Trade Idea

Hey guys

I was wondering what yall think about this

Cats
Send: Gerald Wallace, Dontell Jefferson
Receive: Carlos Boozer

Portland
Send: Travis Outlaw
Receive: Gerald Wallace, Dontell Jefferson

Utah
Send: Carlos Boozer
Receive: Travis Outlaw

Cats get a low post presence to go with Okafor and allow Diaw to move to his more natural 3 spot
Portland gets Wallace who they have coveted for basically nothing
Utah clears Boozers contract and in return get a young prospect

It would be expensive, but if we then resign Felton and offer Iverson the midlevel our lineup would be

PG: Felton
SG: Iverson
SF: Diaw
PF: Boozer
C: Okafor
Bench: DJ, Bell, Henderson, Vlad, Diop

Thoughts?

Deal. Getting Boozer and keeping Okafor is key. Hopefully we'd get him with an extension, but if not, it's not so terrible to be out of the contract entirely if he were to bolt.

I've said it like 10times on realGM, if we want Boozer we HAVE to deal Diaw.
Otherwise we have to start Diaw or Radman at SF, which would be horrendous. Both of them aren't true small forwards and at most medicore defenders.

I mean, who will guard Lebron, Anthony, Pierce, Wade, Durant, Granger, Jax and so on...... Those guys who are big, fast, and can score at will.

With Diaw/Boozer/Radman defending them, we would get raped at the forward positions, by almost every team.

of course we get a guy who can score in the lowpost, but trading Wallace for Boozer would hurt us more than help.

no way. Boozer has no heart and could leave us anytime or sports some injury just because he could anytime. He is no reliable.

that's another good point.

Wait so we are going to start 3 Power Forwards?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rsxnova

Wait so we are going to start 3 Power Forwards?

---

LOL I was about to say we finally got close to having people play the right spot, why mess that up?

No deal. But nice try.

I agree with Schnitzel3 on Diaw at the 3. Crash's D plus his rebounding could (hopefully) offset some of the loss with not having a point/forward.

I have no firm belief if the extra scoring from the post would offset Diaw's loss, but I think it could be close.

It would be better to give up Diaw, sure. But I'd move Crash or Boris to get Boozer. High reward, low risk opportunity. Maybe the thing to do is NOT extend Boozer?

Best case: We have the perfect compliment to Okafor and have a strong frontline. Diaw/Boozer/Okafor are capable of guarding rangy bigs and big time post players, but is susceptible to quicker players. Wallace/Boozer/Okafor are capable of guarding faster guys but struggle to defend the post. Offensively, Wallace and Diaw are both really important to the current structure of the team, Wallace can drive, Diaw is a great passer/playmaker, shooter and has some post moves. The team goes to the playoffs and has to do more tweaking, but is closer to being a real threat than before.

Worst case: We get out of a long term contract, get a lot worse in 2010-11 and rebuild.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walt Cronkite

It would be better to give up Diaw, sure. But I'd move Crash or Boris to get Boozer. High reward, low risk opportunity. Maybe the thing to do is NOT extend Boozer?

Best case: We have the perfect compliment to Okafor and have a strong frontline. Diaw/Boozer/Okafor are capable of guarding rangy bigs and big time post players, but is susceptible to quicker players. Wallace/Boozer/Okafor are capable of guarding faster guys but struggle to defend the post. Offensively, Wallace and Diaw are both really important to the current structure of the team, Wallace can drive, Diaw is a great passer/playmaker, shooter and has some post moves. The team goes to the playoffs and has to do more tweaking, but is closer to being a real threat than before.

Worst case: We get out of a long term contract, get a lot worse in 2010-11 and rebuild.

---

Crash and Diaw are both "value" contracts for what they produce, and Crash is the only reason half the people who show up to games do. Diaw isn't as effective at the 3, and Boozer is getting older.

And if we rebuild, it's without LB. He's pretty much said so.