Boozer to the Kings?
I poster at SacTown Royalty throws out an interesting trade.
about 1 year ago
Basketball John
5 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
I'm not in love with this proposal.
I know a lot of fans think that we should just get what we can for Boozer now that he is probably gone anyway, but I still believe that if he comes back in March or April, he can help this team compete for the finals and/or a championship. I don’t think Miller and Salmons would do that and I don’t want Miller’s contract. He is a great passer, but a horrible defender. And Okur isn’t going to opt out unless he wants to leave Utah and then we will have money to find someone else in case he does.
The more you try to erase me, the more that I appear.
by clarkpojo on Dec 31, 2008 5:57 PM MST reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
I like Salmons, but he’s more or less mean the end of CJ, and we can’t trade him.
Miller’s D isn’t much to write home about, and he’ll still be on the books way past when we need him (especially if The Koof & Fesenko develop well).
Booze, based on this isn’t exactly a bad defender. Miller, on the other hand, has a DRtg equivalent to Flop… who’s the worst on the Jazz.
On the other hand… we get rid of Flop. If only…
by UtesFan89 on Dec 31, 2008 6:46 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Curious
Hi. I’m section214 from Sactown Royalty, and I wrote the attached article (thanks for linking to it!).
Later in the thread I threw out a couple of other scenarios – one that is all expiring contract and Houston’s 1st round pick, another that had Salmons/Jason Thompson/expiring and the pick. As Jazz fans, which is the better deal, and are any of them worth while for you? I agree 100% with the statement above – if the deal doesn’t bring you more than a March-April Boozer, why make the deal?
Again, thanks for linking, and thanks for the input.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Dec 31, 2008 7:32 PM MST reply actions 0 recs
There are some good deals Sacramento could offer.
I would take a first round pick, an expiring contract and Jason Thompson for instance. We have a lot of expiring contracts ourselves so a pick would make sense in case we need a cheap rookie to have on the books for minimum roster purposes. Also, we would need a young big to take Boozer’s place and Thompson would be a nice person in that role. However, this deal is only worthwhile for the Kings if they know they can retain Boozer past the rest of this season. That is iffy with the strong belief that Boozer is Miami bound.
The more you try to erase me, the more that I appear.
by clarkpojo on Jan 1, 2009 11:50 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Boozer and Miami
I’ve read that, too. The thing is, the Kings would have Boozer’s Bird rights, and that means that they could pay him about $25 million more than Miami. Boozer has been consistent in his desire for the most money possible, so it would surprise me to see him leave Sacramento for a smaller deal in Miami.
There would definitely be some risk involved for the Kings, but when you’re the 4th worst team in the league, you need to assume some risk (see Richmond for Webber trade).
Thanks for the Utah perspective. Greatly appreciated.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Jan 1, 2009 12:42 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on SLC Dunk
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
