Lifestyle > Sports & Entertainment
Man we got rid of Shaq at the perfect time
GangstaBoogy:
--- Quote from: Styles1 on November 03, 2007, 09:24:54 PM ---You have to remember though that the Lakers lost more than just Shaq that year he left.... it's not like Kobe inherited the same team with just Shaq missing.
--- End quote ---
I really wish they wouldn't have blown the team up like that so we can have a fair discussion. I've been having this same argument with Kobe haters for 3 1/2 years now. Shaq was traded, but so was Rick Fox + Gary Payton, Fisher wasn't offered a contract, Horace Grant + Karl Malone were considering retiring (and ultimately did), Horry had been let go the year before. So Kobe was left with Devean George, Medvedenko, Kareem Rush, Luke Walton, and a broken promise.
Shiet trading Shaq for Odom + Butler + Grant would've have looked so bad if we kept the rest of our core players.
wcsoldier:
I think it's really TIME to move on ... everything has been said about this subject ... this discussion is WAY played out ... Shaq doesn't play for us anymore so who the fuck cares
M Dogg™:
getting rid of Butler for nothing is what made that trade worst.
7even:
They traded Shaq, Payton, Fox and Atkins for Odom, Brown, Mihm & Picks... :-X
wcsoldier:
--- Quote from: M Dogg on November 04, 2007, 03:30:58 AM ---getting rid of Butler for nothing is what made that trade worst.
--- End quote ---
once again take a look at the 04-05 season in which we were constantly outrebounded and clowned by the bigs in the paint ... of course Butler is a way better players statistic wise than Kwame but I really don't think it will result in a better record for us ... compare the 05-06 Lakers defense and the 06-07 one (Kwame missed half of this one) and you got some indications of the important aspect of Kwame in our team ... I ain't sayng he's worth 9 Milllions a year or isn't dissapointing on the offensive end .. but Kwame isn't the main reason of our mediocrity ... Butler would result in more jumpers and 3s , is that a good thing for us ? of course not
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version