Reply With Quote
why would you hate this deal? Boston and Indiana get much better while LA has 2 really good players and no one else.
This is almost a done deal, heard this on mike and mike.
Lakers get:Garnett
Wolves get:#5 pick in draft, al Jefferson
Celtics get:Jermaine O'Neal
Indiana get:Bynum, Odom
sorry if this has been posted i just saw this, and i would absolutely hate to see this go through.
They went on to say that dont be surprised if the deal gets done today.
why would you hate this deal? Boston and Indiana get much better while LA has 2 really good players and no one else.
Why would Boston trade away a promising young PF and the #5 in one of the deepest draft in recent years for Jermaine O'Neal?
because within a year the lakers could put together some role players and have a of a team. I honestly think that Garnett/Kobe > Kobe/Shaq.
Danny Ainge is an idiot. If they would have moved last week the Celtics could have had Garnett.
Didn't that deal get nixed yesterday?
Who is your dealer?I honestly think that Garnett/Kobe > Kobe/Shaq.
well 2 players eat up over 50% of the cap and one of the players is 32. I love KG but I cannot see him complimenting Kobe as well as Shaq did.
Wow. Its going to be fun to watch, but doubt the Lakers get to the finals.
yes and in the same report on ESPN....Ric Bucher said Kobe still wants out.Didn't that deal get nixed yesterday?
I'd rather see this than see Garnett with Phoenix though...
From Chad Ford's blog today:
Latest trade and draft buzz
posted: Tuesday, June 26, 2007
This is supposed to be the time of year that we focus on the draft, but with trade talk flying fast and furious, the entire NBA landscape -- and the draft order, too -- could change dramatically this week.
"There are more teams looking to trade this year than any other time I've seen over the past seven years," one GM told me.
So what's going on? And how does it affect the draft?
Here's the latest ...
• What's happening with the Kevin Garnett four-team blockbuster? Depends on who you ask.
From what we can reconstruct, it appears that talks started when Lakers owner Jerry Buss and Timberwolves owner Glen Taylor began talking about a KG-to-the-Lakers trade between the two teams.
Once it became apparent that the Lakers didn't have a good enough package to entice the Wolves to do the deal, each team went back to an older offer.
The Lakers knew that the Pacers might take Lamar Odom and Andrew Bynum for Jermaine O'Neal.
And the Wolves knew what the Celtics were offering for KG -- the No. 5 pick, Al Jefferson and Theo Ratliff.
The problem now is the Celtics aren't ready to give up the same package for O'Neal, and the Pacers reportedly never got roped back into the deal.
At least one other GM believes that Taylor isn't going to trade KG to the Lakers (aka the enemy) and eventually would have balked anyway. If that's the case, someone needs to sit him and Kevin McHale down and tell them that, at this point, getting some first-round picks and massive cap room would be a good deal for KG. If they wait much longer, he'll walk for nothing.
So, anyway ... what has to give? Either the Celtics decide to include Jefferson in the deal (very, very unlikely) or the other three teams try to find a way to sweeten the pot for Minnesota.
How about this crazy thought? Maybe the teams eliminate the Pacers from the conversation, and Boston takes back Odom and Bynum. Then Boston offers to sweeten the pot by sending the Wolves back their 2009 first-round pick that the Celtics acquired in the Wally Szczerbiak deal and the Lakers throw in a future first-round pick to boot.
I actually think getting Odom and Bynum makes more sense for Boston than getting O'Neal at this point. Put a starting lineup of Rajon Rondo, Paul Pierce, Odom, Jefferson and Bynum on the floor with Delonte West, Tony Allen, Szczerbiak and Kendrick Perkins coming off the bench, and I think the Celtics are right back in the playoff picture in the East.
As for the Lakers, if this deal falls through, I think acquiring a player like Zach Randolph could be their backup plan.
http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog...t&lid=tab1pos2
Man, I would love for their to be an SA-LA rivalry again.
Pierce will demand a trade if they don't get veteran help. So it's JO or lose Pierce. KG doesn't want to play in Boston.
I just saw on ESPN that Boston is out of this deal. They arent to high on O'Neal apparently.
Man, it's nice to have your championship level trifecta already in the fold and watch the rats scurry about.
That's because he said he didn't want to play in Boston. That makes KG, Marion, and now O'Neil who all said they wouldn't play in Boston. Just remember though, Pierce is going to demand a trade if they don't get help. JO is more willing to play in Boston than Garnett.
Dude, repeat before you start talking all the smack. Something the Spurs have not done.Man, it's nice to have your championship level trifecta already in the fold and watch the rats scurry about.
Dude, get back into the postseason first. Dude.
Saying you have a championship level team is talking smack?
The sensation would be the same if 2007 had been the Spurs' first le. It's always nice to be atop the heap and to have your key pieces locked into place.
I'm sure you're right, though -- teams aren't considering moves aimed at helping them to beat the Spurs at all.
Dude, the Spurs are an aging team with many teams on their heels. I respect the Spurs but not a talking bag fan like you.
Dude, I don't give a . Dude.
You mean maybe if they can keep him on the floor for 50 percent of the games.
Whatever er. It's not guaranteed the Spurs will repeat. When have they ever?
Dude, you talk real tough for a sexual. Dude.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
