Four years after the Shaq trade, the Lakers have used the parts they got back to construct arguably the best frontline in basketball. They also have the best player in basketball, in the backcourt. The first decision was to choose resigning Kobe over letting him walk and keeping Shaq, but I think most people agreed that was probably the right move. The question now is whether they would have won another title with Kobe and the aging Shaq? Odom, Gasol (via Brown via Butler), and Bynum (via the sucktitude which was the result of trading Shaq) makes them bona fide contenders for the next few years, IMHO. Do we reevaluate now that they appear to have rebounded or do you not break up the greatest duo in sports history under any circumstances?
Seriously, the ink isn't even dry yet. Let's not forget that post Shaq, the count is still Shaq 1, Kobe 0. If Shaq stayed, they would have continued to contend, for sure. Finally, it's hard to argue that just because Butler turned into Brown which turned into Gasol, it was the right move. That a series of moves after, what, 4 years. Heck, maybe they should have kept Butler? In either case, let's see what happens first. Bynum having 35 solid games before injuring himself and Pau "Pansy" Gasol doesn't make the best frontcourt in basketball, even if you add Lamar "Time to Get High" Odom. Does look pretty scary though.
How about we watch the Lakers play a few games before we give them best team in the league? Fantasy-wise, it works out well, but we haven't even seen the Lakers play a game with thier revamped roster.
It was a good trade. Shaq was on the downside of his career and demanding too much money. I don't think the Lakers would have won another championship with him. And besides, they got their 3 championships ... I think it was the right move to look a couple years down the road for sustainability instead of trying to milk whatever they had.
That Kwame for Butler trade was stupid. Sure the Lakers are going to get Gasol but think of a Laker team with Caron. Bynum Odom Butler Bryant Fisher That team right there could still be a top 4 team in the West.
This actually has very little to do with Shaq trade. It's just unfortunate that Memphis is in such need of dumping salary and did a very one sided trade.
If Lakers accidently left Shaq they would win surely one more title, at least Conference one. That lefts them with other solutions as re-signing good players and signing other attractive names because they'd be a contender. So, Lakers did it hard way, played bad few seasons but managed to end up with good players. With Shaq in the team, that would be another story, dominant player wins titles, Shaq one AGAIN in Miami.
Pray tell how it has very little to do with the Shaq trade. It doesn't matter what circumstances played into causing the end result. We are where we are now as a result of the Shaq trade. Major props to the Lakers. They could have traded BOTH Bynum and Odom for the likes of O'neal/Kidd. They could have traded Kobe for those garbage packages. They now have traded for a younger player than either Oneal/Kidd without giving up either Bynum or Odom.
Let's do that, as we turn to the scoreboard... Shaq w/o Lakers = 1 Championship vs. Lakers w/o Shaq = First round rejects
I think the Shaq deal was bad because they were dangerously close to being trapped in mediocrity. If some of their draft picks hadn't worked out (Farmar, Turiaf, Bynum, etc.), and weren't able to rape a team for an all-star caliber big man, then they would be trapped in the 7-8 position every year. I don't think you can credit the Shaq trade for the team they have now because so many smart decisions had to be made in order for it to turn out like this. And it took 3 years of being bad/mediocre to get to this point. It's like if you make a terrible trade, and then tank the next year, and end up with a franchise center. And then the next year you're better but still a lottery team and you get another good piece in the draft. If you end up with a championship caliber team 5 years after the trade, do you credit the terrible trade you made five years ago, or the series of smart decisions (including tanking, which I am not against) afterwards? Memphis pretty much using that exact same strategy. Is their team really that much worse personnel wise than the 50 win team under Fratello? Not really, they're just playing young guys and they hired two bad defensive coaches. If Memphis ends up with a great team in 3 years, partly because of this lopsided trade, does that make it a good trade? To me, yes. They have a clear long-term rebuilding goal. When the Lakers traded Shaq, their plan pretty much was, 'let's be mediocre for 3 years and then hope to sign a big-name free agent.' The free-agent part of their plan completely fizzled, but their smart draft picks and this Gasol trade falling into their laps have bailed them out. In their defense, they couldn't really go into full-on tank mode with Kobe in his prime. So to me, if they couldn't do that, then they should have gotten more for Shaq.
This thread sucks. Evaluate? After 4 years? Last we checked the Heat accomplished something rarely done by many teams in the NBA.. win a ring. To add to that, its 4 years later. Shaq's contract was up at the end of the next year anyhow, and if he had signed a 2 year deal he'd be gone no matter what. Had the Lakers allowed him to walk they'd have his contract cap money off the books, but instead they're paying Lamar, Kwame and 3 years for Brian Grant that money. That's hardly a lose lose situation for Miami. Now what has LA done? If they don't win now, they have no maneuvering room to do anything at all. In short this is their last shot and Miami won a ring already.
It depends on the timeline that is used when evaluating that trade. Over a short timeframe, Miami came out ahead because it boosted them to contender status. Now, the Heat are on the downside from the Peak and Shaq's production (this season) can't justify the salary space that he occupies. Perhaps he might be considered a Salary Dump trade piece in the future, but that time isn't here yet. Over the past several seasons, the Lakers didn't have enough talent to be considered true contenders.............so the Shaq trade would be considered bad if the short term was the timeline to use. Since the Lakers were able to break Shaq's salary into more manageable and tradeable pieces............they were able to make trades like the one for Gasol. If they still had Shaq, the Gasol trade would have been much more difficult to do. Boston has gone for a short term scenario and Minnesota decided to startover. It is possible that a similar question might come up several years from now when examining the respective results for Boston and Minnesota. Since there are doubts about the ability of the Timberwolves Front Office, it becomes less likely they will accomplish very much in their rebuild situation. The Lakers, even in a rebuild started at a higher level than the Timberwolves. So there is a more difficult task in front of Minnesota than it was for the Lakers.
You could really use a reading comprehension course. My initial post made no mention of Miami nor did I seek to make an argument of who won the trade. No **** Miami won the trade - they won a title. But that they won it doesn't necessarily mean Shaq and Kobe would have won it. The point of the thread wasn't to compare who came out on top of the trade, but rather if in retrospect L.A. made the correct decision in moving O'neal. As far as your point about having Shaq's cap money off the books instead of paying, Lamar, Kwame, and Brian Grant, that is completely asinine. It's unrealistic to rely upon free agency to rebuild a tam, and even if that were not the case, there's noone out there they could get better than Odom+Gasol. Try and read the opening post first next time before you say a thread sucks.
shaq won a ring, lakers didn't even pass the first round and even with Gasol i predict they wont win a ring.
The Lakers should have kept both. The team was dysfunctional, but it's just not possible to trade a player like Shaq and get fair value in return. I actually think that Shaq knew it was time for him to be Robin rather than Batman. Kobe's attitude made that tough, but we all saw that Shaq was capable of deferring to Dwayne Wade, who isn't nearly the player Kobe is. Maybe with some real effort on Kobe's part, the situation could have been fixed. The Lakers are very good now, but so are the Spurs, Mavs, Suns, and Celtics.
