3 Reasons Chicago Bulls Must Amnesty Carlos Boozer
There are around 60 million reasons to amnesty Carlos Boozer. Well, check that, there are actually around 47 million reasons now that another year on his deal is up. And that's the point—Boozer's contract gets less onerous by the year, and Chicago can choose when to slough it off.
1. Derrick Rose Is Locked In
He may have blown out his knee, but Chicago is not lurching toward a future without Derrick Rose. The kid has a near-$100 million deal that the Bulls will work around.
2. Carlos Boozer Is Locked In
That's why we're having this conversation. The aforementioned man of the hour will make nearly $17 million in 2014. Boozer's a decent player, but he's not worth that kind of money. Perhaps more importantly, he does not fit this team's architecture as a defense-oriented Tom Thibodeau club.
Boozer was perfect for Utah's flex-offense attack and could still help a team or two out there. Trading him and his price tag presents a challenge, though, because his offense falters against elite opponents. If the undersized Boozer goes up against David Lee, he looks like an all-timer. If he goes against a lengthier opponent, like say, Chris Bosh, he can wilt.
Since such lengthy opponents tend to play for playoff teams, not many squads burn for Boozer on the roster. He's good to great against some teams, but just limited enough for Chicago to be stuck with him.
3. Joakim Noah Is Locked In
Joakim will make more than $13 million in 2015-2016, and while he may not be worthy of such a lavish deal, Noah fits a defense-first team better. Expect him to stay, unless he's unloaded to make room for an expensive superstar a la Dwight Howard.
Amnestying Boozer isn't a matter of "if," it's a matter of "when." The Bulls clearly erred in making that deal and must tunnel out of it if they are to compete with teams like Miami. And when it happens, some new team will be more than happy to pay Carlos Boozer at a much cheaper price.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?