The problem I really see is the Jazz not wanting to commit extra money beyond this season, and taking back Miller/Salmons means they’ve committed themselves to an extra 18 million dollars worth of contracts, which puts them over the luxury tax, which is why they’re in this particular situation. In otherwords, I don’t see the Jazz doing this because of the money issue.

I don’t want Boozer, he isn’t what the Kings need, and ultimately, merc or no (so was Webber when you get right down to it—he suddenly “loved” Sac after signing his mega deal) when the team is letting you go putting up those type’s of #‘s, there’s a problem with you. I don’t want Boozer, and have said so now on the record.

Loved your write-up Mr Section. And it’s nice to see you posting after a long holiday.

That’s where Utah is at with Miller and Salmons, without Okur and Korver. That’s probably $7-8 million below tax levels, leaving them that much to sign 3-5 more players. If a couple of them are draft picks, that would leave them roughly $4-5 million to sign 1-3 free agents. That sets them up for 2009-10 and they lose Miller and Harpring the following year.

Utah probably would not want to make this deal. But the numbers suggest that the luxury tax would not have to be a factor.

They’re extremely mediocre at SG and SF. I’d try Salmons plus some other pieces though, MM and Sheldon say.

 I don’t think they need Brad, we could move him elsewhere for a Salmons replacement, say Minnesota for Mike Miller (or something).

I voted yes with that caveat in mind.

Why would Utah do it? Salmons fits them well, is inexpensive and may put them over the top – and they have Milsap. MM helps this year, has a small buyout and Sheldn is unrestricted.

Why us? For the reasons mentioned in the post. A 20/10 guy for five years.

So we’re talking about one more zero-athletic big man with an injury plagued past.

I don’t know about you but I can’t take them anymore. I’d prefer Brad Miller for Sean Williams if the salaries match. If I could only see a high-flying black PF/C in a Kings uniform to average 2 blocks per game, even if he airballs from 7 feet.

Finesse is a great thing, and yes we have it, always had it. But there’s definitely no need for more. We need some athleticism, a fearsome inside presence.

I don’t want Boozer here even if he only stays half a season. He’ll eat JT minutes.

Boozer’s the type of “good risk” you need to take in the Kings’ position. You aren’t going to get a perfect answer in trades/free agency. Boozer’s a mercenary and might be a poor-ish interior defender. He’s not perfect. But he’d be stellar fit.

Bass does not belong in the same conversation as Boozer. Boozer has been a 22/12 guy multiple times. Bass’ per-36: 15/8. It’s not even close to apples.

Millsap should be a great, cheaper option. But there’s no way on Earth he’s getting away from Utah. If Utah isn’t keeping Boozer — something I believe 214’s on the money with here — it is largely because of Boozer. Any offer that would cause Utah to not match is an offer you don’t want to make.

the first round of Houston → yes
our first round→ no

I think it’s clear the Kings should pursue Boozer. Boozer has proven over several seasons that he’s a 20 and 10 guy. He rebounds, plays near the basket and is a physical player, all of which the Kings desperately need. He’s also the only marquee player available this offseason. The Kings have wasted too much time acquiring decent to good players, and not enough time pursuing All Stars. If you can package several young/good players and come back with a relatively young all star, you do it.

What I don’t like is giving up Salmons, Miller and a #1 for a guy who could walk at the end of the year. I suppose you’re cutting a ton of salary if he does walk, but Salmons and the #1 have actual value in procuring a decent player or relatively high draft pick. If we’re talking about Salmons, Miller and the #1 with Boozer immediately signing an extension, then I’m for it. I don’t think Boozer playing here or getting more money is necessarily going to be enough to guarantee he re-signs with the team.

Otherwise, I’d like to see Miller leave for an expiring contract and/or young guy, which (I think) would give the team enough cap money to sign Boozer anyway. You could then move Salmons for another promising young guy and/or lottery pick.

I voted No, because it’s too much to give up for a guy who could walk at the end of the year. If we’re talking about a trade with an extension, then it’s a no-brainer.

I think this type of trade is a year or two too early. I don’t think Boozer is enough for us to compete for a title now, and trading for him now would make us good enough to screw up our draft over the next couple of years.

This is one of the best arguments I’ve seen from both sides (even the ones in the middle). I found myself changing my opinion many times while reading all the comments so kudos to everyone for sharing the knowledge.

I voted no at first for the simple fact that I didn’t think Boozer would stay and that would be throwing away both Miller, Salmons and a 1st round pick. John and Brad are our best trade assets right now and trading both for an expiring does not work for me (good thing my opinion doesn’t count …=). That’s my first impression when I look at it.

Now, if Boozer were to stay that probably means we paid him max money that I don’t think he’s worth. At the same time, we gotta remember who we are. Our market doesn’t allow us to attract big free agents and sign them for market value (at least not most times) so we are going to end up overpaying someone anyways. If I go by that argument I don’t mind keeping Boozer and having a pretty good frontcourt for years to come. The price would hurt but pairing up Boozer with Martin and hopefully a good PG we get through the draft definitely intrigues me. A future lineup of (draftee PG), Martin, Greene, Boozer, Hawes with Cisco, JT, BB, + couple others coming off the bench, looks pretty good on paper.

i dont think so the kings would get a good part of that trade..! =]

One thing I don’t like about giving Boozer max dollars is at the 2009 FA we still won’t know how good Shock and Hawes will be. Remember, Thompson is a rookie getting used to the league and while Hawes is a 2nd year player, he is 20 years old and didn’t get that many minutes last year. Both right now are good NBA players and I don’t think we will know till the 2009 season whether they’ll be great players. I would much rather have Thompson put up similar numbers to Boozer at 1/10th of the price and then decide if we need a big in the 2010 FA.

Let’s pretend that what interests Utah the most is low or value contract, a little upside and Sloan type players. The closest thing would be Salmons/Thompson/Williams. Then deal Miller for Wallace.

So you wind up with Hawes/Boozer/Wallace/Martin/Udrih, with our 1st round picks intact (maybe you have to give up the Houston pick to Utah). This team would put the Kings over the cap but under the luxury tax for next year, and they would pick up over $10 million in relief the following year when K9(woof!) and Moore (or Moore’s buyout) expires. Your new “core” would be together for the next three years, with Wallace expiring at about the same time that Hawes’ and/or Greene’s new contracts would kick in.

Does that team compete and put butts in the seats? It looks pretty good to me, though not elite. Still a stud PG away.

That Carlos Boozer is going to have arthroscopic knee surgery in January?

My son got sent home from his mission after two weeks to have both his knees scoped. And though the surgery was successful and his recovery is going well, with little pain (except in my butt), there is no way in the world that he would be able to play basketball any time before, say, April.

Not to throw a damper on things, but if you’re expecting him to help this season before he walks over the summer, you might want to re-think. I don’t think he’d rush his recovery to come back and play for a bad team.