Read this article: Jazz: Boozer hurt by criticism, No promises made? There are always two sides to a story. If what this 'source' is saying is true, it wasn't Boozer's fault, rather the Cavs. Don't expect Boozer to go back to the Cavs after all they've said about him....
I still say they should try and re-sign Boozer, and the trade him before the deadline next year. They probably aren't going to keep Z anyway, so letting him go now, isn't that big a deal. And Boozer has screwed himself. You don't think this will impact his ability to do endorsements, and he can prettyy much kiss off any chances of appearing in future all star games.
Bull. This will all blow over within a few years, possibly even sooner. Even more if Boozer has an explosive season with the Jazz........then they'll be saying "Cleveland who?"
That's why Cleveland will have to up their offer. I don't see Boozer walking away from $63 million over his reputation with the Cavs.
There's absolutely no way, none what-so-ever, that the Cavs decline his option unless he and his agent agreed to resign. Zero. If Boozer is pulling a Clinton and simply saying he never used the word "promise" or "on my honor," whatever. Doesn't change what happened. That Rob Pelinka has resigned as his agent (before he could recieve any money from the contract) is also rather telling. Evan
Since those kinds of agreements are against CBA rules I doubt he had one... All he said was that he wanted to resign with Cleveland, but when you're a free agent you're FREE to sign with anyone, Boozer signed with the team that offered him more.
From the SI article Sir Jackie Chiles posted earlier: Instead, Gund agreed to set Boozer free with the understanding that Boozer would sign a long-term deal with Cleveland. Because the Cavs are over the league's salary cap, the most they could offer Boozer this summer was a six-year contract for $41 million. The Cavs say that no illegal under-the-table offer was made to Boozer because it was understood that the NBA's collective bargaining agreement prohibited the team from paying more than $41 million. According to a source who participated in the meeting when the Cavaliers decided to allow him to become a free agent, Boozer told Gund, "If you respect me by not picking up the option, I'll show trust and loyalty to you by signing with you." As a matter of common sense and, say team sources, the Cavaliers never would have relinquished their long-term rights to Boozer unless he made it clear that he would re-sign with them.
BTW, nobody's saying he wasn't FREE to sign with anyone. There was nothing illegal about him agreeing to sign with the Jazz. It's what he told Cavaliers executives/owner to convince them to let him out of his meager contract early that rubs people the wrong way.
Ask the Cavaliers if there was ever a guarantee like that and they'd say no so they could avoid fines and penalties. They'd basically admit to terminating his rookie contract, because they had already agreed on another which is against CBA rules. He might of given them an assurance that he'd sign that 41 million dollar deal, and that's fine, but that was because he couldn't of imagined anyone else ponying up 68 million for him. The Cavaliers undervalued him for sure, Boozer might have, the only reason he should be criticized is if he knew before hand that his market value was 65% more than the Cavs could offer. I think that Utah offer surprised him, the Cavs and everyone else who follows the NBA, so why blame him for basically using his free agent status for what it's supposed to used?
The Cavs could offer a 6-year deal at the Full MLE with a player option after this season. This way he gets some long-term guarantee if an injury happens and he can opt out for more next year. Then the Cavs have longer to get under the cap to resign him. Or him being under contract for a 3rd season with the Cavs might give the Cavs his Full Bird Rights??? In any event, this whole fiasco might bring about the end of this so called trade moratorium.
You're thinking that they agreed to a contract before the Cavs let him out of his contract. What people are saying happened is that he asked to be let out of his paltry contract, agreeing to "show trust and loyalty" by resigning in return for the "respect" from such a move. There's no way the Cavs would have let him out of his contract early, unless Boozer made such an assurance. It's common sense. And of course the Cavs and Boozer both undervalued him. Again, that's part of why Boozer's reputation has taken such a hit. It's not because he used his free agent status. It's because he was under contract for only $695,000, but was granted his restricted free agent status after assuring them that he would resign, telling them, "If you respect me by not picking up the option, I'll show trust and loyalty to you by signing with you." Then of course, after realizing he had undervalued himself, he reneged on his word, which is the entire reason he was on the market in the first place.
I hope the big boys out West expose Boozer for what Silas said he is, nothing more than a banger & a hustle player. 15 rebounds a game are pretty easily had in the East on a team where the only other good rebounder is a rookie backcourt player.
