don't have a link for this... but as stated during the draft coverage, shaq has told ESPN that he wants to be a King next season
You have to be kidding me. The Kings would have to break apart their team for Shaq, and there is no chance the Lakers would deal him to their rival. I hope Shaq didn't make these comments, it just makes him out to be a hypocrite and a whiner. Shaq still has a lot of fans in Los Angeles and acting like a baby wanting to leave on his terms and now joining a rival is going to cost him the respect he worked for in Los Angeles.
I don't know about any of the other Kings fans but I would love to have the Diesel on the Kings, depending on how steep the asking price is.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting shapecity:</div><div class="quote_post">You have to be kidding me. The Kings would have to break apart their team for Shaq, and there is no chance the Lakers would deal him to their rival. I hope Shaq didn't make these comments, it just makes him out to be a hypocrite and a whiner. Shaq still has a lot of fans in Los Angeles and acting like a baby wanting to leave on his terms and now joining a rival is going to cost him the respect he worked for in Los Angeles.</div> Wether they have to dismantle their team or not would depend greatly on what kind of trade is made... IF such a trade is made. Webber and Divac (in a sign & trade) would have little impact as Miller could easily step in at the 4 position. (thats where he started all season long while webber was out and did a great job). If you trade Stojakovic/Bibby/Miller, than yes, they will have to change the direction they have been going. As far as sounding like a hypocrite, its a rivalry, things get said in the heat of the moment, but as I have said from the begining of this "pack'n shaq" (like that? i just made it up..lol) deal.. at the end of the day its a business and all parties involved treat it like that... If he wants out and Buss wants him out and Sacramento is the only one that can make the deal... they will make the deal. The Lakers think they can put the whole thing on Bryant's shoulders surrounded by some additional talent. And keep in mind, if they are willing to trade O'neal, he would have to go somewhere that A) has the money to pull it off and Stands a chance to be in the Playoffs. Indiana is the only team from the east that fits the bill, and they already have an O'neal on their roster who is pretty good at the same position. Who's to say that they wont meet in the finals? And if you take that line of thought then what does it matter if its the finals or the WFC or even the first round? just my .02, but the only real downside to a Kings Lakers trade is for the Laker fans. I would like to see it happen, Wether it does or not is a different story.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting shapecity:</div><div class="quote_post">You have to be kidding me. The Kings would have to break apart their team for Shaq, and there is no chance the Lakers would deal him to their rival. I hope Shaq didn't make these comments, it just makes him out to be a hypocrite and a whiner. Shaq still has a lot of fans in Los Angeles and acting like a baby wanting to leave on his terms and now joining a rival is going to cost him the respect he worked for in Los Angeles.</div> i'm just stating what i heard on espn during the draft coverage... this was reported around the time that sacramento was making/made their pick. i dont think the lakers really have choice of where to deal him to since it looks like only the west teams can offer them something of value in return. it doesn't really make him a hypocrite or a whiner, the lakers turned their backs on him, and what better way to get back at the organization that betrayed him than to beat them while on the most hated rival? i think he'll end up in dallas or sacto... my guess would be sacto since i think sacto can offer more in webber and divac (in a sign and trade) as well as a third player like a christie, than dallas (assuming dallas is not willing to move dirk).
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">If you trade Stojakovic/Bibby/Miller</div> no way, why would you give three all-stars for a guy who'll end up his careers in 5 years Divac & Webber for shaq seems good
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Peja King:</div><div class="quote_post">no way, why would you give three all-stars for a guy who'll end up his careers in 5 years Divac & Webber for shaq seems good</div> You wouldnt, I just used that as an example, Of those three the only one the lakers really have any use for would be miller. Webber/Divac or Webber/Christie/Smith or draft picks (which they dont have anymore) would be the only way the Lakers would do it... and christie would not even start with the Lakers unless GP just cant get it together next year. But if Fisher does wind up leaving, since he opted out of his contract, the Lakers could really use a good SG with solid defense off the bench.
I think that a Webber/Divac sign and trade deal would work (if the Lakers want to), but I also think that it would be too much for the Kings to give up Doug Christie. He was one of the most important players for the Kings down the stretch and (behind Bibby) was the most valueable player for the Kings in the playoffs. Even for Shaq, I don't think that it would be worth it to tear the heart out of the team.
divac/webber for shaq Kings lineup C: Shaq PF: Miller SF: Peja SG: DC PG: Bibbs Lakers lineup C: Divac PF: Webb SF: fox / G / FA Sg: kobe PG: GP or fisher both team are fine, i think this is the best deal for the lakers
i dont think the kings can just send vlade and webber over to the lakers... i doubt the lakers would pay vlade anything more than 5-6 million in a sign and trade, and that is the reason why i think christie needs to be included in the trade. if the trade is indeed webb, vlade, christie for shaq, you would still have a stellar lineup of: C: Shaq PF: Miller SF: Peja SG: B. Jackson PG: Bibby the only problem now is that your bench is extremely thin w/ the potential loss of peeler, and the loss of wallace. outside of songalia, there is no real guy who can fill a spot. If peeler can be resigned, that would definitely make up for the loss of christie.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting jiggax23:</div><div class="quote_post"> i dont think the lakers really have choice of where to deal him to since it looks like only the west teams can offer them something of value in return. </div> The Lakers have the ultimate choice in where Shaq goes or if he stays. He's still under contract and has no veto power. Shaq is frustrated right now, but when all is said and doen I think he will remain a Laker next year. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting jiggax23:</div><div class="quote_post"> it doesn't really make him a hypocrite or a whiner, the lakers turned their backs on him, and what better way to get back at the organization that betrayed him than to beat them while on the most hated rival? </div> Shaq is the one turning his back on the Lakers and the organization. He refuses to take a paycut, which would allow the Lakers to sign better players. Shaq is taking up 40% of the salary cap, but refuses to give 100% in every game. How can you expect to get more money, and make demands, when you aren't even committed to playing a full 82 games and get in shape?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting jiggax23:</div><div class="quote_post">i dont think the kings can just send vlade and webber over to the lakers... i doubt the lakers would pay vlade anything more than 5-6 million in a sign and trade, and that is the reason why i think christie needs to be included in the trade. if the trade is indeed webb, vlade, christie for shaq, you would still have a stellar lineup of: C: Shaq PF: Miller SF: Peja SG: B. Jackson PG: Bibby the only problem now is that your bench is extremely thin w/ the potential loss of peeler, and the loss of wallace. outside of songalia, there is no real guy who can fill a spot. If peeler can be resigned, that would definitely make up for the loss of christie.</div> Thank you. Webber and Divac is not even close for the Lakers to consider trading Shaq to them. Even if they include Christie, where will he fit in? I think any deal involving the Kings would have to include Peja or Bibby, IMO. Both teams lose out in this deal. The Kings lose their greatest strength, which is their depth and the Lakers don't get back equal value for Shaq.
Divac has some advantages over Shaq that may want you to consider keeping him instead. Better passer, his flopping is unrivaled and not to mention the most important, he works hard to achieve what he can do. Shaq always fails to do that. Also why would he want to be on a team that he called the Queens for fun and vice versa?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting shapecity:</div><div class="quote_post">Thank you. Webber and Divac is not even close for the Lakers to consider trading Shaq to them. Even if they include Christie, where will he fit in? I think any deal involving the Kings would have to include Peja or Bibby, IMO. Both teams lose out in this deal. The Kings lose their greatest strength, which is their depth and the Lakers don't get back equal value for Shaq.</div> It would have to include Christie and whatever other junk the kings can sell the Lakers on... But the Lakers have no use for Bibby or Stojakovic when they have Bryant and GP and Fisher should they be able to resign him, nor could the Lakers afford the salary that would come with a mix of Webber and Christie should you throw Bibby, Stojakovic or Miller in there. You are talking around 60 to 70% of the Kings payroll with those five right there. (and probably higer, thats just off the top of my head). And I agree with you that involving those players would be bad for both teams. You're right, of course, about not getting equal trade value, also. Which is why If the Kings are serious about it, they would throw the entire bench of big men (with a noted exception of songaila) and cash on the side to swing the deal. But really, how can you get equal trade value for O'neal? pretty much trade Yao is the only way you can get close to equal value for O'neal and still make a deal....
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting jiggax23:</div><div class="quote_post">i dont think the kings can just send vlade and webber over to the lakers... i doubt the lakers would pay vlade anything more than 5-6 million in a sign and trade, and that is the reason why i think christie needs to be included in the trade. if the trade is indeed webb, vlade, christie for shaq, you would still have a stellar lineup of: C: Shaq PF: Miller SF: Peja SG: B. Jackson PG: Bibby the only problem now is that your bench is extremely thin w/ the potential loss of peeler, and the loss of wallace. outside of songalia, there is no real guy who can fill a spot. If peeler can be resigned, that would definitely make up for the loss of christie.</div> No, you are right, he is unrestricted now & it would have to be a sign & trade which while the Lakers would not be opposed to having Divac back, I dont think they want to pay that much... As far as the bench goes, the Kings just drafted an SG and a PG both of whom were pretty good in college ( #2 and #12 scorers last year in the NCAA) who could possibly be fairly effective off the bench, the real hole that it would leave is at the 5 position. Smith or Massenburg would probably be involved in a trade if they did a deal and that would leave you with no one to back up O'neal if Miller is starting at the 4. (and Smith has not really played that much so I really cant say how good he would be coming off the bench for either team, Massenburg is not bad, and he aint great either. But at 12 years in the league, I highly doubt that the Lakers would take him in any kind of trade) If that kind of deal is made, they would have to not resign AP and look to FA for a backup center.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting shapecity:</div><div class="quote_post">Thank you. Webber and Divac is not even close for the Lakers to consider trading Shaq to them. Even if they include Christie, where will he fit in? I think any deal involving the Kings would have to include Peja or Bibby, IMO. Both teams lose out in this deal. The Kings lose their greatest strength, which is their depth and the Lakers don't get back equal value for Shaq.</div> ok maybe isn't fair but this the best deal the lakers could have.. i don't see the rockets trading yao
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting shapecity:</div><div class="quote_post">The Lakers have the ultimate choice in where Shaq goes or if he stays. He's still under contract and has no veto power. Shaq is frustrated right now, but when all is said and doen I think he will remain a Laker next year. Shaq is the one turning his back on the Lakers and the organization. He refuses to take a paycut, which would allow the Lakers to sign better players. Shaq is taking up 40% of the salary cap, but refuses to give 100% in every game. How can you expect to get more money, and make demands, when you aren't even committed to playing a full 82 games and get in shape?</div> i think shaq has the upper hand here because if they aren't able to move shaq, then kobe goes. people say he's just frustrated, but i dispute that given the fact that shaq has had over a week to calm down and change his mind, but instead of doing that he comes out yesterday and says he wants to be a king. shaq refusing to take a paycut is not turning his back on the team. he still wanted to be there and was told if he was able to get GP and malone, his demands would be met, but instead the lakers took back their word, and as a result, shaq is leaving due to promises not met. i dont care if he doesnt play 82 game, give me 16 hard games during the postseason where no one can stop him and thats enough for me, and you know shaq always shows up for the second season, it just so happens his teammates didn't follow this year.
Shaq A King??? ...No way I must admit that i believe there's no way that the Lakers are going to deal to the Kings,i mean the Kings are the heated rivals of the Lakers,and after all the smack talk that Shaq's done over the years about the Kings,that would be ludricrious But if Shaq does become a King,what can he bring to the table?? Any Kings,and Lakers fans wanna indulge????
also, during the same segment where they reported that shaq has said he wanted to be a king, they also reported that the maloofs want shaq in sacto. i think if shaq goes to sacto, they would be the favorites next year... bibby has never had a guy like shaq to dump it in to, and shaq has never had a player and shooter such as a peja to kick it out to... hell, shaq has never had a shooter like bibby to kick it out to either... if the lakers want to see their heated rivals win an nba championship next year, then they should trade shaq to sacto.
