Kooky Trade Idea: Boozer and Kirilenko to the Cs

[ssspence]

Well we know they want to shed some salary, and we know they want to get out of AK's contract.

What about Ray for AK, Ronnie Brewer, CJ Miles?



or

Ray, Giddens, Walker, our #1 for AK, Brewer, Harpring (just dead money, not playing) and the Knicks #1?

They are not going to trade Brewer (and especially not the Knicks pick) just to get rid of 1 year of AK's salary.  

If they really want to get rid of AK, they could have done it already.  They want value back for him.  And while Ray could be value back, he is not enough for them to throw in the guy who would be AK's replacement at SF.

My guess is that the only guy the Jazz will be getting rid of this year is Boozer...and it will probably be for another expiring contract, and a pick or two.  Then they will reload next year with the Knicks pick, and look to trade AK's expiring contract for an elite SG.

Kirilenko has been on the block for years. What makes you think they can expect to get value for him when he's due $17mil next year? What team is an example of one who would be willing to add him straight up, and give up something of value in return? I'd settle for one scenario. Please keep in mind they got terrible offers for Boozer (i.e. Udonis Haslem).

The proposal I suggest provides them:

1) a great shooting guard, which they badly need;

2) a nice amount of cap space next year;

3) renewed chemistry, which williams has been asking for;

4) alot of $$$. Their salary is reduced by around $4MM this year. Considering they are currently projected to be luxary tax payers, that's around around $8mil -- that's a nice chunk of change. however, when you add the fact that the Jazz hope to have Harpering retire before the tax deadline, they'll be within $2mil of the tax threashold, which was their original goal in trading boozer anyway. This is not even to mention saving them the lux tax next year when the cap will likely go down.

By the way, they have the Knicks pick and their own next year -- why wouldn't they trade Boozer now for an All-Star and a good rotation player (Baby) now to save $8mil and avoid paying Kirilenko for another year while they wait to trade him in 2010? Who is going to give them a high pick for Boozer anyway? Not a contender, because they won't have a high pick to begin with so you end up with a late first you have to pay -- I'd rather have Glen Davis.

I'm surprised to hear someone suggest it isn't a good deal for the Jazz. My question was more what folks thought about it for the Cs.       

[CelticG1]

Well we know they want to shed some salary, and we know they want to get out of AK's contract.

What about Ray for AK, Ronnie Brewer, CJ Miles?



or

Ray, Giddens, Walker, our #1 for AK, Brewer, Harpring (just dead money, not playing) and the Knicks #1?

They are not going to trade Brewer (and especially not the Knicks pick) just to get rid of 1 year of AK's salary.  

If they really want to get rid of AK, they could have done it already.  They want value back for him.  And while Ray could be value back, he is not enough for them to throw in the guy who would be AK's replacement at SF.

My guess is that the only guy the Jazz will be getting rid of this year is Boozer...and it will probably be for another expiring contract, and a pick or two.  Then they will reload next year with the Knicks pick, and look to trade AK's expiring contract for an elite SG.

Kirilenko has been on the block for years. What makes you think they can expect to get value for him when he's due $17mil next year? What team is an example of one who would be willing to add him straight up, and give up something of value in return? I'd settle for one scenario. Please keep in mind they got terrible offers for Boozer (i.e. Udonis Haslem).

The proposal I suggest provides them:

1) a great shooting guard, which they badly need;

2) a nice amount of cap space next year;

3) renewed chemistry, which williams has been asking for;

4) alot of $$$. Their salary is reduced by around $4MM this year. Considering they are currently projected to be luxary tax payers, that's around around $8mil -- that's a nice chunk of change. however, when you add the fact that the Jazz hope to have Harpering retire before the tax deadline, they'll be within $2mil of the tax threashold, which was their original goal in trading boozer anyway. This is not even to mention saving them the lux tax next year when the cap will likely go down.

By the way, they have the Knicks pick and their own next year -- why wouldn't they trade Boozer now for an All-Star and a good rotation player (Baby) now to save $8mil and avoid paying Kirilenko for another year while they wait to trade him in 2010? Who is going to give them a high pick for Boozer anyway? Not a contender, because they won't have a high pick to begin with so you end up with a late first you have to pay -- I'd rather have Glen Davis.

I'm surprised to hear someone suggest it isn't a good deal for the Jazz. My question was more what folks thought about it for the Cs.       

I definitely think it would be a good deal for the Jazz. I'm not really sold on it for the C's side. My main reason for this is that I don't think that Pierce is a good fit at SG. As he's gotten older and bigger I don't really see him being able to produce consistently (mainly on defense) night in and night out at that position and I think it could really take a toll on him.  Not to mention that although it's not a huge change of position he would definitely have to adjust to it. I think AK47 is a decent fit. I don't think people are giving him enough credit and I actually think he is a pretty decent defender. I don't think I do this deal though because our starting line up IMO gets worse. Our bench definitely gets better but I think it's the starters and the best players that win you championships. I think Ray- Pierce is definitely better than Pierce-AK47. I know Ray had his struggles at times in each of the past 2 post seasons but he is still Ray Allen. He draws a lot of attention and opens things up even if he is shooting terribly. It's not like people sag off him like they do on Rondo. A lot of defensive schemes are circled around Ray especially in the playoffs and that opens things up for other guys. Even though Ray played pretty poorly in the Orlando series it's hard to tell if him just being on the floor helped the C's get as far as they did. We could have had AK47 playing in those games and filling out the stat sheet but still doesn't necessarily mean that we would have done any better.

[ssspence]

Well we know they want to shed some salary, and we know they want to get out of AK's contract.

What about Ray for AK, Ronnie Brewer, CJ Miles?



or

Ray, Giddens, Walker, our #1 for AK, Brewer, Harpring (just dead money, not playing) and the Knicks #1?

They are not going to trade Brewer (and especially not the Knicks pick) just to get rid of 1 year of AK's salary.  

If they really want to get rid of AK, they could have done it already.  They want value back for him.  And while Ray could be value back, he is not enough for them to throw in the guy who would be AK's replacement at SF.

My guess is that the only guy the Jazz will be getting rid of this year is Boozer...and it will probably be for another expiring contract, and a pick or two.  Then they will reload next year with the Knicks pick, and look to trade AK's expiring contract for an elite SG.

Kirilenko has been on the block for years. What makes you think they can expect to get value for him when he's due $17mil next year? What team is an example of one who would be willing to add him straight up, and give up something of value in return? I'd settle for one scenario. Please keep in mind they got terrible offers for Boozer (i.e. Udonis Haslem).

The proposal I suggest provides them:

1) a great shooting guard, which they badly need;

2) a nice amount of cap space next year;

3) renewed chemistry, which williams has been asking for;

4) alot of $$$. Their salary is reduced by around $4MM this year. Considering they are currently projected to be luxary tax payers, that's around around $8mil -- that's a nice chunk of change. however, when you add the fact that the Jazz hope to have Harpering retire before the tax deadline, they'll be within $2mil of the tax threashold, which was their original goal in trading boozer anyway. This is not even to mention saving them the lux tax next year when the cap will likely go down.

By the way, they have the Knicks pick and their own next year -- why wouldn't they trade Boozer now for an All-Star and a good rotation player (Baby) now to save $8mil and avoid paying Kirilenko for another year while they wait to trade him in 2010? Who is going to give them a high pick for Boozer anyway? Not a contender, because they won't have a high pick to begin with so you end up with a late first you have to pay -- I'd rather have Glen Davis.

I'm surprised to hear someone suggest it isn't a good deal for the Jazz. My question was more what folks thought about it for the Cs.       

I definitely think it would be a good deal for the Jazz. I'm not really sold on it for the C's side. My main reason for this is that I don't think that Pierce is a good fit at SG. As he's gotten older and bigger I don't really see him being able to produce consistently (mainly on defense) night in and night out at that position and I think it could really take a toll on him.  Not to mention that although it's not a huge change of position he would definitely have to adjust to it. I think AK47 is a decent fit. I don't think people are giving him enough credit and I actually think he is a pretty decent defender. I don't think I do this deal though because our starting line up IMO gets worse. Our bench definitely gets better but I think it's the starters and the best players that win you championships. I think Ray- Pierce is definitely better than Pierce-AK47. I know Ray had his struggles at times in each of the past 2 post seasons but he is still Ray Allen. He draws a lot of attention and opens things up even if he is shooting terribly. It's not like people sag off him like they do on Rondo. A lot of defensive schemes are circled around Ray especially in the playoffs and that opens things up for other guys. Even though Ray played pretty poorly in the Orlando series it's hard to tell if him just being on the floor helped the C's get as far as they did. We could have had AK47 playing in those games and filling out the stat sheet but still doesn't necessarily mean that we would have done any better.

TP for raising the biggest issue here -- PP's ability to move over to the two. To me this would be the biggest liability. If one had faith in his ability to thrive there, this deal would be a dunk.

[Chris]

Well we know they want to shed some salary, and we know they want to get out of AK's contract.

What about Ray for AK, Ronnie Brewer, CJ Miles?



or

Ray, Giddens, Walker, our #1 for AK, Brewer, Harpring (just dead money, not playing) and the Knicks #1?

They are not going to trade Brewer (and especially not the Knicks pick) just to get rid of 1 year of AK's salary.  

If they really want to get rid of AK, they could have done it already.  They want value back for him.  And while Ray could be value back, he is not enough for them to throw in the guy who would be AK's replacement at SF.

My guess is that the only guy the Jazz will be getting rid of this year is Boozer...and it will probably be for another expiring contract, and a pick or two.  Then they will reload next year with the Knicks pick, and look to trade AK's expiring contract for an elite SG.

Kirilenko has been on the block for years. What makes you think they can expect to get value for him when he's due $17mil next year? What team is an example of one who would be willing to add him straight up, and give up something of value in return? I'd settle for one scenario. Please keep in mind they got terrible offers for Boozer (i.e. Udonis Haslem).

The proposal I suggest provides them:

1) a great shooting guard, which they badly need;

2) a nice amount of cap space next year;

3) renewed chemistry, which williams has been asking for;

4) alot of $$$. Their salary is reduced by around $4MM this year. Considering they are currently projected to be luxary tax payers, that's around around $8mil -- that's a nice chunk of change. however, when you add the fact that the Jazz hope to have Harpering retire before the tax deadline, they'll be within $2mil of the tax threashold, which was their original goal in trading boozer anyway. This is not even to mention saving them the lux tax next year when the cap will likely go down.

By the way, they have the Knicks pick and their own next year -- why wouldn't they trade Boozer now for an All-Star and a good rotation player (Baby) now to save $8mil and avoid paying Kirilenko for another year while they wait to trade him in 2010? Who is going to give them a high pick for Boozer anyway? Not a contender, because they won't have a high pick to begin with so you end up with a late first you have to pay -- I'd rather have Glen Davis.

I'm surprised to hear someone suggest it isn't a good deal for the Jazz. My question was more what folks thought about it for the Cs.       

Well, you can think what you want, but I am telling you, they are not giving away their second best young player, and a potential top 3 pick just to lose 1 year of Kirilenko's salary. 

So you can trade Ray for Kirilenko.  You may even get one of their own (protected) first round picks to go along with it.  But you are proposing a deal that is absolute highway robbery, and unfortunately, Isiah Thomas is not running the Jazz.

[ssspence]

Well we know they want to shed some salary, and we know they want to get out of AK's contract.

What about Ray for AK, Ronnie Brewer, CJ Miles?



or

Ray, Giddens, Walker, our #1 for AK, Brewer, Harpring (just dead money, not playing) and the Knicks #1?

They are not going to trade Brewer (and especially not the Knicks pick) just to get rid of 1 year of AK's salary.  

If they really want to get rid of AK, they could have done it already.  They want value back for him.  And while Ray could be value back, he is not enough for them to throw in the guy who would be AK's replacement at SF.

My guess is that the only guy the Jazz will be getting rid of this year is Boozer...and it will probably be for another expiring contract, and a pick or two.  Then they will reload next year with the Knicks pick, and look to trade AK's expiring contract for an elite SG.

Kirilenko has been on the block for years. What makes you think they can expect to get value for him when he's due $17mil next year? What team is an example of one who would be willing to add him straight up, and give up something of value in return? I'd settle for one scenario. Please keep in mind they got terrible offers for Boozer (i.e. Udonis Haslem).

The proposal I suggest provides them:

1) a great shooting guard, which they badly need;

2) a nice amount of cap space next year;

3) renewed chemistry, which williams has been asking for;

4) alot of $$$. Their salary is reduced by around $4MM this year. Considering they are currently projected to be luxary tax payers, that's around around $8mil -- that's a nice chunk of change. however, when you add the fact that the Jazz hope to have Harpering retire before the tax deadline, they'll be within $2mil of the tax threashold, which was their original goal in trading boozer anyway. This is not even to mention saving them the lux tax next year when the cap will likely go down.

By the way, they have the Knicks pick and their own next year -- why wouldn't they trade Boozer now for an All-Star and a good rotation player (Baby) now to save $8mil and avoid paying Kirilenko for another year while they wait to trade him in 2010? Who is going to give them a high pick for Boozer anyway? Not a contender, because they won't have a high pick to begin with so you end up with a late first you have to pay -- I'd rather have Glen Davis.

I'm surprised to hear someone suggest it isn't a good deal for the Jazz. My question was more what folks thought about it for the Cs.       

Well, you can think what you want, but I am telling you, they are not giving away their second best young player, and a potential top 3 pick just to lose 1 year of Kirilenko's salary. 

So you can trade Ray for Kirilenko.  You may even get one of their own (protected) first round picks to go along with it.  But you are proposing a deal that is absolute highway robbery, and unfortunately, Isiah Thomas is not running the Jazz.

I don't follow. My proposal is Boozer and AK for Ray, Baby and Scal. I'm not asking for their second best young player (Millsap) or the Knicks pick. I think you're misunderstanding me.

[Chris]

Well we know they want to shed some salary, and we know they want to get out of AK's contract.

What about Ray for AK, Ronnie Brewer, CJ Miles?



or

Ray, Giddens, Walker, our #1 for AK, Brewer, Harpring (just dead money, not playing) and the Knicks #1?

They are not going to trade Brewer (and especially not the Knicks pick) just to get rid of 1 year of AK's salary.  

If they really want to get rid of AK, they could have done it already.  They want value back for him.  And while Ray could be value back, he is not enough for them to throw in the guy who would be AK's replacement at SF.

My guess is that the only guy the Jazz will be getting rid of this year is Boozer...and it will probably be for another expiring contract, and a pick or two.  Then they will reload next year with the Knicks pick, and look to trade AK's expiring contract for an elite SG.

Kirilenko has been on the block for years. What makes you think they can expect to get value for him when he's due $17mil next year? What team is an example of one who would be willing to add him straight up, and give up something of value in return? I'd settle for one scenario. Please keep in mind they got terrible offers for Boozer (i.e. Udonis Haslem).

The proposal I suggest provides them:

1) a great shooting guard, which they badly need;

2) a nice amount of cap space next year;

3) renewed chemistry, which williams has been asking for;

4) alot of $$$. Their salary is reduced by around $4MM this year. Considering they are currently projected to be luxary tax payers, that's around around $8mil -- that's a nice chunk of change. however, when you add the fact that the Jazz hope to have Harpering retire before the tax deadline, they'll be within $2mil of the tax threashold, which was their original goal in trading boozer anyway. This is not even to mention saving them the lux tax next year when the cap will likely go down.

By the way, they have the Knicks pick and their own next year -- why wouldn't they trade Boozer now for an All-Star and a good rotation player (Baby) now to save $8mil and avoid paying Kirilenko for another year while they wait to trade him in 2010? Who is going to give them a high pick for Boozer anyway? Not a contender, because they won't have a high pick to begin with so you end up with a late first you have to pay -- I'd rather have Glen Davis.

I'm surprised to hear someone suggest it isn't a good deal for the Jazz. My question was more what folks thought about it for the Cs.       

Well, you can think what you want, but I am telling you, they are not giving away their second best young player, and a potential top 3 pick just to lose 1 year of Kirilenko's salary. 

So you can trade Ray for Kirilenko.  You may even get one of their own (protected) first round picks to go along with it.  But you are proposing a deal that is absolute highway robbery, and unfortunately, Isiah Thomas is not running the Jazz.

I don't follow. My proposal is Boozer and AK for Ray, Baby and Scal. I'm not asking for their second best young player (Millsap) or the Knicks pick. I think you're misunderstanding me.

My bad, I thought you were talking about the trades in the post I responded to (the ones including Brewer...who I think is a better prospect than Millsap...and the Knicks pick).

The Jazz would likely think hard about your proposal, but it wouldn't work for the C's unless they had another deal set up that spins one of those guys for a true wing.  This team does not get better by giving up a guy they are thin behind for two guys whose natural position happens to be the position they are deepest with NBA talent at. 

Now, if they could spin Kirilenko or Boozer off to Phoenix for Richardson, then it might make some sense.  But as it stands, it is not the type of deal a team as good as the Celtics should be making.

[ssspence]

Well we know they want to shed some salary, and we know they want to get out of AK's contract.

What about Ray for AK, Ronnie Brewer, CJ Miles?



or

Ray, Giddens, Walker, our #1 for AK, Brewer, Harpring (just dead money, not playing) and the Knicks #1?

They are not going to trade Brewer (and especially not the Knicks pick) just to get rid of 1 year of AK's salary.  

If they really want to get rid of AK, they could have done it already.  They want value back for him.  And while Ray could be value back, he is not enough for them to throw in the guy who would be AK's replacement at SF.

My guess is that the only guy the Jazz will be getting rid of this year is Boozer...and it will probably be for another expiring contract, and a pick or two.  Then they will reload next year with the Knicks pick, and look to trade AK's expiring contract for an elite SG.

Kirilenko has been on the block for years. What makes you think they can expect to get value for him when he's due $17mil next year? What team is an example of one who would be willing to add him straight up, and give up something of value in return? I'd settle for one scenario. Please keep in mind they got terrible offers for Boozer (i.e. Udonis Haslem).

The proposal I suggest provides them:

1) a great shooting guard, which they badly need;

2) a nice amount of cap space next year;

3) renewed chemistry, which williams has been asking for;

4) alot of $$$. Their salary is reduced by around $4MM this year. Considering they are currently projected to be luxary tax payers, that's around around $8mil -- that's a nice chunk of change. however, when you add the fact that the Jazz hope to have Harpering retire before the tax deadline, they'll be within $2mil of the tax threashold, which was their original goal in trading boozer anyway. This is not even to mention saving them the lux tax next year when the cap will likely go down.

By the way, they have the Knicks pick and their own next year -- why wouldn't they trade Boozer now for an All-Star and a good rotation player (Baby) now to save $8mil and avoid paying Kirilenko for another year while they wait to trade him in 2010? Who is going to give them a high pick for Boozer anyway? Not a contender, because they won't have a high pick to begin with so you end up with a late first you have to pay -- I'd rather have Glen Davis.

I'm surprised to hear someone suggest it isn't a good deal for the Jazz. My question was more what folks thought about it for the Cs.       

Well, you can think what you want, but I am telling you, they are not giving away their second best young player, and a potential top 3 pick just to lose 1 year of Kirilenko's salary. 

So you can trade Ray for Kirilenko.  You may even get one of their own (protected) first round picks to go along with it.  But you are proposing a deal that is absolute highway robbery, and unfortunately, Isiah Thomas is not running the Jazz.

I don't follow. My proposal is Boozer and AK for Ray, Baby and Scal. I'm not asking for their second best young player (Millsap) or the Knicks pick. I think you're misunderstanding me.

My bad, I thought you were talking about the trades in the post I responded to (the ones including Brewer...who I think is a better prospect than Millsap...and the Knicks pick).

The Jazz would likely think hard about your proposal, but it wouldn't work for the C's unless they had another deal set up that spins one of those guys for a true wing.  This team does not get better by giving up a guy they are thin behind for two guys whose natural position happens to be the position they are deepest with NBA talent at. 

Now, if they could spin Kirilenko or Boozer off to Phoenix for Richardson, then it might make some sense.  But as it stands, it is not the type of deal a team as good as the Celtics should be making.

Maybe. As I pointed out in a post above, PP isn't really capable of being a 2 for extended minutes anymore which hurts this concept (about as much as it hurts to listen to Tanguay and Marshall every night -- how long before they're fired?). But the talent on the floor for the 2010 Celtics is undeniable in this deal. I added that we'd need to include someone like Stack to this (say, Marquis in extended minutes at the 2 with Eddie and Stack seeing time) to hope to manage positional issues. But i have real concerns about this team's speed and lateral ability as it's currently constituted. MAN do they look old and slow. Am i the only one who sees how slow the starters look outside of Rondo?

[Atzar]

I don't like this deal, because I don't like Kirilenko as a starter and I don't like Boozer off the bench.  If I trade any of the big 3 at this point, it's not for depth, it's for a future building block.  

[ssspence]

I don't like this deal, because I don't like Kirilenko as a starter and I don't like Boozer off the bench.  If I trade any of the big 3 at this point, it's not for depth, it's for a future building block.  

good luck with that. the window is now.

[Atzar]

I don't like this deal, because I don't like Kirilenko as a starter and I don't like Boozer off the bench.  If I trade any of the big 3 at this point, it's not for depth, it's for a future building block.  

good luck with that. the window is now.

By messing with the big 3, you probably lose us a year.  I'm not losing a year now if I don't gain a year or more later - and this trade doesn't do that for us.

[Fan from VT]

Who says no to:

Boozer to Washington

Kirkilenko, Miller, Mcgee to Boston

Ray and scal to Utah


Or

Foye, Mcgee, Haywood, Kirilenko to Boston

Boozer to washington

Ray and Scal to utah

[ssspence]

I don't like this deal, because I don't like Kirilenko as a starter and I don't like Boozer off the bench.  If I trade any of the big 3 at this point, it's not for depth, it's for a future building block.  

good luck with that. the window is now.

By messing with the big 3, you probably lose us a year.  I'm not losing a year now if I don't gain a year or more later - and this trade doesn't do that for us.

I'm sorry I don't buy that a year is lost by a trade in November. Guys should be able to gel over 4 months. But if that's the case then the deal should obviously not be done.

[Atzar]

By messing with the big 3, you probably lose us a year.  I'm not losing a year now if I don't gain a year or more later - and this trade doesn't do that for us.

I'm sorry I don't buy that a year is lost by a trade in November. Guys should be able to gel over 4 months. But if that's the case then the deal should obviously not be done.

In many cases, I'd agree that a team should gel over that time period.  However, in this case you kill our spacing.  I'm assuming that you plan to slide Pierce to the 2 and start Kirilenko at the 3, correct?  In that lineup, you have exactly 2 legit outside threats - Rondo, AK and Perk can't shoot.  Pierce is the only one with range from 3. 

You'd probably end up having to start Sheed for the necessary spacing.  If that happens, you'll never see an offensive rebound again from the starting unit.  Also, Perk coming off the bench means that we lose one of our advantages against Cleveland and Orlando relative to other teams - we have possibly the only center who can contain them over the course of a game without help, but that's hard to do from the bench.

I just don't see it working.  At the very least I'd want CJ Miles to be in this deal somewhere to give us a shooter, and as currently constructed I don't think this team can use Boozer effectively.  I think we'd have to work a third team in to come out ahead in this deal - I think Utah might like what we have to offer, but I'm not particularly fond of what they can give us in return (except for Miles). 


As an off-topic comment... is anybody else's reply window being weird?  It keeps trying to scroll while I'm typing...

[Bahku]

I wouldn't want either of these guys ... the players that they would be replacing are far better than they are, so what exactly is the point of this trade? I just don't think it makes much sense ... talent-wise as well as financially.

[greenhead85]

Boozer will be good for the team and an excellent power forward for as long his legs remains "springy" for the next 3 years. He'll be lacking height for the position once he'd slowed down.

I would rather have Zach Randolph for Ray Allen. At least we get some scoring and rebounding from a younger-than-Ray player. Plus he's more athletic and taller. Lastly, they're a match - salarywise - coming from  the trade checker.