“If the Lakers pull something off for KG, how much better are they really? Minus Odom, Bynum and possibly Walton the rest of the roster is full of scrubs (Vujacic, Smush, Kwame, Evans, Vlad) and a few good bench guys (Cook, Farmar, Turiaf). I’m not even sure they can get a player with their mid-level that would pose a threat as a #3 option. You can’t even really liken it to Jordan’s Bulls because there are no Steve Kerrs, Ron Harpers, Rodmans, or 3-headed Monsters (Longley, Wennington, Perdue). Granted KG is a GREAT player, but losing Odom AND Bynum AND maybe Walton is a huge loss. Does a line up of Farmar, Kobe, Evans, KG, and Mihm compete with the the Suns or Spurs? After that starting 5, you basically have nothing coming off the bench. What are your thoughts, Marcus?” – EJ
There is some serious truth to what you’re saying, though Laker fans think otherwise. I know some diehard Laker fans who are acting as if Kobe and KG is it. I’m of the belief you need three great players to contend for a title, two great players and a pretty good third to be formidable. They won’t have a third great player or a formidable one with Odom and Bynum gone. Luke Walton would have to take his game to another level, and maybe having KG and Kobe would do the trick but it’s certainly not a lock.
One thing that makes the move to Phoenix so appealing is that he would be going to a loaded squad (Amare would be the third best player on that squad!). The Lakers aren’t loaded. The Warriors — with Baron and Jason and Jackson and Andris — would be more loaded than the Lakers.
But don’t underestimate the Lakers spending power. They can go get a third player who maybe has an undesirable contract. They can afford to also trade for a Stephon Marbury or Jamaal Crawford or Larry Hughes or Jason Terry — players who are overpaid but much better as a team’s third or fourth-best player.