Boozer speaks!

HE GOT OFFERED THIS AFTER all of this AFTER !!!!!!

The agent firing his client is pure spin, nothing more, IMHO.

DD

 

Since when do agents fire their clients, and lose millions of dollars in commission for "spin"???

 

SINCE OTHER PEOPLE WOULD BE HIRING THEM, AND A BAD REPUTATION MAY PRECLUDE THEM FROM CONDSIDERATION, THUS COSTING THEM MILLIONS MORE !!!!

 

Since when do players care about a prospective agents reputation?? Sure hasn't hurt Scott Boras' client base has it????

Players want to be paid, and I think they hardly care how their agent goes about getting them their money.

His agent could have EASILY just agreed with Boozer's side of it and kept their commission. Yet, they didn't. Why??? Because his agent knows that Boozer lied.

 

Not really. There is an article online describes why Boozer's agent quit. The reason is that the agency faces huge pressure from the basketball people in the league reputation wise. Other agents working in the same agency also pushed Boozer's agent to quit because they are afraid it might hurt their business.

Boozer's agent actually forcefully defended his decision within the agency and denied that there was an oral commitment, and he did not want to quit. But in the end, the boss of the agency called shot and told the Boozer's agent to quit.

That's the story.

I will try to find the article, don't remember where I read it though.

 

Are you suggesting that Boozer, without the help of his agent, solicited deals from other teams after July 1?

 

Boozer's agent actually forcefully defended his decision within the agency and denied that there was an oral commitment, and he did not want to quit. But in the end, the boss of the agency called shot and told the Boozer's agent to quit.

Here we go again. Why would the Cavs let Boozer out of a favorable contract if there wasn't an oral commitment? And don't say the Cavs were trying to screw Boozer out of money. Boozer knew how much the Cavs could pay him under league rules.

Boozer had the commitment with the Cavs and then the slimeball received the offer from the Jazz. BTW, the Jazz are a slime organization for being involve in this.

 

ESPN has a totally different story:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1838569

According to sources, SFX and Pelinka grew increasingly concerned in the aftermath of the agreement that Boozer's betrayal would sully the reputation of the agency and prevent them from conducting good faith negotiations with league owners in the future.

 

Teams can make offers to his agent, without being asked.

 

How do you know what market value Boozer has if he waited till next year? How do you know the FA market will be as crazy as this year? How do you know how Boozer will play next year? How do you know if Boozer won' t get injured next year?

You see. You cannot talk about market value until you are a FA. Boozer could only be a FA if the Cavs opted out of the team option . . . Do you really need me to repeat the same post again?

 

Here is the most in depth article Ive seen on this situation. I was actually wrong on one of my assumptions, as far as Pelinka helping Boozer secure the offer from Utah. Turns out, Pelinka was part of the deception too:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writers/ian_thomsen/07/12/boozer.fallout/index.html

In a surprising, and rarely seen, move, SFX Sports Group and agent Rob Pelinka have decided to "fire" embattled free-agent power forward Carlos Boozer after he was accused of misleading the Cleveland Cavaliers before negotiating a six-year, $68 million offer with the Utah Jazz.

Two league sources told SI.com that SFX was preparing to send a letter Monday to the NBA Players Association stating that the sports management agency and Pelinka would no longer be representing Boozer. The sources said that SFX chief Arn Tellem made the final call, deciding that the agency wanted nothing to do with Boozer after, sources say, he convinced the Cleveland Cavaliers that he would re-sign with them if they made him a free agent. In the wake of that conversation, Pelinka went on to negotiate the lucrative offer with the Jazz last week.

By Monday night, however, Pelinka was seeking to distance himself from a contract negotiation that has been blasted from nearly every corner of the NBA. Sources from both SFX and the Cavaliers confirmed that SFX considered leaving Boozer once he began courting other offers, but at Paxson's request the agency stayed on because the GM believed that SFX provided the only hope of convincing the player to honor his gentleman's agreement with Cleveland. It appears that SFX will now try to pin the fiasco on Boozer, even though from all accounts Pelinka helped Boozer negotiate the offer from the Jazz.

"Rob tried to get Carlos to do the right thing," said a source close to SFX, claiming that Pelinka -- not Tellem -- chose to dissolve the relationship after it became clear that he could not convince Boozer to re-sign with Cleveland as Boozer reportedly promised.

By resigning as Boozer's representative, the source confirmed that Pelinka and SFX will sacrifice their $2.7 million commission should Boozer commmit to Utah. The source added that this was the first time SFX had dissolved its relationship with a player under these circumstances.

While SFX has closed the door on its relationship with Boozer, the Cleveland Cavaliers have not, offering the third-year veteran a one-year contract worth approximately $5 million, an NBA source tells SI.com.

Although Boozer and his agent have already secured the six-year offer with the Utah Jazz, those negotiations were conducted under a cloud of supposed promises and possible betrayals that has still not fully cleared. According to team sources, Pelinka, Boozer and Boozer's wife, CeCe, convinced Cleveland owner Gordon Gund and GM Jim Paxson to forgo a team option that would have paid Boozer $695,000 next season, thus making the improving forward a restricted free agent this summer. Had Cleveland held Boozer to his original contract, the Cavaliers could have matched any offer to him as a third-year free agent next summer.

Instead, Gund agreed to set Boozer free with the understanding that Boozer would sign a long-term deal with Cleveland. Because the Cavs are over the league's salary cap, the most they could offer Boozer this summer was a six-year contract for $41 million. The Cavs say that no illegal under-the-table offer was made to Boozer because it was understood that the NBA's collective bargaining agreement prohibited the team from paying more than $41 million.

According to a source who participated in the meeting when the Cavaliers decided to allow him to become a free agent, Boozer told Gund, "If you respect me by not picking up the option, I'll show trust and loyalty to you by signing with you." As a matter of common sense and, say team sources, the Cavaliers never would have relinquished their long-term rights to Boozer unless he made it clear that he would re-sign with them.

Agents throughout the NBA have united in criticizing Pelinka for committing what one agent called a "fraudulent inducement" by using Gund's act of kindness against him. They believe that Pelinka's betrayal has eroded whatever trust exists between agents and team executives, making it more difficult for each side to take the other at its word. Pelinka could not be reached for comment.

Gund is said to be "crushed" by Boozer's betrayal, but will make his feelings public only if Boozer signs the offer sheet with Utah.

In downgrading their offer to one year at $5 million, the Cavaliers have let Boozer know they will forgive him for his lapse in judgment, according to the league source. Boozer would be invited to play out this season in Cleveland and negotiate a long-term contract with the Cavaliers next summer.

That leaves Boozer with two choices: Take the big payday from Utah at the risk of ruining his good name; or sacrifice the sure money in order to salvage his reputation in Cleveland.

Word around the NBA is that Boozer has refused to take phone calls from his former coach at Duke, Mike Krzyzewski. "That's because he doesn't want to hear Mike telling him not to do this," a league source says.

Earlier Monday, many in the NBA were questioning whether Pelinka's career was at risk. In attempt to rescue his reputation, some speculated that Pelinka would resign as Boozer's agent and disavow himself from the Utah contract if Boozer signed the offer sheet. But a top agent who said he is friendly with Pelinka believed it was already too late: "Rob needed to walk away from this as soon as it became public. It's been out there too long to distance himself from it."

Sources close to Pelinka's agency, SFX, say that the management group is seeking to distance itself from the agent. Later this summer, after Pelinka's client Kobe Bryant has signed with either the Lakers or the Clippers, look for SFX and Pelinka to cut ties permanently.

Sports Illustrated senior writer Ian Thomsen covers the NBA beat for the magazine and is a regular contributor to SI.com.

 

If what Boozer did wasn't wrong in the eyes of the "basketball people in the league," why would there be "huge pressure"? I can't believe why people go to great length to defend something that can't be defended.

I still don't have a good answer from the Boozer apologists. If Boozer did nothing atrocious, why would the agency want to distance themselves from Boozer? If Boozer's action was defendable as you guys suggest, why didn't the agency come out and defend him. Yes, they want their reputation back. But their reputation has already been shot. They are doing damage control. If they could somehow spin it so that Boozer's action didn't come out stinking, believe me, they would. But they didn't. Don't you see it's so obvious what's going on here?

 

There were 4 people in that room. Boozer, his agent, Gund and Paxson. If Boozer didn't lie, then his SFX would have stood up for him and his agent. I don't think there is any doubt about that.

They didn't. They fired Boozer, and it looks like they will fire his agent too. IMO, Pelinka had to have essentially admitted to Tellem/SFX what really went down, and only after that, did SFX force him to cut ties with Boozer to save themselves problems in future negotiations. (DaDa will most assuredly say this is just "spin". Ive never heard of a company giving up $2.3 MIL dollars to protect their reputation even though they thought they or their employee did nothing wrong)

I don't think its a coincidence that Gund didn't come out with his statement until after SFX cut ties with Boozer. Gund knew that if it was Paxon and his words against Boozer and his agent, then there would be much more doubt about who was lying. If SFX had come out and supported Boozer/Pelinka, then I highly doubt that Gund and Paxson would come out like they did. Only after his agent resigned, did Gund come out and basically say "Carlos lied to us".

Its 3 against 1 now. Gund has the support of SFX because they know what happened, and they believe ethics matter. Period.

 

Does it really not make a difference to you that oral commitments weren't permitted prior to July 1?

 

Passing on 2.3 Million
to preserve the tens of millions they make every year
I beleive it

If u knew taking 5$ now
screwed u out of a 100$ later

would u take the 5$?

Rocket River

 

Wrong?????

Did they do something wrong?????

You mean like agreeing to an illegal deal?

Do I think Boozer gave the Cavs every indicator he would stay.

Yes.

Do I think he intenionally lied to get a better offer?

No.

Is it questionably on Boozer and the agents part?

Yes.

Was Clevland naive and stupid?

Yes.

I think Clevland was trying to lock him up long term at a below market contract...a hometown discount similar to Cuttino's deal.

Read Sun's link for information about that, in the CLEVLAND paper.

You guys can ignore Clevland's participation in this all you want, my only point is that it is a negotiation, and both parties took calculated risks.

Boozer may have been more down and dirty, but the Cavs were hardly squeeky clean.

The only ramification's of all this will be that no team will ever let someone out of their deal again, and has it has never happened before, then it is a one time occurance.

Clutch,

I have read all the posts, however there is a lot of assumption, and no proof in any of them, including mine.

I just believe that both sides were dirty.

DD

 

fight fight fight

 

Another thing to think about.

Seeing as how SFX represents athletes, and not sports owners, would they not have MUCH MUCH MUCH more to lose, if they had fired a client who allegedly, did nothing wrong???

Would that not hinder the growth of their client base???

What athlete would want to be represented by a company who won't stand by them, especially, when they have done nothign wrong??

 

Different topic all together.

DD