# Luke Walton, George to Boston for Banks, Yogi?



## Hov (Aug 12, 2003)

> Inside information out of Boston has indicated that the Lakers and Celtics may be working on another deal once the Celtics have confirmation that Payton is good to go. Marcus Banks and seldom used Yogi Stewart to the Lakers for Luke Walton and Devean George.


http://www.hoopsworld.com/article_9673.shtml

I dont know about trading Walton, but we'd get rid of George which is definitely a plus. That would also be 2 SF's off of our team.
I still want Banks, but I dunno about Yogi Stewart.. From looking at his stats, he doesn't seem very good :no:
Also, anyone know how long his contract is?
I guess I'd do the trade though since we get rid of 2 SF's and get Banks in return.

What do you guys think?


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

i dont know what his contract is or anything, and he definitely is a throw in player, but with George and Luke's combined salary and Marcus not making much, Yogi must have a decent contract or else we need more players. I'd like the trade because Odom and Butler are more than enough at the 3 spot and it gives a PG with potential, but i doubt it would happen. Payton might get a DUI charge, i think Boston will keep Banks just in case Payton does something else crazy.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Yogi has one of the worst contracts in the league and does not produce anything.


----------



## Hov (Aug 12, 2003)

Ok, so I did some research and it appears Stewart's contract ends after the upcoming season.
If this is true, I'm all for the trade! :yes:


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>R-Star</b>!
> Yogi has one of the worst contracts in the league and does not produce anything.


Wrong, he has a $5M expiring contract.


----------



## Laker Freak (Jul 1, 2003)

Stewart has not had an assist since the 02-03 season, and averages 4.5 points per 48 minutes.


----------



## U reach. I teach (May 24, 2003)

Wow. If you asked me if I would rather have Luke walton or Marcus banks then I'd tell you I'd be glad to have either. Then if you tell me that I already have 3 other SF's and probably won't keep luke at years end and aren't to strong at the point, then it's a no brainer. 

As far as picking the best garbage. I'd take Yogi simply because we don't have to pay him after this season.

Believe it when I see it though.


----------



## Locke (Jun 16, 2003)

Yogi Stewart is one of the worst players in the league, but who cares, he's not going to play anyway, but neither would Luke Walton and we need a PG desperatly. AND *we'd be getting rid of Devean George.* I like it.


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

Let's take a quick look at this.

You could use a PG, you have more than enough SFs. Seems like a Banks for Walton swap makes good sense. 

George is one of the four dozen SFs on the roster, with a two year $9.5 million deal in place, twice what he should be making. Yogi might very well be the worst player in the leage, but his MLE-sized deal is expiring. No reason not to make the switch.

Basically, you dump two players at your most crowded position -- one of which has an iffy contract -- for a young talent at a position you could definitely use help at and an expiring contract. No reason not to jump all over this one, if it's real.


----------



## Real McCoy (Oct 17, 2003)

Great post MJG. 

If this does go down, it leaves the Lakers looking like what?

C - Vlade Divac...Chris Mihm
PF - Brian Grant...Slava Medvedenko...Brian Cook
SF - Lamar Odom...Caron Butler
SG - Kobe Bryant...Kareem Rush
PG - Marcus Banks...Chucky Atkins...Sasha Vujacic

IR: Tony Bobbitt (SG), Michael "Yogi" Stewart (C), Jumaine Jones (SF) 

Not to mention that Stewart's contract could be used to as bait to get someone decent to someone looking for expiring contracts next year at the trading deadline. Talk about having a great piece there.

It would be interesting to see Walton in Celtic green as well. 

One thing I notice is how balanced the Celtics (oops I mean the Lakers) are. It would be almost a blessing that the first deal had to be ammended, because the Lakers still get rid of George. They may lose Walton, but the trade-off of losing George is much better. Not to mention Jumaine Jones, could easily be better than George (in fact I think he is, which isn't say much).


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

I'd pull the trigger on this trade without a second thought. Kill the logjam at SF, get a lock down point who has upside. Gives the Lakers much better balance. 

I love Walton and all; great bball IQ, his jumper is really starting to come around, and is a hard worker. But he ain't getting minutes with Butler and Odom on the team. Besides, he would probably leave via FA next year anyway because of the lack of PT he can get, or he simply wouldn't be resigned because Odom and Butler are still on the team (assuming Butler isn't traded for a 4/5 by then).

I see no reason not to do this trade. DO IT MITCH!!!


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

I don't get why Boston wants this deal. Obviously it would be nice to have Walton. But Banks is valuable as well. They must be really low on him. What ruins it is the fact that they are willing to take on George's horrible contract and mediocre play, while giving up an expiring contract.

Sounds like you all will/would be getting a steal.


----------



## Diesel (Apr 1, 2004)

If the Lakers trade Luke Walton Mitch needs to be hung by his nads.

Luke has had one year in the NBA and has shown signs of becoming a very good player.

I doubt Yogi Bear could compete for a job on a good college team.


----------



## Lynx (Mar 6, 2004)

Why on earth you wanna trade Luke? :upset: Mitch has been smoking weed all summer long. What an *******!


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

Because the switch would basically amount to Walton for Banks, two good players. Lakers have less need for Walton because they are deep at that position. Banks plays PG, which they do need, and he has at least equal upside to Walton.

The other switch would be George for Yogi, which is a no brainer. George is overpaid, for way too long, and has the basketball IQ of pond slime. Yogi is overpaid, but his contract is expiring.

I can see why either team could like the first switch, but the second is a complete steal for the Lakers. Which is why I wonder what Boston is thinking (not that Ainge has shown in ability to think in the past).


----------



## Lynx (Mar 6, 2004)

Why would we need a PG as we all know Kobe will run the show? He can develop himself into a true PG. 

I don't care about switch. We have already burned our franchise with stupid monkey Suckchap as our GM. Trade Caron Butler instead of Luke but don't, and I say, *DO NOT TRADE LUKE.*


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

You say that like Walton is the return of jesus or something. He was a second round pick. An average rookie. He had 1 really good game in the playoffs. He obviously has a lot of talent, but he's not untouchable.


----------



## Lynx (Mar 6, 2004)

Well, Luke certainly has the ability to improve his game, and it will depend how many minutes he plays. I mean, we are on the process of rebuilding, so why trade our future prospect? It ain't like we are going to win the championship next year.


----------



## Hov (Aug 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Lynx</b>!
> Well, Luke certainly has the ability to improve his game, and it will depend how many minutes he plays. I mean, we are on the process of rebuilding, so why trade our future prospect? It ain't like we are going to win the championship next year.


Because Marcus Banks is also a future prospect in a position we actually need.

With Butler and Odom, neither Walton nor George would get much playing time anyway.

But I understand where your coming from.. We're always getting rid of the fan favorites (Lue, Madsen), but I have a feeling Marcus Banks can be one of those 'fan favorites' type of player for us.


----------



## Real McCoy (Oct 17, 2003)

Get rid of Butler and _keep_ Walton? :whofarted

Its time to use some basketball sense here.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Lynx</b>!
> Why would we need a PG as we all know Kobe will run the show? He can develop himself into a true PG.
> 
> I don't care about switch. We have already burned our franchise with stupid monkey Suckchap as our GM. Trade Caron Butler instead of Luke but don't, and I say, *DO NOT TRADE LUKE.*


Keep in mind that offense is only 50% of the game. We don't have anyone on the roster that can defend the opposing team's PG. Kobe can do it but it takes away from his offense. Atkins is not a very good defender. According to the scouting reports, Sasha is not a particularly good defender. Rush can't defend PGs. We need someone that can come in and shut guys like Parker, Bibby, and Nash down for more than a few minutes at a time. Banks can absolutely do that. He's an incredible defender. He's also a guy that can force the tempo a little bit on offense and get other guys easy baskets in transition. He gives us something that we lack at the PG position. He's also a prospect for the future, just like Sasha. Atkins isn't getting any younger and he's nothing more than a marginal starter to begin with. As much as I like Walton, he'll never amount to anything more than a 7th or 8th man in the league, if even that. He's an excellent passer and seems to have a firm grasp on the game of basketball. Lets be honest, though. He's lacking in some areas. He's not a true SF or PF. He doesn't have the quickness to defend SFs or the strength to defend PFs. He doesn't shoot the ball well enough to be a 3 and he doesn't rebound well enough to be a 4. He's a tweener in every sense of the word. He's a bargain because he's making next to nothing but if he were making what Devan George makes, I doubt anyone would think of him so highly.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Real McCoy</b>!
> Get rid of Butler and _keep_ Walton? :whofarted
> 
> Its time to use some basketball sense here.


I can't really explain it either. Butler is immensely better than Luke Walton is. The only reason why he's even remotely expendable is because we have Odom at SF. Still, Butler has so much more trade value than Luke Walton. I'd hold on to him for a better deal. If we can acquire Banks and an expiring contract (Stewart) for a future role player (Walton) and a bag of chips (George), I'd do it in a heartbeat. Just look at this roster:

PG-Atkins/Banks/Sasha
SG-Kobe/Rush
SF-Odom/Butler/Jones
PF-Grant/Slava/Cook
C-Vlade/Mihm

That is a pretty damn good team right there. Talent, athleticism, depth, defense...it's all there. There are enough vets to make a run in the playoffs. I like it.


----------



## amd pwr (Jun 24, 2003)

Walton was only good during the playoff because he shot the 3 ball really well and was pretty much the only laker that pass the ball down low to shaq (almost all his assist went to shaq). Shaq is gone now and he'll won't be that effective on the court anymore. Celtics should go nowhere near this trade because

1) Yogi's contract/value > George (who is sux and overpaid)

2) Banks > walton

I'll admit ill like to get Walton to be the 7 or 8 man off the bench and also shift Pierce to the 2 but not at that price.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

God Walton is overhyped here. He is not even the best player we are losing in the proposed deal.


----------



## SoCalfan21 (Jul 19, 2004)

i like this deal because George is starting to go on the downhill in the past couple of years and who ever is willing to take him is ok by me


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

People are getting upset over losing Walton? Walton? Luke Walton? And not only that, they're suggesting that they'd rather trade Butler, who is better now than Walton will ever be, instead?

Some of you are really letting your sentimentality get in the way of enjoying the prospect of improving your team.


----------



## BigAkers (Sep 11, 2004)

Mitch, do this trade. Do it now.:yes:


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Jamel Irief</b>!
> God Walton is overhyped here. He is not even the best player we are losing in the proposed deal.


Let's not go hipster just because walton is overrated. George is not as good as Walton, based on their polar opposite basketball IQs alone.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> 
> 
> Let's not go hipster just because walton is overrated. George is not as good as Walton, based on their polar opposite basketball IQs alone.


I'd say they're close to being even. George has the slight advantage because he's a better overall defender. Still, Walton is right there with him because of his offensive skills. He's not a complete bonehead either. For their money, George is far worse than Walton. Of course, Banks is probably the best player in the deal so there's no point in me going on. We're getting a player in Banks who will at worst probably be substantially better than Walton and Cook and an expiring contract in Yogi to boot. What the hell is not to like?


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rawse</b>!
> People are getting upset over losing Walton? Walton? Luke Walton? And not only that, they're suggesting that they'd rather trade Butler, who is better now than Walton will ever be, instead?
> 
> Some of you are really letting your sentimentality get in the way of enjoying the prospect of improving your team.


Tell me about it. For crying out loud, this is Luke Walton, a SF that without a doubt will be getting no minutes ahead of much better players in Odom in Butler. Kobe become a PG? Jesus Christ, what? Kobe is an SG, he could play some SF (ha, no, logjam already), but he is by no means a point guard. He can only defend the 1 in spot minutes, not all game long, not even for 25 or 30 minutes. Banks is shorter version of Kobe, but faster and quicker. He is already a very good defender at 22 and was the leader in steals per 48 last season. Can create off the dribble and slash very well when he isn't turning the ball over. 

Good lord, I can't believe ANYONE would be against a trade that gets a 3rd and 4th string SF off the team back for a 22 year old lock down defender and an expiring contract. If it happens, Mitch will have more than redeemed himself, and will only need to find an impact defensive big man that can swat some to make a run after this season.


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

This trade is a no brainer. And suggesting that Walton is better than Caron is absolutely ludicrous. Luke is great in his little stretches, but anytime he is given extensive time on the court, his overwhelming weaknesses on defense really show. On top of that, he would leave after the season anyways because some dumb GM in the league will give him more than we can offer (birds rights).


----------



## City_Dawg (Jul 25, 2004)

Yea, i'd have to agree

It be nice to have Bill Watlon's son only for the fact that he's his son, but the Lakers need a defensive point guard and they need money to go after a front court player...

...better hope it happens


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

This deal is great for the Lakers, I can't see any reason why they wouldn't want to pull the trigger on it. Banks is worth more than Walton, and plays a position the Lakers need. Stewart sucks, but his contract is expiring. Like HKF said, his contract could easily be used to trade to a team like Atlanta at the deadline who are always looking to get money off the books.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

Why the hell are the Celtics so stupid?


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

It's not just the Laker fans that like this deal. Most "outsiders" have chimed in and provided sound reasons why we should make this deal. Honestly, I think it would awesome for us. We'd improve immensely for the future without sacrificing anything in the short run.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> This deal is great for the Lakers, I can't see any reason why they wouldn't want to pull the trigger on it. Banks is worth more than Walton, and plays a position the Lakers need. Stewart sucks, but his contract is expiring. Like HKF said, his contract could easily be used to trade to a team like Atlanta at the deadline who are always looking to get money off the books.


And it's worth saying twice, too.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

Get this deal done now!!!

Good lord, Lakers would finally stop to the onslaught from from opposing teams speedsters.


----------



## U reach. I teach (May 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>SacKings384</b>!
> Why the hell are the Celtics so stupid?



This is all based on the idea that Payton will report. I agree though, it gives them a lot of good swing men, but I still wouldn't do it if I were them. They deserve it though with how bad they raped us in the Payton deal . :grinning: Nice club by the way.




And not only is Luke overrated, but like EHL mentioned, he's probably not re-signing next year. Too many big spenders out there for him to take our LLE to be our third string SF. I would love for him to be our long-term Back-up for Lamar if Butler is moved, but I'd much rather have banks


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

> Tell me about it. For crying out loud, this is Luke Walton, a SF that without a doubt will be getting no minutes ahead of much better players in Odom in Butler. Kobe become a PG? Jesus Christ, what? Kobe is an SG, he could play some SF (ha, no, logjam already), but he is by no means a point guard. He can only defend the 1 in spot minutes, not all game long, not even for 25 or 30 minutes. Banks is shorter version of Kobe, but faster and quicker. He is already a very good defender at 22 and was the leader in steals per 48 last season. Can create off the dribble and slash very well when he isn't turning the ball over.
> 
> Good lord, I can't believe ANYONE would be against a trade that gets a 3rd and 4th string SF off the team back for a 22 year old *lock down defender* and an expiring contract. If it happens, Mitch will have more than redeemed himself, and will only need to find an impact defensive big man that can swat some to make a run after this season.


The overuse of the phrase "lock down defender" needs to stop. There are only 3 or 4 lock down defenders in the entire league, and Banks isn't one of them.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> 
> 
> The overuse of the phrase "lock down defender" needs to stop. There are only 3 or 4 lock down defenders in the entire league, and Banks isn't one of them.


I definitely agree that "lock down defender" is overused quite a bit and that Banks is not one, there definitely are more than 3 or 4.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> 
> 
> Let's not go hipster just because walton is overrated. George is not as good as Walton, based on their polar opposite basketball IQs alone.


Backup your statement some more please. Walton does have a better basketball IQ, but George was often the best perimeter defender, 3 point shooter and always the top hustler in the starting lineup.

Sure the gap is wide in BBall IQ, but the gap is just as wide in athleticism and defense. Shooting and rebounding are about even.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> 
> 
> The overuse of the phrase "lock down defender" needs to stop. There are only 3 or 4 lock down defenders in the entire league, and Banks isn't one of them.


As hobojoe said, there are more than 3 or 4 lock down defenders in the league, don't know what on earth has made you think there are that few. Lock down defenders are defenders that can keep players from getting their averages, often significantly reducing their efficiency. Off the bench, Banks is probably the fastest, strongest, and quickest defending PG in the league. So yes, at his position, you could consider him a lock down defender. His steals stats are hard to ignore, too.


----------



## Lynx (Mar 6, 2004)

Well, if you guys are so eager, why not give away Jumaine Jones to Celtics instead of Luke?


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Lynx</b>!
> Well, if you guys are so eager, why not give away Jumaine Jones to Celtics instead of Luke?


Because Jermaine Jones provides none of the skills the Celtics need. If Payton reports, the Celtics would be overstocked at the 1; Payton, West, Allen, and Banks. Payton would start and rookie Delonte West would back him up and learn from him. Allen would be a 3rd string PG off the bench, mostly for his defense, and that leaves Banks as 4th string PG, making him highly expendable. If the Celtics trade Banks for Walton, their 1 spot is still fine because it's still 3 quality deep, and they gain a much needed passer with high bball IQ and good all around game in Walton. The Celtics desperately need players who can pass and who promote ball movement. Walton provides that at the 3 perfectly, and can even play some backup minutes at the 4 in the East.


----------



## Real McCoy (Oct 17, 2003)

The Celtics traded Jumaine Jones to the Lakers. Why would the Lakers trade him right back? That doesn't make any sense. :krazy:


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Lynx</b>!
> Well, if you guys are so eager, why not give away Jumaine Jones to Celtics instead of Luke?


Jumaine Jones was just traded from the Celtics to the Lakers. Under the CBA, a player cannot be traded back to his original team within the year (July 1-June 30).


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

I think people are way overhyping Walton's upside. I really don't think he's ever gonna be any better than he already is. He can't defend anyone. He has no postion on the court he's only a spot sub for short minutes because once the starters return he can't guard anyone. 

Walton is what he is a crafty passer with no jumpshot ,no defense and some rebound ability. He's not gonna become this star or anything. 

Losing George is a negative because he was still better than Jones and Walton as a player. George is a player capable of playing 25-30 minutes a night and capable of having big games from time to time. Jones nor Walton are capable of playing more than 10 minutes a night. George has logged quality minutes in big situations. I don't like him either but he is an asset for any team because he can play some. Walton or Jones are very limited. 

Banks gives us the defender and ball pusher we need. Banks could wreak havoc defensively. And without a shot blocker we're gonna need great perimter defenders


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

jazzy1, I disagree about Jermaine Jones' usefulness. If Walton and George are indeed traded, that would place Jones as 3rd string SF. In that role, plus maybe some spot 4 minutes, he'd be a very good 3 point shooter. Jones was used as an effective long range shooter for a couple years. Lakers desperately need long range shooters, as Slava, Kobe and Rush are the only ones, and Slava isn't going to see much PT if Malone comes back.


----------



## Ben1 (May 20, 2003)

I just don't get how any Laker fans would not actually want this trade to happen. We get rid of 2 players in a very crowded position and get a player that fills our most desperate need at the point. Plus we actually get an expiring contract as well.

And I agree with jazzy1 in that losing George is a negative for us, as he has shown he's capable of contributing much (although not exactly a whole lot, and makes more than a handful of mistakes all the time).


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

By the way, I meant to post this in my first post, but was sidetracked by all the Luke Walton love.

Marcus Banks isn't going to be a Laker folks, lets just move on.

If Payton does report, the Celtics owe us nothing. The deal was agreed to compensate for Payton's uncertainity. 

I have no doubts that 5 years from now we will still be discussing possible Marcus Banks trades.


----------



## jstempi (Jul 23, 2003)

THROW BRIAN COOK INTO THIS TRADE PLEASE!!!


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Jamel Irief</b>!
> By the way, I meant to post this in my first post, but was sidetracked by all the Luke Walton love.
> 
> Marcus Banks isn't going to be a Laker folks, lets just move on.
> ...


Actually no, the source that is talking about this trade (Luke+George for Banks+Yogi) is the same source that first broke the news about the Lakers being in talks with the Celtics for Mihm, Atkins and Banks back in August. According to that source, if Payton reports there's a very good possibility this trade goes down. Remember, Payton reporting would give the Celtics 4 point guards (Payton, West, Allen, and Banks), so the Celtics can certainly part with a PG this season without it affecting their PG depth, especially since Allen is a very very capable defender.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Is that the same source who came up with this variation- http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=1458217#post1458217

So this dude has come up with 3 different Banks trades so far and only one went thru. I would stop taking his word now.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Jamel Irief</b>!
> Is that the same source who came up with this variation- http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=1458217#post1458217
> 
> So this dude has come up with 3 different Banks trades so far and only one went thru. I would stop taking his word now.


What are you talking about? That was barely a month ago, who says it won't go through when we don't even know the actual conversations Mitch and Ainge are having? For all we know they've been flip flopping ideas back and forth to each other and the latest idea is Walton-George for Banks-Yogi.


----------



## Lynx (Mar 6, 2004)

Do the trade. 

:|


----------



## emplay (Jun 9, 2003)

No I'm not the guy who came up with 3 different Banks to LA trades - I pointed out something in that thread that made no sense - LA can't send back Jumaine Jones - cba rules - thus it'd have to be the trade x - which wasn't going to happen.

I'm the first reporter to run the original trade 2 days before it happened.

I got some information that the second deal is being discussed - I've spent the entire summer saying that banks would not be a laker once the deal was amended.

We'll see what happens - but I don't think you have to look far to get a consensus that I post reliable information.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>emplay</b>!
> No I'm not the guy who came up with 3 different Banks to LA trades - I pointed out something in that thread that made no sense - LA can't send back Jumaine Jones - cba rules - thus it'd have to be the trade x - which wasn't going to happen.
> 
> I'm the first reporter to run the original trade 2 days before it happened.
> ...


I'm confused? Are you also Hov? I thought Hov was breaking this news but maybe you and EHL know each other and he was refering to you when he was talking about the guy who reported the trade?

Maybe you have a site that Hov got that rumor off of? Clue me in because I am lost.


----------



## Hov (Aug 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Jamel Irief</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm confused? Are you also Hov? I thought Hov was breaking this news but maybe you and EHL know each other and he was refering to you when he was talking about the guy who reported the trade?
> ...


actually I got the link from LG (posted by emplay)

emplay's a pretty credible guy. He's the one who wrote the article too I think.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Oh, I see what you're saying Jamel. emplay has, in fact, only told us about two Celtic rumors; the orginal Boston-Laker trade, which went through (but was then amended), and now this Walton-George for Banks-Yogi trade.


----------



## Truth34 (May 28, 2003)

*Thanks Mitch, we'll take this, too*



> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> Because the switch would basically amount to Walton for Banks, two good players. Lakers have less need for Walton because they are deep at that position. Banks plays PG, which they do need, and he has at least equal upside to Walton.
> 
> The other switch would be George for Yogi, which is a no brainer. George is overpaid, for way too long, and has the basketball IQ of pond slime.
> I can see why either team could like the first switch, but the second is a complete steal for the Lakers. Which is why I wonder what Boston is thinking (not that Ainge has shown in ability to think in the past).


I love reading posts like this.

Did anybody watch the NBA Finals? Luke Walton was the only guy who played a complete game, and was the reason you won Game 2. He's the best player in this proposed trade.

Basketball IQ of pond scum? Yep, that describes Devean....and Marcus to a T. 

Ainge not a thinker? What does that make Mitch? :laugh:


----------



## U reach. I teach (May 24, 2003)

*Re: Thanks Mitch, we'll take this, too*



> Originally posted by <b>Truth34</b>!
> 
> 
> I love reading posts like this.
> ...


Not sure what your point is, but is it safe to assume you like this trade?


----------



## Truth34 (May 28, 2003)

*Yes, I do*

I like Luke Walton and I think Marcus would be a good fit with LA. So yes, I like the deal for both teams.


----------

