Kings Lakers Trade

swsmurdock33 · Post #1 » by **swsmurdock33** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:51 am

Kings trade Miller and Artest for Odom and Walton

Kings get a solid post player who can pass, shoot and a great role player (walton) off the bench. Plus it allows salmons to start at the 3 and develop hawes right away.

The lakers get a 3 who can defend all the pierces and lebrons, plus a center who can play 20 minutes and give help bynum develop.

Thoughts?

Smills91 · Post #2 » by **Smills91** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 2:35 am

So you want 2 of our 3 best players for your trash. No thanks.

UKF · Post #3 » by **UKF** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 4:33 am

Ummmm. I'm not really feelin' that. Memphis might want to make another deal...

Not really the best idea coming into the Kings board and posting a Kings Lakers trade on only your 3rd post as a realgmer.

Ballings7 · Post #4 » by **Ballings7** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:09 am

Lakers realize their inability to guard Paul Pierce, basically at all

Smills91 · Post #5 » by **Smills91** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:51 pm

Ballings7 wrote:Lakers realize their inability to guard Paul Pierce, basically at all

If we trade Brad/Ron I'm fully expecting seeing Gasol coming back our way and THIS is why.

swsmurdock33 · Post #6 » by **swsmurdock33** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 2:58 pm

The kings have a big problem at the 3. The offense stagnates whenever artest touches the ball and decides to take one of his fadaway 20 footers. Sometimes they go in, sometimes not. Then you have Salmons, who does the exact same thing when he comes in. On the other hand, you bring in Odom/Walton who have tremendous basketball IQ/ passing abilities. Opens up the offense and keeps the ball moving. And theres no way the lakers give up Gasol at all for that trade either.

Moving Artest, prob one of the best two way players, would be smart, if he decides to exercise his option. In my opinion I dont want to keep him and pay him the money, hes not worth it. Miller is getting old, hes on the downslope of his career now and getting paid way too much. Walton does have a 6 year deal if hes traded and largely unproven outside of the triangle offense, but hes a solid guy to come in as your 6-7 player and hustle for 20 minutes a game.

Smills91 · Post #7 » by **Smills91** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:00 pm

swsmurdock33 wrote:The kings have a big problem at the 3. The offense stagnates whenever artest touches the ball and decides to take one of his fadaway 20 footers. Sometimes they go in, sometimes not. Then you have Salmons, who does the exact same thing when he comes in. On the other hand, you bring in Odom/Walton who have tremendous basketball IQ/ passing abilities. Opens up the offense and keeps the ball moving. And theres no way the lakers give up Gasol at all for that trade either.

Moving Artest, prob one of the best two way players, would be smart, if he decides to exercise his option. In my opinion I dont want to keep him and pay him the money, hes not worth it. Miller is getting old, hes on the downslope of his career now and getting paid way too much. Walton does have a 6 year deal if hes traded and largely unproven outside of the triangle offense, but hes a solid guy to come in as your 6-7 player and hustle for 20 minutes a game.

We're not saying we're opposed to moving Artest...we're opposed to moving Artest AND Miller for freaking LAMAR ODOM and PUKE WALTON. Odom is on par with Brad and Artest is a million times better than Walton.

rpa · Post #8 » by **rpa** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 4:55 pm

Ahh Laker fans, oh so pathetic.

I love how just about every single trade the majority of them make never has any sort of reasoning about why the other team would want to do it other than "we give you good players" (and sometimes not even that).

Look at this from the Kings perspective. The Kings are rebuilding; they're looking to cut salary NOW and pick up good young players/draft picks that fit with their current young core.

How do Odom (who's older than Artest AND doesn't fit well next to Hawes anyways) and Walton (a below average bench 3 with a longterm, not too attractive contract) fit into that mold? Answer: they don't; not in the least actually.

Any scenario where Artest ends up on the Lakers starts with 1 of the following 2 things:
1) The Lakers offering Bynum or Gasol--either of whom would actually fit in some way on the Kings (much, much, much better than Odom)
2) The Lakers find a 3rd team that would give good young prospects for Odom and whatever other scrubs the Lakers wanted to throw in (Miami may be 1 of the teams that are still interested in Odom but, other than that #2 pick, they don't have much in the form of young talent)

I guess you could add a 3rd scenario where Artest opts out but I think it's incredibly unlikely, especially considering there are better options out there for him (Spurs, for one).

Crimson King · Post #9 » by **Crimson King** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:35 pm

I'm not opposed to a Odom for Artest trade, but Kenny Thomas has to go in that deal. For example, I'd probably do Odom+Farmar for Artest+Thomas.

The original trade is very bad for the Kings, sorry.

Post #10 » by **ICMTM** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:56 pm

Well at least for the Lakers they are getting rid of Odom. If Odom is expiring then it may not be a bad deal. Otherwise nope.

SacKingZZZ · Post #11 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 7:20 pm

swsmurdock33 wrote:The kings have a big problem at the 3. The offense stagnates whenever artest touches the ball and decides to take one of his fadaway 20 footers. Sometimes they go in, sometimes not. Then you have Salmons, who does the exact same thing when he comes in. On the other hand, you bring in Odom/Walton who have tremendous basketball IQ/ passing abilities. Opens up the offense and keeps the ball moving. And theres no way the lakers give up Gasol at all for that trade either.

Moving Artest, prob one of the best two way players, would be smart, if he decides to exercise his option. In my opinion I dont want to keep him and pay him the money, hes not worth it. Miller is getting old, hes on the downslope of his career now and getting paid way too much. Walton does have a 6 year deal if hes traded and largely unproven outside of the triangle offense, but hes a solid guy to come in as your 6-7 player and hustle for 20 minutes a game.

I don't think anyone can or would argue that Odom isn't a better fit, but the value is pretty bad for the Kings in this particular deal.

Ballings7 · Post #12 » by **Ballings7** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:01 pm

Continue to be amused at the ignorant and exaggerated contradictions that usually come up in these Artest trade proposals (not just on this board), from people who have a limited perspective on Ron because of having a limited amount of material on Ron.

Rox_Nix_Nox · Post #13 » by **Rox_Nix_Nox** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 10:54 pm

Taking the trade might be the best option considering Artest could opt out of his contract.

Post #14 » by **KF10** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:01 pm

Rox_Nix_Nox wrote:Taking the trade might be the best option considering Artest could opt out of his contract.

Artest has stated that he wont opt out or isn't likely to according to various articles and direct quotes from his agents and Artest himself. I would be surprised that he would opt out.

Besides, obviously, we wont take the Lakers deal due to mentioned reasons in the thread.

Rox_Nix_Nox · Post #15 » by **Rox_Nix_Nox** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:16 pm

Artest Rumor

It's only a rumor

And the original trade is horrible. Brad Miller? The Lakers don't really need him.

I was thinking Odom and Vladrad + Mihm? Walton? for just Artest. Don't know if that works out salary wise but yeah that's what I was thinking. Or maybe he'll just sign for the MLE but then we wouldn't need Odom so..

Post #16 » by **KF10** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:27 pm

Rox_Nix_Nox wrote:Artest Rumor

It's only a rumor

And the original trade is horrible. Brad Miller? The Lakers don't really need him.

I was thinking Odom and Vladrad + Mihm? Walton? for just Artest. Don't know if that works out salary wise but yeah that's what I was thinking. Or maybe he'll just sign for the MLE but then we wouldn't need Odom so..

Hoopsworld? Hoopsworld is trash. It is not creditable. Time and time again, Hoopsworld has been trash for years. But yeah, you are right, it is only a rumor from a trashy website.

Again, mentioned statements in the thread, we will not willingly receive long terms contracts such as Vlad, Walton, or Odom. The Kings/Lakers trades are unrealistic. The only trade that the Kings would pull the trigger is that the Lakers would have to overpay. But that's not going to happen. Discussing this is pretty much moot.

Rox_Nix_Nox · Post #17 » by **Rox_Nix_Nox** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:43 pm

Other factors will come into effect.

I'm hoping Artest will be with the purple and gold.

Post #18 » by **KF10** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:52 pm

Rox_Nix_Nox wrote:Other factors will come into effect.

I'm hoping Artest will be with the purple and gold.

What other factors?

It is FACT that Artest loves to play for the Kings and they are the #1 team he wants be signed. He is extremely loyal to us because the Kings gave Artest a chance to play and we believed in him over 2 years ago. Thus his loyalty to us. Again, I would be surprise that Artest opts out.

But then again, he wants to win badly and Sacramento isn't that place to do so BUT some how he believes that we can win a championship during his tenure with the Kings. So, I dont know.

The Lakers are a Championship-level team and Artest can thrive in a situation like that but the pieces of the Lakers are not very attracted to the Kings thus it is unrealistic...

Rox_Nix_Nox · Post #19 » by **Rox_Nix_Nox** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:03 am

kingsfan10 wrote:But then again, he wants to win badly and Sacramento isn't that place to do so

The Lakers are a Championship-level team and Artest can thrive in a situation like that

What other factors?

See I knew you'd understand

I'm not here to put anyone down, I know you guys love your players.

But he can opt out. That's all I'm saying.

Post #20 » by **KF10** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:09 am

Rox_Nix_Nox wrote:
kingsfan10 wrote:But then again, he wants to win badly and Sacramento isn't that place to do so

The Lakers are a Championship-level team and Artest can thrive in a situation like that

What other factors?

See I knew you'd understand

I'm not here to put anyone down, I know you guys love your players.

But he can opt out. That's all I'm saying.

Ok, that's understandable. You're right. He CAN opt out. But the thing Im arguing that it is unlikely that he will opt out. So, if I was you, I wouldn't get too excited about Artest in the Purple and Gold. You can only dream of the possibility though.