Carlos Boozer have gotten a lot of heat for his actions. And many posters here are crucifying him and saying things along the lines of "how would he give up his dignity for 28 million when he's make 40 million dollars". Now here's the situation, say you were looking for a job, and you finally got an interview from a company, it went well and the HR person asked you if you had any other interviews or jobs you're looking into. Because they despereately needs committment for this job. At the time you don't and that's what you tell them. They offer you the job/tell other potential candidates no. The job pays 18 dollars an hour. A couple of days after you accepted the job, you received a call from a company that you passed out a resume to more than 3 weeks ago, they said they would like to interview you, did and you got the job, which well pay close to 30 dollars an hour. The question is, do you take the job even though you've accepted another one? Now before people start saying that it's different since Boozers getting atleast 40 million dollars and shouldn't care at that point, some one with a min. wage job would be saying the samething about 18 dollars an hour and how you shouldn't sell your integrity after taht. And some dude in Uganda probably would say you'd be getting 3 meals a day eitherway and shouldn't sell you integrity for superfolous stuff. The question is simple, what would you've done?
It's not exactly the same because Boozer was already under contract. He was let out of his contract in good faith because he said he would sign an extension that would be beneficial to both parties. * his salary would increase dramatically * the Cavaliers would get him under contract for a longer period of time
The Cavs wouldn't have just dropped his option if he hadn't committed, of course that is techinically illegal in the NBA, so the Cavs can't really raise that much of a stink about it. I don't blame somebody for wanting more money, 28 million is a lot of money. It's not the same as the difference between 68 and 40. It's $28,000,000. The issue is really that it seems he manipulated his way to this point through deception.
There is NO SUCH THING AS LOYALTY... Take the best deal for yourself. Companies do not care about loyalty any longer, they will hire and fire as they see fit. You should always view a job as an individual contractor. If you are happy, stay, if not...go. My father stayed with the same company for 40 years, that is a rarity these days. Take the money and be happy..... DD
I don't like what he did, but I don't blame him either. The thing about the heat that he gets it just represents the hypocricy of sports fans. A team deals a player and its business, no matter what the team told that player. A player gets out of his contract and he's an a-hole. Boozer did nothing illegal, he didn't whine to get out of a contract. He simply played the hand he was dealt to perfection.
I'm better than Boozer. Don't have his money, of course, but I'm better, at least in the context of this thread. That's my opinion, of course.
I usually agree with you DaDakota, but in this case, I disagree. This sets a bad pace; in the future, there will no longer be any type of verbal agreements. This will hurt future *loyale* players who do intend on staying with their team and get better money. The ungrateful b*stard should only be making what he would have made if he was not under contract. He should at least serve 1 more year at the max he can get with the Cavs.
Space Ghost, It will do no such thing....there will still be verbal agreements, but everyone knows going in that those are NOT enforceable. Clevland did a stupid thing, they should have protected their player and next year they would have had full Bird rights on him. They Screwed up..BIG TIME !! DD
Yes, i think they screwed up big time. Their bad. But im still right. If you disagree, then we can disagree like real men ... and take it out on my CoD server. Tomorrow night 10:00 pm. Winner takes all!
In the strictly capitalistic sense, I say bully for Boozer. Another company offers you more money for the same job. Do you stay in the old one for loyalty? Hell no, we're all paycheck players whether we admit it or not. Now as far as honor goes, he should not have pledged to sign with them so they'd let him out of his contract with the malicious intent to sign elsewhere. I'd say that is disreputable, but it was a verbal agreement. The Cavs should have been smarter, but is Boozer a bad man? The basketball fan in me says yes, the capitalist in me says, no.
Did we screw Cuttino? out of Loyalty . .he signed a lower contract than his Market Value with the implied promise that we were building something here in houston . . .and he was going to be a part of it BOOM the bigger and better deal comes along and he is in Orlando same thing roles reverse Utah was the bigger and better deal Rocket River
Well said. The perfect summation of both angles. I don't understand why people say the Cavs are stupid. They're stupid for trusting two men at their word (Pelinka and Boozer)? Wow, that says a lot about expectations.
I think its a given that verbal contracts don't mean squat anymore today. The cavs should have had at the very least had some form of written contract. I don't think your example applies because you have to sign a written contract to commit to a job. And to put it in a larger perspective, what if boozer was a benefactor? in his case, the 28 million could mean sending 250 kids through college. Or what if his family is in some sort of debt? Thats a large enough sacrifice to me for the cost of integrity. Extra money is only useless in the hands of the wrong person.
Let's say that Kobe told the Cavs that he'd sign for whatever money they were going to pay Boozer with. Who here really believes that they'd have declined Kobe to stick to their verbal agreement?
I was coming to D&D to post a thread related to Boozer as well. Someone beat me to it. So, I'll post my question at the end of the post. But first, some replies. In the NBA Dish, it seems many people defending Boozer don't even really understand the complaint. It seems it is the same here. The complaint is not about money and it is not about loyalty. It's not about what might happen to you, what you might do, what other people would do or what people would do to you. It is about promising. If you have a counter-argument that does not involve Boozer's ethical duty to keep his promises, you're wasting your time. That's where the controversy is. Also, the reason Boozer's promise wouldn't be legally binding is because of the CBA, not because it was verbal. Verbal contracts are just as binding as written ones. They're just harder to porve. Boozer can't be held to his because it was an illegal contract. I don't see how Mobley's situation is relevant. Since he signed his contract, we've built around him and Steve for something like 3 seasons. We didn't immediately turn around and deal him away. I don't know if Mobley still wants the situation. I assume he was motivated by a desire to play with Francis. When we dealt Francis, it may be most fitting that we deal him alongside. Besides all that, did we actually make him a promise that he'd be a Rocket for the duration of his contract? I don't know if we did. As for the original analogy, I don't think that is comparable either. When you agree to take a job, you don't make any promises as to when you might quit. When you sign an NBA contract, you do make such a promise. My objection would not be based on the fact that Boozer is dealing in bigger numbers, but that he is dealing in guaranteed contracts. But, to play along, the last time I accepted a job, I did have another suitor call me, and I told them I wasn't interested even though I liked their job better. They just weren't quick enough. Ok, now for my question, which is on promising: If you make a promise that is unethical, is it unethical to also break the promise for personal gain? "Personal gain" is important here. If you promised to use a vendor in return for a kickback, and then gave back the money and said you wouldn't do it, I doubt that is unethical. However, with the same promise, it would be unethical to keep that money (I would argue) and not employ the vendor -- even though keeping the promise would also have been unethical. RMTex posted a story the other day with a similar dilemma -- the scam-fighters who swindled $80 out of swindlers. The swindlers, like the Cavs, got their comeuppance and it was funny as hell, but notice what the scam-fighters did with the $80, they gave it to charity. They were essentially giving that ill-gotten money a moral laundering. If they were to have pocketed that money they'd have been "no better than the swindlers," to use Thunder Cats moral vocabulary.
