Carlos Boozer Revisited

Last summer I said that Spurs should do whatever it took to get Boozer in a Spurs uniform. The Jazz ended up getting him for around $60M ... and so far that looks like a bargain.

22.1 points, 10.4 rebounds and 2.4 assists later, how do you feel about the possibility of the Spurs getting Boozer last summer? Do you think they did right by the moves they did or would you like to see Boozer in the Silver and Black?

Personally, I think Boozer and Duncan could go out there and win championships with an average supporting cast around them. I love Manu but I'd have to think long and hard about who I'd take if I got a choice.

Discuss.

Are you serious...

Manu over Boozer anytime.

Boozer cleans up... has nice stats but isn't the difference maker Manu is.

Forget your a Manu fan for a second. Imagine someone who could average 20 and 10 next to Duncan.

Scary.

How do we even knmow he'd avg. You can't automatically assume that. Hey, a lot of people automatically assumed Houston would be title contenders with Yao and TMac together. Now it looks like Orlando got the better.

Boozer is a low post guy. We have that in Tim.

Manu in 8 games is avg. 11 shoots per game. In the same amount of games Boozer is avg. 15 shoots a game.

But you can't seriously expect manu to maintain his current scoring rate per shot, I think it was at about 1.7 points per attempt, thats well up on last year. To keep his scoring at that level Manu may require more shots than Boozer.

That being said Boozer isn't much of a shot blocker, and I really like what Rasho is doing in that regard. I'd prefer Manu but Boozer would be a good option none the less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Forget your a Manu fan for a second. Imagine someone who could average 20 and 10 next to Duncan.

Scary.

---

I thinks Manu can average 18 / 5 / 5. Those are good numbers for an SG who's the team's second or third option.

And I agree with the Writer, Manu can be a difference maker.

But again, i'm too biased, I'm an Argie.

Boozer instead of Manu? Hard to say, PF vs SG. I think their value to a team is different but equal.

Rebounding is an undeniable, un-fakeable measure of a player's worth and heart. See Manu's and JKidd's RPG. And the number of rebounds Boozer averages, even last year alongside Z, and espeically at his 6-8 height indicating to me last year that this guy was special. Now, in only his 3rd year, he's avging 20+ PPG (shooting, again, 50+%) and still getting 11 RPG, elevating him to that tiny class of players who avg double-double.

The question isn't Boozer vs Manu but Boozer vs Rasho, with Tim as center, and Boozer as PF. Rasho sent elsewhere (how could he be backup at his salary?). And Manu/Barry as SG. A few rings in there somewhere.

Boozer's nice-guy seriousness would have fit it well with Spurs.

Quote:

---

Imagine someone who could average 20 and 10 next to Duncan.

---

In the low post?

David Robinson.

But we stopped that and won two championships.

Go figure.

Quote:

---

The question isn't Boozer vs Manu

---

Pretty much has to be that question. This isn't fantasy basketball. Those were the chioces at the time. It's actually Boozer vs. Manu + (Barry or Bowen). Which two would you rather do without?

Boozer would have provided a boost to the Spurs, no doubt. I've always held that Duncan needs an enforcer type next to him, not a Radosoftie.

If its Boozer v. Ginobili, that's tough because of Ginobili's game plus his big game, big play capabilities, but you are still comparing a very capable big to a wing. The one knock on Boozer is his shotblocking, but he makes up for that with his rebounding and physicality. Also, dude is only 23.

I'd go with Boozer in a S&T with the Cavs for Radosoft.

I'd still take Manu. The Spurs knew they had Scola, who's an inch shorter than Boozer but still a very skilled scorer and multi-dimensional player. Boozer is better than Scola at this point but the combination of Scola and Ginobili on the same court is a proven gem.

In retrospect, I think a lot of teams wish they had used their draft pick on Boozer back in 2002 (35th pick). The Spurs used theirs to trade for Claxton and then fortunately got Scola later on at 56th.

Quote:

---

I'd go with Boozer in a S&T with the Cavs for Radosoft.

---

He still would've ended up on the Jazz then -- more money.

The Cavs wouldn't have done a S&T because they weren't expecting the possibility of losing him. Also, Boozer's numbers wouldn't be the same with Duncan around and we're talking about bringing Boozer off the bench. While Duncan does spot duty at the 5, he has said on many occasions that he does not want to play there on a regular basis. Tim, Rasho and Carlos would make an excellent bigman rotation but who do we bring in to man the 2? Manu probably wouldn't sign for the combined Barry/Bowen money (once you figure for the extra cash to sign Boozer who's contract is for $68 million) and if he did then you're looking at who you plug in at the 3 (since Devin would probably work as the primary 2 backup)? As it is, our backup is LJ3 so this leaves a huge hole at the 3. As tempting as it would be to have another star caliber bigman, for $16 milion less, thus allowing the retaining Bowen and signing of Barry, Manu would seem to be the better option.

Once it became clear to the Cavs that they couldn't create the cap room to keep Boozer after he signed an offer sheet, I'd think they'd be up for doing a deal.

The swingman rotation would require some finesse, but the Spurs certainly had the cap flexibility to pull off the S&T, no doubt.

Acquiring Boozer would have been a long term move. Sure you would take a hit at the wings but it wouldn't have been just about this season.

Quote:

---

Once it became clear to the Cavs that they couldn't create the cap room to keep Boozer after he signed an offer sheet, I'd think they'd be up for doing a deal.

---

I know he's "ignoring" me, but if the Cavs couldn't raise the money to sign him for the max, how could they raise the money to S&T him for the max?

But Boozer had already signed the offer sheet with the Jazz, not to mention that the Cavs only had his early Bird rights and were over the cap so they could only sign him to MLE. A S&T comes into play when a team knows they are going to lose a player but want to get some type of compensation. But they have to be able to sign him to the initial contract in the first place. The Cavs wouldn't have been able to that. The Spurs would have to have signed him straight up which would put us in that Manu/Bowen/Barry dilemma. That and I think the Spurs consider themselves too honorable to chase after a player in Boozer's situation. But then again, you never know since Boozer is a young big with plenty of potential. In the end, for the money and not to mention from a PR standpoint (Boozer's situation and Manu's popularity with the Latino community) I think the Spurs feel they made a good decision.

Quote:

---

But Boozer had already signed the offer sheet with the Jazz, not to mention that the Cavs only had his early Bird rights and were over the cap so they could only sign him to MLE. A S&T comes into play when a team knows they are going to lose a player but want to get some type of compensation. But they have to be able to sign him to the initial contract in the first place. The Cavs wouldn't have been able to that.

---

Forgot about Boozer's Early Bird status. Then offload Rasho to another team under the cap that can absorb his contract for something minimal in return. Same difference from the Spurs' perspective.

I think it's better have a good big and a good perimeter player rather than two good bigs. There's not enough room around the basket for two bigs to operate on offense. Yes, the Spurs did it twice, but they did it with great defense rather than great offense.

What makes anyone think the Spurs would max out Boozer?

Quote:

---

Yes, the Spurs did it twice

---

They didn't win til DRob parked himself in the key. Could we park Boozer in the key?

Quote:

---

I think it's better have a good big and a good perimeter player rather than two good bigs. There's not enough room around the basket for two bigs to operate on offense. Yes, the Spurs did it twice, but they did it with great defense rather than great offense.

---

But Boozer's game basically complements Duncan's. Boozer has a solid jumper and he is not afraid to attack the offensive glass and mix it up.

No one's mentioning the big thing here. It's not just about the stats in the comparison. Manu has the intangible of knowing how to win.

So far, Boozer hasn't proven that he'd be money in the clutch like Manu yet. So I take Manu 24/7/365.

That was mentioned:

Quote:

---

If its Boozer v. Ginobili, that's tough because of Ginobili's game plus his big game, big play capabilities, but you are still comparing a very capable big to a wing. The one knock on Boozer is his shotblocking, but he makes up for that with his rebounding and physicality. Also, dude is only 23.

---

Quote:

---

Then offload Rasho to another team under the cap that can absorb his contract for something minimal in return.

---

If he could actually name a team that would've done that....

Another interesting possibility would have been if the Spurs had managed to move Rose for nothing in return. I think the Spurs could've then managed to squeeze Boozer and Ginobili both under the cap. You'd have 3 bigs so your bigman rotation would be fine. No Barry but I think they could've kept Bowen.

If he could actually name a team that would've done that....

I've got to take Manu on this argument. For starters, there was some sheistiness with Boozer leaving Cleveland. While I can't question his play on the court, if I were a GM that alone would have made me think twice about the guy's loyalty. Second, Manu has improved with each passing season in the NBA and as of this off season there was no reason to question that he still had room to grow (and that potential is certainly being realized in the early going at least). And I think Manu just fits better into the Spurs system. Inevitably I think Boozer and Duncan would probably start cutting into each other's minutes or stepping on each others toes in the paint. The Spurs are better off with Manu and Rasho spreading out the D and giving Tim the post all to himself.

Call it cornball, but Pop wouldn't have called him, having been burned by lies during the FA period before. Boozer has some character flaws that wouldn't fit here, no matter how good his game is.

I tend to think that the whole Boozer scenario was karma for Cleveland luring Lamond Murray away after he had a verbal deal with SA in 99.

this team is built to win now and for several years. i think our management is shrewd.

i hear people bitching about not making big moves, but since timmy came into the picture, the spurs are the winningest team in the 4 major sports. we haven't won every year, but we have a legitimate shot every year.



it always takes a little luck with titles, and i think the spurs braintrust does as much as they can to eliminate needing luck.



.02

I would much rather have Manu than Boozer. I love Carlos' game, but no way he puts up 20 and 10 next to Duncan. The only big in the league who I think would be a lock for that while playing with Duncan is KG.

Robinson was 10x the player Boozer was in 99 and couldn't do it. As for the rebounding, his numbers would definitely suffer next to Duncan. David was one of the great rebounders I've ever seen who never put up huge numbers (after 92) because he played the rest of his career with 2 of the greatest rebounders to ever live (Rodman and Duncan).

Make that trade and the passing on this team is nowhere near what it is now, the perimeter defense is worse, the fastbreak goes downhill, etc while the middle gets clogged 2002 style.

The Spurs made the right move.

I think I'll stick with Ex's explanantion... karma can be a female dog, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

I would much rather have Manu than Boozer. I love Carlos' game, but no way he puts up 20 and 10 next to Duncan. The only big in the league who I think would be a lock for that while playing with Duncan is KG.

Robinson was 10x the player Boozer was in 99 and couldn't do it. As for the rebounding, his numbers would definitely suffer next to Duncan. David was one of the great rebounders I've ever seen who never put up huge numbers (after 92) because he played the rest of his career with 2 of the greatest rebounders to ever live (Rodman and Duncan).

Make that trade and the passing on this team is nowhere near what it is now, the perimeter defense is worse, the fastbreak goes downhill, etc while the middle gets clogged 2002 style.

The Spurs made the right move.

---

When Base is not talking like Ice Cube, his analysis can be incredibly incisive. Nice work bro, exactly the same lines of thought I was having.