Kobe Bryant to the Pistons: Much ado about nothing

That Kobe Bryant was been closer to becoming a Piston than anyone thought is the latest rumor flying around that series of tubes called the internets. Peter Vescey, the Perez Hilton of sportswriters, wrote that the Pistons could offer what the Lakers needed in return from a Bryant trade, and contracts could be made to match up.

Then the 4 Letter's own NBA rumormonger, Ric Bucher, said even more in a chat...

Q: The Kobe trade talk are down to a whisper, but not completely silent is it?

A: No, it's not. Pistons GM Joe Dumars took offense that there was speculation that the Pistons might get into the Kobe sweepstakes. Well, multiple sources say the Pistons actually took a stab trying to get Kobe and were rebuffed because that's not one of the places Kobe would like to go.

Supposedly, the deal was Rip Hamilton, Tayshaun Prince, Amir Johnson, and a pick. The sportstalk dips on WXYT have being going on endlessly about the trade that didn't happen for well over an hour. That it was a done deal, but as Kobe didn't want to play in Detroit, it fell through. They've broken out the thesaurus, and been calling Bryant every name in the book that is a synonym for "Diva." There's an awful lot of bile being spewed about a trade that didn't happen, and only has a 4 letter's writer saying it was a "Done deal" behind it.

To me, this is much like the near deal of 7 years ago that would have made a Allen Iverson a Piston, while giving up Jerry Stackhouse and Jerome Williams. That was all but a "Done deal" too, but fell through because of a trade kicker in Matt Geiger's contract. As it didn't happen, why live in the past, thinking about "What might have been?"

For the sake of argument, what if the Bryant trade actually went down?

It's nice to think about, getting an all-world player who's in his prime. But is it worth acquiring that player when you have to gut the relatively young core of your team? The Pistons would have been one Hell of a lot older after the trade that almost happened. That's the difference in the 2 deals, when comparing the respective Bryant and Iverson trades.

The Pistons, in the big scheme of things, wasn't giving up all that much in the Iverson deal. Stack was a big time scorer, and Williams was a solid, if easily replaceable, role player, but that era Pistons team was going nowhere fast. I could see taking that risk in getting Iverson.

But giving up your starting, All-Star level, shooting guard and small forward (Who are both in their primes), plus a young player in Johnson, whom the Pistons themselves claim would have been a lottery pick if he came out this year, along with a draft pick? Is Bryant THAT good? Is a core of Bryant, Rasheed Wallace, and Chauncey Billups the equal of the Garnett-Pierce-Allen trio in Beantown? No.

If anything, I like the Pistons current deeper mix of veterans and youth more than the top heavy Celtics. Even though the Celtics are currently undefeated, and the MSM hype machine has been dialed up to 11. Seriously, I saw some bit on one of the 4 letter's talking head shows, where the question being debated was "Will the Celtics win 70 games?" Jesus Christ, they've played all of 6 GAMES! But I digress...

I also think it should be brought up that Kobe Bryant has not won a damn thing since Shaq left. That for a 30 year old, being Bryant entered the NBA as a teenager, he has one Hell of a lot of miles on the odometer. That Bryant makes a shitload of money, and can opt out of his contract in a couple of seasons. Think that deal wouldn't handcuff the Pistons? Think Bryant won't opt out? Let alone it's scary to think of how toxic 'Sheed-Kobe mix would be in the locker room. I have a headache just thinking about it...

Sure, Bryant is damn good. The Pistons roster may need to be shaken up. But there's a difference between "Shaken up," and "Gutted." Still, as Joe Dumars hasn't confirmed anything, and no trade is imminent, I'm just going to call this much ado about nothing.