27 million dollars can make lots of people "change their minds". do you think most employers will hesitate to fire you if THEY stood to gain 27 million dollars? capitalism is inherently every man for himself. nba is no different. i don't exactly see nba owners giving million dollar handouts to every player whose careers became a bust due to some freak injury. (aka ralph sampson)...
Reminds me of a joke... Guy walks up to a beautiful woman and says "Excuse me miss, would you be willing to sleep with me for a million dollars?" The woman thinks for all of two milli seconds and says "Yes... yes I would." The guy then asks "would you sleep with me for twenty dollars?" The woman screams "What do you think I am, some kind of a w****?!" The man calmly retorts "Madam, we have established what you are, we are simply negotiating now..."
The difference (in most cases) is a contract. I suspect most of us work in environments where we can be fired at any time for any non-discriminatory reason. because we aren't contractually bound to the company nor they to us. NBA owners give millions every year for players who don't play due to an injury provided they are still under contract (see Alonzo Mourning). I don't see any NBA players giving back money because they had a crummy season either. In the NBA you can't be "fired" without compensation (see Matt Maloney). In the real world, you can.
LOL! The NBA's offseason trades have been based around these verbal commitments for years. It's nothing new at all, far from it. What is new is Boozer, with his agent, tossing that promise away. This will affect how business is done in the league for a long time. That's why some many agents and front office people are bent out of shape. The handshake agreement. being toast hurts other players, agents and GM's making deals. I think it shows an appalling lack of integrity from Boozer and his representative, but it's the bigger picture that has folks around the league in an uproar. Here's an example I saw in the Washington Post Brouhaha Over Boozer Cleveland Cavaliers forward Carlos Boozer is expected to sign a $68 million contract with the Utah Jazz today, a deal that has touched off a bitter dispute between the player and Cavaliers management. Multiple news organizations have quoted unnamed sources with close ties to the Cavaliers who say Boozer, his wife and his agent Rob Pelinka met with members of the Cavaliers' management on June 30 to request that the team decline to pick up his option for next season. By not picking up Boozer's option, the Cavaliers would be allowed under league rules to re-sign him to a more lucrative deal. In return, Boozer agreed not to shop himself to other teams, according to the reports. Boozer, one of the most improved players in the NBA last season after averaging 15.5 points and 11.4 rebounds, has denied saying he would reject other offers. Meantime, Pelinka, who works for sports agency SFX, resigned as Boozer's agent on Monday. A source with knowledge of the negotiations between Pelinka and Boozer said the agent tried to persuade Boozer to turn down the Jazz offer once the public outcry intensified, but the player refused. "We are monitoring the situation but have not commenced an investigation," said NBA spokesman Tim Frank. Said one NBA assistant coach, who requested anonymity: "What Boozer and Pelinka did was deplorable. It'll be a long time before anyone forgets." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46889-2004Jul13.html And, from the Times... SFX, the agency Pelinka works for, told the N.B.A. players union that Pelinka had resigned as Boozer's agent, cutting off ties with him. The move was believed to have been made out of concern that teams would be hesitant to deal with Pelinka, and perhaps other SFX agents, if he continued to represent Boozer. "It gives everybody pause, and I think that's why he resigned from representing Boozer," one Western Conference executive said. "So much of this business is your word.'' http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/14/sports/basketball/14nba.html
Whatever, He probably gave a wink wink deal, then the Jazzholes contacted him and said, hey we will give you 28 million more. And Boozer went...HMMMM....I can live with a little hit to my credibility with agents for 28 million more. Sure, why not !! Then he simply took the best offer. Clevland gambled and lost......bet they won't do it again. DD
I actually agree with this...having said that, these are different times when my folks grew up, when there was loyalty...however, we weren't there, but its safe to say the Cavs wouldn't have let him out of his contract if there wasn't an understanding...but, given the interview from boozer, I don't know what to think...$ talks, BS walks...
I wouldn't do what Boozer does in this tale. I would think this means no one gets the benefit of the doubt from the player side on an option year ever again. http://www.nba.com/cavaliers/news/gund_boozer_040714.html
If I asked a company to let me out of contract so that I could then sign a more lucrative contract with them (one that was somewhere in the neighborhood of eight to ten times my previous yearly salary), I can't imagine that I would go back on my word and sign an even bigger contract with another company. Then again, integrity is more important to me than a dollar figure, square feet, how quickly I can get from zero to sixty, and a whole host of other things.
If I had a chance to get AN EXTRA $28M, there are two things that I would not care about....integrity/what folks say about me and credit. Especially if I were in a cut throat indursty where loyalty really doesn't mean a thing. I mean, didn't we make Stevie think this was his franchise before he signed his max contract with us. Didn't we trade his ass for the better deal?
