Laker Report: Harrington Apparently Out of Reach

[FrankSlade7]

Laker Report: Harrington Apparently Out of Reach

By Eric Pincus

for HOOPSWORLD.com

Aug 9, 2006, 19:16

Though a number of interested free agents remain on the market, the Los Angeles Lakers may already have their roster in place.

Al Harrington has yet to find a home and the Lakers have often been mentioned as a suitor. Unfortunately for LA, the Atlanta Hawks want a package that includes young center Andrew Bynum. That's a price the Lakers are simply not willing to pay. They have very high hopes for Bynum, who made dramatic strides in his second summer league. Still just 18 years old, Bynum's development is still inconsistent, but LA is more than prepared to wait.

With Bynum off the table, the Lakers have a standing offer based around Chris Mihm. At this point talks are quiet as Atlanta, along with Harrington's (impending) new agent Arn Tellem, shop for the best deal.

Should all other discussions fail, the Lakers could be a fallback option. The Indiana Pacers are still considered the favorite.

That said, LA is moving forward with the expectation that Harrington will not be a Laker.

Another option at forward would be Drew Gooden of the Cleveland Cavaliers, who has expressed interest in playing for the Lakers. Whether a sign and trade with the Cavaliers is feasible is immaterial. LA isn't willing to overpay for Gooden's services.

Laker GM Mitch Kupchak is assuredly aware that his mentor, Jerry West of the Memphis Grizzlies, traded Gooden for Mike Miller a few years back. Though Gooden has developed into a relatively solid player, he is not on the Laker radar.

Barring a change in the Harrington situation, the Lakers are confident that their current roster is strong enough to exceed last year's campaign.

The following is an early depth chart projection:

PG Smush Parker, Shammond Williams, Jordan Farmar

SG Kobe Bryant, Mo Evans, Sasha Vujacic, Aaron McKie

SF Vladimir Radmanovic, Luke Walton

PF Lamar Odom, Brian Cook, Ronny Turiaf

C Kwame Brown, Chris Mihm, Andrew Bynum

Will Bynum overtake Mihm? Turiaf get Cook's minutes? How much time will Farmar get? What will role with Vujacic play?

As it stands, the roster doesn't leave room for the restricted free agent Devin Green, the recovering Laron Profit or the non-guaranteed contract of Von Wafer. Second round draft pick Danilo Pinnock will probably end up in Europe next season; the Lakers retaining his rights. LA is no longer considering Kareem Rush.

The Bottom Line

Though there is obvious duplication on the roster, don't expect any changes before camp. The Lakers are amenable to a multi-player trade to open a few roster spots, but have yet to come close to anything real.

They have a small shot to land Harrington, but it's simply not likely to happen.

The team isn't prepared to consider buying out any of their players (McKie), but as training camp opens that certainly can change.

Though still imperfect, the Lakers have improved. They added the shooter in Radmanovic, depth in Evans and Williams, along with a very nice prospect at the point in Farmar.

Only the most diehard fan expects the Lakers to win the championship this season, but a more realistic goal might be 50 wins and a visit to the second round of the playoffs.

HoopsWorld

[mountain_jim]

Hey Frank I just read this over at your site and came back here to post.

Beat me to it.

mj

[Johnnybravo4]

They are stupid. It wouldn't be like they would be trading Bynum for a 30 year old Harrington...he is only 26. They could have a Kobe, Harrington, Kwame, Odom combination for the next 5-7 years.

Farmar/Lue

Kobe/Evans

Harrington/Radmonovic

Odom/Cook

Kwame/Mihm

That is a young, athletic, skilled team and would have beaten Phoenix

[FrankSlade7]

Quote:

---

Hey Frank I just read this over at your site and came back here to post.

Beat me to it.

mj

---

Yeah sorry there Jim, some new info I guess.

Talks must be serious if LA already feels like they are out of it.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

They are stupid. It wouldn't be like they would be trading Bynum for a 30 year old Harrington...he is only 26. They could have a Kobe, Harrington, Kwame, Odom combination for the next 5-7 years.

---

They have other options like Gooden. Can you name another project center option with as much potential as and remotely available to us besides Bynum? We don't have other 2-way dominant center options and this is a very good one. Instead we're going to be trying to fill the position adequately for the next 6 years wondering why 2, Sfs can't cut it as starters.

Our offer is rumored as Al for Bynum, 1st, and 1 year reamainging contracts. "

Let's see, I'll give you a guy I don't want for a rare, potentially 2-way dominant GIANT, a 1st rd pick, and no long-term contracts? Sound fair?" [censored] NO it isn't fair!

Might as well not caqll it an offer. We couldn't have traded Al for LA's #9 pick straight up last year even if it weren't about Bynum. We d@mn sure can't now much less wanting a 1st and no contracts!

If you want Bynum, and we d@mn well should badly, we will have to PAY OUT IN TALENT. Fortunately, Al isn't on the team and JC won't ever start for us. That's talent we can expend for a player who could transform our team in to a title contender through talent and as a catalyst.

We have to pay for him though. BK, this is not the time to be so GD cheap! You have to make the bold move. Quit being a coward with all your "bargains" and mediocrity moves. This is about building a TEAM capable of winning a title! Don't blow this opportunity! There will not be another center like this, available like this for possibly 5 years and then we will not be in a position to get him. Quit counting dimes and go for the gold.

W

[Vol4ever]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

They are stupid. It wouldn't be like they would be trading Bynum for a 30 year old Harrington...he is only 26. They could have a Kobe, Harrington, Kwame, Odom combination for the next 5-7 years.

---

They have other options like Gooden. Can you name another project center option with as much potential as and remotely available to us besides Bynum? We don't have other 2-way dominant center options and this is a very good one. Instead we're going to be trying to fill the position adequately for the next 6 years wondering why 2, Sfs can't cut it as starters.

Our offer is rumored as Al for Bynum, 1st, and 1 year reamainging contracts. "

Let's see, I'll give you a guy I don't want for a rare, potentially 2-way dominant GIANT, a 1st rd pick, and no long-term contracts? Sound fair?" [censored] NO it isn't fair!

Might as well not caqll it an offer. We couldn't have traded Al for LA's #9 pick straight up last year even if it weren't about Bynum. We d@mn sure can't now much less wanting a 1st and no contracts!

If you want Bynum, and we d@mn well should badly, we will have to PAY OUT IN TALENT. Fortunately, Al isn't on the team and JC won't ever start for us. That's talent we can expend for a player who could transform our team in to a title contender through talent and as a catalyst.

We have to pay for him though. BK, this is not the time to be so GD cheap! You have to make the bold move. Quit being a coward with all your "bargains" and mediocrity moves. This is about building a TEAM capable of winning a title! Don't blow this opportunity! There will not be another center like this, available like this for possibly 5 years and then we will not be in a position to get him. Quit counting dimes and go for the gold.

W

---

I agree with you Walter, BUT I believe the team is operating on the cheap. Let's see "big men that have moved category."

Tyson Chandler

Magloire

Ben Wallace

there are others I can't think of at this point.

[txsting]

Walter, where did you see that we offered Al for Bynum and a 1st? That seems ridiculously inequitable for LA. We should at least make a good faith offer.

I'm mostly with you on Bynum, but I just don't see it as an all or nothing situation at this point. There will be other options in the near future, you just can't see them right now. Just as Bynum was on nobody's radar just last spring before he declared.

The way our team is constructed, we'll be able to make some very good looking trade offers next year if a good player is being shopped. We just need to get some more games and a little winning under our belts to improve the value of our youngsters.

Also, next year's FA's possibly include Kaman, Darko, Magloire, and Brezec. Even Mihm will probably not be extended next year if Bynum continues to improve. We might be able to get it done with someone from that set - for me Darko sounds really good but his option will probably be picked up.

[Nicholasp27]

walter; u can't get mad at RUMORS that likely came from an internet message board as u saw diesel's get on the radio, etc last month

the deal centered around bynum, not bynum/picks...u should be HAPPY that BK agreed with you that taking on bynum, not mihm, was the way to go

apparently they don't wanna part with bynum, so it's a no go

they won't part with bynum so pick or no pick doesn't matter...they are being smart to hold onto bynum's potential and we were smart to ask for it...i'm sorry it didn't work out for us, but bk was on your side here

[Watchman]

How do you know Bynum isn't the next Darryl Dawkins or Eddy Curry?

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

There will be other options in the near future, you just can't see them right now.

Quote:

---

We have just about exclusivity regarding this opportunity. Nobody can offer what we can without hurting their roster. With Al leaving and JC benched deep we don't lose on talent despite giving more. While there may be other offers in the future we can't build this team on maybes. I can think of no better, more available big than Bynum for a young 2, Sf starting roster. Can you? Just one. Nobody comes close.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

I agree with you Walter, BUT I believe the team is operating on the cheap. Let's see "big men that have moved category."

Tyson Chandler

Magloire

Ben Wallace

there are others I can't think of at this point.

---

Tyson cost a fortune and isn't the ideal player we need in the post because he can't do much offensively in the post. Magloire? A decent one-year pick-up but also expensive and not a great fit for the youngin's. Wallace. Not a good fit.

Bynum is a perfect fit. Young enough to grow with our youngins'. Big enough and skilled enough already to eventually own the paint on both sides of the court. Cheap. No-risk as he will not lose value. A team catalyst much like a good true Pg who frees up our best players to start alongside him without fear of getting punished in the paint.

It's not that BK doesn't want him, he apparently made some offer. The problem is that BK is too afraid to make the bold move, maybe has some difficulty trading "his" players, and can't realize Bynum's tremendous value TO US. Bynum potentially makes this team and solves its problems. Too bad BK isn't, because this is the one instance it would pay to be inspired.

W

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

How do you know Bynum isn't the next Darryl Dawkins or Eddy Curry?

---

And I'll trade him to NY for um-teen lottery picks. That's why there is no risk. 18 y/o 7'1" true centers with talent, skill, and potential do not lose their value!

W

[Final_quest]

Wow, we got some real maniacs on this board.

I agree in one very loose sense with W, at some point I think we are going to have to make another major move to be successful. JJ was the first major move, but we need to have 2 superstars or at least 3 allstar caliber players to win a championship. We shouldn't need Bynum because he fits our team specifically. We should want him because we feel he will be a dominant player.

Are other teams saying, "Bynum seems somewhat available, but we don't need a center that blocks shots, rebounds, plays defense, and scores." Is this what other teams are thinking? Why are we the one team that has to make every concession possible to get the next great center of the NBA? Is W the only one who sees this opportunity, and all other GMs just don't get it?

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Are other teams saying, "Bynum seems somewhat available, but we don't need a center that blocks shots, rebounds, plays defense, and scores." Is this what other teams are thinking? Why are we the one team that has to make every concession possible to get the next great center of the NBA? Is W the only one who sees this opportunity, and all other GMs just don't get it?

---

....like ours.

We aren't giving up much at all to deal Al and Childress because one is gone and the other will sit the bench for two years until he too is gone. What other team right now has a major FA they are going to lose now and a talent they can't afford to start and will most certainly lose in the near future? NOBODY! The reason we CAN justify a move to pay an adequate talent price for Bynum is because WE DON'T USE THE TALENT! Other teams can't make that claim or argument. Other teams can't compile a package that would justify even a win-now team to give up on a GREAT prospect.

Quote:

---

We shouldn't need Bynum because he fits our team specifically. We should want him because we feel he will be a dominant player.

---

Most people believe he will be a dominant player, but you're foolish to think we should NOT consider team need specifically. We're about to sit 2 of our 4 forward prospects and cannot start JS and MW together because we have a hybrid Pf/C in the post. To not think we have team needs and that we shouldn't look for a player that could potentially solve our team's skill and positional redundancy, absence of well-defined roles, and unproven, weak style of play question marks and problems is ignorant.

Quote:

---

I agree in one very loose sense with W, at some point I think we are going to have to make another major move to be successful.

---

Can you think of one possible major move that gets us more while trading away less? Consider near max or max RFAs as requiring our send 1 top 3 protected and 1 top 8 protected pick.

You can't.

Can you think of a better, more available true center prospect.

You can't.

You d@mn well KNOW you can't in either case but you keep posting about how:

1) "we'll have to make a major move someday but I'd rather we wait until I'm absolutely sick of the flawed team as is and am forced to make it when there is less likely to be such an opportunity"

2) "Yes, other teams aren't in our position to offer talent they do not have or can not use and soon will not have and other teams would not value a potentially dominant 2-way, 18 yr old center like we would because they are generally older teams without the NEED given they aren't trying to run a 2, Sf starting lineup, BUT I just don't get why we're the ones who should be interested?"

3) "I don't want to consider a deal because it both brings in talent AND makes us a better team. Just if it brings in talent. I'm stupid that way."

Sorry for my bluntness, but your positions against an opportunistic trade that would not hurt the team and could potentially make it a contender are beyond fathomability.

W

[DJlaysitup]

The "have to make a major move someday" could be a double-edged sword. If we keep all of our young talent but keep losing and missing the playoffs - there is reason to expect that one or more will get tired of it and opt for FAcy and to move on. We owe them playing time and we owe them a reasonable chance to contend as well.

just an example but: If Charlotte improves the next couple/three years and MW stays stuck behind JS because we can't play em together due to other problems - he may very well decide to head back to todacco road.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

The "have to make a major move someday" could be a double-edged sword. If we keep all of our young talent but keep losing and missing the playoffs - there is reason to expect that one or more will get tired of it and opt for FAcy and to move on. We owe them playing time and we owe them a reasonable chance to contend as well.

just an example but: If Charlotte improves the next couple/three years and MW stays stuck behind JS because we can't play em together due to other problems - he may very well decide to head back to todacco road.

---

That looks to be happening to either JS or MW and it's already happened to Childress. There is no way on earth benched players like these resign with us and whatever pick we get in return won't help us win for 5 more years meaning we're right back into the pit of rebuilding. Potentially this could go on forever (see GS, LAC).

I'm not a fan of benching our potential. If a move can get us more young talent at a needed position, do so cheaply, UN-bench 1 of our 2 most talented young players, and cost us a player we don't have and one we don't start and soon won't have...it should get done. That simple.

W

[txsting]

Walter, what do you think about Petro or Swift in Seattle? Andray Blatche? You asked for the names of a few project bigs that might be had with Al+JC or less. Podkolzin?

I think it isn't too hard to toss out other names of guys who aren't established in the league, and therefore might be had. The problem with any of them (including Bynum) is they might turn out to be complete zeroes.

Bynum repesents essentially a low lottery pick (he was taken 10th). Just for the sake of argument, assume AL+JC could get Bynum right now. I think I'd rather get the best pick I could for Al and just pick my own project big in the 2007 draft. With the new age rules, I'll get someone at the same or possibly greater maturity level than Bynum. I gain the possibility of growing my own stud, while keeping the flexibility and trade pieces in the stable in case the ONE TRUE BIG hits the market (Howard did say he wanted to play in Atlanta, right?).

[Guest Walter]

First, I won't even entertain Podkolzine.

Quote:

---

Walter, what do you think about Petro or Swift in Seattle?

---

Seattle already has a Sf/Pf tweener in Rashard Lewis, isn't a win now team like LA, doesn't need Al, and hasn't shown ANY interest in him. They simply aren't looking to trade potential for (potentially lesser) actual. Niether Swift or Petro are as good IMO, nor do they have the fire, potential to dominate both ends that I see in Bynum (even seen at age 18). In short, there exist no opportunity to get them, Seattle is in no "win now" rush, and they aren't as good a prospect or would benefit our team as much as Bynum

Quote:

---

Andray Blatche?

---

A soft, hybrid Pf/C. Definately not the ideal prospect to play alongside MW and JS at the forwards.

In fact, all these examples do not best pari with JS and MW along with their lesser potential.

I think I'd rather get the best pick I could for Al and just pick my own project big in the 2007 draft.

---

[Diesel]

Could we get R. Swift for Childress??

I'd do that!

[MoonKnight]

While I agree with you that it appears unlikely Seattle has any interest in Al I do not understand why you feel Petro or Swift do not have the "fire or potential" to dominate anymore than Bynum. Personally, I would love to have any of Seattle's three young bigs in Petro, Saer or Swift. Petro really surpassed expectations last year and I thought he demonstrated real Defensive ability that will only improve. While Al might not be the trade carrot for Seattle, they really have a duplication problem at the 5 spot that will mandate a trade at some point in the near future. I would consider turning around the 2007 first rounder we will get for Al to Seattle for one of those bigs.