# trading Shaq,,good or bad business$$$$



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Knick fan here..Something that I wonder about,in particular with the Lakers trading of Oneal..Apparently Buss did not feel Shaq was worth the 25 million or so that the Big Daddy gets paid and was demanding for an extension..So hes traded...

From a strictly financial viewpoint,the lakers had to lose big on that move...They traded equal salaries and missed the playoffs..

Guessing and approximating that the forum holds 20,000 people and they pay at least $200 per head,say for 12 playoff games should they go all the way,that would be 4 million per game x 12,which equals 48 million,not including food,drinks etc....Of course there is costs and overhead,but i have to imagine they pocket at least half...

Am i correct in assuming there are also television revenues????

Seems like paying Oneal is a very small price to pay,barring a major injury..Am i way off??


----------



## Locke (Jun 16, 2003)

:banghead::banghead::banghead:


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

truth said:


> Knick fan here..Something that I wonder about,in particular with the Lakers trading of Oneal..Apparently Buss did not feel Shaq was worth the 25 million or so that the Big Daddy gets paid and was demanding for an extension..So hes traded...
> 
> From a strictly financial viewpoint,the lakers had to lose big on that move...They traded equal salaries and missed the playoffs..
> 
> ...


Shhh.... :naughty:


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

LOL..you guys are very amusing...Seriously,am I missing something??

I assume NBA franchises make their money thru ticket sales,merchandise,food,beer,etc...

Would you say that TV revenue is a primary source or secondary??
One would have to think that advertising revenue would be higher with Oneal than without him...

Obviously,Buss and the brain trust thought the lakers were still palyoff bound with the current cast of characters...That was a serious miscalculation and one that seriously impacted the bottom line...

The only good news is all the knuckleheads who werent sure who was Batman and who was Robin on the lakers can stop scrathing their collective heads..


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

Buss didn't trade Shaq to worry himself to death about 4 million dollars thats waay too funny to even think about. 

Shaq wanted a 30 mill a year 3 year extension thats would have been the 60 mill he's owed plus another 90 million dollars. 

so we're talking 150 mill. 

Add in Kobe's 135 and Phil's 8 mill a year request and you're talking about a 300 mill investment that was gonna end up WITHOUT a title or cap room to add players to win that title. 

So why was that smart we have been living the Heat's dream for the past 2 years. 

So your contention that somehow the Lakers missing out on 4 mill is hilariouxs to say the least. 

4 mill when the investment would have been over 150 mill in Shaq alone. Thats 1 player. 

Lakers traded for Grant who's contract will be up in 2 years, Odom is a much younger player that Shaq so we'll have him when Shaq either retires or gets injured and forced to retire. 

And Butler is someone we can dump at anytime. 

Now consider this, The Heat wouldn't part with WADE in the SHAQ DEAL they wouldn't essentially trade WADE FOR SHAQ So why are the Lakers foolish for not TRADING KOBE for SHAQ. 

So Miami took the same philosophy as we did, but we're fools they wouldn't throw in Wade but we're fools for keeping Kobe man please. 

Now lets look at another example of a similar situation. 

The Bulls of MJ and Pippen.. The owner broke that team up WHY because he didn't want to invest any longer in the Bulls dynasty that was STILL winning, WHY because the merchandising had leveled opff and the attendance had leveled off so there were no more streams of revenue to squeeze outta the title it had peaked so they broke up the team rather than invest the max in Pippen a huge contract in PJ and MJ's 30 mill a year salary. 

WHY because they wanted to ease out of the money grab and start over and now have made it back. And they started with nothing. 

Lets also not play naive and say they didn't break the team up .

The Lakers are starting with Kobe and Odom and had they not changed coaches and had injuries probably would have made the playoffs and saved that little 4 million dollars in the playoffs lol. 

Man why keep brining up the Shaq trade its an old and tired argument.The Heat clearly got the best of it getting a dominant player but we're in a complete rebuild here. Lakers have a team full of new player so its not Kobe failing thats hurt us or letting the franchise down, Kobe played great ball but had no help inside the painted area on either end. Add a couple players and we're back in the game. 

But this Shaq trade argument your proposing is silly and misguided. all in an effort to make 4 mill as you contend please don't make me laugh. 

Its irrelevant now Shaq plays in Miami the page has been turned. 

Shaq's getting injured already when he retires in a year or 2 due to injury and the Lakers are in the playoffs and raising heck and the Heat are starting over then come see me.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> Buss didn't trade Shaq to worry himself to death about 4 million dollars thats waay too funny to even think about


jazzy,you didnt read my numbers....shame on you

i estimated the forum holds about 20,000...lets ake believe the avg ticket price is $200 dollars...dont know if you guys have parking there,but you do sell beer,food and merchandise.You probably pull in an extra 500,000 on that..

jazzy,if you have 20,000 fans paying $200 per playoff game,that is 4 millin dollars..plus the extras Thats 4.5 million PER GAME..

Assume you make it to the finals and have 10 home games..plus tv revenues or advertising..You are talking about 50 MILLION plus....

You tell me,,Pay Shaq 25 million or pay the 3 stooges the same and scratch your nutz come playoff time..


----------



## NOODLESTYLE (Jan 20, 2005)

dont forget about the luxury tax...not only would Buss be coughing up millions for Shaq, Kobe, and PJ..he would've paid dollar for dollar...so in a sense he would've also have paid twice for what he was paying shaq and kobe again!...although as much as love Shaq, i enjoy the fact that we can see Kobe do his best efforts to win a chamionship....let's face it both players couldn't co-exist...if the HEAT do not win a championship this year, their year will still be considered a failure anyways...they still have to go through Detroit, and the way Detroit is playing right now..it's gonna be a series to watch. So i say get a new coach, doesnt have to be Phil....i'd rather take Larry Brown? why?....LARRY BROWN TOOK THE CLIPPERS TO THE PLAYOFFS!..and with who??? my thoughts exactly.


----------



## Rhodes (Dec 9, 2004)

> Knick fan here


It's hard to take someone seriously when they don't even know the name of their team.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Here's how Buss did the numbers:

1) He figures Kobe's career will last longer (26 years old versus 32 last summer), and therefore his name and his game will attract for longer than Shaq. That's yet to be seen, as we can't predict player injuries.

2) Since Shaq came into the league when the CBA allowed higher player salaries, Shaq can get paid far more than Kobe and he indeed did ask for far more ($90M over 3 years on top of the $60M left on his two years with the Lakers). By trading Shaq for Grant, Odom, and Butler, the Lakers save near $35M by trading Shaq (assuming Shaq were to get his $90M extension to 2009), not including any luxury taxes on that, which would probably amount to 50% of $35M (just like in the current CBA), which adds up to $52.5M the Lakers save by trading Shaq (I didn't figure in Odom's luxury tax numbers because the Lakers could be under the cap with Kobe and Odom, not with Kobe and Shaq, assuming the cap stays where it is in the next CBA this summer).


----------



## LoyalBull (Jun 12, 2002)

EHL,

Which begs the question.

Say they don't deal Shaq. If money (as so many here have inferred it) was such a big deal to Shaq... is he likely to sit?

Say he decides to opt out after this last year. Say he sits with fake injuries and then opts out... the Lakers would still be in the lottery. With him, they are still a contender.

Say he opts out this summer and signs elsewhere. That opens up a GLUT of free agent cap space.

On the market include the Earl Watsons, Big Z, Joe Johnson, Ray Allen, Eddy Curry, Tyson Chandler, Stromile Swift... just to name a few.

You don't think the youth movement would have been better served with its 20 something million of cap space to fill out a nice young roster with players that WOULD compliment Bryant? 

I know... cap space doesn't gauruntee anything... but, the teams in the past (that had cap space and no where to spend it) didn't have Bryant and they were not the Lakers.

That said, I would have called Shaq's bluff! I would have said... this is Kobe's team now as the focal point. Deal with it.

You don't like it Shaq? We will take our time and deal you when the time is right FOR us and the package is right FOR us.

You're going to opt out? Please don't allow all the new free agents coming in (with the cap space you are vacating) to bother you, and have a nice career.

Cause NO ONE, can sign you to the grandfathered deal you have.

WE OWN YOUR RIGHTS! And if you opt out... we're fine with that as well.

I KNOW... that the money vacated would return more complimentary players for the money than Brian Grant and Lamar Odom.

The Lakers were not forced to do anything. They chose to do so. As a business decision... I don't understand it. Part of business is sticking to your guns. Lakers didn't do that... they allowed Shaq to get his way. They should (being the ones that owned his rights) have done it THEIR way.


----------



## tatahbenitez (Jun 18, 2004)

LoyalBull said:


> EHL,
> 
> Which begs the question.
> 
> ...


I couldn't have stated it better, loyalbull.

Even if The Lakers kept Shaq and told him that Kobe would be the focal point of the team, the worst off The Lakers would be is that Shaq would pout and sit out the season because of "an injury", then more than likely, The Lakers would be in the lottery.That's the same position they are in now, but the one major difference is that The Lakers could get rid of Shaq and his salary for next year. The Lakers would be tens of millions under the cap and in prime position to get 2 top free agents.

The Lakers are in this situation because of stupid moves by people who thought Kobe was the next MJ.


----------



## Rhodes (Dec 9, 2004)

Get real, had we kept Shaq, we would not have been able to re-sign Kobe this year. Where would have left us? Pretty much in the same position we are now, only instead of building around a 25 year old, we'd be building around a 32 year old.

From everything I can glean, Phil Jackson is very high on the Odom+Caron+Kobe trifecta, thinking it constitutes the nucleus of a team he can win with. He's no idiot, so obviously there is potential there. Does anyone seriously think that with the right coach and system, and with a couple more complimentary players this team won't be vastly improved next year? Then in 2007, when we can ditch Grant's contract we'll be in a position to vie for a marquee player. At that point we might be ready to contend. A three year lull then we're back in the hunt with a 28 year old Kobe who has five to eight good years left.


----------



## tatahbenitez (Jun 18, 2004)

Rhodes said:


> Get real, had we kept Shaq, we would not have been able to re-sign Kobe this year. Where would have left us? Pretty much in the same position we are now, only instead of building around a 25 year old, we'd be building around a 32 year old.


You get real!!!

All Buss had to do was tell Kobe that he will be the main focus, but we will still keep Shaq and then tell Shaq that there will be major changes because the past 2 years did not give us a Championship. And if Shaq doesn't approve of it, then tough crap on him! He still is under contract and is obligated to fullfill it. If Shaq then goes to the injury defense or just says he will sit out for a season, then that would hurt his image and a possible big pay day when his contract expires. That would take all the heat off of Kobe and The Lakers and make Shaq look like the greedy, selfish player. One bad year and then ditch Shaq. The Lakers still get a high pick, but instead of being maxed out on the salary, they are in position to get 2 top free agents and have The Laker image still clean.













> From everything I can glean, Phil Jackson is very high on the Odom+Caron+Kobe trifecta, thinking it constitutes the nucleus of a team he can win with. He's no idiot, so obviously there is potential there. Does anyone seriously think that with the right coach and system, and with a couple more complimentary players this team won't be vastly improved next year? Then in 2007, when we can ditch Grant's contract we'll be in a position to vie for a marquee player. At that point we might be ready to contend. A three year lull then we're back in the hunt with a 28 year old Kobe who has five to eight good years left.


If Phil comes back to coach again, then that would help Kobe. I've said before that Phil was the only coach that harnessed Kobe's talent to the max. And with Phil back that would probably give The Lakers a chance at the playoffs, but even with a lottery pick, they wouldn't be a contender this coming season or next season. When Brian Grants contract is finished then The Lakers would have a chance at a top free agent. But it would take another 2 years for the team to gel and run the triangle (the triangle takes at least 1 year to comprehend and another year before players get the nuances of it). So it will probably be 4 years before The Lakers become a contender again. That is, if everything runs smoothly.


----------



## LoyalBull (Jun 12, 2002)

Rhodes said:


> Get real, had we kept Shaq, we would not have been able to re-sign Kobe this year. Where would have left us? Pretty much in the same position we are now, only instead of building around a 25 year old, we'd be building around a 32 year old.
> 
> .


The dismal reality of that often used perspective is an admission that this entire thing was done to placate Bryant.

If Buss and Mitch had sat Bryant down and said, "Kobe you are the future of the franchise" we are either going to deal Shaq down the line or allow him to opt out. If he doesn't bring it... that will be his legacy." and Kobe STILL left... (which is what you are suggesting)... then its fairly closed book proof that Bryant is more concerned with personal wants than that of the team and the franchise.

Not dealing Shaq in the timeframe they did was done to accomplish ONE thing (by your own admission)... keep Kobe from walking.

Thats the problem I had with the deal.

It was like a shotgun marriage. Neither Buss (nor Kobe prompting it) should have been involved in such a situation.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

truth said:


> jazzy,you didnt read my numbers....shame on you
> 
> i estimated the forum holds about 20,000...lets ake believe the avg ticket price is $200 dollars...dont know if you guys have parking there,but you do sell beer,food and merchandise.You probably pull in an extra 500,000 on that..
> 
> ...


Shaq wanted 30 MILL not 25 30 MILL he was not gonna take 25 mill he wanted 30 mill. PJ wanted 10 mill a year. 

Man please stop with your numbers please give me a break on that the overhead is way over the top its not even that close in profits. 

Abe Pollin with the Wizards said sometimes last year that he wanted to make the playoffs because of the prestige of winning a title not because of the financial boost of getting a few dollars. 

He said after you add expesnes you barely make much money in the playoffs. 

Thats coming from an owner the windfall isn't that big. 

Where Shaq helped them was in the regular season because they had toruble filling that arena not some playoff run. 

Lets get real here again. 

Grants contract ends befopre Shaq's extension would have giving Lakers cap room , so would Butlers again giving the Lakers cap room. 

It was a financial decision based on the future. 

if Shaq who's getting hurt NOW retires in 2 YEARS because of injuries and the Heat are left with Haslem as their youngest and best bigman and still have no rings and the Lakers are a playoff team and a title contender how will the trade loook then.

Lakers were gonna lose in any Shaq trade short term because unless they got Duncan there was no equal value. 

So please Truth lets talk about something else rather than rehash this old stuff. 

Lakers and fans have moved on.


----------



## tatahbenitez (Jun 18, 2004)

jazzy1 said:


> Grants contract ends befopre Shaq's extension would have giving Lakers cap room , so would Butlers again giving the Lakers cap room.
> 
> It was a financial decision based on the future.


What are you talking about? Grants contract is up in 2 years, while O'neal's contract is up to next year. The difference is that Shaq can opt out of next year, which he more than likely would have done if he stayed with The Lakers along with Kobe.







> Abe Pollin with the Wizards said sometimes last year that he wanted to make the playoffs because of the prestige of winning a title not because of the financial boost of getting a few dollars.
> 
> He said after you add expesnes you barely make much money in the playoffs.


 That's The Wizards you're talking about. They would not even get out of the first round. The Lakers have been in The Finals 4 of the past 5 years and the worst they finished was a loss in the Conference Finals. The Lakers had the best of both worlds. The prestige of winning and going deep in the playoffs. If you really checked, The Lakers have been making a pretty penny during the post season. 








> if Shaq who's getting hurt NOW retires in 2 YEARS because of injuries and the Heat are left with Haslem as their youngest and best bigman and still have no rings and the Lakers are a playoff team and a title contender how will the trade loook then.


How do you know The Heat aren't going to get any rings before Shaq retires? And when Shaq retires, that means Miami will have 30 million to spend on free agents. If Shaq retires because of injuries, then that would mean only one bad year where Shaq has to be paik, then Miami will still have 30 million to spend on free agents the next season. I don't see how bad that would make the trade for Miami. 








> Lakers were gonna lose in any Shaq trade short term because unless they got Duncan there was no equal value.


The Lakers could have gotten better deals other than Miami. Dallas, Portland, or Memphis could have given more talent than what Miami gave up. Buss and Kupchak were afraid to trade Shaq to a western conference team. They were a bunch of wimps and got burned because of it.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> So please Truth lets talk about something else rather than rehash this old stuff


Its not old stuff...i asked a simple question.From a purely financial viewpoint,did it make sense trading Oneal..

I laid out my assumptions on selling out the Forum for 10 home games assuming the team goes to the finals.$200 per head for tickets plus any revenues generated from food,beverages and television revenue if any..
Obviously the gross does not go directly to Buss's pocket..There are operating expenses and I have no clue to what it nets out to.That is why i asked..

Its a very simple question,which none of the detractors have answered.Instead you pound your chest and spew things that have nothing to do with the question and are off base..I was hoping that someone may have a clue to what the profit margins were...

The fact is you guys played your hand 100% wrong.You folded before anyone upped the ante.Management had all the cards and let Oneal dictate the terms.You had two years left on his contract and then massive cap relief..You took on Grants contract which is marginally better than Alan Houstons,Odom and Butler...Somehow,keeping Shaq and entering free agency makes alot more sense...

But I digress


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

tatahbenitez said:


> What are you talking about? Grants contract is up in 2 years, while O'neal's contract is up to next year. The difference is that Shaq can opt out of next year, which he more than likely would have done if he stayed with The Lakers along with Kobe.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Grants contract is up in 2 years like I SAID Shaq WANTED AN EXTENSION we're not gonna extend GRANT why you fail to see this is beyond me. 

Why extend Shaq for so much money when he'll be older and now a 30 mill a year player and is an injury risk and the LAKERS weren't winning titles any longer as a younger player with an inability to add any pieces at an adnvanced age they would have been less so. 

The relevance of what Pollin is saying is that money isn't the only motive for being a playoff team because its not as much as a windfall the prestige of winning creates marketing for merchandise, season ticket sales and overall higher team profile is the bonus of the playoffs not THE GATE. So stop making it seem like a great windfall at the gate. 

Cap room doesn't make a team desirebable players didn't wanna go to Chicago for YEARS despite CAP ROOM. Miami had trouble selling tickets and creating buzz with Shaq gone that goes away because all thats left after that is Wade all the rest of the players are aging. So why would free agents run there they don't have a great history of winning titles as a franchise man please. 

I feel solid in saying Shaq is an injury risk and if they tie him up for 3 years at 30 mill as an injury risk they won't have cap room nor value Shaq is winding down in his career, he could be toast in 2 years as a great player with injuries. 

Dallas said they weren't trading Dirk so what other great talent could the Lakers have gotten Jamison, or Antoine Walker who else could they have gotten, who does Portland has that are better than Odom Shareef NO, Ratliff, NO, would have been the same crap. 

Pacers refused to give up JO. 

Please lets kill this tread and the arguments. 

Its old rehashed Shaq plays for Miami. its done. Laker fans have gotten over it.You should to.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

truth said:


> Its not old stuff...i asked a simple question.From a purely financial viewpoint,did it make sense trading Oneal..
> 
> I laid out my assumptions on selling out the Forum for 10 home games assuming the team goes to the finals.$200 per head for tickets plus any revenues generated from food,beverages and television revenue if any..
> Obviously the gross does not go directly to Buss's pocket..There are operating expenses and I have no clue to what it nets out to.That is why i asked..
> ...



This is what I said and is saying, the gate windfall isn't that proftable. 

So lets get passed that. 

Now I said the Lakers made a bad deal for Shaq they couldn't have gotten equal value for Shaq there's no such thing unless you're talking Duncan and that wasn't happening. 

NO one was upping the ante, no one, Mavs owner said no Dirk, Pacers owner, no JO, Heat said no Wade, so where was the value gonna come from other than taking another teams spare parts and thats the deal the Lakers made. 

They cut a bad deal but the deal was gonna be bad anyway you slice it. 

If we weren't gonna win titles then take the cap relief in 2 years with Grants contract then extending Shaq's contend and not win the title for 5 more years only to be left with a capped out gutted team. 

In 2 years when Grant's contract comes off the books the Lakers will have some room plus a young core in Kobe, Odom and the picks from Miami and our lottery pick this season. 

But as I said the thread is rehashed been done in the Lakers forum for over a year with the central idea non Lakers fans are trying to make that the Lakers were stupid and now we're paying for it. 

We've heard the idiotic mantra and you're just saying the same thing. 

Next topic Lakers fans have moved on and Shaq plays for the Heat. 

Why even talk about this anymore other than to rub Lakers fans in the fact we didn't make the playoffs. 

Its old and tired. 

I'm done with this thread. 

Its tiresome. 

You haven't dealt with any of the points I made just trying to avoid the topics. 

WHO would know for sure what the money windfall is except BUSS, so why ask the question you know no one here could answer we're Laker fans not Lakers accountants.


----------



## LoyalBull (Jun 12, 2002)

jazzy1 said:


> Grants contract is up in 2 years like I SAID Shaq WANTED AN EXTENSION we're not gonna extend GRANT why you fail to see this is beyond me. .


And you didn't have to extend Shaq either. It would have just been two years earlier (if Shaq opts out) to have the cap space.





jazzy1 said:


> I feel solid in saying Shaq is an injury risk and if they tie him up for 3 years at 30 mill as an injury risk they won't have cap room nor value Shaq is winding down in his career, he could be toast in 2 years as a great player with injuries. .


Couldn't that be said about anyone? 

For example: Shaq has played in 85% of the total team games in his career...
Kobe has played in 89% of the total team games in his career.

However, the "risk" is subjective. Over the last two years Shaq has (again) played in 85% of his team games. Kobe has played in 80% over the last two years.

In other words, it might be Kobe you want to worry more about losing games than Shaq if the last couple of years have anything to show for it.

Shaq's numbers (besides min) aren't remarkably down. The wins are on par with teams with him on them.

The argument that he is a bigger injury risk or that he is 'wearing down' just isn't validated in comparison by the numbers.



jazzy1 said:


> Please lets kill this tread and the arguments.
> 
> Its old rehashed Shaq plays for Miami. its done. Laker fans have gotten over it.You should to.


Its interesting. If you have moved on, or you don't feel the conversation worth having... why post in the thread?

There are a lot of very good conversations on this board right now that don't involve this subject.

This isn't meant as a slight towards you, but I hardly think it right to question what others want to discuss as long as it is relevant to the board. Obviously the Shaq question is prevelant everywhere still with the Lakers. And it very well may be for some foreseeable time. That said, if you don't want to talk about it anymore, the answer is easy... don't.

I wouldn't want you posting in a thread which discusses a topic you are tired of reading and posting about. Its obviously something that bothers you and the concept is something you have already come to your own unchangeable conclusions about. That doesn't mean that others (that are interested) should refrain from posting about it.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

LoyalBull said:


> And you didn't have to extend Shaq either. It would have just been two years earlier (if Shaq opts out) to have the cap space.
> 
> Couldn't that be said about anyone?
> 
> ...


Please, loyalbull... stop it already..

You make me wana cry...


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Loyal Bull,

Cap space guarantees nothing. To assume that a big name is going to be available this summer and then therefore openly tank an entire Laker season starting from day one is beyond absurd and basically business suicide. It would alienate fans (from watching and attending), cost Buss many millions of dollars, and most importantly be a complete 180 from Laker tradition, possibly putting doubt into the minds of prospective FAs considering the Lakers. Besides, as you said, the best FAs available this summer would have been Big Z and Stromile. Hardly major impact there. And hell, the Lakers would only be able to sign one of those players (since they'd have to overpay one of them to nab him), not both. Say it's Big Z they sign with that cap space, and say another good player at PG (Watson). Are Watson and Big Z as good as Odom, Butler, and a future pick? Perhaps, who knows, but they'd be overpaying for both and Big Z is getting up there in years. At best a wash, and in the meantime you waste another year of Kobe's prime that he could be using developing chemistry with teammates. 

The choice is obvious; Shaq wants out, you can't tank a season, so you get as much as you can for him before teams wise up later in the summer and decide not to gut their team for Shaq. And no, no team is stupid enough to gut their team late into the summer or at midseason for a temp rental of Shaq. Do you honestly believe the Lakers could get better than Odom and Butler at the time? Please. 



> The Lakers were not forced to do anything. They chose to do so. As a business decision... I don't understand it. Part of business is sticking to your guns. Lakers didn't do that... they allowed Shaq to get his way. They should (being the ones that owned his rights) have done it THEIR way.


Shaq has the leverage, not the Lakers. He's their entire franchise, he gets to pick where he goes. He can easily nix a potential trade by claiming he won't report to that team. Similar to what Payton did last season (trade wasn't nixed, but was close to being nixed and was in fact amended because of Payton) In fact, the only reason Jermaine O'Neal isn't a Laker is because Shaq didn't want to go to Indiana. 

From a business standpoint it makes perfect sense; the Lakers save tens of millions in the next few seasons by trading Shaq away. And that doesn't include any revenue Buss will make during the years where Kobe is still in his prime and Shaq is retired (barring unforeseen injuries). 



tatahbenitez said:


> The Lakers could have gotten better deals other than Miami. Dallas, Portland, or Memphis could have given more talent than what Miami gave up. Buss and Kupchak were afraid to trade Shaq to a western conference team. They were a bunch of wimps and got burned because of it.


FYI, none of this is true. Though I suspect you'll still pretend you're right and will, unfortunately, continue to troll this board with inane banter about a trade that happened nearly a year ago.

The Lakers make no where near $40M on playoff games. My $40M fiture was NET profit, not gross. You completely fail to take into account the operating costs of Staples itself, employee salaries, cost of advertising, maintainance, and all other sorts of costs. A 10 game postseason does not net you $40M, advertising profits don't make up for that because the Lakers don't get a piece of that (all NBA games are nationally broadcast, and Staples attendance in the playoffs versus the regular season is negligible, they're both sold out, the higher ticket prices do not make up for that).


----------



## tatahbenitez (Jun 18, 2004)

EHL said:


> FYI, none of this is true. Though I suspect you'll still pretend you're right and will, unfortunately, continue to troll this board with inane banter about a trade that happened nearly a year ago.


Can you explain why it's not true?


----------



## LoyalBull (Jun 12, 2002)

EHL said:


> Loyal Bull,
> 
> Cap space guarantees nothing. To assume that a big name is going to be available this summer and then therefore openly tank an entire Laker season starting from day one is beyond absurd and basically business suicide. It would alienate fans (from watching and attending), cost Buss many millions of dollars, and most importantly be a complete 180 from Laker tradition, possibly putting doubt into the minds of prospective FAs considering the Lakers.).


I guess I just see the "long term" benefit of the lakers as meaning there will be cap space since everyone keeps citing the 'terrible to extend Shaq" mantra.

Cap space now, cap space later? If ones good for the goose then its good for the gander. Looking up and down the roster, a ton of cap space this year would have allowed the Lakers to build the team from positions of need and complimentary talent rather than taking two small forwards and have three years of Brian Grant's bad knees.

If we are going to say this was a business decision (based on the cap space available in the long term) then why is gaining more cap space in the short term deemed a bad thing?

BTW, suffice to say, I don't think that the Lakers have ever been seen as low as they have been regardless of having 30 million in cap space (or none as in its current form.)




EHL said:


> The choice is obvious; Shaq wants out, you can't tank a season, so you get as much as you can *for him before teams wise up later in the summer and decide not to gut their team for Shaq*. And no, no team is stupid enough to gut their team late into the summer or at midseason for a temp rental of Shaq. Do you honestly believe the Lakers could get better than Odom and Butler at the time? Please. ).


Are you still operating under the notion that teams have 'realized' how little Shaq would mean to them.

Suffice to say, every other team in this leauge is looking at what Shaq provides and continues to provide and wouldn't be regretting anything.

In as much as it matters, the Heat gave up two small forwards and a TERRIBLE contract for Shaquille. Hardly gutting the roster.

If I can deal two quality players and a terrible deal for Shaq... I do it in a heartbeat! And the reasons why are evident in the results of this season.

People act as if Shaq takes up cap space, doesn't defend the P&R etc. They want to act as if having Shaq doesn't mean that you make guys like Haslem double double threats. They act as if Wade doesn't have wide open lanes and open looks as a result of an overload to Shaq on the block. They act as if Damon Jones (a career 11th or 12th man) can become one of the biggest three point threats in the game because he is wide open. 

They want to act as if having Shaq doesn't mean ALWAYS being in the bonus at the end of quarters. They want to act as if Shaq being in the middle means that other teams become jump shooting teams instead of paint scoring teams. They want to act like guys won't play for less than their market value just for a chance to play with him.

Thats the thing. He increases the value of the players around him. And what he offers is players coming to play for less. Gary Payton and Karl Malone. Shandon Anderson and Alonzo Mourning.

While they may not be world beaters or in their prime, they are difference makers. And they only gravitate to said teams for a specific reason.






EHL said:


> Shaq has the leverage, not the Lakers. He's their entire franchise, he gets to pick where he goes. He can easily nix a potential trade by claiming he won't report to that team. Similar to what Payton did last season (trade wasn't nixed, but was close to being nixed and was in fact amended because of Payton) In fact, the only reason Jermaine O'Neal isn't a Laker is because Shaq didn't want to go to Indiana. .).


Shaq had leverage? How so? Others have already said that not dealing Shaq when you did was becuase they had to do it to retain Kobe. Again, thats not who had the leverage. Kobe did. Shaq didn't have the option to opt out of extensions (like Kobe did time and time again). Kobe was the UFA, not Shaq. 

Its funny becuase while you scream about Shaq being 'all about the money' you assume that if he was dealt somewhere he would "not report" and thus not collect his 30 million.

Which is it? All about the money or would rather not get paid to spite himself?




EHL said:


> From a business standpoint it makes perfect sense; the Lakers save tens of millions in the next few seasons by trading Shaq away. And that doesn't include any revenue Buss will make during the years where Kobe is still in his prime and Shaq is retired (barring unforeseen injuries). .).


I guess this is where the logic chain mystifies me. Its a "good business decision" becuase it saves the money in the _future_ (while carrying bad deals now). But it wouldn't have been one to open up cap space _now _ cause 'cap space doesn't mean anything".

Its a double sided argument you're making to justify a move as a good business decision when it really isn't.


----------



## CaHawk (Mar 23, 2005)

The results are in....
Trading Shaq was terrible.
Great for Shaq...especially getting away from Kobe.

Shaq was the Man, kobe was & is a cancer on the Lakers.


----------



## LoyalBull (Jun 12, 2002)

CaHawk said:


> The results are in....
> Trading Shaq was terrible.
> Great for Shaq...especially getting away from Kobe.
> 
> Shaq was the Man, kobe was & is a cancer on the Lakers.



I think thats unfair. Im simply saying the deal that was made was not a good decision (business or otherwise). I feel that they COULD have made smarter deals if they hadn't been under the Kobe gun.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

tatahbenitez said:


> Can you explain why it's not true?


Uh, because it isn’t true perhaps?  There haven’t been any credible reports that Memphis, Portland or Dallas were willing to give up better pieces than Miami. That’s pure speculation on your part, as is your contention they were “afraid” to trade to a WC team.



LoyalBull said:


> I guess I just see the "long term" benefit of the lakers as meaning there will be cap space since everyone keeps citing the 'terrible to extend Shaq" mantra.
> 
> Cap space now, cap space later? If ones good for the goose then its good for the gander. Looking up and down the roster, a ton of cap space this year would have allowed the Lakers to build the team from positions of need and complimentary talent rather than taking two small forwards and have three years of Brian Grant's bad knees.


What? You didn’t list a single reason why cap space does a thing for the Lakers this year, or why Buss would be insane enough to tank the Laker season and let Shaq sit (as in buying him out). Yes, I’d much rather have locked in young players than hoping and praying for 30 year old Big Z to come and save the franchise in FA this summer. 



> If we are going to say this was a business decision (based on the cap space available in the long term) then why is gaining more cap space in the short term deemed a bad thing?


For the obvious reasons I stated before; you lose tons of money in viewership (ad dollars) and ticket sales by openly tanking a season. You lose fans, some permanently. And most importantly you may even lose prospective FAs. 



> Suffice to say, every other team in this leauge is looking at what Shaq provides and continues to provide and wouldn't be regretting anything.


Then how come the most the Lakers could get for Shaq was Odom, Butler and a pick? The “had to get a trade done” excuse doesn’t fly, because as you said, any team would love to have Shaq by gutting their team, right? Or maybe not. 



> In as much as it matters, the Heat gave up two small forwards and a TERRIBLE contract for Shaquille. Hardly gutting the roster.


Uh yes, that is gutting the roster. Calling Odom and Butler “two small forwards” shows a laughable amount of knowledge about each players’ contributions to the Heat last season. And Grant was healthy last season and a major contributor. 



> People act as if Shaq takes up cap space, doesn't defend the P&R etc. They want to act as if having Shaq doesn't mean that you make guys like Haslem double double threats. They act as if Wade doesn't have wide open lanes and open looks as a result of an overload to Shaq on the block. They act as if Damon Jones (a career 11th or 12th man) can become one of the biggest three point threats in the game because he is wide open.
> 
> They want to act as if having Shaq doesn't mean ALWAYS being in the bonus at the end of quarters. They want to act as if Shaq being in the middle means that other teams become jump shooting teams instead of paint scoring teams.


We all know superstars make their teammates better, this isn’t a news flash here. Address my points.



> They want to act like guys won't play for less than their market value just for a chance to play with him.


LMAO, this happened exactly once. 



> Thats the thing. He increases the value of the players around him. And what he offers is players coming to play for less. Gary Payton and Karl Malone. Shandon Anderson and Alonzo Mourning.


Shandon Anderson? :laugh: Dude was bought out by the Knicks and got as much as he was going to get from any team. Zo at most would get the MLE from a team, but of course he couldn’t get that midseason with the Heat, so he naturally signed the vet minimum. Don’t embellish, the only two players to come to a Shaq-team for less than market value have been Payton and Malone. Aberration. 



> Shaq had leverage? How so? Others have already said that not dealing Shaq when you did was becuase they had to do it to retain Kobe. Again, thats not who had the leverage. Kobe did. Shaq didn't have the option to opt out of extensions (like Kobe did time and time again). Kobe was the UFA, not Shaq.


What? You’re literally not making any sense. Shaq was under contract, Kobe was a FA. Jerry Buss didn’t have to do anything Kobe wanted, he could have easily extended Shaq and made him happy and built around that core. Kobe had no power unless you want to believe he hypnotized Buss into trading Shaq. Shaq left because Phil Jackson wasn’t rehired and the Lakers wanted to build around Kobe. Shaq was the better player, and he asked to be traded. He clearly had more leverage in where he would go. 



> Its funny becuase while you scream about Shaq being 'all about the money' you assume that if he was dealt somewhere he would "not report" and thus not collect his 30 million.
> 
> Which is it? All about the money or would rather not get paid to spite himself?


Oy. You still get paid $30M if you don’t report but go on the IL with a phantom injury. Come on now, this is easy stuff.  



> I guess this is where the logic chain mystifies me. Its a "good business decision" becuase it saves the money in the _future_ (while carrying bad deals now). But it wouldn't have been one to open up cap space _now _ cause 'cap space doesn't mean anything".


You obviously don’t understand how a business is run. You don’t risk losing your steady cash flow (fan interest, tickets sold, etc.) by opening up cap space and tanking a regular season. It’s _fact_ that the Lakers’ contracts, as currently constructed, will save tens of millions of dollars versus having to pay Shaq the final two years on his contract plus the $90M deal he rebuffed last season. This isn’t about the future, this is about money that is guaranteed to players. 



> Its a double sided argument you're making to justify a move as a good business decision when it really isn't.


No, I just don’t think you quite understand it is all. Ask before telling.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

EHL said:


> Shandon Anderson? :laugh: Dude was bought out by the Knicks and got as much as he was going to get from any team. Zo at most would get the MLE from a team, but of course he couldn’t get that midseason with the Heat, so he naturally signed the vet minimum. Don’t embellish, the only two players to come to a Shaq-team for less than market value have been Payton and Malone. Aberration.


Correct. That is one of the dumbest misconceptions about Shaq. The only time he was on a team that got a player for less than market value was last season when we signed Payton and Malone. Now people are acting as if he has done it his whole career and did it this season. He didn't do it this season. Mourning is already getting paid big dollars by the Raptors and couldn't sign for any more than the minimum, and does anyone think that Shandon Anderson is worth more than the minimum?


----------



## SoCalfan21 (Jul 19, 2004)

jazzy1 said:


> Grants contract is up in 2 years like I SAID Shaq WANTED AN EXTENSION we're not gonna extend GRANT why you fail to see this is beyond me.
> 
> Why extend Shaq for so much money when he'll be older and now a 30 mill a year player and is an injury risk and the LAKERS weren't winning titles any longer as a younger player with an inability to add any pieces at an adnvanced age they would have been less so.
> 
> ...




Uz a rich girl, cause you goin to far cause u know it dont matter any way...YOU can rely on the old mans money....you can rely on the old mans money..

YouNG GunZ


----------



## tatahbenitez (Jun 18, 2004)

EHL said:


> Uh, because it isn’t true perhaps?  There haven’t been any credible reports that Memphis, Portland or Dallas were willing to give up better pieces than Miami. That’s pure speculation on your part, as is your contention they were “afraid” to trade to a WC team.


Then, ultimately, what you are saying is that the Odom, Grant, Butler and a second round pick was the best offer The Lakers had. I didn't want Shaq traded, but I was surprised that Buss and Kupchak took that offer. Shaq was still under contract and The Lakers could have waited for a better offer (if that was supposedly the best offer).






> What? You’re literally not making any sense. Shaq was under contract, Kobe was a FA. Jerry Buss didn’t have to do anything Kobe wanted, he could have easily extended Shaq and made him happy and built around that core. Kobe had no power unless you want to believe he hypnotized Buss into trading Shaq. Shaq left because Phil Jackson wasn’t rehired and the Lakers wanted to build around Kobe. Shaq was the better player, and he asked to be traded. He clearly had more leverage in where he would go.


You're the one not making sense.

Yes, Shaq was under contract, but that meant Buss and company could ignore all of Shaq's rantings and ravings. Shaq did not have the power to ask for and then get traded. It's all managements decisions. Shaq was still obligated to play for The Lakers. There was no way that Shaq had any power in what Buss and Kupchak were doing. Buss and Kupchak could have easily extended Shaqs offer and they could have easily not extended it.



On the other hand...

Yes, Kobe was a free agent. That meant he could do anything he wanted. There was nothing that was holding him back to just leave The Lakers. That's why Buss and Kupchak, a couple of days after the Championship series, were already stating that they would do everything in their power to keep Kobe and would field any offers about Shaq. Kobe had all the power, and everyone knew it (except you and other Kobe lovers). Buss already wanted Kobe to be the focal point of the team. Shaq was expendable, Phil was expendable, but Kobe was going to be the new foundation The Lakers wanted. All of Kobe's "crutches" were going to be thrown out so the new MJ of the league could fly and soar to new heights and take The Lakers with him. You even state The Lakers wanted to build around Kobe. That meant whateve Kobe wanted, Kobe would have gotten. And it looks like Kobe got what he wanted.



Yes, Shaq was the better player and he did ask to be traded. But why trade your best player when you didn't have to...HE WAS STILL UNDER CONTRACT!!! It all goes to Kobe and what Buss and Kupchak thought would make him happy and stay a Laker.


----------



## LoyalBull (Jun 12, 2002)

EHL said:


> What? You didn’t list a single reason why cap space does a thing for the Lakers this year, or why Buss would be insane enough to tank the Laker season and let Shaq sit (as in buying him out). Yes, I’d much rather have locked in young players than hoping and praying for 30 year old Big Z to come and save the franchise in FA this summer. .


Great, you have Grant and Odom locked in with Butler coming up on a well-deserved extension. And no cap space. Wonderful. That line up got you to the lottery. But, goodness knows Kobe can't use an all star center. 

You DO realize that Z is an ALL STAR CENTER... right? You also realize that the max limit on contracts in the new CBA (by all accounts) is 4 years? Right?

That makes Z 34 when the deal ends. IF thats who you spend the money on. The difference is cap flexability in a myriad of options. Suddenly you have space to absorb extra salary in trades (but apparently you refuse to acknowledge those type of realities.) for example. Cap space grants flexability. Having overpriced players means inflexability.

I honestly don't know enough of your thought process to see why that idea seems foreign to you, or why having cap space seems a bad thing, but suffice to say... it couldn't have ended much worse than it did this year. The only difference? Financial flexability and a better draft pick. But hey, if you welcome being capped out with overpaid players (and still being in the lottery) then so be it .

I just don't agree with it.




EHL said:


> For the obvious reasons I stated before; you lose tons of money in viewership (ad dollars) and ticket sales by openly tanking a season. You lose fans, some permanently. And most importantly you may even lose prospective FAs. .


... what prosepective free agents? You don't have the $$ to get them. And BTW, where are all the little laker flags on game days? Where are the folks watching the Laker games at the pubs? Where are the people watching the games at home? Suffice to say, all that took a hit regardless. Just now, there is less flexability.




EHL said:


> Then how come the most the Lakers could get for Shaq was Odom, Butler and a pick? The “had to get a trade done” excuse doesn’t fly, because as you said, any team would love to have Shaq by gutting their team, right? Or maybe not. .


It wasn't. The Heat owner said he would have been willing to give up more. Thats where it gets funny. THEY COULD HAVE GOTTEN MORE EVEN FROM THE TEAM THEY DEALT SHAQ TOO!!!! Why did Mitch HAVE to accept THAT deal when he did? Answer those questions and you will end up HAVING to agree that the deal was rushed. 

IM not saying that Shaq shouldn't have been dealt. But the manner in which they did it DID NOT constitute a "good business deal". Again, you keep saying "gutting" but they gave you Lamar Odom and Brian Grant as principals... That isn't gutting by any stretch of the imagination.

Bottom line is the deal was rushed to placate one player. The man wasn't really shopped and the Lakers dealt from a position of rushed need to move Shaq rather than shopping him to teams who "needed to obtain him".

In most folks eyes, the Lakers literally GAVE away the MVP of the leauge. And no matter what you try to say... you got two players that play the same position (one who doesn't compliment Bryant) and a broken down money pit for the leauge MVP. How you continue to rationalize that as "good business" Ill never know.






EHL said:


> Uh yes, that is gutting the roster. Calling Odom and Butler “two small forwards” shows a laughable amount of knowledge about each players’ contributions to the Heat last season. And Grant was healthy last season and a major contributor. .


Contributions to a .500 ball club? If I can deal two small forwards (which is what they are.) They are starter capable small forwards. Not all stars, not dominant small forwards... just small forwards that contributed to a .500 team for the LEAUGE MVP (who just happens to be a CENTER)... well, that would suggest you are OVER-STATING the value they had on that team.

Its no mistake that the Heats record last year improved as Wade got more and more control and emphasis on the team. And Wade is the all star, the one still in Miami. He is the one that shined in the playoffs, he is still in Miami.

So we have two small forwards that helped a team get to .500... and now their next team the lottery traded for a Center who helped his team to the finals and now the #1 seed in the East.

Keep justifying whatever you like... the results are proof positive enough for me for my position. Keep arguing that I am understating the impact of two (non all star small forwards) as you wait to see which pick you get... while I stand by the notion that is the golden rule of basketball... "never trade big for small". ESPECIALLY when none of the small are all stars.




EHL said:


> We all know superstars make their teammates better, this isn’t a news flash here. Address my points..


Which are?




EHL said:


> Shandon Anderson? :laugh: Dude was bought out by the Knicks and got as much as he was going to get from any team. Zo at most would get the MLE from a team, but of course he couldn’t get that midseason with the Heat, so he naturally signed the vet minimum. Don’t embellish, the only two players to come to a Shaq-team for less than market value have been Payton and Malone. Aberration. .


So you are saying that Shandon Anderson couldn't have gotten more (although he was offered more by at least two teams?) And you are saying that Mourning couldn't have gotten more (even though he was offered more by other teams?) and you are suggesting that I am stating abberrations?

The problem with your reasoning and logic is it allows no different thought into your reality. And you simply act as if you can say "no, but that doesn't count" to anything that BLATANTLY disproves what you are saying.

The numbers don't support your notions, the results don't support your notions. A reasonable logic chain doesn't support your notions. 

THE ONLY LEG YOU HAVE TO STAND ON IS ONE THAT YOU HAVE DECIDED IS THE ONE PERSPECTIVE THAT YOU HAVE DECIDED ON. And like it or not, it doesn't wash.

The results reflect that.

Oh Im sure we can go back to the "if Rudy T hasn't quit" mantra but that belies the fact that the Lakers had the second easiest schedule to open the year and it got REAL tough down the stretch. Rudy T did less quitting and more "wising up".

In the end, they are all excuses, and justifications. And the evidence of that is how hard you keep towing the line for it to fall into the pigeon hole reality that you have constructed.

Fine, you are happy with the way things turned out (welcome to that). Fine you think its a good decision (I disagree wholeheartedly). Im fine with you thinking that. BUt when you place "stupid" or "you don't understand" as evidence when your opinions (which is all they are) are in DIRECT contrast to results (which are on my side of the argument) of this situation.

So please... don't call someone's opinion "stupid" when the numbers, results and popular opinion agrees with them and they contradict your own opinion.



EHL said:


> What? You’re literally not making any sense. Shaq was under contract, Kobe was a FA. Jerry Buss didn’t have to do anything Kobe wanted, he could have easily extended Shaq and made him happy and built around that core. Kobe had no power unless you want to believe he hypnotized Buss into trading Shaq. Shaq left because Phil Jackson wasn’t rehired and the Lakers wanted to build around Kobe. Shaq was the better player, and he asked to be traded. He clearly had more leverage in where he would go. .


I fail to see your rationale. Its as if people get purposefully childlike when this issue comes up. They want to primp and prine all the forced actions of Shaq's power but fail to concede that this move was made when it was to placate Bryant. 

Evidence can be found in the dates of Shaq's deal, and Kobe deciding to return. All one need do, is look at Kobe leaning toward the Clippers and suddenly doing the about-face when the Shaq deal was prematurely consumated. 




EHL said:


> Oy. You still get paid $30M if you don’t report but go on the IL with a phantom injury. Come on now, this is easy stuff.  .


Actually there is recourse for this. And players WILL get suspended by the team for not reporting with "phantom injuries". Players WILL fore-go salary until they report to a team doctor who will/will not substantiate such a claim.

If you are suggesting that Owners are not protected by this, I don't know what to tell you. Its ILLEGAL for players to do so, and they WILL forfeit their salary IF they do so. So if you insist on using references to me not understanding basic things... PLEASE, PLEASE do your part and at least understand them yourself. Becuase it makes you look silly.



EHL said:


> You obviously don’t understand how a business is run. You don’t risk losing your steady cash flow (fan interest, tickets sold, etc.) by opening up cap space and tanking a regular season. It’s _fact_ that the Lakers’ contracts, as currently constructed, will save tens of millions of dollars versus having to pay Shaq the final two years on his contract plus the $90M deal he rebuffed last season. This isn’t about the future, this is about money that is guaranteed to players. .


I run a business. And there are SEVERAL other aspects that come in advance of what you are suggesting. I don't send my biggest producers packing because a smaller producer doesn't like them. If my management has produced the pen-ultimate results in 4 of 5 years... I PAY THEM WHAT THEY ARE WORTH. I would NEVER let someone demand that I get rid of other employees who have PROVEN to give me results.

NEVER would I do that!

And BTW, your fan base, playoff revenue, sell outs etc have ALL dipped. TV viewership is down substantially, so... it happened anyway oh brilliant business man... and Buss expected it. As did anyone with half a clue!

You seem to insist that you MUST have a reality that if Shaq wasn't dealt in THAT deal for THOSE players at THAT time... well that means that Shaq HAD to be extended. NO ONE IS SUGGESTING THAT. Not even close.

But your logic chain only comes to one 'conclusion' based on "facts" that will never take place (because that reality never happened). Those aren't "facts" those are predictions. You might as well put your "facts" in the same catorgories as madam cleos.

*Cause the only "facts" are that you have taken on more long term GARUNTEED SALARY for much lesser players. * 

Thats the "FACTS".

Sorry, but no alternate reality predictions that you can manufacture can change that. It is what it is... and everything indicates that what "it is"... isn't very good!


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

tatahbenitez said:


> Then, ultimately, what you are saying is that the Odom, Grant, Butler and a second round pick was the best offer The Lakers had. I didn't want Shaq traded, but I was surprised that Buss and Kupchak took that offer. Shaq was still under contract and The Lakers could have waited for a better offer (if that was supposedly the best offer).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Uh, then why did management oblige Shaq and trade him where he wanted? I’m guessing it’s because, uh, he indeed had leverage. 



> Shaq was still obligated to play for The Lakers. There was no way that Shaq had any power in what Buss and Kupchak were doing. Buss and Kupchak could have easily extended Shaqs offer and they could have easily not extended it.


Uh, what? If it was that easy, then _why_ didn’t the Lakers do something else? Here’s a hint; it wasn’t quite that simple, as has been explained over and over again. 



> Kobe had all the power, and everyone knew it (except you and other Kobe lovers).


Sadly this blanket statement is as far as your theory goes, as it’s baseless just like all your other comments. 



> Buss already wanted Kobe to be the focal point of the team. Shaq was expendable, Phil was expendable, but Kobe was going to be the new foundation The Lakers wanted. All of Kobe's "crutches" were going to be thrown out so the new MJ of the league could fly and soar to new heights and take The Lakers with him. You even state The Lakers wanted to build around Kobe. *That meant whateve Kobe wanted, Kobe would have gotten.*


LMAO. Listen to your own logic. If Buss and Kupchak were so stupid that they would let a FA dictate the ousting of one of the greatest coaches and centers ever, why didn’t management just let Kobe walk, or even try to get something back for him? You know the answer, you just can’t come to terms with it; Shaq didn’t want to be in LA because Buss wouldn't pay him and Phil wasn’t rehired because he asked for $12M per (and by his own admittance, that was more a last ditch offer as he needed the year off anyway, and surprise surprise, he's coming back). Face the facts and move on already. 



> Yes, Shaq was the better player and he did ask to be traded. But why trade your best player when you didn't have to...HE WAS STILL UNDER CONTRACT!!! It all goes to Kobe and what Buss and Kupchak thought would make him happy and stay a Laker.


See above.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Great, you have Grant and Odom locked in with Butler coming up on a well-deserved extension. And no cap space. Wonderful. That line up got you to the lottery. But, goodness knows Kobe can't use an all star center.


Deflection gets you nowhere. Do you or do you not admit that cap space guarantees, in writing, absolutely zero? Case closed. Oh, and they save several tens of millions of dollars with the trade. Case closed again. 



> You DO realize that Z is an ALL STAR CENTER... right?


:laugh:



> You also realize that the max limit on contracts in the new CBA (by all accounts) is 4 years? Right?


Uh, really? I’ll believe it when I see it. And of course, who knows if this information was even available last summer, the terms of CBA negotiations aren’t exactly easy to predict.



> That makes Z 34 when the deal ends. IF thats who you spend the money on. The difference is cap flexability in a myriad of options. Suddenly you have space to absorb extra salary in trades (but apparently you refuse to acknowledge those type of realities.) for example. Cap space grants flexability. Having overpriced players means inflexability.


What flexibility? Here’s the reality; cap space guarantees nothing. A simple concept you continue to ignore. You’d let Shaq waste away on the bench and tank a Laker season for cap space to sign….Big Z? Get a grip on reality, Big Z ain’t going to save any franchise. Hell, he couldn’t help his team to the postseason in the East playing alongside LeBron James. 



> I honestly don't know enough of your thought process to see why that idea seems foreign to you, or why having cap space seems a bad thing, but suffice to say... it couldn't have ended much worse than it did this year. The only difference? Financial flexability and a better draft pick. But hey, if you welcome being capped out with overpaid players (and still being in the lottery) then so be it .


You avoided the question and deflected the issue. Why should I expect you to care either way? 



> I just don't agree with it.


Not “agreeing” with something doesn’t mean you’re still not wrong. You could “disagree” with me that 2+2=4, doesn’t mean I won’t say you’re wrong and call you out on it.



> ... what prosepective free agents? You don't have the $$ to get them.


Uh yes, you do. Not every impact FA is signed to a MAX deal, there are plenty that are signed to the trade exceptions (LLE, vet. minimum, MLE) that are given to teams over the cap. And of course, that’s to say nothing of the fact that most teams make their impact via draft or trade anyway. People have this overblown view of how great cap space is, but a thorough overview of the CBA and NBA history pretty much tells you that most impact players are acquired via trade or draft. 



> And BTW, where are all the little laker flags on game days? Where are the folks watching the Laker games at the pubs? Where are the people watching the games at home? Suffice to say, all that took a hit regardless. Just now, there is less flexability.


Uh, what? Do the freaking research, don’t come with that weak BS. Merchandise and ticket sales this year were about on par with what the Lakers have been making for the last few years at least. In fact, surprise surprise, the only time sales took a hit were when it seemed as if the Lakers weren’t giving much effort at the end of the season (i.e. tanking). 



> It wasn't. The Heat owner said he would have been willing to give up more. Thats where it gets funny. THEY COULD HAVE GOTTEN MORE EVEN FROM THE TEAM THEY DEALT SHAQ TOO!!!! Why did Mitch HAVE to accept THAT deal when he did? Answer those questions and you will end up HAVING to agree that the deal was rushed.


Says who? Riley? Give me a break, if he was willing to give up more the Lakers would have gotten more. To say the Lakers rushed a trade of the most dominant player of this century is to basically ignore reason and thought. Go through the local wires and see what other offers the Lakers got for Shaq; the best was Jermaine O’Neal, who isn’t a Laker solely because Shaq wouldn’t report and/or come to camp with an “injury” and sit out while being paid. 



> IM not saying that Shaq shouldn't have been dealt. But the manner in which they did it DID NOT constitute a "good business deal". Again, you keep saying "gutting" but they gave you Lamar Odom and Brian Grant as principals... That isn't gutting by any stretch of the imagination.


And Caron Butler. And Riley had basically given the franchise to Odom his first season, and you also have to consider his extension. Go read the Miami Herald from last season.



> Bottom line is the deal was rushed to placate one player. The man wasn't really shopped and the Lakers dealt from a position of rushed need to move Shaq rather than shopping him to teams who "needed to obtain him".


Since you have no proof to support any of the above, I’ll just take it in stride and laugh. 



> In most folks eyes, the Lakers literally GAVE away the MVP of the leauge. And no matter what you try to say... you got two players that play the same position (one who doesn't compliment Bryant) and a broken down money pit for the leauge MVP. How you continue to rationalize that as "good business" Ill never know.


It has already been explained, you just have chosen not to think it through. I can’t force you to think. 



> Contributions to a .500 ball club?


Irrelevant, but go on.



> If I can deal two small forwards (which is what they are.) They are starter capable small forwards. Not all stars, not dominant small forwards... just small forwards that contributed to a .500 team for the LEAUGE MVP (who just happens to be a CENTER)... well, that would suggest you are OVER-STATING the value they had on that team.


I honestly don’t think you watched the Heat last season. Would you deny this? I bet not. 



> Its no mistake that the Heats record last year improved as Wade got more and more control and emphasis on the team. And Wade is the all star, the one still in Miami. He is the one that shined in the playoffs, he is still in Miami.


That’s nice, no one here is denying Wade is a good player. Unfortunately you have failed to establish Butler, Odom, and Grant’s role in the Heat’s 04 season. I’m guessing because you didn’t watch them play that year. Just a guess though. 



> So we have two small forwards that helped a team get to .500...


42-40 actually, but go on…



> and now their next team the lottery traded for a Center who helped his team to the finals and now the #1 seed in the East.


Uh yes, the trade was lopsided, that was never denied in the first place. I’d suggest you take the time to reread and understand my previous posts. I was very clear in the difference between a business decision and a talent decision. Talent-wise, in the short term, it absolutely sucked, no question. 



> So you are saying that Shandon Anderson couldn't have gotten more (although he was offered more by at least two teams?)


Which two teams? Where? How much more? What’s this crap you’re spewing? You’re talking about *Shandon Freaking Anderson*. Give me a break, the guy _couldn't_ be legally given more than he was given this year. Look up the terms of the CBA if you don't believe me.



> And you are saying that Mourning couldn't have gotten more (even though he was offered more by other teams?) and you are suggesting that I am stating abberrations?


Firstly Zo got bought out by the Raptors, money wasn’t much of a concern. Secondly he has stated since way back last year that he wanted to be part of a contender. What better contender than the Heat, who just happen to be his former team. And no, no team could offer him more than the vet minimum this season, so he actually _couldn’t_ get better offers under the CBA. 



> The problem with your reasoning and logic is it allows no different thought into your reality.


My reality is based in the CBA, and in events that actually happened. Your reality is based on these mystical teams that supposedly illegally offered Anderson and Zo higher than the minimum contracts they took with the Heat this year. Indeed, I like my reality, where teams can only offer what the CBA allows them to. 



> And you simply act as if you can say "no, but that doesn't count" to anything that BLATANTLY disproves what you are saying.


It doesn’t disprove it, and the sad part is you’re arguing a lost cause and you know it. Anderson wasn’t exactly highly sought after as anything more than a role player. Zo was a nice pickup, but his acquisition can just as much be attributed to his relationship with the Heat and the fact that he was already bought out by the Raptors as it can with the Heat being contenders. 



> The numbers don't support your notions, the results don't support your notions. A reasonable logic chain doesn't support your notions.


Actually they do. Read the CBA if you’re still confused. 



> THE ONLY LEG YOU HAVE TO STAND ON IS ONE THAT YOU HAVE DECIDED IS THE ONE PERSPECTIVE THAT YOU HAVE DECIDED ON. And like it or not, it doesn't wash.
> 
> The results reflect that.


The results reflect that you have never read the CBA in your life. And it’s sad. 



> Oh Im sure we can go back to the "if Rudy T hasn't quit" mantra but that belies the fact that the Lakers had the second easiest schedule to open the year and it got REAL tough down the stretch. Rudy T did less quitting and more "wising up".


Yawn. 



> In the end, they are all excuses, and justifications.


No, just reasonably thought out statements based in reality (CBA and otherwise), logic, and numbers. I see that you conveniently avoided the fact that the Lakers save tens of millions of dollars (as the roster is currently constituted) by trading Shaq. Do you deny this, or will you continue to pretend you crunched the numbers yourself? Yeah, I thought so.



> And the evidence of that is how hard you keep towing the line for it to fall into the pigeon hole reality that you have constructed.


It’s all right there in front of you, you’ve just pretended to have followed the Lakers and are constructing a reality based on what you’ve read on ESPN. 



> Fine, you are happy with the way things turned out (welcome to that). Fine you think its a good decision (I disagree wholeheartedly). Im fine with you thinking that. BUt when you place "stupid" or "you don't understand" as evidence when your opinions (which is all they are) are in DIRECT contrast to results (which are on my side of the argument) of this situation.


What results? You have completely failed to crunch any of the numbers; (i.e. the net profit the Lakers have made this season and the net profit the Lakers will make from trading Shaq). You have pretended to know the trade was rushed when your evidence goes as far as…some emotional comment Riley made that he would have given up more. 



> So please... don't call someone's opinion "stupid" when the numbers, results and popular opinion agrees with them and they contradict your own opinion.


Numbers? Results? LMAO, you didn’t crunch any numbers, you’re not even looking at the results I’m arguing here. Why should I bother if you’re not bothering to read carefully?



> I fail to see your rationale. Its as if people get purposefully childlike when this issue comes up. They want to primp and prine all the forced actions of Shaq's power but fail to concede that this move was made when it was to placate Bryant.
> 
> Evidence can be found in the dates of Shaq's deal, and Kobe deciding to return. All one need do, is look at Kobe leaning toward the Clippers and suddenly doing the about-face when the Shaq deal was prematurely consumated.


Nope, reread my previous posts if you’re still confused. Baylor himself said Kobe verbally committed to the Clippers for about 10 days before severing the agreement at the last minute. If Kobe was running the show and knew Buss would trade Shaq, why the verbal agreement with the Clippers? Why all the reports of Kobe considering the Clippers? 



> Actually there is recourse for this. And players WILL get suspended by the team for not reporting with "phantom injuries". Players WILL fore-go salary until they report to a team doctor who will/will not substantiate such a claim.


No, you’re wrong, and it’s sad that you haven’t done the research. Players do this all the time; Big Dog got paid ridiculous money this season for sitting out with phantom ankle injuries in Philly before being traded. He's now just fine in SA. Zo sat out and forced Toronto to buy him out this year, all because he basically didn’t want to play for the Raptors. He still got paid. Baron Davis sat out with ankle and back problems, that all magically went away when he was traded to GS at the deadline. He still got paid by the Hornets though, every single dime.

It happens all the time, DO THE RESEARCH. 



> If you are suggesting that Owners are not protected by this, I don't know what to tell you.


:laugh: They are NOT fully protected by this, players can (and have _just this season_) gotten around it. 



> Its ILLEGAL for players to do so, and they WILL forfeit their salary IF they do so.


NO NO NO. There are loop holes in the CBA that allow players to sit out and still get paid, all they have to do is basically tank it and/or fib about it. It has been happening for a while now. Hell, just look at this season as one of many examples of what I’m talking about. 



> So if you insist on using references to me not understanding basic things... PLEASE, PLEASE do your part and at least understand them yourself. Becuase it makes you look silly.


:rotf:



> I run a business. And there are SEVERAL other aspects that come in advance of what you are suggesting. I don't send my biggest producers packing because a smaller producer doesn't like them. If my management has produced the pen-ultimate results in 4 of 5 years... I PAY THEM WHAT THEY ARE WORTH. I would NEVER let someone demand that I get rid of other employees who have PROVEN to give me results.
> 
> NEVER would I do that!


Would you keep an employee that openly mocks you and calls you and your employees out regularly? Would you keep an employee that came to work unprepared and half-assed his way through his job? Would you keep an employee that openly berated other employees because of his own shortcomings? Give me a break, NO ONE in their right mind would keep an employee like that. Well OK, nevermind, apparently I've just met someone who is crazy enough to keep a guy like that. 



> And BTW, your fan base, playoff revenue, sell outs etc have ALL dipped. TV viewership is down substantially, so... it happened anyway oh brilliant business man... and Buss expected it. As did anyone with half a clue!


Oy, look it up, you’re dead wrong. The loss in revenue is minimal at best this year even without the expected post season appearance. And as was originally planned, the _long term_ profit is what was and still is the driving force behind the deal (i.e. Kobe playing more years than Shaq).



> You seem to insist that you MUST have a reality that if Shaq wasn't dealt in THAT deal for THOSE players at THAT time... well that means that Shaq HAD to be extended. NO ONE IS SUGGESTING THAT. Not even close.


Neither am I. Read what I’ve wrote. For goodness sakes. 



> Cause the only "facts" are that you have taken on more long term GARUNTEED SALARY for much lesser players.


All you have to do is add it up; Shaq asked for a trade because he wasn’t going to get his $90M+ extension. Buss decided to trade him because he didn’t want to spend all that money for someone that didn't work out. Those are the facts, and sadly you haven’t addressed these points AT ALL (and that’s not surprising, you CAN’T address them, it shoots down your entire “argument” that the Lakers dediced to tear down a dynasty for fun).


----------



## Rhodes (Dec 9, 2004)

For someone who supposedly runs a business, LoyalBull, you should know that the chemistry among co-workers is critically important. Unfortunately the chemistry just wasn't there anymore. There was no respect between Kobe and Shaq for a variety of reasons we all know. The rest of the team was aging and no longer near their prime. Gary Payton was a miserable wreck. Malone was injured. Phil Jackson was unable to get everyone on the same page. The magic just wasn't there anymore so changes had to be made. For the last two years they had kept the championship team together hoping they'd find success. They didn't. It was time to overhaul the team.

Shaq was originally signed under the old CBA so he was making a gargantuan salary. With two years left (already owed $58M), he wanted an additional two years at $30M a year. He would have made almost $120M for four years, starting at age 35! The Lakers offered him $22M a year - the highest salary in the league - and he turned it down. 

Had the Lakers acquiesced to Shaq's demands, they would have not been able to sign Bryant. Crunch the numbers and you'll see. The economics simply don't work, Mr. Business Owner. And even if Buss, in a Paul Allen delusion, had agreed to go into the luxury tax zone and pay Shaq and Kobe their demands, what kind of team could they have built around them? Guys from the local junior college? And what about the chemistry problems that would still exist? Besides, anyone who thinks Kobe would have come back to the Lakers with Shaq there is delusional. 

So if you're Buss, who do you rebuild your team around? The guy who shouted "Pay me mother****!" at you? The guy who was approaching his mid 30's? The guy who coined the phrase "I get hurt on company time, I heal on company time"? The guy who never came into the season in shape? The guy who with each passing year had an ever worsening free-throw percentage?

Look at the rejuvenated Shaq's stats this year and you'll see they are barely better than last year in some categories and worse in others. His shooting average is up by one point per game over last year, which was WAY down from the years earlier. His rebounding is the worse of his career. His free throw percentage is an utterly embarrassing 46%! Granted, his minutes are slightly down but even adjusted for that he doesn't look nearly as imposing as he has in the past. You can't fight age (unless you're Kareem).

Listen, Kobe's not perfect, but all things considered, he was the better bet. Not the perfect bet, the better bet. Going with Kobe was simply the better business move, and I think history will bear this out.


----------



## tatahbenitez (Jun 18, 2004)

*O*



EHL said:


> Uh, then why did management oblige Shaq and trade him where he wanted? I’m guessing it’s because, uh, he indeed had leverage.


Then please explain what leverage Shaq had? I don't understand how a player who is under contract to play for a team can do that? All Laker management had to do was let Shaq rant, then tell him to shut up and play. What was the leverage that Shaq had? Did he see Buss with an underage girl?






> Uh, what? If it was that easy, then why didn’t the Lakers do something else? Here’s a hint; it wasn’t quite that simple, as has been explained over and over again.


I must be overly simple because I don't understand how Shaq had all that power?








> Sadly this blanket statement is as far as your theory goes, as it’s baseless just like all your other comments.


Why is saying Kobe had the power during his negociations with The Lakers a blanket statement and baseless? Wasn't it true that The Lakers already wanted Kobe to come back to The Lakers, even before he became a free agent? Hence the statement from Mitch"The second GM" Kupchak saying The Lakers were willing to do anything to keep Kobe, and would take any trade offers for Shaq. I would say that Kobe was already in the drivers seat at that time. The Lakers would have given Kobe anything and were trying to please him by getting rid of his crutches, Phil and Shaq.
As a free agent, Kobe had "the power" of going to any team he wanted without fearing any repercussions from The Lakers. Laker management had already stated they wanted to keep Kobe at any cost. That meant Kobe even had more power because The Lakers were focusing everything they had on Kobe. I'd say Kobe had some power.









> LMAO. Listen to your own logic. If Buss and Kupchak were so stupid that they would let a FA dictate the ousting of one of the greatest coaches and centers ever, why didn’t management just let Kobe walk, or even try to get something back for him? You know the answer, you just can’t come to terms with it; Shaq didn’t want to be in LA because Buss wouldn't pay him and Phil wasn’t rehired because he asked for $12M per (and by his own admittance, that was more a last ditch offer as he needed the year off anyway, and surprise surprise, he's coming back). Face the facts and move on already.


I've explained the reason why Buss and Kupchak didn't just let Kobe walk. They wanted Kobe to be the foundation of The New Lakers. Shaq was traded because they thought he wasn't worth the $30+ million a year and there was no chance in hell that Kobe would come back if Shaq were still on The Lakers. Did you notice that Shaq asked for a trade after Kupchaks remarks on keeping Kobe and fielding offers for Shaq? Which way do you think management was going at that time...Kobe or Shaq?
Phil was tired of the the Shaq/Kobe circus and yes, he did want to take some time off, which made it easier for Laker management to release him.









> See above.


So what if Shaq didn't like Buss paying him the money he wanted. Shaq was still under contract!!! I don't know what that means to you, but to me, it means play or sit and look like a fool. Where is the power in that. So. please explain to a simpleton, like me, because I don't understand.


----------



## LoyalBull (Jun 12, 2002)

EHL said:


> Deflection gets you nowhere. Do you or do you not admit that cap space guarantees, in writing, absolutely zero? Case closed. Oh, and they save several tens of millions of dollars with the trade. Case closed again. ).


Thats the point. They ONLY save 10s of millions of dollars in the alternate universe you have decided as the only recourse to not doing the deal as it was constructed.

You can continue to delude yourself that only two possibilites exsist.

You are suggesting that the Lakers could ONLY do the following:

A.) Take the deal they did, AT the time they did, FOR the players they did.
B.) Pay Shaq a max extension.

You offer NO semblance of deductive reasoning that anything outside those two realities could exisist, and therein lies the fatal flaw to your argument.

Your reasoning is sound as long as ONLY those two realities were possible. The problem with that is there were a MYRIAD of different possibilites the Lakers could have explored. They didn't becuase they were on a Kobe timetable.

If you continue to pretend that everyone has to live in the reality you have decided as fact thats fine. But no one HAS too. Its a terrible argument you are making. And very few people HAVE to believe in a 'either/or' line of thinking as you do.

Its NOT either/or. And until you realize that, you would be best served to stop mocking people who aren't so rigid in their line of thinking.

Becuase once you conclude that OTHER options are out there OTHER than the two scenarios you have detailed as 'either/or' fact... you realize your argument is moot. 

And right now, I think you would rather subscribe to a flawed argument than concede that point.

The Lakers didn't HAVE to do EITHER one of those scenarios, the longer you only argue based on a fantasy world that they HAD too... the longer you remove yourself from an intellegent discussion.





EHL said:


> What flexibility? Here’s the reality; cap space guarantees nothing. A simple concept you continue to ignore. You’d let Shaq waste away on the bench and tank a Laker season for cap space to sign….Big Z? Get a grip on reality, Big Z ain’t going to save any franchise. Hell, he couldn’t help his team to the postseason in the East playing alongside LeBron James. ).


Ok, here are your realities:

1.) Lakers do this trade and end up with the players they have and the cap space they have... THEY ARE A LOTTERY TEAM.

Can they go out and get an impact player? No. No cash flexability. No room to absorb salary. 

Or...

2.) Lakers explore a myriad of different options INCLUDING (but not limited too) allowing Shaq to opt out after this season and getting a ton of cap space. They are a lottery team.

Thats the ironic part of your argument. You claim up and down that this was a deal for the future (constantly pointing to getting rid of Grant's deal) then want to say that cap space gaurntees nothing. NOTHING GAURUNTEES NOTHING. Death. Taxes. Period.

How can this be a good business deal "for the future" when you have committed MORE long term GAURUNTEED contracts for LESSER players?

You have MORE committed money with a diminished product. 

Thats about the worst business sense I can imagine. 

THis is the part where you say "this was made for the future"... to which you combat the point you are trying to make in saying 'there are no gauruntees".

WHich is it? You can't continue to circle and circumvent your own argument whenever its convienent.

I (and Most others) don't subscribe to the notion that ONLY two realities (as YOU have defined them) are possible. So while you have limited YOURSELF... don't try to pigeon hole me into your flawed (and limited) perspective.





EHL said:


> Not “agreeing” with something doesn’t mean you’re still not wrong. You could “disagree” with me that 2+2=4, doesn’t mean I won’t say you’re wrong and call you out on it).




No, thats where you are flawed COMPLETELY.

I don't believe the situation is defined by only one of the two scenarios you have decided it should be.

As such, if you are dealing with reality, then you can not speak to what "could or would" have been to anything BUT this one.

And the REALITY is... you have a diminished product (markedly so) with longer and bigger guarunteed debts.

The second you start to say "what would have been" with Shaq you NULL AND VOID the notion that any number of other options must be discounted.

Either way, you have a diminished product, you are in the lottery, your revenue has dipped, your attendence has dipped, viewership has vastly dipped and... you still have the same LONG term LARGE deals on the books AT LEAST two years into the future.

Now, you can continue to pretend that this situation was better than last year (the only REALITY we can compare THIS year too.) ... you can continue to pretend that the ONLY reality (other than doing THIS deal AT the time you did it) was extending Shaq to a max deal if you like.

But its simply NOT TRUE!

Those Aren't the only two realities. Based on what is (discarding ALL other alternate realities) its was a poor decision to take on more guarunteed salary for lesser players.

Lakers were under the gun and got fleeced. Bottom line. Bad business decision. 

Once you decide that not everyone HAS to see the situation from your limited perspective to speak to the subject, you will be better off... as will the discussion level on this board.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

*Re: O*



tatahbenitez said:


> Then please explain what leverage Shaq had? I don't understand how a player who is under contract to play for a team can do that? All Laker management had to do was let Shaq rant, then tell him to shut up and play. What was the leverage that Shaq had? Did he see Buss with an underage girl?


Just peruse what I wrote before; there are handful of examples _just this year_ of players exaggerating injuries and displaying poor/cancerous attitudes in the hopes of eventually getting traded. Those players (Baron, Zo, Big Dog, etc.) did those things and STILL got paid. Shaq held the same leverage, even more so since he had just one year left on his contract and could threaten to tank the 2004-2005 season with a fake injury and then exercise his player option and walk on the organization, leaving them nothing for Shaq. All the while the Lakers would have to convince Kobe that it would be best for the organization that the Lakers keep Shaq around for this season, and thereby tank the season before it began. Makes zero business sense for Buss and greatly hurts his chances of signing Kobe, especially since he can go and make the Clippers an immediate contender while staying in his home in LA. 



> Why is saying Kobe had the power during his negotiations with The Lakers a blanket statement and baseless? Wasn't it true that The Lakers already wanted Kobe to come back to The Lakers, even before he became a free agent? Hence the statement from Mitch"The second GM" Kupchak saying The Lakers were willing to do anything to keep Kobe, and would take any trade offers for Shaq.


Shaq had essentially sealed his fate months before those summer statements when Shaq rejected Buss's contract extension offers to be the highest paid player in the league through February 2004. You're not thinking chronologically, which is why you're somewhat confused. 



> I would say that Kobe was already in the drivers seat at that time. The Lakers would have given Kobe anything and were trying to please him by getting rid of his crutches, Phil and Shaq.


*Phil* and Shaq? Hasn't this boat already sailed, Phil is after all seriously considering the Lakers head coaching position and will probably take it any day. Come on now, at least make your bad information somewhat believeable/plausible. 



> I've explained the reason why Buss and Kupchak didn't just let Kobe walk. They wanted Kobe to be the foundation of The New Lakers. Shaq was traded because they thought he wasn't worth the $30+ million a year and there was no chance in hell that Kobe would come back if Shaq were still on The Lakers. Did you notice that Shaq asked for a trade after Kupchaks remarks on keeping Kobe and fielding offers for Shaq?


Uh, what? You just admitted that a major reason Shaq was traded was because the owner decided he wasn't worth the money. Therefore any leverage that Kobe had was certainly 2nd fiddle to the fact that Buss wasn't willing to pay Shaq through the nose.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

*Re: O*

LoyalBull, you are dreadfully confused about a few things here and need to be straightend out about them: 

1) A player can NOT get higher than minimum contracts mid-season (the contracts Zo and Anderson got were basically minimum contracts, meaning they didn't take less than they could have to play with Shaq, which in turn means your original point about Shaq bringing prospective FAs to his teams in that example was completely false. 

2) You don't understand how players' negotiate or what loop holes are present in the CBA, mostly evidenced by the fact that you didn't know players like Baron, Big Dog, and Zo _just this year_ tanked/faked injury/pouted and still got paid in the process. That is of course the leverage Shaq had over the Lakers, and since he had already exaggerated injury before the Lakers weren’t about to call his bluff (thank god). 

3) Laker revenue, attendance, viewership, etc. has NOT dipped. The Lakers drew an average of 18,792 at Staples this season, or 99% capacity. The Lakers drew 18,810 on the road or 98% capacity, which _led the league_, which corresponds directly to viewership (i.e. TV share ratings). In fact, the Lakers filled arenas to the tune of a combined 98.1% capacity this past season, #2 in the league overall. Learn the facts and stop spewing these blatant lies, it only makes it dreadfully obvious that you’re reaching for an argument that sticks. 



> You are suggesting that the Lakers could ONLY do the following:
> 
> A.) Take the deal they did, AT the time they did, FOR the players they did.
> B.) Pay Shaq a max extension.
> ...


Oy. *Of course* there were “other options”, just not reasonable ones. You don't seem to grasp that there were no other _reasonable_ options, and then pretend that my two scenarios are somehow a pair of options among a “myriad” of choices. Your one and only example of one of the “myriad” of options the Lakers had last summer was that the Lakers should have tanked the season starting from training camp and then let Shaq walk for nothing the following summer. The many problems that option would present include A) attendance and fan interest would take major hits, as with any team that openly tanks (NO, Atlanta, etc.). B) letting Shaq go for nothing guarantees exactly that, nothing, whereas the Lakers knew they could get at least Odom and Butler through a Shaq trade. C) Prospective FAs may not even want to come to LA when they see them openly tanking an entire season. And perhaps most importantly D) the Lakers would have a damn hard time convincing their most sought after FA (Bryant) to return to the Lakers. What would Buss and Kupchak tell him, “Hey Kobe, sign with us so you can endure the joy of tanking an entire season with us and then watch as we hope and pray we sign big name FAs when Shaq walks next summer.” Yeah, I bet Kobe would choose THAT over signing with the Clippers and becoming instant contenders overnight while still being able to be with his family in LA. And these are just the reasons off the top of my head.


----------



## tatahbenitez (Jun 18, 2004)

*Re: O*



EHL said:


> Just peruse what I wrote before; there are handful of examples _just this year_ of players exaggerating injuries and displaying poor/cancerous attitudes in the hopes of eventually getting traded. Those players (Baron, Zo, Big Dog, etc.) did those things and STILL got paid. Shaq held the same leverage, even more so since he had just one year left on his contract and could threaten to tank the 2004-2005 season with a fake injury and then exercise his player option and walk on the organization, leaving them nothing for Shaq. All the while the Lakers would have to convince Kobe that it would be best for the organization that the Lakers keep Shaq around for this season, and thereby tank the season before it began. Makes zero business sense for Buss and greatly hurts his chances of signing Kobe, especially since he can go and make the Clippers an immediate contender while staying in his home in LA.


This is where you and I differ greatly. Unlike the other "stars" that have pouted and got a trade, Shaq had less leverage because he was in his last year of his contract. If The Lakers did let him sit for the season, all it would do is decrease Shaqs value on the free agent market. And if Shaq did leave, then that would give The Lakers $30 million for free agents of their own. That's 2 years earlier and $15 million more than their situation now with Brian Grant's $15 million going off the salary after the 2006-2007 season.

All the Lakers had to do with Kobe is tell him that he was going to be the main focus of the offense and if Shaq doesn't like it then let him sit and look like a jealous fool.




Anyway, I think we are going to go in circles here. You and I think as opposite as Kobe and Shaq. Maybe, we should just agree to disagree and move on. :buddies:


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

As the originator of the thread,its only fair that i have the final word..... 

Judging by Buss's comments in the fued,it is clear that he knows he completely,100% #$%&$# up by trading Shaq...

"It seems that the motivation for him to lose weight was to trade him," Buss said Wednesday. "I suspect if I knew he was going to lose 60 pounds, I might have made a different decision."


Sorry Buss supporters and supporters of the trade..That statement tells all...Perhaps if Kobe didnt have his you know what up buss's you know what,Buss could have done something alot more prudent....

Kobe had a free pass and laker management gave it to him...Shaq brought the lakers to the promised land,at 325 and at 375...So dont say something utterly preposterous.....Shaq wasnt the problem and the proof is in the pussing.No Shaq,no playoffs and indeed the lakers lost money..

how do i know?? Just ask Big Daddy



> "And I don't regret him losing money and his not making the playoffs," O'Neal said


question finally answered :banana:


----------



## Brian34Cook (Mar 26, 2003)

Actually that doesnt say much.. Shaq wouldnt have lost weight to stay in L.A. If he did lose weight maybe they should have brought him back but there wasnt any guarantee he was gonna.. Or if Buss knew Shaq was gonna lose weight he would have tried to trade Shaq for MORE than what he got.. Honestly, what do those quotes say? We'll never know!


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> Honestly, what do those quotes say? We'll never know!


I know,but it sure makes for great press..Buss must be geting ripped by his buddies to say something so silly....

I never expected Shaq himself to answer my revenue question


----------



## tatahbenitez (Jun 18, 2004)

Brian34Cook said:


> Actually that doesnt say much.. Shaq wouldnt have lost weight to stay in L.A. If he did lose weight maybe they should have brought him back but there wasnt any guarantee he was gonna.. Or if Buss knew Shaq was gonna lose weight he would have tried to trade Shaq for MORE than what he got.. Honestly, what do those quotes say? We'll never know!


What you are trying to say isn't saying much either. First, you state Shaq wouldn't lose the weight to stay in LA, but then if he did there was no guarantee he wasn't? . Either he was or either he wasn't going to lose the weight.

If Shaq was never going to lose the weight if he stayed in Los Angeles, then why is he still angry at the 3 stooges? I'm believe it's because Laker management hastenly chose a young talented punk who wanted everything too soon over Shaq. Buss and company thought that Kobe's talent would compensate what Shaq brought to a team. So, that meant the most dominant player in the league was dispensible, like a used diaper. Being overweight just made it easier throw Shaq away, forgetting that he gave The Lakers 3 Championships (I know it was a team effort, but if I had to keep one player during that Championship run, then I'm keeping Batman not the boy blunder). And I would have at least given Shaq one more year and tell him to shape up because there is another player who wants your job as leader. Shaq deserved at least that one chance.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Damian Necronamous said:


> Correct. That is one of the dumbest misconceptions about Shaq. The only time he was on a team that got a player for less than market value was last season when we signed Payton and Malone. Now people are acting as if he has done it his whole career and did it this season. He didn't do it this season. Mourning is already getting paid big dollars by the Raptors and couldn't sign for any more than the minimum, and does anyone think that Shandon Anderson is worth more than the minimum?


Nope. Rick Fox turned down millions from the Hawks to sign with the Lakers for one million in 97.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> And I would have at least given Shaq one more year and tell him to shape up because there is another player who wants your job as leader. Shaq deserved at least that one chance.


Shaq deserved alot more than that..he deserved some respect and Robin couldnt get it thru his head that Batman is the caped crusader and Robin is his sidekick....

32 y.o Shaq vs a 26 y.o Kobe???? 

Please....Theres a very good reason why the Kobe and the lakers are watching Shaq on Turner Broadcasting.......


----------

