The Beginning of the End

[GMac]

man heres hoping they trade shaq to the Clippers... and heres hoping for the Rick Fox era for the Lakers...lol

[See Red]

The buzz here in Atlanta is for the hawks to put a serious run on Kobe and/or AI

Apparently, thats what our roster flush at the end of last year was about; making dollar room for this upcoming free-agency season. I think the Hawks have more empty space than any other team.

All I keep hearing about on SportsCenter and various sports websites is that no matter where he goes, there is no place Kobe can make more money than by returning to the Lakers. If you mean ASIDE from LA, then maybe the Hawks do have the most cap room available. I wouldn't mind seeing Kobe landing in Manhattan, but I'm not sure just how likely that is.

The Lakers will be offering Kobe Bryant the largest contract that is possible, in the NBA. I remember he said the 3 teams he would be considering, outside of the Lakers a few months back and Denver, the Clippers, and I forget who else they were. Personally, I can see him in either Denver or a Clippers uniforms. Both have young talent, and with the exception of Carmelo Anthony, they would both be Kobe's team. Of course, same goes for Atlanta. Except for the talent part.

Of course, if the Nuggets don't get kobe, they will be trying to get Kenyon Martin.

[MilTownMVP]

What's that stampede I hear?

Must be the unloading of the Lakers bandwagon.

[Saintsfan]

My point about who would want shaq is really that he must come with a pretty bug salary, so for instance the Magic, who already have cap problems may not be in the race. And why trade T-mac or anyone else for a guy who you are maybe gonna get 2 healthy years out of. Sure Shaq might be the best at what he does, but but he is ageing and expensive. If I were an NBA GM, he wouldn't be too high on my list to trade away talented young guys for, and thats what the Lakers would be looking for. Just a thought!

[nitroseed]

...but he is ageing and expensive.

Aging, yes. But, realistically, he's not that active to begin with. All he ever does is sit up under the basket and wait for someone to give him the ball, he jumps about two feet in the air, and slams it. He can't shoot from outside five feet and his free throw shooting is awful. Shaq is the most overrated player in NBA history, in my opinion. Everyone says he's the most dominant player in the game, but that's only because of his size! He doesn't DO anything. You could train a 600-lb. gorilla to do the same thing and you could pay him in bananas.

[Starchild]

Everyone says he's the most dominant player in the game, but that's only because of his size! He doesn't DO anything. You could train a 600-lb. gorilla to do the same thing and you could pay him in bananas.

I gotta disagree with ya nitro.

If you really just sit back and watch Shaq play, his movement is incredible for a big guy. There have been huge players in the league, but none that move quite like Shaq. When he's down in the post against a defender, he doesn't just steam roll right over the defender (unless the defender is like 1/8th his size). Against someone like Arvydas Sabonis who was roughly the closest in size to Shaq, Shaq was much much more agile and was able to move around Sabonis in a variety of ways to get his shot/dunk/whatever. Earlier in his career, he depended on his size, but as the years went by, especially as a Laker, Shaq's mobility increased. He doesn't trail behind everyone down the court (well, at least not as much as someone his size would). If size was the lone ingrediant, we would be talking about how good Oliver Miller is, when in fact, he's just a tub of lard with absolutely no skill. His fat IS fat, and he has no movement whatsoever (anyone else remember his airball-dunk? He "ran" a fast break, got the ball, went up for the dunk, got 2 inches off the ground and got called for a double-dribble). Shaq on the other hand... his "fat" is 100% pure muscle. And along with the muscle, he's got the movement of someone much smaller than him.

And don't forget... when arguing about his size, and his inability to shoot... you can't say Shaq is overrated. Another famous Lakers center is in the same bracket. You would have to mention Wilt Chamberlain in the same respect. He was huge, was not the most mobile of centers (like Willis Reed was) and he had no free throw shot - I think he actually might have been worse at the line than Shaq is. Size is always a factor in a game like basketball, but you can't overlook the true skill a big man may have - otherwise centers would all be like Benoit Benjamin.

As you can probably tell, I'm a huge Shaq fan (always have been, ever since Orlando), so I gotta defend the Diesel .

[Saintsfan]

As you can probably tell, I'm a huge Shaq fan (always have been, ever since Orlando), so I gotta defend the Diesel .

But would you be happy for the Knicks to trade say Marbury and a couple of young guys to the Lakers for Shaq? I can't see what anyone is gonna be happy to trade to the Lakers for Shaq, except for maybe a small club wanting to boost ticket sales.

[Starchild]

But would you be happy for the Knicks to trade say Marbury and a couple of young guys to the Lakers for Shaq? I can't see what anyone is gonna be happy to trade to the Lakers for Shaq, except for maybe a small club wanting to boost ticket sales.

To be honest... I'd probably do the trade. That trade boils down to Marbury for Shaq - you'd have to be an idiot not to do that trade. Shaq on the Knicks, in the Eastern conference is almost an automatic NBA Finals berth for the Knicks - or at the very least an Eastern Conference Finals appearance. In the western conference, it's a different story... but Marbury for Shaq? I may love Marbury, and he's NY's favorite son right now... but Shaq is more than a suitable replacement for Stephon.

When you trade for Shaq, that's exactly what you're getting. You're getting the single most dominant player in the game today. And he's going to be that way at least for 4/5 more seasons. For Eastern Conference teams, it's almost a no brainer. Because of the East's lack of size down low (minus Detroit), it makes sense. Especially if the team wanting him is deep like Detroit, who has a surplus of talent to ship off without really losing too much. Shaq moving to another Western Conference team is a gamble because of the overwhelming size in the conference. Getting Shaq in the West doesn't guarantee anything because of guys like Yao Ming, Duncan and KG. It of course guarantee's a playoff spot and all... but you would need a supporting cast whereas in the East, with the exception of Detroit, Shaq can have his way.

But I'd take Shaq for Marbury in a second. The deal would probably include some combination of guys like Marbury, Houston, Tim Thomas and Penny Hardaway since they all have huge contracts that would have to somehow be involved in picking up Shaq. Then throw in a spare part like Othella Harrington, Kurt Thomas or Dikembe Mutombo or something. But then look at what you would pretty much have... Shaq, Kurt Thomas/Mike Sweetney, Tim Thomas/Penny Hardaway, and Frank Williams and probably a shooting guard picked up for the mid level exception or something. Frank running things with Shaq down low, that's fine with me .

[Saintsfan]

Okay fair enough, Shaq would make a big difference to any team, potentially. But the guy is 32, has had injury problems in the past, and has only won a championship with Kobe Bryant on his team. I am sure Shaq could transform any team into a championship contender. My argument is not about Shaq as a player. Its about him as, for want of a better term, a commodity. Weighing everything up, I just don't think I would be happy with what my team would give up for the guy. Face it he is a 3 time NBA champ, how hungry is the guy gonna be? You might get say 4 years out of the guy, or you might get a year and a half and serious injury, or you might get the guy playing on a struggling team for a year or two and calling it quits. If your aim is to win the NBA championship, I reckon Shaq is a big big (literally and metaphorically speaking) gamble.

[Starchild]

Aaaaah. I see your point saintsfan. In that case, I sorta agree. Shaq is a 50/50 shot whereas keeping the young guys on the team would be more of a set deal towards consistency. The only problem there is that it's also a 50/50 deal - either your team will be consistently bad or consistently good. But either way, I see you're point.

[the_cynic]

The Lakers will be back someday. It's just a matter of time. It's quite simply inevitable!

[DEAD!]

The Lakers wil be back ..... back in Minneapolis

[Saintsfan]

The Lakers will be back someday. It's just a matter of time. It's quite simply inevitable!

I bet the BoSox were thinking that in 1918!

It isn't inevitable that any sports team wins. It takes good management, player recruiting and coaching. it may well be very likely that the Lakers will be back but its taken a while for the Celtics to re-emerge and even now they aren't ready to be champions. The Habs haven't won the Stanley Cup for a while now. Its not inevitable that certain teams win, they still have to work at it!

[the_cynic]

The Lakers wil be back ..... back in Minneapolis 

Oh please, we all know the Lakers are the most successful franchise in basketball history. Yeah they didn't have the run as the Celtics did in the 60's but since then they've been the most consistent. It also helps that Los Angeles is probably the most desirable place to live for a basketball star.

it may well be very likely that the Lakers will be back but its taken a while for the Celtics to re-emerge and even now they aren't ready to be champions.

Even so but the Celtics have had great success in small periods of time. Don't get me wrong, I love the Celtics history but it's hard to deny that the Lakers have been more consistent.

[Saintsfan]

The Lakers wil be back ..... back in Minneapolis

Oh please, we all know the Lakers are the most successful franchise in basketball history. Yeah they didn't have the run as the Celtics did in the 60's but since then they've been the most consistent. It also helps that Los Angeles is probably the most desirable place to live for a basketball star.

it may well be very likely that the Lakers will be back but its taken a while for the Celtics to re-emerge and even now they aren't ready to be champions.

Even so but the Celtics have had great success in small periods of time. Don't get me wrong, I love the Celtics history but it's hard to deny that the Lakers have been more consistent.

Hmmm well I think the Celtics have more NBA titles. But I take your point that the Lakers have been more consistent.

But my point isn't who has been more succesful, simply that success is never inevitable and when a sports team begins to think it is is when they start losing.

[the_cynic]

Well I'm sorry I don't quite see your logic but I've always viewed the Lakers very much like the Yankees. They have their ups and downs but it's just a matter of time before they develop another dynasty. Their not like a franchise like the Utah Jazz or Indiana Pacers who have success and get short, they always have great staff and many reasons why players would want to play for them.

[habsfannova]

Well I'm sorry I don't quite see your logic but I've always viewed the Lakers very much like the Yankees. They have their ups and downs but it's just a matter of time before they develop another dynasty. Their not like a franchise like the Utah Jazz or Indiana Pacers who have success and get short, they always have great staff and many reasons why players would want to play for them.

It happened to Montreal, it can happen to anyone.

[the_cynic]

It happened to Montreal, it can happen to anyone.

True but I think I speak for everybody when I say that Montreal isn't as desirable as Los Angeles is.

[fiasco!]

It happened to Montreal, it can happen to anyone.

True but I think I speak for everybody when I say that Montreal isn't as desirable as Los Angeles is.

i'd rather you hold off on the 'speaking for everybody' part...becuase you certainly don't speak for me.

i hate los angeles...terrible city, terrible bandwagon town.

i love montreal....beautiful city, great history, and fans that never leave their team. (not including the expos)

[the_cynic]

and fans that never leave their team. (not including the expos)

How could you say such a thing and just leave out the Expos? Why don't they count?