Boozer to Jazz! Can Rockets make TE deal with Cavs?

Paxson is to blame no matter what anyone says. The Cavs could have picked up the option, then had his total rights next yr and not having so many teams under the cap. Boozer would have probably put up better numbers this yr and then resgned for more. Evereyone thinks we're in the reall running to help them out, but a team like Atl in it too. They could be like give us Big Z and we can deal. The Cvas might not have much of a choice, then they can play Diop or Battie at center, but to lose your 2nd best player, you might have to give up your 3rd.

 

Battie is decent enough that we won't get much more than him for the TE - maybe a couple of 2nd round picks (especially considering the Cavs already have traded a conditional 1st to Charlotte).

But, it could get interesting if they would rather keep Battie and would be willing to deal Wagner. We could use the TE to take multiple players (ok by the rules). So, we want Wagner and they make us also take Ollie and Newble.

It wouldn't fill our obvious holes but Wagner, if he is finally over his ailments, might develop into a grat player off the bench or great trade bait.

 

Exactly. That agent's name is mud now in NBA GMs circle. I wonder how his other clients will feel about that?

The only thing that pisses me off is this will make the cost of extended Pau Gasol go up a notch. That is the kind of deal I wanted to sign Pau to....

 

i wouldnt say its the agents fault. Boozer has ultimate authority of where he wants to play. Boozer is the one who supposedly gave his word. Cavs should of been smarter.

 

No. If they picked up his option, they would have Boozer's full bird's right.

 

That pretty much sums it up.

If I'm a Cavs fan, nothing less than a new GM is acceptable.

 

I started a thread in the NBA forum, but since most of the discussions take place here, I'll just quote what I wrote.

 

BTW, it has video links if you click on them.

 

They were gonna lose him anyway next year. That's why they tried to sign him up now, for the long term.

 

While I understand your point -- and don't advocate anyone lying to anyone at any time -- there is a little bit of a difference. Steve was under contract, and that wasn't going to change. In Boozer's case, the lie is what got him out of his contract. If JVG lied to Steve in order to get him not to opt out of a player option or something, only so that he could actually trade him to another team, I think that would have been a little different.

 

Did JVG ever admit he lied to SF, because it's SF who has a history of character problems, not JVG.

Personally, I take everything SF says with a grain of salt.

 

Come on, how are the Jazz the evil empire by doing this? They are just doing what every team under the cap does. That's overpaying a player, so their own team release their players to them. How is that evil? You want them to sit there with all their cap space doing nothing?
So if Rockets do have cap space one day, you suggest us not to do anything with that, right?
Money talks in the NBA. I think everyone understands this, no?
They are just smart and wise at using their capspace and money to lure players. What's wrong with this?

It's not Boozer's or the Jazz's fault. Both of them are just doing the business.

Also, why should Boozer be loyal to a team who lowballed him at first? Teams trade players all the time, so why can't a free agent player go to wherever they want?

The Cavs DESERVE all this happening to them. What a crappy, stupid, cheap franchise.

 

Exactly...I would have thought the difference should have been obvious, but you explained it nicely .

 

That's another point...Rocket River seems to take Steve's words for granted, even though, at least in the Superbowl episode, it was painfully obvious that Steve was lying left and right.

 

They weren't gonna lose him if they picked up his option for a 3rd year. They would have his FULL bird rights (teams get that for rookies playing for them 3 straight years UNLIKE Arenas situation), meaning that they can go over the cap to match any offers for him.

The Cavs went the cheap route first.

 

sorry, I have to reply to this. Everyone needs to stop comparing every scoring, small guard to Francis. Wagner is completely different. Have you seen him play?

Anyway, I don't think we need all these players. One (Battie) would be just fine, then go back to concentrating on signing a point..

 

I think the point would be to use the opportunity to get rid of some bad contracts...

 

People, if the Boozer-Jazz deal is heavy fronted loaded as reported, getting rid of Battie and Wagner would not be even enough. I think they have about 42m contracts guaranteed, so if the salary cap is set at about 44-45m and the Boozer deal is about 11-12m, the Cavs have to move 8-9m salary. I think what they may be trying to do is dumping Z's large expiring contract to Atlanta or Denver.

 

Exception
Spoon (or MT)

for Big Z and change?

Would that work?

That way, the Rox can take Z off the books next year.

 

Here is another idea:

Ilgauskas is in the last year of a huge contract. He will want huge money after next season again, and looking at the current market, he will probably get it from someone. The Cavs might simply not be willing to throw that much money at him again, at his age and with his history of foot injuries.

Making a trade involving Ilgauskas is another way for them, on top of the trade exception, to gain additional cap space.

Therefore, how about this one:

Mo Taylor (8.45 mio.) + Eric Piatkowski (2.7 mio.) = 12.8 mio.

for

Ilgauskas (14.6 mio.)

12.8 mio. * 115 % > 14.6 mio, so the trade should be within the allowed limits.

This frees ~ 2 mio. of cap space for the Cavs. They will lose Ilgauskas now instead of in a year, but they also save some money and avoid the predicament of paying huge dollars or having to lose him in a year anyway. Also, they could play Battie as C as well.

We use Ilgauskas for a year and then let him go, or use him as trade fodder.

The great advantage for us would obviously be to get rid of Mo's contract. At least for one year, we would also have more than solved the backup C problem, and could then still look around for other backup centers for next year and beyond.


Plus, we would trade a large part of the trade exception (6.2 mio.) for McInnis/Wagner. I don't think either player is really crucial for the Cavs going forward - McInnis would probably want big money after next year and would bolt anyway, and Wagner has been injury-prone, and his positions are played by Lebron.

The Cavs would all of a sudden have 8 mio. of additional cap space, which would not only allow them to re-sign Boozer, but would probably even allow them to somewhat get into the hunt for remaining free agents themselves (e.g., to sign a cheap veteran center).

For us, obviously, this would be huge if we could get it done . I would even throw in a draft pick or two for that .

(The Cavs could use Taylor in the East as a backup at both the PF and C positions (Taylor played some backup C for us as well)).

Cavs:
PG: Lebron, Ollie
SG: Lebron, Piatkowski
SF: Piatkowski, Pavlovic, Luke Jackson
PF: Boozer, Taylor
C: Battie, Taylor, Diop

I think they would look OK like that, and they would have the two cornerstones of their franchise (Lebron/Boozer) locked up and once Taylor comes off the books, they could add a huge third piece to that (Ilgauskas cannot be that man for the future).

Rockets 2004-2005:
PG: Barry (MLE), McInnis, Lue
SG: T-Mac, Barry, Wagner
SF: Jim Jackson, Piatkowski, A. Griffin
PF: Howard, Weatherspoon, Padgett (re-signed)
C: Yao Ming, Ilgauskas

IR: Gaines

Rockets 2005-2006:
PG: Barry, someone, maybe Lue if he plays well and comes cheap
SG: T-Mac, Barry, Wagner (option exercised by us)
SF: Jim Jackson, Piatkowski, A. Griffin
PF: Howard, Weatherspoon (last year, woo-hoo), Padgett
C: Yao Ming, N.N.

PLUS A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF CAP SPACE TO SIGN A GOOD BACKUP CENTER, MAYBE EVEN ILGAUSKAS AGAIN OR A DECENT SMALL FORWARD

LET'S GET IT DONE