# Boozer Rumor



## Causeway

So...as noted before I don't post trade talk unless it's pretty solid. This is not a trade idea but word from a source that's tells me Boston is working on a deal for Boozer. It could include Big Al and West, or Wally, Gomes...some combination of prospect(s) plus salary. 

It looks very likely that West is a goner. 

It could all blow up...you never know...however feel free to discuss.


----------



## Ruff Draft

West would have fun under Sloan.


----------



## Premier

Utah has two better young guards than West [Ronnie Brewer and Deron Williams].

They would ask for Wally.


----------



## aquaitious

Dear Danny,

Please do this trade,

signed, a concerned Celtic fan...and apparently some Nets fans like HB, as well.


----------



## cpawfan

There is nobody on the Celtics to make it easy for Boozer which is the only way he looks good


----------



## E.H. Munro

Simmons mentioned this, so I'm not sure whether the rumour is real or more "See, I'm trying!" propaganda. I'm hoping it's real. Obviously Jefferson/Davis for Artest would have turned the team around, but Jefferson/Szczerbiak would at least fix a mistake. If West's being included I suspect it'd be a case of Danny taking away Doc's binky to get the other guys some burn.


----------



## Attila

While I'd feel bad about losing from of our young prospects, it definitely would make us a better team. The real question is how much better would it make us. Would we get Boozer the all-star level player or would get the fella that has been in Utah for the past few years?


----------



## Causeway

Premier said:


> Utah has two better young guards than West [Ronnie Brewer and Deron Williams].
> 
> They would ask for Wally.


That would explain the Luke Jackson acquisition.


----------



## P-Dub34

I think losing a 3ppg scorer would explain the Luke Jackson acquisition more than bringing him in to replace our second best player.


----------



## BostonBasketball

Attila said:


> While I'd feel bad about losing from of our young prospects, it definitely would make us a better team. The real question is how much better would it make us. Would we get Boozer the all-star level player or would get the fella that has been in Utah for the past few years?



Besides being injured Boozer really hasn't played all that bad in Utah you know. When he's been healthy (yes I know that hasn't happened very much) he's averaging nearly 17-9. That's not bad.


----------



## Causeway

Obviously a guy like jackson could not replace Wally's production. However we would need an outside shooting threat and Jackson could help there. Jackson so far has been an NBA bust. He's not even a lock to make the 15. But he can shoot well.


----------



## AK-47

So who made this trade up? Because the jazz arn't even concidering it. Boozer just had another good game tonight.

23 points, 7 rebounds, 4 assists, 2 blocks, 1 steal, 8-13 shooting, 7-9 FT shooting, in 26 minutes.

Boozer is a hell of a player, and that trade offer would be an insult to the jazz, seeing as the jazz don't have to trade boozer because... A) he doesn't want out B) Jazz management don't want him out C) deron and boozer are playing outstanding together D) Boozer is the jazz's only low post player

I could go on... and on... and on... 

A Boston Celtic fan wrote the article, or someone that doesn't know what is going on.


----------



## mmmdk

Sloan doesn't like Boozer yet I don't see this trade happening. A lot of trade rumors fly around so you never do know which ones will come true.


----------



## Causeway

I'd be more surprised to see Boston trade Al Jefferson and West - than to see Utah move Boozer.


----------



## E.H. Munro

AK-47 said:


> So who made this trade up? Because the jazz arn't even concidering it. Boozer just had another good game tonight.
> 
> 23 points, 7 rebounds, 4 assists, 2 blocks, 1 steal, 8-13 shooting, 7-9 FT shooting, in 26 minutes.
> 
> Boozer is a hell of a player, and that trade offer would be an insult to the jazz, seeing as the jazz don't have to trade boozer because... A) he doesn't want out B) Jazz management don't want him out C) deron and boozer are playing outstanding together D) Boozer is the jazz's only low post player
> 
> I could go on... and on... and on...
> 
> A Boston Celtic fan wrote the article, or someone that doesn't know what is going on.


It's a Simmons rumour, meaning that the odds are that it's something the Celtics front office told him in a desperate attempt to keep fan interest up. I was praying that for once there was some truth to it.


----------



## Floods

Big Al, West, Szczerbiak AND Gomes?

No thank you.


----------



## E.H. Munro

TheBigDonut said:


> Big Al, West, Szczerbiak AND Gomes?
> 
> No thank you.


Where did that come from? Bill Reynolds mentioned Jefferson only, and even Simmons didn't toss out Gomes' name.


----------



## Floods

http://www2.realgm.com/src_tradechecker/4/

Here's a trade idea of mine, with a player I like more than Boozer (even if he is making an obscene amount of $$$). Just waive Carter after the trade.


----------



## Floods

ehmunro said:


> Where did that come from? Bill Reynolds mentioned Jefferson only, and even Simmons didn't toss out Gomes' name.


I was responding to the original post in this thread. I saw all those names up there.


----------



## E.H. Munro

TheBigDonut said:


> http://www2.realgm.com/src_tradechecker/4/
> 
> Here's a trade idea of mine, with a player I like more than Boozer (even if he is making an obscene amount of $$$). Just waive Carter after the trade.





RealGM Tradechecker said:


> The trade you are trying to view is either incomplete, does not exist, or has expired. If you know who was involved in this trade, you can re-create this trade by clicking here. If you think this is incorrect please let us know by filling out our contact forum and providing us with details (including, if possible, the trade id


You need the Trade ID number they flash when you finish running the script.



> I was responding to the original post in this thread. I saw all those names up there.


Didn't he link to the Providence Journal article when he posted the rumour? I'm not sure why he's adding extras to what the Celtics publicly leaked.


----------



## Causeway

Re-read the original post. It says some combinations of the names listed. Not all of the names listed. 

I am not sure why he would comment on the original post if he fails to read it.


----------



## vandyke

How about Jefferson and Theo for Boozer straight up and then you would have to go out and find a warm body from somewhere to be your 3rd Center behind Perk and Olowakandi.


----------



## Causeway

Personally - I am not a big fan of Boozer. I don't like any of these options for him.


----------



## aquaitious

Causeway said:


> Personally - I am not a big fan of Boozer. I don't like any of these options for him.


I'm not a big fan of Boozer, but he instantly makes us a playoff lock and around 150% better.


----------



## E.H. Munro

aquaitious said:


> I'm not a big fan of Boozer, but he instantly makes us a playoff lock and around 150% better.


How sad is it that this statement is spot on?


----------



## cpawfan

aquaitious said:


> I'm not a big fan of Boozer, but he instantly makes us a playoff lock and around 150% better.


He wouldn't make the Celtics a playoff lock. He could make the team better


----------



## Aznboi812

the magic word is could, hes good and all but he gets injured a lot and in addition what if he contact expires he'll probably do what did he did to the cavs


----------



## P-Dub34

> How about Jefferson and Theo for Boozer straight up


Well, in a dream world where the other team doesn't want even close to equal value, this would be a great trade.


----------



## Causeway

Boozer is not the type of player to bring us over the top. So trading a chunk of our future for him does not make sense. It's a Pitino type move.


----------



## Premier

Szczerbiak for Boozer is interesting, though unlikely. Kirilenko could move to PF with Okur at center. Szczerbiak's contract is about eight million dollars less for one less year.


----------



## aquaitious

Causeway said:


> Boozer is not the type of player to bring us over the top. So trading a chunk of our future for him does not make sense. It's a Pitino type move.


No he's not, but he'll put us over the battle for first-spot-out-of-the-playoffs.


----------



## Causeway

Again - that's a shortsighted Pitino type move. It would not make sense.


----------



## P-Dub34

> Boozer is not the type of player to bring us over the top. So trading a chunk of our future for him does not make sense. It's a Pitino type move.


No, but getting him for Theo/Jefferson (which would never happen) would be larceny.


----------



## Causeway

Today the trade would be in our favor. What about down the road when our young guys have more experience and start to click? I'd rather hold onto Al for now and see what his growth is, and not trade on that for the 8th seed with Boozer.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

Causeway said:


> What about down the road when our young guys have more experience and start to click?




and again i bring up the problem that noone thinks about...ok down the road when our young guys start to click do u know whats going to happen???....the end of their rookie contracts...then they all want to get paid...we cannot possibly pay all of them so half of them will leave anyway to get bigger contracts eslewhere...id rather trade them now while they have value than keep them until they get better and leave us anyway


----------



## P-Dub34

I'm very skeptical if Jefferson will even ever be as good as Boozer.


----------



## Causeway

Maybe - but who is the stud and who's the dud? I'd rather try and find out while they are under contract here and not elsewhere.


----------



## P-Dub34

I agree partially with you, Cause, but it's a two-way street. Maybe these guys we're hanging on to will never be more than average NBA starters, in which case we're in the same boat in five years as we were in now.


----------



## Causeway

I hear you. But if we are specifically talking about go for Boozer now, or roll the dice with Big Al...I say keep Al.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

Causeway said:


> I hear you. But if we are specifically talking about go for Boozer now, or roll the dice with Big Al...I say keep Al.




but why?...BEST case scenario is Al will turn into a carlos boozer...we already know he wont be better than that...boozer is a guaranteed 19-9...so why roll the dice and hope Al turns into a boozer-type...boozer is already a boozer type


----------



## aquaitious

Causeway said:


> Again - that's a shortsighted Pitino type move. It would not make sense.


Good thinking, let's wait another 25 years.

Danny will not turn this team into a Dynasty.

Hell we can barely get into the playoffs.


----------



## Causeway

Part of the problem in the last 20 years of no banner was in fact trading away young talent and watching them do well elsewhere (as well as Len Bias and Reggie dying, not getting Duncan, etc).


----------



## aquaitious

Causeway said:


> Part of the problem in the last 20 years of no banner was in fact trading away young talent and watching them do well elsewhere (as well as Len Bias and Reggie dying, not getting Duncan, etc).


So because we traded away some young talent, we're supposed to keep everyone now in order not to make the same mistake?


----------



## Causeway

Why would you want to make the same mistake?


----------



## aquaitious

Causeway said:


> Why would you want to make the same mistake?


Maybe to get better?


----------



## BostonBasketball

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> but why?...BEST case scenario is Al will turn into a carlos boozer...we already know he wont be better than that...boozer is a guaranteed 19-9...so why roll the dice and hope Al turns into a boozer-type...boozer is already a boozer type


You have to consider the injury factor too. Both of them have had injury problems, so how realistic is it to think that the other team would want to take on the risk of the other player.


----------



## Causeway

I am sure I am partly biased on this. I am not a Boozer fan. Al is 21. He'd be a Jr. in college right now. I still have high hopes for him and think he'll become a better asset to Boston then Boozer. I am not saying I would not trade Al period. I would not trade him to get Bozzer.


----------



## AK-47

Age 21, boozer was putting up 15.5/11.4 shooting .523 in a little under 35 mpg.


----------



## Causeway

Also let's face it. And this is important. Boozer looks too much like Uday Hussein:


----------



## unluckyseventeen

Oh my... is Peter Vescey being allowed to write for newspapers again?

Boozer is not going anywhere, he was never close to being traded, he still isn't, and never will be.


By the way, for the record... every trade I've ever seen the Jazz make, EVER, never started with a trade rumor. Even if they were a liked or a good player, it was one day he's there, the next day he's not. No reporter in SLC would ever get a sniff of trade talk, and if they did, nobody would even care because it's from such a small market.

This is not happening.


----------



## P-Dub34

No one's saying it's going to happen, we just like to have _some_ light at the end of the tunnel.


----------



## agoo

It would be pretty sweet. Boozer would be a huge hlep. And it would add a little bit more to the LeBron-Pierce thing (not that watching those two go at it isn't already amazing).


----------



## Truthiness

Causeway said:


> So...as noted before I don't post trade talk unless it's pretty solid. This is not a trade idea but word from a source that's tells me Boston is working on a deal for Boozer. It could include Big Al and West, or Wally, Gomes...some combination of prospect(s) plus salary.
> 
> It looks very likely that West is a goner.
> 
> It could all blow up...you never know...however feel free to discuss.


I don't buy this trade going down, ever. But that's just me. If the Celtics could get Boozer cheap? Sure, trade for him, but I'd want Boozer to take a pay cut or just restructure his over-inflated contract.

My biggest problem with this is not even what the Celtics might lose, but what would they gain by trading for Boozer? Chances are if he wasn't happy, he'd ask for a trade or leave for the highest bidder ASAP. Also, Boozer isn't that 2nd star next to Pierce, so they wouldn't really be progressing as much as they need to. Boozer would make the team better, but for what? So they can lose in the first round or two in the playoffs and get a higher draft pick? No thank you. Until the Celts find that 2nd star, they ought to just go for draft picks.

Then, if this trade were real, who would be a good candidate to trade away? I don't see how the Celtics can trade Jefferson, because at this point he's still young and developing. We don't really know where Jefferson's potential ends. He should have gone to college, but he didn't, so now he's learning on the pro level, which could be good or bad.

Delonte? No way, right now, he's my starting PG for the Celtics, with Rajon Rondo being #2. Telfair would have to be retained somehow as #3.

Wally? Maybe.

Gomes? No, he looks like he can be a very valuable player to the Celtics, I think giving up on him or trading him would be a big mistake.


----------



## P-Dub34

Carlos Boozer is better than everybody in that post not named Paul Pierce, and in all likelihood equals what Al's top production will be someday.


----------



## Causeway

O'Connor denies Boozer trade talk



> Jazz basketball operations senior vice president Kevin O'Connor on Sunday declined specific comment on a Boston-based report revealing details of the Celtics' recent interest in Utah big man Carlos Boozer.
> 
> O'Connor did, however, attempt to dispel the notion the Jazz are trying to deal Boozer, whose name has been the subject of frequent swap speculation since shortly after his 2004 arrival in Utah.
> 
> "We are not actively engaged in discussing a trade for Carlos Boozer," said O'Connor, who was with the team in Portland to watch it prepare for tonight's preseason game against the Trail Blazers.
> 
> According to Sunday's Boston Herald, which cited an unidentified "league source," the Celtics "were involved in lengthy talks with Utah about ... Boozer, before discussions cooled off in late July." *The Herald also reported that "the price would have been Al Jefferson, with Theo Ratliff's $11.7 million annual salary a match for Boozer's almost identical number."
> 
> The report does appear credible, as it's believed the Jazz indeed have been curious about 6-foot-10 power forward Jefferson*, an '04 first-round draft choice who jumped straight to the NBA from his Mississippi high school. But it's also thought they also were reluctant to take on veteran shot-blocker Ratliff, whose current contract expires after the 2007-08 season — two years before Boozer's runs out.
> 
> *Boozer's six-year, $68 million deal — which the Herald says is "considered one of the worst cases of overpaying an athlete in recent memory" — pays through the 2009-2010 season, including $11,593,816 this season.*
> 
> The Herald's report comes about a week after Jazz coach Jerry Sloan blasted Boozer for his poor preseason defense, which spurred speculation — including one-liners in both the Chicago Tribune and the Philadelphia Inquirer — that Boozer trade rumors would soon follow.
> 
> But it's not the first time the Jazz and Celtics have been publicly linked in talks involving Boozer and Jefferson.
> 
> It also happened this past offseason — though back then it was in the context of other larger supposedly proposed deals, including one that reportedly would have sent Boozer to Philadelphia, brought Jefferson and Celtics swingman Wally Szczerbiak to Utah, and shipped 76ers point guard Allen Iverson to Boston.
> 
> That was one among numerous summer rumors involving Boozer and about a half-dozen different teams, none of which ever materialized.
> 
> Now, though, it appears the Jazz are prepared to move forward with Boozer, who is averaging a team-high 14.2 points and team-leading 8.2 rebounds through five exhibition games. He — along with Mehmet Okur and Andrei Kirilenko — is one of their front-line centerpieces for the 2006-07 season.
> 
> *"We listen to try to make our team better, and it involves all our players," O'Connor said Sunday. "But we're not looking to actively pursue a trade*."


The article pretty much reveals nothing. Except to remind me that Boozeer makes a ton of $$.


----------



## aquaitious

Causeway said:


> O'Connor denies Boozer trade talk
> 
> 
> 
> The article pretty much reveals nothing. Except to remind me that Boozeer makes a ton of $$.



[sarcasm]Yes, because Danny has done a phenomenal job so far without us having to get large, long contracts in return. [/sarcasm]


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

exactly..we paid raef 12 million a year for no production at all...im in favor of paying boozer 12 mill a yr for 18-11...and theoretically he'll only cost us 40 mill because we will eb paying the same amount for the next 2 years to theo and id rather be giving it to boozer 40 mill over 6 years doesnt sound nearly as bad am i right?


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

Truthiness said:


> Boozer would make the team better, but for what? So they can lose in the first round or two in the playoffs and get a higher draft pick? No thank you. Until the Celts find that 2nd star, they ought to just go for draft picks.




soooooo we should just wait for pierce to be 38 before we make any moves then right??? this is the attitude that i cant stand (nothing personal) but its ooo if we are just going to lose in the 2nd round then how much better is that...IT MEANS WE MADE IT TO THE PLAYOFFS...IT MEANS WE WERE A TOP 5 OR 6 EAM IN THE EAST...the "unless we are goign to get the player that brings us a championship then we shouldnt trade anyone" attitude doesnt work because guess what theres only 3 or 4 players out there that would bring us to the finals if we got them and we are not getting any of them....sorry but i dont want to suck for the next 10 years id rather lose in the 2nd round for the next 10 years...but thats just me...its surprsing to me how many people can tolerate multiple 30 win seasons around here just because that means we'll get a better pick than if we make the playoffs and lose in the 2nd round


----------



## AK-47

Like I said, Boozer ain't going no where, and expecially not for Jefferson.


----------



## Causeway

aquaitious said:


> [sarcasm]Yes, because Danny has done a phenomenal job so far without us having to get large, long contracts in return. [/sarcasm]


[Serious]and? Those previous contracts not only also came with other assets - like picks for example - but also we were able to move things that had to go (see:Blount, Raef). I don't think Al has to go.[/serious]


----------



## aquaitious

Causeway said:


> [Serious]and? Those previous contracts not only also came with other assets - like picks for example - but also we were able to move things that had to go (see:Blount, Raef). I don't think Al has to go.[/serious]


So we got a few chips with awful players, basically the worst case scenario is if it doesn't work out with Boozer (it will) we can move him to get much better players than we've gotten for Raef and Blount.


----------



## Causeway

aquaitious said:


> So we got a few chips with awful players, basically the worst case scenario is if it doesn't work out with Boozer (it will) we can move him to get much better players than we've gotten for Raef and Blount.


I would not say Wally or Theo are awful players.


----------



## Alumni96

Causeway said:


> I would not say Wally or Theo are awful players.


I wouldn't say Wally is an awful player. Theo may be our version of Brian Grant.....oh wait...Doh!


----------



## aquaitious

Causeway said:


> I would not say Wally or Theo are awful players.


I mean we got a few chips with awful players (Blount, Raef) so the worst that we could do with a Boozer deal is trade him and get better players than we could have for Blount or Raef (and while we're at it, for Theo or Wally, too.)


----------



## Causeway

aquaitious said:


> I mean we got a few chips with awful players (Blount, Raef) so the worst that we could do with a Boozer deal is trade him and get better players than we could have for Blount or Raef (and while we're at it, for Theo or Wally, too.)


Blount was traded with Banks and Ricky. Good trade but was not so easy to move Blount.

The Raef trade was fantastic in my opinion - but it took a nice #1 pick to move Raef. 

Trading Big Al for Boozer with the idea that if Boozer does not work out we trade him for a pick and wait 3-4 years for that pick to mature, does not make sense. We've been waiting long enough already for the current young guns to mature.


----------



## agoo

Causeway said:


> Blount was traded with Banks and Ricky. Good trade but was not so easy to move Blount.
> 
> The Raef trade was fantastic in my opinion - but it took a nice #1 pick to move Raef.
> 
> Trading Big Al for Boozer with the idea that if Boozer does not work out we trade him for a pick and wait 3-4 years for that pick to mature, does not make sense. We've been waiting long enough already for the current young guns to mature.


The problem is that we got to that point where we needed to deal Blount and Raef. Was either trade bad? The Raef one wasn't. The Blount deal is iffy. However, the first Raef deal created a mistake that needed fixing.


----------



## aquaitious

Causeway said:


> Blount was traded with Banks and Ricky. Good trade but was not so easy to move Blount.
> 
> The Raef trade was fantastic in my opinion - but it took a nice #1 pick to move Raef.
> 
> Trading Big Al for Boozer with the idea that if Boozer does not work out we trade him for a pick and wait 3-4 years for that pick to mature, does not make sense. We've been waiting long enough already for the current young guns to mature.


The Davis, Banks, Blount trade was still awful, all we got in Wally Sczcerbiak, and saved the owners a couple of million...which they get back through high ticket prices anyway.

Raef deal was unecessary in the first place. 

You'll get a lot more for Boozer than one pick. Boozer, the second he gets here becomes our 2nd best year until his career in Boston is over. You cannot say that about any other player on our roster right now.


----------



## E.H. Munro

agoo101284 said:


> The problem is that we got to that point where we needed to deal Blount and Raef. Was either trade bad? The Raef one wasn't. The Blount deal is iffy. However, the first Raef deal created a mistake that needed fixing.


This why I can hardly wait for this crew of rectal jesters to pack their bags and go ruin another professional sports franchise. The first Lafrentz deal turns the team into the laughingstock of the NBA, all so that they can get a luxury tax rebate check, and then they demanded the squandering of a high draft pick to get rid of the albatross they demanded in the first place. Please, Christ, let them buy the Yankees next.


----------



## Truthiness

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> soooooo we should just wait for pierce to be 38 before we make any moves then right??? this is the attitude that i cant stand (nothing personal) but its ooo if we are just going to lose in the 2nd round then how much better is that...IT MEANS WE MADE IT TO THE PLAYOFFS...IT MEANS WE WERE A TOP 5 OR 6 EAM IN THE EAST...the "unless we are goign to get the player that brings us a championship then we shouldnt trade anyone" attitude doesnt work because guess what theres only 3 or 4 players out there that would bring us to the finals if we got them and we are not getting any of them....sorry but i dont want to suck for the next 10 years id rather lose in the 2nd round for the next 10 years...but thats just me...its surprsing to me how many people can tolerate multiple 30 win seasons around here just because that means we'll get a better pick than if we make the playoffs and lose in the 2nd round


No, I'm not saying we should wait for Pierce to be 38 to make any moves, but I don't think adding Boozer is in itself enough to take this team where we all want it to go.

And what good is making it to the playoffs and being a top 6 team in the East? I think the Dallas Mavericks and Sacramento Kings would trade most if not all of their recent playoff success for a title or two. But that's just me.

I don't want the team to suck either, but we have to do something, and the approach the Celtics have used in the last 5-10 years has failed. Exiting early in the playoffs doesn't seem to be helping the team a whole lot. This might sound bad to you, but I'd trade wins for the next Tim Duncan.


----------



## Causeway

Making trades - and not making trades - is a roll of the dice. Raef did not work out. That's the way it goes. That does not make the original trade for him unecessary. But to get into that conversation requires talking about that cheesebuger loving player with the huge head we traded - and I'm not going there.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

Truthiness said:


> This might sound bad to you, but I'd trade wins for the next Tim Duncan.




exactly my point...in other words you would tank the season "for the next tim duncan"...so how did that work out for us the first time...what did we win 7 games that season and who did we end up with???...sorry but i guess im not a good fan because id rather not tank for a chance at landing the top pick...who could for all we know be the next michael olowokandi or pervs ellison and not tim duncan


----------



## Causeway

aquaitious said:


> The Davis, Banks, Blount trade was still awful, all we got in Wally Sczcerbiak, and saved the owners a couple of million...which they get back through high ticket prices anyway.


we got a first rounder in that trade I think right? Plus we got rid of Blount.


----------



## Truthiness

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> exactly my point...in other words you would tank the season "for the next tim duncan"...so how did that work out for us the first time...what did we win 7 games that season and who did we end up with???...sorry but i guess im not a good fan because id rather not tank for a chance at landing the top pick...who could for all we know be the next michael olowokandi or pervs ellison and not tim duncan


That doesn't make you a bad fan it just means you hold a different opinion...


----------



## P-Dub34

I'd trade wins for Duncan, too. In fact, we _did_ trade wins for...oh wait...


----------



## Floods

Truthiness said:


> No, I'm not saying we should wait for Pierce to be 38 to make any moves, but I don't think adding Boozer is in itself enough to take this team where we all want it to go.
> 
> And what good is making it to the playoffs and being a top 6 team in the East? I think the Dallas Mavericks and Sacramento Kings would trade most if not all of their recent playoff success for a title or two. But that's just me.
> 
> I don't want the team to suck either, but we have to do something, and the approach the Celtics have used in the last 5-10 years has failed. Exiting early in the playoffs doesn't seem to be helping the team a whole lot. *This might sound bad to you, but I'd trade wins for the next Tim Duncan.*


If it meant getting Greg Oden in this coming draft i'd trade absolutely anyone. Pierce, Szczerbiak, Jefferson, West, Perk...i'll pack their bags for them.


----------



## Attila

I think the goal is to make your team better, not worse. Or would you prefer we just trade away all of our good players and just hope that we get lucky and land the next superstar? What if don't win the lottery; wait another 10 years for next superstar?


----------



## P-Dub34

The point here is, if Ainge isn't concerned with trying to make this team a winner now, he just pissed away $91 million in salary and robbed a guy of his prime. The Szczerbiak deal also makes no sense unless he's trying to win now.


----------



## Premier

Causeway said:


> we got a first rounder in that trade I think right? Plus we got rid of Blount.


That first round pick will likely be ours in 2010 [no joke].

Also, Blount's contract was much more tolerable and could be readily moved if dealt with Jefferson, etc. for an expiring contract. Szczerbiak's contract is difficult to trade without accepting another bad contract. Also, Ricky Davis is arguably a better player than Szczerbiak and fit the team better in that he assists Pierce by covering the opposing team's best defender. Marcus Banks was a valuable commodity, also. Ainge has not committed to any direction.

The trade was poor from all perspectives.


----------



## Causeway

With the youth we have keeping a guy like Blount around would not have been a good idea. There were also reports that Ricky had issues including showing up to practice smelling of booze and it ws starting to piss off Pierce. Who knows if that was bs leaked post-trade - but that was the word. It seems like Wally and Pierce - while maybe style wise not as good a fit - have a great rapport, which is worth something.

As far as the pick - I did not realize it's a few years off in reality.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

TheBigDonut said:


> If it meant getting Greg Oden in this coming draft i'd trade absolutely anyone. Pierce, Szczerbiak, Jefferson, West, Perk...i'll pack their bags for them.



great lets trade our whole team, tank this entire season, and have a starting 5 of greg oden, shawn kemp, brian scalabrine, luke jackson and orien green...that team would definitely take us to the promised land


----------



## P-Dub34

Premier said:


> That first round pick will likely be ours in 2010 [no joke].
> 
> Also, Blount's contract was much more tolerable and could be readily moved if dealt with Jefferson, etc. for an expiring contract. Szczerbiak's contract is difficult to trade without accepting another bad contract. Also, Ricky Davis is arguably a better player than Szczerbiak and fit the team better in that he assists Pierce by covering the opposing team's best defender. Marcus Banks was a valuable commodity, also. Ainge has not committed to any direction.
> 
> The trade was poor from all perspectives.


You're forgetting to mentions Ricky's salary. He would've wanted Wally money by the time that was up, but with a salary where his was at his level of play, he could've been packaged with some prospects to bring in a lot better than just Wally Szczerbiak.


----------



## Causeway

P-Dub34 said:


> You're forgetting to mentions Ricky's salary. He would've wanted Wally money by the time that was up, but with a salary where his was at his level of play, he could've been packaged with some prospects to bring in a lot better than just Wally Szczerbiak.


This has been mentioned with past trades as well. Ricky has been traded more than once and never for "a lot better than just Wally Szczerbiak". [...and another player and a 1st round pick]


----------



## Premier

Ricky Davis was playing the best basketball of his career last season.

Blount and Davis both have very tradeable contracts. Szczerbiak? Not so much.


----------



## P-Dub34

Right, Cause, but you seem to forget that was before Ricky's image did a 180, and, as Prem said, played the best basketball of his career.

Omitting those details kind of reminds me of that part in "Liar Liar," where he objects. The judge then asks him why, and he says, "Because it's devastating to my case."

Granted, since I'm not an NBA GM I can't say for sure that we could've got better for Ricky (although of this I am confident), and if getting Szczerbiak (and a 1st) for Ricky, Banks, and a more flexible contract was the best I could do, I wouldn't have pulled the trigger. Don't get me wrong, I love Wally, but it just wasn't a good trade.


----------



## Causeway

The best basketball of his career was in Cleveland in 02-03.


----------



## aquaitious

Causeway said:


> The best basketball of his career was in Cleveland in 02-03.


Best basketball of his career on _and_ off the court was in his 05/06 Boston Celtics #12 uniform.


----------



## P-Dub34

And let's not forget how prevalent Ricky's off the court issues were. It wasn't like they were just a minor part of his trade value.


----------



## Causeway

Maybe. Or if could be that the fact he got shipped out of town once again was not a coincidence.


----------



## aquaitious

Causeway said:


> Maybe. Or if could be that the fact he got shipped out of town once again was not a coincidence.


Well, if they were the Celtics have done a great job covering it from the general public, because as far as I can remember in his year and a half here, he's had one small incident, where he was swearing at a High School training session.


----------



## agoo

The people who are against this deal are really missing something significant here. You can't fast break without rebounding. Boozer = Rebounds. If this is available, make it happen.


----------



## P-Dub34

> Or if could be that the fact he got shipped out of town once again was not a coincidence.


Come on, Cause.


----------



## Causeway

P-Dub34 said:


> Come on, Cause.


There was talk Pierce had issues with Ricky. There was talk that Ricky showed up to practice at times smelling of booze. I was a fan of Ricky while here but it's not too much of a stretch to say that perhaps his choir-boy image while here was not so accurate.


----------



## E.H. Munro

P-Dub34 said:


> Come on, Cause.


..


----------



## Causeway

ehmunro said:


> ..


Consider this a warning for thread closure


----------



## Truthiness

TheBigDonut said:


> If it meant getting Greg Oden in this coming draft i'd trade absolutely anyone. Pierce, Szczerbiak, Jefferson, West, Perk...i'll pack their bags for them.


You'd trade absolutely *anyone* for freaking Greg Oden? I'm sorry, but what exactly are Greg Oden's NBA statistics to this point?

I wouldn't go so far as to ship off anyone for a kid like Oden.



Causeway said:


> There was talk Pierce had issues with Ricky. There was talk that Ricky showed up to practice at times smelling of booze. I was a fan of Ricky while here but *it's not too much of a stretch to say that perhaps his choir-boy image while here was not so accurate.*


Agreed.


----------



## P-Dub34

> There was talk that Ricky showed up to practice at times smelling of booze.


Because that was really affecting his play on the court.



> Agreed.


If this trade is so unpopular among the fans, why would the Boston Celtics go through such pains to cover up Ricky's issues that you guys infer got him sent out of town? Because aside from one extremely minor flare-up (in contrast to the Boston media [for the most part], coaches, and players around the league blowing their loads over the "new" Ricky for the last two years), there were no problems.

So, I pray you (Causeway or Truthiness), bring to light any "evidence" you have regarding Ricky's behavior being the reason he was traded.


----------



## Causeway

P-Dub34 said:


> Because that was really affecting his play on the court.


If it was having a negative effect on Pierce - and Pierce's play and attitude after Ricky left only got better (for whatever reason) - then that's important. 




P-Dub34 said:


> If this trade is so unpopular among the fans, why would the Boston Celtics go through such pains to cover up Ricky's issues that you guys infer got him sent out of town? Because aside from one extremely minor flare-up (in contrast to the Boston media [for the most part], coaches, and players around the league blowing their loads over the "new" Ricky for the last two years), there were no problems.
> 
> So, I pray you (Causeway or Truthiness), bring to light any "evidence" you have regarding Ricky's behavior being the reason he was traded.


Only rumor and hearsay. I am not stating it as fact. I also think his "issues" before coming to Boston were over-blown. Including the lame tripple double.


----------



## P-Dub34

> If it was having a negative effect on Pierce - and Pierce's play and attitude after Ricky left only got better (for whatever reason) - then that's important.


Fair enough, but we took in a titanic contract (virtually unmoveable) and really didn't get any better.


----------



## Causeway

P-Dub34 said:


> Fair enough, but we took in a titanic contract (virtually unmoveable) and really didn't get any better.


Wally is moveable. People said Blount was not movable. Same with Raef. Everyone for a price is moveable.


----------



## P-Dub34

Sure, Wally's moveable in a literal sense, but not without giving away good players (and/or picks) and/or taking garbage (and/or bad contracts) in return.





And/or.

And we still didn't get better.


----------



## Causeway

Not yet. MINN did not either.


----------



## P-Dub34

You're right, but Minnesota picked up a player equal to or greater than Szczerbiak with a shorter contract, even if they had to eat Blount (who is about 750% more easily moveable than S). Neither team really benefitted, but Minnesota rid themselves of an albatross and we gained one.


----------



## E.H. Munro

P-Dub34 said:


> If this trade is so unpopular among the fans, why would the Boston Celtics go through such pains to cover up Ricky's issues that you guys infer got him sent out of town? Because aside from one extremely minor flare-up (in contrast to the Boston media [for the most part], coaches, and players around the league blowing their loads over the "new" Ricky for the last two years), there were no problems.


The irony is that we're supposed to accept from this crowd that Ricky was viking his way across Boston and we didn't know about it because management "covered it up" while insisting that we can't apply the same reasoning to Szczerbiak's manufactured image. :bsmile:



P-Dub34 said:


> So, I pray you (Causeway or Truthiness), bring to light any "evidence" you have regarding Ricky's behavior being the reason he was traded.


Don't hold your breath. I could tell you some horror stories dating from 2003-04, but for his last year and a half here the grapevine dried up. By any standard he was pretty sedate.


----------



## Causeway

EDIT: not worth it.


----------



## Truthiness

P-Dub34 said:


> Because that was really affecting his play on the court.
> 
> If this trade is so unpopular among the fans, why would the Boston Celtics go through such pains to cover up Ricky's issues that you guys infer got him sent out of town? Because aside from one extremely minor flare-up (in contrast to the Boston media [for the most part], coaches, and players around the league blowing their loads over the "new" Ricky for the last two years), there were no problems.
> 
> So, I pray you (Causeway or Truthiness), bring to light any "evidence" you have regarding Ricky's behavior being the reason he was traded.


I never said I had any evidence regarding Ricky's behavior, and I don't. If you look at my post, all I agreed with was the bolded part, which read as follows:



Causeway said:


> There was talk Pierce had issues with Ricky. There was talk that Ricky showed up to practice at times smelling of booze. I was a fan of Ricky while here but *it's not too much of a stretch to say that perhaps his choir-boy image while here was not so accurate.*


In response to the bold text, I wrote that I agreed. It's pretty simple.



ehmunro said:


> Don't hold your breath. I could tell you some horror stories dating from 2003-04, but for his last year and a half here the grapevine dried up. By any standard he was pretty sedate.


...


----------



## P-Dub34

> I never said I had any evidence regarding Ricky's behavior, and I don't. If you look at my post, all I agreed with was the bolded part, which read as follows:


And, if you look at my post, I never said you claimed to have any. I asked you for something to back up your notion that Ricky may have been traded for off the court reasons - and you have nothing. I'm not ruling it out as a possibility, but the chances are ridiculously slim that he was dealt because of off court issues.


----------



## SamIam

P-Dub34 said:


> You're right, but Minnesota picked up a player equal to or greater than Szczerbiak with a shorter contract, even if they had to eat Blount (who is about 750% more easily moveable than S). Neither team really benefitted, but Minnesota rid themselves of an albatross and we gained one.


This is absurd.

We traded Blount and Ricky who are signed to 14 million a year for 2 years with Blount on the books for another 7 million a year for 2 more years. We also traded Marcus Bust and Reed - neither of whom would have made the cut this year.

In return we have Wally signed at 12 million a year for 3 years. We have Kandi signed for 1 year at 1 million. AND, we got a first round pick.

Wally is better than Ricky next to Paul. He brings a different skill set than Ricky and much more consistency. We have lots of players on the roster now that can do some of what Ricky did but there is nobody else who does what Wally does.

This trade was a home run for us. To say otherwise is ridiculous.


----------



## whiterhino

I hate hate hate Boozers contract but if we could get him for Al and Theo I would have to jump all over that. Boozer is good, he's a true #2 guy with him, Paul, and Wally we would be legit. Al may never reach Boozers level and we have enough young guys for me to say go ahead and trade him for a guy like Booz. Theo seems done to me, he's a great guy but his career is pretty much over.


----------



## E.H. Munro

SamIam said:


> This is absurd.
> 
> We traded Blount and Ricky who are signed to 14 million a year for 2 years with Blount on the books for another 7 million a year for 2 more years. We also traded Marcus Bust and Reed - neither of whom would have made the cut this year.


Not quite accurate, but yes, as with _every_ trade this new ownership group has made, it's about slashing payroll. In this case they saved the last year of Mark Blount's contract, as Wally makes _more_ through 2008/09 than Davis, Blount, Banks, and Reed were on the books for _combined_



SamIam said:


> In return we have Wally signed at 12 million a year for 3 years. We have Kandi signed for 1 year at 1 million. AND, we got a first round pick.


_However_, because Wally's savings were only long term savings, Ainge had to choose between Rudy Gay/Brandon Roy or Paul Pierce. If he wanted to resign Pierce he had to lose the last year of either Wally or Raef's contract, meaning that we traded away a potential All Star for a mediocre wingman that's a defensive liability. Not really a great deal from a talent perspective. neither is the first round pick guaranteed as the Clippers own a prior first, and the Celtics have to collect the pick by the 2011 draft and have to wait for two years past the draft where the Clippers get theirs. If the Clippers can't collect until 2010, the Celtics will get a second round pick in the 2011 draft as compensation. 



SamIam said:


> Wally is better than Ricky next to Paul. He brings a different skill set than Ricky and much more consistency. We have lots of players on the roster now that can do some of what Ricky did but there is nobody else who does what Wally does.


Paul Pierce

*11/2/05-1/25/06*
25.6 p/g
7.66 r/g
4.66 a/g
1.33 s/g
3.21 to/g
17.3 FGA/g
9.57 FTA/g
10.9 TO ratio
.486 FG%
.527 aFG%
1.19 PP/FGA

*1/27-4/14/06*
28.1 p/g
5.62 r/g
4.84 a/g
1.38 s/g
3.73 to/g
19.9 FGA/g
11.1 FTA/g
11.2 TO ratio
.457 FG%
.492 aFG%
1.14 PP/FGA

I don't see all that much of a difference. His scoring was up by two and a half points, but his shooting decline was precipitous, his rebounding evaporated as he was forced to cover the break to cover Szczerbiak's defensive deficiencies, and of course Szczerbiak is a terrible rebounder (so rebounding wasn't shifted). Pierce made more turnovers and shot less efficiently, and it would appear that most of his increased scoring is accounted for in his extra 2.6 FGA/g and 1.5 FTA/g after the trade. So, in fact, Davis fit just as well. The big difference pre and post trade is that pre trade the offensive load was dispersed amongst Pierce and Davis, and after the trade Pierce was forced to become the offense _because Szczerbiak couldn't replace Davis's offense_.



SamIam said:


> This trade was a home run for us. To say otherwise is ridiculous.


If Gay or Roy win Rookie of the Year the trade will look even worse.


----------



## Premier

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;">Originally Posted by *SamIam*

This is absurd.</td></tr></tbody></table>
Likewise.

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;">We traded Blount and Ricky who are signed to 14 million a year for 2 years with Blount on the books for another 7 million a year for 2 more years.</td></tr></tbody></table>
You are wrong. Davis was traded with $19,579,641 left on his contract over three seasons [$6,526547 per season]. Blount was traded with a $33,708,317 left on his contract over five seasons [$6,741,663 per season], discounting his $919,313 trade kicker. For the next three seasons, their combined contract total was $37,964,891 [$12,655297 per season].

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;">We also traded Marcus Bust and Reed - neither of whom would have made the cut this year.</td></tr></tbody></table>
The Phoenix Suns signed Marcus _Banks_ for five seasons and twenty-one million dollars. The NBA media regarded the deal as cheap for a player of Banks' caliber, who was allegedly commanding much more money and starting opportunities on other teams. The Minnesota Timberwolves signed Justin Reed for two seasons and $2,857,466 [_player _option of $1,642,534 for a third season]. Apparently, both made the cuts, or they scout poorly in Phoenix and Minnesota. I'll choose the former, but if you want to discredit Colangelo and D'Antoni, go right ahead. Somebody must have like them.

I did forget the general rule in Boston sports: to criticize players the minute they put on another uniform, so please excuse my previous paragraph. 

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;">In return we have Wally signed at 12 million a year for 3 years. We have Kandi signed for 1 year at 1 million. AND, we got a first round pick.</td></tr></tbody></table>
Wally Szczerbiak will receive $54,066,668 from the Boston Celtics if he remains with the team. This averages out to $13,516,667 per season, which is higher than the _combined_ totals of Davis and Blount.

Olowokandi received $5,900,400 from the Celtics last season. His recent signing did not result from Szczerbiak trade that he was involved in. That is irrelevant. Actually, he signed for a non-guaranteed $1,065,918 [veteran's minimum]. If he makes the team, he will receive $744,551 from the Celtics.

About the first-round pick. Earlier I posted the following:

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;">The Celtics own a future Minnesota first-round selection [Ricky Davis - Wally Szczerbiak trade], however, prior to that deal, the Timberwolves traded another future first-round selection [Marko Jaric trade]. The Ted Stepien provision in the CBA prohibits teams from trading away consecutive future first-round selections, so Boston must receive the first-round draft pick two drafts after the Clippers receive Minnesota's first-round selection. So, Ainge wanted Los Angeles to receive the 'Wolves' '06 first-round pick, so that the Celtics would receive Minnesota's '08 first-round selection, at the earliest.</td> </tr> </tbody></table> 
The earliest the Celtics can receive the first-round selection is in the '09 draft So, for the Celtics to receive a Timberwolves first-round selection, they would have to finish outside the bottom eleven. Then, the Celtics would receive the draft selection two years after that, which will likely be 2009 barring a Kevin Garnett trade, in which the Celtics will likely receive no first-round picks because under the CBA, teams are not allowed to trade future selections of more than five years past the current selection. The Celtics are not eligible to receive Minnesota's '11 first. The draft pick that Ainge traded for is nearly worthless and it is a poor argument to list it.

Ainge better start scouting the 15 year olds. Phil Pressey of BABC is a pretty good point.

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Wally is better than Ricky next to Paul. He brings a different skill set than Ricky and much more consistency. We have lots of players on the roster now that can do some of what Ricky did but there is nobody else who does what Wally does.</td> </tr> </tbody></table> 
ehmunro touched on this fairly well.

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;">This trade was a home run for us. To say otherwise is ridiculous.</td></tr></tbody></table>
Sigh.


----------



## P-Dub34

I appreciate the backup, Prem and E.H. I'm drunk right now, so I couldn't properly illustate my point. 

After reading your posts, though, you both (thankfully) covered it, and well I might add. Let it be known that I LOVE Wally Szczerbiak - just not his contract. Or the trade.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

Causeway said:


> Today the trade would be in our favor. What about down the road when our young guys have more experience and start to click? I'd rather hold onto Al for now and see what his growth is, and not trade on that for the 8th seed with Boozer.




bump...i know its only been a week bout would you _still_ rather hang on to Al than have player of the week boozer averaging 21 points and 15 boards shooting 50% so far this season...making it look easy while hes at it???...its clear to me that we could all pray that Al turns out to be this good...but we already know boozer IS this good...so why gamble?? just wondering...


----------



## AK-47

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> bump...i know its only been a week bout would you _still_ rather hang on to Al than have player of the week boozer averaging 21 points and 15 boards shooting 50% so far this season...making it look easy while hes at it???...its clear to me that we could all pray that Al turns out to be this good...but we already know boozer IS this good...so why gamble?? just wondering...


lol, nice bump. :clap:


----------



## Floods

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> bump...i know its only been a week bout would you _still_ rather hang on to Al than have player of the week boozer averaging 21 points and 15 boards shooting 50% so far this season...making it look easy while hes at it???...its clear to me that we could all pray that Al turns out to be this good...but we already know boozer IS this good...so why gamble?? just wondering...


Boozer's already used up 4 of the 45 games he plays per season.


----------

