Shaq signs new 5 year 100 mill contract . . .

[Guest_Randy]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2122716

This means that the final two years of Shaq's contract will be an albatross since I don't think that Shaq can play until he is 38 years of age.  Probably a retirement in 3 years with a big buyout!

A three year contract I could understand but Shaq wanted longer (and was willing to settle for less money each year now) and the Heat were willing to give it to him.  

Mortgaging your future for the present!  NBA at it's finest!!!

[Reality]

Taking much less money this year then he could have had with old contract.
30 mil vs 20 mil.  

Heat once again have a golden opportunity for a season.
Lets see things Shaq has done he never did as a Laker....
1.  got in shape for the season.  2.  took less money, even if only applicable to a couple years.

Randy if the Heat get but one Title out of this Shraq trade with the Lakers, I'm sure they would call it good.  Lets see who they add now.  Eddie Jones for Antone Walker.  Not sure that is an improvement.  If you can get ballhog Walker to share, he could really help.  Maybe Riley and Shaq can penetrate his fat dome.

After that, who knows?  His workouts and the injury bug (or not) will be the deciding factor.   Even healthy, if Indy and Det stay healthy they can topple the Big A.

I still notice no one in Heatville and Shaq himself are saying "He is completely healed from J Oneal thigh slam"....   I think they would be hyping it to the tenth power if he really was 100% recovered.

[msc]

IMO this is a smart move by Miami.  They weren't selling any tickets prior to Shaq's arrival and now they are.  It doesn't really matter to Miami whether they win a title or not with him because he has vastly improved the revenue of the franchise.  From a business standpoint it was a wise move.  

As a Laker fan, all I can say is better them than us.  It makes sense for them, not for us.  Believe it or not, there is still a long waiting list for Laker season seats.  Even with the sub-par product the Lakers put out last year, the team remains one of the most profitable in the league.  Fortunately for Dr. Buss, most of the "fans" in LA that can afford tickets go to the games more for the spectacle than the sport.  We'll have to wait and see how long the ticket demand continues during the re-building process, but for the immediate future the demand is still there.  I keep hoping most of the wheels fall off the bandwagon, so I can upgrade my seats  :rolleyes:

As far as bringing in Walker for Eddie Jones.  I know Eddie can be inconsistent, but for crying out loud, the guy plays exceptional D, understands the team concept, is a stand up person on and off the court.  In my view, the Heat's chances of winning a championship were slim, but if they bring in Walker, their chances go from slim to none.  

[rickortreat]

It's not unheard of for Centers to play into their 40's particularly if they have unique physical attributes.

Don't be surprised if he continues to play.

I agree that Walker would be a bad pick-up for the Heat.  THey should be able to attact a better player for the chance to win a ring.

Detroit is going to take at least a step back without Larry Brown.

That leaves Indiana and Miami as the biggest challengers in the East.  I think Miami will have a much better shot than most at winning the title, over the next couple of years.  

I said it before and I'll say it again,  it was stupid for LA to give up Shaq.  STUPID STUPID STUPID   :huh:   STUPID  :eek2:  :bash:  

[westkoast]

It's not unheard of for Centers to play into their 40's particularly if they have unique physical attributes.

Don't be surprised if he continues to play.

I agree that Walker would be a bad pick-up for the Heat.  THey should be able to attact a better player for the chance to win a ring.

Detroit is going to take at least a step back without Larry Brown.

That leaves Indiana and Miami as the biggest challengers in the East.  I think Miami will have a much better shot than most at winning the title, over the next couple of years.  

I said it before and I'll say it again,  it was stupid for LA to give up Shaq.  STUPID STUPID STUPID   :huh:   STUPID  :eek2:  :bash:

Yea well this unique physical attribute happens to be his mass.  Shaq is NOT going to play until he is 40.  Id be suprised if he made it to 37.

Went from 'PAY ME MY F'IN MONEY' to 'Sure ill take less money over longer years to help out' :lol:

Why in gods green earth would they trade for Jason Williams?  Why would you even break up this current team?  Why not keep them in tact and let them take another crack after knowing each other for a year?

[msc]

Maybe Kareem could play in to his 40's, he was all in to Yoga, kept himself in excellent shape, was as lean as a string-bean, played a finesse game (i.e., wasn't getting the tar beat out of him down low).  Shaq playing until he's 40?!?!?  You can't be serious!  Pass me the pipe, brother.  That must be that good weed Kareem scored you!

WHAT IS WITH YOU PEOPLE AND YOUR LOVE FOR SHAQ NOW THAT HE ISN'T A MEMBER OF THE LAKERS?!?!?  

It's hilarious.  For years, going back to the MSN board days, all of the Laker-haters on this board hated Shaq.  And rightfully so, I get that.  Now that he's no longer a member of the dreaded Lakers, this board has been worshipping him all year long.

But if it were the Lakers who just re-upped him for 5-years the comments on this board would be along the lines of:  "they overpaid", "5-years ... are they nuts!?", "Shaq is breaking down", "He hasn't played a full season in about four years now", "He's injury prone", "He's taken too much of a beating during his career", "He maybe has two decent years left in him ... maybe", "He hasn't delivered a championship in 3 years now".  

And I would agree with all of those statements, regardless of the color of his jersey, because they're accurate.  

Instead its' "Other centers have played in to their 40's, Shaq's a center, therefore Shaq can play in to his 40's".   :drunk:  :drunk:  :cheers:  :drunk:  :drunk:  

[Guest]

As one of the resident "Laker haters" from MSNBC on this board, I challenge you to name *ANY* time I criticized Shaq's talent.  I've given him credit for being a good passer, having great footwork, and being an offensive talent.  I've given him credit defensively when he deserved it.  And I've given him a TON of crap when he deserved THAT.

I've given him credit for his generousity when it's been deserved, and I've taken him to task for his ego when it's been deserved.

I think it's a VERY SMART signing.  It doesn't matter whether he plays 3 years or 5 - it's a smart signing.  And I'd have said that if it were the Los Angeles Lakers who signed him, too.

I've credited the Los Angeles Laker organization for keeping Kareem on the roster and payroll, for keeping Worthy until he was done.  I've credited Boston for keeping an old Bird and and old McHale.  I credited Utah for keeping an old Stockton, San An for Elliott and Robinson.

And Los Angeles should have done the same for Shaq.

I've slammed New York for letting go of Ewing;  Houston for letting go of Olajuwon.  I've slammed Utah for not fighting harder to keep Karl Malone.

Los Angeles had Shaq.  They should have kept him.  I don't care if Mitch Kupchak has to look Kobe Bryant in the face and *LIE* to him to get him to sign his contract - you DO NOT deal a franchise player away.  PERIOD.  You keep them, and they retire in your uniform.

Miami is doing that.  If Shaq plays 1 year or 5, Miami did what they needed to do to try to WIN NOW...which is the object of this game.  And if Shaq plays 5 years, Miami has him for those 5 years...which is the way it should be.

PAY HIM HIS F'IN MONEY!

 

[Guest]

That was me - Joe Vancil.

[Guest_Randy]

As one of the resident "Laker haters" from MSNBC on this board, I challenge you to name *ANY* time I criticized Shaq's talent.  I've given him credit for being a good passer, having great footwork, and being an offensive talent.  I've given him credit defensively when he deserved it.  And I've given him a TON of crap when he deserved THAT.

I've given him credit for his generousity when it's been deserved, and I've taken him to task for his ego when it's been deserved.

I think it's a VERY SMART signing.  It doesn't matter whether he plays 3 years or 5 - it's a smart signing.  And I'd have said that if it were the Los Angeles Lakers who signed him, too.

I've credited the Los Angeles Laker organization for keeping Kareem on the roster and payroll, for keeping Worthy until he was done.  I've credited Boston for keeping an old Bird and and old McHale.  I credited Utah for keeping an old Stockton, San An for Elliott and Robinson.

And Los Angeles should have done the same for Shaq.

I've slammed New York for letting go of Ewing;  Houston for letting go of Olajuwon.  I've slammed Utah for not fighting harder to keep Karl Malone.

Los Angeles had Shaq.  They should have kept him.  I don't care if Mitch Kupchak has to look Kobe Bryant in the face and *LIE* to him to get him to sign his contract - you DO NOT deal a franchise player away.  PERIOD.  You keep them, and they retire in your uniform.

Miami is doing that.  If Shaq plays 1 year or 5, Miami did what they needed to do to try to WIN NOW...which is the object of this game.  And if Shaq plays 5 years, Miami has him for those 5 years...which is the way it should be.

PAY HIM HIS F'IN MONEY!

Joe,

I can't disagree with you more:

1)  Shaq wasn't going to take less money with the Lakers -- he wanted the MAX deal for as long as he was going to get it;

2)  Could I have handled 1 if Shaq was in shape and was going to stay in shape?  Absolutely!!!  But he wasn't -- and signing for $30 mill a year (which was what he was insisting on in LA) would have put the Lakers over the cap with just he and Kobe's salary (okay, not quite but close to it).  

3)  Shaq ISN'T going to draw more players to play for almost nothing (like he said he could).  Players saw how that played out with GP and Malone.  They might be willing to come for a LITTLE less money but they are going to want their money too.  That wasn't going to happen in LA -- LA simply doesn't have the quality role players to surround Shaq and Kobe in order to win a title -- ESPECIALLY with Shaq in such poor shape.

I'm old school -- I prefer to see a player (Magic, Bird, DRob, TD, Kobe, etc.) come to an organization and become part of that organization for life.  However, if you have to kill a franchise to do that?  Nope, I'm not for that at all.  It was clear that Lakers weren't going to win another title and Shaq kept flapping his mouth about MAX money and MAX extension (years) -- that would have doomed not only the present Lakers but the future Lakers as well.  I have no doubt that the Lakers would have continued to make the playoffs but they wouldn't have gone deep and they would have just ensured that they didn't have any money to spend and couldn't gain any young talented players.  

I'd have to say given those criteria that I have ZERO problem letting Shaq go.  Now if Shaq was willing to take LESS money (like he did in Miami) AND get in shape?  Yeah, I'd would have loved him to continue to be a Laker.  But that WASN'T going to happen in LA.

[Derek Bodner]

Why in gods green earth would they trade for Jason Williams? Why would you even break up this current team? Why not keep them in tact and let them take another crack after knowing each other for a year?

They didn't trade for Jason Williams.  They traded for Posey.  Jason Williams was what they had to take back to make Memphis willing to trade Posey.

At this point in their careers, Posey > Jones.

[Reality]

Why in gods green earth would they trade for Jason Williams? Why would you even break up this current team? Why not keep them in tact and let them take another crack after knowing each other for a year?

They didn't trade for Jason Williams.  They traded for Posey.  Jason Williams was what they had to take back to make Memphis willing to trade Posey.

At this point in their careers, Posey > Jones.

How did the $$$ all match?
On the surface it seems Miami took on way more then Memph or Boston.

[Guest_Randy]

Why in gods green earth would they trade for Jason Williams? Why would you even break up this current team? Why not keep them in tact and let them take another crack after knowing each other for a year?

They didn't trade for Jason Williams.  They traded for Posey.  Jason Williams was what they had to take back to make Memphis willing to trade Posey.

At this point in their careers, Posey > Jones.

dbods,

It was a pretty well known fact that the Heat were interested in Williams.

As for Posey being better than Jones?  No way!  Sure, Posey is a more consistent shooter but EJ is better without the ball, finishing at the basket and a MUCH better defender.  Add it all up and I don't agree that Posey is a better player.

[Derek Bodner]

It was a pretty well known fact that the Heat were interested in Williams.

It was also a pretty well known fact that the grizzlies were using Posey as an incentive to take Williams bad contract.

As for posey and jones defense, I disagree.  Posey is defensively what jones was 3-4 years ago.  Jones is no longer an excellent defender.  Posey currently is a very good defender.

[Guest_Randy]

I totally disagree -- EJ had the distinct disadvantage of guarding the opponents best player every game last year -- and sometimes, that was a SF much bigger and stronger than he was.  

Posey is a decent defender but not even in the same league with EJ, IMO.

[Joe Vancil]

If you ask me, Jones hasn't lost a step, and Posey is just as good.  These guys are both top-notch defenders.  Trading Jones for Posey is the net effect of adding some strength and rebounding at the expense of some ball-handling, outside shooting, and scoring explosiveness.

I regard it as not being a bad deal, although I'm sure Miami would have liked to have kept Jones, as well.