I know I'm not the only one expressing this sentiment, but RJ will not make as significant of an impact towards the Spurs' success as a healthy Manu can. I'm not really sure why media personnel are going nuts over that move. And Shaq? Really? That team had all it needed to win a title last year. Great chemistry, decent contribution from players other than LeBron, awesome defense, etc., Taking on a washed-up Shaq (yes, he is washed-up even if he was an All Star last season) is a huge risk for a team that was on the brink of a title. Same can be said about Artest. I think Hedo and Carter deserve more votes, and Marion and Wallace-- in addition to Shaq and RJ-- fewer.
Where's the risk? Ilguaskus can't handle Howard (or Pau, Odom and Bynum for that matter) and all they had to give up was a busted up Ben Wallace and some spare parts. Shaq may be old, but the guy is anything but washed up, especially when plugged into a slow paced system like the Cavs run -- It won't be a long marriage but I won't be shocked if it gets them back to the finals at least once. Besides the Cavs are staring at the very real possibility that their once in a generation star bolts for another team in free agency, it could very well be all or nothing this year and this year only.
They got a hell of a deal for Shaq, but the risk is pretty evident in my mind. Shaq has a polarizing quality about him that can tear apart teams with terrific chemistry. Having him on the roster can also create situations where guys like MoWill or DWest (two legit players who were both extremely comfortable with their roles last season) feel obligated to get Shaq the ball. Even Steve Nash spoke of this sort of thing in a recent interview with Bill Simmons. He mentioned that Porter felt as if he HAD to get Shaq involved, and as such went away with what was working. Nash also acknowledged that at times, helping Shaq get to the AS team seemed like a higher priority than the success of the team. This is more of a concern in Cleveland with Shaq than in LA with Artest, as Mike Brown is a much weaker coach than Phil Jackson. He also doesn't have nearly as much control of his team as PJ does with his.
The difference is that Phoenix had multiple legit scoring options. They had 7 guys with a PER of 15 or better. Every play run for Shaq was a play that kept the ball out of Amare's hands, and several other guys who were also pretty good. Cleveland had three guys with a PER over 15, and one of them (Zydrunas) just isn't going to play a lot of big minutes as he gets older. The other guy (Williams) is another perimeter player--not exactly the perfect complement to LeBron. Shaq fills in a huge hole they had on the offensive end. As for Shaq being a polarizing person, well, I hope Oden can be that polarizing too some day if it also means he's won 4 championships. The truth is that the only team Shaq never really fit on was Phoenix, and it wasn't really his fault. Steven Nash and Shaq go together like apples and a kick in the crotch. It just was just a really, really bad fit. Shaq's proven he knows how to play with an elite swingman. Twice. And as good as Wade and Kobe were, LeBron is the best player he'll have ever played with. Ever. I really, really like the addition of Shaq to that team. He's breaking down and he's only useful in spurts. But us Blazer fans should be particularly aware of what a former truly great center can still do if used properly-- we had a center named Arvydas who gave us several year of productivity, and he wasn't as fast or as healthy as Shaq is for much of it.
As to the article: I'm surprised so many lateral moves were so highly ranked. Lakers got Artest, but lost Ariza. Orlando got Vince, but lost Hedo. Dallas got Marion, but now they have to play Howard out of position. Toronto got Hedo, but it's not like it was a huge enough move to add more than five extra wins. San Antonio got Jefferson, but he has "Michael Finley Redux" written all over him. I really like the Cavs acquisition of Shaq and Portland getting Miller most of all. Those are instance where you had two really good teams with major holes that went out and filled those holes without giving up anything that mattered. I'd rank them #1 and #2 in terms of the ability those acquisitions have to yield success on the court. After that I guess I'd go with Jefferson.
That's a good point. But I just don't like teams making drastic changes once they get close to a championship. (I have this intuition of Carter and Orlando being an exception, though).
Yeah, Carter is an upgrade over Hedo. Just not a huge one. I can see what you are saying about drastic changes. I was just trying to think of a team that was a contender, added a significant starter, and then won it all, and it's tough to come up with a recent example. But the truth is Cleveland can't afford to sit still. Ilgausakas is 34, and he missed 17 games last year. And they have to do something if they hope to get through both Orlando and the Lakers.
Sheed in Detroit. Gasol in LA. Lewis (at least helped Orlando reach the finals). It's hit or miss....but I agree with you that the Cavs needed to roll the dice.
I read the article as which new players will have the best impact, not which team had the best offseason. Thus players lost to team is irrelevant.
It's easy actually. And very recent. The Celtics added KG and Ray Allen and won the title that season (2008). Other recent ones, as were already stated: Sheed was added to the Pistons midseason and they won that year (2004). Took Pau only a season and a half to get the Lakers a championship (2009). Going back to last decade, Clyde was added to the Rockets midseason and they won the title that year (1995). The following season, the Bulls added Rodman and won that year.
I immediately thought of Sheed too. However, was Detroit really a contender the prior year? They were a 50 win team. If that's the case, we were contenders last year too. The Lakers added Gasol two years ago. They didn't win it all after adding him--they won it a year later. And the year before they added him they were a 42 win team. Clyde was added to the Rockets after they'd already won a championship. Again, my point was that it's hard to find examples of a contending team that fails, adds a major piece in the offseason/middle of next season, and then wins a championship. I guess one example would be Dennis Rodman and the 96-97 Bulls. But Jordan probably had something to do with that one. (Woops--the team the prior year only won 47 games. I stand corrected. Not a good example.) It's funny, because it seems there are tons of examples of teams that are contenders, add one extra guy to push them over the top, and then still don't get over the top. Payton/Malone in LA. Dale Davis/Kemp in Portland. Kidd in Dallas. Shaq in Phoenix.
The more I think about it, the more I see how fortunate we were with Miller and not Turk, we get basically the same everything on Stats #'s, (less shooting, but more PG skills though) but its at a bigger position of need. I hadnt really compared the stats. not to mentioned 5% better FG %
What stands out to me there is a 6'2 guy averages the same number of blocks per game in the same minutes as a 6'10 guy. Jesus.
