it was a 3-team deal featuring the lakers,nets,and the bobcats the deal was:lakers get gerald wallace,nets get lamar odom,and bobcats get richard jefferson
heres the prove:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07202007/sports/nets/deals_fall_through__big_3_stays_intact_nets_fred_kerber.htm
2007-07-20 05:48:18 · 7 answers · asked by Stephen D 2 in Sports ➔ Basketball
That would of been a good trade and all of them are Small Forwards,but with different talent,Odom is a inside scorer,Wallace is a mid range scorer and a dunker,Richard Jefferson is a High Flier.
2007-07-20 06:46:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think it would've helped anyone out all that much.. maybe the nets would be best off with lamar odom because he is a lot better then his stats show and with kobe bryant there he doesn't do much... any other team lamar odom would've had a few triple doubles last year...
2007-07-20 13:26:47 · answer #2 · answered by Wes 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't like it. Gerald Wallace is on the verge of becoming a superstar. He needs a team and a city where he grow. He's staying in Charlotte. Why would he want to play with old ball hog Kobe
2007-07-20 12:56:05 · answer #3 · answered by Da Jedi 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
seems pretty good. but if i were the lakers i would pull out because i consider odom to be an upgrade over g wall. g wall is nice but he cant post up like odom or have the offensive skills odom possesses. but if i were NJ i would be happy if it went down because rjeff cant play the post, odom can. for charlotte, they already have jrich why get rjeff when they are pretty much the same player.
2007-07-20 12:52:53 · answer #4 · answered by what? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I like the trade wish it would happen not a big RJ fan
2007-07-20 13:30:16 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its good that it got squashed...a bunch of overrated players I dont see anyone improving by making this deal.
2007-07-20 13:00:40 · answer #6 · answered by Steven S 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
sounds like a good deal all around. i wonder why it didn't happen.
2007-07-20 12:56:25 · answer #7 · answered by Matt 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋