Lakers retract offer to Odom

[Andrew]

Sounds like the original stalling might turn out to be much ado about nothing, then.

[Jackal]

Fuck yeah.

In your faces Andrews.

[The X]

I used my jinx on Shaq33, which helped lay the foundations for Odom to be re-signed

[Valor]

The Candyman is back in LA

[Andrew]

Fuck yeah.

In your faces Andrews.

Like I said, I picked the Lakers to win in every series prediction last year. You can't pin these things on me anymore.

[bee-boy]

yes LO is back baby. repeat on the way.

[Mayerhendrix]

They said the exact same thing back when Wade had Shaq.

Seeing as they had a couple of 50-win seasons and a title, I'd say they were right on that one.

[Diablo-]

did odom signed with L.A?

[Martti.]

Odom would now be more and more welcome in Miami, as the Heat lost Moon and are quite thin at SF, what Odom can play fairly well. Getting Boozer seems more and more distant.

[The X]

Personally I would've liked to have seen Odom go back to Miami. Would've been nice to see him never get traded to Lakers in first place. Imagine a team with Odom, Butler & Wade plus pieces they would've since added. Would've been a top 4 team in the East.

[Andrew]

There mightn't have been the 2006 championship though.

[The X]

I realise that, but my stance with that Heat team that I would've preferred if they had never traded for Shaq....I can see why they did, but I would've preferred if Heat had of stuck with that core for one more year at least....

[Andrew]

That brings us back to that old question: is it better to go for broke and contend for a few years, win a championship then fall back into a rebuilding stage or keep building for a few years in the hopes of contending and winning a championship? I'm still in favour of pulling the trigger on the short term solution if the opportunity is there to have a legit shot at a championship.

[The X]

We've had this discussion a few times over the last couple of years and we will once again have to agree to disagree. I like to see teams build towards being contenders like the Blazers are now. I have no issue with the Celtics trading to become a contender as they were going nowhere anyways. I'm admittedly not a fan of a team trading away it's future like the Heat did for 1-2 shots at the title when they were building towards being a contender. I can't blame the Heat for doing it as if winning a championship is your primary goal, then it made logical sense.

In the end, I guess it comes down to different team management philosophy, which is why you'll see a team like the Jazz be in top 10 for 10 years but teams like Heat have 2 years in top 10 then back to pretender status.

The history books will only really remember the championship teams, but I'll still have my fond memories of the 2001-2003 Sacramento Kings & the 2004-07 Phoenix Suns. I don't think any less of those teams for not winning it all, much like I don't with the late '90's Utah Jazz.

[Andrew]

I would actually agree that the ideal would be to contend year in and year out rather than long droughts between limited success. With the right pieces and enough patience, such a team could eventually win a title or two and I'd point to the Pistons of the 80s as an example of that. It's just that sometimes, a can't-miss opportunity comes along and speeds up the process; in the best case scenario, a championship at the expense of hastening the inevitable rebuilding period.

[Mayerhendrix]

That brings us back to that old question: is it better to go for broke and contend for a few years, win a championship then fall back into a rebuilding stage or keep building for a few years in the hopes of contending and winning a championship? I'm still in favour of pulling the trigger on the short term solution if the opportunity is there to have a legit shot at a championship.

At the same time, there's the risk of being a team like Dallas or Phoenix which comes close a good number of times but never manages to get over the hump. Though I think seeing both Dallas and San Antonio spring for the "final dash" option this offseason sets up next season very nicely.

[benji]

In reality though, that's just luck. You can't "bet" on a one-time fix. If you do, you get the Bulls at the start of the decade, the Magic getting Hill and McGrady, every team that gets derailed by an injury or single missed shot.

The Heat might have not had the 2006 title, but they would've had a whole season and offseason to add. They might have won 2007, 2008, 2009, etc. depending on the how the cards fell.

The Perfect Team made a trade that put them over and won them a title, and nearly a second, and then they nearly rebuilt back to that. They would've been on the path to contention anyway, but then they got lucky.

The Celtics followed a plan to build solid young talent. Then they got lucky.

[Mayerhendrix]

I've never had much respect for veterans who sign with already-talented teams for extremely low salaries just to pick up a title. It doesn't really validate their career in the same way a title is supposed to for a player who's spent a good amount of their career with the particular team. That last 2003-2004 season, even if the Lakers managed to pick up a title there, it wouldn't really add to my perception of Karl Malone or Gary Payton as players or have that same effect of completing their NBA legacy. In a sense, it'd be a tainted title.

[Jackal]

I don't think those players really give a shit how you perceive them.

They want a ring, they've played their hearts out and didn't get a ring, so they chose to ride the coat-tails of a younger/stacked team in hopes of still getting a ring. After a long career and having proven it all, I can't say I'd think any less of them. It's not like they just uppity & quit playing hard and just decided to sign with a big team (Marbury?). No, Payton & Malone played hard till the end...so if they had won a ring with the Lakers, I dont think anyone should've thought any less of them.

[Mayerhendrix]

In comparison, I've got a lot more respect for a player like Reggie Miller for sticking it out with the Pacers all those years until the very end. Again, it's a personal opinion sort of thing, there.

[Andrew]

In reality though, that's just luck. You can't "bet" on a one-time fix. If you do, you get the Bulls at the start of the decade, the Magic getting Hill and McGrady, every team that gets derailed by an injury or single missed shot.

Absolutely, it's no guarantee. But if I were a GM, I'd find it hard to resist the temptation of swapping seven, eight years of possible contention with a two or three year window with a really good shot at a championship. It might not be the most logical way to go and it's not giving a whole lot of thought to the future but I think the temptation would be there, along with some pressure from above.

I've never had much respect for veterans who sign with already-talented teams for extremely low salaries just to pick up a title. It doesn't really validate their career in the same way a title is supposed to for a player who's spent a good amount of their career with the particular team. That last 2003-2004 season, even if the Lakers managed to pick up a title there, it wouldn't really add to my perception of Karl Malone or Gary Payton as players or have that same effect of completing their NBA legacy. In a sense, it'd be a tainted title.

It works both ways though. There's a certain dignity in accepting that you're no longer "The Man" and wanting to be part of something special, sacrificing money, stats and personal accolades to be part of a championship team.

[Hedonist]

That brings us back to that old question: is it better to go for broke and contend for a few years, win a championship then fall back into a rebuilding stage or keep building for a few years in the hopes of contending and winning a championship? I'm still in favour of pulling the trigger on the short term solution if the opportunity is there to have a legit shot at a championship.

Me too, but especially with teams that never won before, and the future perspective that they sacrifice isn't too bright. It Depends on the team and the transactions. Orlando probably fits the bill. They made a couple of bold moves while they really had a thing going already, that's a gamble imo - not saying that it's not going to work though.

In case of the Lakers I think they will be able to keep a competitive team for probably as long as Odom's contract will last, and perhaps beyond if they play it right, say pull off a couple of lopsided trades; nobody does it better.
Bryant won't quit any time soon. He as a great passion for the game and an equally big ego, both will help him to keep fit and focused as well as eager to produce and make his legacy as big as possible. I can't see him not ending his career with the Lakers either (anymore). Gasol is 29 and has only just tasted his first succes in the NBA. He will be top level for four more years I think. Farmar and Fisher are a good combo who can naturally change roles imo. I find them very similar. Bynum is young and has only scratched the surface of his potential. In the meantime they can keep attracting ring-craving veteran role players every year. Artest went on the record that he didn't care what they offered, he was going to sign it haha. If the Odom signing comes through (reports are vague if it's finalized) I see them as a top 4 team in the West for the next 4 years.

Nice shout out to the Kings and the Jazz X, I think they feel differently themselves.
The first thing Chris Webber said at his jersey retirement ceremony was that he felt disappointment. It was a bit sad.
My fondest memories of the Kings are pre-2001-02. Out of all the NBA players there are to hate Mike Bibby still tops my list. Rick Adelman stinks.

[Jackal]

Out of all the NBA players there are to hate Mike Bibby still tops my list. Rick Adelman stinks.

Phil, is that you?

[Martti.]

Lamar Odom is leaning strongly toward accepting the Miami Heat’s contract offer and leaving the Los Angeles Lakers, multiple sources with knowledge of the talks said.

Odom has not reached a final decision, the sources said, but there is growing belief he will ultimately return to the Heat unless the Lakers improve their current offer.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=a ... &prov=yhoo

Only good new for me.

[Valor]

Lamar Odom is leaning strongly toward accepting the Miami Heat’s contract offer and leaving the Los Angeles Lakers, multiple sources with knowledge of the talks said.

Odom has not reached a final decision, the sources said, but there is growing belief he will ultimately return to the Heat unless the Lakers improve their current offer.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=a ... &prov=yhoo

Only good new for me.

nope, sorry my friend

The Heat haven't made any progress with free-agent forward Lamar Odom

he is widely expected to return to Los Angeles.

http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archi ... with_odom/