Which trade is more lopsided? [Archive]

sook

06-16-2009, 12:31 AM

i would rather the rockets trade Yao for Shaq before that shit happends!

Besides, all trades have to be approved with the league first, I doubt they would allow for such a nuclear strom like this.

If this happens, I will for the first tiem, consider the Cavs legit.

DUNCANownsKOBE2

06-16-2009, 12:31 AM

Is this a joke?

How is this a joke?

The Cavs get a center that just made the 3rd all NBA team and give up a player who wants to retire and an end of the bench player.

The Lakers get a PF that just made the 3rd all NBA team that's younger than Shaq and slightly better but they give up more: two first round picks, a player Memphis used to re-aquire their 2010 pick, and a center that averaged 12 points and 8 rebounds his rookie season.

Explain how this is a joke. Seems like two trades that are relatively the same in lopsidedness.

Bob Lanier

06-16-2009, 12:38 AM

Shaq is a hell of a lot better than Ben Wallace than Pau Gasol is better than Marc Gasol.

Or even than Pau is better than Kwame.

DUNCANownsKOBE2

06-16-2009, 12:41 AM

Please explain if you voted Gasol trade.

I voted Shaq trade because they trade an all star center and recieve nothing other than a reduced payroll (mind you they still have no cap room).

Memphis trades a player the fan base was beginning to dislike, a player that wasn't at all happy in Memphis, and got back a rookie that showed a lot of promise toward the end of his rookie season as well as what should be a top 5 pick in a draft scouts are saying is the draft all 30 teams will want picks in.

IronMexican

06-16-2009, 12:43 AM

Pau cause it has helped the Lakers win a title. Plus, he's about 8 years younger.

DPG21920

06-16-2009, 12:44 AM

Pau cause it has helped the Lakers win a title. Plus, he's about 8 years younger.

DUNCANownsKOBE2

06-16-2009, 12:45 AM

Pau cause it has helped the Lakers win a title.

How does that make it more lopsided?

IronMexican

06-16-2009, 12:47 AM

And Pau is a better player today than Shaq is.

Not possibly having to pay Ben Wallace > Kwame Browns 10 million expiring deal.

DPG21920

06-16-2009, 12:47 AM

DUNCANownsKOBE2

06-16-2009, 12:49 AM

Not to mention Shaq is a huge risk.

Worst case scenario is Shaq does nothing and they cut him/trade his expiring contract when all they gave up to begin with was a bench warmer and a player who retired?

How is that a risk?

underdawg

06-16-2009, 12:50 AM

Not to mention Shaq is a huge risk. He is a greater injury risk, he could have a steep drop off in production suddenly and the Cavs have a lot riding on next year with Lebron becoming a FA.

Pau was a no-brainer, no risk proposition.

that's crap - Shaq is a proven player as opposed to Pau who was a diamond in the rough. The Lakers FO did their did a lot of scouting to come up with the trade for Gasol.

JamStone

06-16-2009, 12:55 AM

DUNCANownsKOBE2

06-16-2009, 12:57 AM

If Shaq had just led the Suns deep into the playoffs, the question might be tougher. But, this past season went a long way in proving that even though Shaq can still put up decent numbers, he can no longer dominate in such a way as to help the team he's on be a title contender.

Last season was the best season Shaq has had since 2005. The Suns sucking had nothing to do with Shaq.

DUNCANownsKOBE2

06-16-2009, 12:58 AM

The age really isn't a factor when you consider the fact Gasol would have left Memphis once his contract was up.

YellowFever

06-16-2009, 01:01 AM

I'm pretty shocked there are several people that voted for the Shaq trade. Shaq played well last year all things considered, but he's still old as shit, closer to being done than he is to being a dominant force, at his point a proven cancer and half-a-season rent-a-player, a generally unmotivated fat ass, and a player being phased out by the style of play the league has turned into.

The Gasol trade is more lopsided because the Lakers were getting a guy who was entering or just entered his prime and didn't carry the baggage that Shaq does.

If Shaq had just led the Suns deep into the playoffs, the question might be tougher. But, this past season went a long way in proving that even though Shaq can still put up decent numbers, he can no longer dominate in such a way as to help the team he's on be a title contender.

I hear ya.

But weren't they saying the same thing about Gasol right around trade time last year?

He was a guy that got swept out of the first round twice and didn't even make the playoffs the year before.

I think you'll at least agree with me if I say he got "rejuvenated" playing alongside Kobe.

All I know is if Shaq does get traded and the Cavs win the finals next year, everybody will be screaming collusion.

Of course it makes perfect sense to both teams. :toast

JamStone

06-16-2009, 01:06 AM

Last season was the best season Shaq has had since 2005. The Suns sucking had nothing to do with Shaq.

Your first sentence is evidence to my point. Even playing well, Shaq couldn't dominate to the point of making his team a legit contender. His good play didn't necessarily mean wins. I don't think the Suns "sucked" per se, but the Suns not being as good as they could have been did have a lot to do with Shaq. He forced the Suns to change their style of play. And, that led to not only a coaching and philosophy change that didn't work, but it also forced other players, particularly Amare and Nash to play differently. Shaq was very much a reason why the Suns struggled enough to miss the playoffs.

The age really isn't a factor when you consider the fact Gasol would have left Memphis once his contract was up.

I'm not sure I quite understand this point. Age does matter when you compare the two players at the time of the trade (or potential trade). Gasol was 27 last year when traded. Shaq is 37. Can you elaborate why age really isn't a factor because Gasol would have left Memphis in another three years anyway?

DUNCANownsKOBE2

06-16-2009, 01:06 AM

All I know is if Shaq does get traded and the Cavs win the finals next year, everybody will be screaming collusion.

No they won't. The main reason everyone was screaming collusion with the Gasol trade is cause it came out of nowhere. I'll bet if ESPN talked about a potential Gasol to LA trade for a month prior to the trade and explained Memphis needed to cut payroll, no one would have suspected collusion.

DUNCANownsKOBE2

06-16-2009, 01:08 AM

Your first sentence is evidence to my point. Even playing well, Shaq couldn't dominate to the point of making his team a legit contender. His good play didn't necessarily mean wins. I don't think the Suns "sucked" per se, but the Suns not being as good as they could have been did have a lot to do with Shaq. He forced the Suns to change their style of play. And, that led to not only a coaching and philosophy change that didn't work, but it also forced other players, particularly Amare and Nash to play differently. Shaq was very much a reason why the Suns struggled enough to miss the playoffs.

Explain why the team was 2-5 (1-6 if Howard doesn't get injured after scoring 16 first quarter points and getting Orlando a 10 point lead) when Shaq didn't play then.

DUNCANownsKOBE2

06-16-2009, 01:09 AM

I'm not sure I quite understand this point. Age does matter when you compare the two players at the time of the trade (or potential trade). Gasol was 27 last year when traded. Shaq is 37. Can you elaborate why age really isn't a factor because Gasol would have left Memphis in another three years anyway?

What would being in Memphis for another three years do for the Grizzlies?

JamStone

06-16-2009, 01:10 AM

I hear ya.

But weren't they saying the same thing about Gasol right around trade time last year?

He was a guy that got swept out of the first round twice and didn't even make the playoffs the year before.

I think you'll at least agree with me if I say he got "rejuvenated" playing alongside Kobe.

All I know is if Shaq does get traded and the Cavs win the finals next year, everybody will be screaming collusion.

Of course it makes perfect sense to both teams. :toast

Difference is Shaq was just involved in a trade two NBA seasons ago to specifically do just that for Phoenix. You add all the other factors, such as age, such as style of play, such as Shaq leaving each of his former teams on bad terms, and all of those factors go a long way in showing how Shaq at his age is not that great of an addition to a team at this point in his career.

JamStone

06-16-2009, 01:13 AM

Explain why the team was 2-5 (1-6 if Howard doesn't get injured after scoring 16 first quarter points and getting Orlando a 10 point lead) when Shaq didn't play then.

Do you understand my point? I said Shaq can't dominate in such a way that it helps his team be a legitimate title contender. However good or bad the team is without him is irrelevant to the point in so much as with Shaq, they weren't title contenders anyway... back to the initial point I argued.

What would being in Memphis for another three years do for the Grizzlies?

Compare the ages of Gasol and Shaq when they are traded (or in Shaq's case when he is potentially traded to the Cavs this summer). It's not comparing the ages of Gasol last year to Gasol in three years. It's comparing Gasol's age to Shaq's age.

DUNCANownsKOBE2

06-16-2009, 01:22 AM

Do you understand my point? I said Shaq can't dominate in such a way that it helps his team be a legitimate title contender. However good or bad the team is without him is irrelevant to the point in so much as with Shaq, they weren't title contenders anyway... back to the initial point I argued.

How is Shaq supposed to dominate when the PG refuses to give him the ball down low? The two games Nash and Amare were both out and Shaq was playing so it was clear he was the focal point were by far the Suns two best games of the year. He scored 45 points in one game and 33 in the other.

DUNCANownsKOBE2

06-16-2009, 01:24 AM

2000 Shaq wouldn't have made the 2009 Suns a contender.

IronMexican

06-16-2009, 01:27 AM

2000 Shaq wouldn't have made the 2009 Suns a contender.

C'mon now...

KidCongo

06-16-2009, 01:28 AM

2000 Shaq wouldn't have made the 2009 Suns a contender.

MVP Shaq?

KSeal

06-16-2009, 01:31 AM

2000 Shaq wouldn't have made the 2009 Suns a contender.

Such bullshit. Why do you hate the Suns so much?

DUNCANownsKOBE2

06-16-2009, 01:31 AM

C'mon now...

When the PG refuses to give a player the ball in the right spot the player no matter how good would be useless.

It's no coincidence the Suns beat the Lakers this year once, and that was when Nash and Amare were injured and Shaq got his touches.

DUNCANownsKOBE2

06-16-2009, 01:32 AM

Such bullshit. Why do you hate the Suns so much?

Hating players on a team because they're lazy, don't play defense and don't care about winning is completely different than hating a team. If I wasn't a Suns fan I wouldn't care.

YellowFever

06-16-2009, 01:33 AM

Difference is Shaq was just involved in a trade two NBA seasons ago to specifically do just that for Phoenix. You add all the other factors, such as age, such as style of play, such as Shaq leaving each of his former teams on bad terms, and all of those factors go a long way in showing how Shaq at his age is not that great of an addition to a team at this point in his career.

You make a pretty good point about Shaq's age/style of play (whatever that means)/leaving on bad terms...etc but bottom line is Shaq is still effective and might be top 5 center right now.

I understand the Suns might make this move to dump salary and Memphis did the same last year but at least Memphis got warm bodies, couple of # 1 draft picks, and a huge expiring contract. Suns are going to get a guy ready to retire and a guy at the end of the bench that plays very few minutes.

Like I said, this deal, if it goes through, does make sense for both teams.

Suns dump salary and Cavs get an expiring 20 mil contract that will probably help them alot (remember..Shaq is not going there to make them elite..they already are near that level) next year.

Knowing how it turned out, I'll say the Gasol trade was more lopsided...but I don't think it's by that much and certainly not a slamdunk.

DUNCANownsKOBE2

06-16-2009, 01:35 AM

Shaq is still effective and might be top 5 center right now.

The voters seem to think he's a top 3 center :toast

YellowFever

06-16-2009, 01:36 AM

When the PG refuses to give a player the ball in the right spot the player no matter how good would be useless.

It's no coincidence the Suns beat the Lakers this year once, and that was when Nash and Amare were injured and Shaq got his touches.

Hey, I understand that.

A dominant center won't be dominant unless the ball is given to them. We just saw that this past finals.

But 2000 Shaq won't make this team a contender? :nope

YellowFever

06-16-2009, 01:37 AM

The voters seem to think he's a top 3 center :toast

Shit, they might be right.

Damn, this age really sucks when it comes to the center position.
(and have been for the past 15 years or so)

DUNCANownsKOBE2

06-16-2009, 01:39 AM

But 2000 Shaq won't make this team a contender? :nope

Nash and Amare would have eventually been irritated with not having the spot light and not being considered the top two players, which would result in even worse half-assed, flat footed defense from those two, they would start chucking, and they'd make an effort to keep the ball out of Shaq's hands.

The Suns were 11-5 to start the season when Nash started bitching about how it wasn't fun playing defense and being less important on offense. Since then the season went to shit. That's how I know what would happen.

Cry Havoc

06-16-2009, 01:53 AM

2000 Shaq wouldn't have made the 2009 Suns a contender.

Just stop. Wow. Stop.

Shaq is physically unable to even RUN THE FLOOR for much of an NBA game now, let alone keep up with the faster pace that the league is turning to. It isn't a massively lopsided trade because Shaq is only effective for half to 2/3rds of a season next year, and that's likely a best-case scenario. There's a very real chance of him being unavailable for all or part of the playoffs as well, and even if he plays, his complete lack of mobility is going to be a huge hindrance to a team trying to play defense.

DUNCANownsKOBE2

06-16-2009, 01:55 AM

Just stop. Wow. Stop.

Shaq is physically unable to even RUN THE FLOOR for much of an NBA game now, let alone keep up with the faster pace that the league is turning to. It isn't a massively lopsided trade because Shaq is only effective for half to 2/3rds of a season next year, and that's likely a best-case scenario. There's a very real chance of him being unavailable for all or part of the playoffs as well, and even if he plays, his complete lack of mobility is going to be a huge hindrance to a team trying to play defense.

You obviously didn't watch him at all last year.

DUNCANownsKOBE2

06-16-2009, 01:56 AM

I love when people post shit about Shaq that makes no sense.

Lakers999

06-16-2009, 02:02 AM

what is more lopsided.... tim donaghy for screwing the Suns.... or the Garnett trade...

baseline bum

06-16-2009, 02:03 AM

It's close, but I'll go with the proposed Cleveland deal because Big Ben is DONE and Pavlovic was stillborn.

Lakers999

06-16-2009, 02:04 AM

what is more lopsided.... tim donaghy for screwing the Suns.... or the Garnett trade...

fuck.... ill vote donaghy becuase he actually screwed PHX and their fans out of 2 possible finals apperances

baseline bum

06-16-2009, 02:05 AM

what is more lopsided.... tim donaghy for screwing the Suns.... or the Garnett trade...

Hard to trash the Garnett trade when Minnesota got the best young low-post scorer in the game in the deal.

KSeal

06-16-2009, 02:07 AM

Wasn't there some article out there that said the Suns won't trade Shaq for nothing or just to save money. If that's true then no way this Shaq to Cleveland deal goes down, who could the Cavs throw in that would actually be worth a damn to the Suns. West, Hickson lol. I don't know.

21_Blessings

06-16-2009, 02:16 AM

Funny how people keep overblowing the Gasol trade. Not only does Memphis have 2010 cap space. They got 3 draft picks, a starting center and 20 year old prospect.

Compare to that to the AI or this proposed Shaq trade which gives Suns/Det nothing but cap relief.

21_Blessings

06-16-2009, 02:17 AM

Ariza for Cook and evans expiring is more lopsided than either of these.

KSeal

06-16-2009, 02:21 AM

Ariza for Cook and evans expiring is more lopsided than either of these.

Not at the time of the Ariza trade, he was a complete nobody until he came to LA.

21_Blessings

06-16-2009, 02:24 AM

Not at the time.

Yes it was. There were plenty of Laker and Orlando fans screaming what dumb trade it was from the getgo. Knowledgeable Laker fans knew how worthless Brian Cook was and knowledgeable Magic fans knew Ariza had gobs of potential.

Besides that you can't judge the Gasol trade immediately since it was trade made for the long term, from Memphis' perspective.

KSeal

06-16-2009, 02:29 AM

Yes it was. There were plenty of Laker and Orlando fans screaming what dumb trade it was from the getgo. Knowledgeable Laker fans knew how worthless Brian Cook was and knowledgeable Magic fans knew Ariza had gobs of potential.

Besides that you can't judge the Gasol trade immediately since it was trade made for the long term, from Memphis' perspective.

We all knew how worthless Cook and ME were but Ariza hadn't done a whole lot to show he would be what he has been this postseason. Clutch as fuck, excellent three point shooter, etc. The potential was definitely there, I just wish the guy was under contract making 3 million a year for two or three more years..

I really can't see many big time FA's going to Memphis but I could be wrong. Marc definitely has a lot of upside.

Ghazi

06-16-2009, 03:32 AM

Gasol trade is more lopsided due to age. That gives the Lakers a 3-5 year window.

Acquiring Shaq maybe would give the Cavs a 1 year window, although they could probably just reload after his contract went up.

Shaq had a great year last year but he's old, so it's possible that he could have a steep decline. Pau is also durable whereas Shaq isn't. It's surprising Shaq was able to play 75 games last year, I would be amazed if he could replicate that..

And yeah, fucking BULLSHIT that 2000 Shaq wouldn't have made the Suns contenders, especially if Amare didn't get hurt.

Chieflion

06-16-2009, 04:49 AM

Shaq trade would be more lopsided.

No picks traded to Suns, no young talent, basically Cavs supporting cast are older than dirt. Spurs age = dirt. Cavs age = older than dirt
The only reason the trade would even be possible would be because of a cheap owner and Steve "worse than Isiah" Kerr.

Thunder Dan

06-16-2009, 08:26 AM

I didn't know if you were aware of this DuncanOwnesKobe but Shaq is 37 years old.

pauls931

06-16-2009, 08:33 AM

This poll is stupid, I'm not even voting... Everyone knows the answer.

Thunder Dan

06-16-2009, 08:35 AM

The Lakers didn't even give up a player did they?

Now if the Cavs traded their rights to Sasha Kaun to the Suns for Shaq then we are getting somewhere

pauls931

06-16-2009, 08:37 AM

The Lakers didn't even give up a player did they?

:lol About right...

resistanze

06-16-2009, 09:29 AM

Shaq is fat and old, and it at best, available for one good year.

Gasol is in his prime.

2Cleva

06-16-2009, 09:45 AM

DUNCANownsKOBE2

06-16-2009, 10:13 AM

The Lakers didn't even give up a player did they?

Javaris Crittenton and Kwame Brown.

DUNCANownsKOBE2

06-16-2009, 10:14 AM

I love how people act like Memphis got nothing for Pau. In this trade the Suns get nothing for Shaq other than saved money. The Grizzlies got several assets and saved money.

dirk4mvp

06-16-2009, 10:15 AM

Javaris Crittenton and Kwame Brown.

Who?

Ghazi

06-16-2009, 10:15 AM

Javaris Crittenton and Kwame Brown.

Who?

Ghazi

06-16-2009, 10:16 AM

Ahhh god dammit !

DUNCANownsKOBE2

06-16-2009, 10:20 AM

TD asked if LA gave a player up? I was answering his question. He wasn't asking if they gave any good players up. Signing rights to a good player are basically the same thing though.

Marc is already a way better defender than Pau.

Jacko

06-16-2009, 10:21 AM

Marc Gasol, Javaris Crittenton, Kwame Brown, Darrell Arthur

21_Blessings

06-16-2009, 11:24 AM

The problem people have with the Gasol trade is not what LA gave up for Gasol (which is fair when considering other trades teams made when they were dumping big-salaried players) but the net effect because of what LA had left after the deal.

So they cry the blues and say it was about the Gasol trade when in fact its really about the Lakers being a loaded team with him.

Hating the player instead of hating the game.

And the trade was only possible because the Lakers traded Shaq; which everyone thought was a highway robbery.

Trading shaq, directly or indirectly turned into Lamar Odom, Pau Gasol, Andrew Bynum (Lakers were crappy enough to draft him, just like Memphis was shitty enough for TWO top 5 picks without Gasol) and Jordan Farmar.

sabar

06-16-2009, 11:42 AM

Gasol is going to bring L.A. years of excellent big man play and LA just had to give up a bunch of scrubs/unproven players/picks. Shaq on the other hand is a fat, old, slow 20 million dollar cancer. See, there's a decent chance the Cavs get screwed in the event that Shaq breaks down. The Lakers had a no-brainer decision. Gasol is young and healthy. The 2008 Suns-Spurs match-up showed how over-rated Shaq is in his advanced age. 2 years later he is going to be a key piece? I don't see it.

Cry Havoc

06-16-2009, 01:10 PM

I love how people act like Memphis got nothing for Pau. In this trade the Suns get nothing for Shaq other than saved money. The Grizzlies got several assets and saved money.

Shaq has a year left, at best. He probably won't replicate his numbers from last season.

You're still wrong.