If the Lakers didn't trade Shaq, their starting 5 would have been...
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 17197
Location: In a no-ship

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 7:30 pm    Post subject:

Even if they'd done a sign-and-trade, they couldn't have gotten a player better than Wade in the deal, so if Shaq with Wade, Zo, and everyone else in Miami can't get it done in the east, there's no way in hell he coulda gotten it done in the west.

Glad the Lakers made the moves they did. Kobe is making history here, and we'll win a title again, with Kobe, HERE.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
bmk
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 28 May 2002
Posts: 290
Location: west Austin

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 7:33 pm    Post subject:

raffi wrote:
You guys are really confusing several issues that don't match:

Malone was not coming back (he was limited physically and mentally).

Kobe was not going to agree to a sign and trade.

You wouldn't have had any cap room in yr 1, but would have had cap room in yr 2 assuming Shaq had opted out and signed for less (like he did in Miami).

90% of the members on this board aren't arguing whether it was better to keep Kobe or Shaq. The clear majority agree that Shaq had to go. The problem many of us have (and that number has been steadily increasing as wisdom and reality seeps in) has to do with what we got back in the trade and why. It is clear that we acquired pieces that didn't realistically fit any long or short term plan to become championship caliber (the entire 07 plan was about one guy . . . Amare. And he ain't coming.).

We didn't get expiring Ks, we didn't get impact players, we didn't acquire athleticism we could keep, we didn't get young cheap talent that could play (Haslem), we didn't get players with trade value (Eddie Jones) and we didn't get better. And it isn't just the money - the real killer is having to wait until 07 (now 08 if we have indeed guaranteed Kwame's 3rd year) to have any chance to add to the roster.

And I don't care if we had gotten a sack of potatoes for him - but not at the cost of tying up my cap for 3 years. Instead we added overpaid junk, and overpaid not-so-junk to our roster, while adding a year of cap inflexibility. And that's a good thing? You've got to be kidding me.

And if you're telling me that was the ONLY way we were keeping Kobe, then I wish everybody would please stop whining about Kobe's lack of help. He did it to himself.

And by the way, the infamous "time constraint" was self-imposed. Shaq had zero leverage. The timing issue had more to do with Kobe - which is truly unfortunate, because he's now left with a talentless roster. They should have promised Kobe that they would move Shaq, but only at the right time and on the right terms. This would've been in the best interests of the team and Kobe. Instead, they panicked. They acted in haste and got a bunch of waste.

My proper contention is that it didn't need to be this difficult - we've made the job of rebuilding much tougher on ourselves. Despite the past successes (for which I am eternally grateful), it doesn't excuse such a horrifically stupid and one sided transaction. And having Kobe and nothing else on the horizon doesn't make me feel any better - we're a lot further than one player away. Because if this is about winning championships, it's the wrong way to go about it.


Outstanding post, agree 100%.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger Reply with quote
mitch&kwame
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 14 Nov 2005
Posts: 316

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 8:19 pm    Post subject:

Even kobe is at his prime now, THIS lakers is so sorry.

I hope shaq is still the real GM of lakers, he will get kobe more helpers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Bergamotichek
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 16777206

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 8:21 pm    Post subject:

mitch&kwame wrote:
Even kobe is at his prime now, THIS lakers is so sorry.

I hope shaq is still the real GM of lakers, he will get kobe more helpers.


And the hits just keep on coming.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
RYZ
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 02 Jul 2003
Posts: 1393

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 8:21 pm    Post subject:

raffi wrote:
You guys are really confusing several issues that don't match:



My proper contention is that it didn't need to be this difficult - we've made the job of rebuilding much tougher on ourselves. Despite the past successes (for which I am eternally grateful), it doesn't excuse such a horrifically stupid and one sided transaction. And having Kobe and nothing else on the horizon doesn't make me feel any better - we're a lot further than one player away. Because if this is about winning championships, it's the wrong way to go about it.


Now you've gone and conflated two issues: The deal was stupid and the deal was one-sided.

The Lakers definitely should've received more in return for Shaq, with the reasons they didn't (fear of Kobe leaving, Shaq's demands about particular cities) having been well chronicled. I, like you, would also have promised Kobe (if that was in fact a/the issue) and taken my time to get it right.

That said, who's to say they didn't do exactly that, yet still weren't given the assurances they wanted from Kobe. Or perhaps they suspected/knew that Kobe really wanted to go to another team, and trading Shaq would make it untenable for Kobe to leave. With the perception being that the Lakers had given him the key to the kingdom, flown him to and from Colorado during his legal ordeal, nurtured him since his teen years, and knowing that Kobe's only real remaining contingent of fans (Lakers fans) would despise him were he to leave under those circumstances, maybe they thought the move was to trade Shaq and say: "I dare you."
Maybe. We don't know.

I do know one thing though: the deal was not one sided. It may never work out for the Lakers because of personnel incompatibility issues, but that doesn't mean it will work out for the Heat. It won't. The Heat won't win a championship, are burdened with Shaq's contract until he's 38, and were on the cusp of making the eastern conference finals before he got there.

It's simple: The bunch they have down there now = a bloated, worn out, me first, overhyped, over the hill, non defense playing, mediocre team.

Dwyane Wade + Lamar Odom + Caron Butler + Eddie Jones + Alonzo Mourning = frightening.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LakersFanESS
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 06 May 2003
Posts: 789

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 8:35 pm    Post subject:

RYZ wrote:
raffi wrote:
You guys are really confusing several issues that don't match:



My proper contention is that it didn't need to be this difficult - we've made the job of rebuilding much tougher on ourselves. Despite the past successes (for which I am eternally grateful), it doesn't excuse such a horrifically stupid and one sided transaction. And having Kobe and nothing else on the horizon doesn't make me feel any better - we're a lot further than one player away. Because if this is about winning championships, it's the wrong way to go about it.


Now you've gone and conflated two issues: The deal was stupid and the deal was one-sided.

The Lakers definitely should've received more in return for Shaq, with the reasons they didn't (fear of Kobe leaving, Shaq's demands about particular cities) having been well chronicled. I, like you, would also have promised Kobe (if that was in fact a/the issue) and taken my time to get it right.

That said, who's to say they didn't do exactly that, yet still weren't given the assurances they wanted from Kobe. Or perhaps they suspected/knew that Kobe really wanted to go to another team, and trading Shaq would make it untenable for Kobe to leave. With the perception being that the Lakers had given him the key to the kingdom, flown him to and from Colorado during his legal ordeal, nurtured him since his teen years, and knowing that Kobe's only real remaining contingent of fans (Lakers fans) would despise him were he to leave under those circumstances, maybe they thought the move was to trade Shaq and say: "I dare you."
Maybe. We don't know.

I do know one thing though: the deal was not one sided. It may never work out for the Lakers because of personnel incompatibility issues, but that doesn't mean it will work out for the Heat. It won't. The Heat won't win a championship, are burdened with Shaq's contract until he's 38, and were on the cusp of making the eastern conference finals before he got there.

It's simple: The bunch they have down there now = a bloated, worn out, me first, overhyped, over the hill, non defense playing, mediocre team.

Dwyane Wade + Lamar Odom + Caron Butler + Eddie Jones + Alonzo Mourning = frightening.



Very good point, I think it went pretty much like you said. Kobe, at the time, was not in the frame-of-mind to trust anyone, including the Laker's organization. The Lakers knew that they had to go all in and trade Shaq to show Kobe that they ment business and were serious about Kobe being the main star. The Lakers are a very smart organization and they were not going to let Shaq ruin their future so they did what they had to do....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 17197
Location: In a no-ship

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 8:37 pm    Post subject:

mitch&kwame wrote:
Even kobe is at his prime now, THIS lakers is so sorry.

I hope shaq is still the real GM of lakers, he will get kobe more helpers.


uhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Dennis_D
LG Contributor
LG Contributor


Joined: 12 Apr 2001
Posts: 2017
Location: North Dallas

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 8:46 pm    Post subject:

raffi wrote:
90% of the members on this board aren't arguing whether it was better to keep Kobe or Shaq. The clear majority agree that Shaq had to go. The problem many of us have (and that number has been steadily increasing as wisdom and reality seeps in) has to do with what we got back in the trade and why. It is clear that we acquired pieces that didn't realistically fit any long or short term plan to become championship caliber (the entire 07 plan was about one guy . . . Amare. And he ain't coming.).

We didn't get expiring Ks, we didn't get impact players, we didn't acquire athleticism we could keep, we didn't get young cheap talent that could play (Haslem), we didn't get players with trade value (Eddie Jones) and we didn't get better. And it isn't just the money - the real killer is having to wait until 07 (now 08 if we have indeed guaranteed Kwame's 3rd year) to have any chance to add to the roster.

One of the advantages of posting on this board is that you get to listen to so many knowledgeable posters. I am not clear on what you are saying. Do you think the Lakers should have traded for Jones instead of Odom? Haslem instead of Butler? What expiring contracts should the Lakers have gotten? If they had expired last off-season, what free agent would you have signed?

Are you saying that Jerry West did a bad job of rebuilding the Lakers because the '94-'95 team that ended the rebuilding phase didn't have a single player on it that would stay on the roster when the Lakers won their championship?

raffi wrote:
And by the way, the infamous "time constraint" was self-imposed. Shaq had zero leverage. The timing issue had more to do with Kobe - which is truly unfortunate, because he's now left with a talentless roster. They should have promised Kobe that they would move Shaq, but only at the right time and on the right terms. This would've been in the best interests of the team and Kobe. Instead, they panicked. They acted in haste and got a bunch of waste.

I don't think anyone every said that the time constraint came from Shaq. It always was about getting Shaq out of town before Kobe announced who he was playing for. You know, if the gentlemen's agreement that the Lakers were going to trade Shaq would have been acceptable to Kobe, that is probably what the Lakers would have done. Unless you have some inside source that knows otherwise....

raffi wrote:
My proper contention is that it didn't need to be this difficult - we've made the job of rebuilding much tougher on ourselves. Despite the past successes (for which I am eternally grateful), it doesn't excuse such a horrifically stupid and one sided transaction. And having Kobe and nothing else on the horizon doesn't make me feel any better - we're a lot further than one player away. Because if this is about winning championships, it's the wrong way to go about it.

The Lakers have the second youngest roster in the NBA and will hopefully land the sixth seed in the playoffs. I am not clear on whether you think this is good or bad. Do you think they should be much better than this?
_________________
<-- My avatar is Margaret Nolan from one of the Carry On films. She was the girl who got painted gold in "Goldfinger". Thanks to CaliRyderX for identifying her.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Runway8
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Posts: 22734
Location: La Jolla, San Diego

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:45 pm    Post subject:

da ocho wrote:
not very fair to say this. if kobe walked and we still had shaq...we would have had all that kobe money to spend. you're assuming that the lakers wouldn't make any moves after kobe walked.

having said that....i'm glad we traded him.


Nope!! You're still over the cap if Kobe walks. You HAVE NO MONEY to spend. The only way you get to use Kobe's money was if you sign and trade him. If he walks, that was it. Over the hill Shaq and a bunch of scrubs... you don't think the idea of that scared management?

See, from your post, you didn't understand it and lots of fans didn't understand it. Keeping Shaq and Kobe walks was a nail in the coffin. People thought you can just use Kobe's money and power up again. That was the thing, you could not, unless it was a sign and trade.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
The Dagger
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 15 Mar 2002
Posts: 7276
Location: Sovngarde

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 10:04 pm    Post subject:

If Kobe goes to the Clips he already has another ring w/o Stay Puff and is on his way to many more and is already considered a top five player in history.

The Lakers would easily be the worst team in the NBA. Stay Puff would be faking injuries like there's no tommorrow.
_________________
The great Laker Center Tradition continues.....Mikan, Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, Gasol, AD....Gasol.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
raffi
LG Contributor
LG Contributor


Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 9987

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:33 pm    Post subject:

Dennis_D wrote:
raffi wrote:
90% of the members on this board aren't arguing whether it was better to keep Kobe or Shaq. The clear majority agree that Shaq had to go. The problem many of us have (and that number has been steadily increasing as wisdom and reality seeps in) has to do with what we got back in the trade and why. It is clear that we acquired pieces that didn't realistically fit any long or short term plan to become championship caliber (the entire 07 plan was about one guy . . . Amare. And he ain't coming.).

We didn't get expiring Ks, we didn't get impact players, we didn't acquire athleticism we could keep, we didn't get young cheap talent that could play (Haslem), we didn't get players with trade value (Eddie Jones) and we didn't get better. And it isn't just the money - the real killer is having to wait until 07 (now 08 if we have indeed guaranteed Kwame's 3rd year) to have any chance to add to the roster.

One of the advantages of posting on this board is that you get to listen to so many knowledgeable posters. I am not clear on what you are saying. Do you think the Lakers should have traded for Jones instead of Odom? Haslem instead of Butler? What expiring contracts should the Lakers have gotten? If they had expired last off-season, what free agent would you have signed?

What I'm saying is that the trade was made with no clear plan - it was done with the sole intention of matching salaries. To your points, we had our choice of Grant or Jones and chose poorly. And if I was getting Grant for another 3 years, knowing that he would be limited, I would have also acquired younger, cheaper players who I could count on to play (Haslem) and had trade value. The only player we got who fits that mold was Butler who we , due to our ill-conceived 07 plan, had no way of keeping longer than 2 years.

raffi wrote:
And by the way, the infamous "time constraint" was self-imposed. Shaq had zero leverage. The timing issue had more to do with Kobe - which is truly unfortunate, because he's now left with a talentless roster. They should have promised Kobe that they would move Shaq, but only at the right time and on the right terms. This would've been in the best interests of the team and Kobe. Instead, they panicked. They acted in haste and got a bunch of waste.

I don't think anyone every said that the time constraint came from Shaq. It always was about getting Shaq out of town before Kobe announced who he was playing for. You know, if the gentlemen's agreement that the Lakers were going to trade Shaq would have been acceptable to Kobe, that is probably what the Lakers would have done. Unless you have some inside source that knows otherwise....

Actually, there are quite a few people on this board who blame Shaq for making the trade demands - saying that Mitch/Buss had no choice but to move him once he made those demands. That view, obviously, is wrong.

raffi wrote:
My proper contention is that it didn't need to be this difficult - we've made the job of rebuilding much tougher on ourselves. Despite the past successes (for which I am eternally grateful), it doesn't excuse such a horrifically stupid and one sided transaction. And having Kobe and nothing else on the horizon doesn't make me feel any better - we're a lot further than one player away. Because if this is about winning championships, it's the wrong way to go about it.

The Lakers have the second youngest roster in the NBA and will hopefully land the sixth seed in the playoffs. I am not clear on whether you think this is good or bad. Do you think they should be much better than this?


Given the talent on this roster, there is no way to expect much better. But I blame this on not getting enough talent (young or old who could play/have trade value) and/or cap flexibility in the Shaq trade. Remember, we still have a payroll of over $60 million, with Kobe only accounting for $16 of that (you cannot be feeling very good about that). By the way, that will still be true next year.

The NBA is very unforgiving when it comes to mismanaging team payroll (see the Knicks) and there is no easy fix. What you're seeing in terms of results is at or near the ceiling for this team over the next few years. And I would bet there are a few franchises in the L that would have turned Kobe in his prime and a trade for Shaq (at 32) into much more than what we have today. And the sad part is that we used to be one of those franchises.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
raffi
LG Contributor
LG Contributor


Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 9987

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:54 pm    Post subject:

RYZ wrote:
raffi wrote:
You guys are really confusing several issues that don't match:



My proper contention is that it didn't need to be this difficult - we've made the job of rebuilding much tougher on ourselves. Despite the past successes (for which I am eternally grateful), it doesn't excuse such a horrifically stupid and one sided transaction. And having Kobe and nothing else on the horizon doesn't make me feel any better - we're a lot further than one player away. Because if this is about winning championships, it's the wrong way to go about it.


Now you've gone and conflated two issues: The deal was stupid and the deal was one-sided.

The Lakers definitely should've received more in return for Shaq, with the reasons they didn't (fear of Kobe leaving, Shaq's demands about particular cities) having been well chronicled. I, like you, would also have promised Kobe (if that was in fact a/the issue) and taken my time to get it right.

That said, who's to say they didn't do exactly that, yet still weren't given the assurances they wanted from Kobe. Or perhaps they suspected/knew that Kobe really wanted to go to another team, and trading Shaq would make it untenable for Kobe to leave. With the perception being that the Lakers had given him the key to the kingdom, flown him to and from Colorado during his legal ordeal, nurtured him since his teen years, and knowing that Kobe's only real remaining contingent of fans (Lakers fans) would despise him were he to leave under those circumstances, maybe they thought the move was to trade Shaq and say: "I dare you."
Maybe. We don't know.

I do know one thing though: the deal was not one sided. It may never work out for the Lakers because of personnel incompatibility issues, but that doesn't mean it will work out for the Heat. It won't. The Heat won't win a championship, are burdened with Shaq's contract until he's 38, and were on the cusp of making the eastern conference finals before he got there.

It's simple: The bunch they have down there now = a bloated, worn out, me first, overhyped, over the hill, non defense playing, mediocre team.

Dwyane Wade + Lamar Odom + Caron Butler + Eddie Jones + Alonzo Mourning = frightening.


I hear you, but I tend to view a one-sided trade/transaction as being inherently stupid. I also think the trade has already worked out for the Heat. Miami's owner has made a mint off that trade - selling 7000 extra seats a game, charging more for advertising, playoff revenue, merchandise sales - heck, even the worth of his franchise increased by $100 million. And he didn't have to add a penny to his team's salary. Pure genius!

The mistake they made was tinkering with last year's team - that will be their eventual downfall.

As for the Lakers, if success is defined by retaining Kobe at all costs, then congrats to the organization. But it used to be about winning championships.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2
Jump to:  

 
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






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB