[Akileese]

First off, the NBA has learned from Vince Carter. It's better to sell then let a guy tank your season to the point where his value is so low you get 10 cents to the dollar for him. Secondly, I said off the top of my head, I said those 3 plus a third team and more expiring contracts. LA doesn't want another superstar in return. They want pieces. What better way to build than with a fuck ton of trade pieces? The Knicks have two or three on their roster (check out Hoopshype.com to see them) and if they used a sign and trade, they could get more. Plus, you're giving Buss way to much credit as a GM.

In the modern day NBA, the best thing you can get is two to three players (usually two talented young players and one middle of the road guy who's probably overpayed) and two expiring contracts. Also, remember that Kobe makes max money so the contracts would have to even out which means Marbury would almost DEFINITELY be included one way or another (I just really think it's gonna be three teams).

LA could definitely look to free up cap room as a lot of teams are. Why? A guy by the name of Gilbert Arenas is a free agent after next year thanks to his opt out clause. The 07 free agent class sucks and 08 looks a lot more intriguing. As a result teams are going to be looking to do probably one of three things:

1) Pick up a superstar in an attempt to take them to that next level (Phoenix, Dallas, Miami, Possibly Detroit).
2) Move a superstar on a struggling team in order to make cap room or go younger and improve the roster (LA, Minnesota, technically the Knicks)
3) Pick up a superstar and some expiring contracts in a move to both improve yourself and set yourself up for 2008.

I know I went on for a little while, but in all honesty, Chicago has a better chance if they're willing to go in for Kobe. If the price is too high, the Bulls will drop out and then it's just the Knicks. That's dangerous for LA.