Boozer for Butler

blackham9258 · Post #1 » by **blackham9258** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 2:55 am

Would we be interested, and do we think Washington would do a Boozer for Butler trade. We take on his extra year of salary and Washington takes $3M extra this year. Both teams swap all*stars that better fit the current teams needs.

Haywood
Boozer
Jamison
Miller
Arenas

Okur
Millsap
Brewer
Butler
Williams

Washington needs a true low post threat at PF, not 3 SF's.

We need someone who can fill it up from the outside to fill our ouside wing shooting wows, and we need to rid ourselves of Boozer.

What do you think?

HolyToledo · Post #2 » by **HolyToledo** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:13 am

Wash says NO while Jazz say YES so no trade unless Wash gets something enticing like NYK #1 pick, Kosta, or Brewer which Jazz would not do.

Post #3 » by **StocktonShorts** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 7:00 am

Actually I think the Wizards might say yes to that deal. They're probably loving Caron Butler right now, but a healthy Gilbert Arenas + Boozer >> Arenas + Butler

JDubJazz · Post #4 » by **JDubJazz** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:36 pm

If the Wizards would do Booz and Brewer for Butler, I think the Jazz would have to consider it. Washington would likely have to sweeten the pot a bit, but Butler would be a great fit with the Jazz, and it would mean the Jazz don't have to worry about re-signing Brewer in the off-season. I love Ronnie's effort, but his shooting really is a liability. Butler can do almost almost everything Ronnie can, plus he's a vastly superior offensive player.

David Ginola 14 · Post #5 » by **David Ginola 14** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 6:02 pm

Should be good...

erudite23 · Post #6 » by **erudite23** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 8:40 pm

That's a great deal for both teams, which means it probably won't be done. Who knows if Washington would want to retain him for next year, which is what it really comes down to. Biggest problem with this is the overlap between Boozer and Jamison. They are players who have similar games, like to operate in similar positions on the floor, need the ball to be effective on offense and don't play much defense. Additionally, Wash just committed to Jamison for another 4 years before last season, so they are stuck with him for awhile.

Its a nice deal, though. Too bad it will never happen.

babyjax13 · Post #7 » by **babyjax13** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 9:49 pm

I actually posed the question on the Washington board. Their main problem was what to do with Jamison since he is too slow at this point in his career to defend the small forward position. I think if we traded Boozer to them we would have to take back Jamison, and Jamison+Butler would take more than Boozer+Brewer. If that weren't a problem a trade that looked like Boozer+Brewer for Butler+McGee would be ideal.

hoops4life · Post #8 » by **hoops4life** » Wed Sep 30, 2009 5:14 pm

Butler-Jamison for Boozer-Brewer-Harpring, does that work money wise?

drivewayball · Post #9 » by **drivewayball** » Fri Oct 2, 2009 12:15 pm

Why would it matter if it worked money wise?

hoops4life · Post #10 » by **hoops4life** » Fri Oct 2, 2009 9:22 pm

Payrolls have to be within a certian amount. You can't trade a guy making $1million for a guy making $17million a year straight up.

Post #11 » by **Ben** » Fri Oct 2, 2009 9:38 pm

hoops4life wrote:Payrolls have to be within a certian amount. You can't trade a guy making $1million for a guy making $17million a year straight up.

Butler for Boozer almost works within the 125% rule but not quite.

If it were to work, Utah should be all over it and Washington should say "no way."

Wash. already has Jamison at the 4 and, as someone else has already stated here, he's not a full-time SF any more. Plus, Butler is coming off of a season during which he was mostly healthy, whereas Boozer is coming off of a bad injury. And Boozer has been presenting himself as a pretty bad team citizen. I can't see why in the world Wash would say yes. Especially since they would be adding $2.6 million in salary, which would become $5.2 million since they're already over the cap.

Deng for Boozer, however, is quite another story... ;-)

Post #12 » by **StocktonShorts** » Sat Oct 3, 2009 5:02 am

Ben B. wrote:
hoops4life wrote:Payrolls have to be within a certian amount. You can't trade a guy making $1million for a guy making $17million a year straight up.

Butler for Boozer almost works within the 125% rule but not quite.

Butler's salary for 2009-10: $9,780,970
Boozer's salary for 2009-10: $12,657,233

Odd, both ESPN's trade machine and RealGM's trade checker say it works, but it really shouldn't. As I understand it if you're over the cap the largest returning salary you can accept is 125% of your outgoing salary + $100,000.

Note that this is not the same as saying that your outgoing salary must be at least 75% of your incoming salary. A lot of people mistakenly say the contracts have to be "within 25%" and my understanding is that's just wrong. Incoming salary can be over by 25% + 100k. Taking the inverse of that means your incoming salary can be under by 20%.

Butler's salary of $9.78M * 1.25 + $100k = $12.3M

Are the trade machines broken? Are they using 75%?

Soul Patch · Post #13 » by **Soul Patch** » Sat Oct 3, 2009 5:46 am

Just try it on 2k9

@ndrew · Post #14 » by **@ndrew** » Sat Oct 3, 2009 6:28 am

It's not much of the problem, you can throw a filler even it's not working a lil' bit. It's not going to happen though. Jamison is too much of PF for Washington now.