So we get in talk with a team under the cap. We have them make a play on Boozer for a partial claim (5-7 mil). Then we trade a couple of young prospects for Boozer. Doable?
Exactly. Yes on Bynum, no on Boozer. Assuming Bynum clears waivers, which he will, and assuming he wanted to sign with the Blazers for the Vets Minimum, which he most likely won't, the Blazers could sign him. They'd have to waive a player first, but there wouldn't be any other CBA impediment to making the deal. Boozer could have only been amnestied for this season during the 7 days after the the July moratorium, so he won't be available.
The question was "can we get" these players. The question didn't include "when." So yes, yes is possible. But I don't think Boozer makes it through waivers. Some team will certainly pick him up.
Technically correct, I suppose. Given the overarching context of all of MM's previous posts about improving the Blazers' depth at the big positions in order to improve their chances in the playoffs this season, I'd say my response contains the information he was looking for.
The response I was looking for is if we chose to do so, could we sign Bynum and or Boozer if he is amnestied this year to help us this year.
We've seen plenty of teams implement a new starter in their rotation and immediately contend just in the last decade. Pau Gasol and Rasheed Wallace were huge pieces of Detroit and LA's runs
to answer the specific question (to help us this year), we could only offer Bynum the vet minimum. He'd be (most likely) a UFA, and could sign anywhere. There's nothing we can do for Boozer, other than a trade with about 11M going out.
We've seen more teams get cluster fucked then teams being successful. Look no further than when we signed Rod Strickland mid season and imploded.
I just can't see Boozer being happy about backing up Aldridge for 15-20 minutes a game. Boozer needs more time than that.
Just because the Rod Strickland incident caused problems does not mean any such player acquisition would. The Blazers acquired Marcus Camby in mid-February for Blanky and Travis, and immediately improved the team. (No Camby problems surfaced until his last season with the Blazers.)
But we weren't competing for a title then. This is a little different. The expectations are higher, and a problem could create a escalated negative reaction. The reason I brought up Strickland was we were contending before he arrived, then became a first round and out team the moment the trade happened. In Camby's case, we moved players that weren't difference makers for this team for a player that we desperately needed. We don't "desperately need a starting center". That's the difference, IMO.
Yes, different situations. Each situation is different. I don't think we should use either as a basis for a decision whether to tweek the roster this season. For what it's worth, which is exactly zero of anything, I doubt the Blazers make any moves. Unless of course someone makes them an offer they can't refuse. They aren't stupid.
Bringing in Detlef Schrempf for the playoffs also did not end well. You could visibly see the stress on his and other players' faces and body language.
Listen, I absolutely would love to have Noah on this team. I think he would be such a strong addition. But there are things we should consider. 1.) Chicago would laugh if we offered CJ, Lopez and T. Rob for Noah 2.) Too late in the season to swing for the fences when we are already doing well. (Playing with house money, since we weren't even considered a top 10 team) 3.) Lopez has done a fine job as our starter. If any choice is made, we need to look at a bench player.
