The doldrums of summer do not produce much in the way of earth shattering NBA news, but occasionally we get an earthquake.

Such was the case on Monday when Indiana Pacer Jermaine O’Neal appeared to make a trade demand, saying he’d like to join the Los Angeles Lakers or the Nets and complaining that Pacers’ management was holding out for too much in trade talks.

Predictably, O’Neal and his agent spent Tuesday backpedaling faster than Joe Theismann against a Lawrence Taylor blitz. “I don’t think me saying I’d like to go with those teams is me saying I want to be traded,” was his rather unconvincing quote he gave to the Associated Press.

But the damage has been done. The Pacers know darn well that O’Neal doesn’t want to be there, and they also know he can opt out of his contract at the end of the 2007–08 season. That would enable him to sign with another team as a free agent and leave the Pacers empty-handed.

Obviously, if the Pacers are going to lose O’Neal anyway, they’d prefer to do it while getting some pieces in return, which they can use as building blocks in a rebuilding process. Whether they like it or not, the only prudent course of action left is to go ahead and trade O’Neal.

Before Nets fans begin salivating, I should point out that time is on Indiana’s side. The Pacers have until the February trade deadline to pull off a deal, so don’t expect general manager Larry Bird to be frantically making phone calls this morning. If O’Neal is still a Pacer when the season starts, it’s okay from Indiana’s end.

Nonetheless, O’Neal’s foray into the trade market has huge implications for two teams — the Nets and the Lakers. Those were the two destinations where O’Neal signaled he’d go, and that’s important because he has leverage here. Whichever team acquires him would presumably want assurances that O’Neal would agree to a contract extension and not leave them high and dry after a year — much as Boston did with the Kevin Garnett trade.

It’s basically a mano a mano battle between New Jersey and Los Angeles for the rights to O’Neal, and I suspect the poker has already begun. Nets team president Rod Thorn said Tuesday he wasn’t actively searching for a big man in a trade. This means either a) he’s not actively searching for a big man in a trade, or b) he is actively searching for a big man just like Jermaine O’Neal in a trade — much like he’s been doing for about five years now — but doesn’t want Indiana to think he’s desperate, and hopes the Pacers will lower their price.

As to which scenario is more reasonable, consider that the Nets and Pacers were talking trade with O’Neal as recently as June. It seems unlikely that Thorn has suddenly lost interest in the Pacers’ postman over the summer.

The sticking point thus far has been that Indiana’s asking price has been too high. But with the field essentially reduced to a twoteam competition (and the Lakers not necessarily bringing much to the table), Thorn is no doubt hoping that his original offer of Richard Jefferson, Nenad Krstic, and Jason Collins is enough for the Pacers to bite.

Making such a trade would be a big boost to the Nets’ efforts to rejoin the East’s elite. But while the implications for the Nets are important, they may be even more dire for the Lakers. If Los Angeles nabs O’Neal in a trade, it will be because their increasing desperation to placate Kobe Bryant forces their hand.

So far, the Lakers have rebuffed Indiana’s efforts to acquire forward Lamar Odom and center Andrew Bynum in a deal for O’Neal, feeling that Bynum’s potential outweighs the immediate upgrade from Odom to O’Neal — Bynum, you’ll recall, was also the player the Lakers wouldn’t surrender in February when the Nets were dangling Jason Kidd.

If that continues to be the case, and O’Neal goes to New Jersey because of it, expect Bryant to go ballistic. He’s already become increasingly frustrated by the Lakers’ inability to surround him with a quality supporting cast, as well as the general buffoonery of the Lakers front office. (Anybody up for a do-over on that Kwame Brown-Caron Butler trade?)

Bryant has stayed mum for much of the summer after making his own initial trade demand early in the off-season. He’s in a weird neutral state right now — he’s not exactly retracting the trade demand, but he isn’t repeating it either. Basically, he’s in wait-andsee mode, wanting to stay in Los Angeles if he can, but unwilling to do it unless better players surround him.

But the market for those players is dwindling. With Kevin Garnett, Allen Iverson, and Zach Randolph already dealt, and Kidd and Pau Gasol no longer available, O’Neal is the only big star on the trade market at the moment. If the Lakers miss out on him, they’re pretty much stuck with the crew they’ve got.

That’s not something Bryant will accept, and he’s likely to let it be known. He doesn’t have as much leverage as O’Neal or Garnett did because he has two years left on his contract before he can opt out. It’s possible that the Lakers might call his bluff and see if he’d be willing to hold out.

But suppose for a minute that O’Neal went to the Nets, and that Bryant demanded a trade as a result, and that the Lakers went ahead and actually traded him. You know who that deal would hurt the most? Probably the Nets, believe it or not.

Bryant’s most likely destination would be Chicago, where the Bulls have accumulated a treasure trove of assets just in case this type of player became available. Though they flinched when they had a shot at Gasol last year, it’s unlikely the Bulls would do the same with a star of Kobe’s magnitude.

If that deal came to pass, the Bulls would likely stampede through the Eastern Conference, regardless of what other additions or subtractions Thorn would be able to make to the Nets’ roster. Perhaps Thorn is being serious when he says he’s not courting an O’Neal trade, because he sees a couple moves ahead and knows what might happen.

But one way or another, O’Neal’s almost-demand for a trade has changed the NBA’s off-season chessboard. All that remains to be seen is if this earthquake results in a deal for the Nets — and an even bigger earthquake in Los Angeles

jhollinger@nysun.com