Shaq wants to be a Celtic

[nickagneta]

If it is true that Shaq said he won't come off the bench, I have completely changed my mind about him.  I want a player who will do anything Doc call for to win a game.  I do not want a player, any player, who dictates play, who says when and if he will play.  I am not sure Shaq did say that, but if he did, count me out.  If that really is the case I do not support bringing Shaq to Boston at any price!  That is exactly the kind of attitude that kills UBUNTU.

Let's also keep in mind that this is Shaq, who I would say is the 4th best center of all time.  He's certainly a top 25 player and arguably even a top 10 player.  

So this isn't like it's even McGrady or Iverson making demands.  

I also don't think starting is the big deal that many think it is.  Jermaine O'Neal, given Shaq's standing in league history, may be OK in deferring to Shaq.  And after the first 5 minutes of the game, who is playing with who is simply based on Doc's rotations.  

I'd take Shaq starting for us and Jermaine off the bench over Jermaine starting for us and some crap minimum guy off the bench.  

Why exactly should Jermaine O'Neal defer to Shaq? Last I checked, Doc set the starting lineup and rotation. Shaq is the one that is going to have to defer to Doc Rivers. He isn't playing for Mike Brown, the LeBron puppet any longer. He's playing for a real head coach and if Doc says Shaq is coming off the bench and playing 5 minutes a game then Shaq had better well sit his ass on that bench, play those 5 minutes like they were the last five minutes he will ever get to play and then sit down and keep his mouth shut and be happy about it.

That's what Shaq to Boston should be all about.

[BballTim]

If it is true that Shaq said he won't come off the bench, I have completely changed my mind about him.  I want a player who will do anything Doc call for to win a game.  I do not want a player, any player, who dictates play, who says when and if he will play.  I am not sure Shaq did say that, but if he did, count me out.  If that really is the case I do not support bringing Shaq to Boston at any price!  That is exactly the kind of attitude that kills UBUNTU.

Let's also keep in mind that this is Shaq, who I would say is the 4th best center of all time.  He's certainly a top 25 player and arguably even a top 10 player. 

  You keep saying "is" when "was" is a much better fit. Shaq next year won't be as good or as mobile as he was last year. And while JO might be willing to defer to a player of Shaq's stature, I'm pretty sure that KG/PP/RA/RR won't be as impressed.

[wildo05]

Danny didn't quiet the Shaq speculation today when Julian Benbow gave him a chance to:

http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/extras/celtics_blog/

[Tradetime]

But again, this isn't a Shaq vs. Sheed debate.  This is a Shaq vs. a minimum guy, Luke Harangody being in the rotation playing alongside BBD at center debate. 

I'm all for the Josh Howard trade.  However, if that doesn't go down, we're definitely better off with Shaq than no one. 

Amen. And Tp for a reasonable post.

[Change]

Danny didn't quiet the Shaq speculation today when Julian Benbow gave him a chance to:

http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/extras/celtics_blog/

If Shaq wants to play here, Sign the guy already. Who cares whether he starts or not. He won't be playing more than 20-25 minutes a game. I'm sure the other starting 4 can adjust. KG+Shaq a nice inside/outside combination.

[Jon]

A couple things: 1
) Beggars can't be choosers.  Doc may well work out something with Shaq where he promises to start him.  And I don't think that is unreasonable.  If Larry Bird decided he wanted to play at 38 and demanded to start, 95% of this board would be OK with it.  Shaq is only marginally below Larry Bird in terms of all time players.  

2) Shaq IS a top 4 center of all time in the same way that Bill Russell IS a top 4 center of all time.  Obviously I wasn't still saying he was an elite player.  However, he's likely the best option we can get at the 5 spot right now.  

[guava_wrench]

If it is true that Shaq said he won't come off the bench, I have completely changed my mind about him.  I want a player who will do anything Doc call for to win a game.  I do not want a player, any player, who dictates play, who says when and if he will play.  I am not sure Shaq did say that, but if he did, count me out.  If that really is the case I do not support bringing Shaq to Boston at any price!  That is exactly the kind of attitude that kills UBUNTU.

Let's also keep in mind that this is Shaq, who I would say is the 4th best center of all time.  He's certainly a top 25 player and arguably even a top 10 player. 

So this isn't like it's even McGrady or Iverson making demands. 

I also don't think starting is the big deal that many think it is.  Jermaine O'Neal, given Shaq's standing in league history, may be OK in deferring to Shaq.  And after the first 5 minutes of the game, who is playing with who is simply based on Doc's rotations. 

I'd take Shaq starting for us and Jermaine off the bench over Jermaine starting for us and some crap minimum guy off the bench. 

Not a good idea. You can't capitulate to player demands. We don't want a player that will rebel when we make adjustments for the betterment of the team.

When Perk is healthy, if his defensive presence turns out to be more valuable than Shaq's post game, we don't want someone who will refuse to come off the bench unless it is a player who is good enough that we would never want him coming off of the bench.

Shaq's position among the all time greats is irrelevant at this point.

[BballTim]

A couple things: 1
) Beggars can't be choosers.  Doc may well work out something with Shaq where he promises to start him.  And I don't think that is unreasonable.  If Larry Bird decided he wanted to play at 38 and demanded to start, 95% of this board would be OK with it.  Shaq is only marginally below Larry Bird in terms of all time players.  

2) Shaq IS a top 4 center of all time in the same way that Bill Russell IS a top 4 center of all time.  Obviously I wasn't still saying he was an elite player.  However, he's likely the best option we can get at the 5 spot right now.  

  Shaq doesn't deserve any special deference because he used to be a good player on another team, just like Rasheed, Starbury or Cassell. He'd have to be treated like the player he is now.

[thirstyboots18]

The question is not who starts....I also believe it is who finishes that is much more important.  

The question is "Who is running the show"...Doc should be the final word on who plays and when they play, IMO

We Need a Center...but to win we need a team player who knows what the word "team" means.  I think Shaq is that player...but, if he did say he wouldn't come off the bench, I am wrong!  He should have said that he will do anything it takes to win!

[Jon]

I think all of you guys are high on ubuntu.  Yeah, we've seen our stars sacrifice to some extent.  But if you think that the Paul, Ray, and Kevin would put "team first" to the extent that they'd be willing to not start, then I think you're kidding yourselves. 

If Doc came in and told one of them that he'd be going to the bench, there would be rebellion and Doc might "capitulate" to his demands.  Except that won't happen, because even if there was a situation where Doc thought the C's would be better off with one of them on the bench, he knows darn well that by benching one of them strife would occur. 

Now Shaq's situation is somewhat different.  His skills have deteriorated and he's coming to a new team.  Still, Shaq, in terms of accomplishment, is head and shoulders above everyone on this team. 

I think a lot of you are looking at this from way too idealistic sort of a way.  We have no backup center right now.  Our options are very limited.  Cleveland showed last year that you can start Shaq and still very much limit his minutes (and not even close with him) if you don't want to. 

It'd be one thing to draw a hard line if this were a young player or if we actually had a backup center, but making an exception for a first ballot Hall of Famer when Kwame Brown or worse is the alternative, isn't really giving up all that much. 

[BballTim]

I think all of you guys are high on ubuntu.  Yeah, we've seen our stars sacrifice to some extent.  But if you think that the Paul, Ray, and Kevin would put "team first" to the extent that they'd be willing to not start, then I think you're kidding yourselves. 

If Doc came in and told one of them that he'd be going to the bench, there would be rebellion and Doc might "capitulate" to his demands.  Except that won't happen, because even if there was a situation where Doc thought the C's would be better off with one of them on the bench, he knows darn well that by benching one of them strife would occur. 

Now Shaq's situation is somewhat different.  His skills have deteriorated and he's coming to a new team.  Still, Shaq, in terms of accomplishment, is head and shoulders above everyone on this team. 

I think a lot of you are looking at this from way too idealistic sort of a way.  We have no backup center right now.  Our options are very limited.  Cleveland showed last year that you can start Shaq and still very much limit his minutes (and not even close with him) if you don't want to. 

It'd be one thing to draw a hard line if this were a young player or if we actually had a backup center, but making an exception for a first ballot Hall of Famer when Kwame Brown or worse is the alternative, isn't really giving up all that much. 

  The things is, if he expects to be able to choose what his role will be on the team based on his historical status, what happens if they don't give him the ball as often as he likes? And I doubt if PP/KG/RA or even Rondo will hold him in as high esteem based on his play for the Lakers as you do. Is the PP who proclaimed himself to be the best basketball player on the planet 2 years ago going to defer to Shaq?

[Jon]

I think all of you guys are high on ubuntu.  Yeah, we've seen our stars sacrifice to some extent.  But if you think that the Paul, Ray, and Kevin would put "team first" to the extent that they'd be willing to not start, then I think you're kidding yourselves. 

If Doc came in and told one of them that he'd be going to the bench, there would be rebellion and Doc might "capitulate" to his demands.  Except that won't happen, because even if there was a situation where Doc thought the C's would be better off with one of them on the bench, he knows darn well that by benching one of them strife would occur. 

Now Shaq's situation is somewhat different.  His skills have deteriorated and he's coming to a new team.  Still, Shaq, in terms of accomplishment, is head and shoulders above everyone on this team. 

I think a lot of you are looking at this from way too idealistic sort of a way.  We have no backup center right now.  Our options are very limited.  Cleveland showed last year that you can start Shaq and still very much limit his minutes (and not even close with him) if you don't want to. 

It'd be one thing to draw a hard line if this were a young player or if we actually had a backup center, but making an exception for a first ballot Hall of Famer when Kwame Brown or worse is the alternative, isn't really giving up all that much. 

  The things is, if he expects to be able to choose what his role will be on the team based on his historical status, what happens if they don't give him the ball as often as he likes? And I doubt if PP/KG/RA or even Rondo will hold him in as high esteem based on his play for the Lakers as you do. Is the PP who proclaimed himself to be the best basketball player on the planet 2 years ago going to defer to Shaq?

He didn't complain much last year, certainly not to the detriment of the team, and aside from James, there were far fewer stars on that Cleveland team. 

Plus, if Shaq ends up here, I think a lot of this will be settled going in.  Doc and Danny may convince him to come off the bench, but if not, they'll likely tell him "we'll start you, but that's the extent of the star treatment." 

I don't think this will be done on the fly. 

[LilRip]

no anti-Shaq people have still answered me! Name me one decent backup Center that you'd want on this team other than Gortat (and possibly Varejao if you want to consider him a center).

if you can't answer that, i think getting Shaq is a good idea. a lot of you are balking on this because you want a backup that can defend the pick-n-roll, defend the post, spread the floor, willing to sacrifice PT and stats for the betterment of the team and brings it every night. well we have one of those players. KG! and he costs 20 mil. and if we had a center in that mold, then Perk can sit his butt down because this KG-like center should be starting. and if another team had him, they wouldn't be willing to trade him for Sheed and garbage.



- LilRip

[BballTim]

I think all of you guys are high on ubuntu.  Yeah, we've seen our stars sacrifice to some extent.  But if you think that the Paul, Ray, and Kevin would put "team first" to the extent that they'd be willing to not start, then I think you're kidding yourselves. 

If Doc came in and told one of them that he'd be going to the bench, there would be rebellion and Doc might "capitulate" to his demands.  Except that won't happen, because even if there was a situation where Doc thought the C's would be better off with one of them on the bench, he knows darn well that by benching one of them strife would occur. 

Now Shaq's situation is somewhat different.  His skills have deteriorated and he's coming to a new team.  Still, Shaq, in terms of accomplishment, is head and shoulders above everyone on this team. 

I think a lot of you are looking at this from way too idealistic sort of a way.  We have no backup center right now.  Our options are very limited.  Cleveland showed last year that you can start Shaq and still very much limit his minutes (and not even close with him) if you don't want to. 

It'd be one thing to draw a hard line if this were a young player or if we actually had a backup center, but making an exception for a first ballot Hall of Famer when Kwame Brown or worse is the alternative, isn't really giving up all that much. 

  The things is, if he expects to be able to choose what his role will be on the team based on his historical status, what happens if they don't give him the ball as often as he likes? And I doubt if PP/KG/RA or even Rondo will hold him in as high esteem based on his play for the Lakers as you do. Is the PP who proclaimed himself to be the best basketball player on the planet 2 years ago going to defer to Shaq?

He didn't complain much last year, certainly not to the detriment of the team, and aside from James, there were far fewer stars on that Cleveland team. 

Plus, if Shaq ends up here, I think a lot of this will be settled going in.  Doc and Danny may convince him to come off the bench, but if not, they'll likely tell him "we'll start you, but that's the extent of the star treatment." 

I don't think this will be done on the fly. 

  If Shaq gets any star treatment then it's a waste to bring him in. First of all, if he starts, he'll be playing with 4 players that are all better than him despite his pedigree. Secondly, if Perk comes back healthy he could easily knock Shaq out of the starting lineup.

  I'd also like to point out that Ray's coming back at about a 50% pay cut and I'm pretty sure that he acknowledged during the regular season that if he came back he could see his role being reduced. I don't think there would be the rebellion that you expect if he ended up coming off the bench at some point in time.

[BballTim]

no anti-Shaq people have still answered me! Name me one decent backup Center that you'd want on this team other than Gortat (and possibly Varejao if you want to consider him a center).

  I might go with the Birdman, Blair (SA) or Speights.