What to do with AK?

[InGameStrategy]

Now I have heard it all. You think many teams will be lining up to give him 80 mil next year like they did for Booz?

I thought that another JazzFan just explained that market value does not equal market price. Maybe you didn't get the memo.

Just because AK doesn't get a mid-eight-figures contract next year doesn't mean that he's not close to the value to the Jazz that Boozer is--or more so--given that he plays on both ends of the court.

 

[write4u]

Unless AK has another All-Star season this year, no way he gets what Boozer gets. But I wouldn't be surprised, if he has a good year, to see a contract similar to the one Memo got.

 

[write4u]

I was thinking of my tif with Salty, the Loozer lover, who I once debated over and over who is better, AK or Boozer? Both of us undervalued our guy. I concede now that Boozer is a lot better than I portrayed him, but Salty continues to slam AK.

One classic example of what I mentioned earlier about AK guarding the best player in the 4th, was the game with Dallas late in the season when he guarded Nowitzki. Earlier in the season, Nowitzki had scored more than 20 points in a row in the 4th to lead the Mavs to a shocking comeback victory. AK never had a chance to guard Dirk in that game. Jerry stuck with Boozer, and then Okur, and I can't recall if he tried someone else, as well, maybe CJ. But he never tried AK, which a lot of us on here complained about. Well, in this game, not long before AK got hurt late in the season, he put AK on him and he held Dirk to two free throws the entire period. And of course, we won, going away.

This is what we mean that AK can still do it. He just needs to get his head on straight. Whether he will, that is the question. Maybe this is the year.

 

[Borat]

I thought that another JazzFan just explained that market value does not equal market price. Maybe you didn't get the memo.

Just because AK doesn't get a mid-eight-figures contract next year doesn't mean that he's not close to the value to the Jazz that Boozer is--or more so--given that he plays on both ends of the court.

InGame, market price and value might differ in inefficient markets, there is no argument there. However, that fact alone is not enough to justify Boozer getting 80 mil offers from 2 teams, whereas AK, as we all know, will not get anywhere near that number. Let's look at NBA labor market for a second. We had more than one teams with enough money to offer Boozer a contract, and 2 teams did. That alone might plant a seed of doubt of a theory of inefficient market, but I concede does not disprove it. Now, what is market inefficiency you are claiming here? And if there is an inefficiency why would it impact Boozer and not AK47? In other words, if one asset was able to command market price of 80 million, and according to you being overvalued, why wouldn't another asset of the same category, be overvalued as well? So, let's not just throw something out there, such as market price and value might differ in inefficient markets, and without any proof that it is indeed the case in this situation assume every contract does not represent market value. I agree some don't, but given the fact more than one team offered it to Booz, you would need more than just saying "market price and value might differ in inefficient markets" to justify that Booz's value is actually below that of AK. We both know that AK47 will not get 80 mil, because his value is lower than that of Boozer, and market price will reflect that - at least to a certain degree. Not because of any significant market inefficiencies. So, let's cut the BS, OK? Statement that AK is indisputably better than Booz is preposterous.

 

[gregbroncs]

This board is literally the only place I have ever seen where getting steals was considered a bad thing. Well, I guess it's a good thing when AK does it at least...

It's not like Brewer was getting lit up by his man (or having the other team design game winning plays by taking it right at him in an iso play at the end of the game).

Umm where did I say getting steals was a bad thing. It's only bad because it hurt the rest of the teams' defense by gambling far too much. Brewer's man did not isolate on him because they stood in the corner awaiting their wide open shot or went back door when he overplayed the passing lanes. Brewer was routinely out of position when his man got the ball and it broke down the whole defense on numerous occasions each game. Brewer was decent when his man had the ball (unless they were posting his soft *** up) it was when somebody else had the ball that he seemed to lose track of the guy he is supposed to be guarding. Like leaving jump shooters wide open when your up 3 with seconds left.

 

[Jazz4ever]

Now I have heard it all. You think many teams will be lining up to give him 80 mil next year like they did for Booz?

The only reason Boozer got that money was because he was the beneficiary of four teams clearing massive payroll to play in the Lebron sweepstakes. Teams cleared payroll thinking they would need to afford 2 max FA in order to get Lebron. We know how it turned out, but Boozer was a consolation prize for the losers (Bulls, NJ) of the sweepstakes to keep fans somewhat happy. Remember last year, Carlos 'Im getting a raise regardless" Boozer couldn't get anything on the open market. KOC also tried to trade him before the season thinking a team might want his bird rights....he had no value.

 

[InGameStrategy]

InGame, market price and value might differ in inefficient markets, there is no argument there. However, that fact alone is not enough to justify Boozer getting 80 mil offers from 2 teams, whereas AK, as we all know, will not get anywhere near that number. Let's look at NBA labor market for a second. We had more than one teams with enough money to offer Boozer a contract, and 2 teams did. That alone might plant a seed of doubt of a theory of inefficient market, but I concede does not disprove it. Now, what is market inefficiency you are claiming here? And if there is an inefficiency why would it impact Boozer and not AK47? In other words, if one asset was able to command market price of 80 million, and according to you being overvalued, why wouldn't another asset of the same category, be overvalued as well? So, let's not just throw something out there, such as market price and value might differ in inefficient markets, and without any proof that it is indeed the case in this situation assume every contract does not represent market value. I agree some don't, but given the fact more than one team offered it to Booz, you would need more than just saying "market price and value might differ in inefficient markets" to justify that Booz's value is actually below that of AK. We both know that AK47 will not get 80 mil, because his value is lower than that of Boozer, and market price will reflect that - at least to a certain degree. Not because of any significant market inefficiencies. So, let's cut the BS, OK? Statement that AK is indisputably better than Booz is preposterous.

Your dense diatribe appears to assume that the NBA 'market' is nearly efficient--which is patently false, given the inequitable intelligence and ego of NBA FOs/ownership; see Paul Allen and Wes Matthews' offer--and is irrelevant to whether AK (the recent AK) was and is as valuable to the Jazz as Boozer, if for no other reason than AK can score a bit and plays defense.

82games puts AK as slightly more valuable for the last season, and substantially more so two seasons ago, but I won't go that far.
https://www.82games.com/0910/0910UTA.HTM
https://www.82games.com/0809/0809UTA.HTM

 

[The Ghost of Blue Edwards]

InGame, market price and value might differ in inefficient markets, there is no argument there. However, that fact alone is not enough to justify Boozer getting 80 mil offers from 2 teams, whereas AK, as we all know, will not get anywhere near that number. Let's look at NBA labor market for a second. We had more than one teams with enough money to offer Boozer a contract, and 2 teams did. That alone might plant a seed of doubt of a theory of inefficient market, but I concede does not disprove it. Now, what is market inefficiency you are claiming here? And if there is an inefficiency why would it impact Boozer and not AK47? In other words, if one asset was able to command market price of 80 million, and according to you being overvalued, why wouldn't another asset of the same category, be overvalued as well? So, let's not just throw something out there, such as market price and value might differ in inefficient markets, and without any proof that it is indeed the case in this situation assume every contract does not represent market value. I agree some don't, but given the fact more than one team offered it to Booz, you would need more than just saying "market price and value might differ in inefficient markets" to justify that Booz's value is actually below that of AK. We both know that AK47 will not get 80 mil, because his value is lower than that of Boozer, and market price will reflect that - at least to a certain degree. Not because of any significant market inefficiencies. So, let's cut the BS, OK? Statement that AK is indisputably better than Booz is preposterous.

Market value does not equal tangible value. Look at the real estate bubble, subprime derivative packages, and the current gold bubble as examples to illustrate that efficient markets often overvalue goods.

The market places values on products based on theories, opinions and speculation. A product's "real" or tangible value are very different than market value. Just because the Blazers valued Wes Matthews at 7 million per year, does it mean that's what he's really worth?

 

[The Ghost of Blue Edwards]

Your dense diatribe appears to assume that the NBA 'market' is nearly efficient--which is patently false, given the inequitable intelligence and ego of NBA FOs/ownership; see Paul Allen and Wes Matthews' offer--and is irrelevant to whether AK (the recent AK) was and is as valuable to the Jazz as Boozer, if for no other reason than AK can score a bit and plays defense.

82games puts AK as slightly more valuable for the last season, and substantially more so two seasons ago, but I won't go that far.
https://www.82games.com/0910/0910UTA.HTM
https://www.82games.com/0809/0809UTA.HTM

This is correct. The NBA is an oligopoly, not a free market.

 

[Borat]

Your dense diatribe appears to assume that the NBA 'market' is nearly efficient--which is patently false, given the inequitable intelligence and ego of NBA FOs/ownership; see Paul Allen and Wes Matthews' offer--and is irrelevant to whether AK (the recent AK) was and is as valuable to the Jazz as Boozer, if for no other reason than AK can score a bit and plays defense.

82games puts AK as slightly more valuable for the last season, and substantially more so two seasons ago, but I won't go that far.
https://www.82games.com/0910/0910UTA.HTM
https://www.82games.com/0809/0809UTA.HTM

I am not assuming NBA market is nearly efficient as a stock market. There is simply too few bidders in there to make it so. I even mentioned there were cases lacking equilibrium. But you at least have to admit there is some kind of correlation, some logic that is being followed. To support an idiotic statement that it is beyond doubt AK is more valuable than Booz, in spite if you knowing AK would not commend anywhere near the same price now as Booz just did, you have to come up with something better than just say NBA market is not efficient. You have not one, but two teams (out of only 4-5 with enough CAP room) offering Booz 80 mil, why would you doubt it is not close to his market value? Because according to 82games AK is better than Booz? What IS Booz market value then? What is AK's?

 

[Borat]

Market value does not equal tangible value. Look at the real estate bubble, subprime derivative packages, and the current gold bubble as examples to illustrate that efficient markets often overvalue goods.

The market places values on products based on theories, opinions and speculation. A product's "real" or tangible value are very different than market value. Just because the Blazers valued Wes Matthews at 7 million per year, does it mean that's what he's really worth?

I agree with you. What you are referring to is intrinsic value. In fact, last offseason, I thought Booz's price was less than his intrinsic value and wanted to lock him up for cheap. But my point merely was that what you just mentioned is not enough to explain why there were multiple teams lining up to offer Booz 80 mil, if AK has more market value than him, and are not doing so for AK. Btw, note that AK is not FA yet, so we don't know what he will be offered, but no one is disputing he will be offered a lot less than Booz.

 

[Borat]

This is correct. The NBA is an oligopoly, not a free market.

So, AK's market value is more than Booz's because NBA is oligopoly? It cannot be that Booz's market value is higher, because was our second best player and AK is a borderline starter/6th man and Booz is considered genrally much more valuable around entire NBA?

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

What to do? Two words: Old Yeller

 

[InGameStrategy]

I am not assuming NBA market is nearly efficient as a stock market. There is simply too few bidders in there to make it so. I even mentioned there were cases lacking equilibrium. But you at least have to admit there is some kind of correlation, some logic that is being followed. To support an idiotic statement that it is beyond doubt AK is more valuable than Booz, in spite if you knowing AK would not commend anywhere near the same price now as Booz just did, you have to come up with something better than just say NBA market is not efficient. You have not one, but two teams (out of only 4-5 with enough CAP room) offering Booz 80 mil, why would you doubt it is not close to his market value? Because according to 82games AK is better than Booz? What IS Booz market value then? What is AK's?

Booze's recent market price (sometimes interchangeable market value) is 5 years, $75 million.
AK's market value this year is around $17 or $18 million.

My argument is AK's and Boozer's true value is about the same--and less than both of their current "market value" salaries.

I'm not sure why, with all of the economics mumbo-jumbo that you are throwing around, that you are having a hard time understanding the difference.

Maybe by claiming that Kirilenko is an "x factor" more than a "cornerstone," you can form an argument that AK < CB.
But I didn't believe that Boozer was a full cornerstone. He helped to win a lot of games in the clutch but didn't seem to lead.
And we saw what happened when Utah lost Kiri for the playoffs. Nobody to defend Odom, and less help for Kobe.
And if you take into account Boozer's poor defense, AK's contribution approaches Boozer's.

I think Sloan has overrated Boozer's value. He's a good high-post shooter,
but he has grabbed rebounds in part by sometimes playing patty-cake defense and camping around the basket.

I predict that Jefferson will be a better defender than Boozer, and still a double-double guy, making him more valuable than Boozer,
even though his "market value" is slightly less.

 

[Borat]

Booze's recent market price (sometimes interchangeable market value) is 5 years, $75 million.
AK's market value this year is around $17 or $18 million. My argument is AK's and Boozer's true value is about the same--and less than both of their current "market value" salaries.

No, maybe that WAS his market value when he signed a contract, but not today. He is less than half the player he was since then. Plus part of asset evaluation is potential, which at the time he signed contract was high, and now virtually non existent. Do you really think AK would trade now at 17 mil in a competitive setting? Booz just traded for 16/year. We can question whether a setting was competitive or not and bring up market inefficiency again, but we had 2 teams competing to get him, and Nets were mad they did not get a chance to match. So at least, the setting was someone competitive. You can certainty argue it was not competitive enough, but come on ... two teams bidding for the guy, one being upset he did not let them match - his market value has to be at least close to his market price. Wes is a different story, because perhaps there was no competitive setting. At least I have not heard of anyone coming close to the offer Blazers made. In fact, according to reports, KOC was phoned by numerous NBA agents and told that Wes' offer was ridiculous. Not the case in Booz. Let's see what happens in AK47's case. I guess it will be midlevel. I think that is his market value, and it will match his market price.

I'm not sure why, with all of the economics mumbo-jumbo that you are throwing around, that you are having a hard time understanding the difference.

All I said was that it is ludicrous to think AK47 value is "indisputably" higher than Boozer's. I showed how multiple teams competed to give Boozer 80 mil, thus giving at least some indication of his market value, since all market value is is the price in a competitive setting. I then said let's see what AK47 will get when he is FA, and everyone seemed to agree it would not be that high. You were the one who started throwing market value and price around.

Maybe by claiming that Kirilenko is an "x factor" more than a "cornerstone," you can form an argument that AK < CB.
But I didn't believe that Boozer was a full cornerstone. He helped to win a lot of games in the clutch but didn't seem to lead.
And we saw what happened when Utah lost Kiri for the playoffs. Nobody to defend Odom, and less help for Kobe.
And if you take into account Boozer's poor defense, AK's contribution approaches Boozer's.

Booz was our consensus second best player by everyone around NBA. He was the one along with Deron who led the team to our best showing since Stock and Karl, while AK was crying on the sidelines, he was higher valued by our own coaches, by opposing coaches and media, who chose him to more all star games, more all nba appearances, and we agree that he is also higher rated by NBA GMs and owners, who gave him 80 mil, but will not give AK that much. The only people who seem to think AK has more value than Booz is a few guys on this board. And what's idiotic, these guys say that their minority notion is "indisputable". Well, as I just showed, it is disputable by just about everyone, isn't it?

 

[InGameStrategy]

No, maybe that WAS his market value when he signed a contract, but not today. He is less than half the player he was since then. Plus part of asset evaluation is potential, which at the time he signed contract was high, and now virtually non existent.

Maybe, because AK was about 23 years old then and is 29 years old now. Most players have nonexistent 'potential' (i.e., room for improvement) at age 29, so you're not saying anything unique here. Boozer has very little potential now either--unless you include the potential to actually care about defense.

Do you really think AK would trade now at 17 mil in a competitive setting? Booz just traded for 16/year. We can question whether a setting was competitive or not and bring up market inefficiency again, but we had 2 teams competing to get him, and Nets were mad they did not get a chance to match. So at least, the setting was someone competitive. You can certainty argue it was not competitive enough, but come on ... two teams bidding for the guy, one being upset he did not let them match - his market value has to be at least close to his market price.

You fail to recognize that these teams are overvaluing Boozer as a player IMHO, which made the market inefficient already in my book. I guess that it depends on whether you think that price sets true value or actual effectiveness does. I tend toward the latter.

All I said was that it is ludicrous to think AK47 value is "indisputably" higher than Boozer's. I showed how multiple teams competed to give Boozer 80 mil, thus giving at least some indication of his market value, since all market value is is the price in a competitive setting. I then said let's see what AK47 will get when he is FA, and everyone seemed to agree it would not be that high. You were the one who started throwing market value and price around.

You continue to base Boozer's value on demand. Unfortunately your method assumes that teams will correctly evaluate players' value. I've already written this. AK is overpaid; that's why he's untradable. Boozer is overvalued (and maybe modestly overpaid) because he talks a good game and puts up big box-score stats that underemphasize defense. He did win Utah some games in the clutch, though. He also lost some.

Booz was our consensus second best player by everyone around NBA. He was the one along with Deron who led the team to our best showing since Stock and Karl, while AK was crying on the sidelines, he was higher valued by our own coaches, by opposing coaches and media, who chose him to more all star games, more all nba appearances, and we agree that he is also higher rated by NBA GMs and owners, who gave him 80 mil, but will not give AK that much. The only people who seem to think AK has more value than Booz is a few guys on this board. And what's idiotic, these guys say that their minority notion is "indisputable". Well, as I just showed, it is disputable by just about everyone, isn't it?

Again, you continue to base value on other people's opinion and price. By contrast, I look at how players perform. I see Boozer's bad defense and inability to get it done against tall or athletic teams. Meanwhile, I see that AK is somewhat limited offensively but is a much more agile player and more effective defender. At the same salary, I would take AK over Boozer any day, especially with Millsap already on the team. At $15M or $17M or probably even $12M or $13M per, I likely wouldn't take either player.

You can continue to play GM using economics. I prefer on-court effectiveness.

If it makes you feel better, you seem to think that most anything is disputable if someone disagrees.

 

[Borat]

You continue to base Boozer's value on demand. Unfortunately your method assumes that teams will correctly evaluate players' value. I've already written this. AK is overpaid; that's why he's untradable. Boozer is overvalued (and maybe modestly overpaid) because he talks a good game and puts up big box-score stats that underemphasize defense. He did win Utah some games in the clutch, though. He also lost some.

Therein lies the answer why Booz's is much more valuable than AK. He has the ability to win games, and he has done it sometimes. Boozer is an impact player, AK is a role player. AK has done nothing last 6 years. He battled for starting job, sometimes started, sometimes came off the bench. A role player. Nothing more, nothing less.

Again, you continue to base value on other people's opinion and price. By contrast, I look at how players perform. I see Boozer's bad defense and inability to get it done against tall or athletic teams. Meanwhile, I see that AK is somewhat limited offensively but is a much more agile player and more effective defender. At the same salary, I would take AK over Boozer any day, especially with Millsap already on the team. At $15M or $17M or probably even $12M or $13M per, I likely wouldn't take either player.

You can continue to play GM using economics. I prefer on-court effectiveness.

If it makes you feel better, you seem to think that most anything is disputable if someone disagrees.

As if AK was able to get it done against anyone. And his man to man defense is not very good at all. Besides, it's not just other people's opinion. I also watched games, and I just don't see AK being a difference maker Boozer is. And the fact coaches of Utah, opposing coaches, media, and GMs/owners agree with that is a little more than saying "someone disagrees." Pretty much everyone disagrees except select few on this board. Certainly, very far from indisputable, as some here claim.

I think when healthy AK is a solid starting SF, if you have a starting SG, who can defend man to man and knock down shots - something AK is not very good at. Perhaps starting him and Raja, like we did in 2005 would not be a bad idea. Of course CJ is improving too and had great play-offs, so I am sure he will challenge for starting spot. I think AK is better than Brewer though, and I would keep him after the season is over, for a few years, around 5 mil per. For that money he can be a solid asset for us.

 

[InGameStrategy]

Therein lies the answer why Booz's is much more valuable than AK. He has the ability to win games, and he has done it sometimes. Boozer is an impact player, AK is a role player. AK has done nothing last 6 years. He battled for starting job, sometimes started, sometimes came off the bench. A role player. Nothing more, nothing less.



As if AK was able to get it done against anyone. And his man to man defense is not very good at all. Besides, it's not just other people's opinion. I also watched games, and I just don't see AK being a difference maker Boozer is. And the fact coaches of Utah, opposing coaches, media, and GMs/owners agree with that is a little more than saying "someone disagrees." Pretty much everyone disagrees except select few on this board. Certainly, very far from indisputable, as some here claim.

I think when healthy AK is a solid starting SF, if you have a starting SG, who can defend man to man and knock down shots - something AK is not very good at. Perhaps starting him and Raja, like we did in 2005 would not be a bad idea. Of course CJ is improving too and had great play-offs, so I am sure he will challenge for starting spot. I think AK is better than Brewer though, and I would keep him after the season is over, for a few years, around 5 mil per. For that money he can be a solid asset for us.

Your cheapskate $5M contract amount only underscores your underestimation of AK's value on this team. We can argue about whether AK is as valuable than Boozer, but he is definitely worth more than a sub-MLE figure.

I think that this year is going to show how replaceable Boozer was. The playoffs showed how much the Jazz suffered without Kirilenko. He came back for a couple of games but wasn't fully in the swing yet, just like Boozer usually isn't after his long-term injury(ies).

BTW, Boozer shows up as only modestly superior to AK in clutch time--and that's with Boozer getting more touches and certainly yelling more, making himself more visible, good or bad. In the clutch, both had close to the same win%, eFG%, assists, drawn foul percentage, and even blocks. But Boozer had a higher turnover rate and was blocked more; AK's jump shot was bad in the clutch.

I greatly look forward to a frontcourt of AK-PM-AJ showing the rest of the league--including Chicago's Boozer and a benched Okur--the impact of playing on both sides of the court.

 

[Borat]

Your cheapskate $5M contract amount only underscores your underestimation of AK's value on this team. We can argue about whether AK is as valuable than Boozer, but he is definitely worth more than a sub-MLE figure.

I think that this year is going to show how replaceable Boozer was. The playoffs showed how much the Jazz suffered without Kirilenko. He came back for a couple of games but wasn't fully in the swing yet, just like Boozer usually isn't after his long-term injury(ies).

BTW, Boozer shows up as only modestly superior to AK in clutch time--and that's with Boozer getting more touches and certainly yelling more, making himself more visible, good or bad. In the clutch, both had close to the same win%, eFG%, assists, drawn foul percentage, and even blocks. But Boozer had a higher turnover rate and was blocked more; AK's jump shot was bad in the clutch.

I greatly look forward to a frontcourt of AK-PM-AJ showing the rest of the league--including Chicago's Boozer and a benched Okur--the impact of playing on both sides of the court.

Let me clarify: if we extend him right now, I would say 5 mil a year would be good. Brewer just signed for 4 as a FA, and he is younger, and Sloan was giving him more minutes last couple of years than to AK, and he could not stay healthy last few years. Plus no one else can make on offer. However, if we don't extend him (probably a wise thing), and he has a good year this year and no injuries, then he would probably command full mid-level (for 3 years or so). That would come out to about 6 mil/year. So, yeah, he is 5 mil a year to midlevel guy right now. I would be shocked if he gets a penny more than that. We will see.

As far as AJ-Millsap-AK front court, that's very exciting to me also. However, I am not convinced AK will make it to this starting line up. CJ already beat him for starting job at SF a year ago along with Brewer. Last year AK started and then after injury went to bench, and CJ had outstanding play-offs: better than anything AK has done during his entire contract. Plus CJ might actually improve this offseason and build upon that play-off performance. And Sloan might start Raja too, because Raja does 2 things well that we need most: defend man to man and shoots well from 3. So, AK is not given a starting job and has to battle for it - even now, even though we don't have any all stars or anything at the position - just some solid 3/4 mil a year guys. Does that sound like someone who is anywhere near Boozer's value (not to mention "indisputably" higher) and well above mid-level? I don't think so.

Let's see what happens during training camp and pre-season. Deron, Raja, AK, Millsap, Jefferson line up sounds terrific to me also. And I can't wait to see if CJ is going to have a breakout year. I really believe it is now or never for him. Things are certainly looking up for next season.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Let me clarify: if we extend him right now, I would say 5 mil a year would be good. Brewer just signed for 4 as a FA, and he is younger, and Sloan was giving him more minutes last couple of years than to AK, and he could not stay healthy last few years. Plus no one else can make on offer. However, if we don't extend him (probably a wise thing), and he has a good year this year and no injuries, then he would probably command full mid-level (for 3 years or so). That would come out to about 6 mil/year. So, yeah, he is 5 mil a year to midlevel guy right now. I would be shocked if he gets a penny more than that. We will see.

As far as AJ-Millsap-AK front court, that's very exciting to me also. However, I am not convinced AK will make it to this starting line up. CJ already beat him for starting job at SF a year ago along with Brewer. Last year AK started and then after injury went to bench, and CJ had outstanding play-offs: better than anything AK has done during his entire contract. Plus CJ might actually improve this offseason and build upon that play-off performance. And Sloan might start Raja too, because Raja does 2 things well that we need most: defend man to man and shoots well from 3. So, AK is not given a starting job and has to battle for it - even now, even though we don't have any all stars or anything at the position - just some solid 3/4 mil a year guys. Does that sound like someone who is anywhere near Boozer's value (not to mention "indisputably" higher) and well above mid-level? I don't think so.

Let's see what happens during training camp and pre-season. Deron, Raja, AK, Millsap, Jefferson line up sounds terrific to me also. And I can't wait to see if CJ is going to have a breakout year. I really believe it is now or never for him. Things are certainly looking up for next season.

I dont think CJ actually beat out AK for a starting spot, I think the coaching staff wanted AK off the bench to have him get more touches with the 2nd unit, it didnt work out, so they put him back at starter and our team did better.