I don't know. I can't decide if the Lakers made the right move on this. I definitely think it's better to trade a guy a year too early than a year too late. And I think Shaq has two good years left in him, but will demand at least 2 more years (at $60 mil) after that. If the Lakers meet that demand, well that's the road the Knicks started down when they first overpaid Ewing for has last few years in NY. (Simmons should know this).
Brian Grant is cap-filler, but Odom (if he can stay of the sinsemilla) is underpaid, and for two years, at least, so is Caron Butler. (And Butler starts getting paid as soon as Grant drops off).
Kobe and Shaq = the salary cap, which means no supporting cast that is worth more than the mid-level exception as long as Shaq is there.
Honestly, I think the Lakers made the right trade. They traded success tomorrow for success the day after tomorrow and the day after that. Shaq will be good for two years, but after that he's going to remind everyone of all the other bad contracts that Riley picked up (Jones, Grant, tried for Howard) when he tries to hit a home run.
When it was reported that the Lakers were basically turning the entire franchise over to Kobe Bryant, I thought to myself, Omigod, they must have good reason to believe that Kobe's going to beat the rape rap. That is, I thought they possessed some information advantage that might have presaged how the trial was going to play out.
But now the Lakers don't even have a commitment from Kobe (there's supposed to be an announcement tomorrow), so I'm thinking the best explanation for the Lakers post-season moves is simply that owner Jerry Buss and GM Mitch Kupchak aren't the sharpest pencils in the cup.