Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144474 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2016 3:03 pm Post subject:
Thanks for posting, good read. I had completely forgotten that for a short period of time RFA was eliminated. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
good read. still can't believe the lakers traded Shaq for peanuts and irrelevancy for 5 yrs.
So you would have preferred Kobe walking instead?
there had to be a way to get more than Lamar and Caron. We should have gotten wade..
or traded for Dirk.
This has been widely reported.
We did ask for Wade. Riley turned us down.
We did offer Shaq for Dirk. Cuban turned us down.
We were between a rock and a hard place. The clock was ticking on Kobe's threat to leave if Shaq wasn't trade. Shaq refused to sign an extension unless he liked the team he was traded to, which limited our options.
We didn't get much for Shaq, but you usually don't get much when you are forced to trade a great player. When guys like Kareem, Barkley, Wilt, etc. force trades, the trading teams always gets screwed because you can't get close to equal value for guys like that. Such is life.
good read. still can't believe the lakers traded Shaq for peanuts and irrelevancy for 5 yrs.
Man, Shaq winning a title with Miami right away and those godawful teams we put together... those were dark times. _________________ Lakers. Built different.
good read. still can't believe the lakers traded Shaq for peanuts and irrelevancy for 5 yrs.
So you would have preferred Kobe walking instead?
there had to be a way to get more than Lamar and Caron. We should have gotten wade..
or traded for Dirk.
This has been widely reported.
We did ask for Wade. Riley turned us down.
We did offer Shaq for Dirk. Cuban turned us down.
We were between a rock and a hard place. The clock was ticking on Kobe's threat to leave if Shaq wasn't trade. Shaq refused to sign an extension unless he liked the team he was traded to, which limited our options.
We didn't get much for Shaq, but you usually don't get much when you are forced to trade a great player. When guys like Kareem, Barkley, Wilt, etc. force trades, the trading teams always gets screwed because you can't get close to equal value for guys like that. Such is life.
I agree that the hand we were forced to play wasn't an ideal one, but c'mon already. If the forced trade of 31-year-old Shaq would have yielded all or even part of what we DID get in return in the actual trade and Dwyane Wade, it would have been the greatest trade of all time ... in anything. Remember, as a franchise, we ended up with exactly one relevant season from Kobe Bryant (whose physical maintenance regime was revered by many) after his 31st birthday. I'll repeat for emphasis: one season of relevance.
Meanwhile, we landed Lamar Odom, Caron Butler, Brian Grant, a first round pick (which became Jordan Farmar) and a forgettable second round pick in the trade of Shaq to Miami. After one season, Caron Butler was traded for Kwame Brown, who was later traded in 2008 for Pau Gasol. And the post-trade collapse in leadership and play on the court also led directly to a lottery pick, which became Andrew Bynum.
Essentially, Shaq's departure yielded Lamar Odom, Pau Gasol, Andrew Bynum and Jordan Farmar ... or, in other words, the frontcourt (and one of our backcourt rotation players) without which we don't get within a country mile of the NBA Finals, much less winning back-to-back rings in the 2009 - 2010 timeframe.
Joined: 23 Jun 2005 Posts: 2456 Location: Seoul, Korea
Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2016 5:34 am Post subject:
activeverb wrote:
Thugnomoe wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
socalsp3 wrote:
good read. still can't believe the lakers traded Shaq for peanuts and irrelevancy for 5 yrs.
So you would have preferred Kobe walking instead?
there had to be a way to get more than Lamar and Caron. We should have gotten wade..
or traded for Dirk.
This has been widely reported.
We did ask for Wade. Riley turned us down.
We did offer Shaq for Dirk. Cuban turned us down.
We were between a rock and a hard place. The clock was ticking on Kobe's threat to leave if Shaq wasn't trade. Shaq refused to sign an extension unless he liked the team he was traded to, which limited our options.
We didn't get much for Shaq, but you usually don't get much when you are forced to trade a great player. When guys like Kareem, Barkley, Wilt, etc. force trades, the trading teams always gets screwed because you can't get close to equal value for guys like that. Such is life.
Actually, I think it has been reported that Riley said he would have given up Wade if push had come to shove...Don't know how much truth there is to that statement after the fact, but he did say it.
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90307 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2016 8:28 am Post subject:
jjangx27 wrote:
activeverb wrote:
Thugnomoe wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
socalsp3 wrote:
good read. still can't believe the lakers traded Shaq for peanuts and irrelevancy for 5 yrs.
So you would have preferred Kobe walking instead?
there had to be a way to get more than Lamar and Caron. We should have gotten wade..
or traded for Dirk.
This has been widely reported.
We did ask for Wade. Riley turned us down.
We did offer Shaq for Dirk. Cuban turned us down.
We were between a rock and a hard place. The clock was ticking on Kobe's threat to leave if Shaq wasn't trade. Shaq refused to sign an extension unless he liked the team he was traded to, which limited our options.
We didn't get much for Shaq, but you usually don't get much when you are forced to trade a great player. When guys like Kareem, Barkley, Wilt, etc. force trades, the trading teams always gets screwed because you can't get close to equal value for guys like that. Such is life.
Actually, I think it has been reported that Riley said he would have given up Wade if push had come to shove...Don't know how much truth there is to that statement after the fact, but he did say it.
I've seen that attributed to Riley, bit don't know if it is true, but even if it is he was very definitely trolling whomever he said it to. There's no way Riley or Shaq would agree to it. And yes, shaq had the leverage, because he had one season left and the whole on company time history. No one was trading for him unless he wanted to come..
This is another of those cases where many people just don't understand the truth. Shaq was gone or kobe was. Everyone in the league knew la had little to no leverage. Shaq would only accept two teams, neither of which would be giving up their star, and one of which had no real useful assets to send. So they were negotiating with one team that knew they pretty much had to trade him there or get not much in Dallas. And yet mitch got two young starters, one of whom would be the absolute glue of their title runs, the other of whom would be the asset that became the asset that became Pau. And he got a first rounder that yielded a bench rotation guy. Rather than being a poor trade, that's an amazing haul. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
good read. still can't believe the lakers traded Shaq for peanuts and irrelevancy for 5 yrs.
So you would have preferred Kobe walking instead?
there had to be a way to get more than Lamar and Caron. We should have gotten wade..
or traded for Dirk.
This has been widely reported.
We did ask for Wade. Riley turned us down.
We did offer Shaq for Dirk. Cuban turned us down.
We were between a rock and a hard place. The clock was ticking on Kobe's threat to leave if Shaq wasn't trade. Shaq refused to sign an extension unless he liked the team he was traded to, which limited our options.
We didn't get much for Shaq, but you usually don't get much when you are forced to trade a great player. When guys like Kareem, Barkley, Wilt, etc. force trades, the trading teams always gets screwed because you can't get close to equal value for guys like that. Such is life.
Actually, I think it has been reported that Riley said he would have given up Wade if push had come to shove...Don't know how much truth there is to that statement after the fact, but he did say it.
I've seen that attributed to Riley, bit don't know if it is true, but even if it is he was very definitely trolling whomever he said it to. There's no way Riley or Shaq would agree to it. And yes, shaq had the leverage, because he had one season left and the whole on company time history. No one was trading for him unless he wanted to come..
This is another of those cases where many people just don't understand the truth. Shaq was gone or kobe was. Everyone in the league knew la had little to no leverage. Shaq would only accept two teams, neither of which would be giving up their star, and one of which had no real useful assets to send. So they were negotiating with one team that knew they pretty much had to trade him there or get not much in Dallas. And yet mitch got two young starters, one of whom would be the absolute glue of their title runs, the other of whom would be the asset that became the asset that became Pau. And he got a first rounder that yielded a bench rotation guy. Rather than being a poor trade, that's an amazing haul.
I've never heard Riley say that. He may have, but I've never heard it.
Wade was 24, coming off an all-star season of 24-5-7.
And Shaq had said playing with Wade was one of the main reasons he agreed to play with and sign an extension with the Heat, so it doesn't seem likely to me the Heat would have traded Wade for him.
Like someone else said, if we were able to trade Shaq for Wade at that point it would have been one of the greatest steals of all time.
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 35854 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2016 11:58 am Post subject:
Was there any way to trade Shaq for Pau in a three-way deal or something? Would Shaq have been willing to play in Memphis? That's a warm city. _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144474 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2016 12:09 pm Post subject:
Interesting that Dr. Buss came out after that trade and said that when they couldn't agree on an extension for Shaq (I seem to remember two years, $45 mil) at mid-season, both sides agreed that the Lakers would trade him. So the Laker's leverage was barely above 0. And just my opinion, but I never bought it at all that Riley came to visit Dr. Buss to fill the coaching hole left by Phil, I assumed then that they were working on a trade agreement. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Interesting that Dr. Buss came out after that trade and said that when they couldn't agree on an extension for Shaq (I seem to remember two years, $45 mil) at mid-season, both sides agreed that the Lakers would trade him. So the Laker's leverage was barely above 0. And just my opinion, but I never bought it at all that Riley came to visit Dr. Buss to fill the coaching hole left by Phil, I assumed then that they were working on a trade agreement.
I felt it was more Riley fishing for information from Dr. Buss since there was no way Pat Riley (or anyone for that matter) would give up ownership equity just to return to coaching. Once he realized that Buss was serious about trading Shaq, he leveraged it to get the package that the Lakers ended getting, which wasn't that great. Lakers should've gotten some more draft picks out of it considering they were taking on an albatross contract in Brian Grant. I've always wondered how the Lakers would've looked if they had taken Eddie Jones instead of Brian Grant and then work on the roster from there.
If anything, the article showed why Jerry West was a great closer for Laker management. This is something they have lacked for several seasons especially in free agent negotiations.
I remember the days before the Internet watching SPORTSCENTER and they went back and forth saying he was staying in Orlando then he was coming to LA. Finally, Jim Hill comes on for the 11 o'clock news and says good news Laker fans we now know where Shaq will be playing next year!! Was so pumped
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
