Stephen A Smith just gave good take about their reconciliation. He said Kobe's respect to Shaq exponentially increased once he saw what he has with Coward.
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90305 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 12:05 pm Post subject:
Drifts wrote:
the money drove Shaq out. and if Shaq resigned anyway,Kobe would have gone to the Clippers... it was that simple.
I don't think the money would have been an issue if Shaq hadn't tapered off his conditioning/hunger, especially with the whole "on company time" debacle. But with where he was, the team simply couldn't risk Kobe leaving. They made the right call.
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 35812 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 12:14 pm Post subject:
2019 wrote:
KBH wrote:
I'm part of a minority that thinks Shaq was traded at just the right time. Shaq was in decline and only had one superstar level season left in (2004-05). And that was even with the motivation of trying to stick it to LA.
People might say well, if D-Wade can win with a declining Shaq, why can't Kobe? I'd say it would have been much more difficult for us because we had to play through the tough West and both Wade was still on a rookie contract at the time, which made it easier for Miami to put a cast around them that compensate for Shaq's decline. And even then, the team fell apart in a heap. Swept out of the first round a year after winning their ring and 17 wins the season after that. I'm thrilled with how things turned out.
Miami still had to play the WC champs so that's irrelevant. Kobe was playing at his highest form in 05-07. Had Shaq been there, there was still a huge title opportunity. Those were the worst team success seasons of Kobe's career until recently.
They could have easily have had one more in those 05-07 seasons.
He was still close to a 20/10 player in 05-06, so it's really more like two more seasons of All-Star production. Was a 17/7 guy in 06-07 but missed half the season due to injury.
They could have made another run in 04-05 and a weaker one in 05-06, especially given that that was Kobe's best year. Don't know if it would have been enough to get past the Spurs, Mavericks, and Pistons though. _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
I would have been satisfied had they won in 2004. But, 3 out of 4 bothers me to no end. Lakers had no business losing to that lousy team. Kobe and Shaq should have been enough to beat that team. _________________ Because we're better than you!
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90305 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 2:11 pm Post subject:
KBH wrote:
2019 wrote:
KBH wrote:
I'm part of a minority that thinks Shaq was traded at just the right time. Shaq was in decline and only had one superstar level season left in (2004-05). And that was even with the motivation of trying to stick it to LA.
People might say well, if D-Wade can win with a declining Shaq, why can't Kobe? I'd say it would have been much more difficult for us because we had to play through the tough West and both Wade was still on a rookie contract at the time, which made it easier for Miami to put a cast around them that compensate for Shaq's decline. And even then, the team fell apart in a heap. Swept out of the first round a year after winning their ring and 17 wins the season after that. I'm thrilled with how things turned out.
Miami still had to play the WC champs so that's irrelevant. Kobe was playing at his highest form in 05-07. Had Shaq been there, there was still a huge title opportunity. Those were the worst team success seasons of Kobe's career until recently.
They could have easily have had one more in those 05-07 seasons.
Getting through one WC team is easier than four. NBA basketball is all about matchups.
Not to mention the fact that Miami and Miami's wet dream of refereeing had to beat one Western team.
Joined: 19 Apr 2003 Posts: 22839 Location: La Jolla, San Diego
Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 4:30 pm Post subject:
This is nice in terms of their personal lives and feelings. But in terms of basketball, they shouldn't regret what happened after 2004. Shaq was already 32 and going down. He squeezed one more title with Wade, but you can clearly see he was carried by Wade, and furthermore, Wade had a free ALL YOU CAN SHOOT free throws buffet in the 06 playoffs.
I just don't see the Lakers getting anymore titles even if they wised up and "appreciated" each other from that point. Appreciating each other doesn't guarantee Shaq would have worked any harder on taking care of his body. Even in their primes, being on top of their games, they almost didn't come out of the west in 2 of their 3 titles. The game 7 miracle comeback in 2000 against the Blazers, and the Vlade tip out to Horry in 2002.. the Lakers could have easily lost these series, and this awesome duo would only have 1 title to show for their time together. So I absolutely do not buy that they could ave won many more titles.
If they kept Shaq around after 2004, history would have changed. We wouldn't be good enough, and we wouldn't have been bad enough for the rebuild. No caron, which means no Kwame, which means no Pau, and obviously no Odom. No Bynum cause we wouldn't have been bad enough for the 10 pick. Kobe may be stuck on 3 titles right now if they didn't trade Shaq.
I'm part of a minority that thinks Shaq was traded at just the right time. Shaq was in decline and only had one superstar level season left in (2004-05). And that was even with the motivation of trying to stick it to LA.
People might say well, if D-Wade can win with a declining Shaq, why can't Kobe? I'd say it would have been much more difficult for us because we had to play through the tough West and both Wade was still on a rookie contract at the time, which made it easier for Miami to put a cast around them that compensate for Shaq's decline. And even then, the team fell apart in a heap. Swept out of the first round a year after winning their ring and 17 wins the season after that. I'm thrilled with how things turned out.
Miami's cast around Shaq/Wade wasn't much to write home about. And Kobe was still better, IMO, than Wade at the time. I'm not for "if this then definitely that" but I feel strongly they would have won at least 1 more had they found a way to make it work.
This wasn't all Shaq's doing and it wasn't all Kobe's doing or Phil's either. But I do give them equal blame for not making it work.
That said, it ended up being better for Kob's legacy IMO because he got that "can't win as the clear cut #1" monkey off his back. Twice =)
I agree that Kobe was better than Wade and that Miami's supporting cast wasn't spectacular. But Miami's cast was good enough for a supporting cast that only had to get through a declining Detroit and one Western Conference team. A supporting cast with Shaq getting paid $30 million (his asking price to stay in Miami) and maxed Kobe probably isn't getting through the West.
Could they if Shaq was as motivated in 2004-05 assuming Shaq was as motivated in 2004-05 as a Laker as he was a member of the Heat? Possibly. I think the 2005 Suns would have given us fits and SA (who won that year) would have been tough. But I have hard time imagining it from 2006 onward. People forget that Shaq was getting passed around the league like that good stuff in January 2008.
This is nice in terms of their personal lives and feelings. But in terms of basketball, they shouldn't regret what happened after 2004. Shaq was already 32 and going down. He squeezed one more title with Wade, but you can clearly see he was carried by Wade, and furthermore, Wade had a free ALL YOU CAN SHOOT free throws buffet in the 06 playoffs.
I just don't see the Lakers getting anymore titles even if they wised up and "appreciated" each other from that point. Appreciating each other doesn't guarantee Shaq would have worked any harder on taking care of his body. Even in their primes, being on top of their games, they almost didn't come out of the west in 2 of their 3 titles. The game 7 miracle comeback in 2000 against the Blazers, and the Vlade tip out to Horry in 2002.. the Lakers could have easily lost these series, and this awesome duo would only have 1 title to show for their time together. So I absolutely do not buy that they could ave won many more titles.
If they kept Shaq around after 2004, history would have changed. We wouldn't be good enough, and we wouldn't have been bad enough for the rebuild. No caron, which means no Kwame, which means no Pau, and obviously no Odom. No Bynum cause we wouldn't have been bad enough for the 10 pick. Kobe may be stuck on 3 titles right now if they didn't trade Shaq.
Yep. I never get all this chatter. Have people really forgotten that Shaq only had one superstar level season after he was traded (2004) and two all-star level seasons (2006, 2009) after that? We cashed out on Shaq at precisely the right time.
This is nice in terms of their personal lives and feelings. But in terms of basketball, they shouldn't regret what happened after 2004. Shaq was already 32 and going down. He squeezed one more title with Wade, but you can clearly see he was carried by Wade, and furthermore, Wade had a free ALL YOU CAN SHOOT free throws buffet in the 06 playoffs.
I just don't see the Lakers getting anymore titles even if they wised up and "appreciated" each other from that point. Appreciating each other doesn't guarantee Shaq would have worked any harder on taking care of his body. Even in their primes, being on top of their games, they almost didn't come out of the west in 2 of their 3 titles. The game 7 miracle comeback in 2000 against the Blazers, and the Vlade tip out to Horry in 2002.. the Lakers could have easily lost these series, and this awesome duo would only have 1 title to show for their time together. So I absolutely do not buy that they could ave won many more titles.
If they kept Shaq around after 2004, history would have changed. We wouldn't be good enough, and we wouldn't have been bad enough for the rebuild. No caron, which means no Kwame, which means no Pau, and obviously no Odom. No Bynum cause we wouldn't have been bad enough for the 10 pick. Kobe may be stuck on 3 titles right now if they didn't trade Shaq.
I agree in the end, it turned out fine.
Thank god.
Gasol, Odom, Return of Fisher, Kobe 81 points, three appearance in the Final, Beating Celtics in Game 7 here, beating Howard the year before, etc.
I'm part of a minority that thinks Shaq was traded at just the right time. Shaq was in decline and only had one superstar level season left in (2004-05). And that was even with the motivation of trying to stick it to LA.
People might say well, if D-Wade can win with a declining Shaq, why can't Kobe? I'd say it would have been much more difficult for us because we had to play through the tough West and both Wade was still on a rookie contract at the time, which made it easier for Miami to put a cast around them that compensate for Shaq's decline. And even then, the team fell apart in a heap. Swept out of the first round a year after winning their ring and 17 wins the season after that. I'm thrilled with how things turned out.
Miami still had to play the WC champs so that's irrelevant. Kobe was playing at his highest form in 05-07. Had Shaq been there, there was still a huge title opportunity. Those were the worst team success seasons of Kobe's career until recently.
They could have easily have had one more in those 05-07 seasons.
Getting through one WC team is easier than four. NBA basketball is all about matchups.
Not to mention the fact that Miami and Miami's wet dream of refereeing had to beat one Western team.
This is nice in terms of their personal lives and feelings. But in terms of basketball, they shouldn't regret what happened after 2004. Shaq was already 32 and going down. He squeezed one more title with Wade, but you can clearly see he was carried by Wade, and furthermore, Wade had a free ALL YOU CAN SHOOT free throws buffet in the 06 playoffs.
I just don't see the Lakers getting anymore titles even if they wised up and "appreciated" each other from that point. Appreciating each other doesn't guarantee Shaq would have worked any harder on taking care of his body. Even in their primes, being on top of their games, they almost didn't come out of the west in 2 of their 3 titles. The game 7 miracle comeback in 2000 against the Blazers, and the Vlade tip out to Horry in 2002.. the Lakers could have easily lost these series, and this awesome duo would only have 1 title to show for their time together. So I absolutely do not buy that they could ave won many more titles.
If they kept Shaq around after 2004, history would have changed. We wouldn't be good enough, and we wouldn't have been bad enough for the rebuild. No caron, which means no Kwame, which means no Pau, and obviously no Odom. No Bynum cause we wouldn't have been bad enough for the 10 pick. Kobe may be stuck on 3 titles right now if they didn't trade Shaq.
Shaq had a lot of lingering injuries as I recall...toes/feet, abs I think. Persuasive, but Shaq was just so dang talented, hard to see them not being in the running. But...you're convincing. Didn't realize Shaq was that old already.
This is nice in terms of their personal lives and feelings. But in terms of basketball, they shouldn't regret what happened after 2004. Shaq was already 32 and going down. He squeezed one more title with Wade, but you can clearly see he was carried by Wade, and furthermore, Wade had a free ALL YOU CAN SHOOT free throws buffet in the 06 playoffs.
I just don't see the Lakers getting anymore titles even if they wised up and "appreciated" each other from that point. Appreciating each other doesn't guarantee Shaq would have worked any harder on taking care of his body. Even in their primes, being on top of their games, they almost didn't come out of the west in 2 of their 3 titles. The game 7 miracle comeback in 2000 against the Blazers, and the Vlade tip out to Horry in 2002.. the Lakers could have easily lost these series, and this awesome duo would only have 1 title to show for their time together. So I absolutely do not buy that they could ave won many more titles.
If they kept Shaq around after 2004, history would have changed. We wouldn't be good enough, and we wouldn't have been bad enough for the rebuild. No caron, which means no Kwame, which means no Pau, and obviously no Odom. No Bynum cause we wouldn't have been bad enough for the 10 pick. Kobe may be stuck on 3 titles right now if they didn't trade Shaq.
Yep. I never get all this chatter. Have people really forgotten that Shaq only had one superstar level season after he was traded (2004) and two all-star level seasons (2006, 2009) after that? We cashed out on Shaq at precisely the right time.
Just like we can't think that we would have for sure one more rings, there's no way to say or prove that Kobe would be stuck on 3.
Who's to say Shaq doesn't retire and with all that cap space we signed another superstar?
This is nice in terms of their personal lives and feelings. But in terms of basketball, they shouldn't regret what happened after 2004. Shaq was already 32 and going down. He squeezed one more title with Wade, but you can clearly see he was carried by Wade, and furthermore, Wade had a free ALL YOU CAN SHOOT free throws buffet in the 06 playoffs.
I just don't see the Lakers getting anymore titles even if they wised up and "appreciated" each other from that point. Appreciating each other doesn't guarantee Shaq would have worked any harder on taking care of his body. Even in their primes, being on top of their games, they almost didn't come out of the west in 2 of their 3 titles. The game 7 miracle comeback in 2000 against the Blazers, and the Vlade tip out to Horry in 2002.. the Lakers could have easily lost these series, and this awesome duo would only have 1 title to show for their time together. So I absolutely do not buy that they could ave won many more titles.
If they kept Shaq around after 2004, history would have changed. We wouldn't be good enough, and we wouldn't have been bad enough for the rebuild. No caron, which means no Kwame, which means no Pau, and obviously no Odom. No Bynum cause we wouldn't have been bad enough for the 10 pick. Kobe may be stuck on 3 titles right now if they didn't trade Shaq.
Yep. I never get all this chatter. Have people really forgotten that Shaq only had one superstar level season after he was traded (2004) and two all-star level seasons (2006, 2009) after that? We cashed out on Shaq at precisely the right time.
Just like we can't think that we would have for sure one more rings, there's no way to say or prove that Kobe would be stuck on 3.
Who's to say Shaq doesn't retire and with all that cap space we signed another superstar?
yes good point (bolded). Kobe's extra rings definitely are more meaningful. If Kobe ever got Wade treatment in the Finals, he'd be 7/7 instead of 5/7. Detroit was straight robbery...I used to say it was the worst one I've seen until I saw 2006. And the first Celtics Finals had a healthy dose of it too.
this is the ultimately spinnable event, where anyone can blame anyone they want and apologize for anyone they want. bottom line: both shaq and kobe screwed up. but they did what they needed to do at the time, and each went on to win rings without the other, so maybe it's just what needed to happen and maybe what happened is actually best for all involved.
The breakup ultimately enhanced Kobe's legacy and probably hurt Shaq's. If they had stayed together and say ended up with 6 rings total, the narrative would always be "Kobe won 6 rings... but couldn't do it without Shaq". Whereas Shaq didn't really have anything to prove after the 3peat, the only thing that could enhance his legacy was more rings and he only was able to get 1 more.
This is nice in terms of their personal lives and feelings. But in terms of basketball, they shouldn't regret what happened after 2004. Shaq was already 32 and going down. He squeezed one more title with Wade, but you can clearly see he was carried by Wade, and furthermore, Wade had a free ALL YOU CAN SHOOT free throws buffet in the 06 playoffs.
I just don't see the Lakers getting anymore titles even if they wised up and "appreciated" each other from that point. Appreciating each other doesn't guarantee Shaq would have worked any harder on taking care of his body. Even in their primes, being on top of their games, they almost didn't come out of the west in 2 of their 3 titles. The game 7 miracle comeback in 2000 against the Blazers, and the Vlade tip out to Horry in 2002.. the Lakers could have easily lost these series, and this awesome duo would only have 1 title to show for their time together. So I absolutely do not buy that they could ave won many more titles.
If they kept Shaq around after 2004, history would have changed. We wouldn't be good enough, and we wouldn't have been bad enough for the rebuild. No caron, which means no Kwame, which means no Pau, and obviously no Odom. No Bynum cause we wouldn't have been bad enough for the 10 pick. Kobe may be stuck on 3 titles right now if they didn't trade Shaq.
Yep. I never get all this chatter. Have people really forgotten that Shaq only had one superstar level season after he was traded (2004) and two all-star level seasons (2006, 2009) after that? We cashed out on Shaq at precisely the right time.
Just like we can't think that we would have for sure one more rings, there's no way to say or prove that Kobe would be stuck on 3.
Who's to say Shaq doesn't retire and with all that cap space we signed another superstar?
Shaq retiring and Kobe playing with a different superstar isn't relevant in a discssion about how much Kobe and Shaq could have won if Shaq hadn't gotten traded.
The final nail in the coffin of the duo was when Shaq started feeding into the narrative that Kobe would be a slightly above average player without Shaq drawing double teams.
Kobe himself said that once that happened there was no way he'd agree to play with Shaq again.
Joined: 03 Oct 2003 Posts: 8327 Location: Santa Monica
Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2015 4:42 pm Post subject:
The only way Shaq and Kobe would've won even one more title after 04 was if they had a good enough supporting cast. We would've needed to build a whole new team around them. Malone was about to retire and hobbled. Payton was a shell of his former self. Fox was basically done and Horry had already left. What we really needed was young role players, one of them being almost all-star caliber. But if Shaq got his $30+ million and Kobe got his $20 million, we would've only had the MLE to offer, making it almost impossible to have a strong enough team to serious contend. _________________ Lakers 49ers Chargers Dodgers
Joined: 19 Jul 2002 Posts: 15403 Location: Oak Park
Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2015 8:19 pm Post subject:
They just took that Pistons team way too lightly. Like they were the nets or sixers. By the time they figured it out they were in Detroit for 3 straight down 0-2.
The one in Boston will always sting, but Kobe has 8 if he and shaq could have learned to play nice.
The breakup ultimately enhanced Kobe's legacy and probably hurt Shaq's. If they had stayed together and say ended up with 6 rings total, the narrative would always be "Kobe won 6 rings... but couldn't do it without Shaq". Whereas Shaq didn't really have anything to prove after the 3peat, the only thing that could enhance his legacy was more rings and he only was able to get 1 more.
I can't see them winning 3 more in LA after losing in 2003 and 2004. But you are right that Kobe would have been seen as a sidekick like Scottie Pippen if he stayed with Shaq. A lot of people still give Kobe credit for only 2 titles because they say he wasn't "the man" when he won with Shaq.
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
