Sign and trade ideas for Boozer.

[Darkwing Duck]

Granted, I'm not the best at the cap rules, but why couldn't we exceed the cap? Isn't that what the luxury tax is in place for? For teams who exceed the cap? With that being the case, we most certainly could exceed the cap regardless of MLEs or biannual exceptions.

And if it gets us one step closer to a championship - via this (increasingly) hypothetical Superstar Free Agent X - then so be it. Again, and maybe I'm alone on this, I don't really care if we go into luxury tax thresholds.

You cannot exceed the salary cap with free agents you don't have Bird rights to, namely other teams' free agents (Wesley Matthews is an exception; no one has Bird rights for him). Right now the Jazz are going to be about 4-6 million under. Subract the 3 or so million that the ninth pick's cap hold will be, and the Jazz will be about 2 million under the cap. This means the Jazz can ONLY spend 2 million dollars on free agents. The ONLY exceptions to this are Kyle Korver, Carlos Boozer, and Kyrylo Fesenko, all of whom the Jazz can offer up to the max salary scaled to years played in the league.

 

[chemdude1232]

Pretend that we are - whatever - $2 million under the cap. And now let's say that Superstar Free Agent X wants to sign with us for $10M/year. Are you are saying that the NBA would void the contract that Superstar Free Agent X would want to sign with us?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Pretend that we are - whatever - $2 million under the cap. And now let's say that Superstar Free Agent X wants to sign with us for $10M/year. Are you are saying that the NBA would void the contract that Superstar Free Agent X would want to sign with us?

Assuming he's not our free agent (which would give us Bird rights), then yes, the league would disallow the contract. It wouldn't get that far though since both parties would know that contract would be illegal so the team would never negotiate that contract with the player and the player wouldn't talk to the team since he knows the max they could offer him is 2 million.

 

[chemdude1232]

Thanks for clearing that up. Now, as a quick follow up question, could we sign-and-trade someone for Superstar Free Agent X? Let's say his team really, REALLY wants Price in return. Could we S&T Price for the full $10M? Or do Bird rights fall under purview of S&Ts too?

 

[infection]

Tom Chambers was mid 90's. If you're talking about Googs, then I think you need to take a look at what that situation really was. We turned expiring contracts into assets (draft picks). This would be akin to dealing Kirilenko, but the only reason someone would take Kirilenko is to get out of a contract. Everybody says no to deals like this beccause we need to preserve our "flexibility"... thus we never capitalize of said flexibility because it "leaves us less flexibile".

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Thanks for clearing that up. Now, as a quick follow up question, could we sign-and-trade someone for Superstar Free Agent X? Let's say his team really, REALLY wants Price in return. Could we S&T Price for the full $10M? Or do Bird rights fall under purview of S&Ts too?

Yes. First you sign, then you trade. Now, since nearly all Sign and Trades exist to circumvent the salary cap, the salary cap trade rules come into play. The total of the contracts both teams are trading has to be within 125% +100K of each other. In your scenario, though, you couldn't do it with Price this upcoming year since he makes only 1 Mil and change and "signing" Price now would just be extending his contract. 1 Mil and change doesn't come close to 10 mil.

 

[chemdude1232]

Right...I was just using Price as an example. Pretending like he was a FA, then that deal could happen, right?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Tom Chambers was mid 90's. If you're talking about Googs, then I think you need to take a look at what that situation really was. We turned expiring contracts into assets (draft picks). This would be akin to dealing Kirilenko, but the only reason someone would take Kirilenko is to get out of a contract. Everybody says no to deals like this beccause we need to preserve our "flexibility"... thus we never capitalize of said flexibility because it "leaves us less flexibile".

Yeah, my mistake, I meant Tom Gugliotta. And the reason I brought that up was to show that it's better to be under the cap than over it so you can pull off such deals. That was using the flexibilty the Jazz had. The Jazz were one of three teams under the cap in 2003-2004 and used it to gain an asset, the Knick pick. www.goodpayer.com/netgain/Net Gain Lesson 8.pdf

And as I mentioned before, the last time the Jazz had this flung about word, "flexibility," they signed Boozer and Okur, who both turned out quite well.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Right...I was just using Price as an example. Pretending like he was a FA, then that deal could happen, right?

Definitely. We'd have Bird rights on Price, so we could sign him up to the max, regardless of the salary cap. If the other team was willing to S&T the other guy, then the deal could be done under NBA rules.

 

[Bodhi]

And as I mentioned before, the last time the Jazz had this flung about word, "flexibility," they signed Boozer and Okur, who both turned out quite well.

You're absolutely right, but herein lies the problem that I see with the Jazz. Gaining flexibility with an eye towards free agent acquisitions, for the Jazz, will only ever net us guys like Boozer or Memo. Who at the time were "name" free agents but NOWHERE near the level of the kind of guys that will make you an immediate title contender. At the time both (Booz and Memo) were nice pieces but no one clamored that now the league had better watch out for the Jazz. We will only ever be able to sign those kind of guys and if there is another team interested at all, means we will be paying through the nose for said player. All for a guy that will be "a nice piece".

Our only real chance of acquiring a guy like that (potential superstar/all-star) is through being aggressive in the draft by targeting guys that can do that and giving, albeit serious, pieces away in the process to move into position to draft them. My argument though is that the pieces needed to make deals like that happen are less risky than paying guys far too much to come to Utah hoping they pan out. Guys in the draft HAVE to come to Utah and then we have 3-4 years to convince a guy to stay. Far from ideal but, IMO, the only way this franchise wins a title in my lifetime. It sure aint gonna happen by gaining "flexibility" for marquee free agents.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

You're absolutely right, but herein lies the problem that I see with the Jazz. Gaining flexibility with an eye towards free agent acquisitions, for the Jazz, will only ever net us guys like Boozer or Memo. Who at the time were "name" free agents but NOWHERE near the level of the kind of guys that will make you an immediate title contender. At the time both (Booz and Memo) were nice pieces but no one clamored that now the league had better watch out for the Jazz. We will only ever be able to sign those kind of guys and if there is another team interested at all, means we will be paying through the nose for said player. All for a guy that will be "a nice piece".

Our only real chance of acquiring a guy like that (potential superstar/all-star) is through being aggressive in the draft by targeting guys that can do that and giving, albeit serious, pieces away in the process to move into position to draft them. My argument though is that the pieces needed to make deals like that happen are less risky than paying guys far too much to come to Utah hoping they pan out. Guys in the draft HAVE to come to Utah and then we have 3-4 years to convince a guy to stay. Far from ideal but, IMO, the only way this franchise wins a title in my lifetime. It sure aint gonna happen by gaining "flexibility" for marquee free agents.

So what it comes down to in your opinion and getting back to the topic at hand, based on this post, that the Jazz should sign and trade Boozer to move up in the draft, since the the Jazz will likely not get a pick anywhere near #9 for the foreseeable future. Disregarding the logistics of it, having to sign and trade after the draft occurs, what chance is there of actually moving up? Only reason Boozer would accept a sign and trade is if the team he would go to agrees to six years. It's unlikely Boozer will receive the max offer from another team, so it would have to be the years that would get Carlos to accept a S&T.

Plus, there are only 8 teams to negotiate with, and I don't think using Boozer to get whoever the Clippers take would work. So that leaves 7. Washington is no doubt taking Wall, so that leaves six, Detroit, GS, Sacramento, Minnesota, NJ, Phily. How many of those cities would Boozer accept a sign and trade for?

Do we really want to trade Boozer within the division? Love, #4 for Boozer, #9? Why would Boozer accept that? Brand, #2 for Boozer, #9 has been thrown about. That's a huge risk on Brand with his monstrous three years guaranteed left. Plus, I've read Philadelphia think Turner and/or Favors is going to be a star, so getting Boozer and losing in their minds an all star isn't worth dumping Brand. And again, why would Boozer accept that deal?

What I've found in doing a small amount of research is that most moves fans here want are either impossible, highly improbable, or laughed away by the opposing teams. Thus, I doubt Boozer is traded, and it's more likely to keep him rather than S&T him. It's more likely he walks. Furthermore, the likelihood of moving up in the draft is just as unlikely. It also explains why there are fewer moves made by the Jazz, as the only ones seemingly available are lateral at best, and bend over and take it at worst.

 

[Bodhi]

So what it comes down to in your opinion and getting back to the topic at hand, based on this post, that the Jazz should sign and trade Boozer to move up in the draft, since the the Jazz will likely not get a pick anywhere near #9 for the foreseeable future. Disregarding the logistics of it, having to sign and trade after the draft occurs, what chance is there of actually moving up? Only reason Boozer would accept a sign and trade is if the team he would go to agrees to six years. It's unlikely Boozer will receive the max offer from another team, so it would have to be the years that would get Carlos to accept a S&T.

Plus, there are only 8 teams to negotiate with, and I don't think using Boozer to get whoever the Clippers take would work. So that leaves 7. Washington is no doubt taking Wall, so that leaves six, Detroit, GS, Sacramento, Minnesota, NJ, Phily. How many of those cities would Boozer accept a sign and trade for?

Do we really want to trade Boozer within the division? Love, #4 for Boozer, #9? Why would Boozer accept that? Brand, #2 for Boozer, #9 has been thrown about. That's a huge risk on Brand with his monstrous three years guaranteed left. Plus, I've read Philadelphia think Turner and/or Favors is going to be a star, so getting Boozer and losing in their minds an all star isn't worth dumping Brand. And again, why would Boozer accept that deal?

What I've found in doing a small amount of research is that most moves fans here want are either impossible, highly improbable, or laughed away by the opposing teams. Thus, I doubt Boozer is traded, and it's more likely to keep him rather than S&T him. It's more likely he walks. Furthermore, the likelihood of moving up in the draft is just as unlikely. It also explains why there are fewer moves made by the Jazz, as the only ones seemingly available are lateral at best, and bend over and take it at worst.

Thats my fault for not staying on topic. I in no way am saying to sign and trade Boozer for movement in the draft. I understand the CBA and am not a layman here. I was just commenting on the flexibility issue brought up. I would take on a bad contract though if it meant we would get a potential high draft pick (top 5 +/- depending on the depth of the draft and the guy being targeted) as in the Brand situation if it's at all true what Chad Ford is saying. Again, sorry for getting off topic on the Boozer thing.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

I'm as guilty as meandering a bit off topic as you were. I was just trying to tug it back to the topic title. Brand seems like so much a risk for #2. And I'm unsure Boozer and #9 is enough value for it anyway.

 

[Bodhi]

I'm as guilty as meandering a bit off topic as you were. I was just trying to tug it back to the topic title. Brand seems like so much a risk for #2. And I'm unsure Boozer and #9 is enough value for it anyway.

Haha, looks like I'm gonna continue to take this off topic a bit but I don't mean Boozer and 9 for Brand and 2 (for obvious reasons)......AK as an expiring and 9 for Brand and 2, IMO, IS worth it. Again, taking on that contract is no where near ideal but say Turner turns into a Roy type 20/5/5 kinda guy that can create his own shot and be a perennial all-star. We will never get a guy like that in free agency......EVER. We have to draft one, and IMO, need to make concessions to do it.

Sorry, last post off topic here.

 

[infection]

Yeah, my mistake, I meant Tom Gugliotta. And the reason I brought that up was to show that it's better to be under the cap than over it so you can pull off such deals. That was using the flexibilty the Jazz had. The Jazz were one of three teams under the cap in 2003-2004 and used it to gain an asset, the Knick pick. www.goodpayer.com/netgain/Net Gain Lesson 8.pdf

And as I mentioned before, the last time the Jazz had this flung about word, "flexibility," they signed Boozer and Okur, who both turned out quite well.

Yes, theoretically it would be nice to be under the cap so we can get more deals like that sent our way, but the only way we are under the cap in the near future is if we are in complete rebuilding mode, so these ideals tend to be mutually exclusive. So we will not be under the cap to sign a Boozer or an Okur. Especially considering that at that time we had to overpay to get them.

With regard to trading for Brand, these are the kind of deals we have to make. We can't plan around saving our chips until one day we cash them in for some huge superstar. The best deals that are going to come along where we cash in our chips would be things like a Kirilenko/#9 for Brand/#2. If we want something good we've got to give up something valuable in return (in this case cap space). If we pass on a deal like that to "conserve" our cap space for 'that day' when 'that guy' decides he wants to play in Utah and we are under the cap enough to obtain him, we will find that day will not come... and should it come we'd be faced with some bigger problems as due to the fact that we would be under the cap enough to sign him, it would be rather indicative of how good our team is (you don't see many teams with enough competitive players to be a contender if they're that far under the cap).

 

[Jazz4ever]

Yes, theoretically it would be nice to be under the cap so we can get more deals like that sent our way, but the only way we are under the cap in the near future is if we are in complete rebuilding mode, so these ideals tend to be mutually exclusive. So we will not be under the cap to sign a Boozer or an Okur. Especially considering that at that time we had to overpay to get them.

With regard to trading for Brand, these are the kind of deals we have to make. We can't plan around saving our chips until one day we cash them in for some huge superstar. The best deals that are going to come along where we cash in our chips would be things like a Kirilenko/#9 for Brand/#2. If we want something good we've got to give up something valuable in return (in this case cap space). If we pass on a deal like that to "conserve" our cap space for 'that day' when 'that guy' decides he wants to play in Utah and we are under the cap enough to obtain him, we will find that day will not come... and should it come we'd be faced with some bigger problems as due to the fact that we would be under the cap enough to sign him, it would be rather indicative of how good our team is (you don't see many teams with enough competitive players to be a contender if they're that far under the cap).

Not to mention DWill will bolt the first sign the Jazz are packing it in to go in a mini rebuilding mode. Turner would be a pretty good fit for the Jazz, he could even play PG when Deron goes out eliminating the never ending seach for a decent backup there.

 

[AKistheFEARFACTOR]

I know its old but Boozer for Lee still makes sense. Do Lee and Millsap play too much alike to play together?

 

[Kyoto]

I know its old but Boozer for Lee still makes sense. Do Lee and Millsap play too much alike to play together?

I think that Lee would demand too much money for it to make sense. I like Lee, but he really is a borderline all-star and not someone that will want to kill the salary cap over

 

[NUMBERICA]

80% of you don't understand why the Jazz need flexibility. It's not to go out and buy other teams' free agents, having the money allows the team to keep players they may acquire in the draft or in a trade. Right now, the Jazz are trying to stay under the LT yet will have close to $30 million tied up in ****-ing AK and Memo. Regardless of whether you like Boozer or not, you have to admit he's a lot more important to the team than either or that he could conceivably be used in a S&T to get back another good/great player. However, any realistic appraisal of the situation suggests the Jazz are out an all-star, their 2nd best player, and the big they run their sets through for nothing.

That's why you try to maintain flexibility, so you don't just have to let assets go for nothing. Or dumping assets currently under contract to be rid of a toxic contract (Maynor, Brand rumors). The Memo signing all but assured that. ****-ing awesome job, Gail.