I'm willing to put money on the following thing: if you swap kobe now with a prime manu the lakers at least three peat.
Now if you have problems with comprehending this argument then you should look this thread :
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148353
Being alpha dog doesn't mean to put 30 ppg or grab 15rpg or 20apg, it means being the first option and playing to win not to get stats recognition hoes money or any other 99% of the ing league plays for. Because we are on spurstalk people should find the comparision with timmy absolutely evident. If you get stats like timmy it okay, if you get stats like bill russell that okay too (that rpg would be alot less nowadays but the
leadership would be the same).
Being able to win an olympic medal is not an easy thing as a trained, 3 year gelled, uber stacked redeem team saw it in the 2008 beijing final. Now imagine that argentina got it in 2004, just 4 years earlier .. same era, almost the same compe ion, a much much weaker us squad. So you can't say about it.
Now winning an nba ring is something different cause of one thing called endurance and resistance to wear and tear. Manu had a relatively short prime in the nba but that does not mean he could not lead a team for 2-3 seasons playing 35mpg which would be enough for him to have alpha dog impact.
People nowadays don't know about leadership. It's not about media/stats/etc it's about having the mentality to do what ever it takes to win it all even if that means cutting your stats(tell that to kobe LOL).
As a franchise player dirk is better cause of longevity. But a prime manu has a higher level of play.
So to answer the question: with a good supporting cast minimum one ring.
To leave a nice question: do you think if the mavs had manu over dirk in the 2006 finals would they still lose?
And the answer the the previous question is absolutely obvious cause manu never chocked and if he lost he did it giving his best - that's what leadership means.
Have fun replying crap to this