Bargnani for... Boozer?!?!

Quote:

---

charlesnba23 wrote:

That's what I think too. If the Bulls offer us Boozer for Bargnani, I don't see why the hell in the world we should not accept it. Boozer can score and rebound, he's been an all star, he's been on winning teams and it's not like he was not playing good right now. And he just turned 31. We should accept this trade. I don't see what we could get better than Boozer. I know he got a huge contract... So what? What are we going to get anyway via free agency? Josh Smith? Al Jefferson? Yeah, you can dream folks. Also, Lowry won't ask for 20M$ a year when comes the time to re-sign him.
I could not agree more.
Not only this trade would help the team, but it would finally officially end an era (Bosh, Calderon and Bargnani) and start a fresh, positive one.

---

I could not agree more.

Quote:

---

RaptorReuben wrote:

It depends on who you are. You have to think of the different variables on which to measure a trade.

Talent.
Finance.
Future.
Short-term.
Character.

I would take Williams and Ridnour because at this point, it's about addressing the team needs. Boozer is a talented player, and has great character and helps out short-term, but it'll be difficult to sign/acquire players from deals, free agency, draft because of his contract hampering any sort of financial flexibility.

Derrick Williams is on a rookie-scale contract, and if he doesn't show much improvement, you allow him to walk, or trade him as an asset to return another prospect player/picks/money. Ridnour is an expiring contract at 4$ million, so adding in Williams' contract - around 4-5$ million - that is 8$ million coming off the books if you don't pick up D.Will's 3rd year, and letting Ridnour walk.

People talk about the cap not being an issue - regardless if MLSE is willing to spend - you can't exactly acquire players if you don't have the space in terms of finance to add them.

Finance will be a huge part if this team decides to deal Andrea Bargnani. Taking in another long term contract, and if it's more expensive, it'll hurt.

---

I just think if we go for Williams we run a much bigger risk of losing gay and lowry in the future.. I don't see Williams helping this team get better and I feel like bargnani and/or boozer have much more value on the market if they don't work out for us which will help us improve even if they don't work out for us. I don't think we'd ever get anything for Williams and we lose assets. Boozer can at least help us win in the short term which will make it more likely to resign gay and lowry and then on his expiring contract he can be a valuable asset on the trade market or his contract comes off the books and we have money to spend.

Guys! Ive come to the conclusion that Bargnanis value will be optimally reaped IF we trade for younger assists, focus on maximizing capspace, and maybe draft picks!

Im thinking something along these lines:

http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=bk2lmjc

Beno Udrih + John Henson (+MAYBE 1st round pick) ---> Bargnani

Reasoning for Bucks: Give up very little for a sharpshooting 7 footer who could play along side Larry Sanders. If there is anyone who could form a strong defensive lineup with the aboveaverage man-man defender Bargnani, would be the best rotating help, shotblocker in the game. Bargnani will finally stretch the floor for that sputtering Bucks offense. Giving up spare parts fo Bargnani without touching their core would help vault the Bucks to the next tier in the EC (up there with Indiana).

Reasoning for Raptors:
1) Beno Udrih is a high FG% veteran back up PG. Not a chucker like John Lucas. He will help stabilize the position for the rest of the season.

2) Beno Udrih has a 7 Mil expiring contract, which will be the only way we can sign any free agent help this offseason. Shaking off Bargs 10mil contract with a 7Mil expiring is probably much wiser than the 'amnesty' Bargnani nonsense I keep hearing.

3) John Henson is key. I advise everyone to go look at this stats when he is given actual minutes. Really go through his Game log. Milwaukee has a glut of young bigs, and John Henson feels it. But when he DOES play, he can go off, and be effecient and dangerous. He is very long, and only a rookie. I like the idea of moving Amir to the starting powerforward spot, and having this Rookie come together off the bench for us.

4) The potential for an extra pick. This depends purely on Bargs' play coming back from injury. If he kills it and becomes more attractive, Milwaukees first round pick may become our asset. Its no lottery pick, but could be used for a high potential, low risk, center to further improve our depth.

Lowry, Udrih
Derozan, Ross
Rudy, Fields
Amir, John Henson
Valancuinas, Gray

-> extra 20-24th pick (High-upside low-risk Center)
-> 7Mil off the books in the summer for potential FA signing. (Back up PG.... Calderon anyone?)

I don't now. I was big on this deal a few days ago. I think it was just initial excitement because I feared BC would end up sticking us with a knucklehead like Tyrus Thomas.

Boozer certainly has some things that we need, but I just don't trust his health, and do believe despite his strong season, he's very clearly on the decline. If we're goign to screw ourselves with a big contract, it either needs to be for a guy like Gasol (though with the injury this is not urgent) who can be shed quickly and also be a big contributor, or for a guy like Millsap or Jefferson, who can grow with this team....I'm not a big Smith fan...I think he's a guy who's production overstates his value on the court. That said, if he's your cup of tea, it still makes more sense to pay him than Boozer.

No, if we're going to trade Bargnani for a big money PF, it has to maintain flexibility, or be a piece for the future...Boozer accomplishes neither of these things. He helps the team on the court a bit now, at least we ahve to assume he would, but is just a 2-year rental, and doesn't really put us over the top in that time. And we have to assume his trade value is not going to go up.

Quote:

---

enlightenment wrote:

Guys! Ive come to the conclusion that Bargnanis value will be optimally reaped IF we trade for younger assists, focus on maximizing capspace, and maybe draft picks!

Im thinking something along these lines:

http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=bk2lmjc

Beno Udrih + John Henson (+MAYBE 1st round pick) ---> Bargnani

Reasoning for Bucks: Give up very little for a sharpshooting 7 footer who could play along side Larry Sanders. If there is anyone who could form a strong defensive lineup with the aboveaverage man-man defender Bargnani, would be the best rotating help, shotblocker in the game. Bargnani will finally stretch the floor for that sputtering Bucks offense. Giving up spare parts fo Bargnani without touching their core would help vault the Bucks to the next tier in the EC (up there with Indiana).

Reasoning for Raptors:
1) Beno Udrih is a high FG% veteran back up PG. Not a chucker like John Lucas. He will help stabilize the position for the rest of the season.

2) Beno Udrih has a 7 Mil expiring contract, which will be the only way we can sign any free agent help this offseason. Shaking off Bargs 10mil contract with a 7Mil expiring is probably much wiser than the 'amnesty' Bargnani nonsense I keep hearing.

3) John Henson is key. I advise everyone to go look at this stats when he is given actual minutes. Really go through his Game log. Milwaukee has a glut of young bigs, and John Henson feels it. But when he DOES play, he can go off, and be effecient and dangerous. He is very long, and only a rookie. I like the idea of moving Amir to the starting powerforward spot, and having this Rookie come together off the bench for us.

4) The potential for an extra pick. This depends purely on Bargs' play coming back from injury. If he kills it and becomes more attractive, Milwaukees first round pick may become our asset. Its no lottery pick, but could be used for a high potential, low risk, center to further improve our depth.

Lowry, Udrih
Derozan, Ross
Rudy, Fields
Amir, John Henson
Valancuinas, Gray

-> extra 20-24th pick (High-upside low-risk Center)
-> 7Mil off the books in the summer for potential FA signing. (Back up PG.... Calderon anyone?)

---

Bucks have Ilyasova shooting 43% from 3pt and he rebounds.

All the 'informed' journalists/analysts claim the Bucks are willing to move anyone and it is known the Raptors/Colangelo have coveted Ilyasova. Not sure how the Raptors can make a deal with the Bucks without including DeRozan.

BTW, I do love your thinking here. Henson would be awesome. Picks would be awesome. Shedding salary would be good.

Quote:

---

FoxMachine wrote:

I just think if we go for Williams we run a much bigger risk of losing gay and lowry in the future.. I don't see Williams helping this team get better and I feel like bargnani and/or boozer have much more value on the market if they don't work out for us which will help us improve even if they don't work out for us. I don't think we'd ever get anything for Williams and we lose assets. Boozer can at least help us win in the short term which will make it more likely to resign gay and lowry and then on his expiring contract he can be a valuable asset on the trade market or his contract comes off the books and we have money to spend.

---

Very true, but once his contract is off the books, it's possible Lowry and Gay are gone by than. Depending on the future success of the Raptors as well, Toronto isn't a high destination for players to sign to, and that's where finance comes in. i.e. Rudy Gay trade. Having space or money willing to acquire these bigger contracts, in return for talented players. Boozer is almost in the same mold, but paying 2 players $16+ million, one player entering prime, one entering decline, it becomes unpredictable whether Boozer can continue major contributions. Not to mention 10$+ million for Demar Derozan next 4 years, & Kyle Lowry worth about the same if extended.

Deals have to be able to help out short term (Ridnour - expiring contract, strengthen the guard position) and our long term (Williams, prospect player, if non-improving, move CHEAP contract for prospects/picks).

Like I said, it's just my opinion bringing in a prospect forward/big and a veteran point guard to the team. I wouldn't be angry with Boozer as well, heck, he's a talent upgrade, but how much can we improve after acquiring Boozer? Whilst Williams can grow into a talented player being on a cheap contract, with Ridnour's $4 million expiring, allowing extra space for re-singing/deals.

With the new CBA, finance is a huge part REGARDLESS of talent, look at Memphis who gave up - arguably - their best player (I'm darn happy we're the landing spot), and teams continuously looking to gain space i.e. Utah, Atlanta.

A lot of talent being shopped, and in my opinion, if we were going to pay max for another player, I'd rather have Milsap/Smith > Boozer any day of the week.

Age, talent, and overall production on BOTH ends of the court are important. Smith and Milsap give that better than Boozer does at this point. Gotta think short-term, and long-term for this deal. Boozer with his contract is signed for long-term, but may not be the answer once the time comes.

Quote:

---

Matt52 wrote:

Bucks have Ilyasova shooting 43% from 3pt and he rebounds.

All the 'informed' journalists/analysts claim the Bucks are willing to move anyone and it is known the Raptors/Colangelo have coveted Ilyasova. Not sure how the Raptors can make a deal with the Bucks without including DeRozan.

BTW, I do love your thinking here. Henson would be awesome. Picks would be awesome. Shedding salary would be good.

---

Illyasova would be nice as well, but both his contract and his usage wouldnt fit the team as well as a promising rookie and an expiring contract would. Besides, he really struggled (Bargnani-level struggled) earlier this season and that scares me.

I would really like to plug in all the loose ends on the team right now, and I think we should focus on having a solid foundational cast around our current potentials (Val/Ross/Amir) and players (Derozan/Gay/Lowry). I want Bargnani's value to be diffused over several holes, including capspace, draft picks, and solid role players.

This is why I have decided to go against supporting an expensive, high-usage, older, player. I was into Boozer earlier, but have changed my mind, seeing many other potential routes as much more beneficial to the raptors, present and future.

Quote:

---

enlightenment wrote:

Illyasova would be nice as well, but both his contract and his usage wouldnt fit the team as well as a promising rookie and an expiring contract would. Besides, he really struggled (Bargnani-level struggled) earlier this season and that scares me.

I would really like to plug in all the loose ends on the team right now, and I think we should focus on having a solid foundational cast around our current potentials (Val/Ross/Amir) and players (Derozan/Gay/Lowry). I want Bargnani's value to be diffused over several holes, including capspace, draft picks, and solid role players.

This is why I have decided to go against supporting an expensive, high-usage, older, player. I was into Boozer earlier, but have changed my mind, seeing many other potential routes as much more beneficial to the raptors, present and future.

---

I like your thinking but I think you'd need to get a third team involved to work with Milwaukee and having Bargnani the key piece leaving Toronto.

EDIT:
Now if you take back Gooden, then suddenly maybe Henson/picks become available but it doesn't address the expiring contracts you mentioned.

Quote:

---

RaptorReuben wrote:

Very true, but once his contract is off the books, it's possible Lowry and Gay are gone by than. Depending on the future success of the Raptors as well, Toronto isn't a high destination for players to sign to, and that's where finance comes in. i.e. Rudy Gay trade. Having space or money willing to acquire these bigger contracts, in return for talented players. Boozer is almost in the same mold, but paying 2 players $16+ million, one player entering prime, one entering decline, it becomes unpredictable whether Boozer can continue major contributions. Not to mention 10$+ million for Demar Derozan next 4 years, & Kyle Lowry worth about the same if extended.

Deals have to be able to help out short term (Ridnour - expiring contract, strengthen the guard position) and our long term (Williams, prospect player, if non-improving, move CHEAP contract for prospects/picks).

Like I said, it's just my opinion bringing in a prospect forward/big and a veteran point guard to the team. I wouldn't be angry with Boozer as well, heck, he's a talent upgrade, but how much can we improve after acquiring Boozer? Whilst Williams can grow into a talented player being on a cheap contract, with Ridnour's $4 million expiring, allowing extra space for re-singing/deals.

With the new CBA, finance is a huge part REGARDLESS of talent, look at Memphis who gave up - arguably - their best player (I'm darn happy we're the landing spot), and teams continuously looking to gain space i.e. Utah, Atlanta.

---

Good points. I guess it just comes down to the fact that I don't like Williams and don't think he will be a good player in this league, a Beasley type player at BEST. just my opinion tho. Im also not huge on the boozer trade but if I had to choose, I would either keep bargs or go for boozer than take Williams.

Quote:

---

RaptorReuben wrote:

A lot of talent being shopped, and in my opinion, if we were going to pay max for another player, I'd rather have Milsap/Smith > Boozer any day of the week.

Age, talent, and overall production on BOTH ends of the court are important. Smith and Milsap give that better than Boozer does at this point. Gotta think short-term, and long-term for this deal. Boozer with his contract is signed for long-term, but may not be the answer once the time comes.

---

I would also much rather pay a guy like smith or milsap as well. I just find it hard to see smith willing to guarantee a long term future here, im sure there will be a lot of teams willing to pay max for him.

Quote:

---

Good points. I guess it just comes down to the fact that I don't like Williams and don't think he will be a good player in this league, a Beasley type player at BEST. just my opinion tho. Im also not huge on the boozer trade but if I had to choose, I would either keep bargs or go for boozer than take Williams.

---

We'll agree to disagree. :)

Quote:

---

I would also much rather pay a guy like smith or milsap as well. I just find it hard to see smith willing to guarantee a long term future here, im sure there will be a lot of teams willing to pay max for him.

---

Well, it really depends, look at Harden. Ran from a championship caliber team to take 8$ million more dollars. Originally offered a 5 year, 40$ million contract to take a max contract, to a team that's still sort of rebuilding.

There are a lot of teams actually willing to pay the max to Josh Smith, but there's really no separation from them to Toronto, because those teams willing to give up the cash, are among the same build/mold of Toronto. Building, mediocre record, etc.

I will get him just in order to hear Matt Devlin say: "Alright we got Boozer Gay Johnson enter the game"

Quote:

---

Stein: 25 percent. If the Raptors hadn't already acquired Rudy Gay, this figure would be a lot higher, because Chicago's interest in Andrea Bargnani has not waned ... and Toronto doesn't have a long list of teams willing to take Bargnani on. But the Raps, eager as they are to ship Bargnani out, have understandable concerns about the luxury-tax implications of having both Gay and Boozer on their payroll. And Chicago likewise doesn't have a long list of teams prepared to absorb Boozer's contract. So if there's no Boozer deal to Toronto, I'm not sure that I see one.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/...gets-get-moved

---

Luxury tax is owed based on the payroll on day of last regular season game played.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

I would do this trade no questions asked from a talent perspective. Of course the issue is the new CBA and that makes things a bit dicey. If the Bulls were desperate enough to throw in a 1st rd pick then do it..... now.

I believe the plan would be for Gibson to start and Bargnani to come off bench. This is interesting because Bargnani's departure in Chicago would likely coincide with the arrival of Mirotic.

Quote:

---

Matt52 wrote:

I would do this trade no questions asked from a talent perspective. Of course the issue is the new CBA and that makes things a bit dicey. If the Bulls were desperate enough to throw in a 1st rd pick then do it..... now.

---

Totally agree from a production perspective (contracts ignored).

At the end of the day, both Gay and Boozer's contracts expire in 2015. That gives us 2 years to make a run, and if it doesn't work, we've got $36 million coming off the books.

With the current ownership group, tanking is clearly not a realistic option. I think it's low-risk move assuming Boozer stays healthy.

Quote:

---

Nilanka wrote:

Totally agree from a production perspective (contracts ignored).

At the end of the day, both Gay and Boozer's contracts expire in 2015. That gives us 2 years to make a run, and if it doesn't work, we've got $36 million coming off the books.

With the current ownership group, tanking is clearly not a realistic option. I think it's low-risk move assuming Boozer stays healthy.

---

Unfortunately, health is often the biggest part of risk in sports...and Boozer has a fuzzy track record there and is only getting older....

Obviously there are worse options than this deal, but I understand why BC and co don't like it as a primary choice. I think you're somewhat right, and that if they end up getting something like a 1st round pick thrown in (and nothing better is out there), they'll probably take it. I'm still not sure how I feel about it though.

Quote:

---

white men can't jump wrote:

I don't now. I was big on this deal a few days ago. I think it was just initial excitement because I feared BC would end up sticking us with a knucklehead like Tyrus Thomas.

Boozer certainly has some things that we need, but I just don't trust his health, and do believe despite his strong season, he's very clearly on the decline. If we're goign to screw ourselves with a big contract, it either needs to be for a guy like Gasol (though with the injury this is not urgent) who can be shed quickly and also be a big contributor, or for a guy like Millsap or Jefferson, who can grow with this team....I'm not a big Smith fan...I think he's a guy who's production overstates his value on the court. That said, if he's your cup of tea, it still makes more sense to pay him than Boozer.

No, if we're going to trade Bargnani for a big money PF, it has to maintain flexibility, or be a piece for the future...Boozer accomplishes neither of these things. He helps the team on the court a bit now, at least we ahve to assume he would, but is just a 2-year rental, and doesn't really put us over the top in that time. And we have to assume his trade value is not going to go up.

---

Boozer is only 31 and his stats have been consistent throughout his career....if Chicago wants to dump his salary and bell and Rogers will pay I say do it. We are very close to being a really good team and this move could solidify us.

I say do it. I say it's better to have boozer on court contributing than to have $11 million sitting on the bench.

Quote:

---

psrs1 wrote:

Boozer is only 31 and his stats have been consistent throughout his career....if Chicago wants to dump his salary and bell and Rogers will pay I say do it. We are very close to being a really good team and this move could solidify us.

---

His stats have been pretty consistent, his health, focus and leadership have not. Is he an upgrade over Bargnani? Sure, but so is my left nut right now the way Bargs is playing.

I do not think that getting Boozer makes us a significantly better team. Boozer is not that 'missing piece' type player in my mind. Getting him would turn us from a playoff team into a slightly better playoff team...he does not make us a contender.

Now, if you just want a slightly better team to cheer for, that's fine, but I wouldn't expect the team's fortunes to improve that much with his acquisition. If Boozer was that missing piece type of player, a team that added him for that reason wouldn't be so eager to trade him simply to dump money (which is basically what they're doing if they trade for Bargs).

Why invest in such a player when we're almost certainly a playoff team without him? I think if Bargs can't bring back flexibility and/or a piece for the future, they should trade him for depth, not a washed up all-star.

Quote:

---

white men can't jump wrote:

His stats have been pretty consistent, his health, focus and leadership have not. Is he an upgrade over Bargnani? Sure, but so is my left nut right now the way Bargs is playing.

I do not think that getting Boozer makes us a significantly better team. Boozer is not that 'missing piece' type player in my mind. Getting him would turn us from a playoff team into a slightly better playoff team...he does not make us a contender.

Now, if you just want a slightly better team to cheer for, that's fine, but I wouldn't expect the team's fortunes to improve that much with his acquisition. If Boozer was that missing piece type of player, a team that added him for that reason wouldn't be so eager to trade him simply to dump money (which is basically what they're doing if they trade for Bargs).

Why invest in such a player when we're almost certainly a playoff team without him? I think if Bargs can't bring back flexibility and/or a piece for the future, they should trade him for depth, not a washed up all-star.

---

I agree. I don't think Boozer is a big enough upgrade worthy of making us a luxury tax team. Is Boozer worth loosing all financial flexibility for, including loosing the option of signing free agents in the offsease using the various exceptions? I don't think so.

I actually see a Lowry, Gay, Boozer trio being a fairly well-balanced attack. If gelled quickly, they could push for 50 wins next season.