Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsSports

Shaq back in L.A? The thought isn't so crazy

BILL PLASCHKE

The Lakers don't need Shaquille O'Neal this season, but some team officials don't dismiss the idea of it happening next year.

February 18, 2009|BILL PLASCHKE

Two days to the trading deadline.

One more big body needed for the Lakers to clinch this thing.

Advertisement

A big body who can bang for a weary Pau Gasol. A big body who can score for a tiring Lamar Odom.

A big body who understands the triangle, the city, the playoffs, the pressure.

Hmmmm.

I'm not going to write it. You will rip me if I write it. You will fill up an entire Saturday sports section with hate letters if I write it.

Oh, what the heck.

Why not Shaq?

Why not bring back a guy who is no longer disliked by Phil Jackson, no longer a threat to Kobe Bryant, and no longer an embarrassment to himself?

The Phoenix Suns are open to trading everyone with a pulse. The Lakers are looking to close the deal on a championship. As recently as a month ago, everyone was dying to get rid of Lamar Odom and . . .

OK, OK, I get it. This is not a deal you make now.

I wouldn't trade Odom now that he's finally looked in a mirror. I wouldn't bring the Big Combustion into the steadiest room in the league.

No Shaq now.

But don't say no Shaq never.

There's a funny thing about the possibility of the Lakers one day allowing one of the most polarizing, powerful presences in franchise history to end his career here.

Not everyone on the Lakers is dismissing it.

I talked to several members of the organization Tuesday about the chances that Shaquille O'Neal could return here next season, and you'd be surprised what I heard.

Nobody could speak on the record for fear of tampering charges, but everyone had an opinion, and nobody would say absolutely not.

"It's not beyond the realm of possibility," said one.

"The guy is still a presence," said another.

"It's an interesting thing to think about," said a third.

Fact: O'Neal has one year left on a contract that would pay him $21 million next season.

Fact: The Lakers are already over the luxury-tax threshold, so that means they would actually be paying $42 million for him.

Fact: Unless they really need him, it doesn't make sense financially.

Said one Laker: "You're going to pay $42 million for a backup center?"

But what if they do need him?

First, what if their lack of inside strength somehow hurts them again this year and they don't win the championship? I've already picked them to win. I did it while watching them win in Boston and Cleveland recently.

But what if they don't?

Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|