By David Lord -- DallasBasketball.com
How the Mavs have the inside track on Shaq:
The once mighty Lakers, fresh from being upset and surprisingly looking very much the inferior team in the Finals vs. Detroit, quickly made decisions that sent shock waves through the entire NBA.
What do we know? What is possible? What is fantasy?

THE FACTS IN LA

As expected, Kobe Bryant exercised his option to become a free agent.
In moves that were uncertain a week ago, but predictable, Karl Malone exercised his option to become a free agent (looking for more money than the $1M exception this time around); Phil Jackson was bid adieu as coach (after reportedly seeing things beginning to unravel and demanding an unreal coaching salary); and with Jackson out of power, Gary Payton decided to accept another guaranteed year on the LA payroll in excess of $5M rather than test the willingness of other teams to make him a new deal in the wake of his disappointing playoff showing.
Also, Horace Grant retired, not wanting to play without Jackson's coaching. Derek Fisher opted out of his contract as expected. Slava Medvedenko became a free agent..
But a huge surprise emerged that involved Shaquille O'Neal. In a move that was shocking as much for its swiftness as for its outcome, the Lakers and O'Neal decided to explore the idea of trading him to another team.
The reports are everywhere. The guessing games have begun. Will he really get traded? If so, who will get him? And what will the price be? We can make educated guesses, because in some of those areas, the NBA rules limit the choices, helping us to explore the what-if's.
Let's deal with these one-by-one.

WILL SHAQ REALLY GET TRADED?
Only Shaq and the Lakers can give a definitive answer to this one. Our habit is to hedge on offering wild opinions, but on this one the view here is (surprisingly) an unhesitating Yes.
The basis for that view resides in the principals involved: Kobe, the Lakers, and Shaq. Kobe, by all accounts, has long wanted to be The Man on a team. The mere presence of O'Neal, the top big man in the NBA, as a member of the same team has made that impossible for Kobe in LA. As long as he plays alongside Shaq, he will never be able to emerge from that shadow and become the Next Michael Jordan, as he has dreamed.
Now a crossroads has presented itself. With free agency, Kobe can go anywhere. This contract will be the one that determines where Kobe plays while in his prime. If he is to get out into a solo spotlight, this is his chance, and it appears he will ensure that he gets that stage he craves. By accounts in all the LA papers as well as in national reports, sources say Kobe has told the Lakers that he must be The Man if they want him to stay.
The Lakers took the logical path. They compared a 26-year-old Kobe, with perhaps 10 more good years, to a 32-year-old Shaq. Shaq has had far more injuries, and his game, though still dominating at times, has seemed to decline a bit. Shaq's contract costs more than double (per year) as much as Kobe's.
In addition, the Lakers brass looked at a team with a ton of holes to fix. Last summer they needed a PG, a PF, and a SF. They got all-star caliber but aging veterans in Payton and Malone to fill the PG and PF holes, and hoped for the best. They never did fix the hole at SF.
Age and injuries caught up with both of their signees, and those band-aid fixes didn't work when they needed it. The grind of the long season, and a long run in the playoffs, exposed their age and lack of depth.
Now, with Malone gone and Payton looking elderly, they still see the same 3 holes again. This time around they don't have a $1M exception to use – only a Mid Level and Minimums.
One superstar is on the way out. This may take some time.
So the Lakers picked Kobe.
When they made their choice, they also reportedly chose to blow off their prior commitments to Shaq to address a contract extension and keep him in LA. Why would they do such a thing? The only logical answer is that they have set their future course with Kobe, and in Kobe's World there can be no allowance for Shaq to draw the spotlight. If you set aside sentiment, you must acknowledge that in business, or in politics, or in athletics, when the new "king" or boss arrives, the old one must be sent packing, so that divided loyalties don't cause dissension. So, to make Kobe the new king of LA, the Lakers have determined that Shaq MUST (and will) go.

WHY WON'T THEY KEEP SHAQ ANYHOW?

But what if the Lakers don't want to trade Shaq?
It looks like they have no other choice. If Shaq stays, Kobe can't be The Man. And the view here is that Kobe, faced with that reality, would choose to sign elsewhere if Shaq isn't traded.
Since the Lakers have already decided they want Kobe, then they are forced to deal Shaq.
In addition, the longer they dally, the more opportunity Kobe could be enticed by others. So the guess is that Shaq will be dealt in July, and then Kobe will re-sign.
This also coincides with the way the Lakers have acted thus far. Rather than appeal to Shaq privately, they have made this a public spat, and pushed O'Neal into a corner where he expressed a desire to be traded. By so doing, they positioned themselves as the Good Guys, who supposedly want Shaq to stay but are merely acceding to his demands. This has unraveled too far and too fast for it to be any accident on LA's part.
Accordingly, Shaq is ready to go. He has stepped up and made the trade demands that they undoubtedly anticipated. (For what it is worth, reports say he is "fuming" over the situation.) So what happens next?

THE TRADE
The next thing that happens is a trade.
The Lakers will do some public posturing for PR purposes, but let's be adults about this thing: Kobe demanded it, the Lakers want it, and Shaq is tired of the whole mess and wants out. Everyone wants a trade. So, look for a trade to happen.
Will the Lakers get a windfall of talent in such a deal? Their talent cupboard, once you get past Shaq and Kobe, looked incredibly bare against Detroit. Will this fix it? They will surely reap an incredible bounty by dealing such a superstar, won't they?
As odd as it sounds, we don't think so.

FACTORS LIMITING LA'S BARGAINING POWER

There are way too many factors that will work against the Lakers and limit their return when they trade Shaq. Here are some of the more important issues that will come into play:
1. The no-trade clause
2. Age
3. Skills starting to decline
4. Recent injuries
5. Conditioning questions
6. Cap rules regarding trades
7. Current contract size and demands for a contract extension
8. Future opt out choices
The no-trade clause. It has been erroneously by national media that the NBA doesn't have no-trade clauses, but that is not the case. They can be offered in very limited cases, and Shaq met all those requirements when he signed his last contract in 2000. With his stature in the league, it is logical to figure his agent obtained every advantageous detail for him in that contract.
With such a clause, Shaq could totally control his destination by refusing to waive such a clause for any other team besides where he wanted to play. He has reportedly named Atlanta (with tons of cap room), Dallas (with lots of contracts to offer in a trade), and Orlando (his original NBA team) as places he would prefer, although such reports would be far from a request or a waiver. If the Lakers are committed to keeping Kobe and being forced to deal Shaq as it seems, his short list of acceptable teams will keep the bidding for his services much lower than otherwise.
This will certainly eliminate many teams from contention, but we have no way of knowing precisely which ones.
What if Shaq selects only one team? Then if Kobe has given the Lakers an ultimatum to meet to get him to re-sign, Shaq will go to that team for whatever the Lakers can get.
Reports have said that the Lakers prefer to deal only with teams in the Eastern Conference, but the no-trade clause (assuming Shaq has one) gives Shaq and not the Lakers the ability to control the destination.
Age/ skills/ injuries/ conditioning. The team that gets Shaq will not be getting the 25-year-old with the long NBA future ahead. As good as he still is, he may have a relatively short NBA lifespan remaining. No one knows for sure (notwithstanding O'Neal's boasts that he has at least another 6 good years left in the NBA).
That factor will lessen the offers significantly. Although Jermaine O'Neal or Amare Stoudemire or Dirk Nowitzki are not as good as Shaq, the owners of those and similar players are not likely to offer any of them to LA because they have many years to improve and star in the future, while Shaq may be done in a few years.
In addition, teams not on the cusp of a title may also pass on making a bid, with the thought that he will perhaps be retired before they can build a contender around him.
Cap rules regarding trades. In general, teams over the cap must (within a 15% range either way) match salaries when making a trade. Almost every team is over the cap, including the Lakers. Thus, teams wanting to make an offer for Shaq must be able to send the Lakers as much salary as Shaq gets.
That won't be easy. Unless the Lakers make a hasty move this week, teams will be matching 2004-05 salaries - almost $30M for Shaq. That will be about 2/3 of each team's entire salary cap in 2004-05, and it will be more than double the "maximum salary" that a free agent could sign for.
Very few teams have that much in contracts to offer without gutting their entire team.
For example, if San Antonio kept Duncan, they could trade their entire roster and still not be able to offer a legal trade for Shaq. Many teams won't even give Shaq a second thought, because the economics of the trade rules simply won't work for them.
The teams that will have an advantage as a result will be the teams with a large payroll and contracts to use, such as Portland, New York, New Jersey, Sacramento, and Dallas.
Contract size and demands for an extension. Shaq's existing contract is for two more years, starting in 2004-05 at about $29.5M. He wants an extension for an additional 3 years with a raise, and the yearly salaries on such a deal would be in the 30s or perhaps the 40s. The total will undoubtedly be in excess of $100M.
Many (if not most) owners will not be interested. Not only is that a huge amount to pay, it will be money that must be GUARANTEED to an athlete whose best days are likely behind him. It could be money horrendously wasted, in a worst case scenario.
Furthermore, most owners have become extremely skittish about the Luxury Tax imposed on higher payrolls and have been jettisoning salary to avoid it. The Tax hit with a vengeance last year. According to figures compiled by economist Dan Rosenbaum, last year the tax redistributed a total in excess of $300 million (over 20% of the entire salary of the league) from the big spenders into the pockets of the frugal. Some of the "average spenders" who were just a few million over the Tax Threshold paid a marginal cost for their extra lavishness in excess of 400% tax for every excess dollar spent. (Yes, that is not a misprint: four hundred percent).
That experience, plus the impending prospects of future taxes to come, caused many spenders to tighten the purse strings drastically. (For example, Sacramento's Maloof brothers in prior years were lavish free spenders. After one round of luxury tax, they put tight restraints on payroll. They gave away Keon Clark to Utah, and Jim Jackson was forced to seek employment elsewhere, in spite of strong bench play from both in 2002-03. Both players could have easily been retained, and were contributors. The Kings bench instead was thin, allowing them to get worn down as the season went along, and ultimately they were knocked out of the playoffs by their lack of depth.)
The Tax will hit teams who exceed approx $55M in payroll. If you pay $30M to just one player, by the time you add any talent around him you are virtually assured of getting hit with a nasty Luxury Tax bill. That alone will scare lots of teams away.
Future opt-out choices. Shaq's existing deal runs for two more years, but he can end it in a year if he so desires.
That factor forces a commitment. If you trade for him and give up a ton of talent, you had better be willing to add that extension, or he might walk in a year and leave you with nothing to show for it.
Only teams willing to be in for the long run can safely make an offer, as a result.
So who might actually have a shot at Shaq? And how do the Mavs fit in the picture (or do they)?

THE REAL COMPETITION

The list, once you consider all the factors, will be relatively short.
The big money teams with payroll will all clearly have some sort of a shot. That would include Portland, Dallas, New York, Sacramento, and New Jersey. How do these stack up? What about the others?
Here's a rundown:
Atlanta - there isn't any talent to offer in a trade
Boston - the contracts are small, and besides Pierce there really isn't talent to offer
Charlotte - wouldn't have cap room for him in any expansion scenario
Chicago - not enough talent to send $30M to LA and have any team left
Cleveland - LeBron + Shaq is intriguing, but you'd have to trade almost everyone else Dallas - lots of big contracts, talent, and possibilities
Denver - they would have to destroy what they are building, no way
Detroit - they look just fine as they are, and Shaq would cost them too many players
Golden State - not enough talent to send $30M to LA and have any team left
Houston - will build long term around Yao
Indiana - if you weren't willing to include Jermaine O'Neal, it would take too much of their team to create a $30M package, and Jermaine won't get traded
LA Clippers - Sterling won't spend $30M on one player - that's about his whole payroll
Memphis - unless you include players like Gasol and Jayson Williams, you will have to trade almost the whole roster - West traded for Shaq once, but in spite of speculation, we don't see this as a viable option
Miami - they could offer Eddie Jones + Brian Grant, but that won't interest LA
Milwaukee - nothing to offer
Minnesota - if you don't offer Garnett (and they won't), there isn't enough to interest LA
New Jersey - you would have to wreck the team to do a deal - Kenyon Martin will be a Base Year player and not usable in all likelihood, and if you don't include Kidd there isn't a lot left to offer
New Orleans - not enough talent to send $30M to LA and have any team left
New York - they have expressed a desire to be involved, but if Marbury isn't included, there is more junk than talent to offer
Orlando - the ties to Shaq's past make this one to note, but even if you find a way to use McGrady in the deal by involving a 3rd team, there still isn't enough else to make a real offer
Philadelphia - you would have to include Iverson or Robinson or both, and we can't see either co-existing with Kobe
Phoenix - not enough talent to make an offer to LA and have any team left
Portland - lots of big contracts, talent, and possibilities
Sacramento - lots of big contracts, talent, and possibilities
San Antonio - not enough talent to send $30M to LA and have any team left
Seattle - not enough talent to send $30M to LA and have any team left
Toronto - not enough talent to send $30M to LA and have any team left
Utah - lots of cap room but little to offer
Washington - not enough talent to send $30M to LA and have any team left
There only appear to be 3 realistic suitors when all is said and done: Dallas, Portland, and Sacramento. The owners in Dallas and Portland have shown a willingness to spend, and a deal for Shaq would fit in Sacramento too. Interestingly, all are Western Conference teams.

WHAT MIGHT THE OFFERS BE?

The Finalists would likely offer something like the following:
Dallas - Walker + Jamison, and maybe a bit more. Dirk or Nash would not be offered.
Portland - Ratliff + Abdur-Rahim. Randolph would not be offered.
Sacramento - some package with Webber (who is a talent but has a nasty contract and gets injured a lot) - probably Miller or Christie would be included, and it would take an additional low salaried player to make the contracts match.
What if the Lakers want Dirk? None of the other contenders will have a young superstar to offer, so the Mavs should be able to compete without Dirk being required. An aging over-30 Shaq, whose NBA lifespan is getting short, won't bring a young improving superstar from anyone it would seem.
For those who enjoy hearsay, rumor, and 2nd-hand gossip, it must be noted that fans have reported Cuban as saying, via email, that Dirk wouldn't be included in such a trade.
Hasn't it been said that the Lakers need expiring contracts? Yes, reporters have surmised as much. But that is just sportswriter talk. The Lakers don't need less salary when they trade Shaq - they instead will need more talent.

WHAT ABOUT DALLAS?

The Mavs have a great chance of landing Shaq. Besides the factors and analysis above, they might be the only one of the 3 Finalists that Shaq would approve. Don't forget that Shaq went to high school in San Antonio, and is intrigued by the way Cuban treats his players.
What if Walker is chosen by Charlotte? That would clearly complicate matters, because the Mavs would not be able to combine the trade exception from Walker into matching Shaq's salary. They would have to substitute other players, or perhaps acquire players using the TE alone (with a draft pick, for example) who then would be added into the package for Shaq. But the process would certainly get much trickier.
In addition, that might feasibly open up easy doors to including Golden State in the trade somehow, and moving Dampier in a sign-and-trade to the Lakers as part of the compensation for Shaq.
Another possible downside (if Walker is selected) is that other talent such as Josh Howard might have to be included in the deal to get Shaq, to make up for the loss of Walker's talent.
Could Walker be selected by Charlotte and then traded to someone like the Knicks, to use in a swap for Shaq? Not really. Charlotte can't give him to NY - it would have to be a trade, and they would have to take back a huge pile of bad Knick junk. They won't wreck their cap flexibility like that.

THE BOTTOM LINE

The buzz around the league already is that the Mavs are clearly the frontrunner in this situation.
The Mavs have the talent and contracts to offer, and an owner with a willingness to foot the bill. This is the scenario that long-suffering Mavericks fans have dreamed about for years: the chance to finally get a dominant big man who can battle Shaq – or in this case of “if you can’t beat ‘em, get ‘em to join you,’’ a dominant big man who IS Shaq.