# JO to LA (with link)



## gi0rdun (May 31, 2007)

http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_a...cials_convinced_jermaine_to_la_will_get_done/


----------



## DANNY (Aug 9, 2005)

WTF lamar and bynum...


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

If were giving up Lamar and Bynum for JO they better damm well be sure were getting Artest right after although i dont think JO want to play with Ron Ron again after everything that went down!

Walton and 19th for Artest


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

If it's true, I hope it works out. My feeling all along is that I wanted to send only one or the other (preferably Bynum) but not both.

I guess it's just a 'wait and see' game now.


----------



## DANNY (Aug 9, 2005)

Basel57 said:


> If it's true, I hope it works out. My feeling all along is that I wanted to send only one or the other (preferably Bynum) but not both.
> 
> I guess it's just a 'wait and see' game now.


like you mentioned it's definitely a waiting game. It's a push-and-pull situation where a team who's more desperate will budge in. It aint looking good for the Lakers since Kobe made some public demands for immediate changes. If the lakers don't pull the string within the next few weeks, kobe might go crazy on air again.


----------



## DANNY (Aug 9, 2005)

this means we'll be keeping our #19 pick?

I have a feeling Jeff Green will fall to us

It happened to Gerald so why not Jeff


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

Can't believe Lakers are actually going to do this, if the reports are true. You'd think Kobe would be definitely demanding out if this falls through, unless we get some decent pieces with this deal, besides just O'neal.

Of course, Kobe and O'neal are good friends, and he may like it just because of that.


----------



## Showtime87 (Jun 27, 2005)

So essentially we're looking at trading Odom and Bynum for O'Neal and Artest. And that's a good thing because...? Obviously this means Luke Walton moves on which basically leaves this team in the same position as before. Losing Odom, Bynum and Walton, while adding O'Neal and Artest is pretty much a lateral move in my opinion. You get slightly better at each position, but you lose a budding star in Andrew Bynum and a solid triangle-savvy forward in Luke Walton. That's another thing people seem to be forgetting when Ron Artest is mentioned, will he be able to adapt to the triangle? I know Kobe likes him and I like his game as well, but he's been extremely inconsistent since arriving in Sacramento and they have had one of the league's most free-form offenses. If the first domino falls and they do deal Odom and Bynum for O'Neal, the Lakers front office had better have a damn good idea of exactly where to go from there because by no means will that be improving this team for next season.


----------



## koberules24 (Nov 12, 2006)

The only reason Bynum's in the rumor is b/c the Lakers need to match salaries and b/c it's believed that the Pacers would want to dump Jamaal Tinsley's salary on the Lakers in the deal. It's unlikely the Lakers would deal both since the Pacers would also have to take back a salary burden player as well (Radmanovic).


----------



## DANNY (Aug 9, 2005)

koberules24 said:


> The only reason *Bynum's* in the rumor is b/c the Lakers need to match salaries and b/c it's believed that the Pacers would want to dump Jamaal Tinsley's salary on the Lakers in the deal. It's unlikely the Lakers would deal both since the Pacers would also have to take back a salary burden player as well (Radmanovic).


you mean odom right?

I don't understand why the pacers wouldnt want Kwame and his expiring contract

IMO, the only reason the lakers are giving up odom is because they dont want to tie up 50 million to three players.


----------



## DANNY (Aug 9, 2005)

Eternal said:


> Can't believe Lakers are actually going to do this, if the reports are true. You'd think Kobe would be definitely demanding out if this falls through, unless we get some decent pieces with this deal, besides just O'neal.
> 
> Of course, Kobe and O'neal are good friends, and he may like it just because of that.


I feel you man

the lakers arent improving much via this trade


----------



## KDOS (Nov 29, 2005)

CubanLaker said:


> If were giving up Lamar and Bynum for JO *they better damm well be sure were getting Artest right after* although i dont think JO want to play with Ron Ron again after everything that went down!


Exactly!


...I dont care If we package Lamar and Bynum for JO, as long as we're getting that third impact player.

But in all honesty, I thought we would give either LO or Drew in this deal, but never in my imagination the Lakers would actually ship both. This is such a BAD trade for us, we can get a better package than O'Neal for both players.


I hope we can get another player in this deal that will help us in this trade immediately, (hopefully Danny Granger), but thats a long shot.


----------



## Showtime87 (Jun 27, 2005)

The worst thing about this trade is that if it does involve Odom and Bynum their contracts combined match Jermaine O'Neal's, but would not allow for another player of any significance to be included. The Lakers would have to add yet another player in order to receive somebody like Granger in return with O'Neal. It's just horrible any way you look at it.


----------



## KDOS (Nov 29, 2005)

Why do I have this feeling that O'Neal will be injured as a Laker next season, while Bynum will break out in Indiana and Odom will become an All Star in the East.


The media will then attack Kobe for opening his mouth and pressuring the F/O for making a trade.


Oh well...I hope im wrong.


----------



## KDOS (Nov 29, 2005)

Showtime87 said:


> The worst thing about this trade is that if it does involve Odom and Bynum their contracts combined match Jermaine O'Neal's, but would not allow for another player of any significance to be included. The Lakers would have to add yet another player in order to receive somebody like Granger in return with O'Neal. It's just horrible any way you look at it.


Fine, we'll ship Cook too.


----------



## koberules24 (Nov 12, 2006)

dannyM said:


> you mean odom right?
> 
> I don't understand why the pacers wouldnt want Kwame and his expiring contract
> 
> IMO, the only reason the lakers are giving up odom is because they dont want to tie up 50 million to three players.


No, Odom's already pretty much been established as the main part of our package. Beggers can't be choosers, and for that matter neither can the Pacers. I still don't think they'll give up both seeing how they'd be giving up their two best trading chips. Kwame is more likely to go than Bynum. Remember these "reports" are also written by people who don't think very highly of the Lakers, hence they think they would be that desperate (which is entirely possible).


----------



## Showtime87 (Jun 27, 2005)

Odom and Bynum for O'Neal and Granger works and would be much more palatable. But I still don't like it given Bynum's enormous upside and likelyhood of blossoming in the eastern conference as you mentioned.


----------



## KDOS (Nov 29, 2005)

In all honesty though, if the Indy deal goes through, I dont think Luke is going somewhere, Phil will insist on Walton remaining as a Laker, being that we just lost a point forward type of player in Odom, so I dont see any possibilities of the Ron Artest trade, unless we somehow convince Sacramento in taking Radmanovic or Kwame (expiring),and our 1st rd pick. Maybe they'll ask for Farmar too, seeing that Bibby and the Maloofs are really not in good terms. 


In reality, we dont have much leverage in trading anymore if we give up Odom and Bynum at the same time, so we as fans have to settle in trusting Mitch Kupchak and Jim Buss in making some minor clever moves*



(*see McKie, Vlade Divac, and Jimmy Jackson in the past)


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

if i was kobe and I saw this trade, I wouldnt want to stay either.


----------



## noballer07 (Jul 4, 2006)

Do ya'll really trust this rumor? I mean come on, maybe it's just me, but its RealGM.com. They're not the most reliable, and you might want to trace back to the page where the rumor comes from.


----------



## SoCalfan21 (Jul 19, 2004)

if we got Granger AND JO for LO and Bynum I would love that trade. Granger is a great player and played great the last half of the season last year.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Hahaha you think Indiana would throw in Granger just like that, lets be serious. Granger is the most valueable chip Indiana has and they are not trading him to trade O'Neal who attracts offers anyway.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

What are we really losing? The Kobe/Odom duo has produced nothing. Is giving it another year really going to change things? I don't think so. We just don't have the pieces needed to upgrade the rest of the roster.

We need defensive upgrades, not so much offensive upgrades. JO provides that and Odom never will be able to. That's why he is more valuable. Get JO and a defensive point guard (Duhon?) and sign a guy like Pietrus for the MLE and our defense just got a whole lot better, while our offense really wouldn't suffer.

And one other point I would like to address. Odom in his three seasons before joining the Lakers shot 42, 44 and 43 percent (while missing a lot of games) Think about that before complaining about JO's percentage.


----------



## Silk D (Feb 6, 2006)

Amareca said:


> Hahaha you think Indiana would throw in Granger just like that, lets be serious. Granger is the most valueable chip Indiana has and they are not trading him to trade O'Neal who attracts offers anyway.



hate to say it, but he's right. they're probably holding on to Granger tighter than anybody else on their roster.

I don't understand why the pacers would want LO. I mean, he's got a few years left on his deal, and there is no way he would want to be part of this youth movement at the age of 30. wouldn't they rather have a big expiring and let their future front court of Granger-Diago-Bynum develop? If all goes well, in a few years, that front court will dominate the east. mabye it's cause buss doesn't want LO's contract either after taking on Jerm's. mabye it's just wishful thinking. 

I really, really don't like this deal for the lakers.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> What are we really losing? The Kobe/Odom duo has produced nothing. Is giving it another year really going to change things? I don't think so. We just don't have the pieces needed to upgrade the rest of the roster.
> 
> We need defensive upgrades, not so much offensive upgrades. JO provides that and Odom never will be able to. That's why he is more valuable. Get JO and a defensive point guard (Duhon?) and sign a guy like Pietrus for the MLE and our defense just got a whole lot better, while our offense really wouldn't suffer.
> 
> And one other point I would like to address. Odom in his three seasons before joining the Lakers shot 42, 44 and 43 percent (while missing a lot of games) Think about that before complaining about JO's percentage.



Yeah I've sorta come to this sorta thinking myself, I was against moving odom for JO for the longest because I didn't think it was that much of an upgrade but realistically its time to get a different look offensively. JO is primarily a low post scorer and he does block shots so he'd give us a legit scoring big who can block shots weakside. 

I think with Kobe as the 1st option his fg% could rise some. JO generally has been a blackhole and momentum killer as a player because he takes too many bad shots but with Kobe he'd have less pressure which might help him plus he'd compete against the Boozers, the Amare's, the Duncan's and the Yao's of the world offensively. 

I'd balk at tossing in Bynum just for business purposes I'd consider giving up our 1st but not Bynum. Pacers don't have a 1st rd pick this season. I'm not gonna give them a frontline because in the East Odom as an asset could be more valuable. As does Bynum who's lack of strength wouldn't be as much of a detriment. 

I like the Duhon option as a defender but I'd rather gamble on Artest for Luke if we could. Pietrus doesn't shoot it well enough and with he and Duhon the defense would smother Kobe even more. 

I also keep Farmar unless the deal for him is real sweet the kid I think becomes a real player in the next couple years he works almost as hard as Kobe and its gonna start paying off.


----------



## Showtime87 (Jun 27, 2005)

Maybe it's unrealistic thinking, but if I'm the Lakers and I'm going to give up not only my secondary scoring option and double-digit rebounder Lamar Odom, as well as my future star center who is only 19 years-old and already shown signs of future brilliance I think I'd want a little more than just one aging veteran player in return who is arguably on the decline. I would never do this deal unless it was expanded to include a player like Granger. If the Pacers want a quality, coveted commodity in today's NBA such as Andrew Bynum they're just going to have to part with a player of Granger's calibur. Granger has great upside, but he will never be as valuable as Bynum should he fulfill his potential and become a 20-10-3 per game producer. This is simply Indiana holding a gun to Kupchak's head and him allowing this franchise to be taken advantage of out of fear of appeasing Kobe Bryant. There's no way I want to see Kobe traded, but there's also no way I would do this deal as it's presently being proposed.


----------



## DANNY (Aug 9, 2005)

pacers are being too greedy... i mean they already got the next larry legend (see mike dunleavy) :lol:


----------



## Showtime87 (Jun 27, 2005)

Haha. Yeah, kinda like Harold Miner was the next MJ.


----------



## koberules24 (Nov 12, 2006)

Silk D said:


> hate to say it, but he's right. they're probably holding on to Granger tighter than anybody else on their roster.
> 
> I don't understand why the pacers would want LO. I mean, he's got a few years left on his deal, and there is no way he would want to be part of this youth movement at the age of 30. wouldn't they rather have a big expiring and let their future front court of Granger-Diago-Bynum develop? If all goes well, in a few years, that front court will dominate the east. mabye it's cause buss doesn't want LO's contract either after taking on Jerm's. mabye it's just wishful thinking.
> 
> I really, really don't like this deal for the lakers.


The same argument is there for Bynum but if the Pacers expect the Lakers to give up all those additional players then they better be prepared to add something to the mix too.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

This would be a bigger disaster than Caron and Atkins for Kwame.


----------



## Showtime87 (Jun 27, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> This would be a bigger disaster than Caron and Atkins for Kwame.


I concur, can you imagine Jerry West ever doing a deal like this? This is just another example of the post-West deterioration of this franchise.


----------



## Darth Bryant (Feb 1, 2005)

Well, considering the source im not holding my breath. Has realgm ever predicted any bit of laker information and been right? I fail to remember a time.

But this deal sounds just horrible enough to be real. The Lakers would be over paying in my opinion. I wouldn't mind trying Odom for O'neal and just give em filler. But Both players would make me gag.


----------



## Darth Bryant (Feb 1, 2005)

CubanLaker said:


> If were giving up Lamar and Bynum for JO they better damm well be sure were getting Artest right after although i dont think JO want to play with Ron Ron again after everything that went down!
> 
> Walton and 19th for Artest



Why exactly would Walton want to play in cow town?


----------



## Darth Bryant (Feb 1, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> This would be a bigger disaster than Caron and Atkins for Kwame.



To true.. To true...

And what exactly would the pacers be getting? I mean I love LO and all, but he is going to be hurt and out of shape this year. And taking up space for 3 more seasons. Seems to me indiana would be more looking to acquire cap relief.

Because of that I seriously don't see why they wouldn't consider a Bynum and Kwame for a JO. They get two things out of that. They get out of JO's contract. And they get a hyped up young Big man they can work with. You know if Kareem is in love with Bynum I'm sure Larry might likes him to. 

To me Lamar Odom offers them very little unless they were building a team to win right now and Lamar isn't going to make that happen without more players. Seems to me logical is if they were interested in unloading JO, cap relief and a very inexpensive potential all star center would be a great deal.


----------



## Showtime87 (Jun 27, 2005)

CDRacingZX6R said:


> Well, considering the source im not holding my breath. Has realgm ever predicted any bit of laker information and been right? I fail to remember a time.
> 
> But this deal sounds just horrible enough to be real. The Lakers would be over paying in my opinion. I wouldn't mind trying Odom for O'neal and just give em filler. But Both players would make me gag.


Maybe RealGM isn't the most reliable source, but it's not just them reporting this. This is the same deal mentioned on many sites, the only other variation being Odom/Bynum/Cook for O'Neal/Tinsley. Gag indeed. Here's a decent site for current rumors:

http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/nba?page=2


----------



## Darth Bryant (Feb 1, 2005)

Showtime87 said:


> Maybe RealGM isn't the most reliable source, but it's not just them reporting this. This is the same deal mentioned on many sites, the only other variation being Odom/Bynum/Cook for O'Neal/Tinsley. Gag indeed. Here's a decent site for current rumors:
> 
> http://http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/nba?page=2



This is the problem. Whenever a lot of people are talking about a trade, at least when discussing lakers trades, how often do they pass?

No one was discussing the Kwame/Caron trade. Until it happened and Peter broke it. But everyone was talking about the Boozer deal, the Baron Davis deal, etc. None of those happened. KG to the Lakers happens on so many sites once a year, and it never happens.

I'm not saying the Lakers are not going after JO, I'm just saying it doesn't always mean people know whats going on in the deal.


----------



## Showtime87 (Jun 27, 2005)

CDRacingZX6R said:


> This is the problem. Whenever a lot of people are talking about a trade, at least when discussing lakers trades, how often do they pass?
> 
> No one was discussing the Kwame/Caron trade. Until it happened and Peter broke it. But everyone was talking about the Boozer deal, the Baron Davis deal, etc. None of those happened. KG to the Lakers happens on so many sites once a year, and it never happens.
> 
> I'm not saying the Lakers are not going after JO, I'm just saying it doesn't always mean people know whats going on in the deal.


Point taken, but for some reason this one just feels like it's going to go down. Mainly because of this whole Kobe fiasco, it just seems like the Lakers are determined to do something - no matter how horrible a deal it may turn out to be. I hope more than anything that the speculation of Odom and Bynum both being involved is completely inaccurate.


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

This had better not happen. But when I look at the front office, I realize that it very well could.  By using Lamar Odom, Kwame Brown, Andrew Bynum, the 1st round pick, and possibly Luke Walton(S&T) as trading pieces, the Lakers should be able to form a very good team peaking at the upper tier of the Western Conference. I'm afraid we don't have the creativity or competence to pull it off.


----------



## DANNY (Aug 9, 2005)

Bartholomew Hunt said:


> This had better not happen. But when I look at the front office, I realize that it very well could.  By using Lamar Odom, Kwame Brown, Andrew Bynum, the 1st round pick, and possibly Luke Walton(S&T) as trading pieces, the Lakers should be able to form a very good team peaking at the upper tier of the Western Conference. I'm afraid we don't have the creativity or competence to pull it off.


as long as we keep Sasha, it's all good :rock:


----------

