Lamar Odom news, via Twitter
July 6, 2009 | 1:29
pm
I mentioned the other night when Hedo Turkoglu reneged on the Blazers that it could be bad news for LA, since Portland might take their $9 mil in cap space and turn their attention to Lamar Odom. Well, via his Twitter page, ESPN.com's Ric Bucher says the Blazers are looking elsewhere:
Latest on LO and Portland: Blazers not interested, according to a source.
Hard to get all flowery with the language when limited to 140 characters. Obviously at this time of year information changes rapidly, but if Bucher is correct (I'm anticipating what a few of the comments below will look like) it only helps the Lakers.
BK
did Bucher predict Artest coming to the Lakers or Turkeygule spurning the Blazers and jumping ship to Jurassic Park Canada? cuz you can't count on any 'sources' till the deal is done...
Posted by: Tony Reali | July 06, 2009 at 01:38 PM
As a Laker fan living in Portland, I know that Kevin Pritchard (Blazer's GM) is scared off by LO's past weed habit. They're still scarred by the JailBlazer era. Things change, but I only see them feigning interest to drive up LO's price and deprive us the money to re-sign Brown.
Posted by: PortLaker | July 06, 2009 at 01:39 PM
I hope lamar gets a good deal. He is one of the NBA's best players according to several metrics
Posted by: BobbieT | July 06, 2009 at 01:49 PM
At least it's something. This waiting game stinks.
Posted by: EastCoastJessie | July 06, 2009 at 01:56 PM
AK/BK
the Blog icon is missing on the sports page. someone mentioned that yesterday
the blog CAN'T be accessed if it's not already bookmarked. i'm sure u get it. thanks
Posted by: ouchhhhh | July 06, 2009 at 01:58 PM
If you were the GM of another team, would you be willing to offer $9M per year to a guy who sometimes plays and sometimes does not? Who (except for his stint in Miami under Pat Riley) has shown that he can't be relied on as an every day contributor? Who eats way too much candy?
You certainly wouldn't pay him that much to come off the bench, and in this economy you would hesitate to make him a starter.
For the Lakers, it's not a problem, because for them LO is a luxury: He only needs to be the third, or fourth or fifth best player on the team.
But his presence ensures that the Lakers have BY FAR the most talent of any team in the league. So, even when they underperform compared to their talent (as they usually do), it's still usually good enough to win.
Posted by: jimjoyce | July 06, 2009 at 01:59 PM
LAKER TOM writes at 12:55PM :
Age--Ron 29, Paul 27
Why are you providing us with Paul Pierce`s age...in 2004??
=====================================
Anyways, you deserve praise for pointing out all 10 Laker titles.
Finally, an intelligent Laker fan who wisely chooses NOT to "piggy-back" the 5 Minneapolis titles...which, as we all know, had nothing to do with Los Angeles, California...and took place in a prehistoric age where no 24 second shot clock existed!
Posted by: RED`S LOVE CHILD | July 06, 2009 at 02:02 PM
Everyone please stop panicking!!!!!!!!! The Lakers just won the championship and everyone should be happy to have things back in universal order in the basketball world. They got Artest (so long Trevor, we'll never hear from you again), and they should get Odom back in due time. So everyone chill out and enjoy your summer. And if they don't sign Odom, I'm sure they'll get someone to come and handle the job. Enjoy the the championship people. Remember how it felt the past seven yrs?????
Posted by: Jag | July 06, 2009 at 02:05 PM
Since Ric B reported that, then it must mean tha LO is in conversation with Portland.
Posted by: Charles | July 06, 2009 at 02:06 PM
Why would the Blazers be interested in Lamar? They have better 4 spot players than him, and their 3 spot guys play the 3 better than Lamar plays the 3.
And at $9 million, it would be a RIP off.
Frankly, anything he gets over say $6 million is Dr Buss' way of saying "thank you"
Posted by: Tim-4-Show | July 06, 2009 at 02:07 PM
Red coached for 20 years (against as little as 7 other teams in the league) and won 9 rings in the minors.
Jackson has coached 18 years (never less then 27 teams) and has won 10 rings in the grown-up league.
No comparison.
Posted by: HBMatt | July 06, 2009 at 02:09 PM
2008-2009 Funs = 2009-2010 Greenies
Look good on paper,
Old, slow and declining on the court.
Posted by: MrNano | July 06, 2009 at 02:27 PM
Wallace will be for the Celtics what Shaq is for the Cavs – an aging star who contributes in ways that don't help his team.
The Celtics are older than dirt in basketball terms.
The Cavs are still going to be LeBron and a bunch of non-difference makers.
The only team so far that may have made a significant upgrade in the east is Orlando.
Posted by: Pig | July 06, 2009 at 02:38 PM
Didn't Ric Bucher report that Kobe would never again wear a Laker Jersey?
I suppose this means Lamar has already verbally commited to Portland.
Posted by: Brizzle | July 06, 2009 at 02:43 PM
BK/AK and others,
If the Lakers are over the Luxury Tax for their current team, then how are the Celtics able to keep picking up players like Rasheed? How are they able to do this when they have KG, PP , Ray Allen and others on their payroll? One would think that most of their money is tied up with the their trio, yet they're able to pick up Rasheed and even last year were able to add Marbury. The Lakers meanwhile have Kobe, Pau and LO, but left a roster spot open last season and now are able to pick up Artest. Are the Lakers able to pick up someone else even after they sign both LO and Shannon Brown?
Posted by: Nemaia Faletogo | July 06, 2009 at 02:44 PM
my Celtic hatred so strong had to repost:
Good Afternoon Charles..Good afternoon Everyone..
I am really glad the Celtics got Rasheed...
gives me yet another reason to hate their pundgent reeking guts...(not that I really needed another reason but thanks anyway Ainge, you total little shniv boy)
I have always hated that idiot Wallace (complete with that insidious white spot on his ugly head--WTF is that anyway?)...
I hope they can land Alllen Iverson too...
I don't think I have ever liked any player who has worn that crappy uniform and played for those overly lucky jerks---I have respected a few (and i do mean a few), but never liked any....
Rick Fox was the exception, and he gets a pass because he hated the Celtics before he was drafted, and hated being a frickin' Celtic the whole time he played there in that stinkhole of a town (he actually played with nose plugs the entire time he was in Beantown--check out the footage of him if you can find any, Rick has tried to errase all existing evidence of his sentence there)...
and then of course Rick proved his true colors turning down 20 plus million dollars and taking a 1 million dollar salary for two years in a row...and then of course he couldn't stand the idea (made him physically sick) of having to go back there and wear that ugly uniform again so he retired instead..
and I hope the Celtic bandwagon fan base grows and grows...the more Laker hatred (and Celtic pig lovin') sent our way the better...it just makes it that much sweeter...
and the next 10 years are going to be sweet indeed---I'll say it again: 4 of the next 6 rings are ours, 6 of the next 10....carve it in stone Celtic wipers of other people's bottoms...
I also don't care who or what any team gets except the Lakers...they can have anybody they want...bring 'em on and we'll take 'em on while their delusioned pathetic fans chant the highly original "Beat LA" until blood runs out of their lower orifices...
have a nice day
AS ALWAYS, AS EVER, YET ANOTHER GREAT DAY (AND CHAMPIONSHIP SEASON) TO BE A LAKER FAN !!!
GO LAKERS !!!
Posted by: Floyd | July 06, 2009 at 02:46 PM
BK/AK and others,
I also forgot to mention Grant Hill in my last question regarding the Celtics. How are the Celtics able to add both Rasheed and Hill if and when it happens?
Posted by: Nemaia Faletogo | July 06, 2009 at 02:49 PM
Damn that means that LO is having heated talks with the Blazers
Posted by: The Lake Show | July 06, 2009 at 02:50 PM
BK, I would hesitate to post something like this on as good and professional blog as yours. Quoting ESPN.Com's usage of Rich Bucher's Twitter which invokes "according to a source" is hardly anything that can be promised accurate or newsworthy.
Dont you remember Bobby Knight's rant years ago, when he said "according to an unnamed source? what is an unnamed source? the neighbor the doorman, a little old lady, the dog?" okay well that wasnt word for word but you get the idea, a "source" could be me writing on my Blog that Lamar is not talking to Portland, or it could be me because I follow Lamar's Twitter and he doesnt seem suspicially invovled.
Plus, its Ric Bucher...and didnt he promise us Kobe was "categorically never going to be in a Lakers jersey again, you can count on it"
Posted by: The Lake Show | July 06, 2009 at 02:54 PM
My new nickname for the Celtics? I love the 90s! like the VH1 show. Yeah you hear those names and think "wow" remember how popular they were? Then you realize is 200-freaking-9!!!
Posted by: Miguel | July 06, 2009 at 02:55 PM
By the way there is only 5 teams going to compete for the title next year:
1. Lakers
2. Celtics
3. Magic
4. Spurs
5. Cavs
in that order
Posted by: The Lake Show | July 06, 2009 at 02:55 PM
What's up Lakerville?
Like most of you, I'm also on pins and needels aching to hear any news about LO and SB. I, too, think that LO is a very important piece on the team. He's our built-in mismatch with opponents. While most think that he's only worth around $6m, I think that he should be getting something in the $8-10m range. If I'm not wrong, big men PF/C (especially one with multiple skills) are generally paid more than SF. I hope that they give LO a fair contract. His playing with various injuries has particularly impressed me. That should amount for something.
Posted by: SamLL | July 06, 2009 at 02:56 PM
Ooops, hit Post too soon... that should be "on pins and needles"...
Posted by: SamLL | July 06, 2009 at 02:57 PM
CORRECTION ON ARTEST/PIERCE COMPARISON,
I had the birthdates wrong. Paul will be 32 when the season starts while Ron will only be 29. Youth would be another reason to favor Ron over Paul. Salaries would be another reason since Ron only makes $5.5M while Paul costs $21M. So when you consider their ages and salaries, I would bet that 29 out of 30 general managers would choose Ron (I am giving you Danny Ainge, your dork GM, as the only one dumb enough to pick Paula.
Tom
Posted by: LakerTom | July 06, 2009 at 03:02 PM
Nemaia,
The Celtics signed Rasheed using the mid-level exception, a certain amount of cash allotted to each team lets you sign free agents without it counting against the cap. That's how the Lakers, also over the cap, signed Ron Artest. I believe if Boston signs Grant Hill, it would be using the bi-annual exception, which is about 1.8 mil (I think) and can be used every other year.
AK
Posted by: Andrew and Brian Kamenetzky | July 06, 2009 at 03:02 PM
Lamar is a bad fit for Portland. I am worried that Cleveland might still go after him, I'm surprised they haven't already.
Posted by: Dallas Raines' Hair | July 06, 2009 at 03:03 PM
I'm not going to hold my breath over this. However, the people who are saying that LO is a luxury are out of thier minds. Without LO there is no title next year.
Posted by: RevPnG | July 06, 2009 at 03:03 PM
Celtics got Rasheed for 5.6 m, Lamar is not worth 9 mil not when nobody is making offers. How about get LO for 7 M and be done with it. LO do not be another Ariza.
9 MIl can get you Ariza and Brown back. I would prefer to spend it on two than one.
Posted by: Staples 24 | July 06, 2009 at 03:08 PM
One interesting note is Odom just happens to be 1 of 17 total followers on Ric Bucher's twitter! A long with Shaq and Derik Fisher
Posted by: zen | July 06, 2009 at 03:09 PM
Lake Show-
I tend to agree about unnamed sources, which is why I had the caveat at the bottom. I certainly wouldn't read it as gospel. Even if Bucher's source is correct today, he may not be tomorrow. (Though it must be said that Bucher is certainly a very credible reporter.)
BK
Posted by: Brian Kamenetzky | July 06, 2009 at 03:10 PM
Red coached for 20 years (against as little as 7 other teams in the league) and won 9 rings in the minors.
Jackson has coached 18 years (never less then 27 teams) and has won 10 rings in the grown-up league.
No comparison.
Posted by: HBMatt | July 06, 2009 at 02:09 PM
***
MBMatt - great information! I had never thought about Red's and Phil's championships in those terms.
Posted by: Chris | July 06, 2009 at 03:10 PM
Since you are always right ... can you explain why wasnt Kobe called for a flagrant foul when he elbowed Nelson in the jaw?
Posted by: 131-92 | July 06, 2009 at 12:57 PM
because ja-smear nelson was chewing on his mouth piece on national TV and he asked for it.
Posted by: ouchhhhhhhhh | July 06, 2009 at 03:16 PM
RED`S LOVE CHILD,
>>> Not bad, Red left behind an estate that included 17 rings....
>>> 9 as a coach, plus 8 as a full-time GM!
he is the Love Child between Red and Danny Ainge
Posted by: ouchhhhhhhhh | July 06, 2009 at 03:16 PM
Hey there's word that Kobe's participating in Michael Jacksons service tomorrow. What could he possibly be doing??? Singing?? Dancing?? LOL
Magic Johnson is on the schedule too. Hmmm
Posted by: EastCoastJessie | July 06, 2009 at 12:56 PM
kobe is recruiting the international MJ fans for the Lakers
Posted by: ouchhhhhhhhh | July 06, 2009 at 03:26 PM
So if Fat Baby Davis signs up with the spurs that would leave an otherwise fat bench a little skinny.Dont you think?..
I think the thing that pushes Boston over the edge is Bill Walker because last season before getting knocked out of the playoffs Reds Idiot said ''LOOK OUT FOR BILL WALKER"
Yeah right....
Staples 24...You should go buy a Celtics membership the way your going at the moment...Get over it already....
Pretty brave Red to rock up after the season ends...Real manly of you....
Posted by: Thirty2 | July 06, 2009 at 03:35 PM
Please K bros stop using twitter as a source. Twitter is garbage that needs to be taken and buried in the landfill.
Posted by: Jamesw | July 06, 2009 at 03:35 PM
KB BLITZ writes at 1:39 PM :
"101-82 Choke job..."
=============================
Apparently, KB BLITZ defines a "choke" team as one that has been crippled by injuries to key players, including at least one future Hall of Famer, and finally runs out of gas after putting up a gallant fight.
Much like how the 1989 Lakers "choked" in the Finals vs. Detroit! Oh wait, those "chokers" could not win even one game!
Posted by: RED`S LOVE CHILD | July 06, 2009 at 03:36 PM
If this is true it may be because Portlanders are thinking "Odom? B-but he talks trash to us!!" They're a bunch of Sensitive Sallys up there. Remember the bruhaha they kicked up when Ariza "intentionally" fouled Fernandez? They were talking about it for weeks as if it was the OJ murder case.
Posted by: buddy monk | July 06, 2009 at 03:37 PM
Red’s Love Child,
>>> the 5 Minneapolis titles...which, as we all know, had nothing to do with
>>> Los Angeles, California...and took place in a prehistoric age where no 24
>>> second shot clock existed!
Sort of like when the Celtics won their first 8 titles and there were only 8 to 10 teams at the start and only 15 at the end. This was not the REAL NBA. Titles won then should not count in comparing modern day franchises. I mean those titles were like minor league titles and you were not even alive when they were won. The league had less then half the teams it has now.
The real comparison should start in the 1980’s when the real NBA had 27 teams, when Larry and Magic revitalized the league. That is the real beginning of the modern NBA. And since then, the Lakers have won 9 titles and the Celtics 4. That’s a more realistic basis for judging the success or relevance of the two franchises. Of course, by the end of the next decade, the score will probably be something like 15 to 4. Your next title is not scheduled until 2028, after your traditional 20 years of sucking and passing wind.
Tom
Posted by: LakerTom | July 06, 2009 at 03:41 PM
this is a comment from Joaqu from SS&R
Question About Artest Lakers Jersey
Does anyone know if they will be selling Artest jerseys with a hood? (Cant wait to see the Hoodalized Lakers in action)
Posted by: ouchhhhhhhhh | July 06, 2009 at 03:45 PM
Red's Love Child -
Using the excuse that 5 of the Lakers championships were won before some of the modernizations of today's game is pretty rich coming from a Celtic fan.
As far as the "piggypacking" of titles is concerned, would you suggest that the Minnesota Timberwolves hang those banners in their rafters since they were won in Minnesota? Should the Hornets get credit for anything done by the New Orleans Jazz and the Bobcats credit for anything done by the Charlotte Hornets? That logic is inane.
No, the early titles were not won in Los Angeles, but they were won by the Lakers. The franchise didn't cease to exist just because it moved. Minneapolis is a part of the Laker francise history, and therefore anything accomplished in Minneapolis is also a part of Laker lore.
Posted by: puddle | July 06, 2009 at 03:52 PM
You know, I am thinking that Lamar and Artest are good buddies. They grew up together and I think Artest was at Lamar's house when he announced he was coming to the Lakers.
So here are the questions that keep rolling around in my head:
1) From the Lakers end, If Lamar and Artest are buddies, why would the Lakers not see this as a huge plus and keep Lamar? Wouldn't the Lakers WANT Lamar around to help influence Artest?
2) From Lamar's end, wouldn't Lamar WANT to play with Artest? They are childhood friends and Lamar seems to LOVE being a Laker. Lamar is also one of Kobe's guys.
Something is fishy here. Something fishy in a good way I am thinking. Nothing else really is making sense to me. My guess is that the Lakers are up to something and cannot offer Lamar a good package yet. I say YET because I have the sense they will make some additional moves. Salary dumping moves, packaging contracts moves, etc.
When the dust settles, I believe the Lakers will pay Lamar in the best way that makes sense. I just have a hard time believing that any else is at work here. I also believe that Lamar trusts the Lakers to do what they can to upgrade the team and to clear some room. Thereby being in a better position to pay Lamar with what is available.
It seems to me that the Lakers need as much flexibility as possible to make a deal (or deals). Then, when the options are clear, the Lakers can sign Lamar to something that serves the Lakers as well as Lamar.
Posted by: JohnnyV | July 06, 2009 at 03:55 PM
repost, cause it hasn't changed all that much
holy crap, i thought there were a lot of stupid posts yesterday.
Ok guys, lets stay classy and not speak ill of the dead. Thats right, lets not hate on the Celtics chances at the championship next year.
Posted by: phred | July 06, 2009 at 03:57 PM
i got tickets to the MJ memorial tomorrow in Staples!! Wearing the wristband now! Actually I had no choice, they put it on me when i got the tickets at Dodger Stadium today. Gonna be a zoo.
Posted by: ajax | July 06, 2009 at 04:00 PM
Thanks Chris.
red started coaching when he was 29. He stopped when he was 50.
Phil played until he was 34. He's still going strong at 63.
I guess red was a quitter.....
Posted by: HBMatt | July 06, 2009 at 04:04 PM
I agree that Lamar is probably getting screwed because of both the bad economy (or league gms excuse of the bad economy, whichever) and for coming off the bench last year. He will not get paid what he deserves, definitely. But unless we pull off some bizarro sign and trade deal for David Lee and nate robinson, he will be back, and probably for 8 mil ish, and I hope for three years, but who knows.
as for predictions, I think i'm about four of six or so as of now, as I got gordon and villanueva to detroit, kidd to dallas, and sheed to portland. Looks like I was wrong on Gortat to houston and glu to portland, although I was certainly not alone on that one.
Leon Powe and Glen Davis are both going to be good deals for somebody, possibly san antonio, maybe houston, maybe cleveland.
I think David Lee to blazers is most likely, if not, they have to be interested in Andre Miller or possiblty mike bibby for a lot less. Henry Abbott wants them to keep the 9 mil and wait for the trade deadline, and he's probably right, but I don't know if pritchard thinks so.
I still think Linas Kleiza or however you spell it to Cleveland.
A lot of miscellaneous guys are going to go for chump change to smaller market teams after the big dogs finish their lunch.
anybody have thoughts?
Posted by: phred | July 06, 2009 at 04:06 PM
Nemaia,
The Lakers salary before adding Ron, Lamar, and Shannon is $76M for ten players, excluding Sun Yue. Assuming $5.5M for Ron, $8M for Lamar, and $2M for Shannon,
the Lakers would end up at $91.5M for 13 players, $20M over the luxury tax threshold, meaning we would pay another $20M in taxes for a total payroll of around $111.5M.
The Celtics salary before adding Rasheed is $73.4M for 11 players. Assuming $5.5M for Rasheed, $1.9M for Grant “Over the” Hill, that would bring the Celtics up to a payroll of $80.8M for 13 players, or around $10M less than the Lakers. That would mean a luxury tax of $10M bringing the Celtics total payroll to $91.8M – still $20M less than Lakers.
In other words, Jerry Buss is willing to spend $20M more than Boston is to bring back another championship. I think that says a lot about Jerry Buss and family. Hard to complain that our owner is not willing to pay the price to win. That is also why there is no way that the team could keep Trevor Ariza even if he was willing to come off the bench since Artest would be the starter. Not enough money or minutes.
Tom
Posted by: LakerTom | July 06, 2009 at 04:08 PM
[looks disdainfully at Bostonian trolls, points to scoreboard]
Posted by: phred | July 06, 2009 at 04:09 PM
Laker Tom,
I think a more logical choice would be the NBA/ABA merger. That would start with the 1976-77 season. So many great players were in the ABA before that time.
Doesn't change the 9 LA titles to 4 for the seltix.
Posted by: HBMatt | July 06, 2009 at 04:11 PM
JohnnyV,
I think the delay is Lamar’s agent just wanting to make sure that there are no other offers out there for Lamar from the Blazers, who appear to be the only team that could still offer Lamar more than the MLE. If they can get an offer from the Blazers, the Lakers would be more likely to pay a little more. If not, then Lamar will settle for the $7M the Lakers are offering. Both sides are just waiting for all the ducks to get in a row and then they will work out the best compromise and Lamar will be back in purple and gold.
Tom
Posted by: LakerTom | July 06, 2009 at 04:13 PM