# Kandi to Utah?



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

Well another Wolves-Utah deal has been talking now.. Wolves trade for Boozer, giving up Hudson or Jaric too. Now I would much rathr give away Hudson since his history is not that amazing as of late, but has had a good season. Don't say Jaric to leave over Huddy playing good in 8 games.

Well You would expect a pick would be swung our way too. And then the Humprhies for Maddog could be involved too. So, here is it.

Wolves Get:
Boozer
Humphries
future first round pick

Jazz Get:
OlowokandI
Hudson
Madsen


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

I want nothing to do with that scum.


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

Well I am not sure what his deal is, but I know he is hurt. I don't see why we wouldn't add him to the squad. Honestly, I think he would be a great fit if the Wolves do trade KG. The guy is a super hard worker, and is a very good PF. This is just one injury. Could u let me know why you want nothing to do with him?


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

Because he's a horrible human being, for starters. You must not remember the hole Cleveand situation, where he basically stabbed a blind man in the back. I wouldn't take him for free.


----------



## JuX (Oct 11, 2005)

I wouldn't do that. Plus Huddy is playing extremely well past everyone's expection so far this season. If the trade ever happen, the point guard situation will be thin so might called in Wright and then the PFs and C became too thick.


----------



## The King of the World (Dec 28, 2003)

Agent K said:


> I wouldn't do that. Plus Huddy is playing extremely well past everyone's expection so far this season. If the trade ever happen, the point guard situation will be thin so might called in Wright and then the PFs and C became too thick.


KG having help in the post is a bad thing?

I think I would do this deal. Kandi is the square root of useless, Hudson is playing decent but isn't exactly irreplacable, and Madsen is Madsen. Boozer is a solid post player when healthy, Humphries would be a good pickup, and the Jazz aren't especially good (especially when you can count on AK47 to miss half a season with glass ankles), so the draft pick could be high (providing it's a first rounder). Plus, we're over the cap for the foreseeable future anyway, so as long as Taylor is alright paying the Luxury Tax, Boozer's salary shouldn't really matter either. Finally, no one on here knows for sure what happened in his deal with Cleveland. It's one man's word against another's...but one of those man is Jim Paxon, a proven idiot. Wink wink deals aren't worth a damn thing...hell, the Cavs should be thanking Boozer. They're better off for it, and had they been caught they would've been punished. Which would suck. Just ask Kevin McHale.


----------



## Flanders (Jul 24, 2004)

sheefo13 said:


> Well another Wolves-Utah deal has been talking now.. Wolves trade for Boozer, giving up Hudson or Jaric too. Now I would much rathr give away Hudson since his history is not that amazing as of late, but has had a good season. Don't say Jaric to leave over Huddy playing good in 8 games.
> 
> Well You would expect a pick would be swung our way too. And then the Humprhies for Maddog could be involved too. So, here is it.
> 
> ...



 
YES!


----------



## SirHinn (Feb 9, 2003)

socco said:


> Because he's a horrible human being, for starters. You must not remember the hole Cleveand situation, where he basically stabbed a blind man in the back. I wouldn't take him for free.


He's a horrible human being for taking a bigger contract from another team? Are you telling me any individual would turn town 30 million dollars because they gave someone their word? If thats the case, then money must not mean anything to you. But to most, money talks. Someone's word means nothing in the NBA. Until you sign that name contract, your not obligated to anything. 
You want nothing to do with him because you took him leaving personal. Get over your damn personal bias and realize Boozer would help the TWolves.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

It's not that he left, it's that he gave the Cavs his word that he would resign there if they did not excersize the option for the last year of his rookie contract, which would've payed him less than $1Mil. They were doing him a favor and offered him a long term contract for as much as they could, he said he would take it, then when he was free he stabbed them in the back and took more money. It's more complicated than him just leaving. If you don't have your word, what do you have?


----------



## Darkwing Duck (Sep 6, 2004)

Being as the Jazz board has been pretty inactive, I must come here to vent.

Can someone who knows the Timberwolves' stats tell me if Olawakandi and Hudson add up to Boozer's peak numbers of last year? At peak times last year (before New Year's), Boozer was a 20-10 guy. And you guys want our first round draft pick included to get your guys' second and third stringers?

Where would Boozer play when he got healthy? Off the bench? Center? 

There's absolutely no upside to Olawakandi's and Hudson's future, or Madsen's for that matter, and you think the Jazz should give up a player who can improve to all star status, and a second year pro with good upside like Humphries, *and* a first rounder? 

And I thought Jazz fans trade talk was bad.


----------



## JBoog35 (Nov 21, 2005)

Darkwing Duck said:


> Being as the Jazz board has been pretty inactive, I must come here to vent.
> 
> Can someone who knows the Timberwolves' stats tell me if Olawakandi and Hudson add up to Boozer's peak numbers of last year? At peak times last year (before New Year's), Boozer was a 20-10 guy. And you guys want our first round draft pick included to get your guys' second and third stringers?
> 
> ...


As a wolves fan, I completely agree with you. I would absolutely take this deal in a heart beat if there was a first rounder in it too. Humphries has way more upside than Madsen and would outproduce him. Boozer is better than Kandi and the pick would eventually be better than Hudson. Wolves should celebrate if this deal goes through. :clap:


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

The first rounder is in there because Boozer is out indefenatly at this point.... He may never be the same. The guy has a huge contract too. Kandi is a 7 footer that has an expiring contract... If that is why you are having trouble wondering why the Jazz would consider this.


----------



## Darkwing Duck (Sep 6, 2004)

He's out a month, not indefinitely. He has a big contract, but it isn't "huge."

Plus, it's just a hamstring. They're a pain to heal. NFL guys miss half the season with 'em. I don't see how it you can't recover fully from it as you are implying. You are really devaluing Boozer here. Plus, the original rumor was Boozer for Olowakandi and Hudson/Jaric. You added a 1st, Humphries, and Madsen. I think the Jazz value a possible high 1st and a good upside guy less than Madsen. 

Second best player on the team, a 2nd year guy, AND a first for filler and expiring contracts? Why would the Jazz ever do this without seeing Boozer play this year? That's a move a desparate franchise would make, not one with the playoff potential the Jazz have.

EDIT: I've noticed I've spelled Olowakandi about 3-4 different ways. Can anyone spell it correctly for me?


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

Olowokandi :greatjob:


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

Darkwing Duck said:


> He's out a month, not indefinitely. He has a big contract, but it isn't "huge."
> 
> Plus, it's just a hamstring. They're a pain to heal. NFL guys miss half the season with 'em. I don't see how it you can't recover fully from it as you are implying. You are really devaluing Boozer here. Plus, the original rumor was Boozer for Olowakandi and Hudson/Jaric. You added a 1st, Humphries, and Madsen. I think the Jazz value a possible high 1st and a good upside guy less than Madsen.
> 
> ...


Yeah I am not sure what Boozer's deal was, so I said indefenatly, since they keep backing up his return date and saying his condition is worse than expected... Sorry. The pick would obviously be lottery protected, if that. I am talking like 20 and up pick. I would not be surprised if a deal like that would be involved. I just threw it in there, probably wouldn't be involved if the actual trade did happen. I did add Humphries and Madsen since previously there were rumors about swapping those players. So thats why they were added.

It is spelt Olowokandi. Took me a while to figure out how to spell it when we first got him. Called him Kandi at the start and still do.


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

Link 


Its not like they are talking trade... Yet. I guess the question really is whether we would want to send Hudson or Jaric. Personally I would send Hudson, because we know that Hudson is not that effective as a starter... Both are injury prone so... I do know Carter would be a solid backup. What this is making me think is that Boozer would be the PF and KG would be the C. I could see Griffin starting and Boozer coming off the bench so he can rule the paint by himself.


----------



## Darkwing Duck (Sep 6, 2004)

Jazz don't really have a use for Jaric or Hudson, though.

There's a certain 3rd overall pick that's playing right now.


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

Thats why Huddy would be the best option for the Jazz too since he will obviously be the backup.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

Darkwing Duck said:


> Jazz don't really have a use for Jaric or Hudson, though.
> 
> There's a certain 3rd overall pick that's playing right now.


The Jazz want Jaric, that's the main reason why this rumor exists.


----------



## Darkwing Duck (Sep 6, 2004)

Before the season started, sure, but Williams has been coming along well, and Pilacio has been going along nicely.

The Jazz' system is pretty complicated, especially for a point guard. I don't see Jaric or Hudson improving the team any.


----------



## Flanders (Jul 24, 2004)

Jerry Sloan would want Marko Jaric. I can't say the same about Troy though. 

Boozer's injury is definitely a concern, and it's quite a risk to take on a player with an injury who is on a long and large contract (see Grant Hill, Anfernee Hardaway). 

Take the gamble and get him, I'd say.


----------



## moss_is_1 (Jun 14, 2004)

id like him, hes still young and hes better than kandi, he will compliment kg nice i would say


----------



## JuX (Oct 11, 2005)

Well, there are always risks with a trade.


----------



## Flanders (Jul 24, 2004)

Actually, if you want to put it that way, there are risks in everything you do in life. If you leave your house there is a risk that you might get mugged or get hit by a car. 

But if you trade for an NBA player who is a proven basketball player, not injured, and has a nice contract, there are no risks involved, actually. In this case, Boozer is not a proven player yet, he is injured and you don't know whether or not he'll be healthy and able to play at the level he has been playing before. Yeah, and his contract is pretty large and long.


----------

