It's 1999. Would any Spurfans trade Duncan for Shaq straight up?

[LkrFan]

If I'm a Spurfan I would. The only question would be if Pop could have kept Shaq away from Krispy Kreme. Discuss.

[LkrFan]

I say no. Shaq was 27-28 around that time, had only few years more to his prime. Duncan at that time had unlimited potential. He was ahead of his peers in the draft by light years

Daddy - 4, Duncan - 4.

[MR.SILVER&BLack]

Nope.

[Muser]

Can't really play Robinson or Shaq at the 4 so no.

[LkrFan]

Fuck you. You make a thread like this and you have an answer like the bitch that you are.

Why you trolling me bruh? This is a rhetorical thread. Stay on topic.

[LkrFan]

Can't really play Robinson or Shaq at the 4 so no.

Disagree. Robinson had a jumper out to at least 18 feet. It would have worked.

[JamStone]

If it was just about basketball, I think the Spurs would have seriously considered it. But it's rarely just about basketball. Shaq was already in his first max contract and making $15 million, more than one-third of the entire Lakers payroll that season. David Robinson was making $14 million himself and had another $44 or so million the next 4 seasons, while Tim was still on his rookie deal making just over $3 million with another season at a very reasonable cost. Age and money would probably suggest the Spurs wouldn't do it. But based on basketball factors alone, I'm sure it would have been very tempting.

[LkrFan]

No way in hell

Business call or are you being a homer?

[The_Worlds_finest]

Not sure if serious or its internet time for special ed

[Donkeybong]

shaq was the most dominant force in basketball period. you'd have to be crazy not to.

[LkrFan]

If it was just about basketball, I think the Spurs would have seriously considered it. But it's rarely just about basketball. Shaq was already in his first max contract and making $15 million, more than one-third of the entire Lakers payroll that season. David Robinson was making $14 million himself and had another $44 or so million the next 4 seasons, while Tim was still on his rookie deal making just over $3 million with another season at a very reasonable cost. Age and money would probably suggest the Spurs wouldn't do it. But based on basketball factors alone, I'm sure it would have been very tempting.

Good take. If it were for "basketball reasons" solely, the Spurs jettison Duncan in a heartbeat.

[LkrFan]

Not sure if serious or its internet time for special ed

Special Ed :lol

[LkrFan]

shaq was the most dominant force in basketball period. you'd have to be crazy not to.

Exactly. :tu

[Giuseppe]

I hate these kind of suppositions---(and I won't stoop)---but, this is a sweet one.

Congrats, LF.

[LkrFan]

I hate these kind of suppositions---(and I won't stoop)---but, this is a sweet one.

Congrats, LF.

:toast

[Muser]

Also there's no way slightly past his prime Shaq would resign in San Antonio after his contract expires in 2003. So the Spurs wouldn't of won more than 4 rings anyway.

[LkrFan]

Also there's no way slightly past his prime Shaq would resign in San Antonio after his contract expires in 2003. So the Spurs wouldn't of won more than 4 rings anyway.

So otherwise you'd pull the trigger. Interesting...

[Muser]

I don't know. After 2003 Duncan was the better player so probably not.

[Nathan89]

Duncan would've led Kobe to... Not one, not two, not three, not four, not five, not six.....

[LkrFan]

Duncan would've led Kobe to... Not one, not two, not three, not four, not five, not six.....

So you would have traded him too huh?

#LOYALTY

:lol

[MR.SILVER&BLack]

By 1999 Pop and Tim already started developing a father-son like relationship. Add to the fact that Robinson was on decline, no way would they have given tim away for anyone in the NBA at that time.

[MR.SILVER&BLack]

Question for you LkrFan. Its 2004 and kobe & daddy's fight has gone public. Would you have traded Kobe for Lebron to keep the most dominate post player in history?

[LkrFan]

By 1999 Pop and Tim already started developing a father-son like relationship. Add to the fact that Robinson was on decline, no way would they have given tim away for anyone in the NBA at that time.

This is bitness. RC would have sent TD on a first class ticket from SAT to LAX and you know it. :lol

[LkrFan]

Question for you LkrFan. Its 2004 and kobe & daddy's fight has gone public. Would you have traded Kobe for Lebron to keep the most dominate post player in history?

No. LBJ is not a winner (see avatar). Kobe and Shaq had been fighting since at least 1997. 3 rings later...

[Killakobe81]

If it was just about basketball, I think the Spurs would have seriously considered it. But it's rarely just about basketball. Shaq was already in his first max contract and making $15 million, more than one-third of the entire Lakers payroll that season. David Robinson was making $14 million himself and had another $44 or so million the next 4 seasons, while Tim was still on his rookie deal making just over $3 million with another season at a very reasonable cost. Age and money would probably suggest the Spurs wouldn't do it. But based on basketball factors alone, I'm sure it would have been very tempting.

I was advocating that trade myself ... in 2000 Shaq was the best player since MJ and probably that too in 2001 and 2002 playoffs. Outside of that year or playoffs I'd rather have Tim.

[LkrFan]

How would you know back in 2004 that the guy isn't wired to be clutch?

Logo did his homework with Kobe. I trust his judgment implicitly. I knew when Kobe shot those air balls v Utah as a 17 year old rook that he had the stones to be a franchise player. LBJ wants to be a billionaire moreso than being a champion. I saw that when he was a rook and it's no different today. Sad actually.

[Proxy]

No. Their legacies are incredibly similar, so I can't see an argument for either in those regards. What gives Timmy the nod in my mind is the domino effect he continued from Robinson and has continued throughout his career in terms of the mentality of the franchise.

Substance over style.

[MR.SILVER&BLack]

No. LBJ is not a winner (see avatar). Kobe and Shaq had been fighting since at least 1997. 3 rings later...
:lol so the spurs are going to just give up TD for an end of his prime shaq yet the lakers wouldnt have moved kobe for the most wanted prospect in NBA History?

[LkrFan]

No. Their legacies are incredibly similar, so I can't see an argument for either in those regards. What gives Timmy the nod in my mind is the domino effect he continued from Robinson and has continued throughout his career in terms of the mentality of the franchise.

Substance over style.

Duncan dominated PFs that were 3-4" shorter than him - and made a HOF career out of it. Shaq took on all comers. In virtually every Laker/Spur battle, Pop hid Duncan from Shaq in the first 45 minutes. Why? Because he couldn't guard him and would certainly foul out.smart coaching by Pop tbh.

[LkrFan]

:lol so the spurs are going to just give up TD for an end of his prime shaq yet the lakers wouldnt have moved kobe for the most wanted prospect in NBA History?

Bron was hyped no doubt.He had his HS GAMES aired on BSPN. What has that hype done for him? His game has barely progressed since his rookie year with nothing but fat pockets and endorsements to show for it. Some King.

And why would I trade Kobe? Even with hindsight being 20/20, could anyone foresee Bron doing the same things Kobe is doing in his 16th year? I don't - unless he changes his game to not rely solely on his physical gifts.

[Proxy]

Duncan dominated PFs that were 3-4" shorter than him. Shaq took on all comers. In virtually every Laker/Spur battle, Pop hid Duncan from Shaq in the first 45 minutes. Why? Because he couldn't guard him and would certainly foul out.smart coaching by Pop tbh.

Well, Shaq is the most physically dominating player to ever grace the court, no doubt.

And knocking Duncan down due to some physical advantage he may or may not have had seems hypocritical if you're going to praise Shaq, since he had nearly every physical advantage available to the human species for the game of basketball.

I don't think one-on-one situations matter that much tbh... there are a handful of other players that could beat Timmy 1v1... unfortunately, there's much more to the game of basketball than that.

And yes, Pop is smart.

[Muser]

Duncan dominated PFs that were 3-4" shorter than him .


What point are you trying to make here? Shaq dominated C's that were 50/60 lbs lighter than him, what difference does it make?


In virtually every Laker/Spur battle, Pop hid Duncan from Shaq in the first 45 minutes. Why? Because he couldn't guard him and would certainly foul out.smart coaching by Pop tbh.

No, Pop would put Robinson on Shaq because at that stage in his career Robinson was still a very good post defender.

[MR.SILVER&BLack]

Bron was hyped no doubt.He had his HS GAMES aired on BSPN. What has that hype done for him? His game has barely progressed since his rookie year with nothing but fat pockets and endorsements to show for it. Some King.

And why would I trade Kobe? Even with hindsight being 20/20, could anyone foresee Bron doing the same things Kobe is doing in his 16th year? I don't - unless he changes his game to not rely solely on his physical gifts.
why do spursfan have to look at the question as if its 1999 yet you get to look at a trade in 2004 from today. No way you could have know Lebrons game wouldnt have changed. Hell he was already being looked at as the future GOAT.

Lebron started to become a household name when he was still in high school. Lebron in a lakers jersey would have made Buss a hell of alot more money than kobe. No way would that trade have been shot down if it had come up.

[LkrFan]

why do spursfan have to look at the question as if its 1999 yet you get to look at a trade in 2004 from today. No way you could have know Lebrons game wouldnt have changed. Hell he was already being looked at as the future GOAT.

Lebron started to become a household name when he was still in high school. Lebron in a lakers jersey would have made Buss a hell of alot more money than kobe. No way would that trade have been shot down if it had come up.

One word: hype. That's how he became a household name.

Another word: bullshit. Just about endorsement Bron has Kobe at one time had. Sprite, MCDonalds, etc. Kobe fucked it up in Vail, Colorado.

[LkrFan]

What point are you trying to make here? Shaq dominated C's that were 50/60 lbs lighter than him, what difference does it make?

Point is Duncan feasted on smaller players and didn't bang with centers. When he did, 13/8 ensued.

No, Pop would put Robinson on Shaq because at that stage in his career Robinson was still a very good post defender.

Partially true. D Rob made Shaq work but Duncan couldn't handle him until he became FT liability late in the 4th qtr. Smart coaching

[LkrFan]

Well, Shaq is the most physically dominating player to ever grace the court, no doubt.

And knocking Duncan down due to some physical advantage he may or may not have had seems hypocritical if you're going to praise Shaq, since he had nearly every physical advantage available to the human species for the game of basketball.

I don't think one-on-one situations matter that much tbh... there are a handful of other players that could beat Timmy 1v1... unfortunately, there's much more to the game of basketball than that.

And yes, Pop is smart.
I'm not knocking Duncan because Shaq is physically dominating. I'm just saying I would have traded Duncan because Shaq was the more intimidating and better player. No shame in that.

[Muser]

What? :lmao Duncan averaged 20/14 against Ben + Rasheed Wallace in 2005. Are you really comparing prime Duncan to 2011 Duncan?

Yeah it's smart coaching, why would you want your best offensive player using up energy defending Shaq when you've got a much better option in Robinson?

[Jodelo]

could anyone foresee Bron doing the same things Kobe is doing in his 16th year? I don't - unless he changes his game to not rely solely on his physical gifts.

You mean jacking up ill-advised shots and shooting the whole time while his shooting is around 40%? Yeah, he can do that!

[LkrFan]

Also, keep in mind that Shaq was about to deliver

29.7 ppg
13.6 rpg
3 bpg
3.8 apg

the following year in rout to 3peat.

[FkLA]

I would probably trade a young Duncan for a young Shaq tbh. Not a 22 yr old Duncan for a 27-28 yr old Shaq though.

Also you guys are retarded if you wouldnt have trade Kobe for Bron in 04', that wouldve been Magic&Cap 2.0 tbh.

[LkrFan]

You mean jacking up ill-advised shots and shooting the whole time while his shooting is around 40%? Yeah, he can do that!

No he can't. But we'll see...

[Muser]

Shaq was the better player from '99 to 03, we've established that.

Why would the Spurs in hindsight trade Duncan for 4 years of dominant Shaq when you can have Duncan all through the decade giving 20/10 and Elite defence?

[MR.SILVER&BLack]

One word: hype. That's how he became a household name.

Another word: bullshit. Just about endorsement Bron has Kobe at one time had. Sprite, MCDonalds, etc. Kobe fucked it up in Vail, Colorado.
All im saying is that no has ever been as marketable as Lebron from the get go. Look at what he did as a Cav. you cant tell me that Lebron with lakers couldnt have become a bigger name than Jordan.

[LkrFan]

All im saying is that no has ever been as marketable as Lebron from the get go. Look at what he did as a Cav. you cant tell me that Lebron with lakers couldnt have become a bigger name than Jordan.

Without rings he's Dominique Wilkins.

[JamStone]

Shaq was the better player from '99 to 03, we've established that.

Why would the Spurs in hindsight trade Duncan for 4 years of dominant Shaq when you can have Duncan all through the decade giving 20/10 and Elite defence?

Because in 1999, you don't have the benefit of 2012 hindsight?

[Brazil]

If it was just about basketball, I think the Spurs would have seriously considered it. But it's rarely just about basketball. Shaq was already in his first max contract and making $15 million, more than one-third of the entire Lakers payroll that season. David Robinson was making $14 million himself and had another $44 or so million the next 4 seasons, while Tim was still on his rookie deal making just over $3 million with another season at a very reasonable cost. Age and money would probably suggest the Spurs wouldn't do it. But based on basketball factors alone, I'm sure it would have been very tempting.

end of the thread

[Juggity]

You might get a few more deep postseason years in San Antonio between 2000 and 2003, but after that, the trade becomes one-sided in favor of LA due to Shaq's laziness/decline. After all, his prime was pretty abbreviated; only lasted about 3-4 years, whereas Duncan's could plausibly be said to have lasted 5-6 years.

Frankly, I don't think SA gets as many championships with Shaq on board as Duncan. As for what I'd do in 1999, it's the choice between a burgeoning superstar with a bright future and an all-time dominant player whose time is beginning to draw to a close. Keep Duncan. He played better D anyways, which is how the Spurs kept winning in their championship period.

[Mal]

Exactly. :tu

You are retarded. Made thread, ask people, laugh at opinion you disagree :bang

[LkrFan]

You are retarded. Made thread, ask people, laugh at opinion you disagree :bang

Do you care to add something of substance to my thread? If not, then GTFO. :downspin:

[Muser]

Because in 1999, you don't have the benefit of 2012 hindsight?

Well you have the knowledge that Shaq had 4/5 years tops left of being an elite player + the knowledge that there's no way he'd re-sign after 2003. With Duncan you know you have 10 + years of elite play if he re-signs.

[ElNono]

You can't take the salary situation away... the Spurs were already semi-stacked up front with DRob, Tim was a great addition, and the "rookie scale" type of contract allowed them to surround them with serviceable guys on the perimeter to win...

[Koolaid_Man]

By 1999 Pop and Tim already started developing a father-son like relationship. Add to the fact that Robinson was on decline, no way would they have given tim away for anyone in the NBA at that time.

dam I didn't know that he was copying Pop in getting a tongue ring and tramp stamp

[jjktkk]

No. Duncan is younger, more versatile, more of a complete player, regardless of Shaq's physical dominance.

[Koolaid_Man]

Do you care to add something of substance to my thread? If not, then GTFO. :downspin:


Lkrfan great thread topic..I would take Shaq because he was a more dominant big man. I'd even take Shaq to start a franchise over Kobe and MJ as well...only given that MJ and Kobe to start were not very polished players...whereas Shaq's girth alone could cover over a lot of his inexperience. :lol

Plus I would be rather devastated after a loss if after getting out of the showers my star player had tramp stamp...and was laughing while flashing a tongue ring...that shit would fuck with my head...

[Koolaid_Man]

but overall I'd take Magic over any player to start a Franchise

[Koolaid_Man]

Magic was the best Rookie player in the history of the game...

[JamStone]

Well you have the knowledge that Shaq had 4/5 years tops left of being an elite player + the knowledge that there's no way he'd re-sign after 2003. With Duncan you know you have 10 + years of elite play if he re-signs.

In the summer of 1999, Shaq was 27 years old. In 2005-06, Shaq averaged 20 points and 9 rebounds. That's 7 more seasons of elite play. Re-signing him is an issue, but I don't think you know that for sure. And with Duncan, even coming off a championship season and a great first two years in the league, 10+ years of elite play isn't guaranteed either. Easier to say that now after we've witnessed it. In 1999, we didn't know that.

Age difference and re-signability would certainly be factors to consider. But to me, the bigger issue would have been the financial implications, considering how much both Robinson and Shaq were making at the time. I think at the time, Shaq was the most dominant player in the league. And it's a very rare situation where a team wouldn't trade for the most dominant player in the league.

[Koolaid_Man]

In the summer of 1999, Shaq was 27 years old. In 2005-06, Shaq averaged 20 points and 9 rebounds. That's 7 more seasons of elite play. Re-signing him is an issue, but I don't think you know that for sure. And with Duncan, even coming off a championship season and a great first two years in the league, 10+ years of elite play isn't guaranteed either. Easier to say that now after we've witnessed it. In 1999, we didn't know that.

Age difference and re-signability would certainly be factors to consider. But to me, the bigger issue would have been the financial implications, considering how much both Robinson and Shaq were making at the time. I think at the time, Shaq was the most dominant player in the league. And it's a very rare situation where a team wouldn't trade for the most dominant player in the league.


dude you're not getting paid for this shit...stop trying to sound all intellectual and shit and just answer the fucking question....fuck finances who would you take...you act like female at times...real talk :toast

[Koolaid_Man]

also thanks Lkrfan for taking me back to 1999 even though 96 was the best year of my life to date

zxtn6-XQupM

[HarlemHeat37]

No..

Ignoring the financial implications for a moment, even as early as 1999, Shaq already had a reputation for being a headcase, along with questionable conditioning and dedication to the game..

Shaq was unquestionably better than Duncan, but it doesn't offset the negative aspects of the swap IMO..Duncan is the better fit with Robinson, he's younger and he's arguably the most coachable star in NBA history..

[Koolaid_Man]

No..

Ignoring the financial implications for a moment, even as early as 1999, Shaq already had a reputation for being a headcase, along with questionable conditioning and dedication to the game..

Shaq was unquestionably better than Duncan, but it doesn't offset the negative aspects of the swap IMO..Duncan is the better fit with Robinson, he's younger and he's arguably the most coachable star in NBA history..


Amen to that my brother....that honor should be exclusively reserved for any dude with a tongue ring and a tramp stamp....

[Spurminator]

In the summer of 1999, Shaquille O'Neal's legacy was becoming that of an underachieving, injury prone primadonna who regularly got swept out of the Playoffs. It took Phil Jackson to turn him into the beast he became for the next six seasons, and Phil Jackson could make that happen because he had 6 rings.

I'm not sure Pop would have been able to work the same magic from Shaq because I don't know if Shaq would have had the same amount of respect for Pop that he had for Phil.

[midnightpulp]

Nope. Shaq would be a horrible fit on the '99 Spurs. Too much congestion with him and the Admiral on the inside. They would contend, but would probably lose to the Duncan-led Lakers which would be a much more balanced team.

[ViceCity84]

2000-2002- Take Shaq
2003-2011- Take Duncan

The answer is Duncan

[Koolaid_Man]

Nope. Shaq would be a horrible fit on the '99 Spurs. Too much congestion with him and the Admiral on the inside. They would contend, but would probably lose to the Duncan-led Lakers which would be a much more balanced team.

:lol Yimmy was too chicken shit to tell is college room-mate after graduation that he would not have to find his own place to live...he allowed this man to live with him for what like 4 or 5 yrs after graduation and you would have us beleive that he would have actually had the balls to stand up to Kobe....:lmao yeah right...Yimmy is no Shaq he would have taken a back seat to the mamba would have been too chicken to stand up to Kobe...look at this does this look like a man that can stand up to Kobe:

WQxgHgRh95Y

[LkrFan]

Lkrfan great thread topic..I would take Shaq because he was a more dominant big man. I'd even take Shaq to start a franchise over Kobe and MJ as well...only given that MJ and Kobe to start were not very polished players...whereas Shaq's girth alone could cover over a lot of his inexperience. :lol

Plus I would be rather devastated after a loss if after getting out of the showers my star player had tramp stamp...and was laughing while flashing a tongue ring...that shit would fuck with my head...

:lmao :lmao :lmao

[LkrFan]

No..

Ignoring the financial implications for a moment, even as early as 1999, Shaq already had a reputation for being a headcase, along with questionable conditioning and dedication to the game..

Shaq was unquestionably better than Duncan, but it doesn't offset the negative aspects of the swap IMO..Duncan is the better fit with Robinson, he's younger and he's arguably the most coachable star in NBA history..

No one questioned Shaq's conditioning in 1999. Quit making shit up.