Originally Posted by ClutchCity
So essentially, what you're saying is that the Lakers would be better of without Kobe? Since, according to you, he has done more bad than good, it would only my logical to assume the team would be better without its best player. Interesting.
Look, I understand there have been games in which he struggled big time or through up bricks late in game. But at the end of the day, the Lakers only real perimeter threat this season has been Kobe. You take that out and teams would pack the paint even harder than they have been doing. Bynum is bad at passing out of double teams. We have no shooters. That's a bad mix. It would become 10X easier to guard LAL (especially before they got Sessions).
Also, you exchange Wade/Kobe and I don't think the Lakers are better. Wade is a penetrating guard. With Bynum/Gasol in the paint, it will discourage penetration and encourage perimeter shooter. Wade is a terrible perimeter shooter and a fairly inconsistent mid range shooter.
Not saying that they would do better without him, but if he would make better decisions and take less low % shots they would win more