On Shaq's Failure to 'Win a Ring for the King'

The 2007 NBA Finals have long been the perfect example of how great teams beat great players. In that series, LeBron James, the greatest player on the planet, couldn't do enough for the Cavaliers to steal even one game from the solid, deep Spurs. It wasn't as if San Antonio didn't have great players in Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker. It was that LeBron was clearly the best player involved in the series, and because of the teams' imbalance, he couldn't get a single win. Supporting casts really, really matter.

I dare say the 2010 second-round flame-out we all just witnessed makes the point with even greater lucidity, and not just on the surface, where Boston effectively won four of the five starting line-up match-ups and the bench battle, neutralizing LeBron's MVP talent. Look at Shaquille O'Neal, who upon his summer trade to Cleveland said he planned to "win a ring for the King," referring to James. Shaq had "helped" Kobe Bryant and Dwyane Wade, two of the three best post-Jordan perimeter players in the NBA, get their rings. LeBron, the post-Jordan Jordan, was next.

But the point is that Shaq never merely "helped" Kobe or Wade win. If anything, O'Neal won those rings with help from the guards. The inability of LeBron to grab a championship with Shaq by his side says more about Shaq's age and flagging on-court impact than it does about James's will to win or talent. In other words, this Shaq is not the Shaq of 2000, 2001, 2002 or 2006. That's obvious, and could go without saying. But again, as LeBron continues to come under attack (with varying degrees of fairness involved), it needs to be recognized.



Share This isn't to diminish the wonderful talent and contributions of Kobe or Wade, who deserve their titles. Just as the Lakers don't win without Shaq at the turn of the millennium, the Lakers don't win without Kobe. Ditto for the 2006 Heat and Wade. Unfortunately for LeBron and the fans of Cleveland, the Cavs didn't have a co-star like vintage Shaq. They had a past-the-due-date Shaq, a comically overrated Mo Williams, a completely lost Antawn Jamison and a host of role players.

The Suns are in the Western Conference Finals after essentially trading O'Neal for nothing last summer, and the Cavs have regressed with Shaq in tow. Perhaps Shaq's "win a ring for the King" plan served to damage his own narrative by reaffirming the importance of the perimeter players he has teamed with. The phrase on its face seems like traditional Shaq bravado -- "LeBron hasn't been able to do it for himself, so I'll handle it" -- but it's really a bit of self-deprecation. O'Neal admitted defeat in Phoenix and attached himself to the league's best player. He effectively told the world he needed to be a role player, even if that admission came wrapped in his own self-trumpeting.

The fact is that Shaq is simply not a king-maker any longer. In fact, it could be argued he's a drain: the Suns, after all, are in the Western Conference Finals after essentially trading O'Neal for nothing last summer, and the Cavs have regressed with Shaq in tow. That speaks to an unsure future for the big fella, who has claimed he wants to play a couple more years before hulking off into the sunset. Shaq is a free agent come July 1.

After this crushing defeat against Boston, is there even a market for Shaq out there? Is he still seen as a Dwight Howard stopper?Or will the lessons of Phoenix, Cleveland and, in a way, L.A. and Miami follow him like a dark cloud? I imagine the gravitas of the name alone will draw some interest -- that's why he remains so high in our Top 50 NBA Free Agents list -- but in strictly basketball terms, he's no different than, say, Joe Smith. The former MVP has become a journeyman, one who can't even legitimately claim to bring good fortune with him. That's a sad fall made only more discouraging by the fact Shaq apparently hasn't realized it all quite yet.