Boozer double-crosses Nets. What else is new, eh?
- Thread starter Hopper
- Start date
Hopper
Banned
That would be funny, but it's out of the question. There's only one side to this deal that would renege on a solemn verbal agreement, and it aint the Bulls.
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
Agree. What Pelinka and Boozer did was negotiate. Isn;t that what we all do when buying a car. You get the BO from one dealership, then go to another and try to better it. In this case, Pelinka probably should have notified the Nets. But he's an agent...the same one that shived a blind guy in the back. So no surprise.
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
Are you Pelinka? The Jazz could have extended Boozer at a bargain?
What we do know is Carlos said he was getting a raise regardless. So he obviously thought his vakue was higher than $12.7M. C'mon, do you seriouisly believe Boozer would have signed anything less than a $15M-$16M extension? Pelinka and Boozer know the FA market is going to be better than ever. There are 5 marquee players and a ton of teams positioning themselves to be under the cap for 2, even 3 of those guys, including Miami, where Boozer really wants to play (friends with Wade and Arison Jr. and Sr.).
Boozer was NOT going to sign an extension without testing the market. And do you really want to sign a player to a huge deal when he's been seriously hurt 3 out of the previous 5 years? Boozer could easily turn into Elton Brand for the Bulls.
And you turned out to be quite wrong, no?
Hopper
Banned
Just LOVE the hindsight there, doncha, Borat?
After he said that about a raise, he was injured and did not produce good numbers. That's why he even accepted 1 year 12 mil dollar player option. That's 1 year deal worth 12 mil. If Jazz said - instead of 1 year 12 mil deal, you can have 6 year 70-72 mil (same amount annually as 1 year option he just accepted, but with a lot of long term security), you think Booz would have said no in that situation? I doubt it. But Jazz didn't even bother to find out. Instead Greg Miller said Booz was not even in plans. Way to go, brains of the Jazz.
Hopper
Banned
I'm still kinda wonderin, eh, Borat? If Boozer end up playin only 20 games for the Bulls next year, will you come on this board and pontificate about the stupidity of the Bulls while praisin the astuteness of the Jazz? Or will you just say that such circumstances were unforeseeable, and therefore maintain that the Jazz are still stupid and the Bulls still geniuses?
I am not saying anything different today I was not saying a year ago, when I was posting on this very board about extending Booz.
No hindsight at all. Foresight from a year ago, when I was preaching the extension on this very board. Kinda common sense I thought at the time. Buy low, sell high.
Hopper
Banned
I think we get that Borat. You are sayin, over and over, I TOLD YOU SO!! But you still haven't foretold the future for the next 4-5 years, so what have you told us, ya know? I said, given the information the Jazz had, I could see why they would be reluctant to gamble another 4-5 years on him. Your response was "but, given the information they had one year later, maybe they were wrong." Well, aint that special, eh?
Given the information Jazz had a year ago, I thought we should have bought low. That's all I am saying.
gregbroncs
Well-Known Member
Okay as one of the ultimate Boozer haters here.
I say WTF did this matter? He chose the best offer for him. Better team, more money, city he has publicly stated he wanted to play for. So why is this an issue? Only because it's Boozer. And as big of a hater as I am I can't blame him for this one.
I say WTF did this matter? He chose the best offer for him. Better team, more money, city he has publicly stated he wanted to play for. So why is this an issue? Only because it's Boozer. And as big of a hater as I am I can't blame him for this one.
gregbroncs
Well-Known Member
for sure they should have traded him at the deadline or last off season. But giving Boozer 6 years would have been retarded. Kind of like Chicago who will regret giving this loser this contract.
Hopper
Banned
OK, and the Jazz didn't. But don't run around claimin you were right and they were wrong just yet, eh?
If Jazz did as I said, we would not lose 20 and 10 guy for nothing, and had him for a lot less than 2 other teams offered him too. Maybe even we could trade it to these teams and get some value back - not that we would, but we could if we wanted to. We would be sitting quite pretty now, that's for sure. Following what you thought was right just cost us losing 20 and 10 talent for nothing in return. Now, that ain't pretty.
Hopper
Banned
We didn't lose him for "nothing." We "lost" him at a savings of $12-15 million a year. If I don't buy a new Mercedes for $200,000, have I lost a car "for nothing?"
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
Yes, I do think he would have turned that down.
Look, Boozer is a Dukie. He's not dumb. And neither is Pelinka. They knew there would be 8-9 MAX "slots" available and only 5 MAX players. That meant the teams missing out on the marquee players (Amare, Lebron, Wade, Bosh and Johnson) would need to sign a guy like Boozer to save face. Can you imagine a Miami, Chicago or New York - teams that have been telling their fan bases for the last couple of years that they've been positioning themselves for this off-season - coming away with nothing? We'll never know for sure, but I think there's little chance Boozer would have slinked back to the Jazz for what he was already making. He knew in the Jazz offense he could put up 20/10. I would guess his asking price may have been in the $15M/per for 6yrs range, even with a "home-town" discount. I suspect he'll have a great Year #1 in Chicago: he'll want to impress. But let's see what he does after that...and if he stays healthy.
Hopper
Banned
That introductory clause, in itself, leads me to suspect that we'll be seein plenty of Boozer threads from you for years to come, eh, Borat? Threads like "BOOZER HAS 25 & 15 NIGHT FOR CHICAGO!," and such. Or maybe they'll be less indirect and simply say: "I TOLD YOU SO!," over and over, eh?