No thanks.  We won't be able to re-sign Boozer, so I'd rather hold on to Perk.

of course we could re-sign Boozer.  Allen is coming off the book, so even if he stays it will be at a greatly reduced rate.  The money saved on Allen plus what Perkins would have made would be about what Boozer would make.  And Perkins is due for a contract in the summer of 2011 and he will be getting a big raise.  I'd much rather pay boozer than perkins.

For the purposes of this team, Perk is MUCH better than Boozer.

Who are we going to face going into the finals. Shaq? Dwight? Bynum and Pau?

Perkins is a proven commodity against them. Not Boozer, who has barely played a lick of defense ever.

The biggest worry for me is that Boozer would just be a one year rental.  He has a penchant for seeking the biggest contract he can get (as many players do.)  But I don't think there is any sense of loyalty with Boozer and I'm sure he would go to the highest bidder next season.  I wouldn't want to lose Perkins for that, even though his talent is off the charts. 

No.  We'd be worse with Boozer at C instead of Perkins.

Bank on it.

Not worth losing Perk to rent Boozer for a year, anyway.

Sheed would be playing Center full time then. I don't think we'd be a worse team, but the key is could we save Utah money this year in the deal. I don't think we're well positioned to do that.

Quote from: Rondoholic on July 16, 2009, 12:30:01 PM

No thanks.  We won't be able to re-sign Boozer, so I'd rather hold on to Perk.

of course we could re-sign Boozer.  Allen is coming off the book, so even if he stays it will be at a greatly reduced rate.  The money saved on Allen plus what Perkins would have made would be about what Boozer would make.  And Perkins is due for a contract in the summer of 2011 and he will be getting a big raise.  I'd much rather pay boozer than perkins.

Most of that money is going to Rondo. I wouldn't do that deal. Boozer is a liability defensively, injury prone, wouldn't be happy with his role and will probably be overpaid next year due to him being unrestricted and teams losing out on guys like Lebron/Wade/Bosh/Stoudemire so they will want to salvage their cap space by going after guys like Boozer.

Boozer is a cancer, unloyal, often injured, and a loser.

Yes, if you detected some biased sentiment against him in what I just said, you are absolutely correct haha. He is not a center, shows no interest on the defensive end, and takes too many bad shots. He's got good numbers, but that's about it. He should be going to the Clippers. We may score more points, but we would give up more as well.

Rasheed can play center, but he's a C/PF combo, and there would be no center off the bench. I sure as heck wouldn't start Boozer at C.

And last but not least, if you have a starting 5 that ain't broke, why try to fix it? The problem last year wasn't our starters; it was our bench. We are well on our way to fixing that problem this year with Sheed.

Don't forget our 27-2 start last season!

No.


1) He is unsigned after this season.

2) Either he or KG will be forced to play the C position.  Boozer shouldn't.  KG hates it.  Either way, one of them takes to much physical banging.

3) It weakens the interior defense. 


This is one of those cases where the better overal talent is the lesser fit for the team.  If the core was younger, then you might be more apt to pull the trigger.  But Perkins at C gives the Celtics a better chance to win a title this season then Boozer.

My thinking was Boozer is 27 and a legitimate second tier type player (you know all star level).  You upgrade there, and I just see the C's as having a much longer window.  Yeah it would force KG to play center, but most centers are like PF's these days anyway.  Shaq is the only big center in the east and he is older than crap. 

There are also a few veteran big men out there still that the C's could add as some extra insurance.

Also it looks like Boozer is looking for 14 million a year, which is a lot, but not max.