According to a report by ESPN.com, the Suns have agreed to trade Shaquille O’Neal to the Cavaliers for Ben Wallace, Sasha Pavlovic, $500,000 and the 46th overall pick.

The Cavaliers were also in talks with New Orleans about obtaining Tyson Chandler. If they had not made the trade for O’Neal, they would have traded for Chandler, according to a source.

The Cavs felt O’Neal was the better option because he has just one year left on his contract, and will not eat up cap space that will enable them to pursue free agents such as Chris Bosh in next summer’s star-studded free agent class. Chandler, who had injury problems last postseason, has a player option for $12.7 million in 2010-2011 that he is likely to pick up.

For the Suns, the O’Neal trade is a straight salary dump. Pavlovic’s $5 million dollar contract next season is only partially guaranteed for the amount of $1.5 million. Factor in the disparities in the contracts between Wallace, Pavlovic and Shaq and the team will save $4.5 million next season. However, when you factor in the savings they’ll reap on the luxury tax, it will be closer to $10 million in savings. That savings can be amplified if Wallace decides to retire and the Suns buy him out of his contract for less than the $14 million he’s owed next season.

The trade is a pretty strong admission by the Suns that the trade of Shawn Marion for Shaq in February of 2008 was a mistake. Marion was a free agent this summer and, had they let him walk, their savings would’ve been $21 million — not the $5.5 million they’re saving in this deal.

Our very own John Paulsen had this to say about the potential trade not two weeks ago…

What’s funny is that the Suns walked away from the negotiation table last season because they thought that a trio of Shaq, Steve Nash and Amare Stoudemire could contend under new coach Alvin Gentry. Stoudemire got hurt, so what’s changed? It appears that the Suns are unwilling to pay the luxury tax price of keeping Shaq on the roster, that’s what.

This trade has the potential to set up some serious drama next season. Imagine a (hopefully) healthy and motivated Shaq joining LeBron in Cleveland. Assuming the Lakers win the Finals, Kobe and Co. will be seeking a repeat. Imagine Shaq and Kobe squaring off for a title next season…

Whether or not this helps Cleveland depends solely on Shaq’s ability to play at a high level deep into the postseason. If they do acquire him, they will need to watch his minutes closely and give him some time off during the season. Winning 66 games isn’t as important as having a healthy Shaq ready for the playoffs.

I like this trade for Cleveland, but Shaq wants another extension and he knows he’s not going to get it in Phoenix. It’s not necessarily a good idea for the Cavs either, as any extension for O’Neal means that they won’t be able to sign a big-name free agent next summer. But if they can rent Shaq’s services for a season and see how it goes, then maybe he could play himself into an extension with an NBA championship.

What do you think Cavs fans?

The economy is really starting to take its toll on professional sports, and the NBA is no different. Bad contracts are bad even when the economy is pumping, but they really stand out in tough times like these. So I decided to look through the payrolls team-by-team to try to identify the worst contracts in the NBA. I expected to list 15-20 names, but I ended up scribbling down 68. That’s right, there are no fewer than 68 bad contracts in the NBA.

I didn’t include any of the players that are in the final year of their contracts because…well, what’s the point? They’ll be off the books in a few months anyway. Instead, I wanted to focus on those contracts that are going to haunt teams for years to come, so to be eligible, players have to have at least a year left on their current deals.

It’s tough to compare someone making superstar money to an average, everyday role player, so I split these 68 contracts up into three groups: the Overpaid Role Players, the Not-So-Super Stars and the Injury-Prones. I will rank them from least-worst to most-worst with the thinking that I wouldn’t trade the player for anyone further down the list but I would trade him for anyone previously mentioned. So, for example, if a guy is listed #7 within a particular group, I’m not trading him for anyone ranked #6-#1, but I would think seriously about moving him for a guy that is ranked #8+.

So let’s start with the role players and go from there…

(Note: In most cases, I don’t blame the player himself for his outrageous contract. The fault lies with the general manager that inked the guy to the deal. However, this rule goes out the window if the player has a history of only producing in his contract year – I’m looking at you, Tim Thomas.)