# Knicks Interested In Boozer?



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

> A three-team deal that would have sent Carlos Boozer to Chicago appears dead, but Utah is still talking to clubs about the forward.
> 
> 
> The Jazz are talking to "multiple teams," according to the Deseret News. Conversations have reportedly increased as Utah attempts to shed salary so that they can afford to match the offer sheet Paul Millsap signed with the Blazers.
> ...


www.deseret.com


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

I proposed the Knicks make the move the day before the newspaper came out with it. He's a better player than David Lee and would add top-notch post play to the 5 position.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Twinkie...*

He's not a center in anybody's system. For realzies.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

Well if we get Boozer, then that really places the nail in the Lebron James coffin. lmao


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

TwinkieFoot said:


> I proposed the Knicks make the move the day before the newspaper came out with it. He's a better player than David Lee and would add top-notch post play to the 5 position.


He isn't a center. 


And this would be a dumb move. Boozer is a good player don't get me wrong, but we could do better next year. We aren't building anything with Boozer as our franchise player.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

bball2223 said:


> He isn't a center.
> 
> 
> And this would be a dumb move. Boozer is a good player don't get me wrong, but we could do better next year. We aren't building anything with Boozer as our franchise player.


How is this a dumb move? If's an instant upgrade over anything we presently have in our front-court AND would not cut into our financial flexibility for 2010. He may not be a franchise player but he's certainly 2nd tier and especially handy when we're looking at top tier players next year in the offseason.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Twinkie...*



alphaorange said:


> He's not a center in anybody's system. For realzies.


If David Lee can play center and but up for all-star considerations, Boozer might be up for MVP at the same position. Boozer is stronger, nearly as good a rebounder and a better, gritter defender than David Lee. Play a lengthy, shot blocking, defensive player at the 4 spot (enter Jordan Hill) and you have a hell of a duo in our system. Could you imagine Duhon and Boozer on the pick and roll, which he ran extremely well with David Lee? Dangerous.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Twinkie...*



TwinkieFoot said:


> If David Lee can play center and but up for all-star considerations, Boozer might be up for MVP at the same position. Boozer is stronger, nearly as good a rebounder and a better, gritter defender than David Lee. Play a lengthy, shot blocking, defensive player at the 4 spot (enter Jordan Hill) and you have a hell of a duo in our system. Could you imagine Duhon and Boozer on the pick and roll, which he ran extremely well with David Lee? Dangerous.


i actually agree with you boozer would be an upgrade...a sizeable one 

in pretty much all facets of the game and if Lee could be miscast at the 5 boozer can be put there too...between boozer curry hill darko and jeffries it would work out, since when situations allow the knicks can throw out virtually every kind of bookend player for him to team with from the burly (curry) long(darko ) quick(jeffries) and explosive (hill)

its not really a weak spot for the knicks though ...the knicks would best be served by finding a real 2 way shooting guard comfortable handling the ball and can shoot/score it...and above the height of 5-9 .


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Twinkie...*



Da Grinch said:


> i actually agree with you boozer would be an upgrade...a sizeable one
> 
> in pretty much all facets of the game and if Lee could be miscast at the 5 boozer can be put there too...between boozer curry hill darko and jeffries it would work out, since when situations allow the knicks can throw out virtually every kind of bookend player for him to team with from the burly (curry) long(darko ) quick(jeffries) and explosive (hill)
> 
> its not really a weak spot for the knicks though ...the knicks would best be served by finding a real 2 way shooting guard comfortable handling the ball and can shoot/score it...and above the height of 5-9 .


I think Larry Hughes is more than "a real 2-way shooting guard comfortable handling the ball and can shoot/score it." He's streaky but he's certainly a starter in this league and has the ability to be one of the key players on a winning franchise. He certainly isn't the future long term, which is why we'd inevitably need an alternative but I think he's servicable for the time being. I think he and Boozer would mess, particularly well.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Twinkie...*



TwinkieFoot said:


> I think Larry Hughes is more than "a real 2-way shooting guard comfortable handling the ball and can shoot/score it." He's streaky but he's certainly a starter in this league and has the ability to be one of the key players on a winning franchise. He certainly isn't the future long term, which is why we'd inevitably need an alternative but I think he's servicable for the time being. I think he and Boozer would mess, particularly well.


i dont agree on hughes, he just doesn't shoot well enough and he has lost his slashing ability, he can still play defense ...i think he is best suited to coming off the bench.

i am not really buying chandler as a 2 guard, if that were the case he would have gotten time there last season , i think they will eventually come to grips that he is a forward, not really a guard...but the knicks suddenly have alot of depth in the frontcourt and are looking to add more depth with tim thomas....someone should probably dealt for a usable 2 rather than rot on the bench.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Playing the 5 doesn't make you a 5*

Lee is not a center and anyone with a brain knows it. He played there out of necessity but is not a center. True, he had decent rebounding stats, but he is no center. Boozer is an upgrade but he is not a center, either.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Twinkie...*



Da Grinch said:


> i dont agree on hughes, he just doesn't shoot well enough and he has lost his slashing ability, he can still play defense ...i think he is best suited to coming off the bench.
> 
> i am not really buying chandler as a 2 guard, if that were the case he would have gotten time there last season , i think they will eventually come to grips that he is a forward, not really a guard...but the knicks suddenly have alot of depth in the frontcourt and are looking to add more depth with tim thomas....someone should probably dealt for a usable 2 rather than rot on the bench.


You know though that Hughes' game has been predicated on volume shooting and not so much percentage. Although his FG% is atrocious, his shot selection is good and has improved his long distance shooting subtantially since being in the league (now at 39% from 3 and a career high in 3PT and 3PTM). In our system and our ability to rebound the ball, I think Hughes is a solid player. He may have lost a step but still has the ballhandling, speed and savvy to put the ball on the floor and get space between he and his defender IMO. Like I said earlier, I wouldn't mind a trade to upgrade the position but could sit on my hands for now with regards to the position.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Playing the 5 doesn't make you a 5*



alphaorange said:


> Lee is not a center and anyone with a brain knows it. He played there out of necessity but is not a center. True, he had decent rebounding stats, but he is no center. Boozer is an upgrade but he is not a center, either.


I understand that Lee is not a prototypical 5 but if your good enough, whether rightfully so or not (I aire on the not side), to warrant All-Star considerations then that makes you an elite member at your respective position. Needless to say, Lee proved capable of being that at the 5 spot last year. With Boozer already established as a better player than Lee and has physical attributes much more suitable to the position, then we should be able to consider Boozer a 5 in our system.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Come on, Twinkie....*

They signed Darko so Lee won't play center again, and they were going to pursue Gortat, as well. If D'Antoni thinks he is too small, then the guy isn't a center for anyone. Not a single team interested in lee as a FA is talking center.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Come on, Twinkie....*



alphaorange said:


> They signed Darko so Lee won't play center again, and they were going to pursue Gortat, as well. If D'Antoni thinks he is too small, then the guy isn't a center for anyone. Not a single team interested in lee as a FA is talking center.


They traded for Darko because we weren't going to keep Chris Wilcox and needed someone that was an actual 7 footer. Given how young Darko was, his style of play and how cheap he came in exchange for only Quentin Richardson, wouldn't you make the trade in a heartbeat as well? And from the sound of things on the FA front, not many teams are interested in David Lee's services and of the few that are, none play a game similar to our own to permit him to play the 5.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

USSKittyHawk said:


> Well if we get Boozer, then that really places the nail in the Lebron James coffin. lmao


Why is that?


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

TwinkieFoot said:


> Why is that?


You must not have been following that Boozer and Lebron drama...when it came to Boozer bolting the Cavs. lmao


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

USSKittyHawk said:


> You must not have been following that Boozer and Lebron drama...when it came to Boozer bolting the Cavs. lmao


Drama? I don't recall there being any sort of back-and-forth dialogue with the two concerning Boozers' departure. In fact, I recall LeBron mentioning something to the effect that Boozer should do what was in the best interest of himself and his family....which is what he did. A businessman like LeBron James would understand that as much as anyone. Besides, the two have been associated with team USA for several years now and there has been no mention of any tension with one another...and given where Team USA was before winning the gold medal, you better believe something like that would have been very publicized. Have you been following?


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

TwinkieFoot said:


> Drama? I don't recall there being any sort of back-and-forth dialogue with the two concerning Boozers' departure. In fact, I recall LeBron mentioning something to the effect that Boozer should do what was in the best interest of himself and his family....which is what he did. A businessman like LeBron James would understand that as much as anyone. Besides, the two have been associated with team USA for several years now and there has been no mention of any tension with one another...and given where Team USA was before winning the gold medal, you better believe something like that would have been very publicized. Have you been following?


You taking it to the head slow it down, I never said it was any back and forth going on between the two now did it? Last time I check, I posted a one liner with a sarcastic "lmao" at the end. This is based on *what the reporters were stiring up*. Have you been following that? Guess not, otherwise you wouldn't have wasted your time over analyzing once again, someone's post. Like Boozer is _really_ a deal breaker, get real. Just another poster that wants to argue just for the sake of arguing.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

USSKittyHawk said:


> You taking it to the head slow it down, I never said it was any back and forth going on between the two now did it? Last time I check, I posted a one liner with a sarcastic "lmao" at the end. This is based on *what the reporters were stiring up*. Have you been following that? Guess not, otherwise you wouldn't have wasted your time over analyzing once again, someone's post. Like Boozer is _really_ a deal breaker, get real. Just another poster that wants to argue just for the sake of arguing.


I'd like you to find me this so called evidence since I've apparently been left out of the loop. And excuse me if your sarcasm sucks; that and the fact it's pretty hard to catch that sort of thing online unless it's done well. Matters would have also been helped had you just mentioned the fact that you were trying to be sarcastic in an earlier post after I was looking for clarification to your initial statement. Guess that would have made too much sense.


----------

