Carlos Boozer is Suddenly a Whole Lot Cheaper
Back in December, Mr. section214 made a fantastic argument in favor of the Kings going after Carlos Boozer. I will excerpt it.
Carlos Boozer is an NBA all-star, a career double-double man (21/11 over the past two plus seasons). He is a low post beast that finishes at the rim with either hand, and he can hit the mid-range jumper. He runs the pick and roll with the best of them, and he is currently 27 years old. He has already told the Jazz that he is opting out of the final year of his contract.
Oh yes, that. Carlos Boozer has the reputation of being a "mercenary," a gun for hire, a player with no loyalty. This was born out of his nasty exodus from Cleveland. And there is no way to candy coat this – when an agent thinks that you’re too sleazy to work with, well, that’s sayin’ something. Add to that the announcement to opt out and the fact that he has missed significant time to injury in three of his seven seasons, and you have all of the ammunition that you need to call this guy a selfish pr*ck.
Except that his teammates have never really castigated him for any of this. It is the nature of the beast of the modern day athlete. They all play in glass arena’s and none of them will throw stones, as they are all prepared to take a similar path if the opportunity presents itself.
I agree completely with 214 on these points. The sensationalism of Boozer's separation from Cleveland is not that no one else would ever do it, it was that no one else had ever done it. Especially to a blind guy. Meanwhile, you have a star power forward with one of the best rebound rates in the league, elite scoring instincts and even a record of success following his latest injury.
He has certainly fallen from the lofty standard of "potential max player." Fallen so far he picked up his player option for 2009-10. He will make $12.3 million this season and be an unrestricted free agent on July 1, 2010.
Why does this matter to the Kings? After all, Boozer is no longer a free agent, and the Kings did not clear enough space to grab him regardless. He is irrelevant, right?
Wrong. Utah didn't want Boozer to stick around. The Jazz almost assuredly wanted Boozer to flee so that the team could keep Paul Millsap without hesitation. Millsap is a restricted free agent whose agent has placed a starting salary of $10 million on his head, but is more likely to get a starting salary of $8 million or so. Now, because Boozer and Mehmet Okur both opted in (bucking expectations at the last minute), the Jazz sit roughly $3 million over the luxury tax line before dealing with Millsap. An $8-million salary in 2009-10 for Millsap would cost the Jazz $11 million in tax penalty and the lost revenue given to teams under the tax (about $3 million in recent years). The Jazz have traditionally been a "no-tax" team. Owner Larry Miller died this past season, and his son Greg took over. The younger Miller does not seem particularly eager to change Dad's stance on this issue. The tax is a real pox on small-market teams like Salt Lake City and Sacramento.
This is where the Kings come in. Assuming Utah is committed to keeping Millsap -- the team was the first to call Millsap's agent Wednesday morning -- they need to move big salary. Andrei Kirilenko? They have been trying to trade him for years. More than $30 million for two more years ain't going to be easy in today's risk-averse NBA. It's got to be Boozer, who has had personality conflicts with Jazz management (including the late Miller and the younger one) in the recent past. When Boozer opted in, he ensured he would be second most rumored trade name this summer (behind Amar'e Stoudemire).
What can the Kings offer? What will it take?
First and foremost, the Jazz need salary relief. The Kings should have more than $7 million in cap space (depending on Ike Diogu or any other free agent signing) come July 8. That means the Kings could trade for a $7-million player straight up, without giving any salary back. But Boozer makes more than $7 million. An extra $5 million, actually. How could the Kings bridge that gap, with the understanding Utah will likely reject salary extending into 2010-11 and beyond.
Kenny Thomas' Expiring Contract.
Some combination of Kenny Thomas, C.J. Miles and/or Matt Harpring could get the Jazz about $8 million in cap relief for next season. (In Miles' case, it would get the Jazz cap relief for 2010-11 as well.) That doesn't make up to full Monty, and perhaps another team (Oklahoma City? Memphis?) could put together a better cap relief package. But if Geoff Petrie wants a star in the frontcourt while maintaining flexibility if it doesn't work out, if Petrie wants to spend pennies on the dollar for an All-Star, Boozer's the dude.
2 recs |
124 comments
|
Comments
I certainly wouldn't mind a one year
Boozer rental if the Kings only part with Kenny Thomas.
BOOK IT!
by kingme18 on Jul 1, 2009 6:41 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
Great post TZ.
If you can give up a guy like Thomas and still have cap space next summer, that’s a fantastic deal. And it makes a lot of sense for both sides. Which is why it will probably never happen (NBA teams never do the deals that make sense from a fan perspective). But we can hope!
Never forget: I am a complete idiot
by Exhibit G on Jul 1, 2009 7:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Plus you get a trial run
To see how a Boozer-Hawes-Thompson frontcourt would look.
by otis29 on Jul 1, 2009 7:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The only issues I have with this are
1. JT losing out on playing time
and
2. I think it’s much more likely that we get better value out of KTEC at the trade deadline than a 1 year rental of Boozer.
Other than that I think Boozer would go a long way in bringing toughnes and rebounding.
Teh Dego Dagger
by BPaoliano on Jul 1, 2009 7:14 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Playing time
A three-man rotation of bigs is not hard to pull off. All three could get plenty of minutes.
Never forget: I am a complete idiot
by Exhibit G on Jul 1, 2009 7:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The three-man rotation of bigs is simple to pull off in the NBA. Just look at the Blazers this year. When Greg Oden was healthy, they did a great job of cycling through him, Pryzbilla and Aldridge.
Great post, Tom.
by Zach H from Talk H on Jul 1, 2009 7:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Without another big, Boozer/Thompson/Hawes have 96 minutes to play with
for the 4 and 5. That gives each of them 32 minutes equally. Boozer and Hawes are injury prone so that probably won’t happen and let’s face it – JT is a second year player, he does not need to be a full time starter to learn the NBA. A year of seasoning behind an All-Star sounds about right.
The only other question comes in the form of philosophy – do you hold KTEC for another longer term upgrade, as the current roster and new coaching staff are not (expected to be) playoff bound this year or do you hold it to bundle Beno/Noce/Garcia for even more salary dumping.
by betweentheeyes on Jul 1, 2009 7:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We used Outlaw (a tall 3) as the other PF
He created mismatches on offense.
by Sabonis4Ever on Jul 2, 2009 3:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I should have clarified better,
I was thinking starter’s minutes for JT. Which I think would be valuable at this point for him now, especially if he’s the future. You’re right though, there will be plenty of PT all around and considering Boozer’s injury history there is a good chance JT will still get those starters minutes.
Also, after reading section’s post below about Boozer’s expiring being more valuable, I’m in.
Teh Dego Dagger
by BPaoliano on Jul 1, 2009 8:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the thing about a one year rental is that if walks at the end of the season you get your money back in the form of cap space
what you actually get is a player on the roster who actually plays as opposed to K9 (woof) who gets paid and does nothing but sit on the bench and then walks at the end of the season. K9 walks unless he’s traded at the deadline and that’s the risk you take. Maybe we have the opportunity to resign boozer after the season ends maybe not.
The way that Ziller lays it out is really a low cost option. If it works we haven’t lost much other then cap flexibility and the cost of this proposed trade is far lower to the Kings than the trade being proposed between the Suns and Dubs for AmarĂ© which in some ways guts young assets from the dubs. Worst case there’s butts in the seats and our young bigs get a chance to elevate their game for a year and get to play with an Allstar. Would Boozer consider living in Sacramento. Come on, he’s already lived in Salt Lake for 4 years.
Think about it. Salt Lake, Sac. Salt Lake, Sac, Salt Lake, Sac. I don’t know about you but I would pick Sac 100 times out of 100. I like this proposed trade TZ, great post.
"We are in the business of kicking butt and business is very, very good." - Charles Barkley
by Bluejohn on Jul 1, 2009 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't want Boozer
But, it’s fun to dream.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Jul 1, 2009 7:17 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm with you Pook-
This deal would earn the team hollow wins- not enough to make the playoffs but enough to pick 10-13 and then this money grubbing bitch will take the first light rail train out of mid-town. The only way I make a move for Boozer is to have a better trade piece at the deadline and by then you risk fans coming to the game to see a one year and done team. Maybe I’m crazy but I see this ending poorly.
"Or, as Randy Jackson would say: Not feelin’ it, dawg."
-bench-blob- posting virgin.
by jjham15 on Jul 1, 2009 9:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you're crazy, I am too.
I see it almost exactly the same. Boozer will likely get a max contract or close next year, which I don’t believe he is worth, and in the meantime we end up damaging player development, alienating fans (who are happy to cheer on the hollow wins only to see Boozer depart in free agency), and weaking next year’s draft position.
by cabz on Jul 1, 2009 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think
Boozer is getting anything close to a max contract next year. He knows this too, otherwise he would have opted out of his contract this year and hit free agency when there won’t be so many big names out there.
by otis29 on Jul 1, 2009 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He'll get more money next year as so many teams have cleared out space in order
to court Lebron, Wade, and Bosh. Unfortunately all those players will re up with there own teams, except for maybe bosh, leaving teams like the Knicks and Nets to throw money at the Boozers and Stoudamires of the world.
There now I've met the 75 word count. -pookeyguru
by moproblemz on Jul 1, 2009 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And
his stock will be higher if he can stay healthy, and the economy in general might improve. He could definitely do better than 1 year $12M right now, so he must be biding his time for a bigger deal next year, if not a max deal.
by furious.d on Jul 1, 2009 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmmm...
I think he picked up the option because he knew he couldn’t get more than the $12 million this season on the open market.
All other factors you mentioned could happen, and if so maybe he does max out. But I think he figured $12 million in hand was the best he could do right now.
by otis29 on Jul 1, 2009 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think the decision was that short-sighted...
Sure, $12 million is probably better than he can do this year, but not by such a large margin that it would make sense to give up the guarantee of a long-term contract for $50-70 million – especially when you consider his injury history. Do you really believe that Boozer would want to take another $2-4 million this year to risk not getting the best long term deal (which could cost tens of millions)?
I believe that the decision is based on the financial climate and the fact that there will be a lot more cap room to go around next year (especially if a lot of the big names remain with their current teams).
by cabz on Jul 1, 2009 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We will see
I think the guy’s history, and the fact that he’s really an above average but not elite talent in the league – combined with a possible cap reduction (so I’ve heard) will keep him out of max territory.
But hell, Rashad Lewis got a max deal so I guess anything’s possible.
by otis29 on Jul 1, 2009 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps he won't get the max, but if Millsap is rumored to be looking at $8-10 million, I think he gets close.
With an injury-free year, he could definitely get the max.
by cabz on Jul 1, 2009 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Assets
One more thing to consider – the expiring contract of Boozer > the expiring contract of Kenny Thomas. That is, Boozer could fetch even more at the trade deadline than Thomas were the KIngs inclined to move him. In other words, the Kings and Boozer could have a 3 1/2 month trial period before deciding whether this would be a good long term fit.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Jul 1, 2009 7:51 AM PDT reply actions 3 recs
boozer as an EC vs. Thomas as an EC
Gonna have to say AS AN EXPIRING, Thomas probably has SLIGHTLY more value, as it’s smaller and probably easier to facilitate a trade with.
With that said, I’d rather have Boozer’s EC than Thomas any day of the week for production purposes.
by Smills91 on Jul 1, 2009 9:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Boozer EC vs. K9 EC
I’d rather stay with the K9 EC. After revisiting that Boozer/CLE article from years back, I’d never see Boozer in our long term plans. And even if he could fetch us more than K9 come trade deadline, I’d rather forego the few 10something extra wins for another chance at a 1-5 pick next year….mmmm John Wall.
by dstyrhodes on Jul 1, 2009 9:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
More than half our Cap for 5 months of meaningless wins, No Thanks
We’re in a REBUILD, not looking for the finishing pieces of a playoff run. I have to agree with JJ on this. I don’t know if Smill91 is correct, but he makes a good point. If Boozer has a bad yr playing with all our young players and a new coach, it might not be easy moving his big expiring contract at the trade deadline. Then we’re stuck paying him $5+ million through the end of the year. Then he goes money hunting elsewhere.
I’d rather go after a younger Center. I want JT to be a PF. With Boozer, JT is going to have to split his time between Boozers backup and Spencers backup. I want to see Spencer and JT playing the majority of their time on the floor together.
IMO, GP will go after a FA center and maybe bring in one of the undrafted guys he had come in for the predraft workout. If that doesn’t workout, I can see him bring back Ike and Calvin. Save some cap space money (which will make the Maloofs happy), play the young guys alot (which will make the fans happy), and wait until the trade deadline to use your cap space and K9’s expiring along with Noc or Cisco to trade for a player we really need. Feb 19th is the start of the 2010 FA market.
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
by HighTops on Jul 1, 2009 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't get this argument
If Boozer has a bad yr playing with all our young players and a new coach, it might not be easy moving his big expiring contract at the trade deadline.
K9 is expected to ride the pine, so the only thing I can come up with is that you think the roughly $3.6M difference in their contracts would have to be made up for with production for another team to want Boozer’s EC over K9’s EC . . . which I’m not sure is a very strong position to take (especially when you consider that in real dollars it would really be about HALF of that at the trade deadline).
Salaries from Sham:
Boozer – $12,323,900
Thomas – $8,775,000
Net Diff. – $3,548,900
by smgmatt on Jul 1, 2009 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
And we won't gain cap space with Boozer
We have the cap space now of 7 mill. Lets let the young bucks play and see what happens. Sign Ike to 2 mill this year as our undersized C/PF backup and wait to have space of 16-18 mill next year. If we could move Beno and Noc for Camby I would be all for that aqs well. That would provide another 5-6 in space.
by kwill on Jul 1, 2009 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Apples & Oranges
From a Salary Cap perspective, Beno/Noc for Camby is a SLAM DUNK. Shedding long-term contracts for EC’s will always be better from a salary cap perspective, and if you can also obtain a usable piece with that EC, then the better it is all around.
That said, this is a completely different scenario.
Looking at next year’s cap space, there is zero difference between Boozer or K9 being on this year’s roster. I would even go so far as to say that the “young bucks” will not lose any (noticeable) minutes with Boozer on the roster.
I don’ t know if getting Boozer is the best route to take (if it’s even possible), but you have provided me with no reasons not to.
by smgmatt on Jul 1, 2009 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why would LA do that if they could move Randolph instead
Camby is far more palatable for them to move, and to acquire Beno & Noc for Camby on LA’s part is stupid. Now, Z-bo, that’s pretty intelligent. 2 rotational pieces for Zach Randolph in a trading environment that would be difficult to move him otherwise, and perhaps you could move either down the road to save money as well, plus it reduces salary for the next 2 seasons for the Clippers, seems to make the most sense to me.
I just wish the Kings do it.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Jul 1, 2009 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Once again
I’m all for a Z-Bo trade… as long as he never plays for us
Then again, they had the chance to move Randolph for Darko’s expiring contract and they didn’t. Why do they do it for Noc and Beno?
www.mancancook.net
by vfettke on Jul 1, 2009 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thats because you stated
the ‘“young bucks’ will not lose (noticeable) minutes with Boozer on the roster." That is your preconceived notion which I believe is flawed. However, I may be wrong if it was to happen. What I do see is the need of ever team to play their best players as many minutes as possible. If we did have Boozer, he would take IMO noticable minutes from them. Although it may not make a difference in the end game anyways.
by kwill on Jul 3, 2009 3:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My question
What does this do to the rest of the market for free agents? I know Sam said that we’re not going to be active, but there might be a deal out there that we can’t afford not to make. If you have to overpay by 20% to convince a free agent to come to Sacramento, then you might as well do it while the market is depressed by 20% (or whatever).
The Bucks just opted out of extending Charlie Villanueva for $4.6M. What would it take to get him? He’s 24, 6’11", highly skilled with huge mismatch potential, doesn’t duplicate JT or Hawes but could play with both, and the price he can demand is in the gutter. Isn’t this exactly the kind of move we need to make?
by furious.d on Jul 1, 2009 8:10 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Charlie V
Could be a good pickup, if the price is right.
Unfortunately, I have a feeling his agent is going to tell him that he’s worth in the 8-9 mil per year range.
by misterbrister on Jul 1, 2009 8:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If that's the case
Then they can try to find a GM who agrees, but I don’t think the market will bear anything near that. At least not for a long-term deal. The Bucks weren’t even willing to pick up the $4.6M option to trade him. We’ll see though. Historically, someone has always been willing to overpay, but I think this offseason could be a sea change.
by furious.d on Jul 1, 2009 8:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we should kick the tires on him
We could certainly be a good fit, if not somewhat redundant with a few of our roster pieces already like Nocioni, Casspi, and Greene. But Charlie V might be more legit at the 4 than any of these fellows, but wouldnt rebound much better.
by DustyG on Jul 1, 2009 8:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ESPN is reporting the Kings where one of the first to call Charlie V last night.
I’m not a fan of this guy either. He has always struck me a as a player who thinks he is considerably better than he is.
"Or, as Randy Jackson would say: Not feelin’ it, dawg."
-bench-blob- posting virgin.
by jjham15 on Jul 1, 2009 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ugh.
Are you serious?
Could Petrie at least pretend to try to care about defense?
by nbrans on Jul 1, 2009 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe it's not as bad as you think....
Maybe Petrie just wanted to tell the guy to spend his free agent money on some eye brows.
by Charlieb on Jul 1, 2009 9:32 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Agreed
Though we did have Anthony Peeler on our team, so apparently Petrie is not completely averse to eyebrowless players.
by AnotherStupidSN on Jul 1, 2009 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seems like
Charlie at least has the athletic ability to be a solid defender. And I don’t get the impression that the Bucks have particularly emphasized defense at any point in his career. But maybe I’m offbase.
by furious.d on Jul 1, 2009 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's ok
From the rumors online it sounds like he’ll be signing with Detroit.
It was probably a call to see what kind of contract price and length he was looking for.
Never forget: I am a complete idiot
by Exhibit G on Jul 1, 2009 9:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
You’re not doing your job if you don’t at least call. It’s called doing your research and evaluating options.
Father of the "Natt this!" movement.
by Aykis16 on Jul 1, 2009 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
His rebounding rate is actually pretty darn good
10 per 40 isn’t too shabby for a guy who creates such a tremendous mismatch on the other end with his outside shooting and ballhandling skills.
by furious.d on Jul 1, 2009 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm
By most measures, he seems to be a good rebounder, even for a PF. His rebound rate is good, but he has never gotten good minutes. His season best is 29.1 mpg. Last season: 26.9 mpg.
Despite his decent rebounding, by most accounts he seems to be a below average to bad defender. Sounds like opposing players can get around him easily. I wonder if that means he’s better suited to play PF, or if he is forced to play SF cause PFs would do even worse things to him.
Anyways, the Pistons will probably be able to get him to work hard.
by DustyG on Jul 1, 2009 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great Idea!
If all we had to move was K9 for Boozer I would be all over this deal. I could see this being something talked about by the Kings. Boozer also is a pretty large expiring contract too and could be moved at the deadline for another piece if we chose to moev him.
by chriswebb86 on Jul 1, 2009 8:10 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I would think
That Utah is going to want more than the cap relief we would provide them. Additionally, as other teams figure this out, we’re going to be in a bidding war (well, sorta) to see who can provide the best package to Utah.
I don’t think Utah is going to want a player in return (as cap space is what got them in this mess) but would we feel alright offering a pick?
by misterbrister on Jul 1, 2009 8:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seems too risky
Given the likelihood that Boozer would walk after the season.
by furious.d on Jul 1, 2009 8:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm probably the only one
But I hate the idea of Boozer as much as I hate Stoudemire (actually more) because I would be hoping like hell he would walk next off-season. Every day.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Jul 1, 2009 8:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did he run over your dog or something?
by furious.d on Jul 1, 2009 8:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
H-A-T-E
h-a-t-e
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Jul 1, 2009 8:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What are you going to change my mind?
Good luck with that.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Jul 1, 2009 8:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bah, you hated Evans, too.
And now you’re all, “Let me carry your books, Tyreke! I really like your Trapper Keeper!”
Still sounds dirty.
Rocks are free, and slingshots easily stolen.
by andy sims on Jul 1, 2009 8:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I only carry MY trapper keeper
Hated Stoudemire in the wintertime. Would hate any trade for him now. Hated Boozer in the wintertime, too. Hate the idea now.
Tyreke Evans is not a player I disliked. I think it’s a risk, but whatever, that’s a red herring here.
They’re not comparable. Time to go to class. You people get to argue about this now.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Jul 1, 2009 8:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I only carry MY trapper keeper
Hated Stoudemire in the wintertime. Would hate any trade for him now. Hated Boozer in the wintertime, too. Hate the idea now.
Tyreke Evans is not a player I disliked. I think it’s a risk, but whatever, that’s a red herring here.
They’re not comparable. Time to go to class. You people get to argue about this now.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Jul 1, 2009 8:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mine gotta have Megan Fox on it :)
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Jul 1, 2009 8:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Awesome
I like how the tire is “escaping” from the frame. Like the Lamborghini is so dynamic and powerful that it refuses to be bound by any graphic formatting. And the redundant smaller photo right above it. Totally rad.
by AnotherStupidSN on Jul 1, 2009 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Woah. Too clean.
That pee-chee needs some perverted captions, arrows and word bubbles with horrible dialogue.
LOL. I haven’t read or said “Trapper Keeper” in ages.
by JETisKing on Jul 1, 2009 8:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Boozer walking....
WHO CARES!?! He might, but we’d still have cap, we’d just have more options with a SnT with him, or being able to have the inside track to keeping him.
It’s a win-win.
by Smills91 on Jul 1, 2009 9:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe a Top 3 or Top 5 protected pick
I’d definitely be willing to do that
www.mancancook.net
by vfettke on Jul 1, 2009 9:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can't get excited about a one year Boozer rental
The idea is great in theory. In practice I don’t really see Boozer as part of the long term future of the team given his age (27 but with a lot of injury mileage) and given his likely contract demands after next season and I doubt he would either. So you get one year of Contract Year Carlos Boozer, likely not giving a shit about the team, his teammates, and anything but making sure his stats look good for his big 2010 payday.
Adding the most mercenary of players to a young lineup isn’t really an idea I can get behind. I’d rather have Fesenko, who obviously is not as good of a player, but who at least fits into the direction of the team.
by nbrans on Jul 1, 2009 8:34 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Look at Grant Hill
He’s still productive at age 35/36 even with ton of ankle injuries.
BOOK IT!
by kingme18 on Jul 1, 2009 9:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We got that cat C-Webb
After a pretty injury plagued start to his career. And that kid had the malcontent label all over him.
C-Webb turned out to be a leader though, and I’m not sure Boozer has that kind of personality. But this team needs more high level NBA talent. And I’d much rather take a chance on Boozer turning the corner from a maturity aspect, than getting a guy like Fesenko, who will probably only be another middle of the road player.
Also, I think having Paul Westphal is going to help stabilize the head coach position – he’s handled some complicated personalities in the past, so I’d be comfortable he could mix Boozer in without sacrificing the development of the youngsters.
This type of deal (as outlined here) seems relatively low risk, with a pretty damn high reward.
by otis29 on Jul 1, 2009 9:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
CWebb was only 25
With no injuries when he came to Sacramento.
I agree there’s a lot of potential to the idea, but I can’t help but think it’s a one and done situation. Or, conversely, they’ll end up overpaying an injury-prone 27 year old to a 5+ year deal. It may work well for the first couple years, but by the time the team is ready to be serious I fear he’ll be broken down.
by nbrans on Jul 1, 2009 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not true
The age is right, but Webb had plenty of injuries prior to coming to Sacramento. He only played 54 games in 94-95 and 15 games in 95-96. I believe that was due to one of his shoulder injuries?
I really don’t feel strongly about Boozer one way or another. I do like the idea of buying low on a guy that is a high level talent though…
by otis29 on Jul 1, 2009 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Dislocated shoulder from hanging on the rim like an idiot.
"Or, as Randy Jackson would say: Not feelin’ it, dawg."
-bench-blob- posting virgin.
by jjham15 on Jul 1, 2009 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's also probably noteworthy
That C-Webb’s injuries had a lot to do with the franchise’s decline to 17-65. I wouldn’t trade those years for the world, but Webber signing the kind of deal that Boozer would command when he was 28 destroyed us financially and, eventually, competitively. Sure Webber’s knee injury against Dallas was bad luck, but there’s every reason to think that same sort of bad luck might befall Boozer. When you’re in for something in the neighborhood of $100M guaranteed, you can’t afford to be unlucky.
by furious.d on Jul 1, 2009 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Boozer hasn't shown a lot of injury wear and tear
He’s really had very little trouble coming back from being hurt. Grant Hill’s still productive but he’s limited in what he can do
www.mancancook.net
by vfettke on Jul 1, 2009 9:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Grant Hill
is a good character guy who is a productive but limited player for a playoff team.
Carlos Boozer is a mercenary looking for a payday, and this is a rebuilding team with a lot of youth.
There’s not really a comparison.
by nbrans on Jul 1, 2009 9:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They are all mercenaries
Every, single one of them.
Professional Hyperbole Slayer
by ForThree on Jul 1, 2009 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Grant Hill
played for $1.8M last season, despite the fact that he’s a 14-year veteran. If he’s a mercenary, he’s one that wants to get paid in wins. There’s a difference.
by furious.d on Jul 1, 2009 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The same Grant Hill...
that essentially forced Detroit into a sign-and-trade with Orlando for a $97 million contract? Detriot got Ben Wallace and Chucky Atkins for him…hardly market value at the time.
My point is, crucifying Boozer for doing what almost everyone in our society would do seems odd.
Professional Hyperbole Slayer
by ForThree on Jul 1, 2009 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
We Booze We Lose
No Way – What will be the benefit of 1 yr. of Boozer and he will NOT want to come and play here for 1 yr – you think he screwed the Cavs think what he will do if he hears we want him, especially not with JT and his development as a cornerstone to our future success – NO THANKS!!!
by RapnRodney on Jul 1, 2009 9:10 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
What's wrong with 1 year?
I don’t think anyone is expecting that we’d re-sign him. But you can trade Kenny Thomas’ expiring contract for Carlos Boozer’s expiring contract. Either way you’ve freed up some cap space for next offseason, but with Boozer you’re at least paying the guy to contribute.
Never forget: I am a complete idiot
by Exhibit G on Jul 1, 2009 9:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Plus, as far as JT's development
there’s a very good chance Boozer gets hurt at some point this year. And also, when he does play I think Boozer will be a great guy for JT to learn from
www.mancancook.net
by vfettke on Jul 1, 2009 9:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd rather not pay Millions more in salary to drop to a lower lottery pick next year
I’m always against a young team spending more money than necessary unless it’s a good long-term investment or that player puts the team over the top. Boozer probably just makes the Kings good enough to end up with a 12th pick instead of a 1-6 pick, and then he’s gone.
by Charlieb on Jul 1, 2009 9:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow
Already thinking about our lotto pick next year? You’re just brimming with optimism…
Never forget: I am a complete idiot
by Exhibit G on Jul 1, 2009 9:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seriously
I’m thinking we end up in the 8-12 pick range as is. Then again, I could be overly optimistic
www.mancancook.net
by vfettke on Jul 1, 2009 9:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
that’s some serious optimism
Professional Hyperbole Slayer
by ForThree on Jul 1, 2009 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd say that's about right
I think the roster underachieved last season. The current talent, a healthy Kevin Martin, adding guys like Evans and Rodriguez (hence less reliance on Beno), and an experienced head coach all should help us. Won’t be a great team, but should be better.
Never forget: I am a complete idiot
by Exhibit G on Jul 1, 2009 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not that pessimistic
I just still think they’re another year away from challenging for a playoff spot, so I’d rather land another high lottery pick and wait until next season to spend money to improve the roster.
I definitely think they’ll be a quality team in 2 years.
by Charlieb on Jul 1, 2009 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Quality team
You don’t learn how to win by losing. Teams have to win games. If it hurts your lottery odds, so be it.
Never forget: I am a complete idiot
by Exhibit G on Jul 1, 2009 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not rooting for them to lose
Maybe that sounded a bit strong, but I was just trying to make the point that I don’t really see much benefit in winning a few extra games one year if they still can’t make the playoffs.
If you think Boozer is good enough to put this team over the top, then I see where you are coming from, but I guess I just don’t like Boozer that much.
by Charlieb on Jul 1, 2009 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
good point
I don’t really see much benefit in winning a few extra games one year if they still can’t make the playoffs.
by LPKingsFan on Jul 1, 2009 5:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Huh?
Look, I was on the “let the kids play” bandwagon while being accused of supporting “tanking” last year because a side effect of benching “starters” was the opportunity of a higher draft pick (which I was also hopeful for, but not by losing for no reason) . . . and I just don’t agree with this statement at all.
Give me every win this season: hollow, solid, shallow, deep, empty, stolen, given, taken, you name it.
The reason I supported that last year is that the players that supposedly gave the Kings the “best chance to win” were not part of the long-term solution for the franchise. Now that most of the obstacles for youth development are gone, we’re left with the future core of the team (barring future roster moves, obviously).
Now is NOT the time to make decisions based on draft position (roughly 360 days from now, btw). Now is the time to move forward. W’s matter, draft position does not.
The Kings had the worst record last year (ideal for any “tankers” right?) and still ended up with the #4 pick (i.e. worst case scenario).
And btw, anyone who doesn’t want to get better players on this roster (without sacrificing development, giving up any real assets, etc.) is simply crazy.
Even if you don’t like Boozer in general . . . he’s obviously better than Kenny-9 Thomas.
It’s time to start a culture of winning.
Besides, GP does well wherever he picks, so I’m not going to lose any sleep about draft position anyway.
IPWT. Go Kings.
by smgmatt on Jul 1, 2009 9:30 PM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
With and rec'd
Every game is important, win or lose. To grow, to compete, to establish. I have no illusions about us being a playoff team this year, but the players, coaches and management better g*ddamn care about winning games as much as I do, as much as their fans do.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Jul 1, 2009 9:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Huh?
The reason I supported that last year is that the players that supposedly gave the Kings the "best chance to win" were not part of the long-term solution for the franchise
How would Boozer in a 1-year contract be considered part of the long-term solution for the franchise? He wouldn’t be, and that’s exactly why I’m against this.
Look, I was on the "let the kids play" bandwagon while being accused of supporting "tanking" last year because a side effect of benching "starters" was the opportunity of a higher draft pick
And does that mean you’d want them to bench Boozer if they traded for him? If they landed a veteran that isn’t part of the long-term solution, how would it be any different than last year?
I’m not pessimistic – just patient. I think the team will be better in 2-3 years (when they will have a chance to be competing in the playoffs) if continue with their commitment to rebuilding and they don’t make stopgap deals like this one.
by Charlieb on Jul 2, 2009 5:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No & No
How would Boozer in a 1-year contract be considered part of the long-term solution for the franchise?
- He would help the team win games, which breeds a culture of winning.
- He has skills that could be beneficial for JT/Hawes to learn from him.
- He would immediately improve the quality of practices (higher competition).
- He could push JT to work harder to take that starting spot from him.
- He wouldn’t take away from the development of JT or Hawes, aside from the fact that they might not play as many minutes side-by-side.
I really don’t see much of a downside, but there’s a whole lot of upside.
And does that mean you’d want them to bench Boozer if they traded for him?
Honestly, if JT/Hawes excel playing together, then I wouldn’t have a problem with Boozer coming off the bench. Is there anything wrong with that? Is that a reason not to acquire him?
If they landed a veteran that isn’t part of the long-term solution, how would it be any different than last year?
First, it gives the team another asset. Rebuilding teams need assets. Maybe Boozer turns into Bosh, maybe not . . . but there are always more options with more assets.
Second, last year there were players at every position blocking our youth movement:
- Salmons – Garcia/Greene
- Moore – JT
- Miller – Hawes
Getting a 3rd big isn’t nearly the same thing, and the fact that he only has a 1-year deal means that he is also not a long-term hindrance for the development of Shock & Hawes.
To put it another way, what was JT going to learn from Mikki Moore? What could he learn from Boozer? Would Hawes improve his rebounding playing with a legit rebounder?
We all hoped Miller would help Hawes, and perhaps he did. Maybe Miller would have been a better fit in a 3-big rotation (playing some time at the 4 & 5, much like JT would do in this scenario) . . . I don’t know.
I just don’t understand the logic of “don’t get a good player for a bench player, because it’ll hurt our draft chances”.
“This is what’s great about sports. This is what the greatest thing about sports is. You play to win the game. Hello? You play to win the game. You don’t play it to just play it. That’s the great thing about sports: you play to win, and I don’t care if you don’t have any wins. You go play to win. When you start tellin’ me it doesn’t matter, then retire. Get out! ’Cause it matters.” – Herm Edwards
by smgmatt on Jul 2, 2009 7:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you're overstating the value of an education from Boozer
And if they played him off the bench to let JT and Hawes develop, then that would officially be tanking.
by Charlieb on Jul 2, 2009 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes & No
I don’t disagree about about my overstatement, and I can live with that being the weakest point of my argument.
As for the “tanking” comment . . . if benching Boozer is classified as tanking than what would “not trying to acquiring him” be classified as?
by smgmatt on Jul 2, 2009 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A smart business decision
to not spend $5-6 million to rent a player for one year on a rebuilding team.
Players and coaches should always play all out and try to win every game like it’s their last. GM’s need to think long-term.
by Charlieb on Jul 2, 2009 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A smart business decision
…is to buy low and sell high.
Acquiring Boozer for K9 would define “buying low”.
If you don’t like the idea of “renting” a player, then look at it as “upgrading an asset”. Kenny Thomas’ Expiring Contract (KTEC) is not as valuable as Carlos Boozer’s Expiring Contract (CBEC).
I still haven’t seen a strong argument for not doing this deal (if it were possible).
by smgmatt on Jul 2, 2009 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I give up
but I just found somebody that agrees with me, so read this: Just Say no to Booz
by Charlieb on Jul 2, 2009 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That guy is crazy
Don’t listen to him. :)
StR noobs: More oxygen, less THC please.
by otis29 on Jul 2, 2009 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
"Wow" Exactly.
Already thinking about our lotto pick next year? You’re just brimming with optimism…
I couldn’t take another under-20 win season just for a high draft pick that’s only going to be stolen by a major market team.
Boozer would only make the team better, put people in seats (because the Kings will be winning more) and be a mentor for our young big men.
by JETisKing on Jul 1, 2009 8:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ok
I’m always against a young team spending more money than necessary unless it’s a good long-term investment…
If JT/Hawes benefit or improve from playing with Boozer more so than K9 . . . is that not a good long-term return from a short-term investment?
Also, wouldn’t Boozer be an easier sell for Toronto’s FO (i.e. AI in Detroit) if they were to trade Bosh?
Again, the risk is minimal and the Kings would definitely be “buying low” which is always good business.
by smgmatt on Jul 1, 2009 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The risk is minimal
but the cost probably isn’t. Assuming all the Jazz want is salary cap relief, then the Kings would most likely have to take on an additional $5-7 million in salary to land him. That’s a lot of money for a severely cash strapped team. I wouldn’t mind if the Maloofs wanted to spend the money, but if it was my money, then I wouldn’t consider that to be worth the marginal benefit of winning 35 games instead of 25 for a one-year rental.
If the plan is to use Boozer as a bigger asset to make a move at the trade deadline, then I could go along with that, but I really don’t like the 1-year rental plan.
by Charlieb on Jul 1, 2009 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Boozer won't play here
That’s my main point – why would he want to come here and play on a young rebuilding team for only 1 yr, he can stay with the Jazz and hit the free agent market next year.
by RapnRodney on Jul 1, 2009 5:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Umm -
He does not have a no trade clause, at least not to my knowledge. He’ll go where he’s paid to go, and given the fact that it is a contract year, he’ll probably play his arse off.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Jul 1, 2009 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Other than his ETO
He doesn’t seem to have a trade kicker (and wasn’t eligible for a no-trade clause) according to Storytellers.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Jul 2, 2009 8:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice site
I haven’t seen that one before.
FYI, 09-10 Salaries are up, even though there’s no link from the homepage.
by smgmatt on Jul 2, 2009 8:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
easy
a better trading chip at the deadline. That’s the only reason why’d I do it … that and if they could get Beno included in the deal, but that’s probably a stretch.
If you're not first ... you're last.
by what_the_crap on Jul 1, 2009 9:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe we trade for Boozer then later in the season parlay him for Chris Bosh?
or maybe I’m crazy?
www.mancancook.net
by vfettke on Jul 1, 2009 10:11 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Lay off the Booz...
No Boozer, for all the reasons stated. In addition, Boozer plays ZERO defense.
by amonk81 on Jul 1, 2009 10:11 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Good he should fit right in.
Father of the "Natt this!" movement.
by Aykis16 on Jul 1, 2009 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
From what I recall
Miami had/has an interest in Boozer, they also have a very large expiring contract who happens to play a position of need for the Kings. Perhaps I’m crazy but if the Kings can parlay KTEC into Boozer, I could see Boozer and say Beno going to Miami in exchange for a washed up JO, who would provide front court depth, without stealing anyone’s minutes, as well as one hell of a sexy expiring contract come trade deadline time. Not to mention the fringe benefits of ridding ourselves of a MLE mistake. Note: I don’t think the salaries match up right so perhaps we’d have to do a sign and trade with one of our previously expired types a la McCants (I know Miami wouldn’t want him he was just an off the cuff example.)
It doesn’t have to be JO, Boozer could be parlayed into anyone else, I was just using him as an example because A) He plays D B) He plays a position of need and C) He has one hell of an expiring contract, and D) He would potentially let us dump a lesser player who may not fit into our long term plans in Beno.
Well what does everyone think of my bold stroke of insanity?
by propane on Jul 1, 2009 10:15 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'll pretty much do any deal that makes Beno go away
WordUpThome: THE HEY-DAY OF RONALD REAGAN-O-NOMICS IS A FINE TIME FOR BIRTH, NUMA NUMA DANCE STAR JOBA CHAMBERLAIN WAS ALSO BORN IN 1985
by Gallagher's Watermelons on Jul 1, 2009 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am totally in favor of acquiring Boozer (at the right price). He is a legitimate low post threat, something Hawes nor JT have shown to be, or become (yet).
He kind of disappeared in the playoffs last year, but I think there may have been injury slowing his roll.
by bench_blob on Jul 1, 2009 10:19 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
IMO,
any theory that dismisses acquiring a particular player – even if for one season, at potentially little to no cost – because it could decrease a team’s lottery odds is fundamentally flawed. This franchise has had lottery selections for the past three seasons. Petrie is not going to dismiss an opportunity to improve the team’s overall assets simply because they could potentially fall from 4th to 10th in the draft the following year.
Boozer is a skilled rebounder and finisher around the basket. He’s not a terrific interior passer but he’s decent. He is, however, a terrible defender and a non-factor in terms of shot-blocking. If the Kings are looking to improve their defense and “toughness” factor, as suggested with their draft selections, Boozer isn’t going to help much in those areas. But he is a very significant asset in terms of possible trade-deadline moves – more so than Thomas’ contract or Nocioni – and for that reason this idea requires some consideration from the Kings.
I haven’t read up on the rumors following Boozer’s opt-in, but I imagine the Warriors also have to be interested. If their talks with the Suns and ended, but they’re still looking to improve their interior scoring/rebounding (while preferably keeping Biedrins, Curry and Randolph) then they might be able to put a package together to acquire Boozer instead. I know the Jazz have coveted Maggette for several years.
"geez its like this site is so serious i jus wanna git mai opinyons on tha Kings out there ok" - TZ
by sroufe on Jul 1, 2009 11:18 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I would like this trade for a few reasons
One, it gives us a legit big in our rotation, and also adds some much needed toughness and rebounding.
Two, Boozer is much better competition for Spencer and JT to play against in practice than Ike Diogu or Kenny Thomas, thus probably helping to further their development as players. Boozer might be able to help with low post moves as well. Don’t underestimate practice. Look how well Marcin Gortat has been playing. He has Patrick Ewing on the sidelines and plays with Dwight Howard.
Three, Boozer’s contract, as has been stated, is a much more attractive contract at the deadline than Kenny Thomas. Unlike Kenny, Boozer is an Expiring that actually has some worth. Perhaps a playoff team ends up willing to give up some assets for him at the deadline. Also, at the end of the year, Boozer’s contract takes more off the cap for us than Kenny’s does.
Father of the "Natt this!" movement.
by Aykis16 on Jul 1, 2009 11:38 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I like Boozer better than Bosh
But not to rent for a year. The term hollow wins is an appropriate one in this case.
Yes, several of us are already counting on our top 10 draft pick next year.
Let me rephrase, I like a healthy Boozer better than Bosh. Sadly, I actually agree with Shaq on Bosh. He will ask for franchise money but he cannot carry a franchise.
by bignerd on Jul 1, 2009 11:40 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Why is Toronto going to lose Bosh?
Is it because they can’t afford the max contract or is it because he just doesn’t want to play there? If it’s the latter, then it’s possible we can parlay Boozer for Bosh (like I said earlier). Bosh might be more willing to sign a big contract for an up and coming team like Sac, rather than Toronto. Boozer, on the other hand, is a mercenary and if Toronto offered him a good deal he’d take it, hands down.
www.mancancook.net
by vfettke on Jul 1, 2009 12:49 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I would love
Boozer! I love his game, i think K$, Evans, Boozer, JT, Hawes, Cisco, can do some damage and hell maybe even make the playoffs (I know dreaming) and hopefully with Hawes and JT going against Boozer in practice everyday Shock and Hawes will grow some rebounding balls and because beasts……and if Boozer walks, thats 12 mill off the books to sign someone, or maybe use that 12 mill to package with Beno’s contract to sell to someone who is on the bubble right before the trading deadline. Someone like Miami or the bulls might feel if they can get their hands on Boozer they might make a deep playoff run. Thus giving us a lopsided trade. So i say, pull the trigger.
by shadowchicken on Jul 1, 2009 6:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
He could be a great fit but...
I simply can’t cheer for a guy like this.
by ZenBaller on Jul 2, 2009 4:41 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

by 























