Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Trade Rumors

Carlos Boozer for Theo Ratliff and Al Jefferson. Is that a good deal? Let's take a look at Carlos Boozer.

Positives:

1. He has been a double double machine at points in his career.

2. Once uttered the line, “There are two ways to argue with a woman and they both don’t work.”

Negatives:

1. If I told you an NBA player appeared in 83 games you would think, “Okay so he missed some time. But then came back for the playoffs and his team was knocked out in the first or second round.” What if those appearances were spread out of two seasons? That is Carlos Boozer.

2. Needless to say, he’s injury prone.

3. The fans in Utah turned on him. Utah!

4. His own coach recently called him out for being the stereotypical score 22 points and give up 26 player. In several pre-season games Boozer's man has been the leading scorer for Utah's opponent.

5. Search the Internet for a long list of jokes revolving around chest hair and stabbing a blind man in the back.

6. Perhaps he should spend more time focusing on his game and less time filing lawsuits against Prince of all people. Wow the Smoking Gun and Charlie Murphy in the same sentence. I should stop right now.

7. He has a terrible contract.

Analysis:

Based on the number of positive and negative points I think you can guess where this is going. Granted it may be enticing to get rid of the highly paid, injury prone Ratliff. But keep in mind Boozer’s unwieldy contract is two seasons longer than Theo’s. And in the end this deal comes down to how the Celtics feel about Jefferson. Is he the power forward of the future or a talented youngster who will never reach his potential? It’s tough to say. However, Big Al has mainly been criticized for his poor defensive play and injuries. Sounds a lot like Carlos Boozer minus the terrible contract. If we’re going to move any of the youth I think we need a proven player in return. And if this deal does go through it’s probably the beginning of the end for Danny Ainge as it will be the culmination of a Mormon conspiracy so deep and twisted I dare not even blog about it in detail.

No comments: