I've had companies offer me more money in terms of salary after I promised to sign a contract with another company. After I've agreed to work for a company, I've never taken another company's counteroffer. I've been offered about $15/hr (around $30k more per year) more by a second company one hour after I accepted a contract from another company. I stuck with my original company - why? Because I made a promise that I would accept their offer and I thought it would be tacky to bail out for a better offer one hour later. That being said, if the second company had offered me hundreds of thousands more... well...
Agreed. It's always easy to say you'd take the high road when you'd never be put in that position. This situation also reminds me of an article I read once in which the author claimed that since in a capitalist society it is to the benifit of a company to get the most work/productivity out of you for the least money it is then your obligation to try to give your company as little productivity as possible for the most money. He felt that the rules of capitalism shouldn't just apply to the corporation but also to the individual. However, most people would condemn a man who applied such an idea. They'd say he was lazy, dishonest, etc etc. For whatever reason, we've come to find it acceptable for corporations and big business to screw the individual but unacceptable for an individual to screw corporations or big business.
i'd keep my word and integrity before taking that money, whether or not people forgot after time wouldn't be important cause i would know. i'd like to think that a full mle contract over 6 years would be way way more than i'd ever need in my lifetime to begin with.
But even if you did take that other offer, it still wouldn't be quite as bad as what Boozer did. He got himself out of a contract AND agreed to another one. Then he signed with with another team. The fact that he lied to get himself out of his rookie contract is what bothers me most.
Why should it bother you at all? It was a shrewd business move. I actually think he intended to stay with Clevland and someone came up with an OUT OF THE PARK offer that he could not refuse. Was it ethical, nah, but, so what? It is a cut throat business....you think trading Steve to Orlando without talking to him was ethical? Nope ! NBA players are commodities, and Boozer recognized that at a very early age.....a very smart man. DD
You're not getting it. It was NOT a business move to ask for the Cavs to graciously let him out of a contract so he could sign a better deal. It was a personal favor built on trust. He even brought his wife along to make the point that it was personal. Earlier you tried to insult people by saying "I guess they haven't been in a job." Well, have you had a BUSINESS job? Because this kind of bridge burning is NOT the way to build business relationships.
I am not saying this is the way I do business, but I do not treat people like commodities. The NBA does. As for my qualifications, I started 2 businesses sold one to Microsoft and the other to Warthog, I am currently the President of Warthog Texas, and on the board of directors of the parent company, and have been asked to be the CEO of the entire group. Yep, I know a bit about business and how it should be run. Would I go back on my word, not usually, but if 28 million more dollars were offered, I can certainly understand it. DD PS. Am not insulting anyone, but people that have never run a business or been in a contract situation really don't have a good grasp of the way contracts and businesses work, not insulting, just factual.
What relationship does Boozer needs to build? Does he really need the Cavs management trust in the future? Do you think teams will not negotiate with him when his next contract is up because of this? If you do, you're deluding yourself. This isn't like your typical worker, whose job skills are shared by MANY others, so the employer can make sure you're a man of integrity and can afford not to have you if you're not. Boozer is different. He has almost irreplacable skills. Therefore, he can get away with things, like all NBA players do, that you and I will never be able to get away with.
EXACTLY ! We have a similar situation in the video games industry, some people are simply irreplaceable, or very hard to replace, and they have significant more leeway than others. Fair, no, but it is real. DD
So, what I'm hearing from the Boozer apologists is this: What he did was unethical, but he should do it anyway because (1) he can, and (2) he profits greatly. Fine. I find that position morally reprehensible, but at least there's some tacit agreement on the first point. As for whether it is easy to take the high road when you're not confronted with the temptation: it is also easy to be cynical and assume others are as depraved -- or at least in the same ways -- as you are.
I guess until we are all in that situation none of us will actually know. I would hardly call people that happen to think in this situation that Boozer did the right thing, depraved. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and as it is an opinion, and none of us know what it is like to be offered $28million more over 6 years, we can not accurately say what we would do. Oh sure, we can think that our morale grounding would make us less likely to take the cash, but, in the end, I would guess that most people would make the same choice. I would, I would just be more up front about it to Clevland. Just come out and say... "Hey, I wanted to stay, but how can I turn down such an awesome offer as this?" In the end, Clevland can still match the offer, and can stop all the whining. I think it would be the smart business move. DD
Sorry, I actually meant 'depraved' in the nicest possible way. Seriously, I didn't mean it in a bad way, it was just a little theological vocabulary sneaking over from D&D to NBA Dish. I just mean everyone has their own weaknesses and they vary from person to person. Some people would find the temptation of $28 million too much to resist. Other people would have no trouble standing on their morals there but would bow to the temptation of women, or Counterstrike, or anger. You say you don't know until it happens, but it isn't true. I do know even without it happening to me. I've already made the decision and all that's left is to apply it when the deal comes up. I would not intentionally deceive someone for money. I would not break a promise for money. That doesn't mean I'm not depraved. I'm just not depraved in that way (I won't be telling you in which way I am depraved).
Glad to see nearly 60% of the people would have taken the deal regardless of the circumstances. Proves my point that it was too much money to leave on the table. DD
Saying that I couldn't resist the temptation if I could stab a guy and steal 20 million dollars from him without getting caught is totally different from saying that I should do it.
Apples and Oranges, and a ridiculous comparison. No one got stabbed, just one group came out the worse in the negotiations. AND...they could STILL MATCH THE OFFER !! DD
