[Yahoo Sports] Jazz appear willing to trade anyone on their roster

You got me excited for a minute and then I saw 'except ...'

 

There's a real shocker......

 

O'Connor made a mistake by not giving Boozer away. Even when he produces points and rebounds, his presence on that team is an overall negative. I hate to admit it, but I actually agree with Charles Barkley on something. Boozer is probably one reason they had to give Eric Maynor to the Thunder. O'Connor really messed up big time.

The fact Boozer isn't gone by now despite his productivity and expiring big contract should help wishful-thinkers understand the Rockets aren't going to get much (if anything) for McGrady.

 

Well I wouldnt want anyone BUT DW..

 

boozer is not loyal to anyone..hes going to where hes getting paid the most. So whoever is willing to trade for him better be willing to shell out even more to try and keep him. thats the only reason why he stayed at utah for his last year of his contract, he couldnt get anything better.

 

ditto.

They have some solid players on their team, but the only thing that would really excite me in a potential Rocket trade are Williams and the Knicks pick.

 

Absolutely, I agree with your post. Many men and women are anticipating an exchange of players similar to the Kwame Brown for Pau Gasol trade. Unfortunately, that will not be the case, despite the rash of trashy rumours.

 

damn hes the only one i would want

 

I, too, think the Jazz have some good talent on the roster. But I don't think Boozer is who we want; and seeing AK or MO in a rox uni would just about put me 6 ft under!

 

The difference, I think, is that the Rockets are willing to take on salary (specifically for upcoming seasons) while Utah is trying to get rid of salary (including for next season, see comment re: Kirilenko).

An expiring contract really only has value if you are willing to take on more money for future seasons.

 

BimaThug has pointed out that if we want to retain Scola and Lowry we cannot take on long-term salary without a massive luxury tax hit. This team is cheap now, but it's about to get very expensive.

 

except DW I don't want any one from Jazz roster.

 

You can retain them without taking tax hit if the Rockets take back a moderate amount of salaries-- say $11 or 12 mil.

The Rockets 9 continuing contracts total $42.7 mil. The lux tax limit will likely be $66 mil or so. I think Scola and Lowry can be retained for about $10 million combined in 2010-2011. So that leaves you about $13 mil away from the luxury tax limit.

I believe the Rockets will be willing to take on some modestly "bad" salary (like John Salmons for $5.8 mil next saseon) for something of value return (lotto protected pick?) but won't be taking on, something like $20 million in continuing "bad contracts" except if a Chris Paul caliber superstar is involved.

 

I do agree the Jazz screwed up when they traded away Maynor. They finally got a decent back-up PG for D. Will and they traded him. I think they should of traded Boozer during the summer since Sloan doesn't like to make changes during mid-season. I think the Jazz have no other choice but to make some changes.

As for your T-Mac comment... I totally disagree. The problem isn't the Jazz not getting great offers... It's the fact that no team wants to trade away assets for a player that isn't going to commit to them. We all know Boozer has commitment problems. Also, the Jazz are trying to make the playoffs. They feel they can do that with Boozer.

We're still like 45 days away from the trading deadline. The Rockets will wait until they get the right deal.

 

I think GM's are still trying to deal as if these expiring deals don't mean much to them. I think the value of an expiring contract will drastically increase around the trade deadline when teams realize they aren't getting what they used to get from good players on long "bad" contracts.

 

Off topic.

I keep thinking what if Boozer didn't pull a Boozer on Cleveland and was still playing with LeBron...

 

He would have bam-boozered his way out eventually.