This is a messed up situation. if boozer is lying and they did have a deal, well shame on him. But more importantly look at what the Cavs where trying to do. They were cheating the system and if found out could have set there franchise back with the loss of draft picks. And for all those that say, " Oh its okay everyone does it" its just as bad as what boozer did, its dishonest. And its AGAINST THE CBA!!! I know why the Cavs where doing this its simple math 700,000 +60,000,000 is less than 40,000,000 + maybe another 10 million It was going to save them over 11 million dollars, maybe more if boozer blows up and becomes a max player. Lets face it both sides look bad here, but its the Cavs that look the worse. They are the ones that tried to save money instead of getting bird rights on boozer. Plus they were dumb enough to trust a player to keep his word. Come on, do we need to count the number of times a player has said one thing and done another to figure out the odds are stacked against you? Like i said this is just a bad situation, where both sides are in the wrong. Both have lied. I just think Cleveland is the dumber of the two, after all they are the ones admitting they have broken the collective bargaining agreement, while boozer is maintaining they never did.
The SI article is SPECULATION, just like the article that says Boozer NEVER promised that he wouldn't look at other teams' offers, fact of the matter is no such deal could be made BEFORE he is let out of his contract and such a deal is illegal. Another fact is that this is CLEARLY the CHEAPEST way Cleveland could get Boozer signed to a long term contract, they basically said, "We won't underpay you next season in exchange for underpaying you for 6 straight seasons." Of course nobody could of predicted someone offering him 68 million, but it happened and there's no way anyone should hate on Boozer for doing what's best for Carlos Boozer. They might of had a verbal agreement, but that was before 68 million dollars were offered to Boozer, the Cavs could of tried to match it but they instead decided to make him look like a snake, to save face and keep from looking dumb. His agent has resigned with him....
God I couldn't have put this any better. Teams do this all the time. When they promise players max deals they do this. Remember the Rockets basically promising Mo, Cat, and Maloney big money deals? Teams do this all the time so why use the excuse "Oh, Cleveland cheated, they're no better then Minnesota". BS.
This doesn't tell you anything. The agent got pressured by his agency to distance himself from the deal and "bad press" or else lose his job. He's trying to cover his ass just as much as Boozer and the Cavs management are. And it's players that hire agents, it's not the other way around. They can quit, but they can't fire players. Think about it- Who negotiated the 68 million dollar deal. The agent! He was fine with the deal until all the fallout.
They might of had a verbal agreement, but that was before 68 million dollars were offered to Boozer, the Cavs could of tried to match it but they instead decided to make him look like a snake, to save face and keep from looking dumb. So basically what you're saying is that it's ok to break an agreement in good faith as long as someone offers you more money? Think about that. The majority of deals in the NBA are verbal agreements. Boozer breaking that agreement is similar to Nash breaking his agreement with Phoenix, or Barry with San Antonio, etc. It doesn't matter whether Cleveland was being cheap. If Boozer didn't have and agreement why are other NBA agents and officials saying he did, and why did his agent quit? If Boozer knew the Cavs were being cheap why didn't he just tell them to exercise the option on his contract and he would get more money NEXT year?
The only difference was that Minnesota was too stupid to not put it in writing. It was still a wink-wink deal, because it was against the CBA. The Cavs cheated just like every other team, except they screwed themselves over because of it. They have no one to blame but themselves. Because they allowed the possibility of Boozer leaving and can't do anything about it. I'm not saying that what Boozer did was right. It's unethical to backstab. But then again, this is a league where players can repeatedly do drugs, beat up women, and get away with it. In a way, what Boozer did was pretty mild. At least he made what in the short term to be a very wise financial decision.
This doesn't tell you anything. The agent got pressured by his agency to distance himself from the deal and "bad press" or else lose his job. He's trying to cover his ass just as much as Boozer and the Cavs management are. And it's players that hire agents, it's not the other way around. They can quit, but they can't fire players. Think about it- Who negotiated the 68 million dollar deal. The agent! He was fine with the deal until all the fallout Hello, why would the agency try to distance themselves from the deal? This goes beyond "bad press". Agents get bad press all the time for something. Maybe he figured it wouldn't have been as big a deal as it was, but clearly if you break a verbal agreement other agencies are going to use that against you. Seriously, how many agents quit before a 68 million dollar pay day over "bad press"?
Exactly my point. There is the SI article which depicts Boozer as the liar, and this article which depicts Cavs as the liar. It's hard to tell who is telling the truth. Only one thing is certain, Boozer is doing whatever best for him, and Cavs are doing exactly the same thing. If Boozer lied and they did have a verbal agreement/intention for him to re-sign before July 1st, then Cavs just violated the CBA and should be punished. If Cavs had lied and they didn't have an agreement, then Boozer is free to try the FA market. So it is a lose-lose situation for Cavs regardless who lied. As for Boozer, he gets his financial security regardless. Would you rather take $68M right now, or take just $600K and wait for a chance next year for MLE plus money? If you are naiive to believe Cavs would offer Boozer $91M max deal next year, just look at New Jersey and K-Mart situation.
And that is a HUGE difference. Deals that aren't put in writing (such as wink-wink, nudge-nudge) are implicit while deals put in writing are explicit.
Trust me, the agent didn't quit over bad press. He quit because he was going to get fired if he didn't. And that meant less money for him in the future. An agent would only quit before a 68 million dollay payday if it meant career suicide. I don't think it's a reflection that the agent finds Boozer to be immoral. In fact, he negotiated the deal for him. All I'm saying is that the agent is just as guilty as Boozer and is doing Boozer even worse by putting all the blame on him instead of taking some for himself.
Break a good faith deal? Was that deal really in good faith? Again, it was basically a trade off of being underpayed one more season, for being underpayed for 6 seasons! Neither, Boozer or the Cavaliers were acting in 100% good faith, still good faith is worth breaking for 28 million. Nash, Barry, etc. reached deals and SIGNED offer sheets, they did everything within CBA rules, the only way Boozer could break a deal like they could break a deal, is if he backs off of his agreement with the JAZZ. The only people saying he had a deal are the CAVS, from his side of the story he NEVER said he wouldn't look at other deals, and his agent didn't quit, he's right back on with him. Boozer probably didn't know the Cavs were being cheap, maybe he thought he was a MLE type player, but when offered with something significantly greater than the MLE you have to take it.
According to Cavs, such illegal verbal agreement exists. According to Boozer, it doesn't. So who is looking more and more stupid out of this mess?
Come on. Do people REALLY think that Cleveland opted Boozer out of his contract on blind faith that he would re-sign with them? That would be like the Rockets opting Ming out of his deal and then saying "please re-sign with us!" Common sense says there was some kind of verbal agreement. If there weren't then Cleveland would have exercised their options, Boozer's agent wouldn't have quit, and Boozer wouldn't be running and hiding from Coach K.
There's a big difference between saying that you want to stay in Cleveland, that you're commited to the team, and that you want to resign and saying that you will accept a 6 yr 41 million dollar contract. If he truly didn't know that they were going to release him, then you can't blame him. But if he did accept the deal verbally beforehand, then you can. But there's no way to really tell.
Well, if an agent is going to get fired, but must have did something pretty bad for that to happen. Do you seriously think that Cleveland, out of the blue, just released Boozer from his contract and ASSUMED he would take the offer? Legal or not both parties had to agree to that offer. And to turn around and stab the other party in the back for a cash grab is just ridiculous. Money is money, but pride and dignity is something else. If you are willing to throw away your reputation because you just can't have enough money, that's on Boozer. I mean it's weak to say that Boozer didn't know that Cleveland would be that cheap. Whether he knew he was a MLE player or not, if he had doubts about his worth then wait until next year when he's a free agent. Don't trick and organization into an agreement and then run somewhere else for the cash. Cleveland didn't even have to do that. Cleveland could have kept him there for about $700,000. If they told him he was going to get 40 million dollars, which is pretty good considering Boozer only had that one big year, then he should have told them "I think that's a bad offer, I'll weigh my options after this year". He obviously told them that the 40 million dollars wasn't "cheap", or else they would have never opted him out of his deal.
Honestly The Rockets treatment of Cuttino was questionable out of Loyalty he took Much less to stay here [i remember Toronto offering him something special] how is he repayed? We shipped him Now . . . If boozer takes the 41 Mill deal do you think he finished his career with Cleveland OUT OF LOYALTY ? uhm . .. hell no . .. if he signed that deal and instantly Vince Carter for Boozer came available guess what . . .Boozer would be a Canuck Loyalty? Honesty? I thought we were all on the ITS A BUSINESS TIP Boozer made a BUSINESS MOVE i EXCELLENT ECONOMIC move This is best for boozer I cannot say what he did was not a bit underhanded but hell . .. . it is not like he is Ken Lay Mike Milken Rocket River
I think the fact that Pelinka walked only proves more that Boozer is lying about all this. If the Cavs did in fact just goof and assumed he'd resign without looking elsewhere at all his options, then why does Pelinka resign?
And they should have. Everyone knows this is a business. If teams can care about money, then players should have the same right. The Cavs just proved why they are the Cavs.
