According to Larry Coon’s excellent Salary Cap FAQ the maximum salary that can be offered to a 7 year player will be $15,649,500 in summer of 2009. That number can fluctuate slightly based on the cap number that the league sets for the 2009-10 season, but it’s good as starting place.

The question becomes “Is Boozer a max-contract player?” In the past teams have handed out max (or near max) contracts to non-max players without batting an eye. (Hi, Rashard Lewis!) But I think we’ve seen a swing towards fiscal responsibility this off-season. So, the “Is Boozer a max-contract player?” question won’t be answered solely on Boozer’s production, but in part by who’s willing to offer him a max contract. Let’s look at the teams that will be far enough under the cap next summer to offer a max contract, as chronicled by Chad Ford over on ESPN:

The Oklahoma City Thunder will have $25-$30 million in cap space next summer. They’re in a similar situation the Jazz found themselves in during the summer of 2004 when they had enough space to give two players a near-max contract. So, they can offer Boozer a max contract (and given their thin front court, probably should offer him a max contract) and have enough space to offer another player something close to max. Boozer and McCants might make some sense. OKC will probably have to over-pay players to get them there, but they’ve got the space.

The Memphis Grizzlies will have between $18-$24 million in cap space. Again, that’s a team missing a good option at the four spot. (Sorry, Darko and Antoine!) They would also probably be interested in getting into the bidding for Carlos Boozer.

So, there’s definitely the market out there for Boozer to get a max contact. But we can offer Boozer a guaranteed six years, while OKC and Memphis can only offer a five-year contract. So, we have the advantage there. We also have the advantage of being a winning club, with a supportive fan base. Although, I think Boozer would be happy to toil on a losing team if it meant more money.

Now the question is “Do the Jazz see Boozer as a max contract player?” Last summer this was an unequivocal “yes!” But, now we’re looking at a reality where giving Booz a max contact means we’re carrying three max players (AK, Booz, Deron); going into the 2009-10 season almost $50 million of our cap space would be used by those three guys. Throw in an addition $10.2 million for our backup 3’s (Harpring and Miles) and we’re over the cap, and we haven’t even talked about Okur, Korver or an extension for Ronnie Price yet. Unless Larry H Miller approves a massive luxury tax payment, which seems unlikely, the answer “Do the Jazz See Boozer as a max contract player?” quickly becomes “No!”

Given Boozer’s past history I think he’ll bolt the Jazz for the team that can offer him the biggest contract. But, what if he has a change of heart, and decides to take less than fair-market value to be on a winning team? (Because, let’s face it, OKC and Memphis won’t be competing for the title anytime soon). That leaves him the choice between Utah, Portland, Indiana and Miami. We can effectively rule out Portland – their front court is stocked, and Booze wouldn’t really fit in with their youth movement. Indiana? Possibly, but I don’t see it. Why take less money to go to a dysfunctional franchise?

That leaves us with Miami. Seemingly their front court is also set with Beasley and Haslem. But, we know that Riley loooves to tinker with his roster, so I wouldn’t count on anyone but Wade being there next summer. I also don’t think Miami is going to compete for a playoff spot, let alone a conference title, anytime soon. But, hey, let’s assume Booz gives them a hometown discount. Would he turn down a contract starting at $11 million (which could balloon to as much as $15 million a year at the end of a five year contract)? I don’t think he would – especially when you factor in quality of life, greater endorsement potential, and well, this (NSFW-ish).

Personally, I think this time next year we’ll see Boozer posing for pictures in his new Memphis Grizzlies uniform.