Home > Bolts > Monday Bolts – 8.2.10

Monday Bolts – 8.2.10

Want to work for the Thunder? There’s a job opening right now for Website Publications Coordinator. Go go go!

Darnell Mayberry gives reasons why CP3 isn’t coming back to OKC: “At this point, any desire to see Paul in a Thunder uniform is a clear lack of respect for Russell Westbrook. Management affirmed its belief in Westbrook by passing on Ricky Rubio in the 2009 NBA Draft, and last season Westbrook promptly squashed the “is-he-or-isn’t-he” debate over whether he’s a point guard. After putting together the best playoff performance of any Thunder player, Westbrook now enters his third seasonĀ  well-established as one of the league’s best young floor generals.”

Jared Dudley worked out with Serge Ibaka: “Just got done with a mornin workout at Impact with Thunders own Serge Ibaka. I new he was athletic but i was very impress with his shooting.”

One writer wonders if the Bulls are the Thunder of the East:Chicago is built to deliver the same greatness. Rose will showcase his shoe-defying speed with and without the ball, Noah will block shots and get in your face about it and role players will be solid overall. Tom Thibodeau will instill a powerful defensive focus, just as Scott Brooks does for the Thunder.”

Susan Bible of HoopsWorld has a breakdown of the Thunder’s current roster: “One of the real advantages is that the young players should return as better players. The fact that the Big Three (Durant, Westbrook and Green) were invited to mini-camp for Team USA and survived the first cut to 15 players going into training camp in New York won’t hurt. Two other facts about this team contribute heavily to its previous success and will lead them next season: 1) the versatility of its players; most of them can play multiple positions giving them match-up flexibility, and 2) the chemistry and unselfishness between the players is off the charts. Add a rising superstar or two, and a winning formula is emerging.”

Jason Quick of The Oregonian reports that Rich Cho has selected two assistant GMs and is just working out contract details. Of course, some are wondering if Troy Weaver is one of those. From what I hear, he’s not.

Also, Quick has a nice feature on Cho: “He knows his time to order is approaching and he wants to make an informed decision. It mirrors his reputation as a basketball executive. When he was an assistant general manager under Rick Sund in Seattle, Sund recalls many a time when he asked Cho about acquiring a player on another team. Shortly after, Cho would present him with as many as 10 options on how to acquire that player, each scenario complete with whether he wanted to use one, two or three players to make the acquisition, and the salary cap implications for each scenario. Research. Options. Input. It’s the Cho way.”

I’ve gotten a bunch of great questions for the mailbag and it should be put together soon. Thanks for all the emails.

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Fark
  • StumbleUpon

Bolts

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest

I posted this commenting on an article related to Chris Paul and the Thunder. I added more for this post.

-----

You are exactly right, and the article is basically wrong on all accounts. Paul is probably the best point guard we've seen this decade, and is right there with Durant in terms of production. In fact, Durant and Paul are a stat geeks dream. AND what's more, is that they would compliment each other PERFECTLY.

Durant, while a superstar, isn't the same type of player or star as a Wade, a Lebron, or a Kobe. Those players dominate the ball and create offense. Durant plays off the ball, but does it to levels we haven't seen before. Basically, he's the ultimate robin. And he needs a Batman if he wants to win. Remember the playoffs.

Paul on the other hand, is right there in the conversation with Wade and Lebron as far as playmaking goes, and would be perfect next to Durant. I would trade Russell, Jeff, 1st's and whatever else for him. Take a year to get more pieces (preferably a big man who can draw fouls, so a free throw expert like Durant can benefit from being in the bonus) and this team WOULD be better than the Heat. No doubt in my mind. But with Russell and Jeff, while I like them, they won't get the Thunder to that level. They could definitely develop, but they just aren't in the same conversation. Durant is a once in a decade scorer, but the game has changed. Do whatever it takes to get Paul. WHATEVER IT TAKES. Every first round pick for the next 4 years. His talent, like Durant's, is irreplaceable.

Compared to Russell, there is no contest. It may be unfair due to the age difference, but Paul is proven, Russ is not (he might even be overrated). To start the comparison, Paul's AST% (% of teammate field goals assisted by player while he's on the floor) was 45.4% last year, one where he struggled with injury. The two previous years it was above 52%, which is INCREDIBLE. Russell's AST% is at 38.6%, which improved from 27.5% his first year (Paul's AST% his rookie year was 38.2% :/) Furthermore, Paul's USG% is lower than Westbrook also, 22.2% vs 25.7% respectively, though the year before it was 27.5% (reflected in his other stats). From a scoring standpoint, Paul's TFG% has been above 57% the last 3 years, while Russ only marked 49% last year. This has alot to do with Paul being a 41% (!!!) 3pt shooter last year, compared to Russ's lowly 22%. Paul's Points Per Possession last year (again, an off year due to injury) was 1.11/1.00 (with freethrows/without) compared to 0.89/0.83 for Westbrook. That's a great rating for Paul who is a superstar and has defenses focused on him, and a VERY POOR score for Westbrook, regardless of role. Overall, on plays where Paul is directly involved, (meaning ends in a shot by him, free throws for him, or a turnover) he scored 47% of the time (a little lower than Durant). For Westbrook, its 41.8%, which sucks. On pick and rolls that end in a shot for the ball handler, Pauls PPP (not including FT) is 0.94, which is excellent. It's 0.78 for Westbrook. 13.1% of Paul's plays ended in a TO, while 15.7% were a TO for Russ. Paul's overall TOV% was 13.5% while Westbrooks was 16.6%. Both Chris and Russell are below average defensively, each allowing around 0.95 PPP. Russ had an offensive rating last year second worse on the Thunder players with significant minutes behind Thabo, and a defensive rating second worse only to Nenad. He posted a WS/48 of 0.106, where the average is 0.100. Paul had the best offensive rating of anyone on his team with sig/min, while he was average defensively. He posted a WS/48 of 0.204, which is very good, even though the year before he had an unthinkable mark of 0.292, which is legendary. Remember, Paul had an off year last year in comparison to his production the previous two years. Even steals, which Russ is presumably good at, edge GREATLY to Paul. Though he posted a STL% of 2.9% this year, the previous two years he was at 3.9% which is crazy. Russ posted 2.0% this year.

Lastly, Roland Rating, which is a statistical +/- rating, shows Russell in a little better light, as the second best Thunder player with sig/min with +3.8. Paul only posted a +6.7 this year, but last year he had an astonishing +17.7 (Durant is an equally impressive +17.0 last year). However, I imagine some good Thunder players being hurt in this category by Durant being so impactful when he's on the floor (meaning they are hurt when they are on the bench and he is in)

Durant's presence and OKC's history make a move for Paul to a small market at least plausible. If the Thunder have to pull a Miami and have Durant/Paul + 13 it's fine. Green, Westbrook, Collison, Kristic for Paul/Okafor works, and all those are expiring deals. Add 2011/2012 first rounders. That would make:

Paul/Maynor/Ivey
Thabo/Harden/Cook
Durant/Peterson (gross...)
Ibaka/DJ White
Okafor/Alrich/Mullens

That's great. While MoPete sucks, you have Durant out there for 40 minutes anyway. You could even play Harden/Thabo combo if you want.

Listen, I know it's definitely improbable, almost impossible, and many would want to stick with Russ as he is young and has plenty of time to improve, to win a championship you need all-time talent. Westbrook could yet become good, but I sincerely doubt he becomes the epic that is Chris Paul. With the NBA the way it is now, with the Heat/Celtics/Lakers/Bulls, you need to take chances. You can't just put stock in the future and hope it pans out. The Thunder have cap space, expirings, good young talent, and a young humble legend-in-the-making. They can give NOR what they want, and if Paul is about winning, they can give him what he wants. His style of ball is perfect for not only Durant, but Ibaka as well (ally-oop, anyone?). Do this trade, and contend next year and the next 10 years. Don't, and risk being swept away by superior Elite talents gathered in the same place, be it Miami, Chicago, or New York. The Lakers aren't exactly old either. Development isn't enough, we have to go all in.

Oh and a better defender than RW, judging by his steals per game avg.

Is it me or did Darnell say that Paul wouldn't be as good with KD than Westbrook? If so, he should really be fired as the Thunder beat writer! Come on Darnell, Paul wouldn't do anything but make KD (if possible) an even better player with his IQ and distribution skills. Not to mention his jumpshot and added 3pt stroke.

I'm not gonna start this argument about if we should take paul (even though I would in a heartbeat), but Paul is just as fast if not faster and light years smarter in a basketball sense the RW.

Any trade with the Hornets for Paul would start with Westbrook.

Darnell Mayberry is wrong... OKC would be a great fit for Chris Paul and Russell Westbrook to play together. Westbrook can play off of the point as he did at UCLA and as he is doing now for TEAM USA.

OKC, can easily trade a well respected young player in James Harden, Nick Collison and perhaps DJ White or Byron Mullens for Chris Paul.

OKC will have the best back court in the NBA...

NO, will have a young promising star in Harden, a potential Power Forward in DJ White or Byron Mullen as Center... and cap space next year with Nick Collison -- who we hope can return back to OKC next year.

Imange, Paul, Westbrook, Cole, Green and Durant. With key backups in Thabo, and Ibaka. This would be an improved team.

Keith :
Rose isn’t on KD’s level, but I have to admit he probably has a better supporting cast right now. Westbrook-Thabo-Average SF-Green-Krstic isn’t as good as Average PG-Korver-Deng-Boozer-Noah. I hope Serge, Harden, and Aldrich can start making big contributions sooner than later. It will kill me if Chicago ends up the better team because they splurged on Boozer the same year we decided to stand pat.

I agree that you could match up supporting cast and argue the Bulls is better. I just think it's easier to obtain and upgrade cast than it is to get a superstar like Durant. I think the same thing about Portland...they have a great, deep team, but Roy is not equal to Durant and, in the long run, this makes the Thunder's future brighter. Perhaps not as good now...but with more upside.

As to the Dudley tweet, I so want a 10-15 foot jumpshot for Ibaka. I am also guessing Dudley wasn't an english major at Boston College.

James :

J5 :@James picked meaning chosen for the team? or picked meaning screened? because JG was beat with the crossover before the screen even got there.

Screened. KD got a step with the crossover but they were out past the 3 point line. He could have possibly recovered. You can’t say the screen wasn’t a factor.

it was more like 2 or 3 steps...regardless, nice cross by KD

@DSMok1

I'm a stat junkie, so I do prefer stats :) I just think that any player-swap scenario requires a lot of subjective context.

My preference is to use broadly defined talent tiers because it allows room for a subjective interpretation of how a player will affect their new team while still holding some basis in stats.

I just don't think specified stats of this nature provide a useful answer for these hypotheticals. Your surplus metric only tells us how valuable those players are to their current teams, not how valuable they would be to their new team.

When it comes to situations where you can acquire a player in a higher talent tier, especially a superstar like Paul, a lot goes out the window because those players have such a severe impact on their teammates. IMO, it's money be damned at that point. If you can get him without doing significant damage to the team (which is a point for debate on its own), you do so. The only factor contracts and salary play is whether or not you can even make the deal happen under the cap rules.

J5 :@James picked meaning chosen for the team? or picked meaning screened? because JG was beat with the crossover before the screen even got there.

Screened. KD got a step with the crossover but they were out past the 3 point line. He could have possibly recovered. You can't say the screen wasn't a factor.

@Keith
My bad. I just found the official release.

Mark!: so how do you value the players? Subjectively? Using objective statistics is the groundwork; obviously more things must be weighed. I think it's useful as a baseline.

They did waive Weaver, didn't they?

Baseball statistical analysis doesn't have to worry itself with synergies on nearly the same scale as basketball does.

Nevermind the dearth of readily (and publically) available useful statistics like deflections, "hockey assists," etc., the problem with comparing players on different teams is player synergy.

You can be rather successful using statistics to judge how a player performs on their current team. Are they above average or below, do they help the team or hurt, etc. The statistics in this case are pretty easy to sync up with the eyeball test. This applies to both basic stats and advanced stats IMO.

But it breaks down across teams. Comparing +/-, WARP, PER, etc. doesn't make sense. I think it's valuable to look at individuals vs the field, but not individuals against other individuals.

In the case of Westbrook vs Paul, what do the statistics even mean? The real question we want answered is what would Paul's statistics look like if he played a season with Thabo, Durant, Green and Krstic. Or Westbrook with Thornton, Peja, West and Okafor. I haven't seen or heard of anything that is a reasonable projector of that information.

That being the case, I'm inclined to use a stat like surplus value to judge which team got the bigger bang for their buck for a particular player. I don't see how it could possibly have any value in comparing how valuable Paul would be to the Thunder or Westbrook to the Hornets.

I have Durant worth $30 million and on the up-swing, so about equal to CP3. If we assume he'll be worth $35-$40 million on average over the time of the extension, the surplus value of that contract will be about $20 million a year. Westbrook isn't even worth $20 million a year--yet.

@PNT
Really? Link? That would be pretty weird if they came out and said they would, only to renege. Unless he's part of a coming trade or Ivey is being waived...

Anyone else notice that the team did not waive Weaver? I believe the contract is now guaranteed.

@DSMok1
I do understand the reasoning, and I've been reading the link you added. However, I still am leery to accept replacement level when looking at trade value. Perhaps you can say that Chris Paul, as a player is only 9/5ths (over replacement level) the player Westbrook is. I can accept that statement in general. However, when I'm trading, I'm not looking at just the inherent value of a player, I'm looking at the value of that player on my team. If I am running the Thunder, I know I have Eric Maynor as my backup, and that he is an average player. So when I figure the difference in Westbrook and Paul to my team, I'm figuring the difference above Maynor, not just above some scrub off the street.

Also, and this is more a philosophical difference, I see a huge margin for error in this whole methodology. Specifically, being a high surplus player does not mean you are on a good team, or even that your team is any good. That is, cost-efficiency with your players does not directly equate to being a great team. I understand that in certain situations, in certain markets, winning a championship honestly isn't the goal. It is more important to make revenue (be cost effective) and stay afloat until opportunity arises. However, at some point you must take the plunge, so to speak, in order to go from talented young team to championship contender.

Interestingly, I wanted to know how much Durant is valued. Specifically, is he (assuming his value doesn't change appreciably) more or less cost effective than Westbrook when his extension kicks in?

Keith :@DSMok1

50 million actually sounds pretty reasonable as a per year addition to Cleveland.

That's a +11.5 pts/100 poss player playing 2900 minutes. So his actual value this past season was actually higher (higher in both regards). 11.5 is actually his regressed estimate (regressed towards the average player getting 3000 minutes on a +7 team). His actual value (according to a beta version of Advanced Statistical Plus/Minus) was more like +13.

@Keith

Replacement level is measured against true replacement level (meaning 2nd rounders or d-leaguers you can sign for minimum) not against bench--because chaining basically causes this. If you move Maynor up, you lose the difference between Westbrook's and his value, and you also lose the difference between Maynor and whoever replaces him. When you total it up, the correct and simpler way to look at it is to compare each player directly to replacement level (in other words, about -3 pt/100poss.).

@DSMok1
50 million actually sounds pretty reasonable as a per year addition to Cleveland.

@James
picked meaning chosen for the team? or picked meaning screened? because JG was beat with the crossover before the screen even got there.

@DSMok1
From replacement level to the players we are talking about is fine in a vacuum, but I don't think it is a hard enough estimate. Our alternative isn't replacement level behind either of them. A second year Maynor is much closer to league average than replacement level, so replacement level doesn't truly factor into the cost-value to our team specifically. Because Paul is closer to 3x Westbrook above OUR base, his 3x salary is much more palatable to our team specifically. Essentially, this ends up looking a lot like the difference between a rebuilding team (with lots of replacement level players) and a contender (where points above their specific replacement is more important than points above replacement level).

I valued Lebron at $50 million for on-court value. What do you think his actual value is?

@DSMok1
Baseball is a totally different game. Individual stars aren't nearly as important nor highly marketed. Further, each team has 81 homes games, almost twice that of the NBA, they are focused on making money with ticket sales.

How much do you think Lebron James made for the Cavaliers and the Cleveland area? Look at the lasting impact of Michael Jordan on Chicago (who has not truly been relevant any of the years before or after Jordan joined). NBA players are a marketing machine for the league, they are emphasized far more than any other sport.

justin :

Keith :@DSMok1We did kind of have this argument as well, so I won’t try to rehash much. While a per-dollar production has some merit, it loses a lot of meaning as we approach the peak of player talent. That is, because team success depends to heavily on individuals, having an elite individual is superior to having a good, more cost-surplus individual. Unless we are talking about competing to be good enough to sell tickets and not much else, in which case cost-surplus is everything.

I agree with this.

Guys, if you’d go study WAR/Win Values for baseball you’ll understand what I’m doing. It’s a very similar model. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/glossary/...

Keith :@DSMok1

While I’m sure you have a solid methodology for assigning that surplus value, I imagine it overlooks a very important and obvious point: sales. The Ford Center is going to be packed, so that’s a given moneymaker, but teams actually make the most money on endorsements and product sales. Russell Westbrook does not improve those points nearly as much as Paul would. Essentially, he pays back much of his salary in the excess revenue he generates for the team.
Now, you could counter this with the idea that the cap limits how much a player’s revenue generation helps the win total, but it should be mentioned that having such a soft cap means that revenue generation can directly allow for higher payrolls.

Research on baseball has shown negligible impacts for the factors you mention.

Keith :@DSMok1

We did kind of have this argument as well, so I won’t try to rehash much. While a per-dollar production has some merit, it loses a lot of meaning as we approach the peak of player talent. That is, because team success depends to heavily on individuals, having an elite individual is superior to having a good, more cost-surplus individual. Unless we are talking about competing to be good enough to sell tickets and not much else, in which case cost-surplus is everything.

I already attempted to account for the value of exceptional above good in the numbers. CP3 is something like a +6 player per 100 possessions, Westbrook is about a +2. (League average is 0). A league average player is expected to play ~1700 minutes, Westbrook and CP3 both about 2800 (for an average team). It all depends on what you're comparing to. If you're comparing to a league average player, CP3 is worth 3 times as much as Westbrook. But a league-average player does not have insignificant value. So I compare to a "replacement level" player, a -3 contributor...

Guys, if you'd go study WAR/Win Values for baseball you'll understand what I'm doing. It's a very similar model. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/glossary/...

J5 :

Bryan :KD just posted this video to his Facebook….http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HDfylMqZm8&fea...

should I pretend like I didnt see KD abuse Jeff Green off the dribble on that first dunk?

I guess you can also pretend like Green didn't get picked.

Royce or one of the other mods, it seemed to me that we struggled in a lot of late, close game situations last year. Is there any way you guys could do some sort of analysis to see if that was the case (may have been similar to most teams in the league in efficiency). Maybe why you think we struggled and what we could do to improve on that. Just seemed to me that during crunch time in close games last year we weren't always able to get great looks. Just thought it might be a good offseason topic. Thanks

@DSMok1
While I'm sure you have a solid methodology for assigning that surplus value, I imagine it overlooks a very important and obvious point: sales. The Ford Center is going to be packed, so that's a given moneymaker, but teams actually make the most money on endorsements and product sales. Russell Westbrook does not improve those points nearly as much as Paul would. Essentially, he pays back much of his salary in the excess revenue he generates for the team.

Now, you could counter this with the idea that the cap limits how much a player's revenue generation helps the win total, but it should be mentioned that having such a soft cap means that revenue generation can directly allow for higher payrolls.

Keith :@DSMok1We did kind of have this argument as well, so I won’t try to rehash much. While a per-dollar production has some merit, it loses a lot of meaning as we approach the peak of player talent. That is, because team success depends to heavily on individuals, having an elite individual is superior to having a good, more cost-surplus individual. Unless we are talking about competing to be good enough to sell tickets and not much else, in which case cost-surplus is everything.

I agree with this.

Bryan :KD just posted this video to his Facebook….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HDfylMqZm8&fea...

should I pretend like I didnt see KD abuse Jeff Green off the dribble on that first dunk?

I guess I must be crazy, because I actually agree that Paul should go elsewhere. He's clearly the better player, but by how much? And what pieces would we lose that could diminish the team's versatility. I just don't think that Paul is sooooo much better that he's worth losing several role players and RW..... work with what's working!

@DSMok1
We did kind of have this argument as well, so I won't try to rehash much. While a per-dollar production has some merit, it loses a lot of meaning as we approach the peak of player talent. That is, because team success depends to heavily on individuals, having an elite individual is superior to having a good, more cost-surplus individual. Unless we are talking about competing to be good enough to sell tickets and not much else, in which case cost-surplus is everything.

justin :@DSMok1

Doesn’t that depend on how (or even, if) you use the difference in salaries?
I’m not a big fan of that approach, especially when comparing players on rookie contracts to veterans. The Thunder are unlikely to acquire a player who closes the gap between Westbrook and Paul with the difference in their salaries.

Sure, it matters how you'll use the salaries. But it's like how you'd value a baseball trade. CP3 is worth something like $35 million a year, Westbrook ~$15 million and rising (should be $25 million or so within the next 3 years).

Westbrook is owed ~$5million each for the next 2 years, then ~7, 9, 11 or so on the restricted free agent scale (assuming close to max). That's a TON of surplus value. I'll assume the minimum: 3 years more at $6 million a year. Something like a total value of $35 million dollars below true value. A lot more if he signs a 3 or 5 year extension, which is likely.

CP3 is paid $15 and $16 million, then is an unrestricted free agent. Value of those 2 years is something like $35 million dollars below true value. But he's unrestricted at the end of them.

I wouldn't trade, honestly.

Heat @ Magic- October 28th to open Orlando's new arena. Just saw that game was leaked.

@justin
Haha. I think I'm having deja vu...again.

@DSMok1

Doesn't that depend on how (or even, if) you use the difference in salaries?

I'm not a big fan of that approach, especially when comparing players on rookie contracts to veterans. The Thunder are unlikely to acquire a player who closes the gap between Westbrook and Paul with the difference in their salaries.

Keith :
Also, the hyperbole in the Chris Paul article is ridiculous. Comparing the Westbrook-Paul difference to Wade-Lebron is… wrong. Wade, when completely healthy, can be argued as being better than Lebron. He’s not, but at least it’s something you could see both sides of pretty easily. There’s simply no way to make a claim that Westbrook is as good as Paul at anything. And again, that’s not a knock on Westbrook. There’s no shame in being worse than one of the best players in the NBA. If there is a comparison, Westbrook-Paul is more like Granger-Lebron. Westbrook and Granger are very good players in their own right, but no one is going to mistake them for a true franchise player. And like Lebron-Granger, we would be fools not to accept a Paul-Westbrook trade straight up.

You're not accounting for salary. True, CP3 is the far better player. But salary vs. production, they would be valued close to equally in a trade.

@Keith
i dunno if randolph will be in the league even, jail, or suspende dby stern for this drug thing is possible, i guess it depends what he ends up being charged with

@shiki=4 seasons
If it is a question of money, isn't Randolph (highest contract, lots of legal trouble) the most likely player to get tossed? Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Marc Gasol get a chance to play for a better team (here or elsewhere), but unless Thabeet blows up next year with 10+ rebounds and 2.5 blocks, how can they allow both Gasols to escape them so easily?

Darnell should stick to becoming a better beat reporter.

Also, the hyperbole in the Chris Paul article is ridiculous. Comparing the Westbrook-Paul difference to Wade-Lebron is... wrong. Wade, when completely healthy, can be argued as being better than Lebron. He's not, but at least it's something you could see both sides of pretty easily. There's simply no way to make a claim that Westbrook is as good as Paul at anything. And again, that's not a knock on Westbrook. There's no shame in being worse than one of the best players in the NBA. If there is a comparison, Westbrook-Paul is more like Granger-Lebron. Westbrook and Granger are very good players in their own right, but no one is going to mistake them for a true franchise player. And like Lebron-Granger, we would be fools not to accept a Paul-Westbrook trade straight up.

@MartzMimic

I shake my head in disappointment at the opinions in the articles themselves, and the comments are even worse. I stopped wasting my time by reading them long ago.

@MartzMimic
Next year,Grizzlies must extend Conley,Gasol and Randolph.And they will extend OJ in 2012 summer.If they cannot play PO this season,do they want to keep all these 4 players?So i am not surprised if they want to trade Gasol.

Rose isn't on KD's level, but I have to admit he probably has a better supporting cast right now. Westbrook-Thabo-Average SF-Green-Krstic isn't as good as Average PG-Korver-Deng-Boozer-Noah. I hope Serge, Harden, and Aldrich can start making big contributions sooner than later. It will kill me if Chicago ends up the better team because they splurged on Boozer the same year we decided to stand pat.