Should L.A. move Lamar?

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">There are three things I've learned in the seven years I've been writing columns about trades:


1. No matter what, lots of folks want to know, "What about the Lakers?"


I know ... it's heresy to propose trades without doing something with the Lakers.

I thought about coming up with a Kobe Bryant trade just to tick off all of the Laker fans ...

But I know what you really want is for me to come up with something for Lamar Odom.


Personally, I think trading Odom a bad idea. I don't think Lamar is the problem in L.A. He does some things well. He doesn't score much, but with Kobe on the team, I'm not sure who would.


Still, with a critical mass of fans calling for Odom's head ... here's the best I could come up with:

It's big, but it could be pared down (leaving Atlanta out completely) if Utah was happy with only salary relief.


Lakers send Odom to Orlando; Kwame Brown and Smush Parker to Atlanta; and Devean George, Stanislav Medvedenko and Laron Profit to Utah.


Utah sends Carlos Boozer to the Lakers.

Orlando sends Steve Francis to the Lakers.

Atlanta sends Josh Childress to Utah and Tyronn Lue and Donta Smith to the Lakers.

? See this trade in the ESPN Trade Machine.


Here's why this might work:


The Lakers need to get two players for Odom to make something like this work. They need a guard and a rebounder. Francis and Boozer are both overpaid, but they should serve their roles just fine as long as both can stay healthy.


The downside for the Lakers is that they would lose any cap flexibility they were going to have in the summer of 2007. However, as I've pointed out in this blog before, the cap flexibility isn't going to be much because the Lakers would have to waive all but three players on their roster to get far enough under the cap to sign one max player. I seriously doubt the Lakers are considering putting eight minimum players on their roster in 2007.


This deal would give the Lakers more balance, more scoring and more star power. Whether Kobe would actually pass the ball to the new guys is a different story altogether.


The Magic would be turning Steve Francis into Lamar Odom, and I can't think of a better outcome for them. A front line of Dwight Howard, Odom and Darko (if he ever recovers from that sunburn) would have the potential to be awesome.


The Jazz basically would be giving away Boozer for cap flexibility and a nice, young two guard with some potential. With the development of Mehmet Okur this year, the Jazz don't really need Boozer -- Okur, Andrei Kirilenko and Greg Ostertag have the frontline covered.


That move would also put the Jazz roughly $13 million under the cap going into the summer, allowing them to use their cap space this summer to either find a two guard who can create his own shot (kind of like they guy they gave away, Kirk Snyder) in the draft, via free agency or with a sign-and-trade.


The Hawks do it because they can try out Kwame (who hails from the Atlanta area) for the next season and a quarter. He would not be a long-term commitment and this summer's free agent market is short on bigs.


Parker is also interesting. He's had some success in L.A. this year and might be a good fit in the backcourt next to Joe Johnson.


Childress has shown potential, but the Hawks have a huge logjam at the wing position.


The word around the league is that the Magic are prepared to send Francis to New York for Jamal Crawford, but they're waiting for a better deal. The Odom deal is one the Magic would jump on if they could get it.


2. Local fans tend to overrate local players and underrate players who aren't on their teams. My guess is that GMs do the same thing.


Let me give you an example.

After my Bulls-Sonics trade proposal, which would send Ray Allen, Rashard Lewis and Reggie Evans to Chicago for Ben Gordon, Luol Deng, Tim Thomas, Eric Piatkowski and the Knicks' No. 1 pick (which Chicago owns), I received plenty of e-mail on both sides of the proposal.


Here's one: "It seems to me that you have the Bulls giving up much more than they receive in return. Assuming that expiring contracts and draft picks are valuable commodities, why would the Bulls give up cap space (Thomas and Piatkowski) and draft picks (maybe the No. 1 pick in the draft) and good young players (Deng and Gordon) for players who are good, but older and much more expensive?Seattle is a team in a bind due to bad contracts and no flexibility, but after your trades, the Bulls are the team with players in their 30s who have eight-figure salaries. I think you are attaching too little significance to cap space and lottery choices."


Said another fan: "Gordon and Deng and a No. 1 pick for Allen and Lewis? You've got to be kidding me. Those guys have won nothing for Seattle and we're going to trade two guys with better upside and smaller contracts and a potential No. 1 pick in the draft for them? Please."


Now, from a different point of view: "How can you possibly foresee the Sonics trading Lewis and Allen to the Bulls? Seriously. SERIOUSLY. & Please don't package superstars in exchange for garbage."


Want to guess which e-mailers are from Chicago and which one was from Seattle? I've gotten hundreds of variations on these e-mails.

There's an old saying that one man's trash is another man's treasure. Clearly, for NBA fans who read Insider, it's the other way around: One man's treasure is another man's trash.


What fascinates me is whether this same effect engulfs GMs. Do they have so much time and energy invested in following their team and watching their guys develop that they overvalue them on the open market and undervalue players (or draft picks or salary room)?


Maybe that's why trades that seem obvious from an outsider's perspective never happen.


Honestly, if Bulls and Sonics fans feel this strongly about these players, maybe Rick Sund and John Paxson have similar feelings.


3. Fans are in denial about superstars being traded.


Here's another fun e-mail: "Chad, how long have you been doing this job? Don't you know that superstars never get traded in the NBA? I can't believe I have to pay for your column and have to explain this to you."


The reader was from Boston and I think he was referring to Paul Pierce.


Here's a partial list of superstars who have been traded over the past few years: Shaquille O'Neal, Tracy McGrady, Vince Carter, Jason Kidd, Baron Davis, Peja Stojakovic and Ray Allen.


I can promise you that back when we wrote two summers ago that the Lakers would consider trading Shaq, the conventional wisdom overwhelmingly said it would never happen. The tone was, "How can you trade the greatest big man in the last decade, let alone for a package consisting of Lamar Odom, Caron Butler and Brian Grant?"


It happens. Most of the time, it's for financial reasons. A star player is on a dead-end team and/or the team is willing to cut their losses (financial and otherwise) now and pick up some assets for the future.


That's why I think it's unwise to say that it's impossible for players like Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, Allen Iverson and even Kevin Garnett to be traded. History disagrees with you.


I think this goes back to the point about how emotionally invested fans are with their teams. After suffering with them for so long, the idea of losing a star -- the one guy a fan could count on every night to come out and give them his all -- is frightening.

People say they want change. But deep down, most of us are afraid of it. </div>

Chad Fraud piece.