Which would not have been the case next season when the Cavs held his Bird Rights. It actually would have benefitted the Cavs a tremendous deal to have him play for $700K this year because they could have a) gotten him cheap. b) been able to monitor his progress more to see if last year's second half was for real. c) match any offer whatsoever next season. Boozer didn't want to risk injury without a long-term contract. You say the Cavs get off cheap. Well of course given the new market... but the Cavs did not force this hand. Boozer did. Boozer signed the initial contract with a 3rd year team option. The price Boozer ultimately would have paid for getting out of the option was the opportunity cost of $27-28 million on a long-term deal this season, and possibly more than that next season. People forget, without Boozer's word to Cleveland, Carlos Boozer has no idea what his market value is this summer and has no ability to shop his services. The "evil empire" thing for the Cavs to do would have been to pick up the option. They didn't have to give Boozer any offer next season -- no big reward. They just had to sit back and match whatever offer he took. Similar to Elton Brand last year and Kenyon Martin this year, they could have put the pressure on Boozer to get a team to seriously commit dollars (which they're not going to do without a legitimate shot), and then with full Bird Rights, they match without having to clear space. Were the Cavs stupid? YES! Stupid to trust Carlos Boozer's word. Plain and simple. I have no earthly idea how anyone can look at the facts in this situation and think Boozer did not lie to the Cavs to get them to do this.
Guys, It is all about Calculated Risks. The Cavs took a calculated Risk in allowing Boozer the freedom to sign with another team. They hoped to get an all star power forward locked up to a cheap contract for the next 6 years. They also knew that they could match any reasonable offer he received from the open market. Boozer took a calculated risk in implying to the Cavs that he would stay for the full MLE. He hoped to get security for himself and his family. By accpeting the Utah offer, he knew his reputation would be stained, at least for a short time. The Jazz took a calculated risk in giving a very high offer to a young PF. Locking him up for the next 6 years, and securing his bird rights in the mean time. All of the parties knew the ramifications, they are all adults and business people. Each one gambled, some of them won, and some of them lost. However, Clevland can still match the offer, and IMHO, they should. Boozer is far greater than Batite or any other small contributor. In negotiations, emotions should be put aside, they all knew the risks going in.......don't cry when things don't go your way. DD
Yeah, great magazine. Dont really read it that much, but I hear its pretty good. Those are 2 pretty good players you just named. Individually, they are nowhere near Boozer. But, one could argue that the 2 of them together may be more of an asset than Boozer. Personally, I dont think so...but I could see the Cavs thinking this way, given their past history. Seems like you have completely fallen love with the Cavs during this process. They are sooooo ethical now. No, really, Thank you!!
No, it was not a "Calculated Risk," or a "business decision" or any other phrase you can come up with. It was a PERSONAL FAVOR to Boozer and his wife that benefited both sides. Like Clutch said, the best thing to do was to just pick up his option, but since they wanted to show loyalty to Boozer they tried something else. Then Boozer backstabbed them.
You are reaching here. If the Cavs valued Williams/Battie combo over a player like Boozer, then they would never have let his option year pass with the intention of signing him to an even larger contract than they are already paying him. I could care less about Cleveland. The fact is though, they were screwed over by Boozer. You're welcome. Again.
Yeah the Cavs were doing him a personal favor by leting him out of his $5.35 an hour contract. o wait. he was making $700,000 a year. thats alot of freakin money. he could of waited a year, he does not not that 5th Jag right now, he can wait. EDIT: 1:20 PM: I smell lunch break
This is the most naive thing I have ever read from you here in the BBS. A personal favor? What are you smoking? It is a business, they don't go out and drink beers together. They are not even friends, and when Boozer's career is over, they probably won't even talk. You may like to believe that Gund runs his businesses that way, but it ain't true. They can say it was a "personal favor" but in reality it was a calculated risk, and they blew it. Personal favor.....THAT IS FUNNY STUFF !! DD
No, I am just not taking one man's word over another. AND, I don't believe anyone who says it is a personal favor when they are negotiating contracts. DD
So is this general understanding that "those supporting Boozer have been decimated and destroyed" equivalent to a gentleman's agreement that the topic of debate has now been resolved? More likely, you are stating your opinion based on your participation in the thread from its beginnings but isn’t it possible, in the absence of a formal concession, that others may see the discussion differently? This sounds familiar to me....
Me either. I am looking at the facts of the case and concluding that Boozer is a backstabber. I disagree. I bet there are MANY people who would give their friends a good deal on something, just on the basis of friendship. In this case, Cleveland was hoping to gain long- term loyalty from Boozer by giving something that benefited both sides (although Cleveland would have been just dandy giving NOTHING). In return, Boozer made things VERY painful.
Where does it say that Mr. Gund and the GM Paxson were friends with each other? Would you give an employee the same respect as a friend? I certainly hope not. DD
Of course it is a calculated risk. Nobody knows before 6/30 the market will turn out this way. Paxson and Gund surely believe 40 mil is enough for Boozer. Oral commitment or not, Paxson and Gund believe nobody else will pay 28mil more. Nobody sees it coming. I am sure before year 2000 nobody believes the market would crash like that, the NASDAQ down more than 60%. Some people might say the market will be down, but not on the scale of more than 60%. Surely Paxson thought somebody might pay more, but not on the scale of 28 mil !!! that's out of their range anyway. So for Paxson, let Boozer out could be a savvy business decision, oral commitment or not. Think about it, isn't there a reason the Cavalier organization is so bad? Of course this is not to deny Boozer lied or not, just Paxson could make the same decision of (letting Boozer out) INDEPENDENT of boozer's request. I wonder where these fans are when they say they can sign McDyess for veteran minimum, or Barry for cheap, or a center for a low salary, it is not happening NOW. These fans are making the same mistake as Paxson, they just don't see it is coming. Fortunately, they don't make the decision for Rox.
I don't think this is correct. Boozer had previously been identified as a pontential star at his position and he is very young. It's hard to evaluate what he could become after only 2 years, but 5 million is predictably way below value for an up and coming, and possibly soon to be all-star, PF. Even in a non-inflated year, imagine what Amare Stoudemire would command if he were a free agent right now. This has certainly been an offseason of big salaries, but in my mind the questionable choices GMs are making this year are not for players like Boozer or Okur but the _long_ deals to old guys, and big money to established players who lack a clear upside (that is, their mediocre performance over several years is known).
Let me summarize this long thread: Clutch, RileyDog, codell, Mr Clutch, etc.: Tons of evidence that Boozer lied. Dadakota: Who cares? Lying is part of business. Everybody: I hope I'll never do business with Dadakota.
I dont really know what the deal is with Boozer and the Cavs but I think its a very telling sign that his agent resigned and thus is forfeiting the 2.7 or 2.9 million dollars that was his commission. Thats all you need to know
When we talk about how good Boozer will become, MAKE SURE we understand it from Cleveland's perspective. I know YOU are smarter than Paxson or Silas. But Silas basically said Boozer was an ENERGY guy. So put yourself in Paxson's shoes, if your coach told you that Boozer was an ENERGY guy, how much would you value him? Try, try, and try really HARD to think like Paxson or Silas, how much are you willing to pay for an ENERGY guy? is 5 mil reasonable? pretty reasonable to me for an ENERGY guy. IF we cross Boozer's name out, tell me how much you are willing to pay any ENERGY guy other than Boozer? now that's your answer. Paxson just misjudged Boozer's market value and Boozer's value to the team.
