Shaq?

[Guerilla poster]

Does it really make any sense for the Lakers to trade him? Without Shaq, they become also rans no matter who they get in return.

[DW Simpson]

It makes entirely no sense, especially since they're not receiving an untouchable in return. I like Lamar Odom's game, but please.

When Shaq was hurt a few years ago, Bryant proved that he couldn't carry a team. You'd think they'd remember that.

O'Neal is looking older and slower, even with shedding the weight this year versus last season, but just because he demands a trade doesn't mean you grant one. I'm pleased they're imploding this way. Bryant to the Clippers? Fisher to free agency? Doesn't really matter anymore.

[foghorn]

If they don't trade him, they get to pay his huge salary while he gets toe surgery. In that regard, it makes sense to trade him.

[Patience]

If they don't trade him, I believe he can opt out of his contract next year. So they get to keep a disgruntaled player who won't play hard and then lose him for nothing.

At this point all they can do is try to get the most they can for him.

[Westley]

He's old and getting older. The only reason to keep him is if they believe he will win a titla for them this year. He won't.

[O. Hannah]

Here is what the Lakers would say to the media and their fans if under truth serum.
1) Our current team isn't good enough to win it all.
2) We are unloading Shaq so that we can really cash in over the next couple of years while fielding a so-so team that might not even make the playoffs.
3) We might get lucky via free agency etc. so that we can make another play-off run before Kobe gets too old.
4) If Kobe gets thrown in jail...we just completely rebuild with a lottery team and escape all blame for "Breaking Up the team".

[DW Simpson]

Good Shaq column http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_yl...yhoo&type=lgns

[Elisha]

Shaq trade confirmed. On espn.com

Yeah Claude, but this one is better.

[DW Simpson]

Simmons rocks, even though he's a Sox fan.

Sacramento wouldn't include Peja Stojakovic in any potential deal, and you can't blame them -- he's been a crucial part of those Kings teams that choke every spring.

I mean, isn't the point of having an NBA team to win the title? Why lock into winning 55 games a year and losing every May? Why even have a team then? If I were a Dallas fan right now, and the Mavs allowed Nash to leave after Cuban overpaid everyone else on the roster by 50 percent, then they refused to trade Nowitzki and Walker for Angry Shaq, I'm not sure what I would do. Angry Shaq, Jamison, Nash, Finley, Daniels, Howard and Najera . . . that team wins the title! It wins the freaking title! There's no question about it! Isn't that the whole point of having a team?!?!?!

[Brad Spirrison]

Looks like the NBA balance of power is shifting back to the east.