Boozer trade to Bobcats???

[mrtarheel]

With wallace, we don't need an agressive PF

It wouldn't hurt our second chance pts, or rebounding where we could then get out on the break.

[teej]

It wouldn't hurt our second chance pts, or rebounding where we could then get out on the break.

But we lose our half-court offense

[Marvel]

Hell naw we have Diaw and IMO is better than Boozer,we keep Diaw forget Boozer don't let numbers fool ya

[Fred Williamson]

Lmao@ people talking about "get rid of Nazrs contract". How about get rid of Diops contract? which is like 10times worse. And hell no to Boozer for Wallace. Who should play starting center then? Diop? That would be horrible. Besides from that, Utah wont do that deal because they are loaded with wings.

[spectre]

This is like Bonnell listing teams that we "might" could move Emeka to. Just something a journalist threw out there.

[dnbman]

Just something a journalist threw out there.

Yet, it means so much more in the parallel universe of trade speculation, where posters on fan boards propose trades that are then discussed for pages and pages, as if real.

[Slam]

There are cheaper back ups at pf than 9 mill. Trading Diaw would be the next move. Maybe send him to NY for Jefferies and Lee.

If you want a cheaper back up PF than 9 million dollars you might want to leave David Lee's name out of the conversation!!

[spectre]

Yet, it means so much more in the parallel universe of trade speculation, where posters on fan boards propose trades that are then discussed for pages and pages, as if real.

It's exactly the same...but usually when it's put in an article like that AND the way the article was worded on RGM's wiretap it appeared to be a viable discussion; i.e. "Jazz Have Possibilities For Boozer Trade"...when in reality we don't know that there are possibilities with us.

Do you or anyone else see us giving Boozer a contract next season at 16 per a year?

[dnbman]

It's exactly the same...but usually when it's put in an article like that AND the way the article was worded on RGM's wiretap it appeared to be a viable discussion; i.e. "Jazz Have Possibilities For Boozer Trade"...when in reality we don't know that there are possibilities with us.

Do you or anyone else see us giving Boozer a contract next season at 16 per a year?

Yeah, but there's a difference between a columnist hearing from a legit source what the trade talks are and people on here just throwing out ideas.

Again, I don't really care about the "what ifs" so much as the OMG! reactions some people have as if the deal is going to happen.

As for Boozer, I'm wondering if he'd stay even if we offered that. Again, with a trade, we'd be losing an important piece to get him. I'm just not sure we're a talent for talent trade away from contending.

[spectre]

Yeah, but there's a difference between a columnist hearing from a legit source what the trade talks are and people on here just throwing out ideas.

Absolutely...but that's not the case here. The columnist is doing exactly what people here do...just throwing out ideas.