Papabear Says
I think we should pick up Boozer he is a good defender , make shots around the baskets, and rebounds.
I don't think teams can amnesty until the offseason- also I don't think Boozer is a good defender, though I can see why we'd think that, watching Amare and Bargs on a regular basis!
He pulls a lot of disappearing acts. Not a fan.
All we can give is the vet min, right? If he'd sign here for that, of course you do it
He's not a great defender but he sure as hell can rebound better than 90% of the Knicks roster.
Bonn1997 wrote:All we can give is the vet min, right? If he'd sign here for that, of course you do it
Unlikely- he usually plays great in contract years and ends up fooling some team.
Don't know why the Bulls let this leak, if they'd kept quiet they may have been able to trade him in the offseason to a team that's under the cap. He'd be an okay pick up as he'd be an expiring and is an okay PF.
Likely a team with cap room grabs him before the knicks get a shot.
Is Boozer an expiring deal after this season? Not sure if this is a smart move for the Bulls. They seem to be a very tight unit and the Deng trade upset their team. Would this move be made in an effort to sign Melo or another free agent? Also, I don't think Thibs wants to rebuild.
Just looked at his stats- In his first contract year he played 75 games, then after Cavs blundered by letting him out of his contract early (I think he pretended he'd re-sign for a cheap longer term deal) and he fled and signed a big contract with Utah, he only played 51 games, then 33 games. The year before his next contract year he played 37 games, then he was magically healed again for his contract year and played 78 games. Then upon signing the big deal with the Bulls, he plummeted back to 59 games.
He was pretty unpopular with jazz fans who accused him of being lazy and not playing when he could. He was also very unpopular with Bulls fans- inconsistent, poor defender etc. Maybe he's just is what he started off as- a nice, average PF who should be on a reasonable deal.
Bonn1997 wrote:All we can give is the vet min, right? If he'd sign here for that, of course you do it
Do teams get to use the MLE every year?
smackeddog wrote:Just looked at his stats- In his first contract year he played 75 games, then after Cavs blundered by letting him out of his contract early (I think he pretended he'd re-sign for a cheap longer term deal) and he fled and signed a big contract with Utah, he only played 51 games, then 33 games. The year before his next contract year he played 37 games, then he was magically healed again for his contract year and played 78 games. Then upon signing the big deal with the Bulls, he plummeted back to 59 games.He was pretty unpopular with jazz fans who accused him of being lazy and not playing when he could. He was also very unpopular with Bulls fans- inconsistent, poor defender etc. Maybe he's just is what he started off as- a nice, average PF who should be on a reasonable deal.
Boozer had a handshake agreement with the owner who was blind and couldn't look him in the eye when Boozer was lying to him. Always thought that was a sleazy move. Want no part of him in NY more for his disappearing acts than anything else.
I think if Minny doesn't get into the playoffs he could force a trade and maybe Chicago can work out something. Maybe Taj, 2 future 1st, and Boozer.
Kevin Love could use a defender like Noah to cover up for his woeful defensive ability. The passing of those two front court players would probably be unmatched.
They have been talking about amnestying Boozer for years so it's hardly news. The Deng deal just gives them more leverage to do it. However if they could use him in a trade for Love would be the very best case scenario I guess.
GustavBahler wrote:smackeddog wrote:Just looked at his stats- In his first contract year he played 75 games, then after Cavs blundered by letting him out of his contract early (I think he pretended he'd re-sign for a cheap longer term deal) and he fled and signed a big contract with Utah, he only played 51 games, then 33 games. The year before his next contract year he played 37 games, then he was magically healed again for his contract year and played 78 games. Then upon signing the big deal with the Bulls, he plummeted back to 59 games.He was pretty unpopular with jazz fans who accused him of being lazy and not playing when he could. He was also very unpopular with Bulls fans- inconsistent, poor defender etc. Maybe he's just is what he started off as- a nice, average PF who should be on a reasonable deal.
Boozer had a handshake agreement with the owner who was blind and couldn't look him in the eye when Boozer was lying to him. Always thought that was a sleazy move. Want no part of him in NY more for his disappearing acts than anything else.
Yeah, but the Cavs owner was just as sleazy- he had an illegal under the counter deal for Boozer, and the purpose of it was to get Boozer cheaper than if he waited until the following year. They were both as sleazy as each other!
smackeddog wrote:GustavBahler wrote:smackeddog wrote:Just looked at his stats- In his first contract year he played 75 games, then after Cavs blundered by letting him out of his contract early (I think he pretended he'd re-sign for a cheap longer term deal) and he fled and signed a big contract with Utah, he only played 51 games, then 33 games. The year before his next contract year he played 37 games, then he was magically healed again for his contract year and played 78 games. Then upon signing the big deal with the Bulls, he plummeted back to 59 games.He was pretty unpopular with jazz fans who accused him of being lazy and not playing when he could. He was also very unpopular with Bulls fans- inconsistent, poor defender etc. Maybe he's just is what he started off as- a nice, average PF who should be on a reasonable deal.
Boozer had a handshake agreement with the owner who was blind and couldn't look him in the eye when Boozer was lying to him. Always thought that was a sleazy move. Want no part of him in NY more for his disappearing acts than anything else.
Yeah, but the Cavs owner was just as sleazy- he had an illegal under the counter deal for Boozer, and the purpose of it was to get Boozer cheaper than if he waited until the following year. They were both as sleazy as each other!
Basically for team to terminate his contract it would be expected Booze would take a discount. Avg the contract with that extra year its not unreasonable. Booze coul have broken his leg that year and then what? Im not sure Booze is quite that evil but Utah came in and offered a boat load of money, I think it was like 30mil more. Sleeze has a price. At 30 mil its called good business!!
