RealGM

http://www.sactownroyalty.com/2009/7/1/ ... ly-a-whole

Well this makes a lot of sense. I think Utah and Carlos are done already. They REALLY wanna keep Millsap IMO. Being some 3 odd million OVER THE LUX line, I could see the Jazz looking to cut salary and cut it hard.

In order to offer Millsap a deal that averages 10 million a year they'd need to set up a contract that has a base year salary of: 8.1 Million dollars.

Well, guess what! The KINGS hae about 8 million in cap space.

So let's say the Kings do a 'COUPLE' deals(disgusied as one), to help the Jazz get below that figure so they can re-sign Millsap and get below that tax figure. One of the easiest ways for them to do this is move a million dollar cap hold(without having to take back the matching 750,000 in the form of the Rights to Eric Maynor.

So to get the Jazz down the kings and jazz agree to this:

Jazz give: Carlos Boozer ~12.3 million, CJ Miles ~3.7 Million, Rights to Eric Maynor
Kings give: Kenny Thomas ~8.7 million

Roughly 8.5 million saved. That deal in and of itself gets the Jazz below the lux tax threshold.

That gets the Jazz well below the Lux tax to around 64 million and allows them to sign or MATCH any offers to Paul Millsap.

Kings new roster:

C: Spence Hawes, Ike Diogu(1 year min)
PF: Carlos Boozer, Jason Thompson, Donte Greene
SF: Andres Nocioni, CJ Miles, Omar Casspi
SG: Kevin Martin, Francisco Garcia
PG: Tyreke Evans, Beno Udrih, Sergio Rodriguez, Eric Maynor

Not a bad roster at all, and getting Maynor is a nice bonus if he turns into a nifty backup.
I don't think it would hurt anyone's development. It seems like the kings are going for more toughness which is most certainly needed, and Boozer fits that bill.

I don't see any reason not to do this deal, if it doesn't work out he still only has 1 yr on his contract, right?

It's incredibly unlikely that Sacramento gets all that for just KT's expiring and cap space.

I also don't see any reason not to do this deal. And I was against Boozer from the start. We do this and I favor the Kings for the 8th spot.

My only concern is that it will stunt Thompson's growth.

^Completely agreed. We would be (Please Use More Appropriate Word) not to do that deal, considering boozer will just expire when thomas does, so we would get a VERY nice rental in the meantime. I would be worried about the growth of our team as a whole, not just thompson. Most of the young guys would rely heavily on boozer's talents, keeping them from playing to their full potential.

But we would have to do this trade, no doubt. I would be 97% confident that utah would curse out petrie for even offering this though. Boozer is still an all-star, you have to keep that in mind.

I disagree! I think Thompson would BENEFIT from having Boozer around. The youngs aren't going to play to their full potential for a few more years anyway. Besides Boozer will miss 30 games and Thompson will be the starter anyway.

Boozer to the kings is so un-realistic and we have no need for him. If the kings were to add a big name in the off-season it would be someone like Mcdyess, Oberto or Varejo.

So I went to the trade boards and got shot down in a rain of fire. No to boozer trades.

down_el_road wrote:Boozer to the kings is so un-realistic and we have no need for him. If the kings were to add a big name in the off-season it would be someone like Mcdyess, Oberto or Varejo.

Uh, there's "big names" and then there's the players you mentioned. Two entirely different stratospheres.

KM44 wrote:So I went to the trade boards and got shot down in a rain of fire. No to boozer trades.

You're matching equal salaries in that deal. The whole point for Utah would be immediate cap relief, we can provide that.

Wouldn't it make more sense for the Kings to target Okur rather than Boozer?

Okur? Uh, no. We have our C already in Hawes and while Okur is a solid player Boozer is most certainly a better one, albeit one with more questions surrounding his reliability.

SacKingZZZ wrote:

down_el_road wrote:Boozer to the kings is so un-realistic and we have no need for him. If the kings were to add a big name in the off-season it would be someone like Mcdyess, Oberto or Varejo.

Uh, there's "big names" and then there's the players you mentioned. Two entirely different stratospheres.

i meant to say big man not big name so no reason to be a jerk

Honestly, what is the point of a 1 year rental band-aid fix? Why does everyone want to do this? These almost never work (look at Artest for Rockets last year, they gave up 2 first round picks for him and essentially just were able to sign Ariza). This would just hamper our plans for the future, i.e. giving our bigs more time and our ability to get a good draft pick next year. Boozer would just bolt next year anyway for the team who offers him the most money, or we would try and offer him a max level deal. I don't see him as a good fit here nor as a max level player.

down_el_road wrote:
i meant to say big man not big name so no reason to be a jerk

Ah, good old interpretation of written word. I wasn't trying to be a jerk at all.

Flipstorm wrote:Honestly, what is the point of a 1 year rental band-aid fix? Why does everyone want to do this? These almost never work (look at Artest for Rockets last year, they gave up 2 first round picks for him and essentially just were able to sign Ariza). This would just hamper our plans for the future, i.e. giving our bigs more time and our ability to get a good draft pick next year. Boozer would just bolt next year anyway for the team who offers him the most money, or we would try and offer him a max level deal. I don't see him as a good fit here nor as a max level player.

To bring excitement and to get people back at Arco? Getting the 8th seed would be absolutely phenomenal for this franchise right now.

Nicky Nix Nook wrote:

Flipstorm wrote:Honestly, what is the point of a 1 year rental band-aid fix? Why does everyone want to do this? These almost never work (look at Artest for Rockets last year, they gave up 2 first round picks for him and essentially just were able to sign Ariza). This would just hamper our plans for the future, i.e. giving our bigs more time and our ability to get a good draft pick next year. Boozer would just bolt next year anyway for the team who offers him the most money, or we would try and offer him a max level deal. I don't see him as a good fit here nor as a max level player.

To bring excitement and to get people back at Arco? Getting the 8th seed would be absolutely phenomenal for this franchise right now.

And have all the excitement drained when the Lakers sweep us and Boozer leaves in free agency?

Flipstorm wrote:

Nicky Nix Nook wrote:

Flipstorm wrote:Honestly, what is the point of a 1 year rental band-aid fix? Why does everyone want to do this? These almost never work (look at Artest for Rockets last year, they gave up 2 first round picks for him and essentially just were able to sign Ariza). This would just hamper our plans for the future, i.e. giving our bigs more time and our ability to get a good draft pick next year. Boozer would just bolt next year anyway for the team who offers him the most money, or we would try and offer him a max level deal. I don't see him as a good fit here nor as a max level player.

To bring excitement and to get people back at Arco? Getting the 8th seed would be absolutely phenomenal for this franchise right now.

And have all the excitement drained when the Lakers sweep us and Boozer leaves in free agency?

No one would be disappointed if we got swept by the Lakers. Making the playoffs would be like winning the championship to this town atm.

Plus if Boozer meshes we can resign.

KM44 wrote:So I went to the trade boards and got shot down in a rain of fire. No to boozer trades.

Because those fans PAY THE BILLS and actually MAKE ROSTER MOVES? Who cares what they think. Fans are good to get a gauge of interest. But just 2 weeks ago, fans were saying Rubio was worth Thompson, the 4th pick and a Jaric dump. Actually, he's worth the #5 pick.

Flipstorm wrote:

Nicky Nix Nook wrote:

Flipstorm wrote:Honestly, what is the point of a 1 year rental band-aid fix? Why does everyone want to do this? These almost never work (look at Artest for Rockets last year, they gave up 2 first round picks for him and essentially just were able to sign Ariza). This would just hamper our plans for the future, i.e. giving our bigs more time and our ability to get a good draft pick next year. Boozer would just bolt next year anyway for the team who offers him the most money, or we would try and offer him a max level deal. I don't see him as a good fit here nor as a max level player.

To bring excitement and to get people back at Arco? Getting the 8th seed would be absolutely phenomenal for this franchise right now.

And have all the excitement drained when the Lakers sweep us and Boozer leaves in free agency?

No the POINT is: We deal Kenny's worthless ass for a 20/10 guy at only a cost of 4 million dollars. We're already on the books for K9's deal. This is the equivalent of signing Boozer to a 4 year deal. We get a test run to see what a legit 20/10 PF can do for our current roster, get actual production for money spent, gain Boozer's bird rights which could facilitate a potential SnT next summer, we would also gain the inside track of retaining him if things work out FAR beyond expectations, and we get an EXPIRING ALL-STAR to dangle at the deadline for a contender, looking to add that 'FINAL PIECE' for their run at the ring.

THose are ALL the reasons we should do this deal. At the cost of 4 million additional dollars to swap one expiring K9 to one expiring Boozer.

Seems like a no-brainer to me, even if we were to take on a Miles/Korver as well.