POLL: Should Lakers have kept Kobe or Shaq?

[crisoner]

I believe Shaq was unmotivated b/c Kobe was on the team.

Could be part of the reason.

[XxNeXuSxX]

Well, their isn't much to say. We keep Shaq, Kobe leaves in Free agency then we wouldnt even make the playoffs, AND have a bad future.

Shaq leaves, we don't make playoffs til the 2nd year, but we have a MUCH better future this way.

Who would be left?
C-Shaq
PF-Cook
SF-George
SG-?
PG-Payton

HAHA, You know Kobe wouldn't do a S&T, so they'd be screwed if they took Shaq over Kobe.

Suddenly if they keep Shaq, other FA's start to get interested in the Lakers...

C-Shaq
PF-Mihm
SF-Hughes
SG-Redd
PG-Payton

It's hypothetical, but I think that would have happened.

[Qwyjibo]

I believe Shaq was unmotivated b/c Kobe was on the team.

Another reason why they shouldn't have kept Shaq. This kind of childish attitude is unacceptable. I don't think much of Kobe's attitude but Shaq was acting like a baby at the time.

C-Shaq
PF-Mihm
SF-Hughes
SG-Redd
PG-Payton

With that starting lineup, the Lakers would even be able to afford bench players. They would have the team towel boys playing 10 minutes per game.

[420puffer]

I think they could have got a better deal by trading away Kobe and Keeping Shaq. They could have got T-Mac to play with Shaq and they get along well on and off the court.


BUT, then again, keeping Kobe wasnt so bad because he is younger

[XxNeXuSxX]

Another reason why they shouldn't have kept Shaq. This kind of childish attitude is unacceptable. I don't think much of Kobe's attitude but Shaq was acting like a baby at the time.


With that starting lineup, the Lakers would even be able to afford bench players. They would have the team towel boys playing 10 minutes per game.

Payton/Malone took paycuts to be with Shaq.

[Qwyjibo]

Payton/Malone took paycuts to be with Shaq.

Because they were old, already made a TON of money throughout their careers and wanted to ride the coattails to a title.

Redd and Hughes are still relatively young guys and money matters. There is no way they would take paycuts and that lineup you posted could have never happened with their current salaries.

[Joey Zaza]

Lets pretend for a moment that the Lakers were deciding to form a team without Kobe and Shaq playing together that would win them their next championship as quickly as possible.

The understand from the Heat that they can get Butler, Odom and Grant for Shaq.

What's the offer for a S&T w/ Kobe?

Without knowing that info, it impossible to evaluate the choice. Could they get Wade for Kobe? Remember, Wade was the injury-riddled 2nd best player on that Heat team. If so, then yeah, the should've kept Shaq.

If they were going to lose Kobe outright to the Clips, then keeping Shaq on a team without any supporting players would've been ugly (well, 45 wins and maybe the 2d round).

[Timmeh]

it would'nt have mattered, Lakers got rid of Horry and Fisher so getting rid of Kobe/Shaq didnt help

so i say it wouldnt matter because the Lakers wouldnt win another championship with either one staying on the team

[Twiens]

C-Shaq
PF-Mihm
SF-Hughes
SG-Redd
PG-Payton

You can't have Payton and Mihm. They were traded for eachother.

[hotsizzle]

keep kobe.

first of all, if they let kobe go to FA, who knows if shaq is gonna resign or not. he was askin for 30 mil per. lakers would be left haveing to rebuild. well guess what, now they set themselves up to rebuilt around a 26 year old who is determined to go down as the greatest ever. shaq demanded the trade, buss/kupchak tried to talk him out of it but didnt work. they also had called pat riley thinking that he could get both kobe and shaq to stay but shaq said it didnt matter, he wants out.

no one can really see how this is gonna turn out. but keeping a 26 yr old under a 6 yr deal for 135 mil is alot more reasonable than keeping a 32 yr for 30 mile per.

and kobe would not have done S&T. no way.the teams he was interested in were already paying big money. chicago and clips

so yea keep kobe is the right decision.

[Batchoy]

Lakers should have kept Shaq and traded Kobe.

In an interview last week on Best Damn Sports Show on Fox, Kobe said that he was seriously thinking about going to Chicago during the height of the Kobe/Shaq feud. He was actually looking to buy a house there. If this were true then the most logical senario would have been a sign and trade. Remember Chicago's offer was less than that of The Clippers and Kobe still had that Colorado "incident" to take care of. Trying to get the most amount of money as a free agent would have been the best choice for Kobe.
I then would have gotten Heinrich, Chandler, Jamal Crawford, Donyell Marshall and #1 pick for Kobe and Rick Fox. Afterwards, I would have traded Crawford (this was when Jamal still had some trade value) and #1 pick for Ray Allen. Just remember that Seattle was in a rut at that time and Crawford was a local kid. I've stated this senario many times before.




My Laker lineup would have been...

Starters:
Heinrich
Ray Allen
Devon George
Karl Malone (there would be no mexican girl hunting incident)
Shaq

Bench:
Payton
Rasual Butler (sign as a free agent)
Luke Walton
Donyell Marshall
Tyson Chandler (learn from Malone and Shaq)

[Thorpesaurous]

Kobe was a FA and just bitter enough to not agree to a sign and trade at the time. They basically weren't going to get anything for him, so keeping him and getting value back for Shaq was probably the right move at that time. But it never should have come to that. Things could have been done sooner that would have let them build around Shaq, but when the decision was made, it was probably the right one.

[Joey Zaza]

Lakers should have kept Shaq and traded Kobe.

In an interview last week on Best Damn Sports Show on Fox, Kobe said that he was seriously thinking about going to Chicago during the height of the Kobe/Shaq feud. He was actually looking to buy a house there. If this were true then the most logical senario would have been a sign and trade. Remember Chicago's offer was less than that of The Clippers and Kobe still had that Colorado "incident" to take care of. Trying to get the most amount of money as a free agent would have been the best choice for Kobe.
I then would have gotten Heinrich, Chandler, Jamal Crawford, Donyell Marshall and #1 pick for Kobe and Rick Fox. Afterwards, I would have traded Crawford (this was when Jamal still had some trade value) and #1 pick for Ray Allen. Just remember that Seattle was in a rut at that time and Crawford was a local kid. I've stated this senario many times before.




My Laker lineup would have been...

Starters:
Heinrich
Ray Allen
Devon George
Karl Malone (there would be no mexican girl hunting incident)
Shaq

Bench:
Payton
Rasual Butler (sign as a free agent)
Luke Walton
Donyell Marshall
Tyson Chandler (learn from Malone and Shaq)

Man, you should be a GM. Who wouldn't go for Crawford for Ray Allen? I'm sure the Bulls would trade all their players for Kobe.

[Batchoy]

Kobe was a FA and just bitter enough to not agree to a sign and trade at the time.

Kobe may have been bitter and I don't like him, but he is an intelligent person. I don't think that bitterness would make him lose about $40 million, in total $$$, if he just signed with the Bulls.

And even if Kobe did just sign, The Lakers would still have some cap space to get a couple of free agents and when Shaq realizes that The Lakers gave him respect by believing in him, I really think Shaq would have asked for less $$$ (probably $20 million a year for 4 years. Similar to Miami) so The Lakers could get top free agents for next season (2005)

[AKA AAP]

Keeping Shaq was the right move, both in the short term AND long term. Do I have to explain this again?