MR. Clutch, Boozer was unethical. But what he did was completely legal. This distinction is important. there was no binding contract with the cavaliers. indeed, b/c of the cba rules, there could not be a binding contract. thus, the cavaliers could not sue him to make him adhere to the deal. As a lawyer, it frequently frustrates me because the law does not always require what is ethical. Ethics are moral guidelines intended to set a higher standard than the minimum standard. Laws set the minimum standard. People are divided on the Boozer debate based on what they focus on - ethics or the law. The law is what you must do. Ethics is what you should do.
I have bee thinking the same exact thing. I could just see the syber high fives going around the GARM and the remarks of how shrewd it was for the rockets to pull this off knowing full well that the Cavs could not match. Now there would be a small contigincey of people berating the ethics of boozer It would be about the same size as the one that beratted Steve for forcing his trade from Vancouver. At mid season if Boozer was producing for the Rockets no one would say a peep and be defending his honor. I guess thats why I am a little more lenient towards Carlos, I could see my reaction as a fan if he came to my team and not the most hated team on this board. . . .. Im sure that has little to do with the venom that is being spewed right now.
Also it does bother me that Boozer was unethical, but I know as a fan it would not bother me that much as long as he played well and kept out of trouble. Ultimatly what Carlos Boozer does as a person has little to no effect on my life at all, except a few minutes of pleasure watching him play, or watching him lose.
I agree, however this is more than just ethics. This isn't like a college student "promising" a coach to go to that school and backing out. This is worse, because 1) he completely screwed over a franchise and 2) there will be repercussions affecting all NBA players.
Mr. Clutch, you act as if you know all the facts and that the Cavs are completely innocent here. Both sides played on greed. The Cavs lost. Boozer won.
Not exactly. Both sides had a wink-wink deal that circumvented the rules. This kind of thing probably happens often. It's not exactly ethical, but it's sort of understood in the NBA. They were helping each other out. However, Boozer then stabbed them in the back. It's worse because it screws a franchise and the rest of the players. It seems like you are implying that the Cavs were trying to stab Boozer in the back, but that is not the case.
Yes, where can I get stabbed in the back for 41M? I’m serious, where? I’ll get a sign and go stand on the street “Willing to get stabbed in the back for 41M!”
Cavs werent stabbing Boozer in the back at all. They miscalculated the whole situation. And they lost. Im not saying Boozer is innocent here, but Im also not going to put all the fault on his shoulders. Boozer doesnt need to look out for anyone but himself in this business. I cant blame the guy for taking the money.
oops i didn't realize i press send instead of finishing my post .lol Anyways, i wanted to say that the verbal agreement is just a speculation and the Cavs Management made it more than that by making Boozer a bad guy because they didn't realize that some other team saw him more than a engry guy plus offer him a offer sheet. There is no tape evidence that a agreement has happened. So Its Cavs Vs. boozer for now and Cavs keep on shooting themselves in the foot.Have they heard of sign and Trade with Utah so they won't come out empty handed?
DD, honestly, would you do business with a guy like Boozer? Have you ever backed out of an unbinding agreement so that you got a lot more money and the other guy got screwed because he trusted your agreement? The issue is not about loyalty. It is not about Boozer taking a better contract. It is about business ethics. If you screwed other people by misleading them in your negotiation, nobody would do business with you.
I think the case here is that both Boozer and the Cavs might have initially thought that the deal he would receive was fair market value. After the free agent spending frenzy Boozer obviously could see that he was worth a bit more, about $28 million more, he chose the money over loyalty. This shouldn't be surprising, we've seen players do the same thing before, and owners do the same back to players. The NBA is, has been, and always will be a tough business, I think the Cavs management was naive in thinking that this situation would be any different.
Well, if you want to blame Cavs for being greedy, then fine. People can defend Boozer all they want for 1) taking the money and 2) not breaking a law. But they can't leave out 3) he backstabbed his own team in a very unethical manner.
Boozer was allegedly unethical. It's not fact, it hasn't been proven. His agent fired him and the NBA will change the rules.[/QUOTE] Boozer's management decided to part ways only 'after' all the bad publicity. It was the CEO of SFX and not Pelinka (Boozer's agent) who decided this. There would be no Utah deal if his agent did not solicit offers. All deals and offers go through agents first and they usually make the initial contact.
Let me say it again and I'm done with this issue. Some people don't seem to get the point. It's not about loyalty. It's not about legality. Boozer was released from the contract and he was in effect a free agent. Fine. It's about HOW he was released from the contract. From all indications, he and the Cavs agreed that they would sign a long term contract with him at the MLE. It doesn't make sense that the Cavs would release the contract if they didn't have this agreement. They are stupid. But not THAT stupid. The issue is about business ethics. You mislead the other guy to give you an advantage which he would not do without being misled. Then you use that advantage to get a big gain at the other guy's expense. That is bad business ethics. Nobody would want to do business with this kind of people. Again, if Boozer did nothing wrong in the eyes of the NBA business people, why would the agent try to wash his hands on this? If the Cavs lied about the whole thing as Boozer claimed, why didn't the agent come out and say so?
So were you for or not for the T-Mac trade? Cause we did basically back stabbed 2 of our players. But hey, we got T- Mac so I'm fine with that kind of (actually I'm really going to pull for Orlando now).
I don't know about this...Clutch is a republican and I am a democrat and we are perfectly in tune about Boozer being a scumbag. Integrity has nothing to do with political beliefs. I think people like Boozer suck.
Speculation possibility 2: They did not have an agreement The Cavs did it knowing that Boozer could bolt. Boozer did bolt. The Cavs lied.[/QUOTE] This possibility does not make YOUR sense after everything happened after July 1. It's 20-20 hindsight on your part. But it made perfect sense for the Cavs on June 30. 1. Cavs thought Boozer's value on the market was going to be around MLE for 6 years, or slightly more. 2. Cavs thought Boozer was an energy player who did not worth 28 mil more. Don't tell me everybody knows that Boozer was worth 68mil on June 30. Nobody expected the market to behave this way on June 30! Got that?
