Odom about to ink a 4 year deal!

[fuj]

LO did and admirable job while Bynum was healing. I certainly don't recall LO getting 15/15 every night during this stretch, however. Yeah, I know we tend to remember what we want to remember.

The fact remains that while Odom has skills, he doesn't thrive under pressure. Putting up nice numbers while three or four of your teammates take the heat off of you isn't as impressive as doing it when you're the man, or even the #2 man. If he could, he would have received more and/or better offers from more teams. Only Miami offered him a deal, and that was for the mid-level exception, which is the average NBA annual salary. Bad economy aside, what does that say about what other teams think about LO's game vs. his salary demands? It was extremely generous of the Lakers to offer LO above and beyond the annual mid-level salary average when he had nothing better than that on the table.

I agree with wellbilldancesays, I'd rather have Odom in the capacity the Lakers will use him than not. He's just an expensive luxury and insurance policy. If the Lakers had to count on him as a key go-to guy, well, we've already seen how that plays out. Should Artest integrate well with the Lakers offense and if Bynum has a freak injury-free season, Lamar could be rendered relatively obsolete. Sure, he'll get his minutes, but they may be more garbage-time minutes than crunch time minutes.

[fuj]

Kurt Streeter's article in today's LA Times pretty much summed up my feelings about LO. Check it out.

[troutdog]

I know not everyone is going to be happy and I understand that, but rather than complain and point out Odom's short comings who would have you signed if you were calling the shots?


TD

[fuj]

I thought I was pretty clear in stating that I'd rather have Odom doing what he did for the Lakers last year than not have him at all. If I were calling the shots, I would have wanted to sign Lamar for less than what the Lakers apparently did.

[troutdog]

So what you are saying is that you are happy we signed Odom rather than anybody else, but just not for the price the Lakers did with the rationale they overpaid. Fair enough, but we should consider Miami offered a slightly better contract and lamar wanted to stay in LA....probably because he KNOWs where the next ring is more likely to land on his finger.

I am not trying to be argumentative, just curious about your opinion because I know you are a diehard Laker fan like I am Fuj....I appreciate feedback from true fans. thanks for weighing in.


TD

[fuj]

No offense taken, TD. I have "arguments" like this with co-workers and friends who are Lakers' fans too, and we haven't killed each other - yet.

Lakers fan, yes. Lamar fan, not so much. Miami's offer was for the mid-level. Total salary received is a bit more ($34M vs. $33M), but the average salary per season is less than what the Lakers offered. The Lakers' deal is for 3 years, $25M with a team option for the 4th year. If the Lakers buy LO out after the 3rd year, he gets $2M to walk away. That puts his total take from the Lakers at a guaranteed $27M or $9M/year for three years. That's the minimum he gets from this deal. Miami's deal would've been something like what the Lakers gave to Ron Artest.

If Lamar took a Lakers offer of the same average annual salary as Miami did with the exception of maybe one less guaranteed year, I'd say "Welcome Back!" Didn't Lamar, after all, say he'd take less to stay with the Lakers? What happened to that quote? Yeah, we all know a pro athlete is darn near always full of it when he says something like that, but I'd rather not hear it at all than hear a guy say it and then cause a big scene over money. That's why as much as people are sweating the Artest acquisition, I'm welcoming Ron with open arms (even if I end up regretting it in a couple of years.) Artest wanted to come here and play with Kobe and Lamar, and he was willing to do it for under market value.

"If you can't live on $30M, you can't live."
- Ron Artest

As for acquiring someone else if Lamar were to have left, I don't know what I would do. Given the Lakers were over the salary cap even without Lamar on the books anymore, they couldn't sign anyone new for more than the veteran's minimum once they signed Artest with the mid-level and Shannon Brown with the bi-annual exception. Shelden Williams has been thrown around as a possibility. If Lamar was willing to do a sign-and-trade, I'd have been open to that as well. Or maybe no one. As I said before, Lamar is a luxury for the Lakers. Without him the Lakers are still a top team. Maybe not the far and away pre-season favorite anymore, but still a very deadly team that improved defensively from signing Artest.

[Ready 2 Go]

Sweetfish has it partially right. The other part is the amount Lamar is paid. I wouldn't have nearly the issue with Lamar's output if he was getting paid accordingly. For the past six years, LO has been getting superstar money but was anything but a superstar (other than that stupid star he shaved in his skull.) With this new 4 year / $33M contract, he's still getting well above his market value.

LO is getting almost the same money as Ginobli and to a certain extent they are similar players- 6th man, first off the bench. Lamar's previous contract was not really superstar money - Superstar contracts signed at time were $20+ per year, wasn't LO's for $14/per year? He was the best player on the bronze USA team. Ha ha.

LO role is undervalued because his role changes by position- PF or SF and smaller role with the 1st team or running the second unit. He had a great "rebounding" year and his defense is above average.

Versitile bigmen are hard to find and therefor a pricey commodity. I am glad Lamar's agent didn't blow it like Ariza's. Hopefully it will be fun to watch Artest blend in.

Met LO a few times since his Clipper days and he has grown up and is a super nice guy. He didn't even blink when my son took off one of his old smelly(no sock wearing) Vans and asked him to sign it.

Ready 2 Go