Lakers Now

Round-the-Clock Purple and Gold

« Previous Post | Lakers Now Home | Next Post »

Minnesota Timberwolves want Andrew Bynum, but so does every NBA team


--Sports Illustrated's Sam Amick reports that one of the Minnesota Timberwolves' many proposals involved a trade for Andrew Bynum, which involves sending Michael Beasley to the Lakers. Nice try David Kahn. But As Amick mentioned, this deal won't happen.

--The Times' Broderick Turner reports that Spero Dedes "had a change of heart" regarding possibly becoming the Lakers' television play-by-play announcer.

--The Daily News' Tom Hoffarth reports Dedes declined the Lakers' offer in becoming their new TV play-by-play announcer and will instead accept a job with the New York Knicks.

--The Orange County Register's Kevin Ding lists 10 things Ron Artest could've done better to ensure a Lakers' three-peat.

--Ball Don't Lie's Eric Freeman provides his take on Brian Shaw being in consideration for the Pacers' assistant coaching job. 

--ESPN Los Angeles' Brian Kamenetzky argues the Lakers should keep Pau Gasol.

--ESPN Los Angeles' Arash Markazi details John Ireland and Bill MacDonald becoming the Lakers' next play-by-play announcers. 

--Fox Sports' Charley Rosen argues the Lakers won't be the favorite to win the 2012 NBA championship. 

--Silver Screen and Roll's Ben R previews the NBA Draft. 

--Forum Blue and Gold's Darius Soriano opposes a Gasol trade. 

Tweet of the Day: "You can wipe the Pau Gasol-to-Minnesota rumor from your memory banks. "Not happening," says a source." -- KBerg_CBS (CBS Sports' Ken Berger)

Rick Friedman Reader Comment of the Day: "BTW, Consider this... Minnesota has been shopping that #2 pick around the league like a hot potato. First they came asking for Pau (no thank you, how about Pau for Love+2?) Now after getting turned down for JaVale McGee and Andrew Bogut and several others, they came asking about Bynum (HELL no! Not even if you include Love)

I keep thinking... how long before they resort to asking for Odom and change for the #2? So I'll ask that question... Would you give up Lamar Odom for a couple of players from Minnesota (other than Love or Rubio) plus the #2 pick? Let's say Milicic and either Beasley or Webster. That gives you a reliable defensive backup C. And depending on the other player, you could either take Webster and draft Derrick Williams (who could pick up Lamar's minutes), or you could take Beasley (to pick up Lamar's minutes) and draft Brandon Knight or Kemba Walker." -- LongTimeLakerFan

--Mark Medina

E-mail the Lakers blog at [email protected]

Photo: The Minnesota Timberwolves reportedly hope they can acquire Lakers center Andrew Bynum in a trade. Credit: Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times / May 10, 2011.

Comments () | Archives (28)

The comments to this entry are closed.

They "want" Andrew Bynum the same way we want CP3, Dwill, and DH.

And if Bynum can land us Dwight Howard, then Minny doesn't have the players to obtain Bynum. Sorry.

I'm just so confused


Hey, thanks for making my comment RCoTD, and debut yesterday MM, I appreciate it. Reminding us of the eloquence of the departed Rick Friedman, he will be sorely missed.

Yeah, I just basically that a lot of these other teams are coming out of the woodwork and asking for everything and marble floors for relatively, a few years ago, above average players - trying to make up for their atrocious business deals. It won't but a few mouse clicks and a search term or two to find a slew of has-been franchises asking for quality AND quantity. Team A: "Hey I'll give you one of my top 2/3 role players and a bad contract for your dime-piece-given the new CBA". Lakers: " I think I am giving you a a solid immediate-impact player, isn't that enough? We won exactly two, TWO, NBA Championship and 4 straight trips to the playoffs with X player in your proposed trade." I bet most of those trade proposals are intentionally made just to test the rookie executive, Jim Buss. If so, if not for anything else, he should show us what he is made of. And while we all voice our displeasure on his lack of imagination, and not being aggressive enough to pursue (much respect to Andrew and Pau Gasol etc.) even better players to pair with Kobe Bryant during the offseason, we are all cheering for him to do only what's right, for the sake of the late-great Chick Hearn. In closing, welcome Johnny Ireland to the broadcast booth, I don't remember any games he has called, but I know he has been exceptional on the sidelines and he probably deserves the chance of a lifetime. Good looking out Spero! Just want to pay my respects to one of the best young play-by-play announcers in the modern era, I hope the best of luck to him in N.Y.

RE: -my bad, for the displaced words correctional errors last post, working on a laptop right now and the keys arent tactful enough IMO. HP = has been a fail company for a while now.

I want to address a rumor that OJ Mayo might be on the block. I would love a Bynum / Odom / Gasol pack. trade for Zbo and/or OJ Mayo and/or Mike Conley. Both are high quality guards, and standouts last season and if they are made available why not try and pursue them since it seems David Kahn and a load of other owners set their sights too high this offseason? I call it the CBA-flu. I know it's a longshot since Zbo and Conley, specially, make up part of their core that went on that historic 8th seed run, and it wouldn't be wise for them to break it up so early, and it would be far more feasible for them to trade OJ Mayo, but hey, it's-worth exploring. What about Sam Young and Rudy Gay, and I know for a fact Shane Battier, being interviewed by Jim Rome, addressed (I'm paraphrasing) 'players that have a work ethic and take the game seriously'. He also said this concerning his last few years in the association, "I Want to enjoy the ride, because I don’t have that many years left." He must have had a profound effect on that locker room. I would love to have him on my team, I know he's a FA. If we could attain him, and get another Grizzly bear in return then we could add the speed and defense we severely lacked last season. If it involved Lamar Odom and to a less-enticing extent - Gasol, I would still consider it, moreso than other proposed trades out there.

Minnesota is working their way down the Lakers lineup.

I think it'll just be a few more passes before they offer the #2 pick for Luke Walton.

Wouldn't it be sweet to dump Luke Walton... !

So, in case you don't have ESPN Insider, here's the latest on contract negotiations:

The Players Union's latest offer is to keep the current soft salary-cap, but with a half-billion dollar reduction in salaries. In other words, they're willing to reduce current contracts in order to keep the more open system.

The Owners are pushing for something closer to a hard cap, where teams could not exceed an as-yet determined maximum team salary. They're looking to move the average salary back down to about 5 million, and a 50-50 split between players and owners of revenues. And it would mean an 8% pay cut in the first year.

To explain the Owner's "flex-cap", there would be a median team payroll of something like $62 million. If you're over that, you could still use things like the MLE and the Biannual exception... but there's no luxury tax. There's just a maximum team salary that you can't exceed under any circumstances.

Let's say that number is 75 million (the offer doesn't specify a number). Then after the 8% pay cut the Lakers are down to 87 million. So they'd have to cut at least 12 million in salary (probably, they'd have to pay off contracts to get down there) and leave enough room to sign 13 players to at least minimum contracts.

So let's say they start by paying off Luke, Artest, and Blake. That gets them down to about 68 million. That leaves them 7 million to sign 4 players (probably could sign your own players in this case, so Artest & Blake get re-signed for about a million each, plus 2 more players on the cheap)

If it's 80 million, then they could probably make it just by cutting Luke and Artest.

But the thing to remember is, it's a hard cap. If trading for Chris Paul would put you over the cap, you can't do the trade.

I hope this goes through, been having a devil of a time logging in this morning after it initially allowed me to.

- - -

LTLF: I'm totally with you about the negotiations, I'm not debating you. I understand that if a hard cap is negotiated and teams mandated to make immediate cuts to get under it, then it is what it is.

I just can't see the players accept such a deal, much like they totally rejected Stern's doomsday scenario of eliminating teams during the all-star break.

Another thing, I doubt the league would tell a team to cut one of their two highest paid players for instance, something like that. I'm definitely not following this closely, definitely not an expert, but seems so drastic.

So, imagine if it did happen like you write above. A number is thrown out there to be the hard cap and the Lakers were forced to cut players, couldn't they get under the cap by cutting any number of players? Say, Luke (poor Luke...), Blake, Ron Ron, Fish - basically everyone not named Kobe, Pau, Drew, Odom?

For the record, here's their core salaries for the next two or three seasons:

Kobe Bryant - $25,244,000 - $27,849,000 - $30,453,000
Pau Gasol - $18,714,150 - $19,000,000 - $19,285,850
Andrew Bynum - $15,157,667 - $16,473,002
Lamar Odom - $8,900,000 - $8,200,000 (team option)

So, the Lakers have about $68-million in just those 4 players for next season, that goes up to about $71-million the following year. There is probably a huge chance that any cap would be below those numbers considering the salary cap was $58-million last year - and the owners claimed that was too high.

The adverse affect not only on the Lakers, but the entire upper-echelon of teams would be pretty dramatic. These teams would be forced to cut high-impact players. I just can't see that happening, it's just too drastic a measure.

Say the Lakers were forced to cut L.O. - and still pay his salary. Couldn't he just walk over to say, the Knicks and sign for peanuts? Well, since they are likely over a likely hard cap number, then basically all these big-time newly-minted free agents will all go to play for the 5 or 6 cellar dwellers, like the Kings, Clippers - and of course, the T'Wolves.

Crazy stuff. I really wish negotiating these deals didn't get so nasty, wish both sides gave more. I still remember that stupid lockout in '99, the Lakers were primed to start winning and the strike shortened season killed their chances.

Sucks being a fan through all this, lets just hope it doesn't drag on.


What's up LakerFamily-

Can't believe that the Wolves would dare want Bynum, didn't they get the Jim Buss Memo, he is "untouchable"...that is until Howard, Cp3, or D Will come onto the market....

Curious as to your thoughts on the Spurs shopping Tony Parker for a draft pick, surely in response to his "our window is closed" comment...

If only the Lakers could trade Luke Walton for K Love, and the #2, and ship the pick to the Spurs for Tony Parker....i know i am dreaming, but I can't see why more top lottery teams aren't jumping at this opportunity, especially with such a WEAK draft class.....

Also, the Suns are in talks with the Wolves to trade Nash for the #2 pick...I know Nash is up there, but he is still a great QB on the floor, and we just saw what J Kidd did for the Mavs.....

Have a Great Day-

California's Finest Black Mamba

>>>Another thing, I doubt the league would tell a team to cut one of their two
>>>highest paid players for instance, something like that. I'm definitely not
>>>following this closely, definitely not an expert, but seems so drastic.

Nope. If they have forced cuts, I'm sure the teams would get to choose which players get cut. But consider this... what if the Max Total Contracts level is 75 million and there are no pay cuts... Then the Lakers need to drop almost 20 million in salary.

Kobe, Pau, Andrew, and Lamar make 68 million just for 4 players. With a cutoff level of 75 million, that would leave them 7 million to play 9 players. They'd have to keep Caracter & Ebanks. Hopefully the other guys would re-sign for next to nothing (since their contracts would presumably be paid off anyway).

Orlando would be the only other team in the league who would have to cut players to get under the new hard cap. But some teams wouldn't be able to offer big contracts to their free agents, as they'd be close to the cutoff already.

If there is a hard cap the teams will need to be able to name one or two franchise players who's contracts don't count above a specific point, at least for a couple years so that you aren't killed by pre-new CBA contracts on players that only have so many years left.

I'm sure there will be some clause that lasts two to three years like that.


Reportedly, Brown would like to bring in Varejao. Wonder if Cleveland would go for Odom + the #4 for Varejao?

>>>Say the Lakers were forced to cut L.O. - and still pay his salary. Couldn't he
>>>just walk over to say, the Knicks and sign for peanuts?

Yep. But why would he choose the Knicks over the Lakers? Better odds of a ring with the Lakers, and he gets along with his teammates.

What's up LakerFamily-

Re: Steve Nash, apparently while the two teams were in discussions, the trade ultimately failed b/c Nash has requested that if he was to be traded, that it be to a title contender.....wouldn't it be nice to see Nash in Forum Blue and Gold....

California's Finest Black Mamba

Hey MM,

The correct title for this post would be...


MM: Looking forward to a new sign-in system!

- - -

LTLF: Wow, this stuff requires a doctorate to figure out. I know this is all yet to be negotiated, but there's something I was wondering how it would hypothetically work.

OK, say the cap comes to $75-million like in your example. As you point out, there would be $7-million left after the $68-million going to the core-4.

On the books for next season is a whopping $94.8-million+ for the Lakers (assuming Shannon exercises his $2.4-mill option, and they retain Caracter at $788k). That means they would have to trim almost $20-million from their books.

You said they would probably be required to get rid of one of their highest-paid players, that seems draconian though. The Lakers should be able to pick how they want to trim their roster. Anyways, if that happens it will bring about the parity Tim-4-Show was referring to, and punish the better teams. Anyways, this isn't what I was wondering about.

Lets assume all the players will be paid off by their teams, as I'm sure the union would insist upon. Their contracts are guaranteed after all. So, say the Lakers trim Ron Artest off the books, then he would be a free agent, right? OK, now say the Orlando Magic trims Gilbert Arenas from their roster. The Lakers could then sign him at a vet-minimum? But, say the Lakers wanted to resign Ron Ron, they could do so at the vet-min also?

That's the part I don't get. If like you say teams over a proposed hard cap were forced to trim a big contract (say, one of their top-3 paid players) then it would work, but marquee teams like the Lakers would be punished.

If teams over the cap could trim their rosters any way they like, then the Lakers could cut the Lukes, Ron Rons, Blakes off the roster, and be left with a situation where like you say, $7-million to fill 9 roster spots, and several other guaranteed deals on the books that would take them over $75-million.

Fisher, Barnes are on the books, so is Shannon if he exercises his option and that would push them over $75-mill right there. They can't possibly let teams trim a lot of guys just to get under the cap, then use that additional cap space under $75-mill to pick and choose amongst the new free agents, or can they?

This is why I don't get an immediate hard cap. Teams would be hamstrung in signing players. There would be a glut of overpaid players on the market, and how would it work. It's all too confusing...


Reportedly, Brown would like to bring in Varejao. Wonder if Cleveland would go for Odom + the #4 for Varejao?"
HAHA! Another example of people reading this blog for source material on articles. Didn't we just discuss this yesterday???

Man, the least they could do is start giving us some credit! LOLOLOL...

BTW, I would do that trade in a heartbeat. Kemba Walker here we come!


>>>You said they would probably be required to get rid of one of their
>>>highest-paid players, that seems draconian though. The Lakers should be
>>>able to pick how they want to trim their roster.

Well, they would be able to pick who they cut. So lets say they cut everyone except Kobe, Pau, Lamar, and Andrew. Those four players alone make 68 million next season, and 71 million the year after.

If they are only allowed 75 million total, then it would be very very hard to do that if 4 of your players make 71 million. Not even sure you could get 9 minimum contracts for 4 million.

If the deal is that they have to cut the players, but they have to pay off their salaries and are allowed to re-sign them (as long as they stay under the max), then they'd probably work it differently. In that case, you cut Kobe and Pau, re-sign them for 1 million each for the next 3 seasons, and you've knocked 40 million + off of each year's salary.

But if you're not allowed to re-sign the players you cut, the Lakers would be in serious trouble. If they keep the big 4, they'd have pretty much only minimum contracts to offer to fill 9 other spots on the team, and they couldn't add Artest or Fisher or Blake or Barnes back. Some of the players they'd have to sign would make Smush Parker look good. It would assure that Ebanks and Caracter would get a significant role.

CyberCosmix - the report that the Lakers want Varejao concluded that the Lakers and Cavs probably wouldn't be able to agree on terms to get Varejao. It'd be pretty much like the Minnesota situation - they'd want Pau for Varejao, Lakers would be willing to give up Lamar for Varejao and the 4, Cavs would say no thank you.

I'm the one who proposed the Lamar for Varejao and the 4.

My goodness gracious me. This stuff is mind-bogglingly complex. If they could cut one contract off the books, but still pay that player then all is good as the Lakers could simply take Kobe's contract off the books (while still paying him of course!)

Just to confuse everyone a little more, here's a yahoo! article on the strike.

Kudos to D-Fish, he's in the heat of battle, negotiating for the players.;_ylt=Arlg_xkm00a8k9ihOyOBncu8vLYF?slug=ap-nbalabor

NEW YORK (AP)—Saying it reflects a “desire to go as far as we can to avoid a lockout,” NBA Commissioner David Stern revealed Tuesday that owners have moved off their insistence on a hard salary cap.

Players don’t see it that way.

So it appears the cap system remains as the biggest obstacle to a new collective bargaining agreement before the rapidly approaching June 30 deadline.

Stern said the league has proposed a “flex cap,” in which teams would target a uniform dollar amount to spend, but would still be permitted to exceed it up to an unspecified level. Players argue it’s still a hard cap, because the ceiling would eventually kick in.

So even though both sides felt there was progress in what Stern had said was an important day in these negotiations, a sizable gap remains.

“At this point we’re still just really far apart on the largest issue of hard salary cap, and still some economic issues as well,” players’ association president Derek Fisher(notes) of the Lakers said.

Calling it “virtually the best shot we think we have” to avoid a work stoppage, Stern said the owners’ proposal would ensure that players’ total compensation would never fall below $2 billion a year in a 10-year contract, slightly less than the league paid this season.

He said the average player salary would be about $5 million and Deputy Commissioner Adam Silver said the goal would be an eventual 50-50 split of basketball revenues. The players are currently guaranteed 57 percent.

Though Stern refused to call this his last offer, he said the “cupboard is getting barer and barer.”

“It’s all out there,” he said. “The owners to a person feel that this is what we have to give.”

The flex cap offer had previously been proposed to the players, but had not been disclosed publicly until Tuesday. According to Stern, teams would be targeted to spend approximately $62 million, with the option to spend above through certain exceptions before reaching a limit they could not exceed.

Under the current soft salary cap, teams can use various exceptions to exceed the cap, with the penalty of a dollar for dollar luxury tax once they reach the threshold. The cap this year was $58 million, and the NBA champion Dallas Mavericks, under big-spending owner Mark Cuban, blew well past the tax level of $70 million.

The union made a proposal that offered more than $500 million in player salary reductions over the life of a five-year contract, a person with knowledge of the proposal told The Associated Press. The person, who requested anonymity because the details were not released, said the reductions would be made by slicing the players’ guarantee from its current 57 percent to 54.3 percent.

Stern called that proposal “modest” but “directionally better” than the union’s previous ones and said the players asked for another meeting Friday.

“Today was productive and there was movement, but we’re still very far apart and … the hard salary cap system is still something that we’re really having difficulty trying to get past,” Fisher said. “Our players just don’t see that as the best way to tackle some of the things at least we’ve been given by owners as to reasons why we need a hard salary cap.”

Last week, the league withdrew its insistence for all contracts to be non-guaranteed in a new deal, offering to leave the system as is, where teams and players can negotiate individually.

The players have argued that was not truly a concession, because they were given something they already have.

“We’ve had guaranteed contracts for 40 years, so it’s almost like somebody walks into your house and they take something that belongs to you, and then they want to sell it back,” union executive director Billy Hunter said. “And you say, ‘It was mine from the get-go, so why should I pay for it? And I didn’t authorize you to take it, and I never said it was available for you to take or use or abuse.”’

Hunter had long said he was nearly certain of the league’s first work stoppage since 1998, but now says he sees signs owners are interested in making a deal.

But both sides caution they aren’t close to one yet. Asked if they were 100 miles apart going into Tuesday how far they were now, Hunter said, “What, 99?”

Though the league’s newest proposal would mean an 8 percent pay cut in the first year, owners have moved from their initial proposal that players rejected in February 2010. Stern said there have now been 10 proposals exchanged between the sides and the players could offer another Friday.

They still must sort through the differences in the cap, with Stern saying the sides have a “different characterization” of what the league proposed.

The players’ executive committee was joined by stars such as Tony Parker(notes) of the Spurs and Atlanta’s Al Horford(notes). Fisher said all the players have expressed their willingness to be flexible but “there are certain parts of it we have no interest in moving on and right now that’s where we stand.”

Are we all confused yet? I know I am...


Eventually this could come down to the deal that makes sense for both clubs. Gasol for Love and the #2. Take a look around Sota. Aint no impact big men left in the league. Love will not be a T Wolve for life. Bynum and Odom will be held at all costs for nothing less than Dwight Howard. So, no. Odom will not be shipped to Sota.

Regarding Odom for Varejao + #4, I would do it.

Pau for Varejao, the #4 and say a shooter like Boobie Gibson? I would do it too. That might be a very realistic trade. It would give the Lakers a high-energy, scrappy guy next to Drew, a dead-eye shooter and a young point guard in Kemba Walker (hopefully!).

Interesting part was: "sources say [Brown] is trying to convince the Lakers front office to see what it would take to bring Varejao to L.A."

Wonder what source is saying that, if so it's probably on the Cavs end of things. Makes me think that Mitch hasn't made a call asking what it would take to bring Varejao over already...


>>>Love will not be a T Wolve for life.

If there's a franchise player tag in the new CBA, he might be.

I don't think the Lakers will win a championship for long, long time unless they make some trades, and blow up the team, like Magic said. Lakers sucked this year, give Dallas some credit, the only team that stood a chance to beat Dallas was the Miami Heat, ( but their coach sucks monkey butt ) the Lakers and so did the Lakers, they got embarrassed by so many teams this year so many times: Cleveland, Dallas, Miami, Spurs, just to name a few, they got complacent and they were in denial, that was the worst thing about it. They needed to panic. Any player that has a reality show should go I'm sorry. Bynum should go too, I don't want to root for any team with Andrew Bynum after what he did especially given his two historical problems, one a history being hurt all the time, did he play one moth this year without getting an entire month, I don't think so, two a history of dirty fouls, this isn't the first time he's pulled this crap. I'm sorry if an injury prone play I'm not gonna be dropping notes on players, bad idea, pay back is a biotch.

Lakers should do what ever they have to do to get Love, Lakers need some Love after all that crap they pulled this year. I would love to get Love for Pau or Bynum, I would try to keep Bynum, so maybe you could trade him for Dwight Howard later on this year. Dwight Howard would probably be more prone to coming to LA if we had Love.

Any player on the Lakers that has a reality show should go, thats just me, Odom is good but come on man, reality show suck and its a big distraction

As a Lakers fan, I don't feel optimistic about the team next season because they continue to take a chance with Bynum. Bynum has not been 100 percent (or even 90 percent) healthy since entering the league. What happens if he is injured again? The Lakers' path to another championship is contingent upon Bynum's health AGAIN. If I was tasked to make decisions for the team, I would deal Bynum for Dwight. At least, with Dwight, you get a healthier and more athletic proven All-star. Jim Buss is seriously making a mistake by keeping Bynum and it will hurt the team. On the same note, Bynum's attitude is awful. He is very immature and lacks common sense regardless of his age. The guy should know the difference between right and wrong. Watching the flagrant foul out of frustration against JJ Barea was simply stupid. Several weeks prior to that, he committed a similar foul against Beasley. Then, the incident of taking off his jersey during Game 4. What an idiot!!! I've watched basketball for many years and he must be one of the first players to expose his one-pack to the entire world during an NBA game. Again, that was out of frustration. It was a childish act.....Oh well. I just hope the Lakers improve their roster because I don't see them moving past the first round with the current team. Go Lakers!

The More I think about it If you are the Lakers, still , you are not going to do that bad if you keep these guys. Sure It would be nice to see some exciting changes, but isn't worse thing if we keep most of these guys, Bynum, could come around, L O is a better player now , Pau is always good.



In Case You Missed It...


All Things Lakers »

Your database for all things purple and gold.

Find a Laker

Search a name

Select a season

Choose one of our lists



About the Bloggers

Bleacher Report | Lakers

Reader contributions from Times partner Bleacher Report

More Lakers on Bleacher Report »

Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists:

In Case You Missed It...