Some new teams ESPN says "could" want Shaq.

Yuma

Suns are my Kryptonite!
Joined
Jan 3, 2003
Posts
24,065
Reaction score
13,732
Location
Laveen, AZ
They said the usual suspects, (Dallas, etc.), however, they also said New Jersey AND Sacramento.

OUT: New York, Inianappolis (were they ever in?), Probably out is Orlando.

Phoenix is said to decline Amare in a trade with LA, so they may be out for the daddy.

I am trying to quote what I remember. They threw out a bunch of clubs right now on ESPN2.
 

elindholm

edited for content
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
27,900
Reaction score
10,574
Location
L.A. area
I don't see how Indiana could be in the running without giving up Jermaine O'Neal, which I'd be very surprised to see them do.

I suppose it's not impossible, though. Early this season, I remember Jermaine O'Neal making noise about how he wasn't sure how much longer he'd be able to play, and his body was getting worn down, and a bunch of other whining. If Indiana is not convinced of his future and wants to try to win now, they could be willing to trade him.

Sacramento, wow, that would be quite a shock. It's hard to see the Lakers wanting Webber, so how would the Kings put together enough salary?

New Jersey has no hope of making it work. I saw a report saying that they could include a re-signed Kenyon Martin, but that's prevented by the CBA.
 

scudney

Registered
Joined
Oct 9, 2003
Posts
296
Reaction score
0
Location
Waterloo, ON, CA
lol.. Shaq playing for the Kings, now that would be funny given the history between those two teams, and all the comments Shaq made about them.
 
OP
OP
Yuma

Yuma

Suns are my Kryptonite!
Joined
Jan 3, 2003
Posts
24,065
Reaction score
13,732
Location
Laveen, AZ
scudney said:
lol.. Shaq playing for the Kings, now that would be funny given the history between those two teams, and all the comments Shaq made about them.
They brought that up. However, Sacramento has players to trade, and the Maloofs have DEEP pockets! Who knows? :shrug: I hadn't heard them mentioned before.
 

Renz

An Army of One
Joined
May 10, 2003
Posts
13,078
Reaction score
2
Location
lat: 35.231 lon: -111.550
By David Aldridge
Special to ESPN.com

All right, so where could the Big Fella go?


If we're going to play this out to its absurd conclusion, and -- my fingers simply cannot believe they're typing this -- the Lakers would indeed entertain offers for Shaquille O'Neal, then we have to determine a scenario that makes sense for both the team trading for Shaq and the Lakers. There are so many factors that are unique to the Diesel.


1. Shaq's highest-in-the-league salary. It's a robust $29.4 million for the 2004-05 season -- $32.4 million for 2005-06 -- making your run-of-the-mill, garden-variety trade impossible. Most teams would have to bundle so many players together just to get to Shaq's salary that they'd go into next season six or seven players short, as Orlando's general manager John Weisbrod told local reporters the other day. That doesn't mean they shouldn't think about it, only that it makes such a deal a real gamble.


2. The Lakers can't get snookered. It's crucial that Mitch Kupchak be able to hold his head up if a deal ultimately gets done. When the Lakers got Kareem Abdul-Jabbar from Milwaukee, they sent the Bucks several good players that helped Milwaukee make the playoffs for years, like Junior Bridgeman and Brian Winters. Kupchak has to get real value for the MDE -- Most Dominant Ever. But therein lies a problem ...


3. You can't get equal value for Shaq. There is no one like him on the face of the earth. The things he brings a basketball team are unique to the DNA of Shaq's biological father and his mother, Lucille Harrison. So no matter who the Lakers acquire, they'll be fundamentally changed as a franchise. They'll still be good, but no longer intimidating; a contender, but no longer feared.


I know that by writing this, I'm no better than the radio call-in geeks whom I've come to despise. But if we're going to speculate -- repeat, S-P-E-C-U-L-A-T-E -- then we're going to do it right, and logically.


It would seem clear that L.A.'s first preference would be to get Shaq out of the Western Conference. I am reminded of the Moses Malone parallel, when Philly sent what it believed to be an over-the-hill Malone to a division rival, Washington, in the mid-80s for Jeff Ruland. A not-over-the-hill and now-motivated Mo proceeded to kick Philly's butt for two years. I don't think the Lakers want to face Shaq four times a year for the next five years, not to mention during the playoffs. So, if the desire is to get O'Neal at least two time zones away, who could fill the bill? We are writing off pipe dreams like the Knicks, Magic, Bulls and Raptors; the Celtics would, I'm sure, be willing to send Paul Pierce back home, but they're a little light in the cakes big-man wise.


Detroit certainly has enough quality players to make an offer, and Joe Dumars has never said he wouldn't like to have a guy like Shaq or Kobe, only that you still have to try to win in the absence of such superstars. But given the Pistons' team-oriented success against the Lakers in the Finals, it's hard to see them wanting to switch course and to try things the other way.


New Jersey? Conceivably. A deal involving Kenyon Martin (via sign and trade), Kerry Kittles ($10.2 million next season), Rodney Rogers ($3.35 million), the contract of Alonzo Mourning (still on the Nets' books at $5.4 million) and the rights to incoming Euro big Nenad Krstic would get you in the neighborhood of Shaq's contract. I would assume Jersey would want a young shooter like Kareem Rush to be part of the deal, too. Bonus for the Lakers: Rogers and Kittles are entering the final year of their respective deals, and Mourning would come off the ledger after next summer if he doesn't play again. The Lakers would get two talented young bigs in Martin and Krstic. The Nets would add Shaq -- who has lots of family in Newark -- along with a quality shooter in Rush, while retaining a good chunk of their core: Jason Kidd, Richard Jefferson, Jason Collins, Lucious Harris and Aaron Williams. You'd think the Diesel would also sell some tickets, but I thought the high-flying Kidd Show would, too.


Indiana? Maybe. Jermaine O'Neal ($14.7 million next season) would obviously have to be involved when his base year expires, and I suspect the Lakers would ask for Al Harrington ($6.325 million) under similar circumstances. The Lakers might have to download Austin Croshere ($8.26 million) and Scot Pollard ($5.7 million); that would allow the Pacers to accept Derek Fisher's notable point guard skills and his $3 million salary, provided they could convince D-Fish not to opt out of his deal by the end of this week. The end result would be a Laker squad loaded up with frontcourt talent to play with Kobe Bryant, and a Pacers team that would still have Ron Artest, Jeff Foster, Jonathan Bender, Fred Jones and Jamaal Tinsley to go with Diesel and Fisher.


Cleveland? Well ... it's a longshot. But the Cavaliers have the requisite big man to send (Zydrunas Ilgauskas, conveniently entering the final year of his deal at $14.625 million). Tony Battie ($5.5 million), DeSagana Diop ($2.6 million), Kedrick Brown ($2.332 million) and Ira Newble ($2.7 million) get you near the promised land, and of those four, only Newble has more than two years left on his contract. Clearly, up-and-comer Carlos Boozer (a ridiculous value at only $695,000 on his rookie deal) would have to change uniforms, along with a few future first-round picks. Perhaps Cleveland could get Luke Walton's services in exchange. The Lakers would do this deal with an eye to the future, shedding most of these guys after this season, extending Boozer and seeing if they could entice a free agent or two to come west. As far as the Erie Boys go, Shaq and LeBron wouldn't be a bad one-two punch in the East, with Jeff McInnis and Dajuan Wagner in the chorus.


If L.A. couldn't dispatch O'Neal east and had to do business with a team out west, there are possibilities.


Dallas is a logical spot. Cubes would welcome Shaq with open wallet. The Mavericks clearly have the stuffed contracts to make the deal work numbers-wise, but it's hard to see Kupchak accepting a pedestrian package like Michael Finley ($14.6 million) and Antoine Walker (ditto). While Walker is up after this season, Finley eats up cap space like Pac Man, finally giving out at $18.5 million in 2007. Dirk Nowitzki gobbles up cash at a slightly reduced rate, starting at $12.5 million this coming season up to $16.3 million by 2007, but Cuban is loathe to give up the Diggler. I'd think you'd have to start with Steve Nash in a sign and trade, with Nasty, Nowitzki, Danny Fortson ($5.8 million) and precocious youngsters Marquis Daniels and Josh Howard part of the booty. Daniels would have to be signed and traded, too. The problem with this deal from L.A.'s standpoint is that it turns the Lakers, essentially, into the Mavericks -- a team with great perimeter talent with nothing in the middle. While the Mavs would suddenly have a 350-pound anchor to surround with Finley and Antawn Jamison.


Portland? Doable but doubtful. I can't see the Lakers being all that interested in a package involving Shareef Abdur-Rahim ($14.6 million), Dale Davis ($10 million) and Derek Anderson ($8.4 million) -- though with Abdur-Rahim and Davis each entering the last season on their deals, there would be some benefit for L.A. Nor can I see the Blazers being willing to put Zach Randolph front and center to get the Lakers' juices flowing.


Memphis certainly has enough players to make things interesting. A package of Pau Gasol ($4.3 million), Lorenzen Wright ($7.15 million), James Posey ($5.4 million), Jason Williams ($6.875 million) and Bo Outlaw ($6.585 million) would equal one Shaq, filling a lot of Lakers holes at small forward, power forward, point guard and bench. Memphis would still have Shane Battier, Stromile Swift and Bonzi Wells to team with Shaq, which would make a certain Logo ridiculously happy as the Grizzlies move into a new building with all kinds of luxury suites ready to move.


We leave you with this thought: Sacramento. At first glance it sounds absurd, given Shaq's various dismissals of the Kings over the years. Who can forget his declaration that if the Kings lost Chris Webber to free agency, that they'd go back to "expansionism?" Or that Sacramento was no longer the capital of California? Or that whole "Sacramento Queens" business?


I suspect the fans in Arco Arena would hold a grudge ... until Shaq dunked hard on someone's bean. And then, they'd forget.


Webber ($17.5 million next season) would certainly have to factor into a deal. To those who believe Webber to be damaged goods, I submit that in my experience covering hoops, it almost always takes a minimum of 18 months for a guy to truly recover from the kind of ACL injury Webber suffered a year ago. Which would make the real Webber return sometime around New Year's Day, 2005. If we assume that the old Webber is in there somewhere, a package of C-Webb, Bobby Jackson ($3.15 million), Brad Miller ($7.87 million) and Anthony Peeler would be somewhat enticing, giving the Lakers quantity and quality. The Kings' cupboard would still be filled with Peja Stojakovic and Mike Bibby and Doug Christie.


Now, do I believe in any of these scenarios? If you pushed me, I guess the Nets and Memphis make the most sense. If you have a dollar, though, you might still bet it on Shaq's temper to ultimately subside, and a new coach being able to assure the Big Man he still has a seat at the table. Money is still important and O'Neal has been adamant that he won't take a pay cut when his deal is up in two years. This is the Lakers' challenge. They have to find a way to buy some time while keeping Shaq engaged ... and not enraged.


It will be the most expensive re-financing in history.

David Aldridge, who covers the NBA for ESPN, is a regular contributor to ESPN.com.
 
Last edited:

elindholm

edited for content
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
27,900
Reaction score
10,574
Location
L.A. area
Didn't we establish before that it is not possible to do a sign-and-trade deal where a FA is combined with his teammates in a package? Can someone confirm this? Why do people like Aldridge not know this?
 

devilalum

Heavily Redacted
Joined
Jul 30, 2002
Posts
16,776
Reaction score
3,187
I don't see how Dallas can put together a better deal than Marion, #7 and ALL THAT CAP SPACE. This deal is much better than _irk and Walker. Walker's a pariah.

I remember reading that Buss would NOT pay the luxury tax.
 

devilalum

Heavily Redacted
Joined
Jul 30, 2002
Posts
16,776
Reaction score
3,187
All of Aldridge's deals involve the Lakers taking on dead weight.

Nothing kills a deal faster than dead weight. Usually the team that's getting the big prize takes on the dead weight not the other way around.

Would the lakers be able to do anything with the cap space they could obtain with deal with the Suns.

And for all of you that said the Lakers would never send Shaq to the Suns did you see them asking for Amare? Not that that is a good trade but it certainly seems to indicate that Brian has talked to Kupchek about Shaq.
 

sunsfn

Registered User
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Posts
4,522
Reaction score
0
It is almost impossible to trade Shaq.

I believe that when Rudy becomes the new coach of the Lakers, his first job will be to get Kobe & Shaq to play for him and the Lakers, and he will get them to do this.

:)
 

F-Dog

lurker
Joined
Aug 27, 2003
Posts
3,637
Reaction score
0
Location
Tucson
I think my Portland idea (Theo Ratliff, Darius Miles and SAR) is better than any of those.

The Lakers get three starters for next year, there's no dead weight, and after next year they're looking at $20 million or more in cap room. Since Kobe wants to play GM anyway, that would have to be very tempting.
 

Chaplin

Better off silent
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
46,725
Reaction score
17,412
Location
Round Rock, TX
Is it just me, or are the rest of you getting sick of hearing about Shaq trades already?
 

devilalum

Heavily Redacted
Joined
Jul 30, 2002
Posts
16,776
Reaction score
3,187
Chaplin said:
Is it just me, or are the rest of you getting sick of hearing about Shaq trades already?


It appears that there's nothing else left to hear about?
 

devilalum

Heavily Redacted
Joined
Jul 30, 2002
Posts
16,776
Reaction score
3,187
Chaplin said:
Is it just me, or are the rest of you getting sick of hearing about Shaq trades already?


Here's something new.

If the Suns don't sign anybody will they get in trouble for being too far under the cap?
 
OP
OP
Yuma

Yuma

Suns are my Kryptonite!
Joined
Jan 3, 2003
Posts
24,065
Reaction score
13,732
Location
Laveen, AZ
There is a league minimum. The Clippers hit it several times and HAD to sign some guys to make it over it. The Suns will still be above that, I believe. Good question though. It could mean they would have to sign someone. I think it's in the low twenties, though, and Marion, Eisley, and a couple others get us there pretty quickly. ;)
 

fordronken

Registered User
Joined
Oct 17, 2002
Posts
3,806
Reaction score
0
Location
Los Angeles area
Much of the dead weight Aldridge is referring to, though, expires after this season. You go through a year with Walker, Nowitzki and Kobe, then, Walker goes off the books and you sign whoever you(read: Kobe) wants.
 

elindholm

edited for content
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
27,900
Reaction score
10,574
Location
L.A. area
I think the Lakers will be better off getting at least some players with longer deals, though. Having a bunch of cap room isn't all it's cracked up to be, as several teams have discovered (or are discovering).

And the other thing is, if you're under the cap, you are actually at a salary disadvantage with respect to the rest of the league, because you can't use your exemptions. In other words, it's only a "hard cap" if you happen to be under it.
 

Joe Mama

Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
9,501
Reaction score
964
Location
Gilbert, AZ
I believe that in the end if Shaquille O'Neal is traded he will go to either the Dallas Mavericks and/or as part of an elaborate multi-team trade. There are several teams that are away under the salary cap right now. Perhaps one of them could be bribed to help facilitate a trade.

Joe Mama
 
Top