Do we Have to reevaluate the Shaq trade now?

The Lakers should have kept him for a while longer...but that was 4 years ago, what does it have to do with JVG or V-Span anyway?



DD

 

If I remember correctly, when the trade went down, the debate was not whether the Lakers should have kept Kobe and Shaq together. It was whether they should keep Shaq and build around him or build around Kobe. The Kobe and Shaq relationship had reached the point where it didn’t look like they would ever reconcile and it was pretty much universally agreed that those two could no longer co-exist together.

So if you look at the trade from that perspective, they absolutely made the right move. They chose the right guy to build around.

 

I like the automatic crowning of the Lakers as the new elite team in the NBA. Remember when the Rockets were that team at the start of the season.

Reevaluate the trade when we see the results.

 

Trade #1: "Something Great" for "Something good"
Trade #2: Part of "Something good" for Trash
Trade #3: Trash for "Something borderline great"

The fact that you could pull off #3 doesn't make #1 and #2 smart. I doubt that when they did #1 and #2, they had #3 in mind.

That said, since their hands were forced to choose between Kobe and Shaq, it was a good decision to keep Kobe rather than Shaq. Shaq was obviously going to be overpriced given his age and work ethic. But he still had two more years of dominant game left. They could conceivably win two more titles with the duo intact.

They also made the right decision not to trade Bynum away for O'Neal or Kidd.

So looking back, trading Shaq away was the best they could do under the circumstances. Trading Butler for Kwame was stupid. Picking and keeping Bynum was smart. Trading Kwame for Gasol is robbery.

All in all, my hatred for the Lakers is going back to the level of the Kobe-Shaq era.

 

Shaq and Kobe would have won at least 2 more titles, at worst be legit contenders for those years that the Lakers never got out of the first round after the big trade. We are talking about Shaq and Kobe, at the time, the best at their positions. A declining Shaq with Kobe would still be a dangerous team. Remember, Kobe wanted out bad earlier this year. He probably would have been gone if the Lakers got a deal where Kobe wanted to go.

 

http://www.latimes.com/sports/basketball/nba/lakers/la-sp-heisler2feb02,0,6314802.story



Lakers' trade could have a downside

Adding Gasol, and subtracting Brown, represents a roster upgrade, but it's also expensive and doesn't help their defense.

By Mark Heisler, ON THE NBA
February 2, 2008
News story: Lakers get Pau Gasol.

Comment: Duh.

Does one need to comment?

Actually one does, because it's not as simple as it looks. If the Lakers pulled off a major theft, there were a lot of moving parts and some of them may still be moving.

Here's what we know for sure: The Lakers just got a 7-foot, 27-year-old All-Star-caliber forward, essentially for nothing.

Aside from Kwame Brown's huge body and the soft spot he had in Phil Jackson's heart, he wasn't of much use (appropriately, the Pistons played volleyball on the offensive boards at the end of his last game to nip the Lakers at the wire) and his contract and Lakers career were running out in tandem.

The Lakers loved Javaris Crittenton but Jordan Farmar has been so good, it would have taken Crittenton years to overhaul him . . . if he ever did.

Here's the tricky part:

Lamar Odom was originally discussed in the talks between the Lakers and Memphis, according to an NBA source.

However, Memphis owner Michael Heisley, who has had the team up for sale for years and is projecting a $20-million loss this season, predicated everything on knocking as much money as he could off his payroll in this deal.

With Odom making $13.2 million this season and $14.1 million next, Heisley told his basketball people he didn't want him.

The addition of Gasol will give the Lakers the tallest front line the NBA has ever seen. When Andrew Bynum returns, their front line will go 7-0, 7-0 and 6-11.

Of course, one of them has to guard small forwards.

With Gasol's scoring ability and the Lakers' huge financial commitment in him, one thing is clear:

The moment the deal went down, he replaced Odom as No. 3 Option of the Future.

This one is breathtaking even for Jerry Buss, who has long set the market when he wanted a player.

With Gasol getting $49.4 million the next three seasons and Bynum's extension projected to kick in in 2009, the Lakers will go far over the luxury tax threshold, and this deal could cost $80 million in salary and tax over three years.

That's how they got Gasol. No one else would step up.

The Chicago Bulls, who eyed Gasol for years, could have offered P.J. Brown's expired $12.8-million contract and Andres Nocioni, whom Memphis wanted.

However, to put Brown's salary in the deal, the Bulls would have had to pay luxury tax on it this season, which owner Jerry Reinsdorf refused to do.

This wasn't the Lakers' only option. They could have had Chicago's Ben Wallace for Kwame Brown and Vladimir Radmanovic, according to an NBA source, incurring far less cost.

Moving Radmanovic's contract, which has three seasons worth $19 million left, would have meant the Lakers were taking on only an additional $20 million.

However, the Lakers thought Wallace was old and diminished, which was true. He's attitudinal, too, but I don't think he's as bad as he looked with the runty Bulls. He and Bynum might have been a devastating defensive tandem, but we'll never know.

In any case, the Lakers now have another major piece and we don't have to watch Kwame fumble passes and chase the ball around the floor.

It does bring down the curtain on an unforgettable era. When will the Lakers have another player who hits some guy on the street in the face with a birthday cake?

But enough about Kwame, forever.

The Lakers just took a big step Friday.

Into what, we'll have to see, but it was definitely big.

mark.heisler@latimes.com

 

^^^Who cares if they pay that luxury tax, Jerry Buss isn't going poor anytime soon. But if they don't win titles or at least make finals appearance this year or next, look for them to shop Odom.

About the posts on if Kobe and Shaq stayed together, no possible way. Kobe exercised his player option that year and made subtle hints (that of course he publicly denied) that he wouldn't return if Shaq was still there.

Kobe did not want to play with Shaq anymore, plain and simple.

 

Shaq gets traded to the Heat -- Miami wins their first championship -- nuff said.

 

So Rockets drafted Yao is a result of Eddie Griffin the year before? Otherwise Rockets record would have been different.

Major props for CD for trade Eddie Griffin using 3 1st round picks then. One of the worst trades now becoms one of the best moves in CD's career.

 

For real, I say it has very little to do with Shaq trade because it is not a calculated move at all, just pure luck and it's really good to be a big market team so they can afford to pay luxury tax.

 

Part of the rationale in moving Shaq, though, was keeping Kobe and having the flexibility to add depth down the road. That approach looks to be paying dividends.

 

Everyone is blowing this way out of proportion. Yes, the Lakers made a good deal. Gasol is a very good player. However, he is not a dominant player and not going to put the Lakers in the finals. If they go anywhere it will be because of Kobe and Bynum, with Gasol and Fisher as the supporting cast.

 

everyone talks about how kobe can't win without shaq, but it wasn't shaq who won that title in miami, it was dwane wade.

nobody can do it alone is my point. everyone needs help.

and kobe has all the help he'd need now.

if this laker team can stay together, i think they can be unstoppable.

great trade.

 

Kareem and Magic were by far the best IMO.

 

No, the Heat got what they want and even though we didn't think they would be this sorry, we knew that Shaq wouldn't be dominating like before.

On the LA side, they knew what was coming. No way should Kobe or anyone expect to be contending. It's amazing they made the playoffs the first 2 years.

 

When Shaq was still with the Lakers, he had been grumbling about getting a contract extension. Between that issue irritating him and the friction with Kobe, it was risky for the Lakers to keep an unhappy Shaq that might have lacked motivation.

From a business POV, the Lakers did the correct thing by trading him.

 

Utill the Lakers win a title without Shaq it will alway remain a dumb move. The duo that they had they should have never broken that up no matter what. I don't care if they wasn't getting a long. You find a way somehow to make them work it out.