Possibilities for Center

Jajwanda · Post #41 » by **Jajwanda** » Mon Feb 2, 2009 11:43 pm

He's not an option so much for center nor is he the defensive fit against athletic PFs that Odom is but if you think about it Drew Gooden may be a fair option for Odom. In the deal we'd also hopefully get Hinrich while giving up Mihm.

With major improvement at PG plus a much larger PF who can improve our rebounding against the best teams I think we'd do quite a bit better. We would still lack that true defensive anchor but we'd also have a major advantage with Farmar being trade-bait.

That Nicka · Post #42 » by **That Nicka** » Mon Feb 2, 2009 11:49 pm

There is not a facet of the game in which Drew Gooden is better than Lamar Odom. Especially not rebouning

Jajwanda · Post #43 » by **Jajwanda** » Mon Feb 2, 2009 11:52 pm

No actually he is. He's also likely better in his defense against Cs. Last year he was 3.4+ versus his opponent in 48 minutes and this year 2.6+. Odom on the other hand was somewhere around 2.2+ last year and .08+ this year.

Gooden is an excellent rebounder and has always been.

microfib4thewin · Post #44 » by **microfib4thewin** » Mon Feb 2, 2009 11:52 pm

The Lakers aren't trading Odom for JO. Not only will this mean paying 4 guys max money, we also lose out on Odom's ability to break the defense and his playmaking for someone who could be injured again before he learned the offense. Aside from Gasol, all the new players did not get playing time for at least the first twenty games because the triangle offense takes time to learn. We don't have the luxury to teach JO how to execute the offense and expect him to get everything down by playoff time.

Jajwanda · Post #45 » by **Jajwanda** » Mon Feb 2, 2009 11:56 pm

It's not rocket science especially if O'Neal's playing the 4 and the 5 spots. The 2 and 4 play a two-man game that's fairly simple and the 5 is cake. It's the PG, SG, and SF positions that can be tough.

O'Neal also has the IQ to play in this system. His injury issue is a problem and so is the money.

B_Y_N_U_M · Post #46 » by **B_Y_N_U_M** » Tue Feb 3, 2009 12:02 am

I am curious to know why this hasn't been locked yet and moved to the trade thread.

I remember when I placed something about another player on the main topic board and it got locked before one reply..........

..........Yeah I am insulted.

Obvious trade post and should be placed in proper place.

Post #47 » by **YogiStewart** » Tue Feb 3, 2009 12:09 am

Jajwanda wrote:It's not rocket science especially if O'Neal's playing the 4 and the 5 spots. The 2 and 4 play a two-man game that's fairly simple and the 5 is cake. It's the PG, SG, and SF positions that can be tough.

O'Neal also has the IQ to play in this system. His injury issue is a problem and so is the money.

I had previously wondered, even with a healthy Bynum, if LA would be interested in O'Neal.
Now that Bynum is injured for "8 to 12 weeks" (and let's not kid ourselves. its likely longer than that), LA needs toughness and someone who can bang.

JO fits that bill, except he would be an offensive black hole. he loves his jumpers. I also wonder if it will affect LA's flow.

JO has a huge contract, but does the 2010 expiring contract attract LA for any reason?

Jajwanda · Post #48 » by **Jajwanda** » Tue Feb 3, 2009 12:17 am

It could I suppose in that you could technically get Jermaine O'Neal and then deal him for a cheaper deal only slightly more expensive than that of say Lamar Odom.

He could be used for two players, a backup big man and a true starting SF but at this point it's unlikely since few big time players have contracts that run past 2010. Practically the league will be up for free agency.

The Lakers could try to convince O'Neal to take a permanent role by offering him say 8m a year for four years.

lakb8 · Post #49 » by **lakb8** » Tue Feb 3, 2009 12:25 am

odom +filler for bosh.
hes demanding a trade and odom is expiring.

That Nicka · Post #50 » by **That Nicka** » Tue Feb 3, 2009 12:28 am

microfib4thewin · Post #51 » by **microfib4thewin** » Tue Feb 3, 2009 12:32 am

2010 expiring means nothing to us since we are not going to tank for capspace. Buss is not going to pay Gasol 16 mil, Bynum 14 mil, and both Kobe and JO 20 mil. I don't care how you view the Lakers management, they are not going to pay 20+ mil of tax no matter the situation.

TommyTheCat · Post #52 » by **TommyTheCat** » Tue Feb 3, 2009 12:46 am

just say no to kwame. i'd rather give dj and mihm burn until bynum's back

HotSpurs21 · Post #53 » by **HotSpurs21** » Tue Feb 3, 2009 1:47 am

Jeff Foster could be a more realistic target

10scott10 · Post #54 » by **10scott10** » Tue Feb 3, 2009 1:58 am

TommyTheCat wrote:just say no to kwame. i'd rather give dj and mihm burn until bynum's back

what about luke for kwame?

CX44 · Post #55 » by **CX44** » Tue Feb 3, 2009 2:13 am

Vlad and Mihm for Eddie Curry. Vlad and Curry's deals are the same length but Vlad make less which allows the Knicks to get further under the cap for 2010. Lakers take another Luxury tax hit but have a serviceable big man and a nice ending contract in two years for possible trade. Maybe the Knicks throw in a 2nd round pick to sweeten the deal for the Lakers.

ronnymac2 · Post #56 » by **ronnymac2** » Tue Feb 3, 2009 2:31 am

^^^^Hell No!!!!!!! lol

Jajwanda · Post #57 » by **Jajwanda** » Tue Feb 3, 2009 2:32 am

Luke for Eddy Curry maybe since it's the same amount of cash.

The Skyhook · Post #58 » by **The Skyhook** » Tue Feb 3, 2009 2:55 am

Danny Darko wrote:
nastneemz81 wrote:Listen since this entire situation is turing into deja vu there is one thing that could happen. We make a trade for a guy named Gasol with the team that Bynum got injuried against. The Grizzlies are the team Bynum got hurt against and they have that guy named Gasol. Marc Gasol and Pau Gasol could have great chemistry down low. If thats not happening then I would bring in Shaq without losing Ariza

I dare you to take that the the memphis board... what pray tell would we give up that they could use?

I think the Grizzle fans would just laugh if I showed them that post.

Jase · Post #59 » by **Jase** » Tue Feb 3, 2009 3:21 am

Just say no to Eddy Curry...

Post #60 » by **snaquille oatmeal** » Tue Feb 3, 2009 5:17 am

lol at people who think Shaq would fit with the current Lakers.

the triangle with Shaq is different than the current tri that we run. the current version of the tri is more traditional, with Shaq it was altered to fit Shaq. that means that everybody would have to adjust to Shaqs version of the tri. it would disrupt the chem that Kobe and Gasol have. it would almost be like what Shaq did to Nash and Amare and the rest of the Suns.