Bargnani for... Boozer?!?!

[enlightenment]

Knowing BC like I do, he is leaking information of all the rumoured played who he IS going after because in the past he has NOT leaked players who he is going after.

lol

Actually I'm being an idiot here (yes, and elsewhere Hugmenot).

There was a lot of leaked information leading up to the Gay trade and it seemed to be coming from both ends.

Thats true, but its not like Jerry Buss who openly talks about trading for Rondo, or chris paul, or the like. Bryan always seems to keep his true cards close to him.

[omgsomuchpotential]

If the Boozer deal would include rights to Mirotic, I'd do it instantly. That guy... He's looking like a Dirk 2.0, and not a cheap copy, but it seems like his upside is legitimately Dirk at 90%

[white men can't jump]

Yes, there has been chatter about Bargnani-Boozer around here but I’m not sure if it’s just people catching up the first one or what.

But my information remains as it was a week or so ago, there is no interest in taking on either Boozer or his more-costly contract.

Today, from D.Smith's blog.
http://thestar.blogs.com/raptors/

*Sorry, this is just repeating stuff basically posted earlier today from different source. Either way it seems Boozer is not worth his contract to managment and/or ownership.

[TRX]

@Matt52:

First off, a net -12.6 per 100 possessions is definitely atrocious. In a vacuum, individually, he may not be a bad player, but Chicago's offense has been just fine when Boozer sits compared to when he plays for the last two seasons; offensively, Chicago is 5.5 points better this season and 0.1 points worse last season when Boozer sits. Second, again, this is irrelevant when you consider neither is a desirable player anyway and you are advocating acquiring the one that costs 50% more than the other.

Thirdly, you can be as condescending as you like, but Bargnani has an ETO. You are right though, because I had not originally remembered that it was Bargnani who held the rights to terminate a year early. There's probably little chance he'd exercise it since there is likely nobody who would pay him $11.5 million a year two years from now. So yes, you are correct; they do expire at the same time. Still, Boozer does make ~$15 million a year to Bargnani's ~$10 million. Pointing out his contract will only be a burden for the same amount of time, not longer, is still a minuscule victory though, I suppose.

Fourthly, even ignoring the fact that Boozer missed over half the games in two of the seasons you're talking about, he has played every single season for coaches known for designing fantastic systems and Boozer has played with two top-tier players at the 1. Even back in his Utah days, the defence has consistently been 5+ points better with Boozer off the court and you'd have to go back to the 07-08 season to find a season Boozer was even close to a neutral player (he was still a net -0.5/100 possessions that season).

Fifth, your own link has Boozer as a .064 WS/48. I'm sure you're aware the average NBA player sits right at .100 WS/48. As bad as Bargnani is, Boozer is no winner himself. He is so far from ideal. I have not said implicitly or explicitly that there is a market for Bargnani. What I am saying is I would prefer to hold onto the less expensive worthless player. I would go as far as to say I'd rather let Bargnani's contract run out than take on Boozer's for the same amount of years. As terrible as the market for Bargnani is, the only reason I would dump him is to get back a bad contract with less years on it (of course, assuming the Raptors cannot pull off a steal).

[psrs1]

You are comparing Boozer 2011-12 with Bargnani 2012-13 in your links.

The takeaway is with Bargnani on the court the Raptors are down 77 points this season in just 740 minutes.

Any comparison of Boozer to Bargnani is an absolute joke. Boozer is a much better player. This is not a trade being doing by the basketball people in Chicago. This is a trade being done by the accountants and owner.

Yes but that is what pro sports is coming to.

[psrs1]

Irrelevant. Why would you trade for such a bad player by the numbers on such a bad contract? As bad as Bargnani is, there is literally no upside. Your contract situation gets significantly worse (more expensive AND longer contract) and you are only trading one negative contribution for another. Less negative, sure. But you shouldn't want either player.

It is not a basketball move...

[psrs1]

There is no question that Boozer is a better talent than Bargnani.

The fact that the deal was kiboshed by Bryan I could see one of three possibilities:

1) Rogers/Bell seems hesitant to go further into luxury tax to get a little more talent.
2) Bryan still has a hard on for Bargnani and is expecting much better talent in return.
3) Bryan does not see Boozer as a fit either due to his character or his game.

I would hope its #3. If it's #2 then the board really needs to get rid of him at the end of this season. If it's #1 then it makes you wonder what type of talent Bell/Rogers would be okay with to go into luxury tax - or is it possible that they would not want to go into luxury tax at all? And if that's the case is the team doomed?

I suspect with Bryan's ego it is #2.

[Matt52]

@Matt52:

First off, a net -12.6 per 100 possessions is definitely atrocious. In a vacuum, individually, he may not be a bad player, but Chicago's offense has been just fine when Boozer sits compared to when he plays for the last two seasons; offensively, Chicago is 5.5 points better this season and 0.1 points worse last season when Boozer sits. Second, again, this is irrelevant when you consider neither is a desirable player anyway and you are advocating acquiring the one that costs 50% more than the other.

Thirdly, you can be as condescending as you like, but Bargnani has an ETO. You are right though, because I had not originally remembered that it was Bargnani who held the rights to terminate a year early. There's probably little chance he'd exercise it since there is likely nobody who would pay him $11.5 million a year two years from now. So yes, you are correct; they do expire at the same time. Still, Boozer does make ~$15 million a year to Bargnani's ~$10 million. Pointing out his contract will only be a burden for the same amount of time, not longer, is still a minuscule victory though, I suppose.

Fourthly, even ignoring the fact that Boozer missed over half the games in two of the seasons you're talking about, he has played every single season for coaches known for designing fantastic systems and Boozer has played with two top-tier players at the 1. Even back in his Utah days, the defence has consistently been 5+ points better with Boozer off the court and you'd have to go back to the 07-08 season to find a season Boozer was even close to a neutral player (he was still a net -0.5/100 possessions that season).

Fifth, your own link has Boozer as a .064 WS/48. I'm sure you're aware the average NBA player sits right at .100 WS/48. As bad as Bargnani is, Boozer is no winner himself. He is so far from ideal. I have not said implicitly or explicitly that there is a market for Bargnani. What I am saying is I would prefer to hold onto the less expensive worthless player. I would go as far as to say I'd rather let Bargnani's contract run out than take on Boozer's for the same amount of years. As terrible as the market for Bargnani is, the only reason I would dump him is to get back a bad contract with less years on it (of course, assuming the Raptors cannot pull off a steal).

First bold:
Comparing Bargnani to Boozer on court is the relevant point. Off court has a number of different factors that makes it irrelevant. Boozer is not on the floor when games are decided. Thibs was publicly stating Boozer should also have been an all-star this year - he doesn't seem like the type of guy to sugar coat bullshit.

2nd bold:
Boozer>Bargnani even with a more expensive contract.

3rd bold:
So Boozer has been in and contributed to winning environments? A young roster that has experienced little winning at the NBA probably wouldn't have much use for such a veteran. Funny how he is the leading scorer and rebounder per36 minutes on a team with no top-tier player at the one this season and that team is still 5th in the east and 8 games over .500.

4th bold:
Yes, Boozer's win share is low - but it is positive. This is likely the point you fail to put together. Bargnani's win share is NEGATIVE .119. He is over 2x as bad as the average NBA player! Trading for Boozer results in a swing of POSITIVE .183. Trading Boozer for Bargnani is an improvement for this team.

5th bold:
Getting Boozer for Bargnani is a steal. Getting a 1st round pick included would be highway robbery.

[TRX]

@Matt52:

Off court is not irrelevant, especially when you consider how consistent his detrimental impact on defence is every single year. He has literally never had a season where the defence is not 5 points better with him off the court. You mention Boozer is not even on the floor when games are decided... and this is a player you want the Raptors to pay $15 million a year?

Yeah, I'm sure Boozer is going to come in here, with all his tremendous experience, and turn Casey into an amalgamation of Thibodeau and Sloan. He has had great coaching... so what? All the "intangibles" seem a little less important when he can't even play at an average level. Seems like a good investment. The Bulls are fourth in the league in defensive efficiency and 18th in offensive efficiency. Quick question: which side of the ball does Boozer get most of his value from?

lol, yes, I obviously missed Bargnani's horrendous impact. This whole time, I thought Bargnani was a superstar. You're right, case closed. You are aware the Raptor's choices are not: a) play Bargnani 30 minutes a game, b) play Boozer 30 minutes a game, right? It really doesn't seem like it. The Raptors can simply play Bargnani less minutes and reallocate the remainder to better players. You're advocating trading for a player seventh on the Bulls in WS/48 and would be seventh on the Raptors in WS/48.

There really is no need to be overly aggressive, by the way. Psychologically, it only causes both sides to dig in their heels and meaningful conversation basically ceases.

[Matt52]

@Matt52:

Off court is not irrelevant, especially when you consider how consistent his detrimental impact on defence is every single year. He has literally never had a season where the defence is not 5 points better with him off the court. You mention Boozer is not even on the floor when games are decided... and this is a player you want the Raptors to pay $15 million a year?

Yeah, I'm sure Boozer is going to come in here, with all his tremendous experience, and turn Casey into an amalgamation of Thibodeau and Sloan. He has had great coaching... so what? All the "intangibles" seem a little less important when he can't even play at an average level. Seems like a good investment. The Bulls are fourth in the league in defensive efficiency and 18th in offensive efficiency. Quick question: which side of the ball does Boozer get most of his value from?

lol, yes, I obviously missed Bargnani's horrendous impact. This whole time, I thought Bargnani was a superstar. You're right, case closed. You are aware the Raptor's choices are not: a) play Bargnani 30 minutes a game, b) play Boozer 30 minutes a game, right? It really doesn't seem like it. The Raptors can simply play Bargnani less minutes and reallocate the remainder to better players. You're advocating trading for a player seventh on the Bulls in WS/48 and would be seventh on the Raptors in WS/48.

There really is no need to be overly aggressive, by the way. Psychologically, it only causes both sides to dig in their heels and meaningful conversation basically ceases.

First bold:
Are you talking about Boozer or Bargnani? No matter how bad you paint Boozer, Bargnani is still much worse.

Second bold:
Winning teams typically have more 'easy' games against weaker/sub .500 opponents. Many more games decided prior to 4th quarter. Also, good teams still tend to have bad nights from time to time and end up on the other end of lob sided games. You misinterpreted my point. And yes, I'd rather pay Boozer $15M than $11M to Bargnani.... well, if I were cutting the cheques that is.

Third bold:
Quick question: At what point do you accept that Boozer is an upgrade over Bargnani that will lead to Toronto being a more competitive team?

Fourth bold:
Ah yes. Pay Bargnani to not play at $11M per season and take comfort in the knowledge that he will not contribute to losing or pay Boozer $15M to help win even if statistically it is only a small increase. That makes total sense. At the end of the day Boozer for Bargnani still improves the Raptors. It might not be an Ilyasova or Millsap impact but those guys are really, really good and, while Boozer is just alright, Bargnani is still really, really, really, really, really, really, really bad.

Boozer is actually 5th on W/S for Chicago. Of the guys who remain on the Raptors roster, Bargnani is 14th of 15 and, if you include everyone who has played for Toronto this season, he is 16th of 17. It should be noted that statistics do not explain the intangibles or measure the things that don't show in the boxscore and are not the be all and end all. Even just watching games one can easily see Boozer >>> Bargnani.

Fifth bold:
There is also no reason to be overly oblivious to how bad Bargnani really is. At the end of the day Boozer for Bargnani still returns a productive asset to Toronto that contributes to winning while removing a toxic asset that contributes only to losing.

[Matt52]

Does anyone remember the January 16, 2013 game of Bulls vs Raptors? He destroyed Toronto in the paint on his way to 36 points and 12 rebs. ED and AJ had very pedestrian games as well for all the talk of his horrible D.





Boxscore

[psrs1]

Does anyone remember the January 16, 2013 game of Bulls vs Raptors? He destroyed Toronto in the paint on his way to 36 points and 12 rebs. ED and AJ had very pedestrian games as well for all the talk of his horrible D.





Boxscore

Boozer was a beast....he destroyed us.

[Chr1s1anL]

Does anyone remember the January 16, 2013 game of Bulls vs Raptors? He destroyed Toronto in the paint on his way to 36 points and 12 rebs. ED and AJ had very pedestrian games as well for all the talk of his horrible D.





Boxscore

Posted this video earlier in this thread. Free cheese.

[FoxMachine]

wow people are still going hard on this thread.. agree to disagree

[Matt52]

Posted this video earlier in this thread. Free cheese.

Sorry, dude.

[Matt52]

wow people are still going hard on this thread.. agree to disagree

Yeah, the desire to #tradeBargnani is just too much for me. Plus it is such a no-brainer for owners looking to improve the on court product.


New stat porn for today:

Boozer traded to Toronto would put him #1 on the team in Defensive Rating for this season at 100. Gay is #1 at 103 (small sample of course) and Amir is #2 at 104.

Boozer traded to Toronto would put him #1 on the team in Defensive Win Shares for this season at 2.6. Current #1 is Amir at 1.7.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/TOR/2013.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/2013.html


I can only hope Toronto is holding out for a pick.

[stretch]

Bargnani for anybody with a pulse, NOT TAKING A BAD CONTRACT in return.

[Matt52]

Bargnani for anybody with a pulse, NOT TAKING A BAD CONTRACT in return.

Sadly the Raptors won't get a good contract in exchange for a bad contract. Even Gay is a bad contract.

All the Raptors can hope for is someone better than Bargnani - which is not overly difficult to pull off.

[Hugmenot]

Yeah, the desire to #tradeBargnani is just too much for me. Plus it is such a no-brainer for owners looking to improve the on court product.

New stat porn for today:

Boozer traded to Toronto would put him #1 on the team in Defensive Rating for this season at 100. Gay is #1 at 103 (small sample of course) and Amir is #2 at 104.

Boozer traded to Toronto would put him #1 on the team in Defensive Win Shares for this season at 2.6. Current #1 is Amir at 1.7.

While I can understand your desire to get rid of Bargnani, it saddens me to see you comparing players Defensive Ratings across teams this way.

[Balls of Steel]

Either way, something has to take place between now and Feb. 21st. If they found a new home for the Ikea monkey, I'm sure BC can find a new home for Andrea.