Can Boozer sign an extension and then be traded?

schneiderjazz · Post #1 » by **schneiderjazz** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:48 pm

Or can he be traded while agreeing to sign an extension as soon as he's traded, kinda like Garnett? Boozer has been told by the Jazz that they are moving in a different direction and he has stated this live on the radio. Isn't a re-signed Boozer for at least 3 years worth a lot more than an expiring Boozer? If there's a team willing to pay him, wouldn't it make a lot more sense getting full value for Boozer instead of just getting the value of a 1 year rental? Jazz could ask for cap relief and some young talent back or picks, instead of just crap, like everyone is offering. Am I missing something here?

The Sheik · Post #2 » by **The Sheik** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 8:06 pm

Yeah I dont see why not. The Garnett angle is what is more likely to happen. I dont know if there is any waiting provision or anything to that effect. I however dont think its in Utah or the trading teams interest to tie up any long term money to him without watching him play. Utah will let his new team figure it out.

Post #3 » by **DelaneyRudd** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 8:21 pm

There is a waiting provision if the Jazz do the deal. Since Boozer wants to be traded his agent can negotiate with the suitors before any trade.

Post #4 » by **StocktonShorts** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 8:31 pm

DelaneyRudd wrote:There is a waiting provision if the Jazz do the deal. Since Boozer wants to be traded his agent can negotiate with the suitors before any trade.

But it is Boozer so caveat emptor.

dosborn_11 · Post #5 » by **dosborn_11** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:16 pm

"Isn't a re-signed Boozer for at least 3 years worth a lot more than an expiring Boozer? "

Not necessarily. There are a lot of teams who would like to have him for a year, to see how he fits. If he works out, then great, but if he doesn't, he expires and you have a big chunk of cap room for the deep free agent class of 2010

Post #6 » by **DelaneyRudd** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:51 pm

HappyProle wrote:
DelaneyRudd wrote:There is a waiting provision if the Jazz do the deal. Since Boozer wants to be traded his agent can negotiate with the suitors before any trade.

But it is Boozer so caveat emptor.

It wouldn't be an illegal deal however.

Post #7 » by **DelaneyRudd** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:53 pm

dosborn_11 wrote:"Isn't a re-signed Boozer for at least 3 years worth a lot more than an expiring Boozer? "

Not necessarily. There are a lot of teams who would like to have him for a year, to see how he fits. If he works out, then great, but if he doesn't, he expires and you have a big chunk of cap room for the deep free agent class of 2010

And the nice thing is either are options, at least for teams Boozer would re-up with like Chicago or Miami. I can't really see Boozer turning down any teams extension offer.

HouseofBoozer · Post #8 » by **HouseofBoozer** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:31 am

If I were a GM I'd want to see what he brought to the table for a season before offering him an extension. He hasn't proved his worth to get a big time deal. You don't know if he'll even play at all, he may get hurt in the first game.

schneiderjazz · Post #9 » by **schneiderjazz** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 2:14 am

Then, IMO, the Jazz should wait until the trade deadline to ship him out. There'll be teams tanking and there will be desperate teams. Let Boozer play, put up 20/10, and raise his value. If the Jazz are awesome with him and look on the verge of winning a championship (not likely), keep him until the end of the season and pay the tax. If the Jazz look average and Boozer is killing it, trade him for the better offer that comes our way. If he looks horrible (again, not likely) or gets injured, trade him for a bag of chips and cap space, which seems to be exactly what we're gonna get right now.

RamonSessions · Post #10 » by **RamonSessions** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 2:16 am

You guys are screwed, I feel bad fer ya.

schneiderjazz · Post #11 » by **schneiderjazz** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 2:24 am

RamonSessions wrote:You guys are screwed, I feel bad fer ya.

Well, we still have Deron Williams and the Knicks 1st in 2010. I wouldn't feel too bad.

DByrne86 · Post #12 » by **DByrne86** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:30 am

It doesn't make sense for Utah to do this. It would reduce his trade value. Boozer is not going to sign an extension that doesn't give him a substantial raise. Now if a team wants to trade for Boozer they have to take into account having to pay his contract whether he works out for them or not. If I'm a team trading for Boozer I would rather try him out for a while and if he does great, give him the extension, but if he continues to suck/have injury problems, then at least you have the luxury of having his contract expire at the end of the season.

JD45 · Post #13 » by **JD45** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:22 am

DelaneyRudd wrote:There is a waiting provision if the Jazz do the deal. Since Boozer wants to be traded his agent can negotiate with the suitors before any trade.

No need for an extension. Boozer can just give his word he will re-sign for a reasonable amount. That will be good enough.

HouseofBoozer · Post #14 » by **HouseofBoozer** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 6:54 am

JD45 wrote:
DelaneyRudd wrote:There is a waiting provision if the Jazz do the deal. Since Boozer wants to be traded his agent can negotiate with the suitors before any trade.

No need for an extension. Boozer can just give his word he will re-sign for a reasonable amount. That will be good enough.