Kobe Has To Go - and the Bulls Have to Take Him

The Lakers shouldn't trade Kobe Bryant.




When you trade away the best player in the world, you of course can't get eqaul player-for-player value back. In addition, Kobe draws a bigger crowd than any NBA player, so from a business standpoint a trade doesn't make much sense either.





Unfortunatly, the Lakers have to trade Kobe Bryant. Make no mistake, Kobe wants out, as his not-so-subtle press conferences have revealed. In addition, if they want to get anything close to value in return, they need to complete a trade sooner rather than later. Sure, they can hold onto him for two more years, but can they really let the best scorer of this generation walk for nothing? Of course not, and with Kevin Garnett poised to wrap up his career in New England, there doesn't seem to be any viable suitors with whom to team Bryant in LA. So trade him they must, and if they learned anything from the Timberwolves's debacle, they'll trade him ASAP, to avoid ending up with a slew of unproven and useless players in exchange for their superstar. Waiting until the 2008 off-season only lessens the potential value since teams will be aware how desperate the Lakers will be to get something for Kobe.





With that said, I'm not convinced Kobe has played his last game in a Lakers uniform. Trades in the NBA take time, and Kobe is smart enough to not just sit on the bench until his demand is met. He'll play well, and he'll play hard, and he'll do his best to end up on a team that doesn't suck.

There are a few potential suitors, including the Suns, the Knicks, and the Pistons. The problem with all of those deals is that while no one can be expected to match Kobe's popularity and talent, no one talked about with those teams comes even close. The Mavericks actually make a litte bit of sense if Dallas was really looking to move Dirk, but that seems highly unlikely, and while the Lakers would probably have to jump at that deal, I'm not sure they'd be thrilled about it. Then, of course, there are the Bulls.

Much as I want to break the trend of sports thinkers over the past 36 hours, I must say that Chicaog does seem to be the best possible suitor for Bryant, given the team's slew of young talent and Bryant's desire to play there. The Bulls should take any reasonable offer, up to and including a package that includes Ben Gordon and Luol Deng.

Listen, Deng is a nice player. Nice, and as of right now, nothing more. Certainly, as a very young (he's just 21) player, Deng has tons of room for growth, but the Bulls have been growing for a decade. It's time to start winning.





There are those who say a Kobe-for-Deng & Gordon-trade is unreasonable. I'd like to know what games they are watching. Sure, Gordon can score (so can Tony Delk and Bobby Jackson), but when you factor in what he gives up on defense both in terms of size and ability, he only accounts for 12 or so positive points. Deng is suffering from Swollen Value Syndrome, an ailment found often in fans who haven't seen true contenders for 7+ years. Many Bulls fans are actaully reluctant to give up Deng because of what he might do down the road. Yes. Luol Deng and Kobe Bean Bryant. This is like turning down the lead role in the new Marty Scorsese movie because the TV show your uncle Herb is putting together on his Mac might really take off. Getting equal value would mean Deng turns into the best scorer of his generation, which no one believes, of course; there isn't even any guarantee that Deng will ever be a top 10 player in the NBA. It just doesn't make sense to hold onto him. Look, if anyone out there believes that this Bulls team as is can win a title this year, then hang onto them. However, while this team is good and will win a lot of games, they lack a go-to scorer and a reliable back-to-the-basket big man. They simply don't have the players to win a championship in today's NBA.





None of this is to say that a trade is imminent. The money is complicated. Any deal to the Bulls not involving a third team almost certainly requires Deng and/or Gordon to agree to a sign and trade. The only way to get a deal done without doing that would have to involve Ben Wallace heading to LA, which the Lakers can't be excited about and wouldn't accept (unless it was Deng, Gordon and Wallace). So getting a deal done will not be easy.





Kobe on a Deng and Gordon-less team doesn't by any means pencil the Bulls into the Finals. However, it makes the team more exciting, makes them more money, and gives them a chance to truly compete for a ring. What more could Bulls fans ask for? Listening to talk radio on the way to work this morning, I heard several Bulls fans arguing against Kobe coming to the Bulls. Their main point seemed to be that they've stuck with this team, watched it grow, and they want to see how far it can go. I appreciate that sentiment, but part of the reason you grow as a team is so you can have players to use in a trade to get a superstar.





The Bulls may have a chance to aquire the best player of the post-Jordan era with at least two years of outstanding basketball left in him.





Sorry, but that sounds a whole lot better to me than the Bulls hanging on to Luol Deng, the all-star.





Personally, I'd love to see Danny Ainge just make a call to Dr. Buss and try to convince him that a Pierce & Rondo package is good value.





'Cause you know, come the end of the NFL season, those Boston fans aren't going to be used to losing any games.

I Don't Want My P-E-R

I think John Hollinger is a brilliant guy. He's arguably the flat-out smartest writer working for ESPN, and probably any other sports empire. He understands statistics and projections in a way that normal people don't, and if he starred in the show Numb3rs, episodes wouldn't last past the second commerical break. He can talk numbers for hours upon hours and remain giddy about it. I respect his intelligence, and I respect that he's doing something that he loves. Everyone who talks about him is in awe of his ability to crunch numbers and create formulas.

However, to be a Hollingerian, you need to love his Player Efficiency Rating (PER), and I don't. I don't like it quite a bit, in fact. If I was into hating things, I might hate it.

The PER (explained by the Honge himself here) is meant to measure the rate of an NBA player's per-minute statistical production, the idea being that such a system allows you to compare players who don't play the same amount of minutes, or play in systems that limit their statistical productivity (i.e. Shawn Marion might score more points than Rip Hamilton because his team gets more offensive possesions). Hollinger is quick to point out that the PER is not meant to be the final, definitive word on an NBA player's production, and he's always quick to point out the glaring flaw that the PER doesn't really measure defensive ability.

Those flaws aside, there are a few other problems I have with the system. Hollinger has often said that the benefit of the PER is that it gives a unifying number by which to compare players, since you can't just go to scoring or rebounding to tell the difference between Randy Foye and Chris Mihm. However, that only makes sense if the PER is meant for people who know nothing about basketball. Fans of the game understand the value (or lack thereof) of any type of statistic, and no matter how long Hollinger's system is defended (and there are a LOT of people who love it), the PER is just that: a statistic. Too often, the defense of the PER is that is unifies stats, which is, strictly speaking, untrue. The PER take a lot of stats into account, but then tosses in huge intangibles like "pace," filters the numbers through a formula, and ends up with a PER. This is still merely a number, and it doesn't clarify anything any more than comparing stats based simply on averages.

In addition, Hollinger has said that the PER is used to make "comparisons between players who play differing minutes, or in different systems or what-not -- comparisons which, using conventional stats, are almost impossible." Again, those comparasins are only impossible if one is completely on the outside of basketball looking in. It's actually quite possible to compare players who differ in style or position or number of minutes played, and that's by watching these players, taking into account their statistics, and using your brain and basketball knowledge to come to a conclusion. You've no doubt noticed that the system sounds remarkably similar to the PER, and indeed it is, the problem with the PER is that it takes the "use your brain" part out of it. Perhaps that's the unintended point, sadly, in that it tells people what to think, and that's also probably why I (almost) hate it. That's incredibly far from Hollinger's intention, to be sure, but it is indeed the unintended outcome quite often.

As I've said, if stats are your only concern, the PER is as decent a number as any. But if the PER is designed to determine a player's level of production overall -- aka how good of a basketball player he is, overall -- here's where it beings to fail. Here are some projections from the upcoming season's projected PER:

--Yao Ming will be the most productive player in the NBA this year. As with all PER projections, this is largely based on Yao's stats compared to "similar players at a similar age," and where their statistics went the following year. The problem is that Yao -- along with Lebron, Shaq, Steve Nash, and Kevin Garnett, among others -- are so vastly different than any player who has come before them that it renders comparasins all but moot.

--Also according to the projections, 12 players will be more productive than Tim Duncan. Now, I won't argue that Duncan's numbers will blow away the field this year, but again, this is why a stat like this doesn't work to measure how good a basketball player is.

--In addition, Steve Nash is ranked all the way at 19th, while Vince Carter, Shawn Marion, Allen Iverson, Luol Deng, Josh Howard, Jermaine O'Neal, Jason Kidd and Rip Hamilton are all below Atlanta's Josh Smith.

Now, I know that some will argue that I just don't get the PER. On the contrary, I do understand it indeed, I just don't see the need for it. Perhaps it's because I'm not a numbers guy, or because I don't like being told what to think, or because I don't see the point of a list that ranks basketball players with phantom stats and places the best player at #4 (Kobe, as if it needed to be said) and one of the most accomplished at #13 (Duncan), with the guy who should have won his first MVP award last year at #19 (Nash). And while I'm not closed to it, I don't see myself coming around on this one.

Again, Hollinger's a good and smart man. He's often the first to point out when his formulas lead to wacky conclusions or totally miss intangibles like Steve Nash's ability to not age after turning 30. He's also a very smart basketball analyst, as in evident every time he strays from mere numbers in his writings. So no, I don't want to ditch John Hollinger, I just don't want his stat.

NBA Camps Open, Playoff Predictions, and Those Amazin' Losers

The Best Basketball Player Alive arrived in camp showing nothing but grins and optimism. What else could he do? Perhaps more than anything, Kobe is trying to sell himself on the idea that this Laker team can go far.

I won't discount the team totally. Kobe is good enough to lead them anywhere. However, tough as it is to believe sometimes, the man his human, and he needs some pieces around him.

And no, Shawn Marion is not the answer.

________

The Spurs enter the season as deservedly heavy favorites. Beyond that, the league seems pretty wide open for five or six teams capable of winning it all: The Celtics, Suns, Pistons, Mavs, Cavs. Your 2008 NBA Champion will come from that group. The Rockets aren't as good as people think and won't stay healthy, the Bulls could conceivably win the East but could never get past any of the West's powerhouses, and the Jazz, Warriors and Raptors are at least a year away from being contenders. Seriously, if you could lay down even money on either the Spurs, Celtics, Suns, Pistons, Mavs or Cavs winning the title, how much would you bet? Your mortgage? Your college fund? The NBA is the anti-partity league. When was the last time we saw an NBA Champ that wasn't ranked in the top 5 or 6 in the preseason? Even baseball gives us the occasional surprise. Don't get me wrong, I love the NBA more than I love any other league, and it will be a fantastic and fun season, but we won't be seeing any 2000 Rams or '03 Angels anytime soon.

________

One last basketball note: You owe it to yourself to check out the greatest dunk you've probably never seen here. It's from a real game, no And1 or Globetrotter nonsense.

________

It's unfortunate that the best team in the National League didn't make the playoffs. There's no possible excuse, but an incredibly poorly timed bad stretch doesn't take away severl months of great baseball (well, actually, it does take it away, but you know).

I have no idea why the Mets are hanging on to Willie Randolph. I don't blame him soley for their epic collapse, but someone has to take the fall here, and the team is too good to blow up. What happens next year if the Amazins are 5 games up with 10 to play, and they lose two games in a row? Their September to Forget will haunt them no matter what, but retaining every piece of the fall may not be the most prudent option.

________

Three series open on Wednesday. Angels-Red Sox promises to be well played, but without home field advantage, the Angels will lose in 5.

Cubbies-D'Backs is being marketed here in Chicago as an incredibly lopsided series -- in the Cubs favor! Now, on paper I'd have to agree with them, but on paper the Cubs should also be winning close to 100 games. Also on paper, a team that gives up more runs than they score shouldn't have the most wins in their league. Arizona gets it done in 4, and Chicago fans turn to a Bears team that won't win 8 games.

Phillies-Rockies is a fantasic, exciting matchup between two blazing hot teams. Jimmy Rollins (who will rightfully win the NL MVP) made good on his promise way back when and is as close to unstoppable as anyone in the majors. Matt Holliday, meanwhile, has continued to play out of his mind. The series will go 5 games, feature a tight finish, and my money's on the improbably Rockies, the joyous flipside of the '07 Mets, keeping their season going.

________

Oh, and No, I don't think Holliday touched home plate. Let's just say I'm glad the catcher dropped the ball.

________

Week 4 NFL commentary and the rest of the MLB playoffs coming soon.

Feedback and questions are always welcome. Comment below or Contact me at jsh4211@yahoo.com