Jun 25th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Cavs Land Shaq
The Cleveland Cavaliers landed the deal they should have made back before the trade deadline and snagged Shaquille O’Neal from Phoenix in a salary dump. This definitely makes Cleveland better, but they really should have made it sooner—Shaq’s not going to be any less old in the 2010 playoffs than he was in 2009. Still, it’s an unquestionable upgrade. Meanwhile, Phoenix acquiring Shaq looks as ridiculous today as it did the day they announced the deal.
37 Responses to “Cavs Land Shaq”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Blanche Lincoln
Budget
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Demographics
Economics
Economy
Energy
EU
Finance
Gender
Health Care
History
Immigration
Inequality
International Law
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Labor Markets
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NATO
NBA
Palestine
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Russia
Sarah Palin
Sports
Stimulus
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 25th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
I thought the consensus was that Shaq overperformed expectations in Phoenix this year? He might be the poor fit that everyone expected absent other changes, but his health wasn’t an issue, his ego wasn’t an issue, and he even put up one of his best free throw seasons. I don’t follow this stuff too closely, but it seems like Phoenix got more than their antagonists were expecting even if it was still a stupid idea.
June 25th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Shaq screwed up their style of play. That was the complaint before the trade happened and that seemed to be borne out by events.
June 25th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Yeah I’m with Zach. The Suns weren’t winning a title with Marion and without help up front, and they had to take a shot. It didn’t work out too well for them, but it wasn’t ridiculuos. If Boston hadn’t won last year, we’d be making similar claims about them–they mortgaged their future for a really short championship window. Although I guess the Celts didn’t screw with a basically solid core the way the Suns did. But whatever, if you can trade a 5 percent chance of winning the title for a 25 percent chance, you gotta take it, even if the 25 percent situation is more likely to blow up horribly after the window closes.
June 25th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Abso-damn-lutely.
I was the Shaq/Marion trade’s biggest defenders on the board, and I’ll still defend it. No, it didn’t “work” in that Phoenix still doesn’t have an NBA title, but if that’s how we’re judging success only two teams in the last two season have made successful trades (Boston, for KG; Lakers, for Gasol).
June 25th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
“The Suns weren’t winning a title with Marion…”
Their real problem against the Spurs was Tony Parker more than the declining Tim Duncan; I don’t know why they thought they were helping themselves by trading perimeter defense for interior defense.
The NBA seems to have a weird incentive structure in which teams conclude they have a zero percent chance of winning the title as they are, then make trades that most likely make them worse, but which (they think) give them a non-zero chance of winning the title. But has this ever worked?
The Celtics aren’t really analogous- they clearly made their team better in the short run.
June 25th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Hey now pc; I’m not saying it was a good trade. I’m saying it was a terrible trade that did nothing to advance their (nonexistent) title prospects, but that this is exactly what was expected and, within those confines, Shaq overperformed expectations.
June 25th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
I don’t see how you can discuss the Marion/Shaq trade in isolation from Phoenix’s string of other decisions that made it impossible for them to win a title–selling draft picks, selling Kurt Thomas, etc. They needed to do something to try to hoodwink their fans, but a team that was serious about winning a title would never have made all those earlier moves.
June 25th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Because the Suns’ biggest weakness was interior defense, caused by playing Amare out of position at center. Go check the box scores from the 2007-08 season, pre-trade – decent centers were eating the Suns alive. Here’s what I posted on Matt’s old site:
June 25th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
If your idea of a successful trade is trading for a center who can’t run the court and who can hack-a-shaq his team right out of the playoffs, then I guess this is a good trade.
I think it’s a really stupid trade the puts the coffin nail in Cleveland’s title hopes for next year and assures that LeBron will be gone the following (if there were any doubt).
Somebody explain to me how Shaq helps Cleveland, net.
June 25th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Trading for over-aged Shaq is the go-to move for teams that get knocked out of the playoffs and feel they need to mix things up, even though they really shouldn’t.
June 25th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
They really need a Tayshaun Prince/Shane Battier type player. Of course, those types of players are hard to find. But it seems like every team that wins a championship has a long, athletic small/power forward.
Cavs should pick Derrick Brown in the draft.
June 25th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Zach, sorry to put words in your mouth.
Aaron, you’re right that the Celtics aren’t really analogous, because they sucked before and they got a lot better regardless of the title. But most contenders’ trades can be picked apart afterward if they don’t take them to a title. Teams shouldn’t be raked for the coals for trying to fill a need and falling short. Teams should get killed for ignoring obvious needs (see Cleveland).
I now defer all defenses of the trade to Gold Star, who’s clearly much better prepared to stand up for the move than I.
June 25th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
If you’ve got an ESPN Insider subscription, go read Hollinger’s take.
His arguments in favor of the trade:
1. Cavs acquire a defender who can neutralize D-Howard.
2. A Shaq/Z tandem can keep both men fresh into the playoffs.
3. Shaq’s expiring contract can be a trade chip or cap relief going into next offseason.
June 25th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Kansachussets,
You don’t think Shaq would have been able to tamp down Dwight Howard’s numbers a bit? At the very least they wouldnt have had to double him and would have been able to cover the perimeter better.
June 25th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
#9: The Cavs don’t really run the floor. They play at a fairly slow pace, so Shaq’s not a huge liability there. And he won’t be on the court when the other team goes to hack mode, since they have another center. Kind of like how Ben Wallace’s free throw shooting didn’t hurt them (although he obviously played fewer minutes than Shaq will).
As for what he brings: the Cavs mostly lost because they had no way to deal with Dwight Howard, or good centers in general. Of course the east only has one good center, but I digress. It certainly helps there. Shaq showed a lot of positive things last year, and he always seems to somehow come up with a lot more in the tank when there’s a ring at stake.
Also, his (very large) contract expires next year, so if it doesn’t work out he’s off the books and they have tons of cap space to bring Bosh in. And even if it does work out, he’ll be 38 then and could probably be convinced to sign for the midlevel exception to get another title.
That being said, this obviously isn’t the missing puzzle piece that guarantees a title, though it may have been in February. Getting one more player as has been discussed in the thread would go a long way. But this is by no means a bad trade just because it doesn’t win a title all by itself.
June 25th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
This deal holds out the hope of providing the definitive LeBron v. Kobe comparison we’ve all been hoping for. But issues of age and coaching will, alas, afford enough ambiguity for partisans on both sides to continue fighting about it in perpetuity.
June 25th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Rumors around Phoenix have the Suns sending Ben Wallace and second-round picks to New Orleans for Tyson Chandler.
This, I like.
June 25th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
“Rumors around Phoenix have the Suns sending Ben Wallace and second-round picks to New Orleans for Tyson Chandler.
This, I like.”
I don’t like this as a casual Hornets fan. wow, they can’t financially support an NBA team.
June 25th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
But whatever, if you can trade a 5 percent chance of winning the title for a 25 percent chance, you gotta take it, even if the 25 percent situation is more likely to blow up horribly after the window closes
This would be a better argument if the Suns didn’t get worse, post-trade. It’s more accurate to say that they traded a 12.5% chance at a championship (conference semis) for 6.25% chance (first round). And that’s if you don’t include Shaq’s first full season with them, when they didn’t make the playoffs. And took on an extra year of salary to boot. It was a horrible trade.
June 25th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Actually, once the Suns integrated Shaq into their style of play, they played better.
Phoenix’s 2007-08 season can be broken down into four parts:
With Marion: 34-14
Post-trade but pre-Shaq: 3-2
Adjustment, as D’Antoni installs – on the fly – elements of the triangle offense: 3-6
Closing kick: 15-5
So, with Marion the Suns played at a full-season pace of 58 wins. Down the stretch, Phoenix played like a 60-win team.
Shaq wasn’t the reason the Suns failed to make the postseason. Amare missing more than a third of the season was a bigger factor, as was the ill-fated hiring of Terry Porter.
The 2008-09 salaries of Shaq vs. Marion and Banks worked out in the Suns’ favor by more than $1.3 million.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
1. At a min., to break out the first season as you have, we’d need to correct for strength of schedule. Color me unconvinced that an extra year at $21 mil. is worth two games.
2. Transition costs are foreseeable costs.
3. If we’re ignoring injuries and untoward events, the Suns won at least one championship, in ‘04-’05, and maybe more.
4. The cost should include whatever they’ll have to pay next year, when Marion would have been off the books.
It was a horrible trade.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
I miss the old Suns, the pre-Shaq Suns, the most aesthetically pleasing basketball team to watch ever. I wanted them to win a title bad. If they could have pulled one off, they might have revolutionized the game. I think their overall defense was good enough, they just gave up too many offensive rebounds. Stoudamire!! What a gifted dude, but lazy as hell on D, and not exactly a human eraser.
Shaq to Cavs? I don’t know. Maybe. I do know that Lebron needs a full time shooting coach, because if you just consider high-volume perimeter shooters, he is the all-time greatest bricklayer in NBA history.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
What does this even mean?
June 25th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
It really wasn’t apparent during the midst of winning 66 games that the Cavs had any weaknesses, not enough to trade significant pieces.
And Matt, I think you’re assuming this is exactly the same trade that Phoenix was willing to go for in mid-season. My understanding is that’s not the case. Ferry waited, correctly in my opinion, till he was able to manage his assets exactly how he wanted.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
20: So if you remove a stretch of games where the Suns played with Shaq and lost six of nine games, then they look much better than they really were after the trade. That’s a good point.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
I don’t get how it’s remotely controversial that this doesn’t help Cleavland, “net” or whatever. It didn’t cost them anything; Shaq’s ego is in check; at the very least they can now afford to foul Dwight with abandon while still having an offensive threat on the floor.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
I think this clearly helps the Cavs against the Magic. Against a KG-equipped Celtics squad, I’m not so sure.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
What does this even mean?
In ‘04-’05, Joe Johnson broke his face in the semi-finals, IIRC. If you can make predictions absent injury, surely I can as well. They had the best record in the league that year, I think. Hence, championship.
They won 62, 54, and then 61 games a season prior to Shaq. If we’re assuming a 60 game season is a 25% championship, they had two of them. Maybe three if we’re adjusting for Amare injury–the 54 game season is the one they lost him for the season, I think.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
They had the best record in the league that year, I think. Hence, championship.
Why, exactly? The Cavs didn’t win this year, despite the best overall record. Nor did the Mavs two yers ago, or the Pistons the year before. Want me to go on?
June 25th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
So if you remove a stretch of games where the Suns played with Shaq and lost six of nine games, then they look much better than they really were after the trade. That’s a good point.Not “a stretch,” as if I simply cherry-picked a bad run of games, but the first two weeks with the man on the floor. This wasn’t simply fitting a new SG/SF into the mix; this was a massive retooling of the entire 7SOL philosophy, so of course there was going to be a period of adjustment.
June 25th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Of course it’s arbitrary. You simply assume that when they stopped losing, it’s because the system was in place. There’s no reason think that it wasn’t already in place and they were just playing better teams, or that it took even longer to install, and they were just playing worse teas late in the season.
Glancing at those last twenty games briefly, they played majority of their games against the Nets, the Sixers, the Kings, the Blazers, the Sonics, the Grizzlies, and the Timberwolves. Wow. What a devastating stretch of powerhouse opponents.
When they played competent opponents, like the Nuggets, Rockets, Mavs, or Pistons, they usually lost. Just like they did in that earlier stretch we discussed, when they played
Bottom line, apart from, as you say, cherry-picking ridiculously short stretches where the Suns actually won a lot of games against bad teams, they were briefly a somewhat above-average team with Shaq, before becoming a bad team with Shaq.
June 25th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
The Cavs didn’t win this year, despite the best overall record. Nor did the Mavs two yers ago, or the Pistons the year before. Want me to go on?
That’s more or less my point, so we agree.
June 25th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
I like this, too. Love it, actually. Chandler is a good rebounder/garbage point collector and a solid defender who would allow Amare to go to work on offense. He’d also benefit from playing with a point guard who will make him even more effective-Nash would be throwing lobs to him all night. This needs to happen.
Although Robert Sarver would probably insist that Chandler be immediately traded for Kwame Brown and Ricky Davis.
June 25th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
That’s more or less my point, so we agree.
I still have no idea what your point has to do with me stating Amare’s eye injury and the hiring/firing of Porter had more to do with the Suns missing the postseason than Shaq’s play.
June 25th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
You don’t think Shaq would have been able to tamp down Dwight Howard’s numbers a bit? At the very least they wouldnt have had to double him and would have been able to cover the perimeter better.
I don’t think Dwight Howard is a contender. It’s a joke to call him the best center in the East or the best defensive player in the league. Kendrick Perkins ate him up. I agree that Shaq might have made a difference in the Cleveland-Orlando finals. But next year is another story. I don’t think Orlando makes it to the Eastern finals next year.
June 25th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
I still have no idea what your point has to do with me stating Amare’s eye injury and the hiring/firing of Porter had more to do with the Suns missing the postseason than Shaq’s play.
We disagree about the disagreement, it appears. I think the Suns were worse with Shaq than without him. I point to prior seasons. I think it was a bad trade. You think they were better, and point to the last twenty games. You think it was a good trade. Not much of it has to do with Porter’s responsibility or Amare’s injury.
June 25th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Terrible trades, both of them.
Let’s focus on the Shaq –> Cavs one. Yeah, they don’t run, so Shaq’s lumbering up and down the court won’t hurt them. But let’s think about how they play. First, Shaq will clog the lane on the offensive end, and make it that much more difficult for LeBron to operate; Shaq doesn’t pass anymore (9.2 AST Rate), so it’s not as if LeBron as cutter will begin to operate. LeBron as shooter isn’t that good either. Also impairs the clear move for LeBron’s development, which is posting-up.
On the defensive end, Shaq has always been lazy and never so lazy as he is now. He doesn’t protect the rim and doesn’t hedge on pick-and-rolls. Paradoxically, this will make them worse against the Magic: Hedo off the Pick-Roll (assuming they keep him) or Lewis or Carter will torture the Cavs. It doesn’t fix their actual problem, which was the backcourt–unless they sign Kidd at the midlevel. Shaq is a stats mirage; his actual impact is negative.
Worst of all, Shaq still thinks he’s an alpha dog when he’s very much not. The Cavs will be worse next year.