For those bemoaning the idea that Shaquille O'Neal will soon be a member of the Boston Celtics, let me say first that I understand the concern.

He's old. He'll turn 39 years old in March. Deep into Act III of his career. And he's been in the NBA forever.  As a rookie he was teammates with Greg Kite. He played against Reggie Lewis. He played against his (potential) soon to be coach and GM. Shaq is the last player from the 1992 draft still in the league (just beating Darren Morningstar, the Celtics second-round pick in 1992, by 16 years). Fair question: Do the Celtics need another guy with 150,000 NBA miles on the tires?

He's -- well, not fat, exactly, but somewhere in between almost fat and really, really close to fat. Remember in the old days of the WWF when Howard Finkel's voice would jump an octive when he announced the weight of KIng Kong Bundy or Andre the Giant? "Weighing FOUR HUNDRED and TWENTY-TWO pounds, Big John Studd!" Well, that's the kind of intro Shaq would get from the Fink today, I suspect. Probably not 400 lbs., right? If I had to take a guess I'd go with 364. That kind of weight on 38-year-old knees seems a nice combo if you have a huge desire to see Shaq wearing suits on the end of the bench next season. And P.S.? Tough to imagine Shaq running up and down the court with Rondo on offense and defending pick and rolls on defense. 

And he's sort of acquired a habit of wearing out his welcome. Forget the Lakers -- that was still when he was SHAQ. But as he's moved into and through hoops middle age it has become clear that Shaq hasn't wrapped his arms around the notion that he isn't the guy who dominated the NBA for close to a decade and a half. No kidding, from 1992-2005 he finished in the top nine of MVP voting each year, won three NBA titles and three finals MVPs and never averaged less than 22 points and 10 rebounds a season. So it's easy to understand why he's had a hard time adjusting to a billing under the title. As I wrote a month or so ago when the possibility of Shaq coming to Boston was raised, "it seems that the pattern has been the same with Shaq over the last half-decade or so. He shows up in a new city and the goodwill is flowing. He's thrilled to be there, but really thrilled to be away from the last place, where he wasn't understood, loved, or appreciated. And the resident star of the new place -- Steve Nash or LeBron -- understand how important Shaq is and will do whatever it takes to make sure he is given his proper respect. And things are usually fine for about as long as it takes for New Team to understand that this isn't anything close to the Shaq that dominated the NBA for a decade. And once Shaq understands that they understand he starts to make some noise and the moving process is under way."

So the argument against Shaq to Boston can be summed up in four words. Old, overweight and delusional.

And I think all those points have plenty of merit and there's no doubt that a Shaq-Celtics marriage could fail.

But it's still worth the risk.

You know why? One simple question: Who else is out there? 

Are to trying to tell me Shaquille O'Neal -- even the 2010 version -- isn't a better bet than Kwame Brown? Or Shelden Williams? Come on, Shaq averaged a 12-7 in 23 minutes per game for a team with the best record in the NBA last season. He still has value. And at the veterans minimum of $1.4 million he's a bargain, plain and simple. 

OK, he's old. But I'm thinking the Celtics aren't going to give him a five-year deal. For one season, at basically no (in NBA terms) money it's an easy reward over risk call. I'm sure he'll miss games, probably closer to 30 than 10. But again, so what? You're paying him 10th, 11th man money. If he gives you any more than that level of production it's a steal. And an old guy with something left in the tank plus some desire for revenge is exactly the kind of player a team like the 2010-11 Celtics should pick up (for a year). This isn't a rebuilding job, this is a last real run at the title with this group. They should take some risks. 

Will there be trouble defending the pick and roll? Yup. Will there be times when he doesn't make it down the floor on offense? Probably, hard to see him filling a wing on the fast break with Rondo. We know this. And if this were a full MLE contract or a multi-year deal I'd be leading the charge against signing Shaq. But at $1.4 million you focus on what he can give you vs. what he cannot. And that's a legit low-post scoring option, the first the Celtics have had since Al Jefferson. Also some decent Kendrick Perkins insurance (the two played to about a push in the playoffs last year) and a guy that isn't afraid to use the elbows a little when needed. I think it's a coin flip that he sends LeBron or Wade to the floor on opening night (and what a scene that's going to be -- I bet ESPN will have every employee in the company's history working at the Garden that night. Do they have the countdown clock going yet? Figure with Favre gone they'll need to do something to keep busy the next three months). And while he's lost in pick and roll and all things transition, he can still defend in the post. 

As for the ego, a couple of thoughts:

(1) With the Magic, Lakers and Heat Shaq arrived as a savior. With the Suns and Cavs he was still an SI cover guy,  presented as the missing piece to the title. In Boston he'll show up as (most likely) a backup making as much money as Von Wafer. This after an offseason that saw him fail to land a multi-year contract anywhere. Point is if he's not humbled now he never will be.

(2) He's a little older than these guys, but for the first time in his career Shaq would be playing with Hall of Fame peers. Kobe, LeBron, Wade were all younger so Shaq could play the "Sit at my knee as I tell you the story of Nick Anderson" card. No one needs to learn from Shaq here. Garnett, Pierce and Allen are all title-winners, make more money (which counts in the locker room) and remain relevant figures in today's NBA. They don't need "The Big Aristotle," they need 10 points and seven rebounds a game. That's it.

(3) Doc Rivers. This is the kind of chances you can take when you have a guy that can handle star players as well as former stars that might still think they are current starts. One of many reasons why Doc coming back was such a good thing.

Look, if Shaquille O'Neal comes to Boston at best he'll be, to quote Al Pacino in the sadly forgotten "Donnie Brasco", a spoke on the wheel. Sure, he'll have the highest Q score on the roster -- "Rondo vs." isn't on the fall TV schedule for a reason -- but the game-changer is a ghost. If Shaq can stay healthy and give the Celtics 20-25 minutes a night until Perkins returns it would be a terrific return on a small investment. And if Perkins returns and both O'Neals are healthy and playing well Doc will have a problem he didn't have last year, too much depth. Who can forget Shelden Williams and Scalabrine in the finals? 

(Would you trade Rasheed Wallace, Scal, Williams and Tony Allen for Shaq, Jermaine O'Neal, Wafer and the two draft picks? I think I would. Assuming Shaq is on his way is it safe to say that this team is better on paper than last years?) 

He's old.

He's overweight.

He thinks it's 2002.

But for this team, if this is the price, he's the perfect fit.

Call him The Big Bargain.