Chris Forsberg (ESPN) C's should get Shaq

[Roy Hobbs]

My main problem with a sign and trade for Shaq is that if he ends up not fitting in well, whether that be because of his personality and/or effect in the clubhouse or whether that be because he is a bad fit on the court, the sign and trade means we are acquiescing to his demands for more than $4 million a year for 2 years. If he doesn't fit in, everyone will know why and in trying to get rid of him we would get 10 cents on the dollar for his worth.

If we sign him to a veteran's minimum contract, which BTW is league subsidized so we would only be responsible for about half of his salary(or thereabouts), if he doesn't work out, cut him. The most you are going to have to spend on him is his yearly subsidized salary and the luxury tax money, which is minor.

Yeah, I don't think anybody would prefer the sign-and-trade route.  However, I'm not sure that Shaq is willing to take a minimum deal, which leaves our options as 1) overpay Shaq, or 2) try to acquire somebody else.  It's hard to answer which is a better option, since we don't know who else is out there, or what they're asking for.

[the_Bird]

And while I don't love the Shaq/Parker idea, because it's not the upgrade I'd like at the 2/3; it does have some merits.  We could probably get by with Parker and Bradley or Parker and a minimum guy backing up Pierce and Allen if we had Shaq, Nate, and BBD playing next to them.  All three of those guys can put the ball in the basket, so we wouldn't necessarily need those two to be the big time scorer off the bench that we'd hope a guy like Howard would be. 

What I remember from the playoffs...  when the defensive intensity picked up, when the jumpshots weren't falling, we were missing an inside presence.  'Sheed was doing a great job for a while in Game 7, but got gassed (and he's gone, anyway).  

Shaq's the one player out there, the one realistic target...  when the game slows down, he's the one guy out there that you can just get him the ball and he's going to put it in the hoop.  He can't do it all game long, but for ten minutes a game it still doesn't really matter who's guarding him.

You'd have to get Moon or Parker, and sign a fourth guy at the min who can play some D.  Rasual Butler would be a great fourth wing who might sign at the vet min.  Hell, even re-signing Quis  might be OK, if you're playing him alongside Moon and Nate (both of whom can shoot the ball).

[GreenFaith1819]

It was interesting to me to see the effect that Shaq (while in CLE) had on Gasol and Bynum...he basically neutralized their production in both games, while his own production was minimal.

But he canceled them out, which is a huge undertaking in itself.

In J.O.'s defense, he played much better against LA in the game in MIA last yr (4 blocks, including one on Gasol). Plus, he played Dwight really well all season last yr.

J.O. represents 5 offensive options on the floor for us. Shaq can do this as well, but I give Shaq one more year of playing?

I have to laugh to myself at the possibilities of Shaq in Green, though......

We somehow get Shaq...make it through MIA/ORL/CHI....play and beat LA....with Shaq wearing Green. That will more than likely upset Kobe to no end.

Imagine TV Camera panning over to Danny - he is grinning from ear to ear, thinking: I signed Shaq, one of LA's biggest reasons for success over the last 10 yrs, and now he is helping US (Boston) beat LA....

You just know that Shaq will make another rap about it, too.

[nickagneta]

My main problem with a sign and trade for Shaq is that if he ends up not fitting in well, whether that be because of his personality and/or effect in the clubhouse or whether that be because he is a bad fit on the court, the sign and trade means we are acquiescing to his demands for more than $4 million a year for 2 years. If he doesn't fit in, everyone will know why and in trying to get rid of him we would get 10 cents on the dollar for his worth.

If we sign him to a veteran's minimum contract, which BTW is league subsidized so we would only be responsible for about half of his salary(or thereabouts), if he doesn't work out, cut him. The most you are going to have to spend on him is his yearly subsidized salary and the luxury tax money, which is minor.

Yeah, I don't think anybody would prefer the sign-and-trade route.  However, I'm not sure that Shaq is willing to take a minimum deal, which leaves our options as 1) overpay Shaq, or 2) try to acquire somebody else.  It's hard to answer which is a better option, since we don't know who else is out there, or what they're asking for.

And the problem with all this is just how much does Celtic management trust their own medical prognosis on Perkins. If they believe that perk will be back and himself by March, April at the latest, then maybe a stop gap minimum guy like Oberto or Nesterovic makes a lot of sense. If they don't and they think Perk is a lost cause and that next year is a lost year because of the lockout, why not do the sign and trade as long as we can bring back some other quality parts.

If Perk looks to be lost for the year, do the sign and trade because even though Shaq is going to want a two year deal, with the lockout, the chances are the Celtics aren't going to have to pay most if not all of his salary the following year anyway. So it's essentially a glorified one year deal.

So if the C's could come away with Shaq, Parker and Moon for Rasheed and the DLeaguers, that might not be so bad.

BTW, upon trading Rasheed's contract he has a 15% trade kicker. Does that extra 15% count as traded salary? Because if it does then doesn't the max amount of salary we can trade for with Rasheed's deal and Gaffney and LaFayette equal about $11 million.

Rasheed(6.32 mil) * Trade kicker (1.15) = 7.268 mil

Rasheed and Trade Kicker(7.268 mil) + Gaffney(0.762 mil) + LaFayette(0.762 mil) = 8.792 mil

Outgoing salary(8.792 mil) + 25% of outgoing salary(2.198 mil) + .100 = max salary incoming = 11.09 million

[ssspence]

I've been down with the Shaq idea from day 1... or as soon as Perkins went down with an injury and Sheed was leaning towards retirement.

Shaq can still give a very solid 20 MPG. Thats all we need.

Take back Moon and/or Parker as well, and we are all systems go.

Flip Cleveland the pupu platter (non guaranteed contracts, cash, first round pick). The Cavs save money and get a pick for parts they don't need.

How about Earl Barron & Wilson Chandler for Sheeds contract? NY is shopping Chandler. He'd be a good backup to Pierce & Barron solves our big man need.

shopping him doesn't mean they want to give him away for nothing.

They are shopping him under the pretext that whoever gets him has to take Eddie Curry off their hands. Tough pill to swallow there.

I don't even know if its that.  I think they are trying to use him as a piece to get a better player.  I don't think they care as much about getting rid of Curry's contract right now, they want to turn Curry's contract into another star, and Chandler is one of the few assets they have remaining, since they have traded so many of their picks.

indeed -- there's a difference between shopping a guy and looking to dump him. chandler's a case of the former.

i agree with many of the late posts here -- let's not overpay for shaq when we know that perk will fight hard to come back strong. i think adding another guy like a thomas or even barron meets the need there for the moment. I'm more concerned about finding a couple of nba quality wings.

[MBz]

I would like Shaq if he is your number 1 guy off the bench to score and you surround him with shooters in a nice slow down setting.  If that is what the Celtics want to make their bench unit consist of I would be fine with that.  A unit of like Nate, Ray Allen, some SF, Jermaine O'Neal and Shaq.  You pound Shaq inside and work him until he can't be worked.  If they cheat in on him, he should have enough outside options where he can kick it out and they can be successful.  If you want a run and gun bench, obviously Shaq cannot fill that role.

[OhioGreen]

First off, just a thought...Shaq and BBD on the boards together would really be something!

I could definitely go with Shaq and Parker. Shaq and JO would be a great tandem.  Parker gives you defense and 3 point shooting--he's pretty solid.  

I also think we should definitely try to offer Tolliver, and maybe Barron too, vet min deals.  Maybe somebody like a Cartier Martin, also.  Young guys with some upside who have shown they can play, albeit with bad teams.  They will have some future value, however, if their games continue to develope, and with Bradley, Baby, and Luke we'll at least be blending youth with at least some future trade chips, if nothing else.  

[Celtics4ever]

I think he matches well with Z and you know he would bring it against Kobe and Gasol.  If he is cheap and it doesn't hurt us why not.  Shaq is a much better passer than most here realize and would be a nice mix in to our half court game. 

I am not sure how he could fit with Rondo though as he clogs the lane and can't run the floor very well.

The finals should have showed everyone that we were one big short.  With another good big in game seven LA would not have won even with all the Stern help.

[Thruthelookingglass]

First off, just a thought...Shaq and BBD on the boards together would really be something!

They wouldn't have to block out.  They'd form an impenetrable wall just by standing there.

[Jevi]

Ex-Wolverine Courtney Sims playing well on Lakers' summer-league team

It has taken a few years, but former U-M center Courtney Sims may be inching closer to sticking with an NBA team.

Sims has played five games for the Lakers' Summer League team and has reached double figures in the past three, including a 13-point, 14-rebound game against Sacramento on Tuesday.

Since going undrafted out of Michigan in 2007, Sims has had a few NBA shots, playing three games for Indiana in 2007-08 and one each for Phoenix and New York in 2008-09.

Is he not in consideration? Is Gaffney even better than him?

[csfansince60s]

And the problem with all this is just how much does Celtic management trust their own medical prognosis on Perkins. If they believe that perk will be back and himself by March, April at the latest, then maybe a stop gap minimum guy like Oberto or Nesterovic makes a lot of sense. If they don't and they think Perk is a lost cause and that next year is a lost year because of the lockout, why not do the sign and trade as long as we can bring back some other quality parts.

If Perk looks to be lost for the year, do the sign and trade because even though Shaq is going to want a two year deal, with the lockout, the chances are the Celtics aren't going to have to pay most if not all of his salary the following year anyway. So it's essentially a glorified one year deal.

So if the C's could come away with Shaq, Parker and Moon for Rasheed and the DLeaguers, that might not be so bad.


[/quote]


TP, Great points, Nick. You've sold me on signing Shaq at > vet minimum, especially as the lockout will impact the signing.

What is particularly unnerving to me is the credibility of the Cs medical staff and PR machine and where they interface. Our Cs haven't had real credibility in dealing with length of recoveries from injury. (See KG 2009.)

[snively]

Shaq would be nice to have as a 4th or 5th big.  He just isn't good enough to start anymore. 

Hard to see him coming for the minimum though especially to such a small role, and I don't want to spend Sheed's contract without getting back a wing.

Sheed and a 1st for Shaq + Moon or Parker would be OK I guess.

Surprised Shaq didn't end up in Miami.  He would have made a lot of sense on that team.

[The Walker Wiggle]

Latest on the Shaq front, courtesy of Sam Amico:

Shaq aiming for about $6 million. Cavs ready for sign-and-trade but no one wants to pay Shaq more than $2 mil. Should Cavs just keep him?

I'll go on record as hoping the Celtics pass on O'Neal whether for $2 million or $6 million.

[the_Bird]

If Shaq wants that $6M for only two years, sign me up all day.  He's still a pretty effective player, not as a starter or for 30 minutes per game, but he's still a guy that can put the ball in the hole and that's an intimidator in the paint.

The only real concern I have with Shaq is that he's very slow on D now, which means that they'd have to play a little differently when he's in the game (not going to be able to switch as much).  That's also going to make him a liability in certain matchups, you don't really want him defending big men who hang around the 3 point line.

For what he would bring to this squad, yeah, I'd take Shaq at 2/$12M.  We seem to be running out of decent wings to acquire using 'Sheed's contract, anyway.

[MBunge]

If Shaq wants that $6M for only two years, sign me up all day.  He's still a pretty effective player, not as a starter or for 30 minutes per game, but he's still a guy that can put the ball in the hole and that's an intimidator in the paint.

The only real concern I have with Shaq is that he's very slow on D now, which means that they'd have to play a little differently when he's in the game (not going to be able to switch as much).  That's also going to make him a liability in certain matchups, you don't really want him defending big men who hang around the 3 point line.

For what he would bring to this squad, yeah, I'd take Shaq at 2/$12M.  We seem to be running out of decent wings to acquire using 'Sheed's contract, anyway.

Unless we somehow land Barnes or an equivalent wing, I don't think the Celts can afford to just get Shaq for Sheed's deal.  Something like Sheed's deal, the D-leaguers, Hanrangody and a 1st for Shaq, Moon and Powe/Parker is more what Boston would need.

Mike