carver high

The word has reached the mainstream hoops press that Shaquille O'Neal may not be the MDE anymore. Wow, they catch on quick, don't they.

I live in LA, so sports talk radio (when I can handle it) is all about the Lakers and Kobe with a healthy dose of "why don't we have Shaq"-ing. Still. Two years later.

On the all-powerful ESPN site today their estimable Adrian Wojnarowski writes about how the Miami heat may be up against some kind of ticking clock in regards to the health and abilities of Mr. O'Neal:

As he reaches his mid-30s, with the way he lags on conditioning, this is it for him. Dwayne Wade is stepping into his best years just as Shaq is bidding goodbye to his own.

I checked their archive and I could not find anything from the Woj about the Lakers trading Shaq back in 2004. Maybe he saw this slow demise coming, but no one else did. In fact, Woj is ahead of the curve. "Dominant Shaq" passed away two years ago but most columnists still have play-off stories already written in their laptop and they are still going to file them. Shaq had 21 points and six rebounds in game 2 against the Nets - which is fine, but is anyone scared anymore?

Bill Simmons is currently linking to his archived piece from two summers ago about how the Lakers would regret giving up on the Big Self-Namer when they traded him for Lamar, an And1 gunner and a loveable but hobbling Rasta cartoon character. Billy Boston loves him some hoops but I wonder if he is paying attention. 2006Shaq ranks nowhere on the vengeance scale.

Don’t get me wrong. The Lakers would have been better these last two years if they still had Shaq. Shaq is still the best center in the league, period. But placing ahead of Scaredy-Yao, One-Legged Amare and Chris Kaman is not exactly ensconcing oneself in any kind of Pantheon.

These last two seasons were not the reason Shaq left LA. The problem was the future.

I repeat, this is not about Shaq sucking. He doesn’t. He just costs too much. That’s it. It’s all about money. Shaq was demanding big money for many years from the Lakers. In my mind, the first two year would have been worth the money to the Lakers. The next one (this would be next season) miiightbe worth the money. Check out what Shaq will be making in the 09/10 season on Hoops Hype. The two or three additional years Shaq wanted would have been salary cap killing albatrosses sure to drag down Kobe’s prime years. Instead, they will be dragging down Wade’s prime years. Enjoy it Miami.

In 2004, Simmons wrote:

We've been here before. In 1992, Philly made the EXACT SAME MISTAKE with a disgruntled Sir Charles, swapping him for 40 cents on the dollar (Jeff Hornacek, Andrew Lang and Tim Perry). In 1982, Houston traded Moses to Philly for Caldwell Jones and a piddling No. 1. In 1975, Milwaukee traded Kareem for Brian Winters, Junior Bridgeman, Laverne and Shirley.

The Lakers did not do much better than the Rockets or Sixers while trading their All-Star big. I have lots of problems with what Kupchak got for Shaq – but the deal had to get done. In cases like that, teams never get full value for the mega-star, and if the Lakers had held out, maybe no deal would have been made.

Still, the Lakers absolutely did the right thing in trading Shaq. He has been less effective in the two years the Heat have had him than he was in his last season in LA. He will no doubt be even less of a factor next season. The pattern is clear. For the money Shaq makes he not only has to be the best center in the Association, he has to be the best player. Otherwise, his salary is a crusher.

Other teams that traded classic big men (Kareem, Wilt, etc.) were different than the current Lakers in one respect. The old squads had no salary cap. That makes a big difference. Philly should have kept Wilt, because paying him big bucks had no competitive disadvantage. That’s why the Yankees can gamble on Kevin Brown and Randy Johnson, because if they are wrong, it is only money. Bad signings hurt Steinbrenner’s pocketbook, but not the team. If an NBA team is wrong about a $25mil per year signing – they are wiping out any chance to be competitive (unless Isaiah will take the bad contract off their hands).

It hurts Laker fans now to see Kobe without help, but remember how the once proud Celtics held on to their Bird/Chief/McHale nucleus a few seasons too long and never recovered. The Lakers dealt Shaq and ended up with Kobe and a chance. Rebuilding is a bitch, but horrible long-term contracts are worse.

If Shaq was still on the Lakers, would they be winning the NBA title this year? What about last year? The final season the Lakers with both Shaq and Kobe – the team-oriented Pistons beat them to a pulp in the Finals. Wouldn’t the same thing have happened these last two years? What does losing to the Spurs in the Conference Finals or the Pistons in the Finals do for the Lakers?

The Shaq-Kobe Lakers tested the “two max contract guys” technique and found it successful at times (3 titles) but lacking when facing quality, balanced opponents. Shaq plays with an 8/10th scale copy of Kobe now – and nobody thinks they are gonna beat the Pistons (assuming the use their home-court advantage to get by the Nets). How does Miami get better as Shaq gets worse and his money stays the same?

Four Mays from now, will the Heat be happy they are still paying Shaq? Will he still be obseqious calling Riley "Coach?" Or will the egotistical, angry Shaq emerge and rip the Heat for not playing him more when everyone in the arena (except Shaq) sees that it makes sense to give burn to someone younger?

It was certainly a mistake for the Bucks to unload Kareem back in the 1970s, but I don’t think the Lakers made an error trading Shaq. Shaq might have been a guarantee of success five years ago, but the oft-injured, heavier-by-the-week Sheriff Shaq of today is just not worth the risk to your salary cap future.

Signing the Shaq of today to a five year deal is like taking your kid’s college fund and playing blackjack with it. It might pay off, but the downside is terrible with the possible negative effects long outlasting the positive ones.

Shaq initially wowed them in South Beach with his funny one-liners and showing up at the MTV Awards looking like a Virginia tight-end flexing at the NFL combine – but how long did that last? Shaq was never completely in shape as a young athlete, and now when he really needs to be, his fitness is even worse. I don’t read the Miami papers that often, but watch for lots of grumbling as Shaq misses big portions of next regular season with his typical mysterious leg and foot injuries.

The Shaq era is over, even though he has not retired. Just like Jordan in DC, he plays on, but matters not. Shaq may play for six more seasons, but his time as a colossus astride the league has passed. Maybe soon the majority of the press will notice.

Simmons piece from 2004

Adrian Wojnarowski from May 10