How Amare is an argument against re-signing Boozer
Take a gander at the following bits, which are from a recent Fanhouse article.
He missed jump shot after jump shot, fading away time and time again.
His meteoric rise, fall and rise again through the ranks of big men over the past eight years has been well documented. But nobody — not even his biggest critics — could have predicted his spineless play against the Lakers. The length and physicality of Andrew Bynum, Lamar Odom, and even Pau Gasol was the cyanide to [his] ineptitude.
…what stands out even more was his lack of defense and intensity at both ends of the floor, far too often resorting to off-balanced shots and poor decision making, hence the [2.5] turnovers he averaged in those losses. Even worse, he had just [two] assists in the [final two games of the] series. He didn’t make anybody better. He didn’t help anyone but himself.
So much of what he does offensively comes out of the pick-and-roll setting that you have to wonder how much of his scoring output is as much a credit to [the team's point guard] as it is him…And in playing in a regular half-court offense without an all-world point, what type of drop-off does [he] have?
The article sums up Carlos Boozer’s series against the Lakers pretty well, but interestingly enough, it was actually written about Amare Stoudemire.
As I read the post, I kept forgetting it wasn’t about Boozer. The author (Jordan Schultz)’s conclusion was that given Stoudemire’s performance against the Lakers, he doesn’t deserve max money. He is not a guy you build a contending team around, and any franchise that gives him a max contract would effectively be shooting itself in the foot.
Schultz wraps up the article with this:
Amare is still just 27 years old, and has a lot of good basketball left. That’s not to be disputed. But what is to be disputed is giving a big man max dollars who doesn’t defend, whose (sic) already endured a serious knee surgery and whose style is completely predicated off of dexterity and athleticism.
To me, if you substitute the name, age, and add 1.5 words, you have a logical and compelling argument against re-signing Boozer for cripplingly big bucks.
Boozer is still just 28 years old, and has a lot of good basketball left. That’s not to be disputed. But what is to be disputed is giving a big man max dollars who doesn’t defend, who’s already endured a serious knee surgery and whose style is completely predicated off of ambidexterity and offensive athleticism.
I don’t know about you, but this makes a whole lot of sense to me even as the memories of Round 2 blessedly fade from my mind.