Nor prove, as none of us were actually in that meeting. However, I don't care if he lied...it is a business, lying is part of negotiating. Big deal.... DD
He very well might have been unethical, and you are right. So what? No one cares when teams cut players to save payroll, or trades them to other cities without talking to them. I mean think about it. If your boss wanted to transfer you to another city, wouldn't you have a say? Of course, but not in the NBA. So, Boozer my have lied, probably did. So what? He got the deal and comfort he wanted. Good for him. Is he unethical? Not in my mind, in my mind he is a shrewd business man. DD
What?? The fact of the matter is that nobody can prove that he lied to the Cavs and everyone knows you can't make that kind of agreement before July 1st. For the Cavs to say that he assured them he'd resign with them, no matter what, is simply them trying to keep from looking stupid, like the Cavs usually do.
Boozer is the only one saying he didn't lie. Gund, Paxson and Boozer's agent are ALL implying something different.
So what if he lied? He may have intended to stay, but got an offer so much better that he could not refuse it. Clevland still could have matched the offer and kept him if they REALLY wanted to. DD
So lying in business is OK with you, as long as you get what you want?? Cleveland could not have matched the offer without trading away assets.
Lying is not ok, but if you know that the possibility exists that someone else might come in with an "Out of this world" offer, you NEVER put yourself in that position. I blame Cleveland for naivity, and idiocy. I don't think Carlos thought he was going to get such an overwhelming offer. In my mind once Utah made that offer, he had no choice but to take it. DD
Yet, according to 2 people, and the actions of his agent, Carlos DID put himself in that position. He had another choice. He could have taken the security that he wanted from Cleveland and that Cleveland was willing to offer him AND live up to his word by accepting that offer.
What we use to prove is a little thing called "evidence". Cavs trying to save cash by screwing Boozer? Where are the facts to prove this? Boozer lied to Cavs to get out of contract? Well here we go: Flying in the face of all logic the Cavs release him from his deal, eyewitness accounts of conversations as to why they did this, complete outrage against Boozer from those in the know, agent firing Boozer, agency possibly firing agent later, Gordon Gund detailing everything. Again, Boozer knew the Cavs cap limitations THIS season. The Cavs knew they had him under contract THIS season and could match any offer NEXT season. Boozer and his wife wanted long-term security. The Cavs had COMPLETE control of Boozer. I don't care how stupid you think the Cavs are, they wouldn't risk this without a trust being made. Pretend your theory is correct, and the Cavs just were trying to save money and that's all that happened here. Just flat out - SURPRISE! Boozer and his agent, completely out of the loop, wake up one morning and they're free from the last year of his deal. The Cavs just decided they would give a 22-year old who put up max contract-type numbers in the second half of last season free reign to negotiate with anyone in the one year when all they could do was match an MLE contract. So, part I of evil plot to save cash theory: Cavs: "All you will get from us is a measly $41 million dollars (insert diabolical laugh) though it appears you have freedom to get any deal you want elsewhere!!! (diabolical laugh roars)" Boozer: "I've decided to take $68 million from Utah" Cavs: "(diabolical laugh stops) Well .... that kind of sucks." Boozer's Agent: "I feel so bad about trying to screw the evil empire here Carlos and doing absolutely nothing wrong that I'm going to go against my leech tendencies and fire you as a client before I get almost $3 million in commissions." Sorry folks, your theory doesn't work. And save us the "would have been an illegal deal" crap. Everyone knows how verbal agreements work and they run rampant in the league. Stop pulling a "Rocket River" where you draw some terrible comparison like Joe Smith (The Timberwolves put down an illegal/numbers deal in writing!) or the Rockets saying they would build around Steve then dealing him (WTHF?). No bearing. Boozer denies he made a verbal agreement with the Cavs and said point blank if he had made a verbal agreement with the Cavs, he would have stuck with it. So right there, Boozer is saying he would have stuck with what you call an "illegal deal". Boozer wanted the $41 million so badly he told the Cavs he wanted the security so lets do a mutual trust deal. With the market ballooning for no apparent reason, Boozer suddenly realized he could make a lot more and got greedy. So he went against his word and took the $68 million. What he did was not illegal. However, it was lying. It was unethical. Was there something else any of you wanted to add because you haven't been able to come close to refuting this.
Great post Clutch. This issue really isn't controversial around the league, people know Boozer is wrong, just as you explained. But in a public forum we will always have people making the most inane arguments I guess.
If Boozer came out with a letter with an opposing view... "I told them that no oral agreement could be made, yada yada" Then who do you believe? Just because the owner sent a letter does not mean that his version is the TRUTH. It just means that he is trying to save his ass, give the steaming fans some sort of explanation.
All speculation. Boozer said he didn't make an agreement. The Cavs say he did. His agent quit because Arm Tellem his boss did not want his agency to take the heat for this, but CLEARLY they knew what was going on all the time. My guess is that the Agent actively shopped Boozer around and got an offer that was too good to ignore. Did they lie? Maybe, but both sides knew that the potential of a better offer was out there. And, the Cavs still could have matched it.... Unethical? No one cares ! Was it ethical of Elway to not play in Denver, or Steve to refuse to play in Vancouver? Was it ethical of Shaq to force a trade from the Lakers when he has a signed contract? Ethics...come on guys, this is business....ethics play a role, but sometimes they get run over...happens all the time..... I can not fault a man with a limited playing career that gets offered nearly $5 million more per year to play in Utah for accepting that offer. We are talking 28 million dollars.....that is what it all boils down to. He got an offer he could not refuse or ignore.....and he chose to take it, regardless of the question of ethics. I think he did the right thing.........too much money to ignore. Again, and this is important.....CLEVELAND CAN STILL MATCH IT !!! It is their choice. DD
What are you talking about? There is nothing proven here. One camp said he lied, the other said he didn't. Just because someone calls someone a lier does not make it true. Without a transcript of the EXACT conversation, we are all just guessing. It could even be a misunderstanding whereas the Cavs assumed Boozer had agreed, and Boozer assumed that he had the freedom to explore options. No one really knows...and because the CBA does not allow such wink wink deals, it is up to Clevland to protect their interests, and they failed. Clevland made the mistake, not Boozer. DD
Your backup argument, DaDa, that "we don't know what happened" is not going to stand. You weren't there when OJ murdered 2 people, but from the evidence we can be pretty darn sure what happened.
DaDa, 1) I don't even know how you can argue that Boozer DIDN'T lie. 2) Cleveland would NEVER have released him from his existing deal if there wasn't a verbal agreement that he would re-sign with them. 3) Boozer's agent would NEVER fire him if Boozer hadn't lied. This is almost unprecedented (for an agent to fire their client and give up $$$$ commission in the process). 4) By your words, you are either being naive, or just arguing for the sake of arguing, or, you don't believe in business ethics and that its ok to lie (and yes, Boozier did lie to Cleveland) as long as you get more money.
Yes. Cleveland made the mistake of putting their trust in someone who they though would honor their word.
Codell, No, I am a person who relies on facts not innuendo. Nothing you said is proven...NOTHING !!! Boozer's agent quit because his BOSS Arm Tellem did not like the flak his agency was getting, and he was trying to cover his A$$. His agent knew what he was doing all along, in fact, he probably initiated it, WITH ARM'S BLESSING. When the crap hit the fan, they entered spin mode, and Boozer was unwilling to back away from 28 million dollars. I don't blame him at all...it is a business, he took the best deal...so what? DD
THEIR WORD !!!! ROLFLMAO !!! Dude, who is being naive? Signed contracts are all that matter, Clevland had all the power and chose to give it up...this is not a matter of honor, it is a matter of stupidity. Gund made an aggregious error. DD
