On Monday, ESPN ... you might say they went nuclear on Los Angeles Lakers star Kobe Bryant. A piece posted to ESPN the Magazine effectively pins the failures of the Lakers to maintain their dynasty status and sign any marquee free agents as Bryant's fault. It's detailed, specific and harsh.
It goes hard, in other words. Shots fired, etc.
The whole thing's worth a read from a thought piece standpoint, but the quotes from various anonymous inside sources are worth special attention. Let's take a look.
The deal Sessions signed instead was longer, and therefore came with more job security. But it was to back up Kemba Walker on the Bobcats, who were coming off literally the worst season in league history. Sessions has been somewhat evasive as to why, but he has been quoted as saying it was "definitely different" playing with Bryant. Internally, the Lakers were rattled by his departure and came to believe that Kobe was the key. It meant little as a transaction but everything as a sign of how players with options view this team.
"Peek behind the banners," says one longtime NBA agent, "and it's rotten."
"Kobe is like the big rock in their front yard," says an agent who has had a Lakers client in recent years. "You can't mow over it, so you just have to mow around it."
Another agent with current Lakers clients was asked whether Bryant undermined the team's rebuilding by alienating would-be free agent recruits. "Well, duh," he replied. "Isn't that obvious?"
It is notable that a group of agents and executives commented this way, even off the record. Traditionally with iconic figures like Bryant, Kevin Garnett or even Shaquille O'Neal, there's a reticence to speak this way. So it's easy to tag this as "anonymous sources talking trash about the Laker great in cowardly fashion," it's still surprising and it lends credence to their words. That's not to say there's not another side to it; players in particular are often outspoken in their support of Bryant.
More from the article:
One Lakers insider remembers a time in 2012 when Bynum -- about a year after declaring that the Lakers had on-court "trust issues" -- was due for a contract extension: "Andrew's question in contract talks was: 'How are you going to rein in Kobe?' We couldn't give direct answers. My immediate thought was, Well, he doesn't want to play with Kobe if we can't answer that question."
"I just never felt like the Lakers put as much effort into the building-the-team part of it," says an agent who once had a free agent decline a Lakers offer. "I saw some things in the players' parking lot. Conversations between Bynum and his people and some people with the Lakers. It got pretty rough and heated."
"It's horrendous. It's evil. It's a hard drug to quit when you're winning," says a front office executive from a rival team who knows everyone involved well. "Kobe has cost the Lakers dearly in human capital. Kobe has hurt a lot of people. In some cases jeopardized careers."
OK, I'm totally fine with asserting the idea that Bryant doesn't get along with teammates. In Chris Ballard's essential book The Art of a Beautiful Game, Bryant is described by teammates as a part of the human anatomy in non-flattering terms. He's broken and humiliated teammates. He demands a lot and takes pride in it.
But we're going to go with Andrew Bynum as the foil here? The guy who according to multiple reports simply never really wanted to play basketball all that much? The guy who showed up on two different teams last season and those teams had their chemistry disintegrate, and who remains a free agent for very clear reasons?
That guy is who we're going to make into the counterpoint? There are lots of good guys who clashed with Bryant through the years. Not sure going the Bynum argument holds up, but the point is more about how long this has been going on.
Of course, the most recent situation is discussed, the much discussed relationship between Bryant and Dwight Howard, who left as a free agent in 2013, the first such marquee free agent to leave the Lakers, perhaps ever.
The Lakers meeting took place in Beverly Hills on July 2 in the modernist, windowless conference room at Relativity Media -- the offices of Howard's agent. Kupchak, Howard's closest ally on the team, prepped the Lakers' pitch. One big point: Listen carefully. Another: Dress appropriately. "Our approach," a Lakers source explained at the time, "is that we are interviewing for the job. We want to show that this is a place his dreams can come true."
As the Lakers' contingent settled into the conference room's ergonomic chairs, it was clear that two-time MVP point guard Steve Nash, in a nice crisp shirt, listening attentively, was running Kupchak's game plan. But Bryant showed up, according to a person in the room, in "hoops shorts, a T-shirt and a gold chain." He had also packed an attitude.
When Howard asked why his teammates let the injured center take all the flak when the Lakers' season went south, Nash said he didn't know that Howard had felt that way and that had he known, he would have acted differently. Bryant, on the other hand, offered a crash course in developing thick skin and a mini lecture on learning how to win. Sources told ESPN Insider Chris Broussard that Bryant's lecture was "a complete turnoff" for Howard.
My first thought was "Yes, because we're all aware of how much Dwight Howard values proper attire and a formal atmosphere, you know, in between all the fart jokes." It just doesn't seem particularly relevant to Howard himself how Bryant dressed, but if the greater point is how little Bryant himself invested in the process, that's fair.
This is far from the first time the meeting has come up. Just hours after the meeting, it was leaked that Bryant "challenged" Howard, saying he has to learn how to win. That has got to be pretty infuriating for a guy who made the Finals and was a legitimate MVP candidate in 2011.
It's hard to argue that if multiple sources have said in various outlets that the meeting didn't go well, including Kupchak himself, that this is being overblown. It's not hard to imagine Bryant saying that, and it's not hard to imagine Howard taking umbrage. But Bryant being a crappy salesman shouldn't put the failure to re-sign Howard on him. Management should have never put him in the room, and they should have figured out a way to keep him regardless. That's their job. You sign the best guys that fit what you're trying to do, and you hire the coach who can manage them and get them to work together. The Lakers did neither.
Bryant may have been accomplice in Dwight Howard killing the Lakers' dynastic hopes, but he didn't pull the trigger.
And then you've got the elephant in the room, Bryant's two-year, $48 million extension he signed last year.
That's presumably part of the reason Kupchak has been outspokenly anti-tanking; his bosses won't tell him to outright tank because tanking costs them a fortune. Meanwhile, it's not as if Bryant didn't have his supporters. Lakers season-ticket holders are a who's who of power brokers and celebrities, and in what one Lakers insider believes was a coordinated effort, many called Jim to make clear they expected him to bring Bryant back.
And so it was that Jim resolved to skip a public battle with Bryant by signing him early. The younger Buss also "didn't want contract negotiations to go public," according to a source. And in getting it done smoothly, the idea was that Jim could appear "magnanimous and loyal," like his father, who made waves by giving Magic and Shaq eye-poppingly huge deals.
The Lakers take care of their own. "This is Jim's way of providing a parting gift," says a source with knowledge of the negotiations.
Meanwhile, merely keeping Bryant around would, paradoxically, help them say goodbye to him later with less fuss. "This allows fans to come to grips with the reality that they cannot keep winning with him," says the source. "Jim can part ways with Kobe without being seen as betraying him. When he stops playing at a high level, you can begin the transition."
That all sounds pretty on track. Bryant legitimately means a lot to Lakers fans. This is something that's been talked about: Bryant is so popular there are Lakers fans and Kobe fans. Keeping Bryant was met with acceptance by the most skeptical and glee by the most optimistic. No one who bleeds purple and gold was upset about it because ... it's Kobe. What else are you going to do, let him walk?
Oh, and speaking of his role:
As one rival front office executive says: "I'm sure Mitch already investigated and found out he didn't need two max slots because the destination isn't all that attractive until Kobe has completely left the premises."
"Mitch did his homework," says another NBA exec. "He can't get a marquee player to play alongside Kobe, cap space be damned." As several agents around the league said, it's tough, after so many failed attempts, to convince any player that they'll love playing with Bryant.
"He wants to win," says a source close to Lakers decision makers. "But only as long as he's the reason we're winning, as long as the performance is not affecting his numbers. No one works harder than Kobe. And no one sabotages his own efforts more. He's scaring off the free agents we're trying to get. We're trying to surround you with talent and your ego is getting in the way."
via Is Kobe Bryant the reason for the Los Angeles Lakers' downfall?.
It was hard to understand the Lakers signing guys like Jordan Hill, bringing in Carlos Boozer when they already had Julius Randle, trading for Jeremy Lin, and the deal for Nick Young. I mean, is this what the Lakers really do? And the answer is yes, it is.
That can all change next year if the Lakers pull off a Lakers-type deal for a star, though none seems available at the moment. It could even change in 2016 after Bryant expires with a new star coming in, and then Bryant re-signing, only this time understanding his place in the chain, something he was unable or unwilling to do with Howard around.
But maybe he never does. Or maybe instead he spends these two years hitting big shots, putting up big numbers, marveling us with his scoring talent while being derided by an analytics community that focuses on efficiency, something Bryant has never been great at. If you believe the link between efficiency and impactfulness is strong, and the data certainly says it is, Bryant's overrated and a plague. If you think that impactfulness can be presented by how the defense is forced to adjust to a player's scoring ability, he's worthy of his legend. The answer, probably is somewhere in the middle. Bryant can finish his career that way, his way, and go out sneering at his critics while being able to blame the supporting cast.
Such is makeup of player dynamics in the NBA.
The article is sure to posit a response from Bryant, who already publicly scoffed at their ranking. For what it's worth, we ranked Bryant No. 29 among all players this season. But the debate will continue.
Maybe the biggest takeaway from the article, and the subsequent internet-riot by Kobe fans over it, is that after four years of LeBron James being the subject of the most controversy, the most hand-wringing, the most scrutiny, Bryant's back in his rightful place.
Love him or hate him, Kobe Bryant is the most divisive figure in the NBA once more.
