D-Wade's comments to NBA Fanhouse....

[Chelm]

Wade is, without a doubt, in the top 5 in the league.

That being said, he would not have won more than 3 interchanging with Kobe on the Lakers.

Also, I think that it seems obvious in retrospect the Lakers made the right move trading Shaq in 2004.  You think they would've won 2 more championships when they couldn't even win in 2003-2004 when Shaq was still in his prime?  Shaq was asking for a 6-7 year contract in 2004, which would've meant they had THIS Shaq to this day, and most certainly would've been mediocre today.  I think they made the right move.

[Roy Hobbs]

Wade is, without a doubt, in the top 5 in the league.

That being said, he would not have won more than 3 interchanging with Kobe on the Lakers.

Also, I think that it seems obvious in retrospect the Lakers made the right move trading Shaq in 2004.  You think they would've won 2 more championships when they couldn't even win in 2003-2004 when Shaq was still in his prime?  Shaq was asking for a 6-7 year contract in 2004, which would've meant they had THIS Shaq to this day, and most certainly would've been mediocre today.  I think they made the right move.

If Wade didn't win 3+ titles in LA, the only reason would have been because he wasn't in the league during the 2000 - 2002 title run.  If you begin Wade's career at the same time as Kobe's, I think he wins at least as many rings.

[Chelm]

Wade is, without a doubt, in the top 5 in the league.

That being said, he would not have won more than 3 interchanging with Kobe on the Lakers.

Also, I think that it seems obvious in retrospect the Lakers made the right move trading Shaq in 2004.  You think they would've won 2 more championships when they couldn't even win in 2003-2004 when Shaq was still in his prime?  Shaq was asking for a 6-7 year contract in 2004, which would've meant they had THIS Shaq to this day, and most certainly would've been mediocre today.  I think they made the right move.

If Wade didn't win 3+ titles in LA, the only reason would have been because he wasn't in the league during the 2000 - 2002 title run.  If you begin Wade's career at the same time as Kobe's, I think he wins at least as many rings.

You're actually suggesting Wade in his prime is comparable to Kobe in his?

Also, they're only like 3 years apart in age.

I don't think Kobe's behavior was detrimental in terms of winning championships unless you think keeping Shaq was the right move.

[Roy Hobbs]

Wade is, without a doubt, in the top 5 in the league.

That being said, he would not have won more than 3 interchanging with Kobe on the Lakers.

Also, I think that it seems obvious in retrospect the Lakers made the right move trading Shaq in 2004.  You think they would've won 2 more championships when they couldn't even win in 2003-2004 when Shaq was still in his prime?  Shaq was asking for a 6-7 year contract in 2004, which would've meant they had THIS Shaq to this day, and most certainly would've been mediocre today.  I think they made the right move.

If Wade didn't win 3+ titles in LA, the only reason would have been because he wasn't in the league during the 2000 - 2002 title run.  If you begin Wade's career at the same time as Kobe's, I think he wins at least as many rings.

You're actually suggesting Wade in his prime is comparable to Kobe in his?

Also, they're only like 3 years apart in age.

I don't think Kobe's behavior was detrimental in terms of winning championships unless you think keeping Shaq was the right move.

Kobe's Finals stats, especially from 2000 to 2004, weren't anything special.  I think that if you put Wade on those teams, the Lakers win at least three, and they may win in 2004, as well.  I also think the Celtics would have had a tougher time containing Wade in 2008, although I think the Celts still would have won.  In tough matchups, Kobe has a propensity of falling back on his jumper, rather than attacking the basket.  Wade wouldn't have allowed that to happen.

[Chelm]

Kobe's Finals stats, especially from 2000 to 2004, weren't anything special.  I think that if you put Wade on those teams, the Lakers win at least three, and they may win in 2004, as well.  I also think the Celtics would have had a tougher time containing Wade in 2008, although I think the Celts still would have won.  In tough matchups, Kobe has a propensity of falling back on his jumper, rather than attacking the basket.  Wade wouldn't have allowed that to happen.

At the same age Kobe Bryant won his first championship, Dwayne Wade had played 20 NBA games total, with 5 wins.  And Kobe's finals stats were tainted somewhat because he played with an absolutely prime Shaq.

He does revert to his jump shot when things aren't going well, but he is perpetually the #1 midrange shooter in the league (even though the shot is still generally inefficient).  He's also a better defender than Wade.

I'm not sure they're even comparable really.  Basketball-wise, I'd rather have prime-Kobe on my team than prime-Wade.  Though 2006 Finals was admittedly awesome.