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.
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.
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?
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.
Last edited by LkrFan; 03-31-2012 at 02:33 PM.
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.
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.
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?
No, Pop would put Robinson on Shaq because at that stage in his career Robinson was still a very good post defender.
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. 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 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: bull . Just about endorsement Bron has Kobe at one time had. Sprite, MCDonalds, etc. Kobe ed it up in Vail, Colorado.
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
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.
What?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?
You mean jacking up ill-advised shots and shooting the whole time while his shooting is around 40%? Yeah, he can do that!
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.
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 re ed if you wouldnt have trade Kobe for Bron in 04', that wouldve been Magic&Cap 2.0 tbh.
No he can't. But we'll see...
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?
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.
Because in 1999, you don't have the benefit of 2012 hindsight?
end of the thread
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.
You are re ed. Made thread, ask people, laugh at opinion you disagreeExactly.
Do you care to add something of substance to my thread? If not, then GTFO.You are re ed. Made thread, ask people, laugh at opinion you disagree
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
