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?
I guess I just don't think you build championship contenders by trying to put a bunch of square pieces in round holes.
By doing this trade, you would have arguably 2 of your top 3 player, and 3 of your top 6 as PF's. In order to get Kirilenko even on the floor, you would have to play him out of position at SF, and in the process, play Pierce out of position at SG.
Championship teams are made not only by talent, but by talent that fits well together. This would turn a team that fits together absolutely perfectly into an absolute mess.
yeah yeah, i hear the Big 3 argument loud and clear. i'd like to see another hawks game soon. i felt they were physically and athletically dominated in that game. they have time to get up to speed, but right now the only guy who can seem to get them going is rondo. too much settling for jumpers.
if they can get back to the level of ability they had in 2008, ok. if they continue to look as slow as they have, we need to consider a talent upgrade. living in the past could cost us a championship in what is a closing window.
i get that these deal is off the wall -- i'm far from convinced it would be a rousing success. but calling it a mess is just as far-fetched. the teams top 4 players would be rondo, KG, pierce and boozer, with a very deep, talented and diversified supporting cast.
by the way, kirilenko plays SF everyday. that's the position he plays. he wouldn't have to move anywhere. the only guy that moves is pierce.
I am not dismissing the idea of a big trade out of hand, because I don't want to mess with things. But I just think you need to look at fit just as much as talent.
And the fact that Kirilenko plays SF everyday does not mean that it his ideal position. He absolutely can play SF, but you are diminishing his productivity by asking him to play out of position, just like Utah has been doing for the last few years.
Ultimately, I think Kirilenko would be a great fit here as a 6th man, splitting his time backing up the SF and PF position. However, if you were also getting Boozer, it would mean he would really need to play exclusively as a SF, since Boozer will be splitting time at PF with KG, with Perk and Wallace at Center.
Now, if things fall apart this season, I think this would be a very interesting move if it were used as the precursor of other moves. But by itself, this absolutely does leave this team as a mess. A bunch of square pegs trying to be forced into round holes.
Topic: Kooky Trade Idea: Boozer and Kirilenko to the Cs (Read 18411 times)