courtesy of a post over at RealGM (don't know if this was posted already):

Phil (Chicago): Kobe isn't going anywhere, is he?

Chris Sheridan: (1:10 PM ET ) I disagree. I think he's getting traded, and I think the Knicks or Bulls are going to get him. There's going to be a colling off period here whether KB24 likes it or not because Jerry Buss is heading off to China on vacation, but I think Kobe is outtathere when it's all said and done.

Jon: Your Kobe destination list is pretty short. Why NY or Chicago? What will either team have to give up to get him? Also, I understand that Chicago has "all the pieces" to make a deal, but they don't need a guard.....

Chris Sheridan: (1:23 PM ET ) Kobe has a no-trade clause, which essentially means he can veto a trade to any destination he does not find desirable. So if he goes in there and officially demands a trade, he can also dictate to them which teams he'd accept a trade to. I don't see him going to any small-market team, and I don't see the Lakers trading him anywhere in the West. So you narrow the list down to major-market teams that are close to being championship contenders, and you get the Bulls and Knicks. (Philly wouldn't be close enough to championship level with what it would take for them _ Iguodala and Andre Miller for starters _ to get Kobe. Maybe Boston could get him for Pierce, but it'd be a huge reach to say that would make the Celtics an elite team in the East. so again, you come back to the Bulls and Knicks, and then it would be a question of which guy is more desperate to to whatever it takes to get him. And that would be Isiah, not John Paxson.

Sean: (Albany NY): what could the Knicks give up to get Kobe?

Chris Sheridan: (1:26 PM ET ) It could be something like Marbury, Frye, Lee and their pick for Kobe and Radmanovic, or if the Lakers didn't want Steph you could substitute Crawford and take Vlade out of the equation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DJ (Englewood): Yeah Isiah may be desperate but isnt Marbury the most untradeable guy in the league? Kobe or no Kobe, if the Lakers have to choose between a worn down Stephon and what Chi's offering, isn't it academic?

Chris Sheridan: (1:31 PM ET ) You don't know what Chicago would be willing to offer. It wpould take three of their core guys to make the Lakers bite, and I'm not including Ben Wallace (not a rebuilding piece) or Kirk Hinrich (base-year compensation) in the list of core guys who might be in any Bulls offer. You you'd basically be talking about a deal that would have Gordon and Tyrus Thomas and/or Deng in it, along with Nocioni (who would have to be sign-and-traded) to even get close to matching salaries. Would there be enogh left on the team to compete for a championship if they had to lump all that together to get Kobe? I think not, which is another reason why I'd take the Knicks over the Bulls as a likelier destination if and when a Kobe deal goes down.

John (Los Angeles): Chris, I don't why you think New York only has to give up role players in Frye and Lee; and a cap killer in Stephon Marbury for Kobe. While you are saying Chicago has to give up their three of their core young talent. Wouldn't the Lakers be better off with a choice of two from Gordon, Thomas, and Deng than if they took Frye and Lee. And nobody wants Marbury. Your New York trade scenerio doesn't make any sense.

Chris Sheridan: (1:50 PM ET ) If the Knicks had to bid against 28 other teams, the offer would be substandard. But again, if this thing goes forward, they're only going to be bidding against the other teams on Kobe's short list. That'll make a huge difference. And remember, the Knicks have a lot of other young, semi-attractive pieses they could sweeten a deal with (Renaldo Balkman, Nate robinson, Randolph Morris, next year's No. 1 pick).

Pat (D.C.): The Bulls could resign P.J. Brown to a one year deal to make up the cap difference if the Bulls only gave up two core players.

Chris Sheridan: (1:54 PM ET ) If you do a sign-and-trade, it has to be a three-year dea. That's why Nocioni, not P.J., would be the main sign-and-trade piece.

CL: Chris, is there something you're hearing other than what Kobe presented via his various radio interviews that makes you think he's going to be traded or is it a hunch? The last we heard from him, Kobe vehemently stated he wanted to stay with the LAKERS and was hoping they could work something out. Wouldn't it be far more likely that the LAKERS make a move to satisfy him? Moving the best player in the game wouldn't make too much sense and they really don't HAVE to trade him if they don't want to (Kobe wouldn't hold out).

Chris Sheridan: (1:58 PM ET ) The last thing Kobe said publicly and definitively was to Mike Bresnahan of the LA Times, and that was on Wednesday night when he said he still wanted to be traded. Go to his Web site, www.kb24.com, and read what he wrote that night about "a new road ahead." Now that's not the only piece of information I'm basing my throries on, because I'm pretty well-sourced. But if you read that entry, and you go back and listen to the tapes of Kobe talking out of both sides of his mouth all over the airwaves, and you factor in stuff I'm hearing about how this breakup has been building a lot stronger and for a lot more time than people realize, you'll start to come over to my side of the table on this one.

That's interesting, but yet another tease.

I'd basically give up the whole team for Kobe. But Chicago would still probably have a better deal.

Whatever it takes to get Kobe is what I say.

Chicago may have a better deal, but I bet Kobe prefers the bright lights of Broadway. If he can nix any deal he doesn't like, I think that favors the Knicks.



[Edited by - basketballjones on 06-04-2007 00:00]

Posted by BasketballJones:

Question for you guys: Does Phil Jackson want to coach a Lakers team without Kobe on it?

Phil does what Jeannie Buss tells him to do.

Sheridan is on crack. If the Lakers accepted that Knicks package for Kobe, there would be another LA riot.

Posted by BasketballJones:

Chicago may have a better deal, but I bet Kobe prefers the bright lights of Broadway. If he can nix any deal he doesn't like, I think that favors the Knicks.



[Edited by - basketballjones on 06-04-2007 00:00]

I agree. He's talked highly of playing in New York a number of occasions.

I am not sure that the Lakers would take the proposed Knicks deal but if they do, I am all for it. Kobe is an a-hole, but he is also no worse than the third best player in this league and many would argue that he is the best individual player in the league. You put him and curry on the same team and you have a pretty unstoppable offense. I would hate to lose Lee, but Balkman gives us alot of what Lee brings. We also would have guys like Collins and Q and Nate to round out our bench. I guess Rose would be the starting PF, which ain't great, but we should still be able to win if Rose just focuses on defense and rebounding.

Yeah, I mean Kobe can't really get anymore famous. But he's originally an east coast guy right? Philly? He might just like living here better. Or maybe he's got a girl out here. You never know.

let me start off by saying this: i don't like kobe bryant! i said it. i don't like him. i don't like his ****y attitude and his primadonna swagger. i don't like his disrespectful approach to the game and his selfishness. i don't like him. with that said, i would trade ANYBODY on my team for him. you would have to be crazy to not. he is the BEST player in the league right now. better than lebron, wade, ai, nash, duncan, nowitski, mcgrady and anyone else you could name. he dominates games more than ANYONE and can flat out beat other teams. true, he will not win with all teams but i think a team of curry and bryant would be unbelievable. look at this lineup considering that crawford, lee and frye for bryant:

pg- marbury/collins
sg- bryant/francis
sf- q rich/ balkman
pf- jeffries/rose
c - curry/james

sure our rebounding would be suspect but i will tell you this: if we acquire kobe, thomas would think "win now" and used the exception that he said he will not use to sign a rough and rugged pf. i personally think cleveland, besides lebron, has less talent than we do. we put in lebron and we can compete with anyone in the east. this year proves that the nba in general is weaker than the previous years and anyone can get beat. bryant can will us to the top part of the conference and a team of bryant/marbury/curry could be the best trio in basketball. chemistry would be the key. marbury put aside his ego last year and rose to the occasion when directed. he will be asked to do the same with him defecting towards bryant but he did that with crawford so that won't be a problem. the lockerroom will be interesting though. but there are minimal risk for a reward in hopefully getting into the playoffs and winning.