Now I Remember Why Everyone Hates Him

Over the past season, I'd sort of come to like Kobe Bryant. Then you read something like this:

The Lakers who were seen at the end of the season might look a lot like those that return for the start of 2007-08, with some minor additions here and there. It isn't sitting well with Kobe Bryant.

"I want to see us get to a contending level," he said Saturday with firmness in his voice. "I want to see us become a championship contender. It's been a frustrating process for me and I'm sure it's been a frustrating process for all Laker fans. I'm just hoping we can get to that level. I'm still frustrated. I'm waiting for them to make some changes."

Look, I feel his pain. But unlike a lot of players facing this sort of situation, Kobe actually was in a situation where he had the sort of teammates he needed to compete at a top level. He just couldn't get along with Shaq.

Comments

Kobe does deserve plenty of blame for how things ended with him and Shaq, but let's not forget Shaq's portion of it. He dropped 30 pounds or so right after getting traded to Miami, and everyone hailed him as a hero for showing that much dedication, without so much as a hint of questioning him on what exactly was preventing him from doing that back with the Lakers.

Posted by Haggai | May 28, 2007 10:33 AM

Remember what Chucky Atkins said... Kobe was the GM of that team for all intents and purposes. He's had as much say in the direction of a team as any player could imagine. And now he doesn't like the results.

You people forget but people thought Penny Hardaway was the next great player, the kind that would define a generation. And then Kobe wins three rings and everyone says he's the next Jordan. And now Dwayne Wade gets absurd amounts of praise from the sports media. Funny about that.

Posted by Freddie | May 28, 2007 10:39 AM

Dropped thirty pounds and his ridiculous contract demands. The Lakers were on the hook for, IIRC, two or three years at $33 mil. a piece, and Shaq wanted an extension at those prices. He took less money from Miami when the Heat extended his contract. Of the three--Buss, Shaq, and Kobe--Kobe had the least to do with the dissolution of that tandem.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 28, 2007 10:41 AM

Off topic, but Brian Windhorst has the funniest line of the day in a post about Sideshow Bob's hair:

The Eastern Finals have become a recruitment festival for the Anderson Varejao cult. Yesterday, Mike Brown told a story about seeing teenagers around town and, after raving about LeBron, always want him to say hello to Andy. Mike surmised that Andy is pretty popular with the teeny-boppers. Well, let me just say this, over the last three years I've gotten e-mails from members of the gay community who have professed their infatuation with the mop-topped Brazilian as well. Meanwhile, the female members of the media covering this series are all jealous of Andy's hair and have asked him about what products he uses. So I guess the only thing I can say about Varejao is, men want him and women want to be him.

-----

And will someone clue me in as to precisely when Daniel Gibson became a better player than Chauncey Billups?

Posted by Petey | May 28, 2007 10:42 AM

A lot of people blamed Kobe back then, but the Lakers management may have been influenced by the prospect of giving a huge contract to an aging, overweight, often injured player, too. Trading Shaq wasn't neccesarily a big mistake; having Mitch Kupchak as a GM is.

Posted by Carlos | May 28, 2007 10:44 AM

"You people forget but people thought Penny Hardaway was the next great player, the kind that would define a generation. And then Kobe wins three rings and everyone says he's the next Jordan. And now Dwayne Wade gets absurd amounts of praise from the sports media. Funny about that."

Quite right. Playing with an elite post player makes life easy on a perimeter scorer. Put Tony Parker on the 'zards and he'd be fighting DeShawn and Antonio for minutes.

Posted by Petey | May 28, 2007 10:46 AM

If I remember well, Penny had a big injury and never was the same after that and Kobe seems to be doing OK without Shaq. I somewhat agree on Tony Parker, though.

Posted by Carlos | May 28, 2007 11:03 AM

The question isn't whether Shaq's swingmen would have been quality players without him; the question is whether they would have been raved about to the extent that they were. Shaq put such enormous pressure on a defense and drew so many double teams that it gave his guards much more breathing (and scoring) room.

Posted by Freddie | May 28, 2007 11:07 AM

Let me chime in on the side of Kobe. For all the talk about Kobe being the difficult one in the relationship (with Shaq), Kobe never said a thing in public about it.

For all the talk about Shaq being such a good guy, he was the one with the public, if playful, snipes at Kobe.

The fact is that the Shaq's contract demands were unwieldy. The Lakers could only realistically have one of the two for the long term - who would you rather have for the next 5-7 years: Kobe or Shaq? Given how poorly Shaq has aged, I think the Lakers made the right choice.

Posted by 3pointshooter | May 28, 2007 11:09 AM

i always find it odd that people care whether so-and-so, professional athlete, is "likable" or not. he's not about to become your friend, so who cares? the question is whether so-and-so does his job on the court.

and despite freddie's implications otherwise, kobe does his job on the court extremely well.

PS. as for anfernee, no, freddie, he was not universally regarded as a player who would "define a generation," he was universally regarded as a terrific player who brought a lot of scottie pippen's attributes to the table - right up until his knee injury (as carlos correctly reminds freddie).

Posted by howard | May 28, 2007 11:24 AM

Even Jordan needed Pippen and a relatively competent group of roll playing teammates (including usually one lights out shooter like hodges, paxon, kerr....) to reach his level of success.

I don't blame Kobe - the NBA's leading scorer this year - for thinking that the Lakers are wasting him in his prime by not even trying to assemble a worthwhile collection of teammates for him - almost all championship teams have at least two legitimate stars (the Suns have three and can't even make it to the conference finals!).

Lamar Odom, as talented as he is, is just not going to cut it.

Kobe's not whining - he's right. Lakers management is taking a few years off - at a very unfortunate time.

Posted by SoCalJustice | May 28, 2007 11:25 AM

I think Kobe is probably a dick, but I don't have any objection to him complaining like this. The plain fact is, the Lakers have done an atrocious job of putting a good team together over the last couple years. They traded their one really overachieving acquisition - Caron Butler - after one season.

I actually wish Kevin Garnett would start saying the same kind of thing.

One caveat, though, is that Kobe could have and should have taken a salary cut to give his team some cap room...

Posted by Mr. Noah | May 28, 2007 11:28 AM

The NBA salary cap rules more or less forbid players from taking pay cuts to free up cap space. It's not like in the NFL, where what QBs sometimes do is (I think) defer some of their signing bonuses to later years to free up cap space. The only way Kobe could have saved the Lakers money was by agreeing to take less when he signed his most recent contract. As SCMT mentioned, Shaq did that with the Heat, but not with the Lakers.

And I think Garnett did throw McHale under the bus, either at the beginning of this season or the last. I'll try to find a link.

Posted by Haggai | May 28, 2007 11:55 AM

This was what I was remembering:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2228324

KG was critical of McHale, but it wasn't the same as what Kobe is saying now.

Posted by Haggai | May 28, 2007 11:58 AM

and despite freddie's implications otherwise, kobe does his job on the court extremely well.

I never implied any such thing. I only said that having Shaq has elevated the reputation. Please, if you're going to snipe, read carefully.

PS. as for anfernee, no, freddie, he was not universally regarded as a player who would "define a generation,"

First, I never said it was universal. Second, to say that the hype around Penny wasn't immense is simply, factually, historically incorrect. Finally, as to his knee injury, I never said he would never have been a good player, or that he was just a washout, or made any statement about his injury of any kind. Again-- if you lack basic literacy, don't attack people.

Posted by Freddie | May 28, 2007 12:05 PM

Freddie, don't play games. when you say "You people forget but people thought Penny Hardaway was the next great player, the kind that would define a generation. And then Kobe wins three rings and everyone says he's the next Jordan," you are saying either that some random drunks on the adjacent barstool thought Penny would define a generation or you are making a claim about a gemerally held opinion. as for historic accuracy, it is simply not true that people (if, by your convenient, could mean anything term "people" you mean "seasoned basketball observers") thought anfernee would "define a generation." maybe you're confusing the hype around anfernee's commercials with the claims about him as a player or something, who knows.

and i have no idea what your point now is about kobe: he is a terrific talent. playing with shaq didn't elevate kobe's reputation; it elevated kobe's chances of winning titles, just as playing with kobe elevated shaq's chances.

here's a little lesson: before you start attacking people for their "basic literacy," try demonstrating your complete command of the english language. sheesh.

Posted by howard | May 28, 2007 12:27 PM

haggai, i got distracted by freddie. what i meant to say was that i think kevin garnett's quote that you dug up pretty much says it all about kevin mchale in management: high basketball IQ, no real desire to work hard (that used to be bird's critique of mchale, too, although woe-be-the-non-celtic who would criticize mchale in the same terms in bird's presence).

Posted by howard | May 28, 2007 12:29 PM

You said that I implied that Kobe does not do his job on the court extremely well. I did not. I said that having Shaq makes a lot of guards look great because of how he sucks in the defense. Clearly, there is room for Kobe to be both an elite player and someone who's value was exaggerated by playing with Shaq. Right? And while I'm not sure if you think this or not, if you do think that Kobe contributed anything close to as much as Shaq did for those three championships, well, you've got to be kidding.

Second of all-- you can't see the difference between a position that is "universal" and one that is "generally held"? Really? I think that those are immensely different concepts.

As for Penny-- no, it wasn't just his commercials. There were an awful lot of people-- yes, seasoned basketball observers-- who thought Penny was the league's next great player. You're free to disagree. But please do so honestly and don't attack a position I haven't argued.

Posted by Freddie | May 28, 2007 12:36 PM

On Shaq, what everybody forgets is Shaq , during a televised preseason game, running down the court staring at Jerry Buss yelling " Pay me, Mo(*(*(*& r". While being at least 30 lbs overweight. Buss was never going to sign him after that. + Shaq was never going to get in shape in L.A., he had totally lost his motivation, we all saw it, including Kobe. There was no chance of another ring keeping Shaq arouns.

Kobe is right to throw the GM (kupchak) to the wolves. Kupchak has made very few good moves and lots of bad ones (Radmanovic is way too dumb to play in the Tri.) Its funny how on a pretty liberal blog people are so quick to take the management side. Americans just have this natural desire to tell employees to shut and do what they are told, even when the employee is right about management sucking ass.

Kobe is unsympathetic at best, but he is also right.

Posted by CalDem | May 28, 2007 12:41 PM

I don't know about the exact implications of "define a generation," but I sure remember Penny being hailed as a successor to Jordan. He and Grant Hill were certainly the first ones who were anointed as such in the first (1.5-season long) post-Jordan era.

Posted by Haggai | May 28, 2007 12:47 PM

CalDem, even though Kobe's right about Kupchak doing a bad job, assembling a title-level team after trading a superstar away is pretty difficult to do. And even though Shaq's greed and arrogance in L.A. have conveniently been whitewashed in the "it's all Kobe's fault" CW about what happened to the Lakers, there's no doubt that Kobe's own issues played a big role as well. Shaq has always been like a little kid trapped in a giant's body, where he'll get immature if he doesn't like the way he's being treated. Kobe should have understood that and tried harder to accept it.

Posted by Haggai | May 28, 2007 12:59 PM

I don't know about the exact implications of "define a generation,"

I concede that that was an exaggeration. What I meant was that he was seen as the next great player.

And, yes, Shaq is a jerk, too, and I think it would have been a mistake to give him the kind of contract he wanted. I do think however that it's a bit childish for a player with so much sway in a team's management to be talking this way.

Posted by Freddie | May 28, 2007 1:04 PM

Haggai, with the level of sloth and inactivity shown by Shaq that last season we could all see that winning another title would be almost impossible. 2004 was the last shot. Kobe was understanding in 2001,2 etc. when Shaq was still young and in shape enough to win titles. But its very clear that Shaq was going to continue to balloon up in L.A. Even the trade only got him motivated enough to stay in shape for 1 1/2 seasons. Kobe's understanding wouldn't help get Shaq below 380.

Posted by CalDem | May 28, 2007 1:14 PM

They would have to trade Bynum to get a significant veteran asset that can raise the team's level of play.

Posted by Rich | May 28, 2007 1:16 PM

One thing to factor into the mess is what the Lakers' plan was for rebuilding a championship team. Remember that after letting Shaq go, the Lakers were clearly making moves to get under the salary cap the same year that several great players like Yao Ming were going to be free agents. The plan was obviously to let the aging Shaq go and then get his replacement from another team, like they got Shaq from Orlando.

Unfortunately, Ming and those other players all signed extensions with their own teams and the Lakers were left holding the bag. I think they actually passed on signing several good players as free agents, simply because they didn't want to commit to any long-term contracts that might hamper a mega-offer to a great player.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | May 28, 2007 1:17 PM

"Haggai, with the level of sloth and inactivity shown by Shaq that last season we could all see that winning another title would be almost impossible."

You can rationalize your support for the Shaquille trade any way you like.

But following a John Edwards strategy is significantly smarter than following a Hillary Clinton strategy on this topic.

The over/under on future Shaq championships was around one and a half in the summer of 2004, and that would've been true in either Miami or Los Angeles.

Posted by Petey | May 28, 2007 1:25 PM

Shaq topped the scales at over 400 lbs at points during the 2004 season. That's after promising Karl Malone he would help get him a championship. Why would anyone expect him to show more commitment after getting a 30 mill/year contract? the trade decision was correct.

Posted by CalDem | May 28, 2007 1:36 PM

"the trade decision was correct."

Ah. The Hillary Clinton strategy...

Posted by Petey | May 28, 2007 1:42 PM

The Kobe haters simply cannot quit – must be because of a secret infatuation with the man.

That Shaq was cut loose by the Lakers was a decision made by management, not Kobe, for their own reasons, some cited above and others. It is simply absurd to think that Kobe was in any position to dictate that decision, just as he has been in no position to clean up the team from the scrubs that the Lakers are now saddled with.

Mitch “Cupcake”, the current GM, has proved that he learned nothing about management from his years as Jerry West’s understudy.

There is blame enough to go round, including on Shaq himself. He was known around the LA locker room for his overbearing arrogance and paternalistic attitude towards the “young” Kobe, a behavior he took with him to Miami where he kept referring to DWade as his “sidekick” whom he supposedly “took under his arms” (ESPN reports). Kobe put up with this, without public complaint for years, as apparently Wade does, for the benefit of the team.

Posted by Justin | May 28, 2007 3:41 PM

"It is simply absurd to think that Kobe was in any position to dictate that decision, just as he has been in no position to clean up the team from the scrubs that the Lakers are now saddled with."

Oh, come on. Kobe was openly flirting with going to another team as a free agent when the whole Shaq thing was going on. If Kobe had said "Keep Shaq or I'm signing with the Clippers", Shaq would still be in L.A.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | May 28, 2007 3:52 PM

"Oh, come on. Kobe was openly flirting with going to another team as a free agent when the whole Shaq thing was going on."

And more specifically, Kobe had made it explicitly clear that if Shaquille remained, he was gone.

Ignoring that is creating revisionist history.

Posted by Petey | May 28, 2007 4:00 PM

My recollection of Hardaway, too, is that he was expected to be the next big thing. Not so much the next Jordan, really; more the next Magic. I'm a little fuzzy on this, but it also seems to me that the Warriors had drafted and traded him or traded the rights to him (for Webber?) and I was thinking at the time that this wouldn't turn out well.

Posted by mrgumby2u | May 28, 2007 6:03 PM

""Oh, come on. Kobe was openly flirting with going to another team as a free agent when the whole Shaq thing was going on."

And more specifically, Kobe had made it explicitly clear that if Shaquille remained, he was gone.

Ignoring that is creating revisionist history."

And Shaq was saying the same thing. And it's ridiculous to think that Kobe wasn't going to "explore options" as a free agent when staying with the Lakers meant staying with a fat, lazy, egomaniac Shaq.

Kobe isn't without blame, Phil isn't without blame and Shaq isn't without blame. But I'd bet if Shaq had been a truly dedicated player like Kobe that the whole situation never would have arisen.

I argued vehemently with many that Shaq had made himself into so much more than just a big guy inside ("not a real basketball player" was the jist of most people's complaints -- hatred really. Some people forget how much he was disliked). The guy, after being humiliated by Hakeem, really had developed quite a diverse low post game.

But by the time the Lakers won the second title Shaq had checked out altogether on actual basketball and had clearly decided to let his ego and mouth do all the work. What was Kobe supposed to do, sit there and take it? Do you think MJ would have?

Posted by Sigh | May 28, 2007 7:06 PM

"And Shaq was saying the same thing."

No. He wasn't. Not at all.

Kobe made explicitly clear that he wasn't re-signing if Shaquille remained.

Shaq wasn't saying any such thing to anybody, not to mention that he was still under contract.

As I said, lotsa revisionist history being peddled on this topic.

"Do you think MJ would have?"

If you think MJ would have demanded the trade of the premier post player in the game so he could get more touches and be 'the man', you really don't have the slightest clue about MJ.

Posted by Petey | May 28, 2007 7:17 PM

When Kobe got in trouble in Colorado, the second thing he did was trash Shaq to the police. Later he said Malone was hitting on his wife. One of the worst teammates of all time.

Kobe wishes he was a Clipper now.

Posted by Rambis Youth | May 28, 2007 8:14 PM

Petey,

How can you claim that the over-under on Laker future Laker championships with Shaq was 1 1/2? Even given his apparent renewed enthusiasm on being traded to Miami, what chance do you give the Heat from here on out of winning another title with Shaq? 10,15%? Shaq is clearly no longer able to be a dominant post player for long stretches of time. If he had stayed on the Lakers the only other player who might have been an upgrade would be Kobe over Wade. The rest of the team would have been worse. And the west is the tougher conference. they'd lost the two previous years (and it was ugly against the Pistons in '04). There's no way at that point they even have even odds to win in '04 or '05. 30% chance at best. And from '06 onwards? Given where Shaq is at now, I'd give them

Posted by mpowell | May 28, 2007 8:46 PM

"If you think MJ would have demanded the trade of the premier post player in the game so he could get more touches and be 'the man', you really don't have the slightest clue about MJ."

Yeah, go ahead and misrepresent the situation. Way to be intellectually honest. You have no idea what Kobe's motivations were or are (other than driven to win championships) and the get more touches and be the man stuff is media driven puff for armchair coaches to rant about. You're welcome to buy into it.

Jordan in Kobe's situation would not have sat by idly and let things fester on the Lakers (who were clearly not going to win anything with Shaq's continued disinterest). Yet you expect Kobe to have done that or face your wrath for being the problem with the Lakers. Riiiight.

Posted by Sigh | May 28, 2007 9:07 PM

Later he said Malone was hitting on his wife.

He said it because it was true.

"Vanessa was on the cell phone talking to Karl's wife, Kay, and Vanessa said that her son looked bored. Kay told her to call Karl to have her son join her in her seats. Kay gave Vanessa Karl's cell number and she called him. When she called, Karl's response was, 'Why don't you come over here and sit next to me and give me a big hug?' Vanessa said, 'Why? For what?' And Karl replied, 'If you do that it will be on the cover of every magazine in the country.'

"Vanessa didn't know what to say because this was the first time she had ever spoken to Malone without Kobe or Kay being around. Karl continued. 'Do you like me?' Malone asked her, to which Vanessa said, 'As my friend, Kay's husband,' " Pelinka said.

"From there Malone asked Vanessa if she could keep a secret, and that he would like to tell her something. At which point Vanessa told him she was a married woman and he was a married man who was old enough to be her father. To which Malone replied, 'Oh, like your daddy?' At that point she told me she ended the conversation," Pelinka said.

Then there was the "I'm hunting for little Mexican girls" line.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=1944994&type=story

Posted by SoCalJustice | May 28, 2007 9:13 PM

I love the Kobe wars. The fact that Kobe is such a polarizing figure is proof (to me) that there is legitamate argument to be made about Kobe as a bball player. I don't actually think he is even as good as most people will grant. For evidence I would point out his performance against Detroit (along with shaqs). He totally folded by the end of that series. I will also point out the numerous times he refused to shoot in the second halfs of games, such as the playoffs with the suns. That's just childish, designed to make some point to... the sports press... history books...his peers? I also point out that Dwayne Wade won a championship with a decrepit Shaq and a team worse than the current Lakers. That says a lot as far as the power of Shaq to win games. it also suggesto to me that Shaq was the key to the lakers championships, not Kobe. No 2 guard was the key to championships except for Jordan, and Jordan had a superior team around him. There is almost always a dominant big man involved.

My bet is Kobe never sees the finals again and retires a tragic figure. He's a tragic figure already. As my favorite english professor told us in a class on Shakesperian tragedies, character is fate.

Kobe fans may now bomabard me anecdotes about 80 point games.

Posted by cw | May 28, 2007 10:18 PM

it also suggesto to me that Shaq was the key to the lakers championships, not Kobe. Neither could have won without the other at that point in their careers. D-Wade was a reasonable substitute for Kobe and the rest of the Heat wasn't all that bad. Kobe's never had a similar opportunity in such similar circumstances.

And three championship rings aren't enough to opt any player out of the "tragic figure" category?

That sucks for 99% of NBA players, then.

In his personal life, certainly, "tragic figure" is a fair description. But he's really had one of the best NBA careers of all time.

Posted by SoCalJustice | May 28, 2007 10:38 PM

Seriously - three time NBA champion, perennial all-star starter, back to back scoring champ, multiple (4 first team, 2 second team) all-defensive teams...

That's not really in the "tragic" category.

Posted by SoCalJustice | May 28, 2007 10:55 PM

yes a 2 guard except for MJ is nowhere near as valuable as a dominant big man. And Jerry Buss knows that as well as anybody because he employed two of the best big men to ever play in KAJ (dominant until late 30s) and Shaq. that's why its crazy to say Kobe forced a trade. if Buss thought Shaq would slim down and rededicate himself Kobe would have been let go and Shaq's contract redone.

Posted by CalDem | May 29, 2007 2:31 AM

"I love the Kobe wars. The fact that Kobe is such a polarizing figure is proof (to me) that there is legitamate argument to be made about Kobe as a bball player. I don't actually think he is even as good as most people will grant."

I think Kobe is an asshole. I think various of his off the court and on the court actions reflect immensely badly on him.

(And I'm very lenient about the types of behavior I'm willing to tolerate among my pro hoops players. I wouldn't make the above statement about Rasheed Wallace or Michael Jordan, for example.)

In other words, I think his apologists in a thread like this are far off base.

But to deny his current elite status as a basketball player is insane.

He's unquestioned the dominant perimeter offensive force in the game, and debatably the dominant offensive force in the game regardless of position.

Posted by Petey | May 29, 2007 11:47 AM

"that's why its crazy to say Kobe forced a trade."

You'd have to utterly ignore Kobe's words and deeds to make such a statement.

You're free to (incorrectly) think the trade was a good idea, but to assert that Kobe didn't force it, well, you ain't quite right in the head.

Posted by Petey | May 29, 2007 11:52 AM

I don't think you can say Kobe forced a trade. Bottom line is that general managers make trades, not players.

Kobe created a situation in which either he or Shaq would not be back in 2004-2005. The extent of Kobe's leverage was going to play with another team.

I think the situation became untenable as early as the fall of 2002 when Shaq waited until the start of training camp to have ankle surgery when he knew for the entire off-season it was required. (I am reconstructing all of this from memory, so I may have the dates or other details wrong.) And so he missed the first 20 or so games of the season, then played himself into a semblance of shape for the next 20 or so, and for a large portion of the season it looked like the Lakers might miss the playoffs entirely before they managed the fifth seed or thereabouts.

I despised those Laker teams, and I can't stand Shaq or Kobe or Phil. It is tough to imagine a less sympathetic trio in sports. But Shaq effectively took a dump on his entire organization and asked them what they were going to do about it.

So if Dante added the NBA to his writings, Shaq would be hanging with Judas and Brutus.

Posted by Curtis | May 29, 2007 2:10 PM

"But to deny his current elite status as a basketball player is insane."

If allhe had to do was score, he'd be fine. But he is in the position that he has to knwo when to score and when to facilitate. I don't think he has figured that out even yet, although he seems to be trying. If you score too much, the other teammates resent it, and at the same time come to depend on it. And then there's more to being a good basketball layer than what happens on the court. If you really care about winning, you have to be a good teammate, you have to do things that will help you team win. Sometimes that means compromise, sometimes that means not being the no 1 guy. Again, I think he has been trying, but his latest outburst shows that he still doesen't quite get it.

And by tragic figure, I mean in the sense that I think he wants a certain level of fame and respect (be like mike) that he's never going to attain. Although maybe he figure it out and the Lakers will put people around him that will get the job done.

PS to SoCalJustice. Last years heat withg the exception of Wade Shaq and Haslem were crappy, crappy, crappy, way worse than the current lakers. And my point was that Shaq won with them and Wade at a time when he was half of his former self. If he could do that last year under those circumstances, think how much he was capable of doing back when he was good. He was the main reason the Lakers won, he could have done it with others besides Kobe.

Posted by cw | May 29, 2007 10:14 PM

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/6856248?MSNHPHMA

The Lakers star hit the interview circuit Tuesday to denounce recent reports about him and to voice his displeasure with the team's front office.
Bryant, speaking to 710 ESPN Radio in L.A., said that a report Tuesday in the Los Angeles Times claiming it was his insistence that drove Shaquille O'Neal out of town after the 2004 season made him "beyond furious."
"The real facts are that Dr. Buss requested a meeting with me during the '04 season long before I opted out of my contract," Bryant said on a blog post at his Web site, "and he told me he had already decided to not extend Shaq, as he was concerned about Shaq's age, fitness and contract demands. Dr. Buss thought it was best for the Lakers to make a trade to get value for Shaq while they could."
The Times cited a Lakers "insider" for the information, a fact that doesn't sit well with Bryant.
"Now I hear this Lakers 'insider' said this and that, now I have serious trust issues," Bryant said Tuesday during an interview with AM 570 KLAC in L.A. "I have serious trust issues because they know I had nothing to do with that. They know that, Jerry Buss knows that because it came out of his own mouth."
Bryant said the team used him as a "scapegoat" for the O'Neal story.
"If you make decisions, stand up and stand in front of your decisions" he said. "Don't try to throw me under the bus for something I did not say, did not do."
……………….

Enough said.
Justin

Posted by Justin | May 29, 2007 11:59 PM

Update:

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/6856248

O'Neal stood behind Bryant later Tuesday.
"I believe Kobe 100 percent," O'Neal said, according to a report on the Philadelphia Inquirer's Web site. "Absolutely. There's no doubt in my mind Kobe is telling the truth. I believe him a thousand percent. I would have respected Dr. Buss more as a man if he would have told me that himself, because I know he said it. But he didn't (tell me). He never said a damn word to me."

Posted by Justin | May 30, 2007 11:38 AM

dytp irva gelaxhty rpdihfms wgjinkrmo kisywvc jhwberkfv

Posted by iydrnq xmcqlodei | June 7, 2007 11:52 AM

khlgfvi zvukqcy pqtzx ncuxvrzi kedo mdubraxp mjftygd http://www.hzunk.cigo.com

Posted by mnlaipjkg gqhw | June 7, 2007 11:52 AM