Reply to a question on why the Lakers didn't get more for Shaq

1. Why did we HAVE to trade Shaq? Everyone kept saying we HAD to trade Shaq but I've never heard a decent explanation. Just b/c he was unhappy? There's lots of unhappy NBA players. All Atlanta Hawks for one thing. Some of the Clippers for another, but they can't force trades. Shaq had 2 years left on his contract. Why not keep him? He would still be the MDE during those 2 years. And, if he played like a pouting b!tch, wouldn't that kill chances for a decent contract extension w/ other teams?

To me, there were three possibilities at the end of last season. #1 was that the Lakers make Shaq happy by giving him a massive contract extension. Kobe then probably walks through free agency. Shaq probably doesn't keep himself in shape, turns into a pile of goo and has a contract that makes him untradeable. The Lakers have no cap room for years and years. There is lots of locker room disharmony for years and years as Shaq blames everyone but himself for the team's mediocre performance. The Lakers suck for years and years.

#2 was that the Lakers don't give Shaq his extension. Shaq is really pissed and doesn't keep himself in shape. Kobe then probably walks through free agency. I don't think the Lakers make the Payton trade, because they need to win while they have Shaq on the roster. Shaq goes through the motions all season while swelling up like a balloon. The Lakers are absolutely awful, with a starting line up of Cook, Medvedenko, Walton, KRush and Payton. Shaq's behavior makes his trade value plummet. In his last season, Shaq shows up in shape, plays hard, and complains the whole time. When the contract ends, the Lakers have to hose down and antisceptic all of their spaces to remove all traces of Shaq.

#3 was that the Lakers trade Shaq, re-sign Kobe and use what they got from Shaq to rebuild the team to be a contender in 3 to 6 years. Choice #3 sounds the best to me.

2. How did Shaq "veto" trade offers? If Shaq only agreed to a trade if it were to NYK and if the Lakers took Allan Houston and Tim Thomas in exchange, would the Lakers simply shrug their shoulders and take it? Of course not. So, why were the Lakers 'forced' to take a mediocre offer? Why not hold out for a better one?

The Lakers wanted a tremendous amount from a team for Shaq. For a team to give up a tremendous amount, they wanted a commitment from The Big Moody that he would be happy playing there. Would you give away as much as the Heat gave away for a player who was going to show up out of shape then go through the motions all season while complaining and moaning?

3. CBA max contracts. Shaq got grandfathered in, but I thought after his 2006 extension, only the Lakers could offer him $30+ million. Everyone else could only offer him $15+ million or so. Didn't that give the Lakers huge leverage in negotiating contract extension w/ Shaq? Offer him $20 mil, b/c no one can offer more than $17mil.

Yes and No. Yes, the Lakers could offer him more than anyone else. No, in that for the seasons his new contract would cover, Shaq isn't going to be worth more than the $15+ million. As long as Shaq was on the Lakers, he was going to demand the monster extension and his attitude was going to get worse because Buss wasn't going to give it to him.

4. Why Brian Grant? Everyone knew he was grossly overpaid at $15 mil for 3 more long years. Why take an untradeable player w/ weak knees from the Heat? Not only do we give them Shaq, but we take a untradeable, overpaid player off their hands? Gives the Heat room to acquire 'Zo, Damon Jones, etc. At $15 mil, that's half Shaq's $30 mil contract anyway? Why not force Miami into a 3-way trade and get someone decent at $15 mil. Or at least someone w/ a shorter contract.

You had to have a monster contract like Grant's in order to make the trade work. As for forcing Miami to make a trade to get a different monster contract, whatever price Miami had to pay to get a different player was going to be deducted from what they offered the Lakers, so it makes more sense for the Lakers to get Grant and then swing a deal that better suits them. Miami's offer was Miami's offer - they offered as much as they were going to pay for Shaq so it doesn't make sense to wonder what more the Lakers could have "forced" Miami to do.

Posted here at LG.net