From ESPN:
When Kobe Bryant went public with his trade request this summer, the "Kobe sweepstakes" began, at least in the media.
What team wouldn't want the man often called the "best player in the league"?
Almost six months later, Bryant is still wearing the purple and gold of the Los Angeles Lakers, while teams such as the Dallas Mavericks and Chicago Bulls have shown an unwillingness to offer what the Lakers would consider fair value.
Why are teams reluctant to make their best offer for Kobe?
I spoke to a number of NBA sources who have been engaged in or are familiar with the Bryant trade negotiations this summer. Almost all evidence from these conversations points to this conclusion:
Bryant's trade value isn't nearly as high as he or the Lakers would like to think.
Here are four questions teams are trying to answer before acquiring Bryant:
1. Does Kobe have too much mileage?
Kobe is already 29 years old. When he turns 30 in August, he'll reach an age at which many players decline. It's the age at which Michael Jordan retired the first time -- and when MJ returned, he was still a great player, but no longer a high flyer.
It's not only the years that concern some teams, but also the minutes. Counting NBA regular-season and playoff games, Bryant has logged 33,576 minutes -- 918 games of about 37 minutes each, in just 11-plus seasons.
That's more "mileage" on his legs than on the legs of Ray Allen (age 32) or Allen Iverson (32). Kobe's contemporaries include Vince Carter (30) and Steve Francis (30), and he's played thousands more minutes than those two.
And about the same as Chris Webber (34). More than Alonzo Mourning (37). More than Sam Cassell (37).
Further, Kobe has had knee problems the past few seasons, including arthroscopic knee surgery in 2004 and 2006.
No one knows whether all that mileage -- all those minutes -- will shorten Bryant's career.
But it's understandable if a team is reluctant to find out how Kobe's knees survive his next 10,000 minutes on the hardwood.
2. Is Kobe really the best player in the NBA?
It's often said, by players, journalists and fans alike, that Bryant is the best player in the league.
Without a doubt, he's one of the greatest offensive forces we've ever seen. Indeed, his skill level in all aspects of the game is probably the most advanced we've seen since Jordan.
But not everyone thinks that makes him the best player in the game.
As teams use more sophisticated statistical measures, Bryant doesn't grade out as the NBA's most productive player. He's not even close.
We can see this as we look at the publicly available metrics, such as player efficiency rating, wins produced and plus/minus.
For instance, Bryant has never led the league in John Hollinger's PER (player efficiency rating), which combines a player's stats and percentages into a single measure. Last season, Bryant was well behind Dirk Nowitzki and Dwyane Wade.
To put his numbers into historical perspective, his career-high PER of 27.97 in 2005-06 ranks No. 42 all-time in the league. Several current players have posted a higher PER than Kobe did in his best season, including Wade (twice), LeBron James, Dirk Nowitzki (twice), Shaquille O'Neal (six times), Tracy McGrady and Kevin Garnett (twice).
A newer measure from 82games.com, adjusted plus/minus, "reflects the impact of each player on his team's bottom line (scoring margin), after controlling statistically for the strength of every teammate and every opponent during each minute he's on the court." By this measure, Bryant ranked sixth in the NBA last season, behind players like Jason Kidd and Gilbert Arenas.
According to our best objective measures, Bryant is not the single most efficient or effective player in the game.
Some might say that such measures don't account for Bryant's ability in the "clutch," but even there, Bryant's reputation exceeds his actual performance. In several studies done at 82games.com, Kobe has come up short of other NBA stars. In one in-depth report, Bryant ranked 21st in the NBA in clutch performance.
How does Bryant's postseason prowess compare to Nowitzki's? In the playoffs, Dirk has more points per game, more rebounds per game, more blocked shots per game, a higher field-goal percentage, a higher 3-point field-goal percentage and a higher free-throw percentage. In the past three seasons, Nowitzki has led his team to the NBA Finals, while Bryant hasn't won a single playoff series.
Great player? Yes.
The best? Probably not.
3. Is Kobe a winner?
This question probably resonates the most in NBA front offices. Several GMs I've spoken with have questioned aloud whether Kobe is really a winner.
Let's be fair. He has three rings, and he's known for his intense nightly effort on the court. He was widely acknowledged as a leader of Team USA when it ran the table this summer. And he's led the Lakers to the playoffs the past two seasons despite the team's roster of young, inexperienced players.
On the surface, it appears that Kobe is a winner. But dig deeper and there are real questions.
For starters, the Lakers haven't won a playoff series since Shaq was traded away to Miami. Many, starting with Bryant himself, blame the "supporting cast." But, in fact, Kobe's teammates are better than generally believed, and he has a Hall of Fame coach in Phil Jackson.
It's worth noting that last season when the Lakers won at San Antonio in mid-January, they were 26-13, but their progress was eventually derailed by injuries.
The more central questions, according to some observers in the NBA, revolve around Bryant's approach to the game. His amazing determination, while certainly a key part of his success on the court, does not always translate into leadership or a winning attitude.
The best-selling book "Leadership and Self-Deception" explains that leaders try to develop people who are even more capable and creative than they are. They are constantly in the process of creating future leaders. They are more interested in results than credit.
Certainly Bryant wants to win. But he wants to win his way, according to many who have followed his career. And when you break it down, that translates to this attitude: I would rather lose my way than win your way.
Bryant wants to win, but he also wants the most shots. He wants to be a great hero, not a great teammate or leader. He wants the credit.
This Kobe character trait became most apparent when Shaq was traded to the Heat. While Bryant has denied that he asked the Lakers to trade Shaq, just about everyone in the league believes that Kobe wanted him traded because Kobe was tired of sharing the spotlight.
Bryant's play often resembles a solo act, and his criticism of his teammates along with his trade demands only reinforces the idea that Kobe has his own interests, not the interests of his teammates, foremost in his mind and actions.
Contrast Bryant with LeBron James for a moment. James goes out of his way to involve his teammates, and takes over only when needed, as when he scored 25 consecutive points against Detroit in the playoffs. He invests in his teammates, and they rewarded him with a trip to the NBA Finals.
If LeBron were to suddenly be available in a trade, does anyone believe that after six months the Cavs would still be waiting to receive a serious offer? Or 10 serious offers?
I'm told the biggest reason why teams like the Bulls and Mavericks have been reluctant to offer their best players for Bryant is that they've carefully and successfully put together a cast of team players with a charismatic coach that tries to get everyone pulling in the same direction.
If one of those teams were to break up its core and bring in Bryant, would those parts add up to a championship? No matter how great Kobe is, can a team count on him to devote himself to the greater good?
No one knows, but it's easy to see why Mavs owner Mark Cuban and Bulls GM John Paxson would have reservations.
4. Is Kobe worth it?
Those three issues lead up to the ultimate question: Given all the complex considerations, does it make sense to acquire Kobe?
First of all, it's just not that easy to make a deal, especially during the season, when the roster rules make it more difficult to trade many players for one.
Second, Bryant makes a lot of money -- $19.4 million this season. Since teams over the salary cap are required to make deals that come within 25 percent and $100,000 in contractual obligations of each other, any team that trades for Kobe must part with at least $15 million worth of salaries to make a deal work. The Lakers want several young players to make the trade work. Trading away young, inexpensive talent is disruptive to a team at best and devastating at worst.
Third, such a trade would be a gamble, and NBA teams are generally risk-averse, as we saw at the last trade deadline. Most GMs prefer to stick with the status quo. Taking risks invites scrutiny from the media and fans, and tends to hasten a GM's dismissal, many feel. Doing nothing is simply safer.
Fourth, there is the straightforward question of talent: As great as Bryant is, can he replace the talent a team would have to give up? And if a team gives up too much to acquire Kobe, that team would be no more equipped to compete for a championship than the Lakers are, which would potentially start the cycle all over again, with Bryant's unhappiness dominating the team.
What can make a trade work?
Kobe could drop his no-trade clause (and promise to forego his 15 percent trade kicker to make a trade work), which would theoretically allow for more teams to consider a deal.
Or the Lakers could drop their asking price, accepting a deal for cap relief and/or veterans that help them compete right away.
Or a team could get off to a slow start (such as Chicago's disappointing 0-3 start) and raise its offer.
But if the status quo holds, teams will have to look forward to the summer of 2009, when Bryant can opt out of his contract at the age of 31.
By then our eyes and hearts will likely have caught up with what the numbers and logic are already telling us: Kobe Bryant is a great player, but in a team sport like basketball he lacks the ability, on his own, to deliver an NBA championship.
When Kobe Bryant went public with his trade request this summer, the "Kobe sweepstakes" began, at least in the media.
What team wouldn't want the man often called the "best player in the league"?
Almost six months later, Bryant is still wearing the purple and gold of the Los Angeles Lakers, while teams such as the Dallas Mavericks and Chicago Bulls have shown an unwillingness to offer what the Lakers would consider fair value.
Why are teams reluctant to make their best offer for Kobe?
I spoke to a number of NBA sources who have been engaged in or are familiar with the Bryant trade negotiations this summer. Almost all evidence from these conversations points to this conclusion:
Bryant's trade value isn't nearly as high as he or the Lakers would like to think.
Here are four questions teams are trying to answer before acquiring Bryant:
1. Does Kobe have too much mileage?
Kobe is already 29 years old. When he turns 30 in August, he'll reach an age at which many players decline. It's the age at which Michael Jordan retired the first time -- and when MJ returned, he was still a great player, but no longer a high flyer.
It's not only the years that concern some teams, but also the minutes. Counting NBA regular-season and playoff games, Bryant has logged 33,576 minutes -- 918 games of about 37 minutes each, in just 11-plus seasons.
That's more "mileage" on his legs than on the legs of Ray Allen (age 32) or Allen Iverson (32). Kobe's contemporaries include Vince Carter (30) and Steve Francis (30), and he's played thousands more minutes than those two.
And about the same as Chris Webber (34). More than Alonzo Mourning (37). More than Sam Cassell (37).
Further, Kobe has had knee problems the past few seasons, including arthroscopic knee surgery in 2004 and 2006.
No one knows whether all that mileage -- all those minutes -- will shorten Bryant's career.
But it's understandable if a team is reluctant to find out how Kobe's knees survive his next 10,000 minutes on the hardwood.
2. Is Kobe really the best player in the NBA?
It's often said, by players, journalists and fans alike, that Bryant is the best player in the league.
Without a doubt, he's one of the greatest offensive forces we've ever seen. Indeed, his skill level in all aspects of the game is probably the most advanced we've seen since Jordan.
But not everyone thinks that makes him the best player in the game.
As teams use more sophisticated statistical measures, Bryant doesn't grade out as the NBA's most productive player. He's not even close.
We can see this as we look at the publicly available metrics, such as player efficiency rating, wins produced and plus/minus.
For instance, Bryant has never led the league in John Hollinger's PER (player efficiency rating), which combines a player's stats and percentages into a single measure. Last season, Bryant was well behind Dirk Nowitzki and Dwyane Wade.
To put his numbers into historical perspective, his career-high PER of 27.97 in 2005-06 ranks No. 42 all-time in the league. Several current players have posted a higher PER than Kobe did in his best season, including Wade (twice), LeBron James, Dirk Nowitzki (twice), Shaquille O'Neal (six times), Tracy McGrady and Kevin Garnett (twice).
A newer measure from 82games.com, adjusted plus/minus, "reflects the impact of each player on his team's bottom line (scoring margin), after controlling statistically for the strength of every teammate and every opponent during each minute he's on the court." By this measure, Bryant ranked sixth in the NBA last season, behind players like Jason Kidd and Gilbert Arenas.
According to our best objective measures, Bryant is not the single most efficient or effective player in the game.
Some might say that such measures don't account for Bryant's ability in the "clutch," but even there, Bryant's reputation exceeds his actual performance. In several studies done at 82games.com, Kobe has come up short of other NBA stars. In one in-depth report, Bryant ranked 21st in the NBA in clutch performance.
How does Bryant's postseason prowess compare to Nowitzki's? In the playoffs, Dirk has more points per game, more rebounds per game, more blocked shots per game, a higher field-goal percentage, a higher 3-point field-goal percentage and a higher free-throw percentage. In the past three seasons, Nowitzki has led his team to the NBA Finals, while Bryant hasn't won a single playoff series.
Great player? Yes.
The best? Probably not.
3. Is Kobe a winner?
This question probably resonates the most in NBA front offices. Several GMs I've spoken with have questioned aloud whether Kobe is really a winner.
Let's be fair. He has three rings, and he's known for his intense nightly effort on the court. He was widely acknowledged as a leader of Team USA when it ran the table this summer. And he's led the Lakers to the playoffs the past two seasons despite the team's roster of young, inexperienced players.
On the surface, it appears that Kobe is a winner. But dig deeper and there are real questions.
For starters, the Lakers haven't won a playoff series since Shaq was traded away to Miami. Many, starting with Bryant himself, blame the "supporting cast." But, in fact, Kobe's teammates are better than generally believed, and he has a Hall of Fame coach in Phil Jackson.
It's worth noting that last season when the Lakers won at San Antonio in mid-January, they were 26-13, but their progress was eventually derailed by injuries.
The more central questions, according to some observers in the NBA, revolve around Bryant's approach to the game. His amazing determination, while certainly a key part of his success on the court, does not always translate into leadership or a winning attitude.
The best-selling book "Leadership and Self-Deception" explains that leaders try to develop people who are even more capable and creative than they are. They are constantly in the process of creating future leaders. They are more interested in results than credit.
Certainly Bryant wants to win. But he wants to win his way, according to many who have followed his career. And when you break it down, that translates to this attitude: I would rather lose my way than win your way.
Bryant wants to win, but he also wants the most shots. He wants to be a great hero, not a great teammate or leader. He wants the credit.
This Kobe character trait became most apparent when Shaq was traded to the Heat. While Bryant has denied that he asked the Lakers to trade Shaq, just about everyone in the league believes that Kobe wanted him traded because Kobe was tired of sharing the spotlight.
Bryant's play often resembles a solo act, and his criticism of his teammates along with his trade demands only reinforces the idea that Kobe has his own interests, not the interests of his teammates, foremost in his mind and actions.
Contrast Bryant with LeBron James for a moment. James goes out of his way to involve his teammates, and takes over only when needed, as when he scored 25 consecutive points against Detroit in the playoffs. He invests in his teammates, and they rewarded him with a trip to the NBA Finals.
If LeBron were to suddenly be available in a trade, does anyone believe that after six months the Cavs would still be waiting to receive a serious offer? Or 10 serious offers?
I'm told the biggest reason why teams like the Bulls and Mavericks have been reluctant to offer their best players for Bryant is that they've carefully and successfully put together a cast of team players with a charismatic coach that tries to get everyone pulling in the same direction.
If one of those teams were to break up its core and bring in Bryant, would those parts add up to a championship? No matter how great Kobe is, can a team count on him to devote himself to the greater good?
No one knows, but it's easy to see why Mavs owner Mark Cuban and Bulls GM John Paxson would have reservations.
4. Is Kobe worth it?
Those three issues lead up to the ultimate question: Given all the complex considerations, does it make sense to acquire Kobe?
First of all, it's just not that easy to make a deal, especially during the season, when the roster rules make it more difficult to trade many players for one.
Second, Bryant makes a lot of money -- $19.4 million this season. Since teams over the salary cap are required to make deals that come within 25 percent and $100,000 in contractual obligations of each other, any team that trades for Kobe must part with at least $15 million worth of salaries to make a deal work. The Lakers want several young players to make the trade work. Trading away young, inexpensive talent is disruptive to a team at best and devastating at worst.
Third, such a trade would be a gamble, and NBA teams are generally risk-averse, as we saw at the last trade deadline. Most GMs prefer to stick with the status quo. Taking risks invites scrutiny from the media and fans, and tends to hasten a GM's dismissal, many feel. Doing nothing is simply safer.
Fourth, there is the straightforward question of talent: As great as Bryant is, can he replace the talent a team would have to give up? And if a team gives up too much to acquire Kobe, that team would be no more equipped to compete for a championship than the Lakers are, which would potentially start the cycle all over again, with Bryant's unhappiness dominating the team.
What can make a trade work?
Kobe could drop his no-trade clause (and promise to forego his 15 percent trade kicker to make a trade work), which would theoretically allow for more teams to consider a deal.
Or the Lakers could drop their asking price, accepting a deal for cap relief and/or veterans that help them compete right away.
Or a team could get off to a slow start (such as Chicago's disappointing 0-3 start) and raise its offer.
But if the status quo holds, teams will have to look forward to the summer of 2009, when Bryant can opt out of his contract at the age of 31.
By then our eyes and hearts will likely have caught up with what the numbers and logic are already telling us: Kobe Bryant is a great player, but in a team sport like basketball he lacks the ability, on his own, to deliver an NBA championship.
