? "The rehabilitation of Carlos Boozer's image was completed forever" (May 2007).

Oh, boy. It sounded reasonable then, after Boozer's 35-point, 14-rebound performance in a Game 7 victory at Houston followed a regular season when he played 81 games and seemingly answered all the questions about his durability, desire and dedication to the franchise.

Two years later, just try finding Boozer backers in this town. Sure, he was voted the Jazz's No. 9 player of all time in a Tribune poll last month, but we gave everybody only 10 choices. Boozer's status makes Adrian Dantley at his worst moments in Utah appear popular, by comparison.

Whether the biggest reason is Boozer's playing only two-thirds of the games over five seasons because of injuries, his lack of defensive inclination or his perceived self-interest on the court, he has exhausted his welcome here, to a stunning degree. It reached the point where Boozer's finding his game with 20.6 points and 13.2 rebounds in the playoff series with the Los Angeles Lakers served only to make fans resent him more, for not doing it sooner.

Just imagine the reaction if he chooses to play out the remaining year on his contract -- or if the Jazz re-sign him to a long-term deal. Of course, the Jazz could trade him, as they did Dantley. Through a series of subsequent trades, they ended up getting Andrei Kirilenko for Dantley, 13 years later.

? "This decision certainly appears sound: Kirilenko's here for seven years" (October 2004).

In my defense, nobody thought signing Kirilenko to a max contract was misguided at the time. He was coming off an All-Star season of 16.5 points and 8.1 rebounds, leading the Jazz to a 42-40 record when they were supposed to become a joke in the NBA after losing John Stockton and Karl Malone.

Who would have guessed that at age 28, in the supposed prime of his career, that Kirilenko's contract would become a huge payroll burden with two years remaining? Or worse, that it would leave him with very little trade value?

Sadly, the joy, the passion, the refreshing attitude that once defined him are all gone from Kirilenko's game. He's just an employee now, and a grossly overpaid one.

? "Reaching this point was deceiving" (May 2007).

Public opinion is unfairly punishing the Jazz for regressing, two years after they played in the Western Conference finals. That was an accident, OK? If not for No. 8 seed Golden State's upset of Dallas, the Jazz would have lost in the second round and then nobody could say they've gone backward, two years later.

Then again, if they had not advanced past the second round at all since 2000, we'd be saying they're stuck in mediocrity.

? "This stuff could get complicated during the season, to be solved eventually for better or worse by the player movement that's sure to follow next summer" (September 2008).

I was on to something here, suggesting that having too many good players available would challenge coach Jerry Sloan. That thought became laughably ironic when injuries struck the team, but it did gain some validation when everybody came back and he had to accommodate a full roster.

Sloan failed to find situational roles that could have better utilized Matt Harpring and Ronnie Price, and Boozer's return may have hurt Paul Millsap.

For payroll and luxury tax reasons, as well as maximizing their high-priced talent (like Kirilenko), the Jazz can't keep everybody next year. It is reminiscent of the end of Dantley's era, when trading him opened the way to a young power forward's development. Boozer's departure potentially could accomplish the same thing, with this qualifier: Paul Millsap is not Karl Malone. He may not even be Carlos Boozer.

Around here, I'm guessing, that will be viewed as a compliment.