Utah/Wiz/Heat: Boozer to Heat,Butler to Utah,Beasley to WIZ

mhd · Post #1 » by **mhd** » Tue Dec 16, 2008 4:34 pm

Utah trades:
1) Boozer
for:
1) Caron Butler

Miami trades:
1) Michael Beasley
2) Mark Blount
for:
1) Carlos Boozer
2) Darius Songaila

Wizards trade:
1) Caron Butler
2) Darius Songaila
for:
1) Michael Beasley
2) Mark Blount

NEW LINEUPS:
Utah:
PG: Williams/Knight
SG: Brewer/Miles
SF: Butler/Korver
PF: AK/Milsapp
C: Okur/Koufus

Heat:
PG: Chalmers/Quinn
SG: Wade/Cook
SF: Marion/Jones
PF: Boozer/Songaila
C: Haslem/Zo

Wizards:
PG: Arenas/Critt
SG: Stevenson/Young
SF: Jamison/McGuire
PF: Beasley/Blatche
C: Haywood/McGee

WHY FOR THE JAZZ?
1) They are in Luxary tax danger. This move saves them from paying Boozer 18 million, and allows them to resign Milsapp.
2) Butler gives them a dynamite wing scorer to pair with Williams.

WHY FOR THE HEAT?
1) They don't have the space to sign Boozer in the off-season. This way, they get him now and can extend him.
2) Songaila is a crafty vet PF who'd fit in well. He'd be an upgrade at backup PF.
3) Blount stinks.

WHY FOR THE WIZARDS?
1) Beasley gives them a young PF to build around.

hoops4life · Post #2 » by **hoops4life** » Tue Dec 16, 2008 4:41 pm

Utah has a ton of wing players already. I am not full against moving Boozer but I do think that we need a pf/c back in return.

sendai91 · Post #3 » by **sendai91** » Tue Dec 16, 2008 4:51 pm

I'd love for Utah to get Butler, but Utah would need to move (in addition to Boozer) someone like Miles, Almond or Korver in the deal as well to ensure that the Jazz don't have a huge logjam at the 2/3. It would actually be better for Utah to offer up AK if they are going to bring someone like Butler on board.

By the way, why on earth would Washington want to do this trade? Is Butler's stock really that low that WAS thinks Beasley is a better option?

mhd · Post #4 » by **mhd** » Tue Dec 16, 2008 4:56 pm

sendai91 wrote:I'd love for Utah to get Butler, but Utah would need to move (in addition to Boozer) someone like Miles, Almond or Korver in the deal as well to ensure that the Jazz don't have a huge logjam at the 2/3. It would actually be better for Utah to offer up AK if they are going to bring someone like Butler on board.

By the way, why on earth would Washington want to do this trade? Is Butler's stock really that low that WAS thinks Beasley is a better option?

They need to rebuild. His stock isn't low, but they are going to get a high lotto pick. Aside from Blake Griffin, there isn't a PF rated that high. Besides, Jamison can slide to SF. He does it 40% of the time anyways.

mhd · Post #5 » by **mhd** » Tue Dec 16, 2008 4:59 pm

sendai91 wrote:I'd love for Utah to get Butler, but Utah would need to move (in addition to Boozer) someone like Miles, Almond or Korver in the deal as well to ensure that the Jazz don't have a huge logjam at the 2/3. It would actually be better for Utah to offer up AK if they are going to bring someone like Butler on board.

By the way, why on earth would Washington want to do this trade? Is Butler's stock really that low that WAS thinks Beasley is a better option?

You could add in a Etan Thomas for Matt Harping swap. Its cap neutral as both make relatively the same and expire at the same time. Etan gives Utah a banger, while lessoning the logjam at the wings.

ecuhus1981 · Post #6 » by **ecuhus1981** » Tue Dec 16, 2008 5:02 pm

I don't like it for MIA. IMO, it would be better for MIA if they did something like the rumored CLE trade, let Szcz expire and then pursue Boozer as a FA. Then, they would probably have jettisoned Banks to CLE, and wouldn't have to take Songaila's contract either.

miamiballer · Post #7 » by **miamiballer** » Tue Dec 16, 2008 5:08 pm

heat say no, if we wanted boozer we could just to try to sign him in 09 and keep/trade beasley for more value

mhd · Post #8 » by **mhd** » Tue Dec 16, 2008 5:18 pm

miamiballer wrote:heat say no, if we wanted boozer we could just to try to sign him in 09 and keep/trade beasley for more value

The Heat don't have the capspace to sign Boozer in the off-season.

fivas14 · Post #9 » by **fivas14** » Tue Dec 16, 2008 5:51 pm

miamiballer wrote:heat say no, if we wanted boozer we could just to try to sign him in 09 and keep/trade beasley for more value

Oh yea? So it's already official that Boozer is a heat?

yungal07 · Post #10 » by **yungal07** » Tue Dec 16, 2008 7:08 pm

Beasley is just as much a power forward as Jamison is. Pass.

Post #11 » by **BBallFreak** » Tue Dec 16, 2008 9:38 pm

No thanks. While I like Boozer, I just don't see the need to trade Beasley to get him. Beasley costs less and looks as if he'll be every bit as productive as he matures. I also wouldn't give up our 2k10 cap space for Boozer, which this deal has us doing...

Flash is the Future · Post #12 » by **Flash is the Future** » Tue Dec 16, 2008 10:28 pm

Agreed with BBallFreak. We're much better off just keeping Beasley - he is WAY cheaper.

Neptune_Balla21 · Post #13 » by **Neptune_Balla21** » Tue Dec 16, 2008 11:32 pm

As someone who is not a fan of any of these teams... part of me likes this trade.

I understand the reluctance to part ways with Beasley that Heat fans express. I understand he is way cheaper. But there really is no telling how long it will take for him to develop into a player with Boozer-like productivity.

With Wade/Marion/Boozer, you're talking another Championship. Right now. Yeah, Boozer and Marion expire and you have to worry about Wade bolting in 2010. But for this year that lineup could compete with Boston and Cleveland.

As for the other teams I think it is a good deal. Utah moves forward with Millsap, yeah they have a lot of wing players already... but none like Caron. And the Wiz sneak away with Beasley to pair with Young for the future.

If you're talking longterm for the Heat, though... I understand being down on it.

Flash is the Future · Post #14 » by **Flash is the Future** » Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:03 am

I don't think we would be talking championship, though. Marion hasn't been right this year. It's not just the system. He's been missing easy layups and dunks. I'd call it the Antoine Walker syndrome, presonally.

Neptune_Balla21 · Post #15 » by **Neptune_Balla21** » Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:20 am

He has been disappointing for sure, I agree. I think he has to be on a "contender" to be productive. Plugging Boozer in for Beasley makes you guys a contender, which would hopefully snap Matrix out of his lazy, unfocused funk. Considering the risk involved though, it is pretty easy for south beach to decline.

Wade2k6 · Post #16 » by **Wade2k6** » Wed Dec 17, 2008 2:21 am

The Heat could sign Boozer in the off-season if they wanted too, so there's no point in trading a 19 year old when they can wait a few months and sign him in the off-season. Saying that, I'd rather keep Beasley and the 2010 capspace.

fivas14 · Post #17 » by **fivas14** » Wed Dec 17, 2008 2:27 am

The heat could *attempt

Wade2k6 · Post #18 » by **Wade2k6** » Wed Dec 17, 2008 3:30 am

yes, that's what I meant. I think waiting a few months to try and sign Boozer is alot more worth while then making this deal and giving up on a 19 year old rookie. That's if the Heat even want Boozer, which they might not because of there 2010 cap situation.

Hoops23 · Post #19 » by **Hoops23** » Wed Dec 17, 2008 4:59 am

Like most of my fellow Heat fans, its an easy pass for Miami.

No need for the Heat to trade Beasley to get Boozer. Miami have a cap space for next year. If its not enough for Boozer, Miami can trade Dorell or Banks and a pick to teams under the cap which is more cheaper compare to trading Beasley.