Had Lunch With Carlos Boozer Today...

[GrandKenyon6]

Cleveland knew there was a legitimate risk when they let him become a FA. It was a terrible business decision. The blame is on them.

[NetIncome]

Correct. It reminds me of the rank incompetence shown by the Nets under a previous regime. Nets didn't get a disabled player exception for Jayson Williams because they missed the deadline and had to pay Calipari even after he was hired by the 76ers as an assistant because they had forgotten to include an offset clause in his contract--a clause that permits a team to get financial relief if a fired coach finds work elsewhere in the NBA.

[Nets4Life]

Rather than boldface your comments, be honest. Riley wasn't high on him? He picked him #2! Your comment (that he wasn't high on him) is subjective. Riley's action (taking him second in the strongest draft in years, if not decades) is the objective reality. He said it again yesterday--Beasley isn't available.

In writing about Thabo Sefolosha, Why post his career stats before joining OKC when you should be noting what he did after the trade, how his performance justified Presti's faith in him and his decision to send one of his THREE first round picks to Chicago? That's the value of stockpiling picks.

No one knows where those picks will be.... The Nets could have two lottery picks next year, for all we know. The Warriors pick could be as high as #11 in 2012 if it is transferred in 2011. I suggest you go back and count the number of lottery picks the Lakers and Heat got for Shaq in those two deals, the Raptors got for Carter, the Bulls got for Curry, the Grizzlies got for Gasol, the Nets got for Kidd. Some were, some weren't. The Mavs pick looks better every day. It didn't matter much how many of them were lottery picks. They were the reason why teams made those deals. They took chances.

How is my statement: “remember that Riley was never high on Beasley to begin with” subjective?

"ESPN.com has been reporting since the draft lottery that Heat president Pat Riley has reservations about Beasley. While Beasley is a talent, Riley seems to be uncomfortable with his personality..."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2008 ... id=3459696
(yes it is from last year, pre-draft)

Its not. Riley was always questioning whether Beasley was right for Miami, but he ended up drafting the BPA, which is the smart thing to do. Rather your statement: "Oh please, there is NO way Miami is offering Beasley to ANYONE." is more subjective because you are buying into Riley's attempts to inflate Beasley's value...just wait until the first rumor about Beasley being traded to another team for an all-star surfaces...you'll see what I mean.

Thabo's stats post trade: 8.5ppg, 5rb, 41.7% shooting...those numbers are from 31mpg, 22 games starting. Those numbers are slightly better than Bobby Simmons last year at 7.8 ppg, 3.9rb, 44.9% shooting. So THAT is the value of a late first, a role player.

Sure not all of those trades you mentioned had lotto picks, but some of them were heralded as TERRIBLE one-sided trades at the time (VC trade, Gasol trade), and the ones that weren't had major pieces included in the deal (Odom/Butler in the Shaq deal, DH in the Kidd deal)---which is why it didn't matter that those trades didn't include lotto picks. All I'm saying is why take potential unknown draft picks that may fall outside the lottery, when there are teams oozing with young players that are more sure bets (OKC, Memphis, Miami (Beas/Chalmers), Chicago)) and expiring contracts for players that can ACTUALLY contribute. We may have the edge in sheer draft pick #s, but we don't have the ammo in terms of young pieces, and FUNCTIONAL players with expiring deals to beat out some of these teams, since many have been planning to be competitive for the FA class of the Summer of 2010 (with expiring contracts, young players, salary cap flexibility) . If you are a GM trading your franchise player away, would you rather take a risk on an unknown potential mid-rounder 1st or a proven emerging young player like a Beasley/Mayo, etc? Especially when there will be many suitors available?

Its not hard to see that competition for all-star caliber players will be steep this off-season.

[Dirt McGirt]

Correct. It reminds me of the rank incompetence shown by the Nets under a previous regime. Nets didn't get a disabled player exception for Jayson Williams because they missed the deadline and had to pay Calipari even after he was hired by the 76ers as an assistant because they had forgotten to include an offset clause in his contract--a clause that permits a team to get financial relief if a fired coach finds work elsewhere in the NBA.

Um, saying the Cavs made a mistake and that Boozer is a tremendous GO NETS!!! are statements that are NOT mutually exclusive. Both are true. There is no defending what Boozer did.

[Kid Chocolate]

Also, a business decision. Agents, particularly those with large numbers of clients, realize that they need better long term relations with teams as much as they do with players. Players come and go. Teams are always there.

But if Boozer did nothing wrong, why would they stop representing him?
My point that this is very telling still stands.
Obviously they wanted to keep a better standing with the Cavs, and the Cavs weren't happy, so they dropped Boozer.

[PsychoNetsFan34]

Lol. I love how this went from Boozer rumors about why he was in Jersey...to Boozer the big GO NETS!!!...

[NetIncome]

But if Boozer did nothing wrong, why would they stop representing him?
My point that this is very telling still stands.
Obviously they wanted to keep a better standing with the Cavs, and the Cavs weren't happy, so they dropped Boozer.

Again, having good relations with a team is much more important, morality and other considerations aside, than with a single player unless that player was at the time a superstar. Agents are hardly saints. They make rational decisions.

[BedouinBob]

Cleveland knew there was a legitimate risk when they let him become a FA. It was a terrible business decision. The blame is on them.

Sure, it was stupid to for the Cavs front office to exhibit trust and think that a guy would behave ethically...instead of taking the "smart approach" and operate like you're going to get screwed, which is how all sports are now classicly handled. Stupid, yes. Ethically, trying to do the right thing? Yes.

And even though Cleveland's offer was lower than Utah's, they were going to start the bigger contract right away so he didn't have to play another year at $695,000. They did this in good faith thinking Carlos wanted to stay (which he had said he wanted to do).

Can you blame Boozer for taking so much more money? No, not really. But the way he handled it was sleezy and underhanded...and the way he treated the Cleveland franchise and the owner at the time was so classless (denying any conversations had taken place, misrepresenting his behavior to try to protect his reputation in the aftermath).

This generated a lot of polarized opinions at the time...as it has on this thread. The guy is who he is. Can't change the stripes. Bigger question: Does this kind of thinking and behavior have ANY impact when he plays the game...in his attitude toward the team? Clearly, it has not generated any loyalty within the Utah franchise -- they don't seem to be interested in working to keep him.

[Dirt McGirt]

Again, having good relations with a team is much more important, morality and other considerations aside, than with a single player unless that player was at the time a superstar. Agents are hardly saints. They make rational decisions.

Again, saying the Cavs screwed up and saying Boozer is a sleazeball are NOT mutually exclusive. Not at all.

[BedouinBob]

Again, saying the Cavs screwed up and saying Boozer is a sleazeball are NOT mutually exclusive. Not at all.

I think you've summed it up perfectly. And in a much more concise way.

[NJ savior]

Hey I love Boozer for hustling the Cavs out of his rookie contract. Always remember it's a number's game never personal always business. With that said I hope that a deal happens by draft night. My offer if I was Rod would be switching 2009 draft picks. The Jazz selection is at 20 and I can hope that maybe a Jeff Teague/ Jrue Holiday is available. Next would be the dreaded giving away a First round draft pick hopefully we can give them a 2012 draft pick. And then a combination of Simmons/ R. Anderson/ SWAT. I think that is something that would interest Utah and give them a chance to get cap space for 2010.

2009/ 2010 Lineup

PG. Dooling/ (Holiday/ Teague)/ FA?
SG. Harris/ CDR
SF. Carter/Hassel/ Najera
PF. Boozer/ Yi/ Najera
C. Lopez/ Boone

Thanks Psycho Netsfan for adding sunshine to the off season. Our moose is coming and Rod is hunting him!

[PsychoNetsFan34]

Thanks Psycho Netsfan for adding sunshine to the off season. Our moose is coming and Rod is hunting him!

No problem guys. I just hope all this talk isn't just smoke and mirrors. I mean I know the chances of him coming to NJ are slim but hopefully theirs a smidge of truth to the matter. And if their is some truth, even if Boozer doesn't come to NJ at least we know possibly Thorn is looking to make this team something better for 2009/10. We shall see.

[kobimel]

Boozer would be an incredible addition to this team. Our frontcourt would be set for the next 4-5 years, and it would be one of the best in the league. Couple that with Devin and Vince in the backcourt and a defensive minded SF, and you have yourself a very, very solid team. Boozer's defense is weak, but Big Brook can compensate for that and guard the best big man on the other team.

As for his dumping of the Cavs, I think it was as dirty move and I would be extremely pissed at him if I was a Cavs fan. However, the team shouldn't have trusted him as much as they did, and they payed for it. After all, it IS his agent's job to get as much money as possible for his client, and he does whatever it takes to do so. It's a business, and they should have treated Boozer and his agent accordingly.

Thanks for the scoop, PsychoNetsFan. I don't know what to make of it, and its probably nothing after all, but rumors are always fun to explore.

[Dirt McGirt]

I bet Boozer said he was going to pay for lunch and left when Psycho went to the bathroom.

[BedouinBob]

I bet Boozer said he was going to pay for lunch and left when Psycho went to the bathroom.

[MrDollarBills]

Boozer's defense is atrocious

[Netted]

Boozer would definitely give us more scoring from the PF position, but his defense sucks and this team is already bad defensively. The good thing is you can get a total offensive zero at the wing position, that is a great defender, and still have 4 options on offense.

If we could get Marquis Daniels or Keith Bogans with part of the MLE we could be okay. Something tells me we won't be able to use much of the MLE and would have to do something via a trade only. Team payroll is currently projected at $2.7 million below this past season. Not sure we can get Daniels that cheap. Picking up Bogans at about $2 million and moving VC to SF might be the best available move. Via trade we could try and get Wilkins from OKC for Najera.

Harris
Daniels, Bogans, or Wilkins
Carter
Boozer
Lopez

[GMJ]

I bet Boozer said he was going to pay for lunch and left when Psycho went to the bathroom.

I just giggled in my school's library, FML.

[Dumpy]

Boozer would definitely give us more scoring from the PF position, but his defense sucks and this team is already bad defensively. The good thing is you can get a total offensive zero at the wing position, that is a great defender, and still have 4 options on offense.

If we could get Marquis Daniels or Keith Bogans with part of the MLE we could be okay. Something tells me we won't be able to use much of the MLE and would have to do something via a trade only. Team payroll is currently projected at $2.7 million below this past season. Not sure we can get Daniels that cheap. Picking up Bogans at about $2 million and moving VC to SF might be the best available move. Via trade we could try and get Wilkins from OKC for Najera.

Harris
Daniels, Bogans, or Wilkins
Carter
Boozer
Lopez

To go off on a tangent, it is pretty unlikely that the Nets could pick up a PF that has an impact both offensively and defensively without parting with the Scowl (Brooksie). If the nets do decide to upgrade the PF spot through a trade, it's more likely that that player will have some skills, but also some warts. To step back a few miles, on the team the Nets have now--that is, with Devin, Vince, and Brook, is it better to have a PF that rates a 10 on offense and a 0 on defense; a PF that rates a 5 on offense and a 5 on defense, or a PF that rates a 0 on offense and a 10 on defense? Or some other combination? I think it's easy to criticize Boozer for his deficiencies, but the $1,000,000 question is whether the team can live with it, and flourish despite it.

[MrDollarBills]

I'll take Boozer if we can A)get an SF that can defend the perimeter and B)get another big off the bench that can rebound and defend.

Boozer would fit well offensively with the Nets and would eliminate small ball since he can step in and knock down the J with ease. I remember last season when we played Utah after the Kidd trade, Boozer's jumpshot was deadly in that game. He was J'ing our bigs' faces off something serious.