[robyg1974]

You gotta wonder: Why is Jerry Buss, who is clearly not interested in taking on additional payroll (remember, he could've traded Robert Horry's expiring contract to the Bucks for Sam Cassell at the trade deadline, and he turned the Bucks down), talking about signing Shaq to an absurd extension (starting at $35ish mil/year) THREE YEARS BEFORE SHAQ'S CONTRACT EXPIRES? Doesn't this seem strange to any of you? Does anyone in their right mind really believe that Shaq's body is going to allow him to continue playing at a Hall of Fame level into his late thirties?

I'll tell you why Buss is making this peculiar comment at this particular time. Listen up! SHAQ IS GOING TO GET TRADED AT THE END OF THIS SEASON. I told you guys this would happen last summer, and I am telling you again. His contract is on the verge of getting truly outrageous (he'll be averaging around $30 mil/year during the 2004-05 and 2005-06 seasons), and the time to get equal value for Shaq is NOW.

If the Lakers don't win the championship this year--and I don't think they will (my preseason pick was San Antonio, and I'm sticking with my guns here, the Spurs remain my team to beat, I think they knock off the Lakers in the first round)--how can you justify holding onto Shaq and his enormous salary? Answer: YOU CAN'T!

Last summer, I told you guys that the top two candidates to trade for Shaq are New York and Memphis. These two teams remain the top two candidates. In exchange for Shaq, the Lakers will want a combination of the following things: a) contracts that expire at the end of the 2003-04 season, b) cheap, young players, and c) draft picks.

New York can offer the expiring contracts of Antonio McDyess (face it, this guy is never going to get healthy, stay healthy, and play at an All-Star level ever again), Charlie Ward, and Travis Knight. They can also throw in a cheap, young point guard (either Milos Vujanic or Frank Williams--the Lakers will want Vujanic, while the Knicks will want to trade them Williams) and a first round draft pick or two. [And no, the Lakers won't take on awful contracts like Latrell Sprewell, Allan Houston, Shandon Anderson, Howard Eisley, or Clarence Weatherspoon, so don't even think about it, Knicks fans! You are STUCK with these guys, so get used to it!] The Knicks may have to throw in an Othella Harrington or a Michael Doleac to make the salaries even up.

Memphis can offer the expiring contracts of Wesley Person and Brevin Knight, and a couple of future first round picks, but that's not nearly enough. The Lakers are going to want Pau Gasol, that's all there is to it. And that's STILL not going to be enough to make the salaries even up. My guess is that, if the Lakers want Gasol, they're going to have to take on a pretty lousy contract, either Lorenzen Wright or Michael Dickerson. I actually think that the Lakers would rather have a cheap, young Gasol and the lousy contract of either Wright or Dickerson over Shaq's absurd contract.

I really think that it'll come down to whether or not the Lakers will be willing to take on a Wright or a Dickerson. The Knicks' package will not include a single bad longterm contract. However, the Knicks' package also won't include a guy like Gasol. The Knicks will probably end up getting a late lottery pick, and good LUCK getting a Gasol-caliber player with a late lottery pick, ESPECIALLY in this year's mediocre draft.

In other words, I think that Shaq will be suiting up in a Grizzlies uniform next season. Let's say that Shaq gets traded for Gasol, Dickerson, Person, Knight, and a couple of draft picks. Let's also say that West goes out and gets a couple of top veterans for cheap--Scottie Pippen (a three year deal starting at around $2.5 mil) and Robert Horry (the exact same three year deal that Pippen gets). Here's how each team will look:

MEMPHIS GRIZZLIES

Starting lineup

PG Jason Williams (32 mpg)
SG Shane Battier (32 mpg)
SF Mike Miller (36 mpg)
PF Stromile Swift (32 mpg)
C Shaquille O'Neal (36 mpg)

Key reserves: Lorenzen Wright (28 mpg), Scottie Pippen (24 mpg), Robert Horry (20 mpg)

LOS ANGELES LAKERS

Starting lineup

PG Derek Fisher (36 mpg)
SG Kobe Bryant (40 mpg)
SF Rick Fox (36 mpg)
PF Pau Gasol (40 mpg)
C Elden Campbell FREE AGENT REPLACEMENT FOR ONE YEAR? (32 mpg)

Key reserves: Devean George (24 mpg), Wesley Person (20 mpg), Kareem Rush (12 mpg)

FELLERS! This sounds crazy, but BELIEVE IT! Shaq's days in L.A. are numbered!

When the contracts of Person, Knight, and Campbell expire after the 2003-04 season, the Lakers may have enough cap room to offer Jamaal Magliore, who will be a restricted free agent in the summer of 2004, a fairly nice offer. Magliore would be a nice no-nonsense defender/rebounder/shotblocker to put up front with Gasol, who is a fantastic scorer but is not much of a defender. We may also see the Lakers attempt to dump the contracts of Fisher and Fox either next summer or before the 2003-04 regular season trade deadline (in an attempt to free up even more cap space for the summer of 2004).

If the Lakers are able to free up enough cap space for the summer of 2004--which will probably require getting rid of BOTH Fox AND Fisher (getting rid of Michael Dickerson and Devean George would be nice, too)--the Lakers could make a run at either KEVIN GARNETT or RASHEED WALLACE. I think a trio of Kobe-Garnett-Gasol or Kobe-Rasheed-Gasol is good enough to start winning championships again. But, for one year--the 2003-04 season (NEXT season)--the Lakers will be pretty so-so and may not even make the playoffs.

One way to free up more cap space for a run at either Garnett or Rasheed would be to make that trade with the Knicks, so as to avoid taking on a Lorenzen Wright or a Michael Dickerson. However, I really don't think this is going to happen. First of all, I don't think Kevin Garnett will leave Minnesota--no one will be able to offer him as much money as will Minnesota. In fact, he stands to make nearly TWICE as much money by staying with Minnesota than by signing with somebody else. That means that the Lakers will have to settle for Rasheed Wallace. Is Kobe-Rasheed good enough to win championships? No, I don't think so, and I'm a big Rasheed Wallace fan. PLUS, there is no guarantee that Rasheed wants to leave Portland, or that Portland wants to let him leave. And, SECOND of all, the Lakers will have an awfully tough time justifying that proposed trade with New York to their fans if the best player they get back from the Knicks is either an unproven young point guard in Vujanic or Williams or an injury-waiting-to-happen-again in McDyess. IN OTHER WORDS, the Lakers will probably play it safe and trade Shaq to Memphis, not New York.

BELIEVE IT! THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN, FELLERS!

[tenkev]

I'll keep my fingers crossed!
Memphis would go aboslutely crazy if that happened.

[thrice911]

Hey, nice to see you back Roby G! Man I have missed reading your large and informative(although sometimes eccentric ) posts about trades, the salary cap, and anything basketball.

Well being a laker fan, I cannot seriously imagine the Lakers trading Shaq, even if it could possibly be in their best interest to do so. He has brought the team three straight championships! I understand that he is at the point of his career where he can only decrease in performance and ability but Jerry Buss and the Lakers organization will not trade Shaq. Although, Buss's recent statements about a contract extension do puzzle me.

I firmly believe that whether or not the Lakers win four straight, Shaq will retire a Laker. Kobe on the other hand, I'm not so sure.

[grizzoistight]

kobe just poster shaq one time..
i think that trade would benefit both teams

[Jamel Irief]

I will be bumping this thread in October.

You don't understand how Jerry Buss is. He's not a cheapskate. He will pay when it is deserved. Shaq deserves it, Cassell doesn't.

[Mongolmike]

agreed or disagreed, nice post RobyG1974. You put a lot of thought into that post. People forget that EVERYONE is trade-able at some point in their career.... and if the Lakers think they are better in the long run, why wouldn't they do it? If the Grizz think they could be better in the short term, why wouldn't they do it? And the Knicks.... they just need a marquee player. Period.

[Jamel Irief]

Originally posted by <b>Mongolmike</b>!
and if the Lakers think they are better in the long run, why wouldn't they do it?

For the same reason the Rockets didn't make the smart basketball trade in 98 and send Hakeem to the Raptors for Kevin Willis, Doug Christie and two lottery picks. It's real easy to see why the Lakers wouldn't do it.

[Pinball]

The only time I want to see Shaq dealt is when he really declines. Earlier this year I thought he was going downhill but he's bounced back. Right now if Buss were to give Shaq that extension I'd want some guarantees from Shaq if I were him, mainly that he'll come to camp in great shape. Shaq is 31 and isn't getting any younger so it is important that he keeps himself in top condition. If Shaq can do that than we can win 2-3 more titles easy IMO.

[BigTMacFan]

One of the truly original threads I've read in a while.

Kudos.

[digital jello]

Why was my post erased?

[Damian Necronamous]

Anyone who says that Shaq will get traded to the Grizzlies is out of their mind.

No way he gets traded, PERIOD. That idea is ludacrous, the Lakers have no reason to trade Shaq...unless for some reason they want to go from a championship team, to sucking. I'd rather have Shaq, and his huge contract, than any of the Grizzlies players, and so would everyone in Laker management.

Nice imagination, but Buss wants Shaq back to WIN more games.