http://www.sltrib.com/sports/ci_2379291 Agent tried to keep Boozer with Cavs Carlos Boozer's agent tried to to talk him out of signing with the Jazz, and even offered to arrange for $68 million worth of insurance if he would return to the Cavaliers, the Sports Business Journal reported this week. Rob Pelinka, who resigned as Boozer's agent on July 12, two days before Boozer signed a six-year, $68 million contract with the Jazz, wanted to rid himself of his client once the 22-year-old forward began considering leaving the Cavs, the magazine said. But Cleveland general manager Jim Paxson convinced Pelinka not to, a source inside Pelinka's SFX agency told the magazine, "Because you are our only hope to get him to stay. Boozer became a free agent on July 1 after the Cavs, believing they had a promise from Boozer and Pelinka to sign a long-term contract, did not exercise a $695,000 option for the 2004-05 season. Once Boozer was freed by the Cavs, teams immediately started calling Pelinka, who "asked Boozer for direction and Boozer told him to take the calls," the SFX source told Sports Business Journal. Boozer could not be reached for comment Tuesday. Pelinka kept Paxson informed of the calls from other teams, SBJ said, and Paxson urged him to stay on and counsel his client to fulfill his promise to the team. The article makes no mention of the fact that an agreement reached before July 1 is not legal under NBA rules. When Paxson made a proposal over the weekend of July 10-11 that Boozer sign a one-year, $4.9 million contract with Cleveland and become a free agent, eligible for an even bigger contract from the Cavs, next summer, Pelinka suggested accepting the offer and insuring himself for the rest of Utah's $68 million, the magazine said. Arn Tellem, president and CEO of SFX, told the magazine that the agency supports Pelinka, contrary to rumors that the agent, who also represents Kobe Bryant, will soon be asked to leave. "Rob Pelinka acted in a responsible and professional manner and is a valued member of our practice and will continue to be so," Tellem told SBJ. Tellem said he had decided that the agency would not accept its fee of more than $2 million for negotiating Boozer's contract with Pelinka. "When [Boozer's decision] became clear to everybody, we all felt that Boozer has to make a decision about what is right, and we had to make a decision about what is right," the SFX source told the magazine. "We resigned. It was a group decision."
Interesting. This is the first article where I am convinced that Boozer really lied. He should have taken the one year deal with the insurance. I still think Clevland knew what they were doing in trying to lock him up long term to a cheap contract. and, it still supports the "offer he could not refuse" portion of our arguments. But, I think he screwed the Cavs, but they knew it might happen when they released him. Good find Clutch. DD
Clearly, they had a deal...and i just cannot see how anyone could conclude Cleveland was taking a calculated risk to lock him up cheap. THEY HAD A DEAL. Boozer and his agent had agreed. And they had benefited from Cleveland acting on their part of the deal. It would be like agreeing to a sign and trade, and then backing out of the trade bit after the player had signed. If Boozer or his agent thought the offer was inadequate, they should not have agreed to it! But i'm tending to agree with the 'offer you can't refuse' argument raised by DaDa. Utah's offer was huge. The loophole was there. He was wrong -- but possibly felt it was just too good to pass up. People have gone back on their word for less than $28 mil.
Bnb, I wonder if the NBA is going to fine Clevland for this, as if they did have a deal, then it is a clear violation. Or, they may take the stand that the Cavs got what they deserved for their stupidity. DD
i don't think the NBA wants to go near this! It's quite different from the Joe Smith thing in that nobody was circumventing the cap or otherwise abusing the rules to the detriment of the other teams. The contract (to be) wasn't manipulated to appear to pay one amount with a promise of a different amount later. It was an 'honest' deal -- although not technically allowed. What i don't understand, is why Cleveland couldn't offer him an extention of his contract without first tearing up the old. What's the rational in forcing a team to essentially release a player rather than allowing them to offer a longer contract (which the player is at liberty to reject) while not giving up their rights under the old?
If they didn't tear up the old contract, Boozer would be paid the low salary for one more year. Boozer wouldn't have agreed to that AND a MLE long term contract. The main selling point of signing Boozer for the MLE long term was that Boozer would be paid millions rather than thousands NOW. Here are the trade off each party was suppose to take: Cavs Give: 5 million more this year; Take: probably millions less next 5 years. Boozer Give: probably millions less next 5 years; Take: 5 million more this year and guaranteed MLE money no matter what happens next year. Don't forget, at the time of the agreement, both parties probably didn't expect the crazy FA market we now see. If they did, neither side would have agreed to that. In other words, the MLE was not supposed to be a "lowball" tactic by the Cavs. Boozer didn't have to take a lowball offer. His agent would have counseled him on that.
Easy: Are you saying Cleveland could have offered an extention?? If so...why not just factor in the 'low' year? If they thought $40m over 5 years was fair (can't remember the original numbers), why not offer $39.3 over four starting in 2005 and pay him the $700K this year? He gets the same money over the term of the contract and since it's all guaranteed, gets the security he was after. Or were they messing with salary caps? If so...then maybe the NBA should be slapping them about some more. Boy...glad i'm no Cleveland fan!
Let me add the exact $ to your analysis: Cavs Give: $4.3 M more this year; Take: $27M less in next 6 years. Boozer: Give: $27M less in the next 6 years; Take: $4.3M more this year and a guranteed long term contract for financial security. It is true that this year's FA market is inflated. But Boozer's contract is not. $68M for 6 years, for a 22 year old big man, who averaged a double double in his second year, and ranked #11 in Efficiency ranking, is a fair deal.
I don't think they (both parties) expected that Boozer could be worth the 68M for 6 years deal. The only reasonable scenario is that they both thought that the MLE was slightly lower than Boozer's worth and this year's raise would be a fair compensation for it. If the Cavs knew Boozer would be worth that kind of big money, they wouldn't have taken the risk. Think about this. What would the Cavs rather do: Give Boozer his full worth next year; Or lose Boozer for nothing? If Boozer knew he would be worth that much, he wouldn't have made the agreement, unless, of course, he lied and fully intended to bolt once they released him. It just doesn't make sense that if they knew Boozer's worth was so much higher than the MLE, they would have made that agreement.
Boozer may have not known his real market value, but Cavs clearly did. There is absolutely no way for Boozer to be worth MLE + $4M for 6 years, no matter how inflated this year's FA market is. Boozer is mostly hidden before LeBron's media buzz, but he was the Cavs real MVP last season. Sure LeBron got 20/5/5, but he took lots of shots and shoot a very low percentage. If you look at the Efficiency ranking last year, Boozer is ranked higher than beasts like AK47, J O'Neal, Randolph, Odom, even our own Yao! None of the top 20 guys not on a rookie contract get paid near MLE money. In fact, all of them get paid close to max. 1. Kevin Garnett (Minnesota Timberwolves) 82 33.13 2. Tim Duncan (San Antonio Spurs) 69 26.80 3. Elton Brand (Los Angeles Clippers) 69 25.01 4. Shaquille O'Neal (Los Angeles Lakers) 67 24.93 5. Dirk Nowitzki (Dallas Mavericks) 77 24.17 6. Tracy McGrady (Orlando Magic) 67 23.75 7. Predrag Stojakovic (Sacramento Kings) 81 22.99 8. Brad Miller (Sacramento Kings) 72 22.89 9. Kobe Bryant (Los Angeles Lakers) 65 22.68 10. Shawn Marion (Phoenix Suns) 79 22.44 11. Carlos Boozer (Cleveland Cavaliers) 75 22.23 12. Andrei Kirilenko (Utah Jazz) 78 21.59 13. Jermaine O'Neal (Indiana Pacers) 78 21.55 14. Zach Randolph (Portland Trail Blazers) 81 21.02 15. Ray Allen (Seattle SuperSonics) 56 20.91 16. Sam Cassell (Minnesota Timberwolves) 81 20.67 17. Yao Ming (Houston Rockets) 82 20.57 18. Paul Pierce (Boston Celtics) 80 20.49 19. Jason Kidd (New Jersey Nets) 67 20.45 20. Lamar Odom (Miami Heat) 80 20.43
Clutch's article was good but it just goes to show you that there are two totally opposite sides of the story. There are two publications saying the exact opposite things about Pelinka (the agent). Go back and read codell's article on page 11. It even predicts that the agency will try to pin everything on Boozer even though "on all accounts," he negotiated the deal. It sounds like spin to me. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...lout/index.html
Lancet: If your take is correct...then it speaks very poorly of Boozer's agent who advised him to accept the Cleveland deal. (and advised him not to take Utah's). The agent must have agreed the original Cleveland offer was either close enough to market or its addressing of Boozer's other concerns was sufficient that it was in the best interest of his client. It's the agents responsibility to ensure he's not 'suckered-in' as you imply was Cleveland's intention. I'm having a bit less pity for Cleveland, however, if they could have simply signed an extention (and worked the salary to address the relatively low upcoming season) but chose, instead to do some sort of cap dance. IF that's the case - perhaps Cleveland doesn't have to book a hotel for the next few years drafts.
If the Cavs were smart enough to try to get Boozer way bellow the market, they'd have been smart enough to know that some teams would come and lure Boozer away with that kind of money. They clearly didn't see that teams would offer that much money to tempt Boozer once they opted out of the contract. If they did, that would be too big a risk for them. You see, you can't say that the Cavs were so cunning in suckering Boozer with lowball contract and then turn around and say that they were so stupid in taking that kind of a risk. And as bnb points out, the agent wouldn't have let Boozer get suckered into that. bnb, I didn't consider the possibility of signing an extension that would compensate for this year's low salary. That would have been the best way to do it. I guess they just wanted to be creative. Maybe the capologists can tell us if that could be done under cap consideration.
I don't think that could have been done, because Cleveland was using their MLE to sign Boozer. If they kept the 1st year the same at $695k and inflated the remaining duration of the contract to compensate, it would no longer be the MLE. So I don't think it could've worked when you factor in the salary cap.
The bottomline is, Boozer wanted out from Cavs because he hated Paul Silas, then did his trick to get out and become the next Karl Malone in Utah.. If he wanted the money, and if he believes in earning the money (producing underpaid for 1 more yr), he would have an even bigger MAX contract after next year! So the money isn't exactly the main factor. Only if playing alongside BronBron, under P. Silas was so fun...
do you SERIOUSLY think he would have gotten a MAX CONTRACT Boozer is good . . but not MAX CONTRACT GOOD is he better than Sheed? He is getting more money that SHEEP now .. . 68/6 v 57/5 or roughly Rocket River
