Slate's Bizbox
sports nut: The stadium scene.

Kobe and KGWhat would happen if the NBA's two most intriguing players ended up on the same team?

By Paul Shirley
Posted Tuesday, June 26, 2007, at 5:12 PM ET

(Continued from page 1)

As for personal encounters with Bryant, suffice it to say that his replica jersey is not hanging in my bedroom. I related a few details of our brief time together in my book—the multiple bodyguards he employed in training camp, his insecurity, his general surliness toward most of humanity. Feel free to jog down to the local Barnes & Noble and skim the first 30 pages as supplementary reading. (I wouldn't sink so low as to tell you to buy it. That would be despicable.)

Garnett is a throwback superstar, a Bill Russell for the modern age. When some people conjure up Russell they visualize the consummate winner, a man who led his teams to 11 NBA championships. But I link the two men by personality. By all reports, Russell shares Garnett's intelligence, grace, and intensity. And, in his defense, Garnett has never had a Cousy or a Havlicek.

Unfortunately, it could be that the modern age has no use for Bill Russell. One of Garnett's greatest strengths—his loyalty—is laughably out of place in the superstar-focused NBA. Compared, for example, to the Kobe Bryant school of leadership. Bryant has publicly questioned the ability of his teammates; Garnett has never complained about the mediocre supporting casts he's been given. Bryant refused to play for the team that drafted him (the Charlotte Hornets); Garnett has embraced the state of Minnesota like a taller, darker version of Prince. Even this year, with his team in a tailspin and his own game under scrutiny, Garnett did nothing to shift the blame. Meanwhile, Bryant was preparing for a summer of trade demands and pro-wrestler-style pronouncements.

As for the rumors of a Bryant/Garnett combination in purple and gold: The scenario might be plausible if everyone who's not on the Lakers payroll lost his mind at the exact same moment. Then again, Kevin McHale has long been considered a rather ineffectual GM. It is possible that he would be dumb enough to help create the most unstoppable pairing since He-Man and Battle Cat. But I've gathered that his IQ hovers above the level needed to button a polo shirt in the morning, so I'd wager that he's smart enough to avoid bringing about the basketball apocalypse in his own conference.

Should McHale's neurons stop firing and the trade get made, the resulting cauldron of intensity would be impressive to behold. For all their differences, Garnett and Bryant do share one trait. They might be the two most focused human beings I've been around. In fact, if they were on the same team, they'd probably each reach new heights as a result of their efforts to outdo the other. The Lakers would cease to exist as a team, per se. Instead the "team" would be two dudes screaming at each other while three others ran around trying to avoid their wrath. Should the trade happen, the Lakers' front office would immediately begin a search for players with only one trait: "enjoys being subjected to extreme levels of verbal abuse."

Of course, the most likely outcome of the Garnett/Bryant brouhaha is the most boring one. In all probability, neither player will be traded. Bryant's Lakers will be unwilling to part with a proven cash cow, and Garnett's Timberwolves will struggle to find a partner in a trade. In the NBA, the salaries of the players involved in a trade have to match up, more or less. Garnett is scheduled to make $22 million next year. Last year, the Charlotte Bobcats' team payroll was $41 million. It would take a bunch of Bobcats to buy one Timberwolf.

Even so, all of this trade talk is good for the NBA. David Stern loves when the NBA knocks baseball off the front pages in the off-season. It gives basketball fans something to talk about. And it gives them hope after an awful, boring season. And sports is nothing without hope. Hope that the Cubs will win a World Series. Hope that a two-lap lead will be enough. Hope that the starting outside linebacker will stop impregnating 17-year-olds. And, this summer, hope that a very tall, very athletic man—good or bad, noble or not, hero or archenemy—will come to town to save the day.

VIEW AS SINGLE PAGE
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Photograph of Kobe Bryant, Carmelo Anthony, and Allen Iverson by Doug Pensinger/Getty Images.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Remarks from the Fray:

How good is Kevin Garnett?

He is essentially 22 and 13, with 47% shooting.

Go look at the stats - Zach Randolph, Chris Bosh, Elton Brand and Carlos Boozer are essentially the exact same guy statistically.

KG is a great player, but he has accomplished roughly the same as Randolph, and less than each of those other guys.

Adding Garnett would make the Lakers better, but in terms of actual statistical impact, I'm not sure that he would do a lot better than Lamar.

The team would be better, but probably still not get out of the first round in the west.

To comment specifically about the article: who cares if KG is a great guy, and Kobe is a jerk. We all deal with people at our workplace we don't like, but professionalism dictates that we find a way to get things done. NBA teams aren't high school cliques -- these guys could find a way to play basketball together, even if their personalities clash.

--morphicresident

(To reply, click here.)

(7/2)