It's the market, stupid. The market this year is just out of everybody's expectation. The market pushes up everybody's salary including Boozer and Okur's. If you pay attention to Dumar's negotiation with R. Wallce, you could find out even Dumars had to adjust his salary offers to RW. That's for Dumars who is supposed to be a great GM.
There is where I am lost. Then why Cavs don't do it? I mean by respect Boozer? If Cavs can surely get Boozer next year because they have his bird right and can have his service this year for 700k, why don't they do that? They don't have to RESPECT Boozer in order to get him. The Cavs just need to show him the money next year. If they give Boozer as many money as any other team give him the next year, I think that will be enough respect to boozer. I'd say Cavs had took the risk in order to have Boozer cheap. Paying Boozer less is very important to Cavs because they are around the Cap space. It's not like the Rockets or the Mavs situations, in which the teams were way over the cap so that 5 millions more payroll dosn't change the whole picture too much. It's called smart cap management. Now it does not look too smart, though.
Because they had Boozer's word he would sign with them for the MLE. Let me give you a scenario: I'm selling a video game I don't play anymore but in good condition and I drop an email to everyone I know letting them know of its availability. A friend of mine offers me 20 bucks for it. I say it's yours, and because of his schedule he can't pick up the game for a few days. At the same time online, a person responds offering twice as much as before, but I have already given my friend my word that it's his game if he wants it which he does. Is it ok for me to then not at the very least not inform my friend of the other offer and ask him how he feels about it since I did give him my word? And if he says he still wants the game, can I just stab that word in the back by accepting the other bid? No, because honesty is important to me. The cavs didn't let Boozer out because they wanted him cheaper than he might cost after next year they did it because Carlos asked them to do so. If the Cavs were trying to save money, why wouldn't they have just picked up his 950k option, it's much cheaper than paying 5-6 mil next season. Plus, what other teams have EVER done that with any of their players on a regular basis? But they let him out because he said he would sign with them for the MLE, and his agent and wife were there and had the situation explained to them until they fully understood what would happen on july 14th. However, Boozer broke his word. Because he nevertheless shopped his services around to the highest bidder after telling cleveland he would stay for their avail money if they let him out now for financial security. Do you think it's just concidence respected NBA scouts/upper management types think this is the lowest, most underhanded thing they've ever seen? And what about the fact he won't answer calls from his coach at Duke, Coach K, the most respected athletic coach in college basketball? That just a concidence too? I think not. Boozer will pay for this decision, as karma always comes back to bite people in the backside. And if I was carlos, I would fake an injury or illness in my family when the Jazz go to Gund Arena because if I was a Cavs player I would look to inflict serious harm on him and at the very worst boo him to the max if I was a fan. He wouldn't leave Cleveland without punishment.
DV, The difference is your friendship. Boozer was an employee, NOT a friend. BIG DIFFERENCE. Do I think he lied....probably ! Does it make me think he did the wrong thing, nope. He made the wise choice. He will not cost himself one single FRIEND out of doing this...not one, and that is what truly matters. DD
I would like to thing this is how it went down: *** Cavs: Now Boozy, you realize it is illegal for us to have any oral agreements right? Boozy: Yup. Cavs: So, hypothetically, if we were to release you in exchange for your agreement to resign with us, you wouldn't tell anyone about this agreement rigth? Hypothetically. Boozy: Sure. I love it here and I want to stay. Cavs: OK. Now you promise us, no matter what happens you will NEVER EVER admit to having an illegal agreement with us? Boozy: I swear on Coach K's grave I wouldn't. **** See, he is just keeping his word. What a guy.
Oh ok, so now it's ok to break agreements with those that pay your salary? But not your friends? He wasn't supposed to be a free agent. Basically, he conned the Cavs into letting him be one and screwed them over. That's called breaking one's trust, the worst kind of bond one can break. And don't give me this crap for 28 million dollars more he had every right to do that. He could easily live off of less than 1 percent of the 41 million he would get from Cleveland. The difference is you think and others that Cleveland just was negligent like the agent for Owens(not making him a FA) but truthfully no other team has ever DONE anything like this, and I highly doubt cleveland wanted to chance losing their 2nd best building block for Lebron so they knew he was taking the MLE. To me I'd rather be honest than know I have to live with what I did(lie/deceit) for the rest of my life. It will get Boozer in the end, I promise you. And their will be punishment, but unfortunately on any other player wanting to do something like this, not Boozer himself.
My post was not about honest or not. But about why Cavs will do that? It's all logical to Clutch but not to me. I don't see any loyalty in NBA, either from the players to owner/GM or owners/GM to players. I don't see friendship or favorite play a role here as Boozer is just a 2nd year 2nd rounder. It might be a gesture that the Cavs showed to Boozer, but still the ultimate purpose of such a gesture is not friendship but is trying to lure Boozer to sign a cheap contract with the Cavs. Mark Cuban wont sign Steve Nash to a max contract not because they are not friend or Cuban doesn't have the cash. It because Cuban didn't think Nash's market value was that high (at that time). About the honest thing, I still believed that Boozer tricked the Cavs to believe whatever they wanted to believe. He did not give his word. It's clever business by saying something that is so vague that people can take it as whatever they want to take it. We saw this kind of technique used all the time, why couldn't it happen in the Cavs/Boozer negatiation? We heard players says 'I love xxx team, I love the fans, and I'd love re-sign with my old team' all the time. And then they take the highest bet offered.
Well, nobody knows the Cavs motives, but the thing is why otherwise does Cleveland let him out. They don't have his bird rights, so they can't match any offer. If they keep his option, they get those next year and have much more leverage in FA. That is why it makes no sense for them to let him out unless they knew he was coming at a cost they could afford.
Or... Boozer And Cavs do not make an agreement but they do talk and Boozer gives every indication he will sign with them. However Coach Silas gives an honest opinion on Boozer's potential or he just doesn't think Boozer is worth that much money. When the talk is over Gund & Paxson leave thinking Boozer is happy and will sign but Boozer quietly leaves unhappy about Silas and mulls over this with the Cavs unaware. In the meantime Boozer's agent fields offers, negotiates, then lets Boozer know about an offer from Utah. The money offered is too amazing, they talk, they tell Boozer what he wants to hear (unlike Silas). Boozer in a moment of truth regains his memory and realizes he's the real Beau Brady from Days of our lives decides to jump ship.
I think that's the perfect description. You nailed it. Both sides said what they had to say. Of course Boozer gave indications he would stay. But indications do not an agreement make. The Cavs got careless and simply heard what they wanted to hear. I can't believe Boozer is getting death threats. Kobe is accused of rape, and Jason Kidd is a known wife beater. Yet these guys have million dollar endorsements....
Nah, No lasting ramifications. There is a reason that no other team has EVER let this happen. Clevland took a chance hoping to rely on Boozer's loyalty, and wanted to get a below market value contract for him, locking him up for 6 years. Boozer wanted security. Utah wanted Boozer more.....and Clevland could have matched. It is a free market system....it works......Boozer benefitted from it. Big deal. DD
I am really tired of this BS. What's wrong with Cavs trying to get a below market contract for boozer? Did they physically force him? Did they drug him? Did they lie to him? Cavs gave Boozer every chance to refuse the offer and play for $750K(??). Then what did Boozer do? He lied to the Cavs trying to get out of his contract. DO U SEE THE DIFFERENCE HERE? Of couse u think lying without being caught is a "smart" thing to do under "free market system".
You can only give DaDakota one piece of information at a time on this. If you give him another one, he will forget the first thing you told him. My favorite is the conclusion of "this is just Boozer's word vs. Gund's". Sure, that's all it is. How that beat out "it's OK to lie... lying is not OK" I'll never know. So before we're treated to more of DaDakota's special brand of contradictory bullet statements, lets see what Jazz owner Larry Miller had on his mind: http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=12363637&BRD=1698&PAG=461&dept_id=21848&rfi=6 Former Cavaliers forward Carlos Boozer's conscience didn't bother him, but Jazz owner Larry Miller's apparently did. "I woke up at 4:30 (a.m. Wednesday) and I said to (his wife) Gail, 'I wonder if I ought to call Gordon (Gund) and ask if he wants him back?" Miller told the Salt Lake Tribune. "I hate the controversy. I don't want to sound corny, but yeah, I do feel his pain." If he had offered, Cavaliers owner Gund might have taken back Boozer, who signed a six-year, $68 million offer sheet with the Jazz on Wednesday. The Cavaliers have 15 days to match the offer, but Gund said in a statement later in the day the team probably wouldn't match it. Miller holds Gund in high regard and seemed to feel bad for him. "Gordon is a real gentleman," he said. "He's good for the league, a good businessman, and I do feel bad for him. It taints this somewhat. That'll probably go away ... but I hate seeing that side of sports, arguments about contracts and such." When Miller was approached by Jazz general manager Kevin O'Connor and told that Boozer was available, he immediately got in touch with the league office. "When Kevin came to me with it, I said, 'OK, before we go any further, I want to call the league in a conference call, I want to ask if they know what's happened in Cleveland, if they know the ground we're on,' " Miller said. " 'Are we clean? Is there any rule we're violating?' They called back 10 minutes later and said, 'You're going by the book.' I said, 'OK, what about morally?' They said, 'You're playing by the rules. Go for it.' " The Cavaliers claim Boozer walked away from an agreement with the Cavaliers to sign with Utah. Apparently, he's playing on a different ethical field than Miller.
And here's the refresher course on Boozer's comments less than 24 hours after the Cavs did not pick up his option. KEEP IN MIND: Boozer knows at this point, just like we all knew, that there are 7-8 teams with tons of cap room and the Cavs can offer only $41 million over 6 years. This is not some big negotiating table newsflash. Again, Boozer's agent fired him over this... didn't he? http://www.bucyrustelegraphforum.com/news/stories/20040702/localsports/765390.html Boozer wants to stay put CLEVELAND (AP) -- Carlos Boozer's free agency should be short-lived. He doesn't plan to go anywhere. Boozer's contract option for next season wasn't picked up by the Cleveland Cavaliers before Wednesday's deadline, a surprising decision by the club, which immediately makes the third-year forward a restricted free agent. Boozer, though, isn't interested in playing for any other team than the Cavaliers, who intend to sign him to a long-term deal sometime this summer. "I want to be in Cleveland," Boozer said Thursday. "I like it here. My wife and I are very, very happy here, and I want to be with the Cavaliers. Good things are happening. Now it's up to my agent and the Cavs to work things out. "I hope they will." Agent Rob Pelinka has already begun contract talks with Cavs general manager Jim Paxson. "Carlos and his wife, C.C., made it clear to me that they are very comfortable with the Cavaliers' organization, owner Gordon Gund and the direction the team is going," Pelinka said. "I'm confident that Jim and I will continue to have conversations and we'll be able to work something out." The 6-foot-9 Boozer emerged as one of the NBA's rising stars with a breakout 2003-04 season. He averaged 15.5 points and 11.4 rebounds, and along with Rookie of the Year LeBron James, helped Cleveland improve its win total from 17 to 35 in one season. Boozer was runner-up as the league's most improved player and was extended an invitation to play for the U.S. Olympic team in Athens next month. Several media outlets reported that the Cavs had exercised Boozer's option. However, the opposite occurred as the club decided not to pick up the final year of his deal -- a bargain at roughly $700,000. By not exercising the option, the Cavaliers are taking a calculated risk. Another team could swoop in and offer Boozer a gigantic deal, which the Cavaliers would be able to match. But the club doesn't plan to let things get to that point. Once the NBA's moratorium period ends July 13, the Cavs will be able to offer Boozer a long-term contract. "Yesterday the Cavaliers elected not to exercise our team option for Carlos Boozer's third season," Paxson said in a statement. "As a result, we now are able, and fully intend, to enter into a long-term contract with Carlos. " ... Carlos Boozer is a valuable, core part of the foundation of this team moving forward and our desire is for him to be a Cavalier for the long-term." Under the league's collective bargaining agreement, the Cavaliers can only give the former Duke star a deal starting at the mid-level exception, which will be about $5 million a season. The contract can be for a maximum of six years. If the Cavs had picked up Boozer's option, he would have been an unrestricted free agent after next season. Boozer feels a loyalty to the Cavaliers, who drafted him in the second round (No. 35 overall) in the 2002 draft. They see him -- along with James -- as cornerstones of their future. "I'm thankful for everything the Cavs have done for me," Boozer said. "A lot of teams didn't think I was worth it and let me slide into the second round. But they were the ones who gave me a chance and let me play as a rookie. "That doesn't happen much in this league -- unless you're LeBron."
Clutch, So Larry Miller felt so bad about it, that he went ahead and made the offer anyway? Calling the league? That is Due dilligence - good for them. The comments by Boozer are consistent with what I have heard, he liked Clevland, respected their organization, and appreciated that they were giving him a new contract offer. The issue is whether or not he lied.....NONE OF US KNOW !!!! I think they all skirted the issue and no "official" deal was done, but that they all had a wink wink kind of understanding. Then, the Jazz made an offer Boozer could not, and should not, refuse. Clevland KNEW by taking the chance to sign him THIS year that they would be potentially avoiding the bidding war next year. They gambled, and lost. Deals get backed out of all the time, it is a natural occurance..... It is simply a matter of taking the better offer, I don't see how you people don't understand that. He TOOK THE BETTER OFFER !!!! Did he lie....????? WHO REALLY KNOWS !!!!! Does it matter? No, in the end Clevland got burned by it's own stupidity and greed. It tried to lock up a budding superstar to a value contract all the while playing like they were doing a favor to Boozer.....I don't buy it. Why didn't they just offer him the 5 million 1 year deal up front if that is what they wanted? Because they didn't. Clevland gambled.....a better deal came up, Carlos took it (as most people would as evidenced by the polls), and there ya have it. I don't believe in lying, or cheating, but I do believe that business is business and nothing is a done deal until the ink is dry on the paper. When you are dealing with small amounts it is not a big deal to seal it by a handshake, when you are dealing with MILLIONS of dollars you have to make sure you are air tight. Our company deals in contracts in the millions of dollars range, and trust me....no deal is done on a handshake...only on paper and ink. DD
a personal favor? My you really are Pro-Cleveland here Cleveland's options: 1. pick up the option 700 000 . .then next year he is asking 91 mill 2. let him out and sign him for 41 million they let him out FOR THEIR BENEFIT not his. . . they can dress it up any way they want but it WAS FOR THEM They would have save 50 MILLION DOLLARS If they had pulled it off. . . Paxson would have been a GENIUS Boozers Options 1. wait a year and risk injury and his whole entire future and life 2. take the 41 million to make everyone else happy while leaving 27 mill on the table 3. take utah deal and make himself and family happy The thing is it is like this IMO Boozer intended to sign with cleveland but the utah deal FELL IN HIS LAP Rocket intended to build with steve and cuttinoe but . .the T-mac deal FELL IN THEIR LAP in both cases. . you just gotta take the deal Rocket River
that is my question I thought the fact that they let him out of his contract was what was so amazing Has this every happened [even with the player resigning] I mean . . we did not do that for cuttino Rocket River
and Iverson is a thug. On the scale of wrong and right, Boozer is far better than Kobe, Kidd and Iverson combined, yet there is this outcry. You know what, it is called hypocrisy. People's value system is just totally messed up.
Did i ever wade into this debate late! It just isn't conceivable that Cleveland would not exercise their option if they didn't have an agreement for him to sign. Given the risk of losing him because of their inability to match high offers they would have had to be absolute fools to gamble that they could deceive him into an unrealistically low contract. Especially since his agent was present and should have known his market value. Now I've accepted the whole business aspect of sports. And understand negotiating hard...looking after yourself and all that. And because of that nobody's blaming Utah (who caused this whole mess) because they were looking after themselves and owed nothing to Cleveland. But when two parties have an agreement (waive option; sign new deal), one party acts on that agreement (waive option) and then the other party reneges on their side (sign with Utah) -- that's quite different. That isn't negotiating shrewdly. It isn't merely getting the best for yourself and your family. It is deception and underhandedness. And that's why the agent resigned. Think about it. An agent, who's sole duty is to get the best deal for his client, who is supposed to be shrewd, for whom being hardassed and cunning are potentially marketable traits, and who just saw his client sign a way above market deal resigns over that. Crazy. But it tells you all you need to know.
