SAC/LAL/PHO proposal

[elindholm]

Sacramento gets
Shaquille O’Neal ($29.5 million, 2006)

Los Angeles gets
Chris Webber ($17.5, 2008)
Shawn Marion ($11.3, 2009)
Casey Jacobsen ($1.1, team option 2006)
cash considerations from SAC

Phoenix gets
Brad Miller ($7.9, 2010)
Rick Fox ($4.9, 2005)

Kings:
C – O’Neal
PF – ?
SF – Stojakovic
SG – Christie
PG – Bibby/Jackson

They have holes to fill in the frontcourt, but still have both salary exceptions to work with. Malone could most likely be lured aboard for cheap again. They have roster spots to fill whether they make this trade or not, but it’s easier to add second-rate talent if you have O’Neal.

Lakers:
C – ?
PF – Webber/Cook
SF – Marion/George/Walton
SG – Bryant/Rush
PG – Payton

Similar situation to the Kings, with frontcourt holes to fill. They could address those needs and then re-sign Fisher. George could be trade bait. If Webber is healthy, this team has a lot of fire power. The risk is that Bryant (when re-signed), Webber, and Marion are all on long-term deals. The Lakers could offer George instead of Fox to the Suns and possibly receive PHO’s first-round pick (not the CHI pick) in 2005 for additional compensation.

Suns:
C – Miller/Voskuhl/Lampe
PF – Stoudemire/Lampe/Vroman
SF – Turkoglu/Cabarkapa/Fox
SG – Johnson/Fox
PG – Nash/Barbosa

Possibly the Lakers would rather keep Fox than George (see above), since his expiring contract might be more valuable in a trade. My guess, however, is that they will prefer to keep George since he is a better player. The Suns don’t have much use for Fox, but his contract is expiring and they have to take him on to make the trade work financially.

 

[Chaz]

The only problem I have is we would be helping a division rival get O'Neal.

Brad Miller would be a good fit untill Lampe or somone else could be developed.

 

[elindholm]

O'Neal is in the same division as the Suns either way, so that's a wash.

 

[cepstrum]

I actually like this trade quite a bit assuming we can sign someone to fill in for marion at sf. email this trade to mitch, the maloof brothers, and JC.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

Not a bad idea. I suppose if we are going to have a lot of money locked into a role player, it is a better idea to go with a Center.

The Suns appear to be the real winners in this deal. Isn't Fox considering retirement this summer? Even though the Suns get the best fit for their team, I could see everyone doing it.

SAC gets the best player, and moves Webber's deal. Even if they let Shaq walk, I would rather let that happen then keep paying Webber for a nother 5 or so years.

LA gets to move Shaq, and most likely locks up Bryant as well. Marion is a great compliment to Kobe, and we all know he won't take any of his shots. If healthy, Webber could provide some interior scoring. However, after last years playoffs, I would be scared to death to take him on.



Question: How well did Miller play at center alongside Webber last season? I know he did great as a PF next to Vlade, but I thought his game struggled some when he slid back over. I guess he should be fine playing next to Amare, since he did pretty good with O'Neal....

 

[Chaz]

O'Neal is in the same division as the Suns either way, so that's a wash.

True, but right now you have an unhappy, unmotavated Shaq in LA. And you are sending one of our best players to the Lakers.

Usually not a good idea to deal in the division.

Good work, it is a solid idea, I would just have to vote no even though I like Brad Miller as a player and the Suns do need someone to start at center.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

True, but right now you have an unhappy, unmotavated Shaq in LA. And you are sending one of our best players to the Lakers.

The deal actually would make both teams weaker I think. The kings would be running a Shaq/Bibby duo in the playoffs (Pedja always forgets to come along for the ride). That isn't as good as a Shaq/Kobe duo, even if they do hate each other. They loose even more depth from this trade, to an already thinning bench. I don't know if Vlade would stay on if they got Shaq either. The two of them never seem to get along

The Lakers would be banking huge on Webber's health. He most likely won't hold up, or be a shadow of himself. Don't forget he had the same surgery as Penny. Without Webber, they would have NO inside presense. Even with Marion (who I love), the Lakers wouldn't be able to compete with the top teams.

 

[hcsilla]

Not a bad idea. I suppose if we are going to have a lot of money locked into a role player, it is a better idea to go with a Center.

I agree, I like Marion but I do this deal too.

Overall it's a nice idea but I'm not sure that teh Lakers would take Webber's (post-injury) contract.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

I agree, I like Marion but I do this deal too.

Overall it's a nice idea but I'm not sure that teh Lakers would take Webber's (post-injury) contract.

Agreed. However, if it becomes clear they have to move Shaq to get Kobe to sign, they may have no choice.

Realistically, the Mavs and the Kings are the only two teams that can get Shaq. With the Mavs continuing to refuse to include Dirk the Lakers may look the other way. Who knows if the Mavs are really that interested now. Loosing Nash was a huge blow, and I don't think Cuban wants to loose the entire big 3 (which I think he would have to in order to get Shaq).

That would leave just the Kings as trade partners. Webbers deal would obviously have to be included. I would assume the Lakers would try and get Brad Miller instead of Marion though. He could at least be an inside presense if Webber doesn't hold up.

Would they be able to get a deal set similar to this without Phx's help? If so, I doubt the suns would be able to crack into this trade....

 

[F-Dog]

That looks like a pretty good deal for all sides.


I don't see it happening, because the Kings would probably prefer to hold onto Miller if they possibly could, and the Lakers would probably rather have Miller than Shawn Marion--most of their bench "talent" is on the wing, and their weakness is at PF and C. Still, this is better than most of the trade proposals I come up with.

 

[Chaplin]

No.

 

[hcsilla]

and the Lakers would probably rather have Miller than Shawn Marion--

Unfortunately that may be true.

 

[elindholm]

The Lakers face a risk with O'Neal no matter what. Given his huge contract, questionable health, and erratic motivation, no team is going to offer a dream package for him. This means that the Lakers have these choices:

1. Keep O'Neal and gamble that his poor chemistry with Bryant doesn't destroy the franchise.

2. Trade O'Neal for similarly questionable, superstar-level talent and hope that things pan out.

3. Trade O'Neal for unspectacular "safe" players and hope that they overachieve.

It's hard to guess which of those options will seem the most appealing. My trade proposal is obviously in category #2, but among the possibilities within that group, I think it's pretty reasonable.

thegrahamcrackr:

I would assume the Lakers would try and get Brad Miller instead of Marion though.

Could be. My impression is that Webber and Miller didn't get along terribly well, but I might be imagining that. If O'Neal goes to the Kings, Webber has to go to the Lakers -- that much is a given, I think.

I'm thinking that Marion would have more value to the Lakers that Miller would, but maybe that's just because I want to support my trade. The Lakers don't make the trade unless they're prepared to gamble that Webber is (relatively) healthy, so that makes Marion a better third option (behind Bryant and Webber). Also, I think Divac would be willing to join that team for cheap, although they'd still need additional front-court help, of course.

 

[George O'Brien]

Works great for the Suns if you can get Fox to retire.

Seriously, the deal is a lot less far fetched than most. The big advantage to the Suns is not the relative abilities of Miller versus Marion, but that the Suns have a much lower downside. Fox's contract expires next summer and Miller is well worth the contract he has.

The other two teams face some serious risks. Webber has a very long, very expensive contract. When healthy he is one of the top inside guys in the NBA, but he isn't all the time. In the last three years he played in 54 games in 2001-02, 67 games in 2002-03, and 23 games last season. For a guy with four more years starting at $17.5, this is a bit disturbing.

There is less risk to the Kings if they are prepared to rebuild in two years anyway because they can't count on Shaq for the long haul.

One minor point, I think putting Divac at the high post might work fine with Shaq. This would be a really slow lineup, but still pretty strong.

 

[elindholm]

Works great for the Suns if you can get Fox to retire.

I think a retiring player counts on the cap anyway, until something like a year after he retires. So it's moot in Fox's case. And actually, he would provide the Suns some help.

 

[JCSunsfan]

I'd want a pick or two plus cash and maybe a young player for "facilitating" this trade for Sacramento and LA.

I know we are benefitting, but we'd be solving some huge problems for them. This is alot like that Longley trade..

BTW, I would truly enjoy watching Shaq play for his beloved "Queens."

 

[George O'Brien]

Works great for the Suns if you can get Fox to retire.

I think a retiring player counts on the cap anyway, until something like a year after he retires. So it's moot in Fox's case. And actually, he would provide the Suns some help.

I don't, but it doesn't matter since his contract expires next season anyway.

 

[elindholm]

In case anyone cares:

Any money paid to a player is included in team salary, even if the player has retired. For example, James Worthy retired in 1994, two years before his contract ended. He continued to receive his salary for the 94-95 and 95-96 seasons, so his salary was included in the Lakers' team salary in those seasons. It is at the team's discretion (or as the result of an agreement between the team and player) whether to continue to pay the player after he has retired.

There is one exception whereby a player can continue to receive his salary, but the salary is not included in the team's team salary. This is when a player is forced to retire for medical reasons and a league-appointed physician confirms that he is medically unfit to continue playing. There is a waiting period of two years (if the injury or illness occurred between January 1 and July 1) or until the second July 1 following the injury or illness (if it occurred between July 1 and January 1) before a team can apply for this salary cap relief. If the waiting period expires mid-season (on any date prior to the last day of the regular season), then his entire salary for that season is removed from the team's team salary. For example, Luc Longley suffered a career-ending injury in March 2001. In March 2003, the Knicks were allowed to remove his entire 02-03 salary from their books (and since the luxury tax is based on the team salary as of the last day of the regular season, the Knicks avoid paying any tax on Longley's salary). There is also some luxury tax relief associated with disabled players -- see question number 15 .

If a player retires, even for medical reasons, his team does not receive a salary cap exception to acquire a replacement player.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#51

So Fox would still count on the Suns' team salary unless he agreed to waive his money, which seems highly unlikely in this case.

 

[SweetD]

Does anyone remember Big Country? That is why the Grizz were never able to make any moves in Free Agency until last year.

 

[Chaplin]

What are the odds of this blockbuster occuring with 3 teams ALL IN THE SAME DIVISION?

 

[binkar]

I would go insane if we got Rick Fox. I cant stand him.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

I'd want a pick or two plus cash and maybe a young player for "facilitating" this trade for Sacramento and LA.

I know we are benefitting, but we'd be solving some huge problems for them. This is alot like that Longley trade..

Really, the Suns have no business being in this trade.

The Longley deal needed the Suns to make the numbers work. However, I am pretty sure the Lakers/Kings could get the numbers to work without a problem.

The only way the Suns get in this is if the Lakers covet Marion more than Miller. As good as Marion is, Miller is a center, at a lower priced contract. Not to mention, if they take on Webber, they need some sort of a backup plan for the front court.

 

[cly2tw]

I like it from the Suns perspective. Both LA and we may prefer George in place of Fox. With George, we don't need to sign Hedo to big contract. We'd still have our cap for whatever purpose. The problem is the Lakers should prefer Miller instead of Marion. So, I don't see Lakers do it, particularly since Webber is soft, often injured, expensive.

Anyway, if this trade goes down Kings would be an instant favorite by wisely adding something with their exceptions. They already have two of the best shooters in Bibby and Peja. That's recipe for success with a dominant center like Shaq!

I proposed a Lakers/Suns/Nets three-way that's more likely to be accepted by the Lakers.

Suns give up Marion, Eisley, Jake, CJ, Dice s&t for 3mil a year 3 years, Bulls pick, and gets Shaq.

Nets sign and trade Martin for Jake, Dice, Bulls' pick.

Lakers give up Shaq and get Martin, Marion, Eisley, CJ.

Lakers:
Malone/Martin/Marion/Kobe/Payton
Medv/Walton/George/Rush/Eisley
They need to sign a center or two with their exceptions, like Ostertag for 3mil, but that starting lineup is already a contender with the core of Martin/Marion/Kobe very young. That'd convince Kobe to stay.

Nets: with Jake and Dice they got some cheap replacement for Martin, Bulls' lotto pick should make them accept it.

Suns:

Shaq/Amare/Zarko/JJ/Nash
Lampe/Vronman/Barbosa

OK. The bench is weak and Zarko is still a project. But with Shaq/Amare/Nash, you can add any low-cost swingmen who can shoot reasonably well and are not too much of a defensive liability, and we have a contender right away! Say, Sura, Person, Kendall Gill, Travis Best, and one or two bigmen for the minimum. With verbal promises to offer part of next year's MLE to Sura. We can contend this year and virtually a lock to win it all next year with more FAs!

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

Did you check the Suns numbers to see if they work? Seems pretty close in my head.

11.3 + 6.3 + 1 + 1.7 = 20.3 million going out for the suns...

add in possibly 6-7 million under the cap. That would allow us to take on a max of 26.3-27.3 million back.

Shaq makes over 29 million next year. So unless the Suns will have 8-9 million in cap space, the trade would not go through. Like I said, looks close. We would most likely have to include about another 2 million in salary, which would be Zarko and either Lampe or Barbosa. Or JJ.......

(If a team is under the cap and makes a trade that pushes them more than 100,000 over the cap, they must then match salaries.)

The team would have ZERO depth. They would need to sign a bunch of minimum contract guys just to meet league requirements.

Definitely a bad trade for the Suns.

 

[cly2tw]

Shaq makes over 29 million next year.

(If a team is under the cap and makes a trade that pushes them more than 100,000 over the cap, they must then match salaries.)

The team would have ZERO depth. They would need to sign a bunch of minimum contract guys just to meet league requirements.

Definitely a bad trade for the Suns.

It was reported somewhere that Shaq's this year is about 27mil while his next is 30mil.
Sign vets like Scott Williams, O. Miller, Stacy Augmann, Calbert Chaney, W. Person, Travis Best to min. You have

Shaq/Miller/Lampe
Amare/Williams/Vronman
Augmann/Zarko
JJ/Chaney/Person
Nash/Barbosa/Best

It's a very good team!