PDA

View Full Version : Did the Lakers waste Kobe and Shaq?



hotpotato1092
10-24-2008, 10:30 PM
As everyone knows, the Lakers won three championships from 2000-2002 led by Kobe Bryant, Shaquille O'neal and Phil Jackson. However the two could no longer coexist and the team imploded, leading to Jackson's firing and a trade of Shaq to the Heat. Here's My question, did the Lakers waste an oppurtunity? I mean they had the two best players in the game, two of the greatest players to ever play the game and were in a league that was much weaker than in past and future years, and they had one of the greatest coaches of all time, with the right moves they could have won ten championships right? (ok that may be an exaggeration but couldn't they have given the jordan bulls a run for their money?) If they could have kept Shaq and kobe together and make them get along, they would have won at least the three titles they already won, '03 and '04, and with the right moves could still be competing today. what do you think?

Hawkeye15
10-24-2008, 10:33 PM
yep. If they could have just sucked it up, they would have more rings. But two players with that talent never work out.

ugadawgsfan17
10-24-2008, 10:35 PM
It may have worked in the short term, but it would've had a much worse long term effect. The Lakers now are better than the Lakers would've been with Shaq and Kobe. Instead of having a solid group of players, it would've been a crappy supporting cast around Kobe and a washed up Shaq with a huge contract. They may have wasted an opportunity for a couple more championships, but they are much better prepared to make a long run now.

ridere46
10-25-2008, 06:42 AM
ya. they would have tore-up the league for a couple more years. thank god that didn't happen. it's only good when they have a legit rival; like the lakers and celtics back in the 80s. i'm not a fan of either team but come playoffs; it's was great to watch.

SteveNash
10-25-2008, 07:31 AM
Shaq only had two more good years in him at best and even in his second season in Miami you could tell his career was headed downhill fast.

Shaq wouldn't have been motivated so he'd be more likely to be lazy, come in out of shape and be worse than what he did in Miami.

He also wasn't thrilled with the Lakers so it's possible he would have wanted a bigger contract than what he got in Miami. Lakers wouldn't have done as bad in 04-05 most likely which means instead of Bynum they end up with Johan Petro.

At the time in looked horrible, the Lakers really didn't get great return for Shaq, the Lakers bringing in Tomjanovich coming in then retiring midseason, bringing back Vlade who got injured and didn't do anything, letting Fisher walk. In the end it worked out for them, but I still believe they could have done much better than what they did.

Bruno
10-25-2008, 08:18 AM
Many successful partnerships hated each other after achieving success, be it movies, music or sports. If they kept it together, they would have won five rings from 2000-2008. Pretty much any team they assembled around these guys would have been stronger than the 2006 Mavs in a playoff battle, and they would have challenged San Antonio during their 05 and 07 runs.

arlubas
10-25-2008, 08:37 AM
They didn't waste them by any means. A three peat is a feat not a lot of players or teams can claim and the Lakers were the absolute dominators during that 3 year course. They lost fair and square in 2004 from the Pistons and yeah, they could've won another title or two (at best) with Shaq still with them but they certainly wouldn't have given the Bulls a run for their money imo.

Lakerfan8032
10-25-2008, 09:15 AM
I think Shaq and Kobe wasted Shaq and Kobe, not the Lakers wasting them. I was disappointed when it finally imploded but it was a good run while it lasted. Shaq's commitment wasn't there at the end either so I'm not sure how that would have worked out. When the games came around Shaq put forth the effort but when it came to off-season conditioning he put forth little effort. I'll never forget what possibly cost them in their bid for a four-peat. Remember Shaq had that foot problem and decided not to have surgery on it until the start of training camp, stating that he got hurt on company time, so he was going to heal on company time. That pissed me off so bad. When your employer pays you $20 million + a year I think your entitled to get injuries taken care of promptly and give your total commitment to the team through-out the year, not just during the start of training camp through the end of the season. And Jackson wasn't fired, his contract ended so they decided not to bring him back.

Andrew Bogus
10-25-2008, 09:48 AM
^i agree, they brought it all on themselves. but i think it's better that way, it would've been an awful lot harder to cut off shaq from the roster right now.

l GeArs l
10-25-2008, 10:11 AM
Yeah they could of had at least 2 more rings, but hey at least shaq one more. Kobe is still sitting on 0 and until he doesn't get one people are going to keep on saying he couldn't do it with out shaq.

JordansBulls
10-25-2008, 10:15 AM
Yeah they could of had at least 2 more rings, but hey at least shaq one more. Kobe is still sitting on 0 and until he doesn't get one people are going to keep on saying he couldn't do it with out shaq.

Kobe is a great player without winning another ring and doesn't need another one to show that.

In fact, I disagree with the argument that Kobe has to do it by himself. People say he hasn't won without Shaq because of the fact that Shaq was the best player on those title teams. When people say that Kobe has to win without Shaq, they don't mean that literally. They just mean that Kobe has to win titles as the best player on the team and not have someone who is better than him on the team at the time he wins. And realistically that is the only way you can move up in the all time rankings especially when trying to get into the top 10 and eventually top 5.

l GeArs l
10-25-2008, 10:30 AM
Kobe is a great player without winning another ring and doesn't need another one to show that.

In fact, I disagree with the argument that Kobe has to do it by himself. People say he hasn't won without Shaq because of the fact that Shaq was the best player on those title teams. When people say that Kobe has to win without Shaq, they don't mean that literally. They just mean that Kobe has to win titles as the best player on the team and not have someone who is better than him on the team at the time he wins. And realistically that is the only way you can move up in the all time rankings especially when trying to get into the top 10 and eventually top 5.

Yeah i agree with you, i'm just saying that since everyone in these Forums (kobe haters) think he has to do it to once again become The elite player which he already is. And the fact is no one could do it by themselve's, Look at all the great players in this league that needed some to win a championship, KG/paul, Wade/shaq, Kobe/shaq, Duncan/Robinson, Jordan/Pippin, etc. The point is no one star can win a championship by himself everyone needs help. :hi5:

Raidaz4Life
10-25-2008, 10:36 AM
yes the Lakers wasted Shaq and Kobe....:rolleyes: your post really didn't make a whole lot of sense.... the Lakers have a much better team today then they would have had if they kept Shaq and now we are set to compete for another 5 years

laker1000
10-25-2008, 11:19 AM
there is no such thing as waste when you have a three peat.

lakers4sho
10-25-2008, 11:41 AM
It may have worked in the short term, but it would've had a much worse long term effect. The Lakers now are better than the Lakers would've been with Shaq and Kobe. Instead of having a solid group of players, it would've been a crappy supporting cast around Kobe and a washed up Shaq with a huge contract. They may have wasted an opportunity for a couple more championships, but they are much better prepared to make a long run now.

True.

Raps18-19 Champ
10-25-2008, 12:23 PM
As everyone knows, the Lakers won three championships from 2000-2002 led by Kobe Bryant, Shaquille O'neal and Phil Jackson. However the two could no longer coexist and the team imploded, leading to Jackson's firing and a trade of Shaq to the Heat. Here's My question, did the Lakers waste an oppurtunity? I mean they had the two best players in the game, two of the greatest players to ever play the game and were in a league that was much weaker than in past and future years, and they had one of the greatest coaches of all time, with the right moves they could have won ten championships right? (ok that may be an exaggeration but couldn't they have given the jordan bulls a run for their money?) If they could have kept Shaq and kobe together and make them get along, they would have won at least the three titles they already won, '03 and '04, and with the right moves could still be competing today. what do you think?

They could have won atleast 1 or 2 more titles

But they should have traded shaq for someone better

He was probably the best player during that time

They should have traded for someone like duncan or garnett

hotpotato1092
10-25-2008, 02:19 PM
interesting thoughts. Another question, why were teams so hesitant to trade for shaq? I mean I know that he was old, but wouldn't a Shaq-Nash-Finley-Howard-Walker-Jamison nucleus in Dallas be guarenteed at least two titles? What about a Shaq-Miller-Artest-Jackson nucleus in Indiana or Shaq-Webber-Bibby-Christie-Turkoglu in sacramento. Even a Shaq-Mcgrady combo in houston might have won a title. I know he was old, but was there any other reason teams were so hesitant to deal for an assured championship or two, especially considering how angry shaq would have been after the trade?

OY!
10-25-2008, 02:37 PM
dude. you should be asking the nets this question. RJ, VC and Kidd. now that was a waste IMO

MTar786
10-25-2008, 02:52 PM
interesting thoughts. Another question, why were teams so hesitant to trade for shaq? I mean I know that he was old, but wouldn't a Shaq-Nash-Finley-Howard-Walker-Jamison nucleus in Dallas be guarenteed at least two titles? What about a Shaq-Miller-Artest-Jackson nucleus in Indiana or Shaq-Webber-Bibby-Christie-Turkoglu in sacramento. Even a Shaq-Mcgrady combo in houston might have won a title. I know he was old, but was there any other reason teams were so hesitant to deal for an assured championship or two, especially considering how angry shaq would have been after the trade?

ur right.. every nuclleus u just mentioned woulda won a championship. kings, rockets, indiana n mavs for sure.. but teams were worried about shaqs age n how quick he'd break down. they didnt wanna waste their future for 1 guaranteed championship.. which proved to be the miami heat. they won one n became a terrible team over night

hotpotato1092
10-25-2008, 04:00 PM
dude. you should be asking the nets this question. RJ, VC and Kidd. now that was a waste IMO

Ya that was definately a huge waste, it just wasn't as high a profile combo as kobe and shaq

hotpotato1092
10-25-2008, 04:05 PM
ur right.. every nuclleus u just mentioned woulda won a championship. kings, rockets, indiana n mavs for sure.. but teams were worried about shaqs age n how quick he'd break down. they didnt wanna waste their future for 1 guaranteed championship.. which proved to be the miami heat. they won one n became a terrible team over night

I understand what you're saying, but look at how their futures have turned out. The Kings and Pacers have two of the bleakest futures in the league, and the mavs just mortgaged their future to win a title... and lost in the first round. I wonder if Mark Cuban has nightmares about letting shaq get away. The team with the brighest future for all the teams that could have traded for shaq is now Miami. They mortgaged their future for shaq but now have wade, beasley and marion, which could definately win a few titles in the next decade. So trading for Shaq actually helped their future because his breakdown allowed them to get a high pick (beasley) and a borderline allstar because of a panicked suns team. So when teams thought they'd be sacrificing their future for one or two titles, the team that took the risk actually gave themselves a brighter future. Does anybody really think they would have won a title with wade, odom and butler? When Kobe had that team he didn't even make the playoffs.