First, in 2006, the Miami Heat won the championship over the Dallas Mavericks. Who was on that Miami team? None other than Shaquille O’Neal. Shaq was still undoubtedly the best big man in the NBA and paired up with an elite young guard proved unstoppable. Had he remained in L.A. that dynamic would still be in place, but with a more talented surrounding cast. Dallas was nowhere near as talented as the Lakers would have been with Shaq and would have been easy work for Shaq and Kobe.
In 2007, the Spurs won the NBA Finals over LeBron James and the Cleveland Cavilers. However, with Shaq, the Spurs-Lakers rivalry would have been revisited. If the Lakers could have advanced past the Spurs they would have faced an undertalented team with a superstar who was not ready to be a champion.
The Lakers then made the Finals from 2008-2010, winning two championships. Though it seems easy to say that Shaq would have made them win all three, that is not the case. By this time Shaq was aging and injury prone. The Celtics built a big three that could arguably beat any team. With Shaq at that age, it doesn’t seem realistic that they would have been able to beat that Celtics team. However, they would have been able to beat the Magic in 2010. The Magic came into that series and were overwhelmed by the Lakers and though Shaq may have slowed them down a bit, they were the better team.
Shaq and Kobe were a great duo, if the two stayed together they would probably have won three additional rings. This would have cemented their legacy as the best duo ever. However, when Shaq got old and the Celtics formed in 2008, they would not have been talented enough to stop them and the Celtics would have become a dynasty. For the leagues sake, Shaq and Kobe splitting was great for the game of basketball.
–Michael Hersey
photo via @NBA
