Shoud the Heat trade Shaq, rebuild?

[Reality]

With Zo Mourning out, at 8-21 and the board polling 5-4 in favor of Miami not making the playoffs.....
http://forums.phillyarena.net/index.php?topic=4095.0

Should The Heat trade Shrak now and begin to rebuild while DWade is still young?
I'm saying yes.  Boston may not have played many tough teams and Orlando may still be growing, but either one of them will beat The Heat in a series.  Pistons too for that matter.  In fact would any of the Easts top 8 roll Miami?  Probably.

Maybe some high dollar expiring contracts?
Possibilities?  This one is not mine but don't laugh, it could make sense for both teams.  Just to get the ball rolling.
Shaq to Dallas for KVHorns expiring.  The Heat are flopping anyways this year.  Ride it out, possibly get a higher draft pic and be done with 14 million a year at seasons end.  Cuban will spend and Shaq provides a great back up center for two more years.  Which they sorely need.

[Joe Vancil]

Well, given this year - and not until this year - I'm ready to say that Shaq is no longer one of the uber-elite players.  My thread talking about not writing him off yet was brought up just the other day in a recent message (and, if you'll notice, Shaq won the title the end of that year), and I was defending him, but no more.  He should have stepped up to a higher level by now if he was capable of doing it, because Miami is in need of a big boost.

Can you get equal - or close to equal - value for him?  I don't think so.  And if that's the case, it's probably better for Miami to keep him.

[Reality]

Can you get equal - or close to equal - value for him?  I don't think so.  And if that's the case, it's probably better for Miami to keep him.

  KVHorns 15 million plus throw in someone else for a 20-20 swap.
Question becomes what can Miami get for the would-be $20 million freed to start the 2008-9 season that is better then Shaq?
Absolutely they can do better.
So Joe you're actually agreeing with my point.  If Miami cannot get equal value for Shaq, and I agree they probaly cannot with his lasso salary, yet they also cannot win with him, then he absolutely should be moved.  Keep Shaq and his $20 mil salary DWade is prime simply to lose?  No way.

[Joe Vancil]

No, Reality, I *DON'T* agree with you.

*IF* you can get equal value for Shaq, then yes, trade him.

An expiring contract is not equal value.  In fact, it's NO value.  The Van Horn deal would be pointless.  Miami would be a bad team, and no respectable free agent would want to sign there, even if Wade was there.  With Shaq, the Heat might still manage a shade of respect, and as such, you might attract someone when Shaq's contract is up.

You're saying trade Shaq to trade Shaq.  I think that's a bad idea.

[Lurker]

And I am not sure that Dallas still holds any rights for Van Horn.  His contract expired after the 2005/06 season and he did not play last year.  So I believe that he is a free agent and since he sat out a complete season that Dallas lost any bird rights. 

But assuming they still have the rights there is the slight problem that Dallas would have to cut a player to sign Van Horn.  Not to mention that Van Horn's $15 mil contract would cost Cuban $30 million because of the luxury tax.

So the basic question is Cuban ready to spend $30 million a year for the next two seasons to get a "back-up" center who will have major attitude problems being a bench player?

[westkoast]

Well, given this year - and not until this year - I'm ready to say that Shaq is no longer one of the uber-elite players.  My thread talking about not writing him off yet was brought up just the other day in a recent message (and, if you'll notice, Shaq won the title the end of that year), and I was defending him, but no more.  He should have stepped up to a higher level by now if he was capable of doing it, because Miami is in need of a big boost.

Can you get equal - or close to equal - value for him?  I don't think so.  And if that's the case, it's probably better for Miami to keep him.

Joe when was Shaq an uber elite player last year?!

Miami might as well keep him because they won't get much for him in return.  Shaq for Keith Van Horn?  They don't need a shooter they need a big body.

[Reality]

  The Van Horn deal would be pointless.  Miami would be a bad team, and no respectable free agent would want to sign there, even if Wade was there.  With Shaq, the Heat might still manage a shade of respect, and as such, you might attract someone when Shaq's contract is up.

You're saying trade Shaq to trade Shaq.  I think that's a bad idea.

$20 mil freed up salary to sign other players is value.  It is *NOT* pointless.
The right free agent(s) most certainly would want to sign with DWade.

Lurker I don't know how the whole CBA thing works.  I was told that Cuban would actually have to extend Van Horn for two additional years, however his salary could still be cut after this season.

Q.  Have any teams in NBA history traded a large expiring contract for the sole purpose of freeing up salary for the coming year and years.  And was it successful?

[Lurker]

Reality, trading Shaq does not automatically give Miami $20 mil in cap space.

If for example Miami has $68 million in salary and the cap is $58 million then trading Shaq would only put them $10 million under the cap.  Or basically enough to screw you in losing your exemptions but not enough to offer the max to someone like Brand.

Miami paid $60 million for 1 title.  No one is going to give them anything for Shaq that will come anywhere near compensating them.  Or making them competitive.  No one wants to say it but Riley really screwed the future of the Heat for a shot at a title or two.  And they were lucky to meet Dallas in the finals or they could possibly be looking at 0 titles for their $60 million investment.

[Reality]

Well if Miami is paying Shaq 20 mil per year and will be paying 0 per year after a trade involving 2007-8 VanHorn etc expires, i figure that is 20 mil to spend elsewhere.

The Laker posters tell me all that counts is titles, so even if Miami gets no more titles in the 5 years of Shaqs contract, it's 1-0.
Unless SuperByns leads the Lakers to a title.

I agree the obscenity was to sign Shaq to the extension.  But Shaq only came to Miami with that promise, so yeah 5 years and 100 mil was wayy overspending for Shaq.  Unless they dump his salary now, the right thing to do.

[Lurker]

Well if Miami is paying Shaq 20 mil per year and will be paying 0 per year after a trade involving 2007-8 VanHorn etc expires, i figure that is 20 mil to spend elsewhere.

Not if they are already over the cap.  You can only sign free agents when you have money under the cap.  If Miami was $20 million over the cap and Shaq's salary was waived due to amnesty THEY STILL COULD NOT SIGN ANY FREE AGENTS EXCEPT TO MINIMUM CONTRACTS.  Just because you take away a large salary it does not mean you can automatically spend that much money.

[jn]

Shaq should retire.  I have been planning to put up a thread about this.  He has lost several steps and if he comes back next year we will fall into the category of athletes who hung on for so long it became painful to watch.

[WayOutWest]

Shaq should retire.  I have been planning to put up a thread about this.  He has lost several steps and if he comes back next year we will fall into the category of athletes who hung on for so long it became painful to watch.

If Shaq had any REAL professional pride he would get in shape and still be a top 5 center in the NBA next year.  That has as much chance of happening as Bitch Cupcake pulling off a stunning signing in FAVOR of the Lakers!

[Joe Vancil]

Reality,

Lurker is explaining my viewpoint quite well.

Just because you have a player making a humongous salary does not mean that losing that player will get you all that money back.  If the cap is $ 58 million, and Miami's payroll is $ 80 million, losing a $ 20 million Shaq doesn't get you anything.  You're over the cap, and all you have to spend is the cap exceptions and the minimums.  Generating a trade exception doesn't help, either, because you can't use a trade exception to sign a player.

In Miami's situation, they've essentially got one thing they can do - and that's try to win with Shaq.  Unless you can get an offer that's good for you in terms of getting talent, you're better off not trading Shaq.

[Reality]

^^ Wow I don't get the cap thing at all, seriously uninformed.  I'm back with Larry Bird and MJ.  The former said make it an all out bidding war, no cap and no drafting.  Any team could sign any player.  (Not sure i agree with the no draft).  MJ tried to get the union to overthrow (the cap) or some scheme that Stern and the owners had.  Then pres or head Patrick Ewing foolishly nixed.  Ewing later said Jordans idea was right on.  Anyone recall what that was.  Jordan sent a tape to all players or union heads with his plan.

So back to Shaq, would trading for expiring contract Keith Van Horn 15 mil and filler to make it 20/20, would that if nothing else drop $20 mil off the Heat payroll?  At present a team can only sign someone with money up to the cap level?  Hence the terms mid level "exemption" etc.  Wow!  How did the Knicks get so far over the cap then?

[Joe Vancil]

Reality,

It would drop Keith Van Horn's salary off the payroll, once his contract expires.  The filler would stay on the payroll until it expired.  So - what you end up with is a team that's less expensive, minus Shaq's talent, plus whatever talent the filler gave you.  And from my point of view, that's not helping you win;  it's just making it cheaper to lose.

As for how the Knicks got so high over the cap?  That would take pages and pages of reviewing poor transactions, poor signings, and poor extensions to explain.