The LA Lakers made minor moves this trade deadline. Pau Gasol was not traded to save penalty taxes, but somehow Kobe Bryant is still unhappy.

The Los Angeles Lakers have had some of the best players ever to play the game. With all the NBA 'Mt. Rushmore' talk, we could make one exclusively of Lakers players, even without Kobe Bryant.

Kobe has voiced his unhappiness over the trade of Steve Blake. While it is not a major issue as yet, should it be a cause for alarm among the Lakers brass? Should they consult their superstar before making any moves, similar to what the Cleveland Cavaliers did to Lebron James right before he bolted for the Miami Heat?

The NBA experts weigh in on the issue. Most of them don't believe that a superstar must be appeased by any team.

Amin Elhassan, NBA Insider:  "Did I fall in a wormhole? Is this 2006? Why do we care that Kobe is upset that Steve Blake, a vet on an expiring deal, won't be finishing the season with the worst team in the West? Is he worried they won't make it to second worst? The Lakers need to continue to make the best moves for the franchise, regardless of whether Kobe "approves" or not."

Tom Haberstroh, NBA Insider:  "Kobe is the employee, not the boss. If he was in his prime and not recovering from devastating injuries at the tail end of his career, maybe then could he have a say in the front office's personnel moves. Even though he's in a suit, he's not a suit."

Some are on the fence about it. Kobe should have some input, but he should not make the final say.

Preston Schmitt, Bucksketball:  "The Lakers should consult Kobe on most, if not all, personnel moves -- but that needs to be the extent of it. Maybe they can try to justify his future salary by giving him a dual role. Although, if Kobe wanted to keep a 33-year-old Steve Blake for sentimental reasons, he probably wouldn't make a very good general manager."

Tom Sunnergren, Hoops 76:  "The organization might be operating this way -- as evidenced by Bryant's $48 million extension, the Lakers are unusually generous with their star -- but they'd be foolish to pass on deals that don't have the Kobe seal of approval. He isn't going anywhere. Catty tweets aside, the 35-year-old will be happy if the team competes, and the best way to get there isn't to make him the de facto GM."

The only dissenting opinion came from a Denver Nuggets local writer.

David Walker, Roundball Mining Company: "For better or worse they've tied themselves to Kobe for the next two years, and it's unlikely he'll be willing to spend them rebuilding for a future he's not going to be part of. You don't give an aging player that kind of money if you plan to ostracize him from the decision-making process."

Walker makes a good point. Despite the supposed 'pay cut,' Kobe still consumes more than 30% of the team's salary cap. They have guaranteed him for two years, and if he is disgruntled, the team cannot replace him anymore. Nevertheless, it is never a good thing to take your team hostage.

However, if Kobe Bryant is speaking from a competitive standpoint, then it is a point worth raising. Steve Blake is a better player than both of their acquisitions. Perhaps GM Mitch Kupchak should explain the intentions of the team to their superstar. 'Hello, Kobe. Did you not get the memo? We're tanking!'