I doubt the agent acted ethically. Depends on how it went down. He was part of the process. It really depends on whether the agent advised Boozer to break his tacit agreement with Cleveland or not. If he said, sign with Utah, he is equally unethical. If he said don't do it Carlos. If you do, I quit. Then I think he acted ethically. I think the agent did the former, and when the public backlash came out and SFX started feeling heat, they forced him to fire Boozer as a client. Pelinka only has a job with SFX because he represents Kobe.
This still does not address the question I have. DD, assume that Boozer tacitly agreed to resign for the MLE. He has now backed out on that. Isn't that unethical?
This post makes no sense. So because the CBA states that "No Such Agreement is Allowed," you therefore conclude that Boozer never gave his word to Cleveland? Okay, how on earth do you make such a connection? It is pretty clear there was such an agreement, otherwise Cleveland would have picked up the option.
Assume what you said is true, isn't it that the Cavs is unethical to violent the CBA? The CBA was a signed contact among all the NBA teams and specifically prohibit verbal agreement before July 1st. As I said, is it ok for teams to be unethical if all the teams do that all the time? From the latest statement released by the Cavs' owner, obviously Boozer avoid any commitment when negatiated with the Cavs. He just made them to believe that he will commit, but he's always vague about it. It's good negatiation skill.
It's not like Boozer is 35 years veteran. He have better chance to be better than worse next year. I don't buy it that he was worrying he might be hurt next year. If everybody player worry that they would be hurt next year, the the NBA salary will be extemely low. It's not the case and the assumption is totally wrong for young players. If he will not be hurt next year, even if he stick with his 700,000 this season, he will still make more money, if not 28 millions more, than the total package the Cavs offered him this year. Guaranteed money NOW is NOT the motive on raising young players. It might be motive for veterans on the decline.
Guaranteed money is ALWAYS the option for any player. Why do you think kids are skipping college to go to the pros? GUARANTEED MONEY !!! As for the unethical question, perhaps. However, it is a business, and players are treated as commodities. Clevland took a calculated gamble, and lost. Such is life...poker, and business, happens all the time. DD
The question isn't guaranteed money or no guaranteed money...he had a long term contract for him in both options. Having guaranteed money is irrelevant; that was a constant regardless of the decision. The question is between: a) Showing integrity and respect for the people that put you in the situation to be released from a $695,000 contract, for $41 million of guaranteed money. or b) Stab them in the back for $68 million of guaranteed money because that extra $27 million is too much to turn down.
the league would take actoin against the cavaliers (ala minny) if the cavs and boozer had entered into a firm, written binding contract. They did not. what they had was a tacit agreement. a gentlemen's understanding. you wash my hand, i'll wash yours. everyone benefits. whatever you want to call it. Such an arrangement, complied with the letter of the cba. It might be that both boozer and cavs were unethical to even have this tacit agreement b/c it was right on the cusp of violating the cba. But as between boozer and the cavs, each was operating on good faith with each other. as for your 2nd paragraph, you're probably right. Boozer did make the Cav's believe him. That's why they let him out into the market. But your comment frankly makes me sad . . . "He made them to believe that he will commit, but he's always vague about it. It's good negotiation skill." It's lying. It's deception. It's fraudulent inducement. It's causing someone to rely on you to their detriment. I'm not coming up with these words on my own. these are the words written by judges through the decades in opiniions deciding cases based on claims of fraud, estoppel, etc. Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying that Boozer's actions were illegal. I'm telling you that the same principles on which the law is founded were violated by Boozer, even if his actions were legal. Law is a minimum threshold, but is based on a higher ethical ground. Law is what you must do. Ethics is what you should do.
What do you mean by an honestly intended handshake deal? Binding agreements (which the Cavs genuinely thought they had) during the no-negotiation period are against the rules and by definition dishonest... The fact that Joe Smith's deal with the Twolves was in writing was just proof after the fact of a behavior, i.e. deals of any kind, that is specifically forbidden.
I don't mean to put words into your mouth, but this appears to anser my question. Boozer's actions were unethical, but it doesn't really matter.
I disagree. This is what i'm getting at: handshake deals are not legally binding. legally binding deals are prohibited by the cba. boozer was not legally bound to live up to his promise to the cavaliers. The cavaliers are not saying that boozer did not have the legal right to sign with the Jazz. they are saying that he is unethical. He was ethically bound, not legally bound. stated differently, if they had a binding deal, the nba would be on them like white on rice. there will be no action taken because there was no binding deal. In short, Boozer's actions were perfectly legal, but also contemptuously unethical.
The point shouldn't be who is or isn't lying; the point is that someone in the Cav's management screwed up by allowing this whole situation to happen. In a business sense, if I were the Cav's owner, the GM would be fired. Nothing the GM could do (aside from an NBA championship) would make up for the value the GM just cost the team.
Some of you people dont know how this works. Pre July 1st Teams may not talk to FA's This is the time of the draft and where teams get thier coaching staffs together etc etc... July 1st- July 14th Teams may now talk to FA's This is where the bidding war starts, however, You DO NOT make agreements at this time, this is just where FA's can hear out all the teams offers. Again. You DO NOT make agreements at this time you make offers only. After July 14th Teams may now sign FA's This is the time and this is the only time you make agreements and theres only 1 type of agreement you make and thats with a pen ------------------------ With that said, the only dumb move made here was by the cavs by putting boozer in that place in the first place. As far as ethics go, if you want ethics, you join a church not the NBA EDIT:changed june to july. was thinking NFL free agent signing
I disagree. One of the biggest arguments for high school players skipping college is that they might get injured or they might underperform in college. Whether you buy that argument is irrelevant. That's how today's young players think.
LOL. Someone needs a lesson on "ethics". I'd like to add that those supporting Boozer have been deciminated and destroyed in this thread. That he lied or acted unethically, no one has been able to deny.
there are many points. i don't disagree with your argument that the cav's dropped the ball here. that is completely separate from the ethics issue. Both are valid points, neither should be ignored.
I know how it works. You are focused on the "legality" issues. You're trying to say, aha, no written agreement, so no problem with what boozer did. That is correct from a purely legal standpoint. I think you're in agreement with DaDakota . . . Boozer might have acted unethically, but it really doesn't matter. Something like, screw ethics, this is business. I'll just say that ethics exist in many places outside of church.
