Shaq to Cleveland is official

[westkoast]

If you want to play that game where did I say he was a driving force?

Um,   You quoted me and said The whole "Shaq didn't contribute" line is getting old and is false."  I did not quote you out of no where and say 'This idea that Shaq is the ultimate driving force is a lie' did I?  No I didn't.  So don't try the 'play that game' card.  YOU are the one who quoted me, not vice versa.

If maybe you want to admit that once again you had a major brain fart and thought every single Laker poster is the same person, might make sense.  I however did not make any such comment.  LFD did. 

But to say that someone who put up 18/10 didn't contribute is HOGWASH.  Based on that logic Gasol didn't contribute to this year's title.  And the other numbers compared THIS YEAR's numbers for Shaq and the two centers in Cleveland.  How do explain that Shaq has better numbers (and played in just as many games) as Z & Wallace?

Again, where did I say he didn't contribute?  Some of those numbers you posted did not reflect the 30 games he missed or the off and on play he had, due to injury and fouls, in that title  run.

Wow he has more points then Ben Wallace!?!  NO WAY!  Awesome point buddy, you got me there!  I'd also expect Shaq to rebound more than Ben Wallace due to sheer size and the fact Wallace was only playing 20-25 minutes a game for a very long stretch last season. 

As for Z, when Shaq is resting every 5 games and Z suffers the entire season from a nagging fracture in his ankle suffered in December is it really a surprise to see  why Shaq's numbers would be better?

I hate to play the 'Reality box score' card with you Lurker but it applies here.  Surely you know there are other factors than just straight numbers that you need to take into account.  Like minutes someone plays (Wallace) or a fracture in an ankle (Z) or the fact that Shaq got to rest up more than most other players last year.  Again do I need to remind you how much mid-season vacation time Shaq got?  There were points in time where he didn't even travel with the team so he could stay in Arizona and rest.

Shaq may be older and slower than he was in the Laker title years.  But to say he is washed up and can't contribute is hogwash.  To say that he rode Wade's coattails to the title is false and mostly perpetuated by Laker fans.  Shaq put up better numbers in 2006 than Gasol did in 2009.  But Shaq rode coattails and Gasol was a key contributor.  Pot meet kettle.

Not 'may'.  He IS older and slower.   Don't try to twist around this debate to a 'Can Shaq contribute or not' when clearly, the entire time in this thread, i've been arguing that this doesn't shoot them into the finals.  I never said he can't contribute.  A LOT of players can contribute.  Shaq certainly can rebound and keep players from establishing great position but the Shaq who is going to police the paint and get 20 on the other end so the Cavs CAN win a title is gone.

To say he rode Wade's coattails to the title is very true.  He was injured for a portion of the playoffs.  This is revisionist history, based strictly on numbers you looked up AFTER THE FACT, as oppose to what really happened in those playoffs.  Shaq's 14/10 doesn't get them past the Mavs when they are down 2 games in the finals either.  The last time Shaq had a POOR finals series the Lakers lost to Detroit just the season prior to that.  Kobe did not play well and couldn't bail him out.  Wade was playing like a BEAST then and was able to bail out the poor showing.  Shaq was 'out of gas' by then BTW.  Not something I expect to change with him being 2 years older.  Motivated or not. 

How many games did Pau Gasol miss or foul out of in the playoffs?  0.   

Your entire argument is based upon what Shaq did in Miami 3 seasons ago.  My argument is based on what has happened since then.  If Shaq was in his 20s then what happened the last 3 years might not mean so much, except the fact hes going to be 38 years of age entering the playoffs this next season.

[westkoast]

Lurker let's use some stats you provided when Shaq went to the Suns.....

http://forums.phillyarena.com/index.php?topic=4276.msg37378#msg37378


From you:


Some interesting stats...last 10 games don't include last night.  Also in the last 10 games that I am using Marion played 1 game and Shaq 4.

First figure is through first 47 games; second is last 10

FGA/game        84.06  83.2
opp FGA/game   90.15  92.4
FTA/game         22.3   25.5
opp FTA/game   22.5   19.6
3pta/game        23.5   19.6
opp 3pta/game  16.6    18.3
pts/game        109.2   110.8
opp pts/game  103.2   109.5
fg%                .492     .499
opp fg%          .450     .471
3pt%              .382     .383
opp  3pt%       .333     .377
steals              7.53    5.00
opp stls           6.91    7.50
turnovers         13.1    14.9
opp turnovers   13.8    12.1

The numbers support what everyone has been saying...offensively Shaq hasn't hurt the Suns scoring wise.  But look closer and you see that fg attenpts and MORE IMPORTANTLY 3 point attempts are down.  The real key though is in the defensive numbers.  Opponents are getting more shots and more 3 point attempts and are making them at a higher percentage than before.  Steals are down and opponent steals are up.  Turnovers are up but opponent turnovers are down.  Suns are having more trouble stopping teams than before and defense wins titles.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now why did I bring this up?  I would like to know why all the sudden you have a change of heart about Shaq.  When he went to the Suns you made it a point to bring up stats like above (on multiple occasions) to highlight that his liability on the defensive end is hurting the team over all.  Now why would this change a few years later when he has put more miles on his legs and added birthdays?

Who do you really think is faster in transition...Ben Wallace or Shaq?

[rickortreat]

Shaq was not a good match in Phoenix. IMO, the Suns lost their "mojo" when they got rid of Marion. Without their scoring ability, adding Shaq didn't enhance the team.  But Cleveland may well be a different story.  It was clear from the playoffs that they were inadequate at Center.  Howard was way ahead of Ilgauskas, but he won't have that edge over Shaq.

As I said Cleveland isn't done either, and I'm sure they are looking for a third player to hook up with Shaq and LeBron.  But like Wade and Shaq, LeBron and Shaq could very well work and get the Cavaliers the title.

To get past the Lakers, or Celtics you need to match their size and strength inside.  Adding Shaq gets the Cavs closer to doing that.  Orlando obviously still needs help, Howard was overmatched against LA, and probably would have been against Boston if Garnett was healthy.  

It seems apparent that controlling the inside is what wins championships. LA and Boston are loaded at the front positions and each has a star. Orlando needs  at least another strong power forward to help Howard inside.  Shaq will need more than Varajo to contest with the elite teams.

But don't forget how motivated Shaq is to get over on Kobe.  Keeping him from getting a ring, by getting one himself is what he has in mind, and with King James he'll have a good shot.

[Lurker]

Not 'may'.  He IS older and slower.   Don't try to twist around this debate to a 'Can Shaq contribute or not' when clearly, the entire time in this thread, i've been arguing that this doesn't shoot them into the finals.  I never said he can't contribute.  A LOT of players can contribute.  Shaq certainly can rebound and keep players from establishing great position but the Shaq who is going to police the paint and get 20 on the other end so the Cavs CAN win a title is gone.

And EXACTLY where did I say Shaq was going to get 20 points?  All I said was that Shaq was an upgrade over the 2 CENTERS WHO PLAYED FOR THE CAVS LAST YEAR!  And then I posted stats comparing Shaq to those 2 centers LAST YEAR and showed that Shaq was more productive.  A team that won more games than any other in the NBA last year adds a center who put up better numbers than the existing one and it HURTS the team?

Explain how without just saying "Shaq is done".

To say he rode Wade's coattails to the title is very true.  He was injured for a portion of the playoffs.  This is revisionist history, based strictly on numbers you looked up AFTER THE FACT, as oppose to what really happened in those playoffs.  Shaq's 14/10 doesn't get them past the Mavs when they are down 2 games in the finals either.  The last time Shaq had a POOR finals series the Lakers lost to Detroit just the season prior to that.  Kobe did not play well and couldn't bail him out.  Wade was playing like a BEAST then and was able to bail out the poor showing.  Shaq was 'out of gas' by then BTW.  Not something I expect to change with him being 2 years older.  Motivated or not. 

How many games did Pau Gasol miss or foul out of in the playoffs?  0.   

Shaq was NOT injured for any of the playoffs in 2006.  He played all 23 games and averaged 33 minutes a game.  He did not foul out of any of them.  He also had 13,12,11,12 rebounds in those final four games against the Mavs.  So in the ECF he goes for 21/11 against the DPOY but is gassed out in the next series. Talk about revisionist history.

Your entire argument is based upon what Shaq did in Miami 3 seasons ago.  My argument is based on what has happened since then.  If Shaq was in his 20s then what happened the last 3 years might not mean so much, except the fact hes going to be 38 years of age entering the playoffs this next season.

YOU are the one who brought up the Miami championship as an example of Shaq being washed up.  All I did was show that Shaq put up very respectful numbers in those playoffs.  It is some burning desire in Laker fans to believe that Shaq became Dwayne Schnitzius when he was traded.  When the facts show otherwise.

As far as Cleveland is concerned my argument is based on what Shaq did in 2008/09...you know actual numbers from the actual games played.  But it is hard to argue with "Shaq is washed up" and "Shaq cannot lead a team to a title".

He is not washed up...18/9 is very respectable for a center in the NBA.  He played in 75 games so the whole "doesn't show up for the whole year" argument is worthless also.  Especially since he played more games LAST YEAR than the player he is replacing.  More games.  Better stats.  And how is this not an upgrade for the Cavs?

BTW I expect you to also show me where I said the Cavs were a lock for the finals.

And if this doesn't say that Shaq did not contribute in the first two rounds I guess I will need to get a new English-Californian dictionary...

The last time he won a title he wasn't even healthy enough to play in the first 2 rounds to make an impact.  That was 3 years ago....

[Lurker]

Who do you really think is faster in transition...Ben Wallace or Shaq?

In 2009: SHAQ  hands down.

[westkoast]

And EXACTLY where did I say Shaq was going to get 20 points?  All I said was that Shaq was an upgrade over the 2 CENTERS WHO PLAYED FOR THE CAVS LAST YEAR!  And then I posted stats comparing Shaq to those 2 centers LAST YEAR and showed that Shaq was more productive.  A team that won more games than any other in the NBA last year adds a center who put up better numbers than the existing one and it HURTS the team?

18 points, 20 points, WHATEVER.  You are the one who is under the assumption his numbers this year will match last year.  As if being 37 years old in this league means nothing.  He needs to score 20 a game to make up for taking a number of touches from other players, most importantly Mo Williams, who was a 20 ppg scorer and a key contributor to their success this year.  He needs the ball in his hands to create and score effectively so Shaq will need to INCREASE the offensive production.  20 points to over set points taken from Mo Williams and to replace what Z chips in here and there.  Sounds REASONABLE to me.

Shaq was more productive than a guy who had a fracture in his bone, awesome!  How does that put them over the Orlando Magic, which you said on the first page what this trade does.

THE FRICKING DEBATE IS ABOUT IF THIS PUTS THE CAVS IN THE FINALS!  It's not about if he can play one tiny notch above an injured Z or a 25 minute a game Ben Wallace. That's not why Cleveland made the trade and that NOT WHAT THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT.  Jesus.

Shaq was NOT injured for any of the playoffs in 2006.  He played all 23 games and averaged 33 minutes a game.  He did not foul out of any of them.  He also had 13,12,11,12 rebounds in those final four games against the Mavs.  So in the ECF he goes for 21/11 against the DPOY but is gassed out in the next series. Talk about revisionist history.

Um really?  That's funny Lurker because he did in fact have a THIGH injury that was suffered when Jermaine O'Neal took his knee into his leg.  That kept him from playing entire games and was really messing with him at the start of the playoffs.  This isn't revisionist history, this is straight out lack of memory on your part.

Let me provide links to jog ya obviously bad memory...

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/7864363/CE/3032112/

"O'Neal is nursing a deep bruise to his right thigh. He did not play in either Game 3 or Game 4 of the Heat's second-round series against the Wizards, but the Heat won both games. He also did not practice on Thursday with the team. O?Neal is expected to continue getting treatment on the thigh in the coming days"

YOU are the one who brought up the Miami championship as an example of Shaq being washed up.  All I did was show that Shaq put up very respectful numbers in those playoffs.  It is some burning desire in Laker fans to believe that Shaq became Dwayne Schnitzius when he was traded.  When the facts show otherwise.

I brought up the Miami championship as a sign that he is not durable and cannot play at a high level for an entire stretch.  Shaq is at the end of his career that is undebatable.  Called it 'washed up' call it 'old' call it 'at the end of his career'  WHATEVER.  Either way he is at the end of his career and that's the basic point.  His days of being a major force in a title is long gone.  I mean jesus, we were told this when he joined the Suns.  "He's motivated to get another ring, he wants to beat Duncan, he's looking to solidify his spot as the greatest big man ever, etc etc etc'

As far as Cleveland is concerned my argument is based on what Shaq did in 2008/09...you know actual numbers from the actual games played.  But it is hard to argue with "Shaq is washed up" and "Shaq cannot lead a team to a title".

Yea it's hard to argue that the Cavs are going to surpass a team who beat the snot out of them because Shaq put up good numbers on a team that didn't even make the playoffs just the same.

He is not washed up...18/9 is very respectable for a center in the NBA.  He played in 75 games so the whole "doesn't show up for the whole year" argument is worthless also.  Especially since he played more games LAST YEAR than the player he is replacing.  More games.  Better stats.  And how is this not an upgrade for the Cavs?

Lurker, WHO GIVES A FLYING CRAP WHAT IS RESPECTABLE OR NOT?!  That is not what the debate is.  That is not what I've been arguing since THE FIRST PAGE.  So exactly, who cares?    Secondly, 75 games isn't a full season and isn't the whole point of this trade (and the DEBATE) about getting a ring?  My argument has been that Shaq does not have what it takes to play that long, for that many games, at a high enough level to make up for what Cleveland was unable to do in the playoffs against quality talent.  It is asking too much.  It is not a knock on Shaq as much it is me scratching my head at Joe and yourself for thinking this puts them over the top for a title. 

A slight upgrade for the Cavs doesn't equal a title (which is why the trade was made) nor does it make them better then the Magic.  Their perimeter defense was piss poor and some how Shaq makes that better?  Why because you ASSUME he can hold down Dwight Howard for 4 to 7 games? 

They BARELY won a single game in that series so it's going to take a hell of a lot more than a 'slight' upgrade over Z and Wallace to even make the series a battle, let a lone get them past the Magic.

BTW I expect you to also show me where I said the Cavs were a lock for the finals. 

You did say this shoots them over the Orlando Magic, you know the team who made the finals this year and kept the Cavs from doing it?

[Joe Vancil]

Again, where did I say all the wins are other people and all the loses are Shaq?  The whole point in bringing up what I did was to point out that he hasn't done anything in 3 years yet somehow this puts the Cavs in the Finals. 

By that logic, Gasol had done nothing in the three years prior to going to the Lakers, yet he was a key element that put the Lakers in the Finals and won them a championship.

Shaq, like Gasol, fits a *NEED*.  Without Shaq, the Cleveland offense is LeBron and a whole bunch of jumpshooters.  With Shaq, they have a post game - and a *GOOD* post game.  That's a significant change.

Sounds like that's what they will need to get them past a team they only beat once in the playoffs on a lucky last second jumper.

Well, if a post presence that is an effective scorer shooting a high percentage isn't what they need to beat Orlando, what is?  Should they try to sign 4 or 5 more jumpshooters, and hope they get hot instead of Orlando getting hot?  Should they sign a bunch of defensive specialists, so that they can shut down Orlando's offense and lose the game 65-60, because they're relying on their jumpshooting ability, too?

This isn't rocket science.  For a playoff offense, you need shooting - which Cleveland has - and a post game - which Cleveland DIDN'T have, but has now.

[Reality]

Um really?  That's funny Lurker because he did in fact have a THIGH injury that was suffered when Jermaine O'Neal took his knee into his leg.  That kept him from playing entire games and was really messing with him at the start of the playoffs.  This isn't revisionist history, this is straight out lack of memory on your part.

Let me provide links to jog ya obviously bad memory...

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/7864363/CE/3032112/

"O'Neal is nursing a deep bruise to his right thigh. He did not play in either Game 3 or Game 4 of the Heat's second-round series against the Wizards, but the Heat won both games. He also did not practice on Thursday with the team. O?Neal is expected to continue getting treatment on the thigh in the coming days"

Hey B-Rad, Lurker posted the Championship year of 2006s playoff stats.
You try to shoot him down with a 2005 article where Shaq was arguably at 60-70% and still helped give Detroit a run to a 7th game ECFs.
Classic.

[Lurker]

Um really?  That's funny Lurker because he did in fact have a THIGH injury that was suffered when Jermaine O'Neal took his knee into his leg.  That kept him from playing entire games and was really messing with him at the start of the playoffs.  This isn't revisionist history, this is straight out lack of memory on your part.

Let me provide links to jog ya obviously bad memory...

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/7864363/CE/3032112/

"O'Neal is nursing a deep bruise to his right thigh. He did not play in either Game 3 or Game 4 of the Heat's second-round series against the Wizards, but the Heat won both games. He also did not practice on Thursday with the team. O?Neal is expected to continue getting treatment on the thigh in the coming days"

Hey B-Rad, Lurker posted the Championship year of 2006s playoff stats.
You try to shoot him down with a 2005 article where Shaq was arguably at 60-70% and still helped give Detroit a run to a 7th game ECFs.
Classic.

NICE!  Reality actually did my work for me this time.  I guess koast wants to forget Shaq's last successful title run.   

[Lurker]

And EXACTLY where did I say Shaq was going to get 20 points?  All I said was that Shaq was an upgrade over the 2 CENTERS WHO PLAYED FOR THE CAVS LAST YEAR!  And then I posted stats comparing Shaq to those 2 centers LAST YEAR and showed that Shaq was more productive.  A team that won more games than any other in the NBA last year adds a center who put up better numbers than the existing one and it HURTS the team?

18 points, 20 points, WHATEVER.  You are the one who is under the assumption his numbers this year will match last year.  As if being 37 years old in this league means nothing.  He needs to score 20 a game to make up for taking a number of touches from other players, most importantly Mo Williams, who was a 20 ppg scorer and a key contributor to their success this year.  He needs the ball in his hands to create and score effectively so Shaq will need to INCREASE the offensive production.  20 points to over set points taken from Mo Williams and to replace what Z chips in here and there.  Sounds REASONABLE to me.

Shaq was more productive than a guy who had a fracture in his bone, awesome!  How does that put them over the Orlando Magic, which you said on the first page what this trade does.

THE FRICKING DEBATE IS ABOUT IF THIS PUTS THE CAVS IN THE FINALS!  It's not about if he can play one tiny notch above an injured Z or a 25 minute a game Ben Wallace. That's not why Cleveland made the trade and that NOT WHAT THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT.  Jesus.

Then I guess you are debating with yourself.  I wouldn't try to predict the champion before even training camp starts...there are still too many variables. 

But when you add a player to a team that has better stats than the starter at that position.  And even BETTER stats than the backup he is replacing then it generally improves that team.  If the Lakers added a point guard...regardless of age...that had better stats than Fisher or Farmar then you and most others here would say it improved the Lakers.  The Cavs added a center with better 2008/09 stats than their starter (Z) and backup center (Wallace).  So why shouldn't this improve the Cavs.  And I am using Shaq's production at 37 not 3 years ago to reach this conclusion.

And Shaq has scored 17-18 ppg the past few years.  He may drop a little more due to age but he won't be taking that many shots away from others.  And his passing from the post should actually help raise the game of someone like Mo.  He survived on the Heat with Wade and "Black Hole" Walker while still scoring.  He still scored with Amare, Hill, and Nash (who shoots more than most people think but that's another thread).  This is why I think Shaq can and will still get his points.  If nothing else he understood the whole offensive board/putback game while Dwight was still in diapers.

Shaq was NOT injured for any of the playoffs in 2006.  He played all 23 games and averaged 33 minutes a game.  He did not foul out of any of them.  He also had 13,12,11,12 rebounds in those final four games against the Mavs.  So in the ECF he goes for 21/11 against the DPOY but is gassed out in the next series. Talk about revisionist history.

Um really?  That's funny Lurker because he did in fact have a THIGH injury that was suffered when Jermaine O'Neal took his knee into his leg.  That kept him from playing entire games and was really messing with him at the start of the playoffs.  This isn't revisionist history, this is straight out lack of memory on your part.

Let me provide links to jog ya obviously bad memory...

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/7864363/CE/3032112/

"O'Neal is nursing a deep bruise to his right thigh. He did not play in either Game 3 or Game 4 of the Heat's second-round series against the Wizards, but the Heat won both games. He also did not practice on Thursday with the team. O?Neal is expected to continue getting treatment on the thigh in the coming days"

Reality already answered this.  Classic...use 2005 injury to refute 2006 ring.

YOU are the one who brought up the Miami championship as an example of Shaq being washed up.  All I did was show that Shaq put up very respectful numbers in those playoffs.  It is some burning desire in Laker fans to believe that Shaq became Dwayne Schnitzius when he was traded.  When the facts show otherwise.

I brought up the Miami championship as a sign that he is not durable and cannot play at a high level for an entire stretch.  Shaq is at the end of his career that is undebatable.  Called it 'washed up' call it 'old' call it 'at the end of his career'  WHATEVER.  Either way he is at the end of his career and that's the basic point.  His days of being a major force in a title is long gone.  I mean jesus, we were told this when he joined the Suns.  "He's motivated to get another ring, he wants to beat Duncan, he's looking to solidify his spot as the greatest big man ever, etc etc etc'

And I showed by using ACTUAL results that Shaq was durable and as major a contributor to the 2006 title as Gasol was to 2009 title.

As far as Cleveland is concerned my argument is based on what Shaq did in 2008/09...you know actual numbers from the actual games played.  But it is hard to argue with "Shaq is washed up" and "Shaq cannot lead a team to a title".

Yea it's hard to argue that the Cavs are going to surpass a team who beat the snot out of them because Shaq put up good numbers on a team that didn't even make the playoffs just the same. ?

And you can't argue with someone who has set their mind in stone.  I have shown reasons why Cavs should be better.  Joe has shown reasons.  WOW has shown reasons.  You just don't want to accept any of the reasons as possible...because Shaq has not led a team to the title in 3 years. 

NEWSFLASH: If the Cavs win the title Shaq will not lead them. 

He will possibly...based on recent history...play a key secondary role by giving the Cavs a stronger inside presence than they currently have.  <<<THIS IS THE POINT OTHERS ARE MAKING AND YOU REFUSE TO CONSIDER.

He is not washed up...18/9 is very respectable for a center in the NBA.  He played in 75 games so the whole "doesn't show up for the whole year" argument is worthless also.  Especially since he played more games LAST YEAR than the player he is replacing.  More games.  Better stats.  And how is this not an upgrade for the Cavs?

A slight upgrade for the Cavs doesn't equal a title (which is why the trade was made) nor does it make them better then the Magic.  Their perimeter defense was piss poor and some how Shaq makes that better?  Why because you ASSUME he can hold down Dwight Howard for 4 to 7 games? 

They BARELY won a single game in that series so it's going to take a hell of a lot more than a 'slight' upgrade over Z and Wallace to even make the series a battle, let a lone get them past the Magic.

Both Joe & WOW have already discussed the difference in perimeter defense by adding Shaq.  Why rehash something you won't accept.

And I don't assume he can hold down Dwight.  In fact I never said he would.  What I said was that O'Neal makes Dwight work harder than any other center in the league.  Howard doesn't go off on Shaq like he does other teams...he has only scored 20+ points ONCE against Shaq and that was one of those games where he hit his FTs.  Howard doesn't dominate the glass against Shaq like he does other teams.  Can this change overnight?  Sure, but I am betting it won't; you are confident, almost to the point of arrogance, that it will.

BTW I expect you to also show me where I said the Cavs were a lock for the finals. 

You did say this shoots them over the Orlando Magic, you know the team who made the finals this year and kept the Cavs from doing it?

Great avoidance.  Please post the link.

[westkoast]

By that logic, Gasol had done nothing in the three years prior to going to the Lakers, yet he was a key element that put the Lakers in the Finals and won them a championship.

When the Lakers first got Gasol no one was going around saying 'This puts them over the top to win it all'  Not even Laker fans were going that far.

On top of that, when it did look like this team was going to be awesome, they still lost in the finals, badly. 

Pau Gasol also is not 37 years old, has not had multiple injuries, and is not over 300 pounds with a foot problem.  Did I miss anything?  It's the fact that he is older, not in great shape, has had knee/foot issues over the past 3 years, and has not got out of the first round that is my basis around saying this doesn't put them over the top.  Your and Lurker's arguments are based on what happened 4+ years ago and ignoring the age/conditioning of the player.

Shaq, like Gasol, fits a *NEED*.  Without Shaq, the Cleveland offense is LeBron and a whole bunch of jumpshooters.  With Shaq, they have a post game - and a *GOOD* post game.  That's a significant change.

A positive significant change IF the following happens:

- He actually is a strong presence in there for the entire season and playoffs

- He doesn't get hurt

- Guys like Mo Williams and Delonte West adjust to how different the offense will run

- Shaq actually tries to run in transition on a consistent basis

If any combination of the above do not happen I don't see how there will be significant enough changes to take the Cavs from barely winning one game in the ECF to trounching that same Orlando team AND a Boston team with KG.

Well, if a post presence that is an effective scorer shooting a high percentage isn't what they need to beat Orlando, what is?  Should they try to sign 4 or 5 more jumpshooters, and hope they get hot instead of Orlando getting hot?  Should they sign a bunch of defensive specialists, so that they can shut down Orlando's offense and lose the game 65-60, because they're relying on their jumpshooting ability, too?

Again, that's assuming Shaq will continue to be effective and will be ready to go come playoff time.  How is that any less of a reach than saying that they need more talent on the wing and it would help if their coaching staff worked on rotations with the team.  Varellejo was not fast enough foot speed wise to keep up with Rashard Lewis, so exactly how does Shaq help on that instance?  Lebron James is unable to shut down Hedo on the perimeter and he was not coming off his own man to double Howard, so exactly how does Shaq help on that instance?  This is all based on the assumption that Shaq can indeed guard Howard for an entire game with out needing any help at all.  I found that hard to believe with Howard's speed and Shaq's age.

Let's just go ahead and say that all these assumptions (Shaq will play at a high level, Shaq will post the same numbers, Shaq won't run out of gas, etc)....

What about the following:

- What about transition defense?  When you have guys like Howard, Gasol, KG, and the likes with the ability to run the floor where does that leave the Cavs?  So you get a few extra feet to close out on shooters but give up easy transition buckets.  You are right, if you live by the jumper you die by the jumper.....just as long as you are not getting easy buckets and second chance points.  If you do, well you don't die by the jumper because you are making up for it in other spots.

This isn't rocket science.  For a playoff offense, you need shooting - which Cleveland has - and a post game - which Cleveland DIDN'T have, but has now.

Right but to win a championship, you need good team defense - which Cleveland does not have - and still doesn't have with Shaq in the line up.  Shaq does not automatically turn the below average Cleveland defenders into stoppers.

[westkoast]

Then I guess you are debating with yourself.  I wouldn't try to predict the champion before even training camp starts...there are still too many variables. 

How am I debating with myself when there are multiple people in here saying this puts the Cavs over the top?

I am the one arguing at how many different factors there are and you guys are going off strictly numbers.  So exactly who is the one talking about all the variables and the one who is sitting on numbers?

But when you add a player to a team that has better stats than the starter at that position.  And even BETTER stats than the backup he is replacing then it generally improves that team.  If the Lakers added a point guard...regardless of age...that had better stats than Fisher or Farmar then you and most others here would say it improved the Lakers.  The Cavs added a center with better 2008/09 stats than their starter (Z) and backup center (Wallace).  So why shouldn't this improve the Cavs.  And I am using Shaq's production at 37 not 3 years ago to reach this conclusion. 

That is under the assumption he not only replaces the minutes of both players but also exceeds their production.  They got rid of two bodies for one.  If Shaq plays 35+ minutes a game at a high level then that is a bonus for them.  As long as Shaq can continue to do that for an entire season and all the way through the playoffs.  Over the course of his career he has proven that his body is too large to go through entire seasons and playoffs.  I don't see why that changes all the sudden.

I don't need you to try to put it into Laker terms Lurker, thanks.  If the Lakers did not have Shannon Brown and they traded TWO point guards away for one I would be concerned for the fact that if that one player goes down, who do we play at point?  If they replaced two point guards with Sam Cassell I would be saying the EXACT same thing for the SAME reasons.  Sam Cassell is old, his durability for a whole season is questionable, it leaves the team thin, and it's a one year throw it in shot. 

Yes you, WOW, and Joe have given reasons why it would work.  Just as I have given many reasons why it doesn't put them over the top.  My reasons are not bs are they?  Are they reasonable?  Based on the way you are acting it's as if what I am saying is completely made up.  I am confident in what I think just the same as you are, so I don't see the problem. 

And Shaq has scored 17-18 ppg the past few years.  He may drop a little more due to age but he won't be taking that many shots away from others.  And his passing from the post should actually help raise the game of someone like Mo.  He survived on the Heat with Wade and "Black Hole" Walker while still scoring.  He still scored with Amare, Hill, and Nash (who shoots more than most people think but that's another thread).  This is why I think Shaq can and will still get his points.  If nothing else he understood the whole offensive board/putback game while Dwight was still in diapers.

Shaq was able to score a lot of points last year because for a long stretch Nash was out and so was Amare.  Did you forget how much time he got on the court as the main weapon? 

Mo needs to learn to adjust his game to make cuts for passes to finish.  Right now that is not his game.  He needs the ball actually in his hands on the perimeter before he gets going to do what he does.  The offense is not even built to utilize Shaq yet.  ANOTHER thing to take into consideration rather than just numbers.

Reality already answered this.  Classic...use 2005 injury to refute 2006 ring.

This I did mess up on.  I mixed up the years he got injured.  So def my bad on this one but still doesn't change the fact that he does get injured.  Adding 3 years and another knee flare up and another foot flare up is only going to further drive that point home.  We are not talking about contributing during the regular season as much as getting a title, again that's why they traded for him.

  Reality I cannot see your posts, there is literally no reason for you to quote me and address me like I can.  Do not waste your time.

And I showed by using ACTUAL results that Shaq was durable and as major a contributor to the 2006 title as Gasol was to 2009 title.

OK but if your follow up argument would be 'You wouldn't write off Pau Gasol so why would you write off Shaq'  because Pau Gasol is not 37 and injury prone.  Again it wasn't so much about his contributions as it is 3 years in your mid 30s is a lot different than 3 years in your late 20s.

And you can't argue with someone who has set their mind in stone.  I have shown reasons why Cavs should be better.  Joe has shown reasons.  WOW has shown reasons.  You just don't want to accept any of the reasons as possible...because Shaq has not led a team to the title in 3 years.  

Right and I haven't shown reasons or variables that point in another direction?  You know Shaq can either get them a title or not.  Nothing is set in stone as far as that goes so my CHALLENGE and ARGUMENTS suggesting he won't are not far fetched, invalid, or stupid.    You are just as unwilling to accept some of my reasons as I am to accept just your numbers.  Pot meet kettle. 

He will possibly...based on recent history...play a key secondary role by giving the Cavs a stronger inside presence than they currently have.  <<<THIS IS THE POINT OTHERS ARE MAKING AND YOU REFUSE TO CONSIDER.

He will possibly...based on recent history...not be able to play at a high enough level to get them a title because his age, conditioning over the years, and his proneness to injury is going to hurt the Cavs <<< THIS IS THE POINT I AM TRYING TO MAKE AND YOU REFUSE TO CONSIDER.

Btw, it's not that i refuse to consider what could possibly happen.  It's that I don't believe it will.  This is a basketball message board used to debate.  So that is what I am doing.  Just because I am arguing my point does not mean that I did not consider anything else.  Unless of course you yourself are saying that you have not considered anything I've brought up.  If you haven't that might explain why you made this comment.

Both Joe & WOW have already discussed the difference in perimeter defense by adding Shaq.  Why rehash something you won't accept.

Right and I used stats provided by you, to show what can happen to the defense in general by adding Shaq. 

As for accepting this, there is nothing to accept yet.  It's strictly what they feel might happen vs what I feel might happen.  Why do I have to say 'yes this will happen'  when there is a chance it will not?  I don't expect to see Joe or WOW say 'You know what Koast you are right, only one player has been able to  play at a real productive level at that age and it was Kareem, except he used a finesse hook shot to do it, Shaq might not have the foot speed to score like he use to'

And I don't assume he can hold down Dwight.  In fact I never said he would.  What I said was that O'Neal makes Dwight work harder than any other center in the league.  Howard doesn't go off on Shaq like he does other teams...he has only scored 20+ points ONCE against Shaq and that was one of those games where he hit his FTs.  Howard doesn't dominate the glass against Shaq like he does other teams.  Can this change overnight?  Sure, but I am betting it won't; you are confident, almost to the point of arrogance, that it will.

How many times have they even played each other over the past 2 seasons?  2-3 times?  ( I thought Shaq was out on of the games they played the year before)  In a 7 game series if Dwight Howard scores more than 20 points in 3 games that doesn't put them over the top IMO.  Aside from that 40 point dunk fest in the final game he was scoring around 20+ points a game.

Howard won't dominate the glass if Shaq is in there rebounding like a machine for the entire time he is there.  Howard will work for rebounds.  He is very active jumping around even if he doesn't get all the back boards.  Sure Shaq is going to make Howard work but he's 22.  Howard WILL make Shaq work and hes 37.  Who is going to lose that battle over the long run?

I am being no more arrogant than WOW or yourself are being.  I am arguing my point.  Just because I am not conceeding to you guys doesn't make me arrogant.  It just means I'm sticking to what I think will happen.

Bottom line, EVERYONE in this thread is playing what if right now.  Myself included.  So why is it you want to jump on me when everyone else is doing the same thing? 

Basketball.discussion.board

[Joe Vancil]

By that logic, Gasol had done nothing in the three years prior to going to the Lakers, yet he was a key element that put the Lakers in the Finals and won them a championship.

When the Lakers first got Gasol no one was going around saying 'This puts them over the top to win it all'  Not even Laker fans were going that far.

Skander and I beg to differ.  Skander was ADAMANT that the Gasol deal put the Lakers in the Finals for the next SEVERAL years. 

On top of that, when it did look like this team was going to be awesome, they still lost in the finals, badly. 

...which is the likely scenario for the Cavs when they meet the Lakers next year.

Pau Gasol also is not 37 years old, has not had multiple injuries, and is not over 300 pounds with a foot problem.  Did I miss anything?  It's the fact that he is older, not in great shape, has had knee/foot issues over the past 3 years, and has not got out of the first round that is my basis around saying this doesn't put them over the top.  Your and Lurker's arguments are based on what happened 4+ years ago and ignoring the age/conditioning of the player.

Correct.  Gasol is too soft, a poor defender, not a good rebounder, and had never accomplished anything in the playoffs.
  Did I leave anything out?  My point is that Gasol had even more pronounced demons that Shaq does.

Shaq, like Gasol, fits a *NEED*.  Without Shaq, the Cleveland offense is LeBron and a whole bunch of jumpshooters.  With Shaq, they have a post game - and a *GOOD* post game.  That's a significant change.

A positive significant change IF the following happens:

- He actually is a strong presence in there for the entire season and playoffs

- He doesn't get hurt

- Guys like Mo Williams and Delonte West adjust to how different the offense will run

- Shaq actually tries to run in transition on a consistent basis

If any combination of the above do not happen I don't see how there will be significant enough changes to take the Cavs from barely winning one game in the ECF to trounching that same Orlando team AND a Boston team with KG.

I disagree.  Shaq doesn't need to run in transition offense any more than Kareem Abdul-Jabbar did.  He simply needs to anchor the half-court offensive game.  He doesn't need to play the entire season and playoffs, just the portions of the season which contribute significantly to playoff position and the playoff games.  And, agreed, Mo and Delonte will have to adjust;  they'll have to give the ball to a post presence on the team.  Same would have to happen had they inherited ANY post presence.  And if they can't adjust to that, when Cleveland ISN'T a transition team in the first place, then they simply can't play.

Well, if a post presence that is an effective scorer shooting a high percentage isn't what they need to beat Orlando, what is?  Should they try to sign 4 or 5 more jumpshooters, and hope they get hot instead of Orlando getting hot?  Should they sign a bunch of defensive specialists, so that they can shut down Orlando's offense and lose the game 65-60, because they're relying on their jumpshooting ability, too?

Again, that's assuming Shaq will continue to be effective and will be ready to go come playoff time.  How is that any less of a reach than saying that they need more talent on the wing and it would help if their coaching staff worked on rotations with the team.  Varellejo was not fast enough foot speed wise to keep up with Rashard Lewis, so exactly how does Shaq help on that instance?  Lebron James is unable to shut down Hedo on the perimeter and he was not coming off his own man to double Howard, so exactly how does Shaq help on that instance?  This is all based on the assumption that Shaq can indeed guard Howard for an entire game with out needing any help at all.  I found that hard to believe with Howard's speed and Shaq's age.

Let's just go ahead and say that all these assumptions (Shaq will play at a high level, Shaq will post the same numbers, Shaq won't run out of gas, etc)....

What about the following:

- What about transition defense?  When you have guys like Howard, Gasol, KG, and the likes with the ability to run the floor where does that leave the Cavs?  So you get a few extra feet to close out on shooters but give up easy transition buckets.  You are right, if you live by the jumper you die by the jumper.....just as long as you are not getting easy buckets and second chance points.  If you do, well you don't die by the jumper because you are making up for it in other spots.

I agree that transition defense is always an issue.  The benefit of a half-court game, however, is that you can effectively slow the pace of the game.  Fewer long jumpers for Cleveland mean fewer long rebounds, and fewer opportunities for the opponents to go into transition.  And I consider Shaq an upgrade from Ilgauskus on the glass.

This isn't rocket science.  For a playoff offense, you need shooting - which Cleveland has - and a post game - which Cleveland DIDN'T have, but has now.

Right but to win a championship, you need good team defense - which Cleveland does not have - and still doesn't have with Shaq in the line up.  Shaq does not automatically turn the below average Cleveland defenders into stoppers.

Actually, Cleveland has a *VERY* good team defense, from all indications other than Orlando.  What they seem to lack is a singular defensive stopper (ala Artest, Bowen, etc.) - and I'm not sure they need one in the East.

[Lurker]

Then I guess you are debating with yourself.  I wouldn't try to predict the champion before even training camp starts...there are still too many variables. 

How am I debating with myself when there are multiple people in here saying this puts the Cavs over the top?

I am the one arguing at how many different factors there are and you guys are going off strictly numbers.  So exactly who is the one talking about all the variables and the one who is sitting on numbers?

But when you add a player to a team that has better stats than the starter at that position.  And even BETTER stats than the backup he is replacing then it generally improves that team.  If the Lakers added a point guard...regardless of age...that had better stats than Fisher or Farmar then you and most others here would say it improved the Lakers.  The Cavs added a center with better 2008/09 stats than their starter (Z) and backup center (Wallace).  So why shouldn't this improve the Cavs.  And I am using Shaq's production at 37 not 3 years ago to reach this conclusion. 

That is under the assumption he not only replaces the minutes of both players but also exceeds their production.  They got rid of two bodies for one.  If Shaq plays 35+ minutes a game at a high level then that is a bonus for them.  As long as Shaq can continue to do that for an entire season and all the way through the playoffs.  Over the course of his career he has proven that his body is too large to go through entire seasons and playoffs.  I don't see why that changes all the sudden.

I don't need you to try to put it into Laker terms Lurker, thanks.  If the Lakers did not have Shannon Brown and they traded TWO point guards away for one I would be concerned for the fact that if that one player goes down, who do we play at point?  If they replaced two point guards with Sam Cassell I would be saying the EXACT same thing for the SAME reasons.  Sam Cassell is old, his durability for a whole season is questionable, it leaves the team thin, and it's a one year throw it in shot. 

Yes you, WOW, and Joe have given reasons why it would work.  Just as I have given many reasons why it doesn't put them over the top.  My reasons are not bs are they?  Are they reasonable?  Based on the way you are acting it's as if what I am saying is completely made up.  I am confident in what I think just the same as you are, so I don't see the problem. 

And Shaq has scored 17-18 ppg the past few years.  He may drop a little more due to age but he won't be taking that many shots away from others.  And his passing from the post should actually help raise the game of someone like Mo.  He survived on the Heat with Wade and "Black Hole" Walker while still scoring.  He still scored with Amare, Hill, and Nash (who shoots more than most people think but that's another thread).  This is why I think Shaq can and will still get his points.  If nothing else he understood the whole offensive board/putback game while Dwight was still in diapers.

Shaq was able to score a lot of points last year because for a long stretch Nash was out and so was Amare.  Did you forget how much time he got on the court as the main weapon? 

Mo needs to learn to adjust his game to make cuts for passes to finish.  Right now that is not his game.  He needs the ball actually in his hands on the perimeter before he gets going to do what he does.  The offense is not even built to utilize Shaq yet.  ANOTHER thing to take into consideration rather than just numbers.

Reality already answered this.  Classic...use 2005 injury to refute 2006 ring.

This I did mess up on.  I mixed up the years he got injured.  So def my bad on this one but still doesn't change the fact that he does get injured.  Adding 3 years and another knee flare up and another foot flare up is only going to further drive that point home.  We are not talking about contributing during the regular season as much as getting a title, again that's why they traded for him.

  Reality I cannot see your posts, there is literally no reason for you to quote me and address me like I can.  Do not waste your time.

And I showed by using ACTUAL results that Shaq was durable and as major a contributor to the 2006 title as Gasol was to 2009 title.

OK but if your follow up argument would be 'You wouldn't write off Pau Gasol so why would you write off Shaq'  because Pau Gasol is not 37 and injury prone.  Again it wasn't so much about his contributions as it is 3 years in your mid 30s is a lot different than 3 years in your late 20s.

And you can't argue with someone who has set their mind in stone.  I have shown reasons why Cavs should be better.  Joe has shown reasons.  WOW has shown reasons.  You just don't want to accept any of the reasons as possible...because Shaq has not led a team to the title in 3 years.  

Right and I haven't shown reasons or variables that point in another direction?  You know Shaq can either get them a title or not.  Nothing is set in stone as far as that goes so my CHALLENGE and ARGUMENTS suggesting he won't are not far fetched, invalid, or stupid.    You are just as unwilling to accept some of my reasons as I am to accept just your numbers.  Pot meet kettle. 

He will possibly...based on recent history...play a key secondary role by giving the Cavs a stronger inside presence than they currently have.  <<<THIS IS THE POINT OTHERS ARE MAKING AND YOU REFUSE TO CONSIDER.

He will possibly...based on recent history...not be able to play at a high enough level to get them a title because his age, conditioning over the years, and his proneness to injury is going to hurt the Cavs <<< THIS IS THE POINT I AM TRYING TO MAKE AND YOU REFUSE TO CONSIDER.

Btw, it's not that i refuse to consider what could possibly happen.  It's that I don't believe it will.  This is a basketball message board used to debate.  So that is what I am doing.  Just because I am arguing my point does not mean that I did not consider anything else.  Unless of course you yourself are saying that you have not considered anything I've brought up.  If you haven't that might explain why you made this comment.

Both Joe & WOW have already discussed the difference in perimeter defense by adding Shaq.  Why rehash something you won't accept.

Right and I used stats provided by you, to show what can happen to the defense in general by adding Shaq. 

As for accepting this, there is nothing to accept yet.  It's strictly what they feel might happen vs what I feel might happen.  Why do I have to say 'yes this will happen'  when there is a chance it will not?  I don't expect to see Joe or WOW say 'You know what Koast you are right, only one player has been able to  play at a real productive level at that age and it was Kareem, except he used a finesse hook shot to do it, Shaq might not have the foot speed to score like he use to'

And I don't assume he can hold down Dwight.  In fact I never said he would.  What I said was that O'Neal makes Dwight work harder than any other center in the league.  Howard doesn't go off on Shaq like he does other teams...he has only scored 20+ points ONCE against Shaq and that was one of those games where he hit his FTs.  Howard doesn't dominate the glass against Shaq like he does other teams.  Can this change overnight?  Sure, but I am betting it won't; you are confident, almost to the point of arrogance, that it will.

How many times have they even played each other over the past 2 seasons?  2-3 times?  ( I thought Shaq was out on of the games they played the year before)  In a 7 game series if Dwight Howard scores more than 20 points in 3 games that doesn't put them over the top IMO.  Aside from that 40 point dunk fest in the final game he was scoring around 20+ points a game.

Howard won't dominate the glass if Shaq is in there rebounding like a machine for the entire time he is there.  Howard will work for rebounds.  He is very active jumping around even if he doesn't get all the back boards.  Sure Shaq is going to make Howard work but he's 22.  Howard WILL make Shaq work and hes 37.  Who is going to lose that battle over the long run?

I am being no more arrogant than WOW or yourself are being.  I am arguing my point.  Just because I am not conceeding to you guys doesn't make me arrogant.  It just means I'm sticking to what I think will happen.

Bottom line, EVERYONE in this thread is playing what if right now.  Myself included.  So why is it you want to jump on me when everyone else is doing the same thing? 

Basketball.discussion.board

koast...I need more time then I have here at work to reply. So I hope to be able to have time to write more tonight.  Only thing I have to say is that I am not "jumping" on you.  My initial post into this thread was after Dan agreed with you that Shaq was totally washed up and not a contributer any more (paraphrasing).  My "side" of this debate is whether Shaq is washed up or not.  IMO he is still an improvement to Cleveland's roster but I won't go as far as to say he "automatically" puts them in the finals.