Boozer poll, take the money or not?

I see 2 problems with this plan:

(1) I don't think you can opt out after the first year. I think the CBA limits the opt out to the last year or second to last year of the contract (depending on length).

(2) Boozer cannot sign the longterm MLE offer now. If he does, he implicitly admits that he did lie. If he admits that he lied then he's also admitting that he and the Cavs conspired to circumvent the cap. The league will then have ammunition to prosecute them for cheating, punishing the Cavs and likely tearing up Boozer's ill-gotten contract.

Easy, I think your scenario is not comparable for this reason: Boozer's promise to the Cavs was not binding because it was forbidden by the CBA. If you and your landlord make a verbal agreement, it is legally binding. It is true that you'd be stupid to not get it in writing (or at least have witnesses), but the landlord would be technically legally bound to that verbal agreement and you could sue him for damages. Also, it is fairly clear that the landlord has done something unethical in breaking that verbal agreement.

 

I agree that Boozer should have done a one or two year deal with the Cavs.

Stitch TRAITOR or GREED on the back of his jersy.

Evan

 

JV,

I see what you are saying. I couldn't think of a real life example that has the illegal aspect in it. To me, the legality of the agreement should be a separate issue from the ethical issue of breaking verbal agreement. Most people who think Boozer is free to sign with other team don't argue from the point of the legality of the agreement. Their argument is simply that verbal agreement has no binding power. I think you and I agree that verbal agreement does have binding power, if not legally binding, at least ethically binding.

If the agreement was illegal, then Boozer is equally guilty as the Cavs in agreeing to do it. It's kind of like after robbing the bank with a partner, you double-cross your partner and pocket all the money. Anyway people spin it, Boozer comes out looking bad.

All these, of course, is under the assumption that Boozer did make an agreement clearly or tacitly. This assumption, imo, is very reliable.

 

Well, he took the money.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BKN_JAZZ_BOOZER?SITE=TXHOU&SECTION=SPORTS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Boozer Signs Offer Sheet With Utah Jazz

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- Cleveland forward Carlos Boozer signed an offer sheet with the Utah Jazz on Wednesday, an expected move that drew heavy criticism around the league.

Boozer and the Jazz agreed to the six-year, $68 million offer sheet last week.

The Cavaliers believed they had an understanding with Boozer when they did not pick up the third year option on his contract. But Boozer denied any agreement was in place and accepted $27 million more than Cleveland could pay him.

Detroit center Mehmet Okur also signed a six-year, $50 million offer sheet with the Jazz on Wednesday.

Both the Cavs and the Pistons have 15 days to match Utah's offer, but neither is expected to because they don't have enough money under the salary cap.

"Now it's up to the other team to make a decision," Jazz vice president Kevin O'Connor said.

The Cavs had declined to exercise a $695,000 option on Boozer's contract - thereby making him a restricted free agent - in the belief he would accept a six-year, $41 million deal to remain in Cleveland.

On Monday, Cleveland made a last-ditch effort to retain Boozer, offering him a one-year contract worth about $5 million.

Boozer, the Cavs' second-round draft pick in 2002, is coming off a breakout season in which he averaged 15.5 points and 11.4 rebounds.

 

I found it amusing when people are arguing about ethics and put the blame all on Boozer. My point:

1. The current situation from public media is what Boozer says vs what Cavs say. Nobody except those involved knows exactly what happened. So don't pretend you know and put the blame on one party.

2. The ethics argument would have stood some ground if Cavs honestly did it purely for Boozer's good. But the fact is that they didn't. They offered to pay MLE for not picking up Boozer's last year option, which is 600k. So they basically gave up $4M for the next season in order to sign Boozer to a long term deal much cheaper than market value, which turns out to be a $28M difference. You do the math!

3. In the end, both parties tried to do whatever is best for themselves and the Cavs lost out.

 

You never were clear on what it is that he did.

 

All of the following is premised on my belief that there was a tacit agreement and boozer went back on his word. If that is not true, then he did not act unethically in my opinion.

The ethics argument has merit. The tacit agreement benefited both parties. The fact that it benefited the Cavs does not change the fact that Boozer, if there was an agreement, went back on his word. TI've done the math. The math benefited both people, but that is not the point. It's about ethics.

You are right, both parties tried to do what is best for each of them. The agreement gave them that. Boozer then said screw that, screw the Cav's, I'm going to sign with Utah. And you're right, the Cav's lost out.

Cavs might be guilty of stupidity. If there was a tacit agreement, Boozer sold out his integrity.

 

Actually, in 2 years, I think Boozer will care. He will always wonder whether the person he is talking to thinks he is a cheat and a liar. Somewhere in the back of his mind, he will wonder and, as much as he'd like not to, he will care.

I honestly believe that this is his legacy. Unless he becomes soo good that people are willing to overlook this incident (unfortunately, the superstars get such preferential treatment), this is his legacy in the NBA.

For all of his accomplishments, Rudy T is remembered for The Punch.

Boozer will be remembered for this, whatever it is called.

 

you know what you guys are crazy.

If Boozer were to take the Cavs 5m/1year offer and blow out his knee.. would you feel bad if the Cav's didnt resign him to the Max contract he was promised? Boozer needs to worry about himself and his family and their well being. The team wont take care of him if he cant play.. *side note. The offer from the Cavs was way undervalued... 28 million is not a small error . It seems the Cavs management were getting away with highway robbery. we all thought so .. you cant lie.

So Boozer ended up flipping the Cavs greed against them and good for him. This is my real world example.

You took a job offer for 40k/yr shook hands yada yada yada. Last minute a different company came in offered you twice the money and longer terms what would you do?

J

 

*side note. where is the scumbag agent? If the agent left well enough alone and didnt tell Boozer to negotiate with the Jazz this wouldnt have happened.

J

 

You're using hindsight. The applicable frame of reference is when they made the tacit agreement.

At that time, Boozer must have felt that the MLE was a reasonable amount of money. If he anticipated the 28MM delta, no way he would ever agree to sign for the MLE. That would have been a non-starter.

the parties agreed to the MLE because they knew it was slightly below what he might get in the open market, but that was okay because Boozer got security and the Cav's got a discount. Boozer made that agreement b/c of the scenario you depicted, what if he blew out his knee. He would be screwed out of millions. Under the deal, he had a bird in hand. There was no robbery in this agreement. Boozer was represented by a top agent. Do you honestly think that Pelinka, who happens to represent people like Kobe Bryant, is so stupid to allow his client to get screwed? They anticipated that Boozer's value was slightly above MLE, not 28MM more. Let's be honest about that.

The fact is, the market went bananas and nobody guessed it. Boozer then took the money and ran.

 

you're right on this one. Pelinka is just as guilty. The fact that he resigned as Boozer's agent after the stuff hit the fan doesn't change the fact that he brokered the deal with Utah. SFX forced Pelinka to dump boozer. After all, Pelinka has Kobe's millions to worry about.

 

I found it amusing that after all these discussions, people are still barking up the wrong tree. Nobody put the blame ALL on Boozer. Saying that Boozer is wrong DOES NOT MEAN we are giving love to Cleveland.

 

If Paxson told Boozer, "You sign a 1-year deal for $5 million, and I promise to give you an $80 million deal next offseason," and then Boozer blew out his knee, I would say that the Cavs still had an ethical obligation to give him that contract. It's a foolish promise to make, but a promise is a promise.

 

We both agree that what he did was completely legal.

I still can't tell if you think it was unethical, or simply don't care. No criticism intended, am just curious.

 

Dada, this will be the last time I respond to you on this because you keep ignoring the central issue, and I can only guess it is on purpose. This is not like when a free agent agrees to a contract in principle during the moratorium and then later flip-flops. It hasn't happened yet this offseason as far as I know, but that's fair game even if it did. That's the point of the moratorium. Boozer's agreement came before the moratorium and Cleveland took steps to keep up its end of the bargain before the 7/1 deadline. Boozer welched. It's a big difference.

 

I can't believe its this close...$ talks, BS walks...

 

Of course, because people think it's the noble thing to do, when in reality this kind of compares to Britney Spears asking you to sleep with her even though you're happily married. The right/noble etc. thing to do would be to reject her just like you should reject the Jazz, the thing most would do is screw her!