QRICH

According to him (on 1030 am) he said the Lakers offered Oneal to the Blazers for Randolph/Ratliff/Miles. But Nash turned it down. We dodged a bullet there!

Dan

that would have have been a better deal for the Lakers, than the one they were stuck with.

But it would've had to include more than those 3.

Zach makes almost 2 million, Theo, about 11.

So that means Darius would've either had to have been signed for the Max, and another player, or Darius to a reasonable contract + a Dale Davis type player.

__________________
A Buddhist walks up to a hot dog vendor and says "Make me one with everything".

when will the loss of life end?

The world respects the power of our example, not an example of our power.

I'd like to say I made this, but I didn't

QRICH

I agree:

Randolph > Odom (though, it's close)
Miles > Butler
Ratliff > Grant

Pg: Damon/Telfair
Sg: Anderson/Woods
Sf: Patterson/Khrapa
Pf: Rahim/Outlaw?
C: Oneal/Davis

...hmmm

Blazerfan024

So basically trade the team for him, um no thanks at least Nash said no

Schilly

And everyone is so quik to complain about lack of activity

Ed O

I think the Blazers should have done the trade, if it was really available and IF Shaq would have been willing to re-sign (or sign an extension) with Portland.

Shaq's one of the best players in NBA history, and he's still only 32 years old in an era where top centers often play until they're 40.

With the deal, our starting five would have looked like this:

PG: Damon
SG: DA
SF: Patterson
PF: SAR
C: Shaq

That's WAY better than our starting five right now, and it would have challenged for HCA in the West, IMO.

The odds of Brent Barry signing would have been better, too, since he wants to win now and any team Shaq's on has a chance to do that.

Man, the more I think of this, the more painful it is that Nash/Patterson didn't pull the trigger.

Ed O.

__________________
"In the end, it all comes down to talent. You can talk all you want about intangibles, I just don't know what that means. Talent makes winners, not intangibles. Can nice guys win? Sure, nice guys can win -- if they're nice guys with a lot of talent. Nice guys with a little talent finish fourth, and nice guys with no talent finish last."

-- Sandy Koufax

ryanjend22

Ed.O got a point...but i think we would regret this in the end.



id rather fight another tough season than win because of shaq.


Theres principles in this game, son. lets stay real here.

cimalee

Thank you nash for not making the deal

Dan

centres who play till they're 40 are in slightly better shape than Shaq, and take less physical abuse than Shaq did..and are generally shells of their former self by the time they're 40..

__________________
A Buddhist walks up to a hot dog vendor and says "Make me one with everything".

when will the loss of life end?

The world respects the power of our example, not an example of our power.

I'd like to say I made this, but I didn't

duckman1734

Exactly

Shaq is getting older, although he's the most dominant player in the game still, he might not be in 5 years. Zach and Darius are up and coming players that would form a lethal combo with Kobe. Throw in Theo the best shot blocker in the game and LA wins the Championship still.

__________________
GO DUCKS!!!
PORTLANDTRAILBLAZERS

Trader Ed

I think Ed O has a valid point. Athough I am not sure how they would have come up with more mega millions to get it even CBA wise... maybe Davis as well...

On the surface I would say heck no, but after going to the Finals again I would certainly forgive them...

__________________
"The whole is greater than the sum of its parts..."

Heart, desire and hustle! Its the fire within that makes a champion.

ProudBFan

I know any sort of opinion on the extreme end of the scale (either way) gets flack around here, but let me just say this:

THANK GOD NASH TURNED DOWN THAT DEAL!!!

Shaq, as big and dominating as he is, has deficiencies that make him a liability - especially in crunch-time. He couldn't carry last year's "Dream Team" past the Pistons (who I expect to contend again next season), so how the heck is he gonna carry the Blazers to the Promised Land next season?

So the Blazers would have been giving up their short-term success (Rat/Zach/Miles) and a good portion of their longer-term success (Zach/Miles) for what? A high-ticket gamble?

No thanks, man. Nash made a VERY good move here, IMO.

PBF

__________________

KingSpeed

Ed O is right.

And with Frahm raining threes while Shaq dunked in the middle, we might have won it all. Ah well.... Perhaps too big of a risk.

Or maybe we don't want to win. We don't want Jordan. We don't want Sheed. We don't want Shaq.

What's going on?

KingSpeed

Shaq is arguably THE best player in NBA history.

KingSpeed

The PROBLEM with the deal is.... look at what the LAKER lineup would have been:

PG: Payton
SG: Kobe
SF: Miles
PF: Zach
C: Theo

THAT starting five is better than the starting 5 we'd have with Shaq and they'd probably beat us in one of the most hyped WCFs ever!!