Trade for Carlos Boozer?

by BlazerFanSince1970 on Dec 23, 2009 10:49 AM PST

I've never proposed a specific trade before, but adversity breeds opportunity ...

The Trade

Portland sends:

Blake ($4.0M) and Howard ($0.8M) to Miami (Miami agrees to waive Howard so we can resign him in 30 days)

Miami uses their trade exceptions (Banks & Livingston) for Blake & Howard

Portland sends:

Outlaw ($3.6M) and Webster ($4.3M) to Utah for Boozer ($12.3M) and C.J. Miles ($3.7M)

This works in the ESPN trade machine. Portland sends out $12.7M and can therefore receive $16.0M, which just covers Boozer plus Miles. Webster and Miles are just about a wash in salary, but the deal can't work without including them because the 125% multiplier + $100K balances the incoming and outgoing salaries for Portland.

The Rationale

Miami does this deal because they can use Blake, it costs them nothing but trade exceptions, and his contract expires this year if they don't want to keep him next year.

Utah does this deal because they are dying to find a way to get rid of Boozer's contract to save luxury tax this year and not take back more salary for next year. They would save $8.1M in luxury tax plus more than 1/2 of the $8.1M salary difference, for a total savings this year of over $12M. Outlaw's contract expires this year, and Webster and Miles contracts are a wash, so there's no financial impact on Utah next year.

Portland does this deal because Boozer is a 20 & 11 Big Man, which we badly need right now, and he could be a key piece of our future. His contract expires this year so we would have to outbid other teams to keep him beyond this year, but Outlaw's and Blake's contracts expire this year too. With Joel out for perhaps a year or longer, we absolutely need another high quality Big next year or beyond. Oden, Boozer, and LMA each playing 32 minutes a game would be as good a PF/C rotation as we are likely to ever get. The price to re-sign FA Boozer this summer would be steep, but if KP wants him I suspect Paul Allen would agree.

My Thoughts

I've never thought of Boozer as an ideal big man, but we could do a lot worse than an Oden, Boozer, LMA rotation. I certainly can't think of any other way to get a quality Big that is even remotely feasible. Utah is in quite a financial mess (we put them there with the Millsap signing) and that might make this deal possible.

Tweet Comment 21 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

...

This is what I would call a panic trade. In my own eyes we definitely need someone but we should plan on keeping the players that really have changed the organization and brought us to where we are.

I’d almost think we need to get a temp player that can get the job done until next season (like how Nelson went down for the Magic last year and got Alston, as soon as Nelson came back they traded his ass) but keep our current players because they do more than everyone thinks and chemistry wise. I’d say Miller is more movable since he’s been with the team less, still having trouble figuring out his true roll and we have 2 other backups (plus Bayless needs to play more to develop).

I love Miller and I think it would eventually work but we don’t have the time to wait on that because we are already waiting on our 23423423 injured players. We need a consistent big man to do a decent job until next year.

- www.ichabodmedia.com
- www.portugaltheman.com

by brandonmitchell on Dec 23, 2009 10:55 AM PST reply actions

no trades...

by In Walks Rudy on Dec 23, 2009 11:09 AM PST reply actions

Do you see Blake and Outlaw as part of our championship team?

Or do you think we should just let them walk away this summer for nothing?

by BlazerFanSince1970 on Dec 23, 2009 11:19 AM PST up reply actions

Both could be a part

both are good players, and both should be used to bring in a long term solution to the front court, not a 1/2 season rental like Boozer would be.

Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?

by usmcr3049 on Dec 23, 2009 11:44 AM PST up reply actions

exactly

by In Walks Rudy on Dec 23, 2009 11:45 AM PST up reply actions

I have no proof of this...

but I think if KP could trade Blake and Outlaw for someone worthwhile, then he probably would have. Blake is currently one of the worst point guards in the league and Outlaw has a broken foot. I’m not seeing a lot of value with those two and there are better expiring contracts out there. Boozer for one.

Things might be better near the trade deadline, when teams get more desperate to shed salary.

by Nick Van Excellent on Dec 23, 2009 11:47 AM PST up reply actions

...

I wouldn’t go as far to say Blake is one of the worst point guards in the league, but I would say he is one of the worst starting point guards. He actually would be one of the best backups in my opinion.

There just wouldn’t be a reason to make a trade that would get rid of the nucleus of the team. You want to keep the players that have contributed in a positive way as long as possible and not risk having the team fall apart. I mean look at the Andre Miller situation and that wasn’t even a panic.

Having good chemistry with good players is very very important.

- www.ichabodmedia.com
- www.portugaltheman.com

by brandonmitchell on Dec 23, 2009 11:57 AM PST up reply actions

So between LMA and Boozer, who's going to come off the bench next year?

Doesn’t work when we have Oden back. Neither will accept a bench role. Boozer may be able to play center, but he’s no more of a C than LMA is.

by RecordTOs on Dec 23, 2009 11:47 AM PST reply actions

...

Not to mention we would have no 3 point threat until Rudy comes back. Webster and Blake (and Roy I guess) have been our three ‘threat.’

- www.ichabodmedia.com
- www.portugaltheman.com

by brandonmitchell on Dec 23, 2009 11:53 AM PST up reply actions

why in gods name

would they ever accept this?

by duckyou on Dec 23, 2009 11:51 AM PST reply actions

Utah would never do this

even with a team that DIDN’T force them into the luxury tax, but especially with us. – Elgin

Travis Outlaw, the Funnel Cake of the Blazers

by 22baylor on Dec 23, 2009 12:21 PM PST reply actions

I don't see it

Utah just dumped about $7-8 million in salary to OKC. If that hadn’t happened, I think they might be more interested.

Ties them into the rest of Webster’s contract, of course. Saves them some money, no doubt, but might even cost them a playoff spot, which would cost them significantly.

Boozer is one of the highest expiring contracts out there, and can still play, which means he might be a valuable trade asset. I’d be surprised if they’d do this.

I also doubt that we really want him here long term, as far as culture. So this looks costly to me, if that isn’t part of the picture. You give up Martell and the right to re-sign Travis and Steve without using our MLE. Now, maybe we won’t re-sign both of them, but I would guess we do one of them, anyway. If Boozer walks, we’ve hurt ourselves, and in all probability, he’d walk.

#52

by jscot on Dec 23, 2009 12:33 PM PST reply actions

I'd do the first part of this deal, if Miami agrees

but I wouldn’t target Boozer with the trade exception

I suspect KP will deal either Blake or Miller by mid-Feb

When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Dec 23, 2009 12:59 PM PST reply actions

Did we really just jettison

Blake, Howard, Outlaw, AND Webster for Carlos Boozer?

So our starting lineup is Miller, Roy, Miles, LMA, Boozer?
Bench Bayless, Cunningham, Pendergraph, Tolliver?

by pdxlifer on Dec 23, 2009 1:06 PM PST reply actions

A better trade idea

came from none other than Bill Simmons today.
He suggested trading with NY.
Blake/Outlaw for Jeffries/Hill

Jeffries and Hill are both big men, 6-11 and 6-10 respectively. Jeffries has a rep as a decent defender but a awful offensive player, while Hill is just a rookie. Jeffries has a player option for next year for almost $7 million, while Hill is still on a cheap rookie deal. NY does this to clear Jeffries contract off their books for the 2010 summer, while Portland needs big bodies this year especially and Hill could be a very good back up to LMA next year.

From a fan perspective this doesn’t sit well, Outlaw while not always the fan fav, is a very good player, and this is not alot of return on that long term investment. Still this is the type of trade I can see KP making, something that could help now, and in the future.

Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?

by usmcr3049 on Dec 23, 2009 1:56 PM PST reply actions

another idea from Simmons

Blake/Outlaw to the Clippers for Camby.

Camby’s deal is expiring, so it is just for this season, the type of move I am against. But it would solve that problem for this year.

Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?

by usmcr3049 on Dec 23, 2009 2:02 PM PST up reply actions

I like Jeffries/Hill more than Camby. I have a hard time seing KP making any deal right away though. My guess says they wait until the deadline to do anything.

Keep the faith.

by fajunga on Dec 23, 2009 3:05 PM PST up reply actions

Boozer is a PF

But he doesn’t do what we would need from a big— interior defense and intimidation, via blocking shots and helping on defense. Boozer is a good rebounder, but he’s so bad at the rest of what a big does on defense, it doesn’t really help us.

He’s a talented offensive player, but for the reasons I’ve added and the reasons listed above, neither do we want to do this, or the Jazz/Miami.

Mortimer

#52

by Mortimer on Dec 23, 2009 3:37 PM PST reply actions

With the last Maynor move, Utah may be trying to position themselves to keep Boozer for themselves.

If they really think that Boozer will bolt, they would be more active in trying to trade him. Of course, there’s still a lot of time left.

πεντήκοντα δύο

Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?

by T Darkstar on Dec 23, 2009 4:16 PM PST reply actions

denied

1. think long-term.
2. slide into the draft lottery.
3. send b roy to get us the #1 pick.
4. draft john wall from kentucky.
5. send miller and blake packing.

;)

Portland's PG of the Future - MORE John Wall
Treat people well because Karma can hit you at any second.

by Net Ranger on Dec 23, 2009 6:36 PM PST reply actions