have zero rings without Shaq.

And he hogs the ball too much, IMO, for a guard. Drexler, Joe, and Mitch were better team guards.

Kobe is the second best "scoring" SG of all time. But not the second best SG of all time.

If Jerry West cared about individual stats, he could've played in a way that makes Kobe's number look ordinary.

Kstat
08-02-2007, 01:46 AM
Kobe would have zero rings without Shaq.


Magic and Oscar would have zero rings without Kareem.

Jordan would have zero rings without Pippen.

Bird would have zero rings without Parish and McHale

If you want to make absolute assumptions, we can go on...



And he hogs the ball too much, IMO, for a guard. Drexler, Joe, and Mitch were better team guards.

...hard to make a case as a better "team" player when the guy across from you has three rings.

Not to mention, if any of those guys had Kobe's skills, they'd probably hog the ball more, too.




Kobe is the second best "scoring" SG of all time. But not the second best SG of all time.

Again, name one other better. You can't.




If Jerry West cared about individual stats, he could've played in a way that makes Kobe's number look ordinary.

Really? It seemed to me like Jerry didn't shy away much at all from stat-stuffing...he simply didn't have Kobe's ability.

West was a better defensive player than Kobe, but Kobe was so much better offensively that he makes that irrelevant. he also has three times as many rings.

owl
08-02-2007, 08:59 AM
Kobe's personal and team accomplishments dwarf the three guys you just mentioned.

None of them have three rings, none of them have led the NBA in scoring, none of them have ever approached 81 points in a single game.

Lies, damm lies and stats. Kobe is a great individual player but for whatever
reason he cannot win anything with out some major help, ie Shaq.
That is some pretty big help. Kobe is the ultimate Stat Boy. With that said,
would Kobe on the Pacers win a title? Most likely yes.

owl
08-02-2007, 09:03 AM
Magic and Oscar would have zero rings without Kareem.

Jordan would have zero rings without Pippen.

Bird would have zero rings without Parish and McHale

If you want to make absolute assumptions, we can go on...




The above are assumptions. Kobe without Shaq and no titles is a fact.

ChicagoJ
08-02-2007, 11:08 AM
Would Magic have won at least one title without Kareem? Yeah.

Would Jordan have won at least one title without Pippen? Yeah.

Those are nonsensical comparisons, in both of those cases (aging Kareem, overrated Pippen) those were not the team's focal points.

By the mid-80s, Kareem was the third or fourth option behind Magic (who, admittedly, wasn't looking for his own points), Worthy and even Byron. Yet the Lakers were piling up championships left and right.

Hicks
08-02-2007, 11:14 AM
I don't like holding teammates against a player, either. Keep in mind a big reason they didn't advance this year was because they were stuck playing PHO again. They were on a regular season pace to be a higher seed to avoid that, until I believe injuries bit them and they dropped.

Naptown_Seth
08-02-2007, 04:53 PM
Kobe would have zero rings without Shaq.

And he hogs the ball too much, IMO, for a guard. Drexler, Joe, and Mitch were better team guards.

Kobe is the second best "scoring" SG of all time. But not the second best SG of all time.

If Jerry West cared about individual stats, he could've played in a way that makes Kobe's number look ordinary.
Let's not forget that Kobe AT HOME last year saw 2 differnet SGs blow up against him too. Imgaine Jordan letting Redd school him in Chicago in his prime? Not bloody likely.

Kobe has the 81, but he also had a ton of games, many down the playoff stretch last year, where his FG% was awful and his team lost.

Jordan never missed the playoffs prior to Pippen, and that was YOUNG Mike, not experienced vet Mike.

Right off the bat I would sincerely take Gervin, Drexler, maybe Bernard King in his prime couple of years. West obviously. Lots of guys could drop a ton of points if so inclined. Just because they played within the system instead shouldn't be a knock on them. In terms of points per shot, 3P%, etc he's not a very efficient scoring threat.

One thing is true, like AI he can at any time get a shot HE LIKES. Some nights they even go in for him. But he gets a monster free pass for looking good while chucking misses too.

To me Kobe is at times brilliant and at other times damaging to his team. I don't recall ever thinking that I hope Drexler doesn't try to take over and hurt the team by doing so.

ChicagoJ
08-02-2007, 05:59 PM
I've been hesitant to say Bernard King, but that name has been at the tip of my tongue. Talk about an outstanding scorer... Too bad the prime of his career was ripped apart back when ACLs were difficult to fix.

JayRedd
08-02-2007, 06:22 PM
Regardless of Kobe's place among the best SGs of all time, he's still pretty far down the All Time Laker list.

Not even close to Wilt, Magic or Kareem, and still well behind Shaq and possibly both Baylor and West.