Bargnani for... Boozer?!?!

I'm not sure if this has been brought up yet as I haven't read the entire thread. But someone please tell me if I am completely ridiculous by saying that I don't like the Carlos Boozer deal because I just don't want to cheer for Carlos Boozer. I mean, I could come on here and veil my disdain for Boozer with some thoughts on his defence or whatever but at the end of the day I just don't like dude and I have no real justification as to why (besides the time he dumped paint on his head and tried to pass it off as hair).

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that there probably isn't much of a doubt whether Boozer would make our team better but I really just don't want "that guy" starting at the 4 spot for us. Is this such a crime?

Quote:

---

CalgaryRapsFan wrote:

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.

---

We are not going to sign 15 and 10 FA period.

Quote:

---

psrs1 wrote:

We are not going to sign 15 and 10 FA period.

---

Exactly beggars can't be choicer. We always knew they only way to get rid of Barny would be to take back a bad contract. Well here it is.

Quote:

---

psrs1 wrote:

We are not going to sign 15 and 10 FA period.

---

We also have no idea if trading for Boozer means getting 2 seasons of 15 and 10....period.

Quote:

---

white men can't jump wrote:

We also have no idea if trading for Boozer means getting 2 seasons of 15 and 10....period.

---

True, but there seems to be a little more certainty with Boozer, as opposed to a faceless, hypothetical free agent who may or may not want to sign here.

Quote:

---

Nilanka wrote:

True, but there seems to be a little more certainty with Boozer, as opposed to a faceless, hypothetical free agent.

---

But I have never suggested we get a FA. I just think Boozer is a wrong move that's really easy to sell because of how much this fanbase hates Bargnani.

Again, if you respect an organization like Chicago, with fairly strong management and an intelligent coach, and they are willing to take on Bargs just to get rid of Boozer...I don't know, alarm bells ring in my head when I think of it. This isn't like Millsap, Jefferson or Smith, where they are upcoming FAs, so it makes sense their teams want to trade them. It's not like Gasol where he doesn't fit in with his team at all, he's injured and they're constantly under pressure to contend. Why would Chicago want to trade a guy who gets 15 and 10 if he's not some kind of liability? I don't think the pay difference is the clincher, I think it's that they actually think Bargs immediately steps in and they're at least as good....so no thank you to Boozer.

If BC can't address the PF situation with Bargs, he should just try to improve the depth of the team...get a competent PF or a solid backup PG....maybe a better backup C...who knows....but I would prefer such options to Boozer.

Quote:

---

jimmie wrote:

The "trade Bargnani" narrative is threatening to ruin this team, one way or the other, if management starts to listen to fans.

Taking on Boozer's deal is not "certainly MUCH better" than keeping Bargnani. It *could* be better, if everything works out perfectly for Boozer in TO. But it could also be financial albatross, a chemistry-killer, a bane on the development of Valanciunas, and/or many other negative things before he comes off the books.

I'm on record as saying Bargnani has to go. But this "at all costs" narrative suggests that he's having some sort of soul-killing negative effect on the fortunes of the franchise. An unbiased look at the state of the team today says that's a vast over-estimation of Il Mago's relative impact.

---

Sorry dude but Boozer is MUCH better than Bargnani.

As for chemistry, you don't recall the much publicized players only meeting shouting in the locker room calling Bargnani out? And what has changed since that time?

Financially it adds $5M per year. Considering the great history of non-signings, overpayment required to actually sign someone, and Colangelo's drunken sailor approach to free agency, the consequences of not having free agency is hardly one that will cause me to lose sleep.

Luckily JV is a true C and not a PF. Boozer impacts Amir and Acy. Personally, despite Amir's great production starting of late, I still see him as a third big and that is not meant as an insult to him.

I do agree with the implied desperation but even someone such as myself who is dying for him to be sent packing has hesitated on any Boozer deal that does not include a 1st rd draft pick.

Quote:

---

psrs1 wrote:

We are not going to sign 15 and 10 FA period.

---

Who says we need such a player? Who's to say that the combination of returns from an alternate Bargnani trade and MLE signing wouldn't be greater than what Boozer would offer, at a significantly reduced price? There are lots of unknowns, the actual fit & contributions of Boozer on this team being the primary one.

Boozer's contract would be an absolute albatross for next season at least (likely 2, because I can't see teams trading for him even as an expiring contract before/during his 2nd season), thereby eliminating several potential options for improvements.

You're making it sound like it's either the Boozer trade or stick with this roster as is, which is completely faulty logic. I would just prefer to take a chance with the unknown alternatives, rather than become a luxury tax team for Boozer - a known commodity that I'm personally not very high on. As much as I'd like to upgrade the starting PF spot, I'm not convinced that Boozer is much of an upgrade over Amir (forgetting about Bargnani altogether for a moment).

Quote:

---

bobbybutler wrote:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Turv9l7RQGA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/PiFlzJ4p768" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/bull...ted-for-boozer

---

lol - it is like watching Bargnani minus the ability to rebound and score on the block.

Quote:

---

Matt52 wrote:

lol - it is like watching Bargnani minus the ability to rebound and score on the block.

---

Again, there's a reason that Chicago think they can flip him for BArgs and not miss a beat. This should instantly shut down any desire to get Boozer from TO fans...

Quote:

---

white men can't jump wrote:

Again, there's a reason that Chicago think they can flip him for BArgs and not miss a beat. This should instantly shut down any desire to get Boozer from TO fans...

---

It is not about Bargnani. It is about Gibson who makes a little more than half of what Boozer makes.

Also, why wouldn't Toronto want a guy who averages just under 10 rebs per game and is a low post scoring threat? This is something they are currently lacking.

Oh yeah, it is also about one of the most profitable teams in the league who also happen to be one of the biggest cheapskates as well.

Quote:

---

CalgaryRapsFan wrote:

Who says we need such a player? Who's to say that the combination of returns from an alternate Bargnani trade and MLE signing wouldn't be greater than what Boozer would offer, at a significantly reduced price? There are lots of unknowns, the actual fit & contributions of Boozer on this team being the primary one.

Boozer's contract would be an absolute albatross for next season at least (likely 2, because I can't see teams trading for him even as an expiring contract before/during his 2nd season), thereby eliminating several potential options for improvements.

You're making it sound like it's either the Boozer trade or stick with this roster as is, which is completely faulty logic. I would just prefer to take a chance with the unknown alternatives, rather than become a luxury tax team for Boozer - a known commodity that I'm personally not very high on. As much as I'd like to upgrade the starting PF spot, I'm not convinced that Boozer is much of an upgrade over Amir (forgetting about Bargnani altogether for a moment).

---

Ditto, instead of focusing on getting a guy who scores, for example, we could get a guy to compliment the energy/size Amir and JV bring....so free agency might have some options....
I think Earl Clark is one such option. If the Lakers re-sign Howard, and can't unload Gasol (or unload him quickly enough), they will be in a horrible cap situation....EVen they would probably not match an offer to Clark, even a modest one if we have a mid-level exception (again, I forget the new rules, so I don't know what TO can work with either)....he's not near the top of list of PFs, but on a defensive/rebound standpoint, definitely fits what we need, is athletic with decent hustle, and doesn't need the ball to be effective....JJ Hickson is another name that could probably be had at not too large a cost....you never know what might work out, and I'd take both those guys over Boozer in terms of fit with this team.
If anyone can think of names they'd like to add to Clark and Hickson, feel free...

Quote:

---

white men can't jump wrote:

Ditto, instead of focusing on getting a guy who scores, for example, we could get a guy to compliment the energy/size Amir and JV bring....so free agency might have some options....
I think Earl Clark is one such option. If the Lakers re-sign Howard, and can't unload Gasol (or unload him quickly enough), they will be in a horrible cap situation....EVen they would probably not match an offer to Clark, even a modest one if we have a mid-level exception (again, I forget the new rules, so I don't know what TO can work with either)....he's not near the top of list of PFs, but on a defensive/rebound standpoint, definitely fits what we need, is athletic with decent hustle, and doesn't need the ball to be effective....JJ Hickson is another name that could probably be had at not too large a cost....you never know what might work out, and I'd take both those guys over Boozer in terms of fit with this team.

---

I'd take Boozer over Clark and Hickson. True story. I don't trust any player who finally gets it and puts it together in a contract year.

I'd take Gasol over Boozer.

Quote:

---

Matt52 wrote:

It is not about Bargnani. It is about Gibson who makes a little more than half of what Boozer makes.

Also, why wouldn't Toronto want a guy who averages just under 10 rebs per game and is a low post scoring threat? This is something they are currently lacking.

Oh yeah, it is also about one of the most profitable teams in the league who also happen to be one of the biggest cheapskates as well.

---

It is about Boozer, because they still believe that such a change would not really alter their performance. If they believed Boozer was worth his contract, they could find another way to shave the extra cash he makes compared to Bargs. They don't see him as important to their core compared to Rose, Noah, Deng, Gibson, and even as important to their success as role players like Hamilton, Hinrich, Belinelli, Butler, otherwise they would find a way to keep him and make other changes.
*AFter all, a cheapskate team still wants to stay profitable, and winning does that, so if Boozer was a real difference maker to them, they would keep him

Quote:

---

Matt52 wrote:

I'd take Boozer over Clark and Hickson. True story. I don't trust any player who finally gets it and puts it together in a contract year.

I'd take Gasol over Boozer.

---

Clark never had any playing time. How can you say it's because he's in a contract year??? It has to be at least somewhat relative to opportunity.
Hickson also has always produced at a high level with minutes, and doesn't need the ball in his hands because he's mostly a hustle/above the rim player.
http://www.nba.com/playerfile/jj_hic...eer_stats.html

I don't think either of these guys will cost more than the MLE...I'd take that over Boozer for a year or two....Again, we're going to have flexibility in 2015 no matter what as things stand, so it's no real reason to do the Boozer trade either (only JV, Demar and Ross signed past that time).

Quote:

---

white men can't jump wrote:

It is about Boozer, because they still believe that such a change would not really alter their performance. If they believed Boozer was worth his contract, they could find another way to shave the extra cash he makes compared to Bargs. They don't see him as important to their core compared to Rose, Noah, Deng, Gibson, and even as important to their success as role players like Hamilton, Hinrich, Belinelli, Butler, otherwise they would find a way to keep him and make other changes.
*AFter all, a cheapskate team still wants to stay profitable, and winning does that, so if Boozer was a real difference maker to them, they would keep him

---

The Bulls don't need to win to stay profitable. They have NEVER paid the tax. Only one of a handful of teams to NEVER do so.


The worth contract is a weak excuse. Bargnani is not worth his contract. Boozer is not worth his. Gay wasn't worth his contract but look at what he has brought Toronto. Talent and contributions matter - not contracts. Boozer is a better talent and, all things considered, a better contract in my opinion.


Definitely wouldn't take a risk on signing Hickson (who Hugmenot can attest to) or Clark.... just my opinion.

Quote:

---

Matt52 wrote:

The Bulls don't need to win to stay profitable. They have NEVER paid the tax. Only one of a handful of teams to NEVER do so.


The worth contract is a weak excuse. Bargnani is not worth his contract. Boozer is not worth his. Gay wasn't worth his contract but look at what he has brought Toronto. Talent and contributions matter - not contracts. Boozer is a better talent and, all things considered, a better contract in my opinion.


Definitely wouldn't take a risk on signing Hickson (who Hugmenot can attest to) or Clark.... just my opinion.

---

My point about his contract wasn't whether he's worth it....but worth it to them. You say they never paid the tax....but they still have other pieces they could move around and probably manage to save the same amount of money as flipping Boozer for Bargs. After all, Memphis managed to do the same before inexplicably deciding to trade Gay (really, why did they decide to do us a favor?). If Boozer was such a key piece of a winning team, they would find a way to keep him. After all, with the commitment they made, that's clearly what they foresaw.

Anyway, my point is that if they want to make money and get under the tax, then they should want to stay as competitive as possible around Rose in order to keep making money. Deep playoff runs are where the money's at. One would think Boozer is an important piece to this puzzle given what they committed to him. THey clearly don't believe that anymore. So if he's not part of the puzzle for a team with Rose, Noah, Gibson, Deng, and a bunch of solid role players, why would he be for us, when we're further away from being relevant?

You're obviously entitled to your opinions on the other guys...but I do think Clark is underrated. He has had very little opportunity, and is extremely athletic with a decent all around feel for the game. Not really elite at anything, but solid. If nothing else comes up in trades, he'd be one of my top targets.

Quote:

---

Matt52 wrote:

The Bulls don't need to win to stay profitable. They have NEVER paid the tax. Only one of a handful of teams to NEVER do so.

---

Aren't they paying tax this year for the first time?

Quote:

---

Soft Euro wrote:

Aren't they paying tax this year for the first time?

---

I believe they have until their last regular season game to unload enough salary off their books to get under the tax. I believe that's about $3.8M that they would have to free up (hence a Boozer for Bargnani trade makes sense since they would save $5M this year).

Quote:

---

white men can't jump wrote:

It is about Boozer, because they still believe that such a change would not really alter their performance. If they believed Boozer was worth his contract, they could find another way to shave the extra cash he makes compared to Bargs. They don't see him as important to their core compared to Rose, Noah, Deng, Gibson, and even as important to their success as role players like Hamilton, Hinrich, Belinelli, Butler, otherwise they would find a way to keep him and make other changes.
*AFter all, a cheapskate team still wants to stay profitable, and winning does that, so if Boozer was a real difference maker to them, they would keep him

---

People said the exact same about Rudy Gay. Bulls fans are probably saying the same thing about Andrea. Sometimes players just need a change in scenery. I wouldn't be surprised of AB went to CHI and all of a sudden figured it out. He just can't succeed in Toronto.