What's new
By:

Sign and trade ideas for Boozer.

Darkwing Duck said:
?

He makes 13, 14, then 15 million the next three years, for a player worse offensively AND defensively than Boozer.
Click to expand...

Thought his contract was 11mil for 2 more years...

Well now im all outta options.....We wont get what he is worth atleast in the bigs department.
 
The Jazz cannot take back any kind of significant longterm salary for Boozer. If they're going to take back similar salary for similar years as a new Boozer contract, then the Jazz should just re-sign Boozer. The Jazz will get nothing better as they're 3rd in the negotiation chain in most circumstances.

That said, Boozer for Battier, Jeffries, and one of their likely multiple 1st rounders. At least in that situation, we get Battier's Bird Rights, only one year of significant salary, and a pick moving forward. That's about the best the Jazz are going to get balancing all factors, and even then I think it's too sweet for the Jazz (and yet also too much of a price for essentially Battier as a rental + future rights and a draft pick).
 
Last edited:
NUMBERICA said:
The Jazz cannot take back any kind of significant longterm salary for Boozer. If they're going to take back similar salary for similar years as a new Boozer contract, then the Jazz should just re-sign Boozer. The Jazz will get nothing better as they're 3rd in the negotiation chain in most circumstances.

That said, Boozer for Battier, Jeffries, and one of their likely multiple 1st rounders. At least in that situation, we get Battier's Bird Rights, only one year of significant salary, and a pick moving forward. That's about the best the Jazz are going to get balancing all factors, and even then I think it's too sweet for the Jazz (and yet also too much of a price for essentially Battier as a rental + future rights and a draft pick).
Click to expand...

I would take that trade. I'm a big Battier fan and think he would be a great player on this Jazz team. Boozer for Battier is a J Malone for Horny kind of trade that would be great for this team if they can retain Battier.
 
At the risk of being lambasted by the lot of you, why do we (as fans) care about salary?

Yes, I understand that salaries have to match in order to get trades to go through, etc., but why should we care about how bad the luxury tax hurts Greg?

Isn't it his job to give us the best team possible? If that means we are $20M over the cap, what necessarily makes me care? (Aside from Greg having to raise ticket prices a few percentage points).
 
Being over the cap hamstrings you in doing a lot of stuff. You can't take on salary, getting paid to do so. How do you think we got the Knicks pick? We took on salary and got the pick for our troubles. Constantly over the cap is not the best business decision to win ball games. Just ask James Dolan that. Being flexible is the best way to win, especially for a small market team.

Plus, if the owner starts losing money, maybe he sells the team, and who knows where the Jazz end up if that happens.
 
I'm not saying we should spend wildly re: James Dolan; of course any hypothetical going-over-the-cap should be done intelligently (ok, maybe this is getting out of the purview of the Jazz FO by now). If it makes sense to pick up Superstar Free Agent X, then do it (all assumptions included: he'll fit in the offense, won't be a team cancer, etc.).

Yes, I understand that many teams who are over the cap don't win the championship every year (case in point would be the Yankees). That is, you can't simply buy your way to a championship. But intelligently exceeding the cap with free agents makes sense to us, as fans, if it nets us a championship. In the meantime, I don't particularly care if it means the Millers have to sell the Lear Jet to finance it.
 
chemdude1232 said:
I'm not saying we should spend wildly re: James Dolan; of course any hypothetical going-over-the-cap should be done intelligently (ok, maybe this is getting out of the purview of the Jazz FO by now). If it makes sense to pick up Superstar Free Agent X, then do it (all assumptions included: he'll fit in the offense, won't be a team cancer, etc.).

Yes, I understand that many teams who are over the cap don't win the championship every year (case in point would be the Yankees). That is, you can't simply buy your way to a championship. But intelligently exceeding the cap with free agents makes sense to us, as fans, if it nets us a championship. In the meantime, I don't particularly care if it means the Millers have to sell the Lear Jet to finance it.
Click to expand...

Can only do that with the mid level and biannual exceptions. That's why you don't go over. This year, it seems like the Jazz will have to use some of that money to resign Matthews, leaving few free agents available.
 
Let's be real. We keep talking about not being bogged down by salary so that we have flexibility. Does anyone honestly think that should this hypothetical ever come into fruition that we will actually utilize the flexibility?
 
infection said:
Let's be real. We keep talking about not being bogged down by salary so that we have flexibility. Does anyone honestly think that should this hypothetical ever come into fruition that we will actually utilize the flexibility?
Click to expand...

Absorbing Tom Chambers to get the Knick pick is one example. Plus, the Jazz have been financially inflexible since the Boozer/Okur signings, which was a very good use of flexibility, as well.
 
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 must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top