Carlos Boozer

[Fresno King]

I'm a subscriber to ESPN insider, and just read that Boozer is rumored to be going to Memphis. Doesn't he have a ridiculous contract like Thomas?

Let's make a deal!

Kenny Thomas, #19, and Garcia for Boozer.

Boozer's only 24 years old, and averaged close to a double double a game last year.

PG-Mike Bibby
SG-Bonzi Wells
C-Brad Miller
PF-Carlos Boozer
SF-Ron Artest

Bench-Martin, Abdur-Rahim, Hart, Potapenko, Monia, Williamson, Price.

Still would have to strengthen our bench.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Can I be the first to say no?

Begin discussion on the Cleveland deal now.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

**** Carlos Boozer.

 

[Fresno King]

The numbers

Boozer: 16.3 ppg, 8.6 rpg, 2.7 apg.

The trade worked in the ESPN trade machine without giving up #19.

Boozer has 3 years and over $11 million per year on his current deal compared to Thomas and his 4 years at 8 million plus.

 

[walker60]

I like that trade Fresno King. We still need a shotblocker though. I'd like to do it without giving up #19 though...

 

[Burrito06]

No Thanks, he's hurt to much.

 

[DocHolliday]

I think I'm cool on Carlos Bozzer. I don' want to give up an upcomnig youngster for that guy. And, we can only get rid of Kenny if we are bringing another starting or back up PF in.

 

[Amanjoy]

I'm suprised MEmphis is going after Boozer when Gasol is a premiere post-up scorer. I would think they'd go looking for more athletic guys or shooters to compliment Gasol's inside game.

 

[Fresno King]

Boozer is a power forward.

And you have to include someone like Garcia with Thomas in a trade. No-one's gonna take KT straight up for someone unless the GM is Helen Keller or Isiah Thomas.

 

[kennadog]

Boozer is a power forward.

And you have to include someone like Garcia with Thomas in a trade. No-one's gonna take KT straight up for someone unless the GM is Helen Keller or Isiah Thomas.

What an insult!! (I'm sure Helen would be a much better GM than Isiah. )

 

[venom_7]

uhhh no. Garcia will turn out better anyway.

 

[BALLER4LIFE]

i would not give up cisco unless the kings had to throw him in to get a star in return. garcia just has too much upside to trade away this early in his career. i do think the kings should try to go after either boozer, gooden, or dalembert.

 

[Packt]

ESPN insider is just relaying a story that popped up in an Ohio newspaper.

I don't think that deal works. Trade machine lists KT at 8 mill, but most sites list him at about 6.5-6.7mill. And Boozer actually has 4 years left; the fourth year is a player option. Its guaranteed money unless he opts out.
You could do Corliss and Kenny for Boozer and CJ Miles. We don't have to give up any young guys and Utah can shave off salary since Corliss is expiring after next year.

I'm not a big Boozer fan. I thought he was stupid for ditching Cleveland, when he was primed to dominate with Bron for the next decade. But since he's been injured the past two years, maybe he wasn't wrong for taking the money and running. Who knows if the money would still there, now.

Seeing where we're at, I'm becoming more open to the idea of Boozer as our starting PF. He can realistically average 15/9 for us, and that's better than what we have now. We would still need a shotblocker, but with a post-scoring, rebounding big up front, it’s easier to find a role player for that, possibly in the draft even. Hilton Armstrong, anybody?

 

[Bricklayer]

Don't think Boozer solves much, and of course I'm with Slim -- he can **** himself.

Injury prone, huge contract, attitude questions, weak defender...eh... After his second year I was high on the guy, but he's done absolutely nothing but plummet since then. Its like Kenyon Martin, big contract, stock headed for the basement.

An upgrade over Kenny? Sure. But not as huge as you might think -- Kenny could probably average 13 and 10 with no interior defense if all you wanted to do was get into the lottery. Boozer might be able to do a little better, and score inside some, but he seems to have developed into being closer to the KT/Reef low level stater class we already have than to a difference maker.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

See, that's one of the things I like about Bricklayer; that lawyerly detachment. He can feel strongly about a subject, and still give you a clinical breakdown.

When I feel strongly about a subject, I can't be arsed to explain why half the time...

 

[pdxKingsFan]

When I feel strongly about a subject, I can't be arsed to explain why half the time...

I don't think Boozer deserves an explanation. He committed a cardinal sin as far as I'm concerned and can never be trusted.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I don't think so, either, but there will always be some apologist looking to rationalize some jerk athlete's jerky behavior. Boozer has shown that he is someone who is willing to engage in shady business practices, and he is not someone that I would want for my team to get into business with. But there are always some people who will look past an athlete being shady just because they can dunk a ball, or hit home runs, or catch a touchdown pass.

And, not for nothing, but I don't think that Boozer is that good, anyway; his talent is certainly not commensurate with his contract.

 

[hammystyle]

I don't think so, either, but there will always be some apologist looking to rationalize some jerk athlete's jerky behavior. Boozer has shown that he is someone who is willing to engage in shady business practices, and he is not someone that I would want for my team to get into business with. But there are always some people who will look past an athlete being shady just because they can dunk a ball, or hit home runs, or catch a touchdown pass.

And, not for nothing, but I don't think that Boozer is that good, anyway; his talent is certainly not commensurate with his contract.

I always thought Boozer got a bum rap about what happened with the Cavs. Sure it was a little shady, but what the Cavs were doing was shady too. If they thought they had a deal, it was an illegal deal, and the only reason they did it was because they thought they could lock him into a long-term contract well below his worth. The Jazz swooped in and offered like 40 million more. So he reneged on the wink and a handshake deal for 40 million, I really don't hold that too harshly against him. The biggest story to me was how stupid the Cavs were for releasing his rights.

All that said, if there is a deal where the main facets are KT for Boozer than of course you do it. Even if its all our expiring contracts its something we should look at. On our team I think he'd be a 15 Pt 11 reb guy.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I always thought Boozer got a bum rap about what happened with the Cavs. Sure it was a little shady, but what the Cavs were doing was shady too. If they thought they had a deal, it was an illegal deal, and the only reason they did it was because they thought they could lock him into a long-term contract well below his worth.

What was shady about what the Cavs did? They were basically giving him a raise a year before he deserved it. They owned the option on his contract and they mutually agreed to not exercise the option if he would resign. That is not an illegal deal as far as I'm aware. Teams are allowed to negotiate with players while they are under contract. Besides ask any banker, what's worth more money now or money next year.

But screwing the Cavs was just the tip of it, he also screwed all of his fellow players because now teams are going to exercise their options on bargain players rather than working out deals to give them an early raise.

 

[Bricklayer]

I always thought Boozer got a bum rap about what happened with the Cavs. Sure it was a little shady, but what the Cavs were doing was shady too. If they thought they had a deal, it was an illegal deal, and the only reason they did it was because they thought they could lock him into a long-term contract well below his worth. The Jazz swooped in and offered like 40 million more. So he reneged on the wink and a handshake deal for 40 million, I really don't hold that too harshly against him. The biggest story to me was how stupid the Cavs were for releasing his rights.

Ignoring the wink at shadiness there (personally I'd blacklist the ****er and see how much he could earn playing in the Uragauyan League), there was a definite "win" there for Boozer too. It was hardly oh the Cavs are trying to take advanateg of poor little slimewad. He as going to be paid NOTHING the next year. Less than $1 mil I think. The exchange was Cavs let hi out of the contract and sign him to a new one, he gets paid less long term, but 4-5 times as much next season.

All that said, if there is a deal where the main facets are KT for Boozer than of course you do it. Even if its all our expiring contracts its something we should look at. On our team I think he'd be a 15 Pt 11 reb guy.

Even if you buy 15pts 11rebs, which he did one year out of 4. That's 15pts 11rebs for $11 million dollars, while playing 30 games and blocking 6 total shots on the season. He's better than KT. He also amazingly has an even WORSE contract. And he solves absolutely nothing defensively. If its the ONLY deal on the table. If its either that or come back with KT and the enders, maybe. Talent is talent. But there has to be something out there that addresses our needs wihtout importing an overpaid backstabbing malcontent.

 

[HndsmCelt]

i'd rather not see Booze in Sac for manyof the same reasons already posted. There are 2 primary factors that come in to play when considering which bigs are to be persued. 1. Brad, If the Kings are keeping Brad then any PF brought in MUST board, play D and work the low post. This is not to say the guy has to be a big scoreer, in fact a big defensive rebounder next to Brad would be PERFECT. BUT if Brad is going then lots of options open up depending on SAR and K9. The second BIG question is aobut what Muss has inmind for the team both offensively and defensivly. Brinigng in guys who can score but are not defensive minded might be problematic.

 

[Packt]

The way I see it, it wasn't us, so who cares. It was business. The Cavs engaged in a risky, shady deal and got burned. It was very similar to the Wolves/Joe Smith ordeal. The difference being that they didn't put anything down on paper like the Wolves did, and the deal never went through. I don't remember if the league commented on it, but I'm sure they looked into it.

I felt the same way most of you guys felt two years ago. Now I feel it's an option if you can bring in other pieces. I won't disagree with saying he's a minor upgrade over KT/SAR, yet I find it's misleading. He's better and if he puts up 15/10 (very realistic) he's way more valuable in the long run.

 

[SacTownKid]

He doesn't bring what we need. We need size and a presence in the paint. Boozer is a tremendous player but he doesn't bring what we need.

 

[hammystyle]

Ignoring the wink at shadiness there (personally I'd blacklist the ****er and see how much he could earn playing in the Uragauyan League), there was a definite "win" there for Boozer too. It was hardly oh the Cavs are trying to take advanateg of poor little slimewad. He as going to be paid NOTHING the next year. Less than $1 mil I think. The exchange was Cavs let hi out of the contract and sign him to a new one, he gets paid less long term, but 4-5 times as much next season.
quote]

Considering any deal/agreement the Cavs made ahead of time would have been illegal, it was a huge gamble to assume he was going to leave potentially 20-40 million on the table to live up to the illegal agreement. The Cavs were most definitely trying to take advantage of the situation thinking that the prospect of 4 million extra dollars in the first year would offset the extra 20-40 he'd get over the life of the contract. Well, he made them think he would and then didn't. He's the CEO of his own multi-million dollar business and he made the best business decision. If you've got unbreakable ethics, good for you, but to me all the hand-wringing over this was way too much back then and is ridiculous now.

 

[Bricklayer]

If you've got unbreakable ethics, good for you, but to me all the hand-wringing over this was way too much back then and is ridiculous now.

If you DON'T, I feel sorry for you.

And as an aside, as a lawyer let me tell you if you tried such a maneuver with your "multi-million dollar business", you would get the pants sued off you. You can't trick somebody into reasonably relying on your promise to their detriment, then skip off into the sunset leaving them holding the bag.

 

[1kingzfan]

The problem in today's world is that companies have shown less and less respect and valuing of employees over the last decade or so. Many employees have gotten screwed by their employers. As a result, many folks have developed a tough skin when it comes to their philosophies about what they "owe" employers, and their ethics have deteriorated.

"It's all about business."

"You have to make the best decision for yourself, because any employer will screw you as soon as they get the chance."

Such philosophies and attitudes are very sad to witness, but that is the reality of the world we live in today. Fortunately, there are still folks out there that still believe in loyalty, trust, and honesty.

Boozer was wrong. He is just another product of our ethics-deteriorating society, and, as a result, I don't want him anywhere near my team.

 

[hammystyle]

If you DON'T, I feel sorry for you.

And as an aside, as a lawyer let me tell you if you tried such a maneuver with your "multi-million dollar business", you would get the pants sued off you. You can't trick somebody into reasonably relying on your promise to their detriment, then skip off into the sunset leaving them holding the bag.

You can't get sued if the promise is illegal.

I really don't think what Boozer did was necessarily right, but I don't think he's a snake or even a bad person. He just practiced questionable ethics when there was a tremendous amount of money on the table. He made a decision that a lot if not most people would make. The Cavs screwed up, it was an incredibly braindead move on their part.

My ethics are fine, so no need to worry.

 

[ezekielbear]

They attempted to lowball Boozer, IMO...sign him after he played very well. Attempt to get him on a cheap offer...and get him stuck in it.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

They weren't lowballing him, they were giving him a premature raise that they determined benefited both of them actuarialy. They should have paid the loser his 650k and let him get injured in his contract year, instead they tried to come to a mutually beneficial deal that would also allow the team to make other signings and he bailed on them.

The NBA has never taken an official stance on this one either, so its hard to put it on the same terms as the Joe Smith deal in which a written agreement was made - a clear violation of both the CBA and the salary cap and an oral "understanding" between two parties.

 

[Rome]

Boozer is alright but he doesn't look committed to playing a full season healthy. He seems like he doesn't want to take it to the next step. He had a great year with the CAVS and then all of sudden sort of disappeared. But he did help the Jazz win a few games during the end of this season.