What's new
By:

Boozer double-crosses Nets. What else is new, eh?

I'm still kinda wonderin, eh, Borat? If Boozer end up playin only 20 games for the Bulls next year, will you come on this board and pontificate about the stupidity of the Bulls while praisin the astuteness of the Jazz? Or will you just say that such circumstances were unforeseeable, and therefore maintain that the Jazz are still stupid and the Bulls still geniuses?
 
Hopper said:
I'm still kinda wonderin, eh, Borat? If Boozer end up playin only 20 games for the Bulls next year, will you come on this board and pontificate about the stupidity of the Bulls while praisin the astuteness of the Jazz? Or will you just say that such circumstances were unforeseeable, and therefore maintain that the Jazz are still stupid and the Bulls still geniuses?
Click to expand...

I am not saying anything different today I was not saying a year ago, when I was posting on this very board about extending Booz.
 
Borat said:
I am not saying anything different today I was not saying a year ago, when I was posting on this very board about extending Booz.
Click to expand...

I think we get that Borat. You are sayin, over and over, I TOLD YOU SO!! But you still haven't foretold the future for the next 4-5 years, so what have you told us, ya know? I said, given the information the Jazz had, I could see why they would be reluctant to gamble another 4-5 years on him. Your response was "but, given the information they had one year later, maybe they were wrong." Well, aint that special, eh?
 
Hopper said:
I think we get that Borat. You are sayin, over and over, I TOLD YOU SO!! But you still haven't foretold the future for the next 4-5 years, so what have you told us, ya know? I said, given the information the Jazz had, I could see why they would be reluctant to gamble another 4-5 years on him. Your response was "but, given the information they had one year later, maybe they were wrong." Well, aint that special, eh?
Click to expand...

Given the information Jazz had a year ago, I thought we should have bought low. That's all I am saying.
 
Okay as one of the ultimate Boozer haters here.

I say WTF did this matter? He chose the best offer for him. Better team, more money, city he has publicly stated he wanted to play for. So why is this an issue? Only because it's Boozer. And as big of a hater as I am I can't blame him for this one.
 
Borat said:
After he said that about a raise, he was injured and did not produce good numbers. That's why he even accepted 1 year 12 mil dollar player option. That's 1 year deal worth 12 mil. If Jazz said - instead of 1 year 12 mil deal, you can have 6 year 70-72 mil (same amount annually as 1 year option he just accepted, but with a lot of long term security), you think Booz would have said no in that situation? I doubt it. But Jazz didn't even bother to find out. Instead Greg Miller said Booz was not even in plans. Way to go, brains of the Jazz.
Click to expand...
for sure they should have traded him at the deadline or last off season. But giving Boozer 6 years would have been retarded. Kind of like Chicago who will regret giving this loser this contract.
 
Hopper said:
OK, and the Jazz didn't. But don't run around claimin you were right and they were wrong just yet, eh?
Click to expand...

If Jazz did as I said, we would not lose 20 and 10 guy for nothing, and had him for a lot less than 2 other teams offered him too. Maybe even we could trade it to these teams and get some value back - not that we would, but we could if we wanted to. We would be sitting quite pretty now, that's for sure. Following what you thought was right just cost us losing 20 and 10 talent for nothing in return. Now, that ain't pretty.
 
Borat said:
Following what you thought was right just cost us losing 20 and 10 talent for nothing in return. Now, that ain't pretty.
Click to expand...

We didn't lose him for "nothing." We "lost" him at a savings of $12-15 million a year. If I don't buy a new Mercedes for $200,000, have I lost a car "for nothing?"
 
Borat said:
After he said that about a raise, he was injured and did not produce good numbers. That's why he even accepted 1 year 12 mil dollar player option. That's 1 year deal worth 12 mil. If Jazz said - instead of 1 year 12 mil deal, you can have 6 year 70-72 mil (same amount annually as 1 year option he just accepted, but with a lot of long term security), you think Booz would have said no in that situation? I doubt it. But Jazz didn't even bother to find out. Instead Greg Miller said Booz was not even in plans. Way to go, brains of the Jazz.
Click to expand...
Yes, I do think he would have turned that down.

Look, Boozer is a Dukie. He's not dumb. And neither is Pelinka. They knew there would be 8-9 MAX "slots" available and only 5 MAX players. That meant the teams missing out on the marquee players (Amare, Lebron, Wade, Bosh and Johnson) would need to sign a guy like Boozer to save face. Can you imagine a Miami, Chicago or New York - teams that have been telling their fan bases for the last couple of years that they've been positioning themselves for this off-season - coming away with nothing? We'll never know for sure, but I think there's little chance Boozer would have slinked back to the Jazz for what he was already making. He knew in the Jazz offense he could put up 20/10. I would guess his asking price may have been in the $15M/per for 6yrs range, even with a "home-town" discount. I suspect he'll have a great Year #1 in Chicago: he'll want to impress. But let's see what he does after that...and if he stays healthy.
 
Borat said:
If Jazz did as I said...
Click to expand...

That introductory clause, in itself, leads me to suspect that we'll be seein plenty of Boozer threads from you for years to come, eh, Borat? Threads like "BOOZER HAS 25 & 15 NIGHT FOR CHICAGO!," and such. Or maybe they'll be less indirect and simply say: "I TOLD YOU SO!," over and over, eh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top