08-28-2022, 09:06 PM
(08-28-2022, 07:26 PM)DallasMaverick Wrote: I just remember how the Lakers dealt with Kobe's declining years. He was massively overpaid, at that point, which prevented any kind of reasonable roster construction.How many more Westbrook moves is Lebron gonna force on management to make up for his rapidly declining skill. Kobe was a Laker lifer too, Lebron is a gun for hire. Trading Westbrook costs the team assets they can’t afford, trading Lebron salvages at least some of the assets lost in the AD acquisition. Hanging your hat on AD as opposed to Lebron has more than likely more years to get another championship team built.
Just take a gander at this roster:
https://basketball.realgm.com/nba/teams/...rrent/2015
...but the front office was happy to lose games because the fans wanted to see Kobe, and perhaps they felt a rush of gratitude for all he'd meant for the city and the franchise. And, of course, he wasn't about to take a discount. And if they'd "cheaped out", the city would have turned on the ownership and management forever (Tom Landry, anyone?). You don't fire an icon.
I sort of feel the same way about LeBron, at this point. Yes, he's still pretty productive. And it seems like he still puts butts in seats. But roster construction is virtually impossible.
You could make a case that their roster problems have more to do with the acquisition of Westbrook than LeBron's cost/benefit ratio. But both have a lot to contribute.
I really think Lebron is the smart move for them, but I understand why they wouldn’t do it as well.