MIN-HOU-UTA - Boozer

shrink · Post #1 » by **shrink** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 3:38 pm

A Boozer-rebuild, with a bit more thought.

MIN IN: Matt Harpring + Brent Barry + rights to swap UTA/NYK pick ($8.56)
MIN OUT: Damian Wilkins + Chucky Atkins ($7.11)

HOU IN: Carlos Boozer ($12.66)
HOU OUT: Shane Battier + Brian Cook + Brent Barry + 2010 lottery protected 1st ($12.43)

UTA IN: Shane Battier + Cook + Damian Wilkins + Atkins + HOU 2010 prot 1st ($17.47)
UTA OUT: Carlos Boozer + Matt Harpring + lose rights to swap UTA/NYK pick ($19.16)

WHY FOR MIN: Harpring and Barry probably have little left physically, so MIN could buy them out (perhaps Barry returns to HOU). With Sasha getting an opportunity, Wilkins may not be needed. The key is that MIN pays $4 mil and a lower pick to have a shot at the NYK pick.

WHY FOR HOU: Battier for an extended Boozer + late 1st is a fair price for the talent upgrade. This also has the benefit of reducing HOU's roster size from 17 to 15, so it saves them money on buy-outs.

WHY FOR UTA: Battier is a better fit with the Jazz, and with Sloan, then the unwanted Boozer. UTA has only 13 contracts, so a 2-for-3 works. Wilkins is more helpful (and cheaper) than Harpring, but the Jazz clear nearly $9 Million Dollars in this deal. The NYK pick could be very good, but there's no guarantee, plus there's the uncertainy that it isn't far from UTA's. For UTA, getting back your own protected pick provides more self-determination, and without the protections. For example, if Deron Williams went down, or UTA struggled to make the play-offs (which they may), they could use the pick for talent. UTA gets two 1sts, plus $9 mil.

I don't know. I think its a "yes" for HOU, and a "yes" for MIN. UTA is tough though, because of all the uncertainty. If NYK doesn't win a top 3 lottery pick, is it worth $9 mil plus a lower pick? I think that's an easy yes. They get to dump Harpring's lack of production for a more valuable Wilkins as well. I think UTA is the only one that would consider declining, but that's a lot of "bird in the hand" type stuff.

funkatron101 · Post #2 » by **funkatron101** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 4:06 pm

I think that is great value for Utah, personally. Battier is a Sloan type of player.

If McGrady does return to prime form, Boozer would be a great 1-2 punch for the rockets this season.

I've said it before, I like this idea a lot.

Biff Cooper · Post #3 » by **Biff Cooper** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 7:16 pm

I think you may be getting close shrink.

Something is telling me we might need to chip in a little more to Utah in the deal. Maybe changing the optional pick swap to Charlotte for NYK (or maybe even Charlotte + Utah for NYK)

Narf · Post #4 » by **Narf** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 8:40 pm

We're not important in this trade. Utah can get any team (Dallas or NY, for instance) to play our part of this trade without giving up NY's #1 pick. We don't get NY's #1 for trading expirings for expirings, the Knicks would channel 6 million dollars to Utah and give them a better deal than that to get their pick back (3 mil to Utah, 3 mil to Houston, and 3 mil from Houston to Utah).

cpfsf · Post #5 » by **cpfsf** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 8:56 pm

I wouldn't do the trade if I was Utah. No offense to any Knicks fans reading this, but they are going to be one of the worst teams in the NBA. The pick is unprotected and factor in that Walsh failed to nab Curry, Rubio, Sessions, and arguably Flynn. John Wall is within Utah's reach (they can always trade).

shrink · Post #6 » by **shrink** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:35 pm

Narf wrote:We're not important in this trade. Utah can get any team (Dallas or NY, for instance) to play our part of this trade without giving up NY's #1 pick. We don't get NY's #1 for trading expirings for expirings, the Knicks would channel 6 million dollars to Utah and give them a better deal than that to get their pick back (3 mil to Utah, 3 mil to Houston, and 3 mil from Houston to Utah).

I think you need to look at this one again.

First, DAL and NYK wouldn't give up 2009 cap space. They are over the lux, and they aren't going to pay double. In fact, there are very few teams that would be able to fund this deal even if it was just a financial deal.

Second, of those limited teams, very few have the goods. There are only two partially guaranteed players in the league, and one is on DAL, who just waived a third, Buckner, rather than trade him because they are over the lux and don't want to pay double. TPE's where they even exist, need to salary match, and there are only two that arebig enough to take on Harpring .. in DEN and ORL, and neither of those teams over the lux are giving theirs up to put an unproductive Harpring on their roster.

Third, MIN is adding more than expirings. Wilkins is an expiring, MIN takes back 2009 salary, Atkins is a non-guaranteed contract, and MIN is including UTA's 1st round pick.

This is precisely the type of trade that demonstrates Kahn and McHale's et al's acquisition of small assets can make MIN an effective team in 3-way trades.

younggunsmn · Post #7 » by **younggunsmn** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:11 pm

lots of good work there shrink, but I think in the end that knick pick is going to be obtained only by prying it out of utah's cold, dead hands.

harpring might retire, giving them some relief.

Boozer is definitely the one they want to move, and I agree we are set up very well to be a faciliitator.

Guy986 · Post #8 » by **Guy986** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:12 am

If you believe Jazz fans on this forum, they wouldn't trade the NY pick short of a young superstar. This package isn't gonna get it done. No from the jazz.

As for the Rockets, Carlos Boozer is at best a one year rental. I don't see them trading Battier and a first pick for a one year rental. The most realistic Battier trade at the moment is for cap relief.

I agree with the others that you're getting closer. Your proposals are no longer terrible. Congrats.

John Doe [MIN] · Post #9 » by **John Doe [MIN]** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:36 am

This is a lost cause. No Utah fan would ever take the proper value of cash savings into account, because it's not their money. Only the Millers can really make the call of what they'd be willing to give up in order to save $9 million. Maybe it's a workable trade, maybe it's not, but we'll never know based on what anyone on this board tells us.

younggunsmn · Post #10 » by **younggunsmn** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:57 am

who is running things now that larry miller has passed?
what have they shown as far regarding the checkbook?

only problem with boozer to rockets is that they are already stacked with natural PF's.
landry, scola, dorsey, hayes, cook. And David Andersen will play alot of center for them.

Marc · Post #11 » by **Marc** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:57 am

Why would Rockets want Boozer? He plays the exact same position as Scola and they also have Landry, Hayes, Andersen and Doersey behind him! I think they would get worse if this trade and they also have to send a 1st pick.

Post #12 » by **revprodeji** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:00 am

Sign me up

Marc · Post #13 » by **Marc** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:01 am

You should replace Rockets with Knicks. That would make a lot more sense because the BYC rules applies to Lee if he is sent to Jazz and Lee for Boozer would not work. So, TWolves could add an extra player for Jazz. Maybe Atkins.

shrink · Post #14 » by **shrink** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:11 am

I think its easy to forget just how good Boozer is. 17 PPG, 10 RPG, FG 53.6% for his CAREER numbers, and he's only 27. Scola's good - 13/9 for the 29 year old, but Boozer would definitely help this team, especially this year. As I wrote, Boozer is extended.

I think other posters are right that many people at RealGM won't consider deals where "their" team reduces talent for money. However, those deals happen in the NBA all the time, and I get some satisfaction from acknowledging that in a trade. To me, its just another commodity, and I think its one that should appeal to the Utah Jazz.

shrink · Post #15 » by **shrink** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:14 am

Marc wrote:You should replace Rockets with Knicks. That would make a lot more sense because the BYC rules applies to Lee if he is sent to Jazz and Lee for Boozer would not work. So, TWolves could add an extra player for Jazz. Maybe Atkins.

There are two problems using the Knicks.

First, I don't think the Jazz would want to pay Lee a lot of money to back up Milsap.

Second, if the Knicks get Boozer, they win more games, and it devalues the NYK pick. That in turn makes a pick swap far less appealing for the money MIN is putting in.

Marc · Post #16 » by **Marc** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:18 am

It is not all about stats. I think Scola can be just as good as Boozer for Rockets. Seriously, when he is asked to step up, he does.

Anyway, here is something that should work salary wise with Knicks and Jazz (to be done in 10 days from now):

MIN IN: Matt Harpring + Darko Milicic + rights to swap UTA/NYK pick
MIN OUT: Brian Cardinal + Damien Wilkins + Chucky Atkins

NYK IN: Carlos Boozer, Carlos Boozer
NYK OUT: David Lee (S&T), Darko Milicic

UTA IN: David Lee + Damian Wilkins + Atkins
UTA OUT: Carlos Boozer + Matt Harpring + lose rights to swap UTA/NYK pick

Marc · Post #17 » by **Marc** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:21 am

shrink wrote:
Marc wrote:You should replace Rockets with Knicks. That would make a lot more sense because the BYC rules applies to Lee if he is sent to Jazz and Lee for Boozer would not work. So, TWolves could add an extra player for Jazz. Maybe Atkins.

There are two problems using the Knicks.

First, I don't think the Jazz would want to pay Lee a lot of money to back up Milsap.

Second, if the Knicks get Boozer, they win more games, and it devalues the NYK pick. That in turn makes a pick swap far less appealing for the money MIN is putting in.

It would also make Jazz more willing to trade the rights. I seriously do not think that Boozer would make a big difference for Knicks...