There had been some rumors floating around of late that the Lakers apparently are interested in Ron Artest, and would trade Lamar Odom to get him. Of course, during this point in the offseason, you hear rumors about almost everyone in the NBA going everywhere.

But apparently this is pretty legit.

Sam Amick of the Sacramento Bee said last week in a radio interview that a member of the Buss family told GM Mitch Kupchak to “Get it done.”

Strong words indeed. And now ESPN's Marc Stein is joining in.

Word is L.A. believes that any fears about Artest's reliability can be assuaged by the fact that Phil Jackson would be coaching him and that Kobe Bryant would be his teammate. Kobe and Ron-Ron share a mutual respect that suggests no threat to the Lakers' pecking order.

Insists one source close to the process: "[Lakers owner] Jerry Buss actually likes Ron Artest's game and his personality."

The question, of course, is whether or not this is a good move for the Lakers. Artest is a unique powder keg who always seems to be on the verge of exploding. But since the Malice in the Palace, he admittedly hasn't done anything ridiculous. He's even managed to survive in Sacramento, not exactly a premier NBA destination.

But I'm wondering if this will mess up the Lakers' team chemistry, not necessarily in the locker room, but on the court. The Lakers this last season seemed to have the perfect order on the court in terms of pecking order. Kobe was clearly number one, Gasol was number two, Odom number three. Odom seems to be a perfect complimentary player on a team that has two star players. He's basically an All Star role player, who's so good that he can also frequently be one of the star players if need be. He's also not a me-first guy, so the return of Andrew Bynum wouldn't likely mess things up either.

With Artest, I'm less sure. I know Artest - as crazy as he is - has always been a guy who works tremendously hard, isn't a ball hog, and can easily deal with being a second or third option.

But my one concern, if I'm the Lakers, is that it appears that adding Bynum back into this mix is basically the missing piece to winning the NBA championship. Why mess with the nucleus that got you within two games of the title when Bynum will be back this next season?

My point is this. Artest seems like a potentially hazardous risk. If the Lakers hadn't made the Finals, then maybe you roll the dice and make that move. But with the Lakers in their current state, seemingly poised to dominate the Western Conference for the next 5 years, there doesn't seem any reason to begin tampering with that.