Celtics want Kwame Brown?

[Fafnir]

Shaq has the Iverson allure without being the despicable character Iverson is.

Inexplicably, Iverson puts people in seats.

Shaq, even nearing the end of his career, can still put people in seats.  His value goes beyond his contributions in a place like Atlanta.    

Therefore I doubt Shaq would take the minimum for anybody.  It'd be nice if he did for us because he looked pretty good in the playoffs against us last year and could contribute a lot in a reduced role.  His pick and roll defense has diminished to joke status.  But everything else he does would help us a lot.

Iverson didn't effect attendence in Memphis and other than a few jersey sales did nothing for the team. Winning brings people more than fading skills.

I think Shaq is a better player than Brown, but a much worse fit. He wouldn't accept being our backup C and overall 4th/5th big man. He also won't take well to earning the league minimum.

[Boris Badenov]

And the market for Sheed seems to be drying up.  What might be a nice compromise is to give Shaq something like 6 million per year, but only make it for one year.  That way if he doesn't fit or if he falls apart, we only have him around for one year.

Or, better still, make it a three year contract, with non-guaranteed years in years two and three.  That way, we could have Shaq for one year, and we'd have a large trade chip next off-season (basically rolling Sheed's value over for another year.)

Is it possible to make who holds the option a contingency? E.g., team option but reverts to player option if Shaq plays 70+ games or hits some other performance goal?

That might make such a deal more attractive to Shaq, and/or improve the incentives for performance.

[ssspence]

I'd rather have Semih (don't call me Arsenio) Erden than either of these guys -- he's gonna be AHSUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OK OK i'm just kidding i'll take either happily thank you very much....

[Jonny CC]

Either way, Shaq or Kwame would be good to have on the bench.  I'll take either one. 

[ssspence]

And the market for Sheed seems to be drying up.  What might be a nice compromise is to give Shaq something like 6 million per year, but only make it for one year.  That way if he doesn't fit or if he falls apart, we only have him around for one year.

Or, better still, make it a three year contract, with non-guaranteed years in years two and three.  That way, we could have Shaq for one year, and we'd have a large trade chip next off-season (basically rolling Sheed's value over for another year.)

Is it possible to make who holds the option a contingency? E.g., team option but reverts to player option if Shaq plays 70+ games or hits some other performance goal?

That might make such a deal more attractive to Shaq, and/or improve the incentives for performance.

Regardless, it has to be no less than a 3-year deal in a S&T....

[Change]

Either way, Shaq or Kwame would be good to have on the bench.  I'll take either one. 

That's the way I feel. You already have KG & Baby. Added JO to mix this off-season. Perk is coming later. Either one of those guys would be nice addition.

[kozlodoev]

I think people assume Shaq isn't that good, because he's declined so much from what he was.

I don't think people need to assume anything. We all saw Shaq play with the Cavs last season, and he didn't look good.

As a matter of fact, they went 16-4 without him before going into offseason rest-the-starters mode and sitting LeBron. I don't know why people think he is still an asset offensively. The Cavs scored 6 more points per 100 possessions with him off the floor.

[houseonfire09]

Wait a minute... if Kwame Brown wasn't good enough to make this team in '09, what is making people think he might be a decent contributor here now?

[Fafnir]

Wait a minute... if Kwame Brown wasn't good enough to make this team in '09, what is making people think he might be a decent contributor here now?

When did he try to make the team in '09?

The Pistons gave him a contract in 2008-2009 and he's been with them since. He was looked at by the C's but they signed Rasheed instead as their first option.

[MBunge]

I think people assume Shaq isn't that good, because he's declined so much from what he was.

I don't think people need to assume anything. We all saw Shaq play with the Cavs last season, and he didn't look good.

As a matter of fact, they went 16-4 without him before going into offseason rest-the-starters mode and sitting LeBron. I don't know why people think he is still an asset offensively. The Cavs scored 6 more points per 100 possessions with him off the floor.

Eastern Conference semi-finals.

Shaq - 23.3 minutes a game, 13.5 points, 5 boards, 1 block
Perk - 26.2 minutes a game, 6.7 points, 7 boards, 2.3 blocks

If Shaq is "not good", I guess Perk and a long list of other NBA centers fit that description as well.

Mike

[houseonfire09]

Wait a minute... if Kwame Brown wasn't good enough to make this team in '09, what is making people think he might be a decent contributor here now?

When did he try to make the team in '09?

The Pistons gave him a contract in 2008-2009 and he's been with them since. He was looked at by the C's but they signed Rasheed instead as their first option.

I could have sworn I saw him playing for the Celtics in a preseason game back then...

[kozlodoev]

I could have sworn I saw him playing for the Celtics in a preseason game back then...

No, you didn't.

[Evantime34]

I could have sworn I saw him playing for the Celtics in a preseason game back then...

No, you didn't.

I believe there was a brown who was trying to make the team that year but it wasn't Kwame.

[ManUp]

How does Shaq not fit with this team when Perk does? Washed up Shaq is still faster than Perk up and down the court. He's a better finisher equal post defender if not better. The only thing that Shaq doesnt' do better than Perk at this point is move laterally (covering pick and rolls/help defense). His attitude might not fit with his team, but I can't see how his game doesn't.

[Jevi]

So once LA's trash,is good enough for us. Kwame who got booed out of town,has short reach,bad stats is better choice? Shaq, immobile as he is,is a winner,but should we listen to Perk?

    “In my opinion, I think they’re better [without Shaq],” he said after practice on Saturday. “They can run more, you’ve got Anderson Varejao who’s more of an active body, he gets LeBron open a lot, opens up the paint for him, so I think they’re a better team. I mean obviously Shaq could help them, but I think they’re a better, more fast-paced team.”

Perkins makes a valid point.  Including the game against Boston, the Cavs have played eight games since O’Neal’s injury.  They are now 7-1, with the only loss coming while playing without Lebron James against a hot Milwaukee team.  Without Shaq, they’re more versatile, and sometimes even toss out a lineup with Lebron at the four that’s virtually unstoppable.

Of course, a few games before Shaq was injured, the Cavs had a 13-game winning streak.  Maybe they’re just really, really good, whether the Diesel plays or not.