Page 1 of 2
Monster Trade Proposal
Posted: Fri May 1, 2009 4:52 am
by partnerfusion
Just for fun...would you guys consider this blockbuster:
Carlos Boozer, Andrei Kirilenko and Mehmet Okur
For
Gerald Wallace, Emeka Okafor, Desagana Diop & Boris Diaw
Re: Monster Trade Proposal
Posted: Fri May 1, 2009 5:09 am
by Takuya Kimura
no deal.
Okur defending the paint is as awful as Susan Boyle's look.
Re: Monster Trade Proposal
Posted: Fri May 1, 2009 5:47 am
by Walt Cronkite
Boyle'd
Re: Monster Trade Proposal
Posted: Fri May 1, 2009 7:14 am
by Fred Williamson
NO
Re: Monster Trade Proposal
Posted: Fri May 1, 2009 5:49 pm
by W_HAMILTON
Maybe I'm not thinking clearly, but I'd at least think about it.
Re: Monster Trade Proposal
Posted: Fri May 1, 2009 6:11 pm
by Dexmor
In a freaking heart beat. On a team like ours with no scorers Boozer becomes a 25 point a game scorer from good player on bad team syndrome.
We would go from real small to pretty big. 7 foot C 6'9 sf who blocks like a C and a good sized pf.
Re: Monster Trade Proposal
Posted: Fri May 1, 2009 6:24 pm
by Fred Williamson
first of all, our defense in the frontcout would be gone. okur and boozer are just awful defenders.
2nd: we wouldn't fix our SG problem
Re: Monster Trade Proposal
Posted: Fri May 1, 2009 7:50 pm
by e4Nf6
No thanks, It's not so far off though. We'd be gutting our team defensively. Okur and Boozer are bad defenders and even Kirilenko is not quite as good as Crash. Boozer would obviously help scoring (a lot) but I've never been a fan of his, he's kind of a black hole and he flat out doesn't care on defense.
Re: Monster Trade Proposal
Posted: Fri May 1, 2009 11:04 pm
by BigSlam
GWallace3 wrote:first of all, our defense in the frontcout would be gone. okur and boozer are just awful defenders.
2nd: we wouldn't fix our SG problem
I'm with GW3.
I'd take Crash, his age, his contract and his extreme effort over AK47, his age, his contract and his lack of effort.
I'd take Diaw over Boozer because of the way Diaw can facilitate the offense and make those around him better.
And I'd take EO50 over Okur.
I wouldn't be opposed to getting of Gana's contract though - just not at this price.
Re: Monster Trade Proposal
Posted: Sat May 2, 2009 11:50 am
by nugentrk
nooo but the trade that we probably should do is Sean May and Nazr Mohammed for Jamal Crawford
as for your Monster trade, if you take out Mehmet Okur and Emeka Okafor, I'd do that deal. We should want to keep Emeka Okafor and team him up with Boozer. Our front court will then have a nice balace of offense and defense.
Felton/Dj
Crawford/Raja
Radmanovic/AK47
Boozer/AK47
Okafor/Gana
Re: Monster Trade Proposal
Posted: Sat May 2, 2009 1:20 pm
by BigSlam
nugentrk wrote:nooo but the trade that we probably should do is Sean May and Nazr Mohammed for Jamal Crawford
as for your Monster trade, if you take out Mehmet Okur and Emeka Okafor, I'd do that deal. We should want to keep Emeka Okafor and team him up with Boozer. Our front court will then have a nice balace of offense and defense.
Felton/Dj
Crawford/Raja
Radmanovic/AK47
Boozer/AK47
Okafor/Gana
We'd suck at the 2, 3 and 4 on D.
Re: Monster Trade Proposal
Posted: Sat May 2, 2009 6:08 pm
by fatlever
ak starts over radman.
Re: Monster Trade Proposal
Posted: Sun May 3, 2009 12:58 am
by Paydro70
AK is overpaid, but the other two aren't, and we'd be freeing ourselves from Diop's contract, so I don't think the salaries are a problem.
It's basically a defense-for-offense swap (though AK is better than Wallace on D), so I don't think it's unfair talent-wise either.
The issue is simply what our motivation is. The only way it makes us better is if LB can keep those players producing on offense while improving their defense. In short, we'd have to expect that those players would outplay their current production. That's possible, of course, but I think it's just as likely that they'd decline in a new offensive situation without Deron Williams or Jerry Sloan. So ultimately it's a pass, unless we do something like Diaw-Wallace for Boozer-AK... meaning we'd be taking on some salary in exchange for a big-time scorer.
Re: Monster Trade Proposal
Posted: Sun May 3, 2009 6:42 am
by Rich4114
So you guys would take our front line over Utah's? I'm attached to these players too, but there's no doubting Utah's front line would make us better. We won't get nearly as many mileage out of them, but we'd be better for a while.
Re: Monster Trade Proposal
Posted: Sun May 3, 2009 5:15 pm
by Walt Cronkite
^Who becomes our defensive post presence? Juwan? Nazr? In an era where guards are encouraged to attack the rim relentlessly it's good to have a goalie. I won't even speak on the importance of having a defensive big to stop offensive post threats.
Re: Monster Trade Proposal
Posted: Sun May 3, 2009 6:00 pm
by thruthefire
Can't include Okafor in that deal ... our post defense would be terrible and we would have no shot-blocking. For all the shots Okafor blocks, he alters a lot more. Neither Boozer or Okur are going to do that.
Wallace is a better player than Kirilenko and comes at a much cheaper price.
Boozer for Diaw, I would be very tempted to do.
Re: Monster Trade Proposal
Posted: Sun May 3, 2009 6:15 pm
by Walt Cronkite
I think the initial deal is too complicated. Okur has a eto or player option this offseason and Boozer is a ufa... I think Kirilenko is a guy that would work really well in LB's system and next to a player like Boris. What are Utah's worst contracts (besides AK)? I'll look into all of it later, but my basic idea is:
Swap Wallace for AK.
option 1: dump one of our bad contracts to even the monetary difference (Mohammed)
option 2: get something of worth back in addition to AK (maybe Miles or Brewer<---wet dream) and throw in Bell.
I think keeping Okafor is pretty critical to team success. I feel the same way about Diaw.
Re: Monster Trade Proposal
Posted: Sun May 3, 2009 10:06 pm
by Rich4114
I understand our defense wouldn't be as good, but we also wouldn't be last in the league in offense anymore with that front line. We become better at shooting, better at posting up, and better at giving our guards better looks because the defense would have to worry so much about Okur and Boozer.
The Jazz made the playoffs in the West after having some pretty bad injuries all year long. I'd like to think their front court had something to do with that.
Re: Monster Trade Proposal
Posted: Sun May 3, 2009 10:25 pm
by thruthefire
Rich4114 wrote:The Jazz made the playoffs in the West after having some pretty bad injuries all year long. I'd like to think their front court had something to do with that.
True, but they also had a much better bench ... Kirilenko didn't even start this season.
Comparing benches, besides Augustin, no one on our bench would get burn on the Jazz.
Starting five wise, I think we are every bit as good.
Re: Monster Trade Proposal
Posted: Mon May 4, 2009 5:34 am
by Paydro70
Wow, we are totally not as good as them in the starting 5. Even if you think the frontcourts are equivalent, Deron Williams totally trumps everything we have. Replace Deron with Felton and I doubt the Jazz make the playoffs, add Deron to our team and we're a 4-seed.