duncan228
05-19-2009, 07:17 PM
Should Mavs try to trade for Shaquille O'Neal? (http://mavsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2009/05/should-mavs-try-to-trade-for-shaquille-o.html)
Tim MacMahon
Dallas Morning News
The Mavs might be able to get the best big man of this generation by sending Erick Dampier and Jerry Stackhouse to the Suns.
That deal, assuming Phoenix would buy out Stack, would represent eight-figure savings to Suns owner Robert Sarver. That could free up money to sign Amare Stoudemire to a long-term extension, instead of trading their franchise player and beginning a rebuilding project.
From the Mavs' perspective, they're replacing a mediocre big man with a legend. What's not to like?
Well, the legend is no longer a dominant force. Shaq still puts up pretty good numbers (17.8 ppg, 8.4 rpg last season), but he's a major defensive liability. Replacing Damp with Shaq is a significant step in the wrong direction as far as accomplishing the Mavs' mission of improving on the defensive end.
You could argue that Shaq's low-post presence more than makes up for what the Mavs would lose on the other end of the floor. But you can't rationally say that 37-year-old Shaq, who has missed more than 10 games in six of the last eight seasons, makes the Mavs legitimate contenders.
I'd love to see Shaq come to Dallas, just for the entertainment value. He's one of the great characters in sports today, so it'd make my job easy and enjoyable.
Mark Cuban enjoys the Shaq act, too, but he threw water on a brush fire of Shaq-to-Dallas speculation this spring (http://mavsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2009/04/mark-cuban-cool-on-shaq-speculation.html).
Cuban has made it clear that he's willing to lose a lot of money in a deal that makes the Mavs much better. I'm not sure that getting Shaq, even as a salary dump, falls in that category.
Tim MacMahon
Dallas Morning News
The Mavs might be able to get the best big man of this generation by sending Erick Dampier and Jerry Stackhouse to the Suns.
That deal, assuming Phoenix would buy out Stack, would represent eight-figure savings to Suns owner Robert Sarver. That could free up money to sign Amare Stoudemire to a long-term extension, instead of trading their franchise player and beginning a rebuilding project.
From the Mavs' perspective, they're replacing a mediocre big man with a legend. What's not to like?
Well, the legend is no longer a dominant force. Shaq still puts up pretty good numbers (17.8 ppg, 8.4 rpg last season), but he's a major defensive liability. Replacing Damp with Shaq is a significant step in the wrong direction as far as accomplishing the Mavs' mission of improving on the defensive end.
You could argue that Shaq's low-post presence more than makes up for what the Mavs would lose on the other end of the floor. But you can't rationally say that 37-year-old Shaq, who has missed more than 10 games in six of the last eight seasons, makes the Mavs legitimate contenders.
I'd love to see Shaq come to Dallas, just for the entertainment value. He's one of the great characters in sports today, so it'd make my job easy and enjoyable.
Mark Cuban enjoys the Shaq act, too, but he threw water on a brush fire of Shaq-to-Dallas speculation this spring (http://mavsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2009/04/mark-cuban-cool-on-shaq-speculation.html).
Cuban has made it clear that he's willing to lose a lot of money in a deal that makes the Mavs much better. I'm not sure that getting Shaq, even as a salary dump, falls in that category.