RealGM

Minnesota Trades: Al Jefferson
Minnesota Receives: Brad Miller, NYK 1st

UTA Trades: Carlos Boozer, NYK 1st
UTA Receives: Al Jefferson

Chicago Trades: Brad Miller
Chicago Receives: Carlos Boozer

Isn't Everybody Happy With This One?

Dandy wrote:Minnesota Trades: Al Jefferson
Minnesota Receives: Brad Miller, NYK 1st

UTA Trades: Carlos Boozer, NYK 1st
UTA Receives: Al Jefferson

Chicago Trades: Brad Miller
Chicago Receives: Carlos Boozer

Isn't Everybody Happy With This One?

Min--Thats selling real low on Jefferson.
UTH- Giving up too much for Jefferson
CHI- Giving up to little for Boozer

Something has to go from CHI to UTAH. For the wolves, I would prefer to wait on Jefferson. The cap space and Top-5 pick are nice assets, but I believe Al Jeff's value will be much higher by the trade deadline. He is getting better each game. Give him time.

I always considered trading Jefferson for a top pick, but was unsure about pulling the trigger. The question is what pick is Jefferson worth. Asking Boozer to be thrown on top of the equation could be a bit much. A reason I don't like the trade is way are trading away a sure thing in Al Jefferson, for a lottery pick that might be a good player.

Edit: Ya, I don't see why Chicago should offer nothing for Boozer.

Come on It's Perfect 4 Everybody, Quit hatin

The first rounder doesn't make up for taking on an ageing Brad Miller.

In a deal like this I dont even mind taking on Miller, he is an expiring contract. We would have lots of cap space once Miller expires, and another lottery 1st. But I still think at the end of the year Jefferson is will be worth more than an expiring and a lottery pick.

I think it is a far deal if Chicago adds Tyrus Thomas going into our direction but I'd not do that deal until the deadline, so that it is clear that the NY pick is likely at least top 5.

Utah wouldn't do it . They would just let his contract expire and keep the top - 5 pick

Chicago needs to send something to Utah and to Minnesota.

Wolves and Jazz should demand for in return, well it may be fair for the wolves only if the pick turns out top 3, Bulls get great return, but it's hard to ask them for more assets because Boozer can leave them in the offseason, so overall the trade doesn't really work

CHI provides nothing in this deal.

If I have to pick between expirings, I'd much rather take the productive Boozer, and worry about future trades later.

This deal isn't as bad for us as it initially seems. An extra shot at John Wall + drafting Cole Aldrich with the lower of our two picks to replace Al + $25 million or more in cap space is pretty appealing.

Utah makes far worse than we do. They're losing Boozer not because they don't want him anymore, but because they can't afford to offer him his next contract. This deal has them taking on Al's deal, which is only slightly cheaper than what Boozer will be getting. If they could afford to add Al's salary to their post-2010 payroll, why wouldn't they just re-sign the guy they already have and keep the pick for themselves?

Chicago is like pickpocketing.

I would think if Utah was going to spend the money (which they don't want to), they would rather spend the money resigning Boozer and keeping the pick. My best guess is that they'll let Boozer walk and use the pick to draft a replacement -- Favors, Davis, or Monroe

Meh at it's fairest...

Al + Utah pick(~20) + Bobs pick(~13-15) for Boozer + NYK pick(~5?)

This draft is super deep. I think two 12-20 picks > than one pick 3-7.

I prefer jefferson to boozer. In play style, age, and contract. I prefer the multiple picks to any pick not named John Wall or Evan turner.

I'm not against moving Jefferson, but I'm not sure what scenario that would be.

bruceallen61 wrote:Meh at it's fairest...

Al + Utah pick(~20) + Bobs pick(~13-15) for Boozer + NYK pick(~5?)

This draft is super deep. I think two 12-20 picks > than one pick 3-7.

I prefer jefferson to boozer. In play style, age, and contract. I prefer the multiple picks to any pick not named John Wall or Evan turner.

I'm not against moving Jefferson, but I'm not sure what scenario that would be.

You say:
Jefferson > Boozer
TWO picks (13-20) > one pick (3-7)

Why in hell do you propose this trade if you think we don't get equal value?

I like it, but I want Chicago to add something more. Maybe JJ?

Foye wrote:You say:
Jefferson > Boozer
TWO picks (13-20) > one pick (3-7)

Why in hell do you propose this trade if you think we don't get equal value?

At its fairest I wouldn't do it. No reason for a trade like this to go down. You'd need to flip boozer for value to make it worth it. Since he's expiring his value is low. So not possible.

I'm just discussing value, not proposing this as a trade.