The Lakers want Lamar Odom back! I’m confident they’ll both meet halfway to keep the goods in a Laker uni.

L.A. Times: The Lakers still want Lamar Odom back, but the free-agent forward will have to lower this asking price.

Odom is believed to be looking for $10 million annually, but the Lakers are already about $10 million into the luxury tax.

Luxury tax is paid for in a dollar-for-dollar penalty, so signing Odom for $10 million next season would result in a bill of $20 million.

The Los Angeles Times suggested a compromise on Friday night. The Lakers can sign Odom to a one-year deal worth $7.5 million, allowing him to test free agency again next summer.

  • chris

    Rumor has it that the Lakers are looking at Nate Robinson. Any idea why?

  • Purple and Godl for Life

    [Comment ID #78642 Will Be Quoted Here]

    I know that the Lakers tried to get rid of Farmar earlier by trading him to the Rockets so they might have something in the works at the PG position.

    That being said not sure if signing odom at 7.5 for one year is a good idea. If the Lakers try to keep him next year then will his asking price be higher if he gets better offers?

  • lakers101



  • What Will Be

    I wish the Lakers could pakage a trade to unload Sasha, and Farmar, freeing up dough to sign Odom, and Kidd…and Keep Brown…

  • True Lakers Fan

    Do It Mitch We Need Candy Man

  • LakerMike

    What Will Be
    Jul 4th, 2009 at 1:38 pm

    I wish the Lakers could pakage a trade to unload Sasha, and Farmar, freeing up dough to sign Odom, and Kidd…and Keep Brown…
    Remember, the Lakers still have the Adam Morrison contract on the books for next season too. I agree, package Sasha, Farmer &/or Morrison, plus maybe a draft choice or two for a big expiring contract? Whatever, but they do need to shed those contracts.

    Someone asked why are the Lakers looking at Nate Robinson? Well because PG was probably their weak spot. Fish came up big, he is a true warrior, but he is getting old and let’s face it, he’s never been known as a big-time defender or super-quick. Fisher will still be around, but perhaps either mentor a young PG like Nate or back up a Kidd (I’ve heard nothing about the Lakers pursuing or being interested in J-Kidd though, so that is probably wishful thinking). I would think that Shannon Brown is a must-keep, he showed more athleticism/quickness than Farmar and can shoot pretty well too. If the Lakers could ‘trade’ Farmar for Nate Robinson – well I’m sure Mitch would do it in a heartbeat!

  • willow

    That’s what the Lakers said about Trevor and we all know how that went. To this day I think Trevor’s agent royally screwed him and played games with the wrong franchise…like they’ve never been through this before. Let’s hope LO has a better agent than Trevor has. Let’s not play this cat and mouse game this time. At least the signing of Artest should persuade him to stick around for more parades.

  • Amp

    A one year deal keeps the Lakers from paying the Luxury tax on this deal.

  • Lebron=King,Kobe=God

    the lakers should look at jrue holiday. he’s 6’3, very high basketball IQ, a tenacious defender and great ball handling. he’s a team first type player like so many UCLA studs in the past few years. people can say that his stats were horrible but remember westbrook? only 12 pts a game in college. look at him now. jrue is perfect for the lakers.

  • Mr. WoodCock

    If LO gets greedy, go to plan B = Sheed. All the contending teams are already over the cap, except Portland.

  • AY24

    Hey if the lakers don’t get lamar does this mean get marion???
    Plz reply to dis question

  • lakerferlife7

    we dnt sheed cause he will/artest will fuck up our chemistry…and we need a backup that can play pfoward and sfoward thats not marion…marion is a downgrade and he wants to be the besst player on his team..he would be 4th on the lakers…doesnt work

  • WifelovesLuke

    Enough with the Nate and Kidd talk. Nate is too small and Kidd is too old. This thread is about Candyman and IMO, he will be back. My guess is that he will take a 3 year deal but it’s going to have to be in the $8mil per year range to get it done.

  • WifeThinksLukeIsABitch

    The reason you get nate is he is very entertaing to watch and that is still the number 1 reason. We don’t want to be the spurs, yes they win but are not entertaing at all to watch that is why the ratings are horrible when they are in the finals and that is why KB deserves 30 mil a year, the most entertaing person in the NBA period.

  • lakerferlife7

    nate sucks…he plays no defense….that guy is a waste of time…and as long as kobe is playing we will not become the spurs…keep the lineup we got…

  • Dan Andreas

    That’s a stupid idea by the L.A. Times. Good thing they don’t own the team, we would’ve never got Artest, overpaid Ariza, and now this.

    The reason the Lakers can sign him for cheap this year in the first place is because nobody has any dough. I think (and I haven’t done any research on this) it’s because of all these expiring contracts that so many teams have been hoarding.

    Next year is the ’10-’11 free agent sweepstakes that so many teams have been waiting for. If we don’t sign Odom to a multi-year deal now, someone will offer him a much more lucrative deal next year, because so many teams will have the cap space to do it. Odom will be next year’s “Didn’t get Lebron, Wade, or Bosh” consolation prize, and they’ll be able to throw all that “Lebron” money (or at least a good chunk of it) at HIM.

    Lakers need to just keep negotiating with him. The windows not closing on us the way it was with Ariza because Odom will only see the MLE anywhere else he goes.

  • AY24

    Marion!!! if lamar aint here

  • Minorkle

    Marion the Librarian…no way
    Give me the Candyman!