RealGM

Our only real "needs" are a starting PG and a back-up C ... this was a strange draft and there definitely should some PG's on the trading block soon.

Ramon Sessions (Odom and Blake for Sessions and Varejo makes sense if Mitch likes Sessions game ... I don't)

B-Diddy (Odom, Blake and Walton for Baron and Varejo makes sense)

Monta Ellis (Now that Monta is DEMANDING a trade, an Odom for Monta deal may make sense)

Kyle Lowery (With 3 starting quality PG's on the roster, the most expensive [Lowery] may be the odd man out ... Odom for Lowery and Patrick Paterson makes sense)

Goran Dragic (If Lowery is a keeper for Houston, Dragic may be shopped ... Odom for Dragic and Scola makes sense)

Tony Parker (A trade of Odom, Artest, Blake and Walton for T.P., R.J. and Dice would work ... it would also be near blasphemous and could be a precursor to the apocalypse!)

THE BIG ONE ...

Brandon Jennings (I'd love to get this kid in P&G and the Bucks would love Odom as their starting PF ... Odom, Ebanks and Caracter for Jennings and Drew Gooden would be nice and solve our two biggest problems instantly ... this is as close to a CP3/D12 Blockbuster as there is and Jennings could be the best PG in the league one day)

I wouldnt want to give up LO without getting an almost even quality player(s) in return.

Ramon Sessions would be a nice addition, but we would have to get Varejao in the trade also. (Plus both have played under coach Brown which is a ++)

Monta Eliis is a no brainer and should do the trade if GS is open to trading Monta.

And I would love to see us get Skola + Lowery/Dragic. Thats the best package IMO, but i dont see Houston giving up 2 of their important pieces for an aging LO.

I dont think it would be good for LA to help the Spurs in anyway possible, specially since they had the #1 record in the West and B-Jenkins is a long shot, I dont see the Bucks letting him go anytime soon.

I don't see any of those trades helping us more than losing Odom would hurt us.

I know people don't want to be reminded of last season much, but our bench was nonexistent the games we had to start Odom. We can't give up our bench depth just to give us a upgraded starting PG, overall it would be a downgrade to the team.

desertlakerfan wrote:I don't see any of those trades helping us more than losing Odom would hurt us.

I know people don't want to be reminded of last season much, but our bench was nonexistent the games we had to start Odom. We can't give up our bench depth just to give us a upgraded starting PG, overall it would be a downgrade to the team.

dead on, and "the wild thing can stay where he is" Odom for varejao? really? really?

Out of Ai-In LA's list I like Sessions and Monta. Baron I think will be gone because of the amnesty thats supposedly coming with the new CBA and I really think once Barons out of Cleveland he's taking the first plane to South Beach.Whose the third starting quality PG in Houston? I know Lowry and Dragic whose the other guy. And the Spurs are the one team I would never want to do a trade with their front office is just to smart also this makes me weary of trading for Monta if West whose part of the front office with the Warriors is ok with trading Monta should the Lakers really do that. FInally i think Sessions could be brought in without trading Lamar or a core piece there really is a log jam at PG for the Cavs the TPE might be enough to get him.

If we can get Scola/Dragic for Odom I do it in a blink.

Dalakerbox wrote:

desertlakerfan wrote:I don't see any of those trades helping us more than losing Odom would hurt us.

I know people don't want to be reminded of last season much, but our bench was nonexistent the games we had to start Odom. We can't give up our bench depth just to give us a upgraded starting PG, overall it would be a downgrade to the team.

dead on, and "the wild thing can stay where he is" Odom for varejao? really? really?

Um .... Dalakerbox ... I wasn't advocating trading Odom straight up for Varejo ... I said an Odom, Blake and Walton for Varejo and Beard-Drizzle would make sense.

As for you desertlakerfan ... I agree that we shouldn't give out bench depth but trading Odom, Blake and a useless Walton for a better starting PG (makes our starting lineup better) and a younger, cheaper, better defensive back-up PF ... it makes sense.

The Houston trades even have us landing a starting PG and a quality back-up PF for Odom alone ...

And the Bucks trade has us trading Odom and two young pups that never played for one of the top 10 PG's in the NBA and a back-up big that can play both the 4 and 5 whereas Odom can only play the 4.

KingLakers wrote:Out of Ai-In LA's list I like Sessions and Monta. Baron I think will be gone because of the amnesty thats supposedly coming with the new CBA and I really think once Barons out of Cleveland he's taking the first plane to South Beach.

I would love to see Cleveland amnesty Baron and I think he'd sign with us for the vet min. in a heart-beat over signing with the Heat, even if they offered a little more coin ... Baron is a Magic Johnson loving, Laker at heart! Who knows, this could already be in the works ... you know players talk and arrange stuff before they are technically supposed to.

Whose the third starting quality PG in Houston? I know Lowry and Dragic whose the other guy.

They traded for Johnny Flynn yesterday and like his game.

And the Spurs are the one team I would never want to do a trade with their front office is just to smart

Agreed.

also this makes me weary of trading for Monta if West whose part of the front office with the Warriors is ok with trading Monta should the Lakers really do that.

Good point. I think Monta is just the odd-man-out so to speak. Steph is the face of that franchise and now they have a big, tough, young SG in Klay ... Monta doesn't want a 6th man future.

FInally i think Sessions could be brought in without trading Lamar or a core piece there really is a log jam at PG for the Cavs the TPE might be enough to get him.

Maybe but he's worth more than that on the open market and some other team would probably make a better offer ...

AI-in-LA wrote:As for you desertlakerfan ... I agree that we shouldn't give out bench depth but trading Odom, Blake and a useless Walton for a better starting PG (makes our starting lineup better) and a younger, cheaper, better defensive back-up PF ... it makes sense.

It makes sense, but no team in their right mind would give us 2 worthwhile players for Odom and 2 scrubs on horrible contracts. In a perfect world where we could rip off any team we wanted sure, getting a starting PG and a younger, cheaper, better defensive backup PF would be ideal. It's just not realistic.

getting baron makes us older....lol
bucks arent giving up jennings anytime soon, dumb if they do.


monta would be nice...but since we already heard of this rumor, it probably won't happen.

AI-in-LA wrote:

KingLakers wrote:

also this makes me weary of trading for Monta if West whose part of the front office with the Warriors is ok with trading Monta should the Lakers really do that.

Maybe, but keep in mind, West was the GM in Memphis when did the Gasol trade

Flynn isn't starting quality PG especially for a winning team that missed the playoffs last season but I agree they can't keep all 3. Another problem with Monta is how he fits with the Lakers Skip Bayless is the only analyst whose talked about how Brown's offensive system works and he said you need a passing PG for it to work right can Monta become that guy if not the Lakers will be stuck 3 20ppg scorers in their starting 5 and no one to move the ball around.

West had already left his position with the Grizz when the Pau trade happend.

^ No he wasn't, Chris Wallace was ... West was sort of an "advisor" at that point

desertlakerfan wrote:It makes sense, but no team in their right mind would give us 2 worthwhile players for Odom and 2 scrubs on horrible contracts. In a perfect world where we could rip off any team we wanted sure, getting a starting PG and a younger, cheaper, better defensive backup PF would be ideal. It's just not realistic.

If the amnesty clause really comes in I would agree that particular trade isn't realisitic, but as-is and if there is no amnesty clause under the new CBA, itt is quite realistic ... the Cavs do NOT want Baron and only agreed to accept him and his horrible contract because of the draft pick the Clips were including.

Varejo is also considered a bad contract by some and with the Cavs just draftingTristan and already having JJ on board, he isn't really needed ... I'm sure they'd like to have the 2-time champ and vet who has the better contract in Odom and if they have to trade Diddy and his horrible contract for two suck players and their equally horrible yet less expensive contracts to do it, I think they would.

Scandalouzzzz wrote:getting baron makes us older....lol

So. I don't care if we average 35 years old across the board if we win titles.

bucks arent giving up jennings anytime soon, dumb if they do.

They started yesterday with 3 PG's under contract and then traded for 2 more during the draft ... even if they let midget man go they have 4 PG's, one of which Skiles is said to love in Beno Udrih and one of which Skiles is said to butt heads with in Brandon Jennings ... do the math ... Jennings might be being shopped very soon and the Bucks will want a starting PF in return.

The Bucks situation is an interesting one to follow but a trade for Jennings would involve Odom and then the Bucks I think need to add another 5m or 6m in salary to make it work who would the Bucks add to the deal.

I thought the stories about the Bucks shopping Jennings were false?

The stories aren't false I think its more people looking at the Bucks roster and seeing 4 PG's in Jennings, Beno, Livingston, and Dooling and saying someone has to be moved.

Forgot they acquired Udrih and Livingston last night. How did it become that Mil is interested in Odom? And why would Mil trade arguably their best player for Lamar? Obviously I'd do it but I don't see why Mil is shopping Jennings, I remember hearing about it earlier but I never knew why the Bucks were doing it. Khloe & Lamar filmed in Milwaukee, Wisconsin? Worst ratings ever. It's boring enough in California.