NBA PM: Is That Kobe Bryant’s Fault Too?

By now, you’ve probably read the ESPN article on Los Angeles Lakers star Kobe Bryant, where he is portrayed as the overwhelming reason behind the franchise’s recent struggles. Citing multiple sources, the article claims that marquee free agents no longer want to play with Bryant, that ownership is resigned to the fact that they cannot build a contender as long as he is on the roster and that he’s just flat out hurting them more than he’s helping them at this late stage of his career.

Like all controversial things involving Bryant and the Lakers, it has quickly become the talk of the league.

There’s no denying that there’s a lot of truth in the article. Bryant has cost the Lakers in several aspects. He is not the easiest guy to play with; he’s demanding and downright overbearing at times. However, the chief complaint, especially from the West Coast has been the article’s singular perspective. It was written with the intent to place the majority of the blame for the Lakers’ downfall on Bryant, ignoring the multitude of things that could have changed the Lakers’ fortune, but didn’t go their way. In today’s NBA PM, we try to spread the blame around a little bit more evenly in order to more accurately depict why the Lakers are in their current state, because not everything is Bryant’s fault.

David Stern liked the Los Angeles Clippers’ offer for Chris Paul more than the Lakers’ – and rightfully so.

Some wounds never heal and this is still a very tough one for Laker fans to accept. For a couple of hours back in 2011, Paul (arguably the league’s premier point guard) was set to become a Laker in exchange for Lamar Odom and Pau Gasol. The Lakers knew they needed to make some changes and they put together a package that Pelicans (then Hornets) GM Dell Demps agreed to, but because the franchise was under the ownership of the league at the time in order to keep them in New Orleans, commissioner David Stern had the final say. And, Stern, with selling the team in mind, vetoed that trade because he preferred what the Clippers had to offer.

Wanting to market the franchise as a promising one with young talent and financial flexibility, not one that is a year or two away from a massive rebuild, Stern sent Paul to the Clippers for Eric Gordon, Chris Kaman, Al Farouq-Aminu and an unprotected 2012 first round pick from the Minnesota Timberwolves. Gordon has been plagued with injuries, Kaman was gone in a hurry, Farouq-Aminu never developed and that draft pick turned into Austin Rivers, who has yet to truly establish himself as an NBA player, but it was still the right deal to do at the time. Stern was able to sell the franchise shortly after, and they now have a team that could be formidable for several years, not just a couple like they would have if they made the Lakers trade.

This set the Lakers back in a major way. Even if you want to say that Paul shouldn’t have been traded there in the first place, it sent shock waves through the locker room that the team was never able to recover from. Odom was so furious he demanded a trade and the Lakers were forced to trade one of the league’s best and most versatile reserves for a first-round pick because they had no leverage. Gasol’s value took a hit also; his stock was never as high as it was at that moment, and the Lakers were never able to find another favorable offer for him that they were willing to accept.

The new Collective Bargaining Agreement was created with evening the playing field in mind and taking away some of the advantages a preeminent franchise like the Lakers had.

If you’re looking for a Lakers guard to blame this issue on – it’s former starting point guard Derek Fisher, not Bryant. Fisher was at the head of the 2011 labor negotiations as the players union representative, while Bryant was a quiet participant in negotiations. He voiced his opinion and supported the players, but wasn’t directly involved in the institution of stiffer luxury tax penalties, downsizing of the players’ share of the Basketball Related Income or restrictions put on sign-and-trades – all things that have worked against the Lakers’ recent rebuilding efforts.

Max-level free agents are less likely to leave their teams than ever based on the fact that the team with their Bird rights can offer up to $20 million more than any competitor. And, unfortunately for the Lakers, they’re one of the few teams to lose a top star in this new CBA, but we’ll get more into the reasoning behind that later.

Lakers ownership and management, not Bryant, wanted to move on from Phil Jackson.

While Bryant and the Zen Master had their conflicts in the past, Bryant made no secret about his desire to have Jackson return when the Lakers decided to fire Mike Brown early in the 2012-13 season. Bryant, of course, was open to the hiring of Mike D’Antoni, who he grew up idolizing and had a good friendship with. However, Jackson was his first choice, but the Lakers decided to go with D’Antoni because they wanted to play a quicker pace and potentially have a long-term solution at head coach, not a short-term fix. Jackson was looking at the job as a one-year gig, while the Lakers wanted to find a permanent answer.

Prior to accepting the Knicks’ president of basketball operations position, there were calls for the Lakers to add Jackson to their front office as well. The two sides talked again, but ultimately with the proven Kupchak at GM and Jim Buss tapped by his late father to take over basketball ops, there was no room for someone of Jackson’s stature.

The Lakers were never going to choose Dwight Howard over Bryant, which may have been a necessity in order for him to stay on long-term with D’Antoni in place. But, it’s hard not to believe that Jackson, who was willing to help the Lakers recruit Howard to stay despite being shunned twice over the course of just a few months, wouldn’t have found a way to sway Howard and keep Bryant from clashing with him in the manner he did.

Lakers management rubbed Howard the wrong way also, not just Bryant.

It’s well documented that Bryant and Howard did not see eye-to-eye or have a great relationship. It was an infamous call from Bryant telling Howard how he could be his Tyson Chandler that initially rubbed the big man the wrong way, as he felt disrespected.

Hardly one to coddle anyone who doesn’t have the same, cutthroat approach to winning that he does, Bryant and Howard never became best of friends. The ESPN article went into detail over how Bryant’s “let me teach you how to win” spiel during the Lakers’ free agency meeting rubbed Howard the wrong way, but that was more the straw that broke the camel’s back than the overwhelming decisive factor in Howard’s decision. Remember, just weeks before that, Howard went to Bryant’s house personally to check in on him as he was recovering from a torn Achilles.

Howard’s problems weren’t just with Bryant, though. Howard and Kupchak had a much better relationship than he and Bryant did, but Howard was upset with Kupchak on three different occasions during his single season with the team. The first came with the hiring of D’Antoni. Howard did not share Steve Nash and Bryant’s excitement over his hiring. He wanted Jackson. In his opening press conference, D’Antoni voiced his disdain for true post ups, stating that he wanted Howard getting the ball on the move and working more as a screener than primary low-post option like he would have in the triangle offense. That never sat well with Howard, who was frustrated with the way he was used offensively all season long, although Bryant’s ball dominance did play a big part in that aspect. After signing with the Houston Rockets, Howard told Basketball Insiders that he had asked the Lakers to hire Jackson instead of D’Antoni during the season.

The second time came when Howard hurt his shoulder. He was shocked that after coming back months earlier than he was projected to from back surgery, the team was quick to question his threshold for pain and stated that when he can come back iss up to him and how much pain he can tolerate because their doctors cleared him. That put a lot of pressure, and negativity, on Howard, that remained fresh in his mind when choosing the Rockets over the Lakers two summers ago.

The third, and perhaps most devastating blow, was when the Lakers committed to D’Antoni before meeting with Howard. The coach who he had clashed with all season long and was uncertain about being the right coach for him was going to remain in place for at least another year. And, with Bryant stating that he’ll be playing for at least another three seasons, Howard didn’t see enough changes on the horizon to pick the Lakers over a Rockets team that provided him with everything he wanted right away.

The last big free agent Kobe helped recruit has been a colossal disappointment.

While the Lakers’ plan was to pair Chris Paul and Dwight Howard alongside Bryant as he heads toward retirement, they settled for Nash in place of Paul when that option was nixed. It’s easy to forget just how good Nash was before joining the Lakers. This wasn’t the case of the Lakers banking on an aging veteran being able to squeeze a few more miles out of the tank. Nash appeared to be at the top of his game, averaging 12.5 points and 10.7 assists with the Suns during the previous year. The Suns were very hesitant to let him go, but it was at the insistence of Nash that they helped facilitate the deal to the Lakers. At the time there wasn’t even a whisper of there being some reluctance from Bryant to buy into adding Nash, as ESPN reported. Nash was quoted as saying that Bryant was an integral part of the recruiting process, as he’s been throughout his time with the Lakers.

The Lakers have been over the cap for the majority of Bryant’s career, but he’s been a key recruiter for them, someone who has been able to help convince role players to take less to sign on with the Lakers and compete for a championship. The Lakers didn’t hide him in fear of him rubbing guys the wrong way. He was at the forefront of their recruiting pitch and he often helped deliver. Vladimir Radmanovic, Ron Artest, Gary Payton and Karl Malone are just a few of the veterans along with Nash who took less to sign with the Lakers. He was also key in helping re-sign key free agents like Lamar Odom, Derek Fisher, Devean George and Andrew Bynum when they were negotiating new contracts.

If Nash was able to fulfill the expectations that followed him to Hollywood, or even managed to be a serviceable role player, the Lakers would be a lot more attractive of a destination. Nash is regarded as one of the best teammates of the last decade and a half. His track record for making guys better and being enjoyable to play with is impeccable, but because of injuries that lust and appeal disappeared. When healthy, the prospect of playing with Nash was as great as the negatives that come with playing with Bryant. The Lakers were never able to capitalize on that and to this day continue to be set back by Nash’s inability to stay healthy. Bryant’s injuries worked against him while recruiting free agents the last two years as much, if not more, than his brash personality.

Pipe dream free agent signings weren’t any more likely without Bryant.

Let’s imagine for a minute that Bryant was unable to recover from his torn Achilles, never signed a two-year maximum extension last season and decided to retire this offseason. The Lakers would have had ample cap space to go after multiple top-tier free agents, but to think that the cream of the crop – LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony – were going to come take his place is farfetched at best.

James has made it clear that he wasn’t interested in hearing any team’s pitch other than the Miami HEAT’s and Cleveland Cavaliers’. Anthony, meanwhile, only entertained the Lakers’ offer because of Bryant. He wasn’t going to meet with them at all, but it was because of his close friendship with Bryant that he took the meeting and seriously considered signing with them. At one point shortly after the meeting, Anthony admitted he was actually leaning toward signing with the Lakers. In the end, Anthony opted to stay in New York, his home, and take the extra, extremely lucrative fifth year that they could offer but the Lakers couldn’t. Hard to recruit with all that working against you, but thanks at least partially to Bryant, the Lakers were nearly able to steal him away.

In today’s NBA, you cannot win with a singular superstar and you cannot recruit other superstars without one in place. As much as clean books seemed like an attractive option for the Lakers, the odds are greater that they would have ended up worse in the end than they are now than they would have become overnight contenders.

All franchises go through down periods.

Long before the Lakers were cursed by the presence of Bryant, as ESPN would have you believe, there was a clear precedence for even the most valuable, tradition rich franchises going through highs and lows.

The Lakers experienced it themselves in between the Magic Johnson and Shaquille O’Neal/Bryant era, saw their longtime rivals the Boston Celtics flounder in mediocrity for the better part of a decade and knew that without a lot of luck and good fortune, they would probably have to go through it again in the post-Bryant era.

Despite their best attempts, that indeed looks like it’s going to be the case, but there’s a long list of things that went wrong, things completely out of Bryant’s hands, that have gotten them to this point. All of those things going wrong magnify Bryant’s hard-headedness and shortcomings, but ask around the league how many teams would prefer to be dealing with this trouble now in order to have the success the Lakers have experienced since trading for him on draft night 1996. You’ll be hard pressed to find a team that would pass on him, even with all his flaws and the benefit of hindsight being 20-20.