# Jason Kidd Trade?



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

*Rumor: Jason Kidd Trade*

Anyone catch this?


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Now they're trying to involve the Portland Trail Blazers.

Trading Magloire to the Lakers, who is then re-routed to the Nets. I have no clue how this would work.

I'm assuming Portland would end up with pieces from both Nets and the Lakers.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

It'd probably be two trades, somewhat like the Denver-Patterson trade last year.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Where did you hear that Portland was involved?


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

David Aldridge said something of it in the AS game.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Hmmmm, I wonder who we would want from them that would be reasonable.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=1031~549~934~498&teams=22~22~22~13

Add in a 2nd round draft pick from the Lakers.

Lakers then send Magloire, Jordan Farmar, filler, and a 1st round pick to the Nets.


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

How about this?

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=498~981~3002~1016~429&teams=17~17~17~22~13


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

yuyuza1 said:


> How about this?
> 
> http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=498~981~3002~1016~429&teams=17~17~17~22~13



Not bad. The way Aldridge put it made it seem like it was a 2-part deal. Magloire to the lakers for something, then Magloire + other stuff to the Nets for Kidd.


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

Samuel said:


> Not bad. The way Aldridge put it made it seem like it was a 2-part deal. Magloire to the lakers for something, then Magloire + other stuff to the Nets for Kidd.



Oh... I couldn't hear too properly as people were screaming. I just got a sight of Vlad's contract. MLE for 5 years!

Maybe it's possible.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

yuyuza1 said:


> How about this?
> 
> http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=498~981~3002~1016~429&teams=17~17~17~22~13


Thats a pretty even trade all around if you ask me. I like it a lot.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I am hesitant to take on a player who is making the MLE for five seasons after this one and is not getting 7 points per game.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

There aren't a lot of players that I would take from the Lakers. At least not any that they'd be willing to give up.


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> I am hesitant to take on a player who is making the MLE for five seasons after this one and is not getting 7 points per game.



Good Point. 

Here's a variation. http://games.espn.go.com/nba/featur...981~3002~549~2027~429&teams=17~17~17~22~22~13

We could let Mihm walk, but sign Walton for the MLE. It'd be hard to keep Outlaw AND Ime then. Seems too complicated, but I love the speculation.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I would love to get Walton. Sadly, I can not see the Lakers deal him.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> I would love to get Walton. Sadly, I can not see the Lakers deal him.


I'd hope that Walton wouldn't be a deal breaker. I like Walton, and think he's a very underrated player, but if he's the best player you give up to get Jason Kidd, you don't hold back.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

well Vrad is scoring more than jamaal isnt he a sf?


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

Radmanovic is overpaid and streaky. Luke Walton is an alright role player, but isn't a massive upgrade over Udoka. Neither seems to be worth so much that we should help the Lakers become a title contender.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Magloire for Radmanovic and Shammond Williams (expiring)

then:

Magloire (8,433,334 expiring) +
Chris Mihm (4,214,241 expiring) +
Aaron McKie (2,500,000 expiring, waived trade restriction) +
Jordan Farmar (939,120) +
Ronny Turiaf (664,209) +
Mo Evans (1,620,000)
and the Lakers' first round pick.

for

Jason Kidd (18,084,000)

The contracts are within 107.96% of each other.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Samuel said:


> Magloire for Radmanovic and Shammond Williams (expiring)
> 
> then:
> 
> ...


If the Lakers end up with Kidd, they had better be giving up either Odom, Bynum, and at the very least Walton.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

maybe we get a pick too?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

craigehlo said:


> Radmanovic is overpaid and streaky. Luke Walton is an alright role player, but isn't a massive upgrade over Udoka. Neither seems to be worth so much that we should help the Lakers become a title contender.


That trade won't make them a title contender. Who do they have to guard Dirk, Stoudemire or Duncan? No way they're a title contender just because they get a solid, but not spectacular (anymore) point guard.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Adding Luke Walton to a Nate McMillan offense would be like putting 20 pound shoes on a turtle.

Thanks, but no thanks. I like Luke Walton, but his success is entirely predicated on the system he plays in. If you put him here, we'd get zero benefit. McMillan's offense thrives off of 1-on-1 players and spot-up shooters. Luke Walton is neither.

-Pop


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

craigehlo said:


> Radmanovic is overpaid and streaky. Luke Walton is an alright role player, but isn't a massive upgrade over Udoka. Neither seems to be worth so much that we should help the Lakers become a title contender.


don't sell Luke Walton short. He averages more points, more rebounds, more assists and shoots better from the floor (both 2 and 3). His efficiency rating is higher too


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Another possibility:

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/featur...ers=549~539~498&sendto=22~22~13&from=13~13~22

Magloire for Mihm (exp.), McKie (exp.), and their first round draft pick.

then Magloire + Kwame Brown + 2nd round draft picks to New Jersey for Jason Kidd.

Blazers still get cap relief, plus another pick to play with. They can waive Mihm and McKie, who can both go back to LA (a la Stacey Augmon).


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I would rather add Kwame Brown to this team than Rad Man.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Personally, I don't think there's any chance of a Kidd deal with LA without Bynum being involved. I mean, obviously the Lakers won't give up Bryant, and Odom doesn't make the Nets better if they lose Kidd. Bynum gives them a valuable young player to start to rebuild around if they're giving up their current "window."


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

SheedSoNasty said:


> If the Lakers end up with Kidd, they had better be giving up either Odom, Bynum, and at the very least Walton.


They don't want Odom, so scratch that.

Remember that the Nets are the team desperate to get this deal done, not the Lakers. That's how Iverson ends up getting traded for Andre Miller. Think of the Nets as Memphis. Carter is leaving, either via trade or free agency this summer, and now Rod Thorn is trying to move Jason Kidd while he still has some meat left on his deal (2 years). 

Untouchables on the Lakers: Andrew Bynum and Kobe Bryant. Everyone else is in play, although I'm not sure that the Nets would want Lamar Odom. 

If this deal gets done (unlikely, as we've heard about it already), it'll involve the trifecta: (relatively) young prospects (Brown), expiring deals (Magloire), and picks. If the Lakers want to involve the Blazers, they'll need to involve picks too.

Either the Lakers or the Blazers will get a future first.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

edit.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

Samuel said:


> They don't want Odom, so scratch that.
> 
> Remember that the Nets are the team desperate to get this deal done, not the Lakers. That's how Iverson ends up getting traded for Andre Miller. Think of the Nets as Memphis. Carter is leaving, either via trade or free agency this summer, and now Rod Thorn is trying to move Jason Kidd while he still has some meat left on his deal (2 years).
> 
> ...


The Lakers would have to give Portland a large incentive to get involved in this deal. A player and first rounder is not all that appealing. Make the deal larger and have them take on Miles as well! Something like this with the Lakers also sending pick(s) to NJ;

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/featur...1016~934~429&teams=17~13~22~17~17~22~22~17~13


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

BIG Q said:


> The Lakers would have to give Portland a large incentive to get involved in this deal. A player and first rounder is not all that appealing. Make the deal larger and have them take on Miles as well! Something like this with the Lakers also sending pick(s) to NJ;
> 
> http://games.espn.go.com/nba/featur...1016~934~429&teams=17~13~22~17~17~22~22~17~13


The incentive to get involved is the pick. If this trade is about to get done at the deadline, then it passes, Portland will buy out Magloire and get nothing.

The reason why Portland nixed the Nene deal is they didn't want to take on a big contract for Magloire. Picks are a cheap way to add talent without taking on any salary. Plus they make great trading chips when it comes to draft time.

Let's compare:

Feb 22:
Portland could possibly recieve a 1st round pick for Magloire.

Feb 23: 
Portland doesn't get anything for Magloire.

The Lakers would be insane to take on Darius Miles. They're just getting out from underneath Brian Grant's bloated deal, they don't need to add another 27 million over 3 years to the fire.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

The lakers have nothing we can use.

Nothing at all.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> The lakers have nothing we can use.
> 
> Nothing at all.


You wouldn't take a first round pick back? 

Really?


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Chris Sheridan Chat said:


> Brendan (Australia): What about that 3-way blazers/Nets/Lakers??? Any legs?
> 
> SportsNation Chris Sheridan: (10:33 PM ET ) No legs, according to Rod Thorn.


Too bad. I was hoping we might get a pick back.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Samuel said:


> You wouldn't take a first round pick back?
> 
> Really?


I may be wrong but I don't think you can trade a salary for just a pick, so no.

Magloire's value to us is his EXPIRING salary which comes off our cap. 

Taking on a Laker scrub would nullify that advantage.

I say trade Raef to the Lakers.:biggrin:


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I would deal Magloire to LAL for Brown and their 1st round pick. Kwame is an underachiever, but he is not a bad center. He also expires the same year as Raef, and we should make a splash in FA that offseason.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> I would deal Magloire to LAL for Brown and their 1st round pick. Kwame is an underachiever, but he is not a bad center. He also expires the same year as Raef, and we should make a splash in FA that offseason.


I'd be okay with that deal but I'd hold off on hopes of the Blazers ever making a splash with free agents. It never really happened in the what, twenty some-odd years of consistent playoff appearances? Even if/when the Blazers are again defending a title I wouldn't count on big name free agents wanting to come here.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Samuel said:


> They don't want Odom, so scratch that.
> 
> Remember that the Nets are the team desperate to get this deal done, not the Lakers. That's how Iverson ends up getting traded for Andre Miller. Think of the Nets as Memphis. Carter is leaving, either via trade or free agency this summer, and now Rod Thorn is trying to move Jason Kidd while he still has some meat left on his deal (2 years).
> 
> ...


I was thinking more along the lines of us getting Odom and throwing in either Martell or Outlaw.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> I may be wrong but I don't think you can trade a salary for just a pick, so no.
> 
> Magloire's value to us is his EXPIRING salary which comes off our cap.
> 
> ...


In my estimation, Portland moves Magloire for Mihm (who expires after this season), McKie (who expires after this season), and the pick. The Lakers do it because Magloire's salary is over 20% larger than the sum of McKie and Mihm, and gets them 1.7 million dollars closer to the $15,100,00 contract sum that they need to send out in order to net Kidd. 

By sending out Magloire, they only need to include 6,666,666 dollars (ooh, creepy) of their own contracts, as opposed to the 8.3 million they'd need to include before the Magloire trade.


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

SheedSoNasty said:


> I was thinking more along the lines of us getting Odom and throwing in either Martell or Outlaw.


i'd throw in outlaw. not martell though, whats the odds we resign travis anyways?


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Transcript: ""Now the Los Angeles Lakers have been trying to get him traded
but guys I'm told that even though they haven't gotten much done with the Nets so far,
they're trying to keep the talks alive.
Now they're trying to involve the Portland Trail Blazers.
The main piece would be reserve center Jamaal Magloire,
who would wind up going to Los Angeles and then be re-routed along with other players to New Jersey for Kidd
No word on whether New Jersey would be interested in something like that..."


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Samuel said:


> Transcript: ""Now the Los Angeles Lakers have been trying to get him traded
> but guys I'm told that even though they haven't gotten much done with the Nets so far,
> they're trying to keep the talks alive.
> Now they're trying to involve the Portland Trail Blazers.
> ...


It's slow enough around here... the slightest hint of anything will get people talking.

I like it!


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

Odom was the kind of small forward I would love to have... when he played for the Clips. I don't know if he's still that guy. Seems like he changed after he went to Miami.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

well if the lakers trade their picture to nets and the nets trade their pick to us that would be nice.

23.LA Lakers Darrell Arthur 6-9 230 PF Kansas Fr.
14. New Jersey Aaron Gray 7-1 280 C Pittsburgh Sr.

maybe we send out a second rounder

wonder were the dixon trade fits?


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Well we will see what happens. The trade that was up above with Maurice Evans and Shammond Williams completely blows though, Shammond is lucky to be in the NBA. I wouldn't mind Walton or maybe Brian Cook. As for Radmonovich, please no. That guy has the worst defense in the NBA.

I also could see LA moving Walton if Pippen was to come out of retirement and join them.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

if the Lakers can trade for Kidd, and it doesn't involve Walton going out (considering they aren't trading Bynum, Odom or Bryant) than there should be no help from Portland.

That's not saying that Walton is the "gem" (or that MaGloire is great0, but good lord..we don't need Derek Anderson part two (Smush), or Richard Anderson (Radmonovich) or Cook. We don't need to be doing the heavy lifting so that the Lakers benefit. Getting rid of MaGloire shouldn't be that much of a priority that we take on crap and help the enemy.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

> As for Radmonovich, please no. That guy has the worst defense in the NBA.



You do realize that Zach Randolph is still in the NBA don't you? 


In all seriousness, if Portland could get it's hands on Walton, Brown , or obviously Bynum then do it.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

I read on hoopshype that LA's not willing to part with Odom, Walton, or Bynum.

If they're serious about getting Kidd, they had better start considering more options.

Also, if that's going to be the case, I'd rather see the Blazers just wait out Magloire's contract until it expires.


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

SheedSoNasty said:


> I read on hoopshype that LA's not willing to part with Odom, Walton, or Bynum.
> 
> If they're serious about getting Kidd, they had better start considering more options.
> 
> Also, if that's going to be the case, I'd rather see the Blazers just wait out Magloire's contract until it expires.


If those are the three that are untouchable....
Then why don't they just trade Bryant for Kidd :biggrin:


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> You do realize that Zach Randolph is still in the NBA don't you?
> 
> 
> In all seriousness, if Portland could get it's hands on Walton, Brown , or obviously Bynum then do it.


I do realize Zbo is in the NBA. I also realize that every once in a blue moon, Zbo actually tries and makes a play. Even when Radmonovich tries, he can't.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

SheedSoNasty said:


> I read on hoopshype that LA's not willing to part with Odom, Walton, or Bynum.


that'd be like us asking the Nets to take Miles, Magloire and Dixon for Kidd. 

well, actually, it'd be worse than that. Who the hell else is on the Lakers team that's worth squat? We know Bryant ain't being traded, so that leaves a very small # of players on the Lakers. 


> If they're serious about getting Kidd, they had better start considering more options.


or they'll get used to not having kidd on their team.

Mitch K: "Ok Rod, you can have your pick of the rest of team...minus the only 4 players anyone wants of course"

Rod: Sure sounds like a good deal. But it depends. Whats the weather report for thursday?

Mitch K: "Oh, it's supposed to be sunny, why?"

Rod: Ooh, sorry. I was under the impression that hell was going to freeze over this thursday.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Actually from what I read NJ is in cost cutting mode for their move across town. That is why expiring contracts are important. The quality of the players probably doesn't matter at all, its just about getting the numbers lower on the books. They will probably trade Kidd, let Vince opt out and not resign him. And fall into the bottom of the NBA and hope for a good draft pick.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Maybe we should try to rent out Carter for a few months just to boost ticket sales... I'm sure he wouldn't re-sign with us anyway.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

hasoos said:


> Actually from what I read NJ is in cost cutting mode for their move across town.


Why?

Are U-Haul rates higher out East? :whoknows:


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Hap said:


> Mitch K: "Ok Rod, you can have your pick of the rest of team...minus the only 4 players anyone wants of course"


Or you can keep paying 1/4th of your payroll to a guy who keeps your team in the headlines...of the National Enquirer.:biggrin:


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> Magloire for Mihm (exp.), McKie (exp.), and their first round draft pick.
> 
> then Magloire + Kwame Brown + 2nd round draft picks to New Jersey for Jason Kidd.
> 
> Blazers still get cap relief, plus another pick to play with. They can waive Mihm and McKie, who can both go back to LA (a la Stacey Augmon).


I think this is close to the deal...if there is one to be made...I would add Jordan Farmar going to NJ as well...

and Mihm would be useful to POR....


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

Good idea, Samuel, trading Magloire to Lakers for the first round pick and expiring contracts. I think this is the only trade Portland would do. However, it seems New Jersey would want that pick, so maybe it would have to be a 2009 pick for us, and as you point out, that is better than nothing. I don't think we should factor in whether it helps the Lakers or not. We just need to do what will help Portland.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

come on Luke would love to be coached by lucas and by the first team his dad won a championship with! Just think Walton (bill) could put us on national tv so he could cover his son as a guest commontator!


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Actually, I am rephrasing my intitial post on further thought...I feel pretty confident that is something that POR would like for being included in this deal, but I have to wonder why the LAkers would even include POR?

They already have Mihm and McKie's deals to send to NJ...perhaps NJ wants 1-2 young players, picks and everything else to be expiring...SO they want to send Magliore AND Mihm, Mckie, etc...

If that is the case, I don't see any reason for POR to get involved...

Radmanovic? Yuck...especially since he has 5 years left on his contract...The team already has one....play no defense...offensive chucker...on the team, they don't need another....

Kwame? Maybe....he is only 24...but has been a pretty big dissapointment...Maybe mgmt feels he is worth taking a flyer on....

I don't see anyone else from the Lakers, who is reasonably available....who would be of remote interestr to POR


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Ukrainefan said:


> Good idea, Samuel, trading Magloire to Lakers for the first round pick and expiring contracts. I think this is the only trade Portland would do. However, it seems New Jersey would want that pick, so maybe it would have to be a 2009 pick for us, and as you point out, that is better than nothing. I don't think we should factor in whether it helps the Lakers or not. We just need to do what will help Portland.


Thank you! Someone else gets it!

They need us because they can upgrade their expiring money by trading for Magloire with the 125% rule, and we need them because we're about to buy out Magloire anyway.

It's not like we'd keep the Lakers around. Mihm and McKie's chances of remaining on the team next year are the same as Magloire's.

I'd even think about it if it was just 2nd round picks. Let's get something for Magloire, after all, it took Steve Blake to get him.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> If that is the case, I don't see any reason for POR to get involved...


If the Lakers sent Mihm and McKie (both expiring) to Portland, the Blazers allow the Lakers to increase their expiring money by 1.7 million (120%), which gets them only 6.66 million away from the 15.1m mark they have to reach.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I dont see the Lakers trading an expiring contract and a 1st rounder for another expiring contract. I think the Blazers should take on Kwame as long as LAL gives us their 1st round pick.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> I dont see the Lakers trading an expiring contract and a 1st rounder for another expiring contract. I think the Blazers should take on Kwame as long as LAL gives us their 1st round pick.


And take on Dixon or Dickau and send $3 mil cash to offset Kwame's over paid contract!


----------

