The free agency period of the NBA offseason has slowed and the big name players are for the most part signed. We have now reached the bottom of the barrel. Despite the dearth of talent, as we know, sometimes you can find some value amongst other people's trash. I can't help but think back to my trips with my friends in college to the used CD store; we always found something great for cheap (i.e. this awesome find with Ghostface and Andre Rison rapping http://www.amazon.com/Jams-Richie-Rich-Esera-Tuaolo/dp/B000006JQA/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1280497362&sr=8-4 ) This is what NBA franchises are trying to find, and right now we have some of the league's former superstars still looking for work. Although most teams are struggling with deciding if these players are worth the money, I would still give some of my hard-earned money (not much) for some of these classics. This will be a 3-part series on the 3 superstars left alone like me at a high school dance: Shaquille O'Neal, Tracy McGrady, and Allen Iverson.
Shaquille O'Neal
Potential Destinations - Boston, Atlanta, Cleveland
Why he hasn't been offered a deal -
As is the case with many former superstars, Shaq has had some delusions on what he is worth to a franchise. After making $20 million or more for the last 9 seasons, Shaq has had trouble accepting his market value offers for 1/10th that amount. While saying he would accept the full mid-level exception, around $5 million, for next season, no one has been willing to pay him that.
Aside from the salary issues, Shaq's value on the court has greatly diminished. In a league where the All-Star centers last year were Dwight Howard, Chris Kaman, Al Horford, David Lee, Amare Stoudemire, and Pau Gasol, the slow, hefty Shaqtus is no longer as valuable during the regular season. Not only does O'Neal struggle with running the floor and guarding these mobile centers, he also cannot guard one of the defining half-court offensive ploys in NBA basketball: the pick and roll. In the NBA, if a player cannot guard your position, it is hard for them to find minutes. In the playoffs last year, we saw Shaq start the game, but in crunch time Anderson Varejao would be on the court at center as the Cavs needed his defensive presence and much better foul shooting.
Even on the offensive side where Shaq plays his hardest, Shaq's value has decreased. Much is made about Shaq accepting a complimentary role last year. While he did accept less minutes, O'Neal still demands the ball. To show this, I will use a statistic from http://www.basketball-reference.com/ called Usage % (USG%.) USG% is defined as an estimate of the percentage of team plays used by a player while he was on the floor. Last season, Shaq was second on the Cavs with a USG% of 25.1 (for a full list http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CLE/2010.html .) This isn't that surprising when looking at the rest of the roster, however Shaq accomplished this feat while only logging 23.4 minutes per game which was 7th most on the team. To have a USG% that much greater than your minutes is not a characteristic of someone who is accepting a lesser role and being a team player. Other notable players in the top 50 in USG% with less minutes are Jerryd Bayless, Leandro Barbosa, Marreese Speights, Rodrique Beaubois, and Jannero Pargo who are all characterized as gunners/black holes. I think that this situation was Mike Brown's attempt to keep Shaq interested so that he would play defense (a problem Phil Jackson referred to in his book The Last Season.) In response to those media members who praise Shaq for becoming a role player, I would argue that while he has accepted less minutes, Shaq's need for the ball while in the game greatly disrupted the Cavaliers offense last year. I can remember watching Shaq getting fed the ball every time down the court in the first quarter against the Celtics in the playoffs. Using Shaq this way doesn't work anymore, he doesn't have the agility, quickness, or lift at this point in his career to dominate. Sometimes I even wondered whether he could dunk last year.
Why he still deserves that cash -
Say what you will about Shaq, but he can still help a contender win games in the right situation. He isn't going to be effective playing many minutes, and you may have to run him on auto-pilot until the playoffs, but when you do make the playoffs he has a role. Since Shaq is right now only being pursued by Eastern Conference contenders, lets look at the top five teams in the conference. Of the top five, Orlando, Milwaukee, Boston, and Chicago have true centers that Shaq could guard efffectively in the playoffs (Howard, Bogut, Perkins, and Noah respectively.) Shaq's strength and girth greatly tire out these young bigs, and although these teams may try and expose him on the pick an roll, the team that get Shaq will not have to worry about double teaming any center. This would prove helpful against teams like the Magic who are built around playing inside out and getting threes out of double teams.
Offensively, Shaq is no longer the freak athlete that we grew to love as Neon Boudeau in the film Blue Chips. In fact, nowadays he is about as athletic as Ricky Rowe. However, as long as a team can keep O'Neal's minutes limited, he can be an effective starting center. Although he is much slower, Shaq still passes great out of the double team, and the fact that he still demands a double team sometimes creates mismatches and advantages for whatever team he lands on. The key is for a coach to have enough confidence to tell Shaq that he won't be force fed the ball while he is in the game. This is why I think that the Celtics would be a better fit for him than the Hawks. Doc Rivers would have no problem telling Shaq what his role would be, and he has the rep for Shaq to listen. After all Rivers did exactly that with all of his aging stars last year as he handed the team over to Rajon Rondo.
I think this will end with Shaquille O'Neal accepting a $3-$4 million dollar contract for an Eastern Conference contender. The only question would be, what would Shaq's nickname be in Boston? How about the Green Monster?
No comments:
Post a Comment