That nails it. If everybody plays by the rules (including the law), the NBA would be far more clean. You won't see the EG, Iverson, Kidd, Kobe incidence anymore. It is pure HYPOCRISY for some people who want to play the moral card yet who DO NOT play by the rules, the Paxson and Gund who want an oral agreement before July 1st. Oral agreement before July 1st is AGAINST the rule. Just because it existed before DOES NOT make it right! Boozer's agent apparently realized this and pulled out the CBA to show Paxson and Gund. Yet Paxson and Gund still believe there is an oral agreement. This shows how unethical, how unmoral Paxson and Gund are.
Nothing is wrong with that, if it works it is good business, but if it backfires, and you lose the guy you really covet and need, then it is bad business. In the end it is just business, and negotiating. Boozer may have said he would stay, and been grateful, but when someone else comes in with an out of this world offer, he would be stupid not to take it. I don't honestly believe that Boozer lied to go to another team, I think he honestly wanted to stay in Clevland, but he got gobsmacked by Utah's offer, and in my mind, he had no choice but to take it. We are talking about 5 million more PER YEAR on his contract. Boozer has a finite amount of time to build up wealth in the NBA, do you think he will become a Doctor or Lawyer after his career? He NEEDS to make as much as possible during his brief NBA career, and leaving 28 million on the table is not a matter of ethics, it would be down right stupid. Boozer is an individual contractor, and needs to do whatever is right for himself and his family. Just as Gund needs to do the same for the Cavs, it would have been a great deal for both parties had it worked out. The Jazz were the slimes in my mind, they knew that they would create this situation as per Larry Millers comments, but they did it anyway. Which PROVES that it is a cut throat business. Again, I reiterate, and this is important, CLEVLAND CHOSE TO EXPOSE HIM !! They had all the power, there is a reason not one other team has done this....because things like this could happen. Lesson learned on Clevland's part, and the rest of the league. Just to be clear I: A. Don't think Boozer lied to get a better deal, but got an unexpected one he could not refuse. B. Think Clevland took a calculated gamble to lock him up below market value. C. Think that their are no long term ramifications because of this D. Think Clevland made a horrid error E. Think Boozer made the right choice regardless of circumstances F. Think Utah knew that they were screwing the Cavs G. Don't think lying is right, but think that you have to assume everyone is lying in negotiations of this magnitude H. Would love to have Carlos on the Rockets. DD
In defense of Boozer, i think this is quite possible. He had a deal, and intended to abide by it, but, just like Utah in the article that Clutch posted, thought " can i really do this??? Twenty eight million! Damn!" In this scenario, Cleveland gets unjustly screwed. But Carlo's actions are more understandable. (I'm not convinced they're justified -- but i can see his dilema) I cannot buy the notion, however, that Cleveland simply gambled and lost. If they did, it was a very foolish gamble. They were sure they had a deal. They left themselves exposed on the word of a man they expected they could trust and got burned. Quite different from a gamble. Again...what's with the agent resigning? Isn't this indicative of something rotten here. Or have agents suddenly become moral and ethical guardians of the wellbeing of the NBA at large?
Clevland knew all along that the potential of a better offer was out there. We all knew it, so they did too. The gamble they took was that A: They could match any reasonable offer anyway B: They thought Carlos would stay if the offers were close What they did not bargain on IMHO was an offer as gargantuan as Utah's was. Utah knew all of the workings up front and realized they needed to make a HUGE offer to lure Boozer away. I honestly don't think Boozer lied to get this offer, he just got sideswiped by it and had to take it. The agent resigning in my mind is spin by the agency to try to keep a decent reputation, nothing more. In the end, Clevland knew the ramifications of letting him out of his contract, and they paid the price for their stupidity. Of course they also knew that it was a win win situation by locking up a stud PF for 6 years at below market price, that is what I meant by gamble...they tried to lock him up for value, and they gambled by exposing him to make it happen. DD
Unreal (shaking head). I took a look at your haiku here and the option breakdown is terrible. The Cavs could have given Boozer max money next season, sure... but he's still a restricted free agent. They STILL could have sat back and matched any offer from any team, regardless of the cap. They wouldn't have had to sacrifice any players to do it. Another team can't offer $91 million like the Cavs would have been able to, but that doesn't mean the Cavs had to offer it. Like I said before, they could have done exactly what the Clippers did with Brand. They could have offered NOTHING at all, and put the pressure on Boozer to go out and get a deal that the Cavs could match. The Clippers saved $10 million by forcing Brand to go out and get a deal with the Heat. That would have saved them money. And if Boozer got more money than they were willing to pay, they could have talked sign-and-trade as the Nets just did with Kenyon Martin. Then throw in the fact that they would have only been paying Boozer $700,000 for one year just to get to that point of negotiating (and Boozer could get injured or start playing poorly in that first year), and believe me, the Cavs weren't going to save "$50 million". If Boozer had given them any indication he was not taking the $41 million and would be shopping his services around the league, they would not have let him out of his contract. Boozer wanted the financial security, and he begged Cleveland to let him out of his deal. You ignore sources in a Sports Illustrated article, Gordon Gund's account and Carlos Boozer's own words the day after the Cavs did not pick up the option, and simply claim: "The Cavs were trying to pull a fast one and get Boozer cheap!" Sure, Boozer had nothing to do with it. The agent just didnt like the idea of having to pay taxes on a $3 million gift.
Size, youth, and potential always get big money, regardless of the year. These guys may not pan out, but lumping their contracts with all of the question marks year, e.g., Nash, Fisher, Foyle, etc...., is I think a mistake.
Why is their reputation soiled, if they simply got the best deal for their client? Cleveland did not expect to have to match any offer. They knew they couldn't. Their hands were tied by their salary situation. Too big a risk. They met with Boozer and his agent ahead of time and agreed on a deal. Otherwise they exercise their option and match offers next year. Nothing else makes sense. Under your scenario the agent is a hero. He's looked after his client. Yet they have to 'spin' to save face?
After reading the different depictions of the scenario laid out before us, it's still hard to tell whose in the right and wrong. On one side, you have the blind owner with a penchant for loyalty towards his players. On the other side you have the player with a finite (good use of words DaDakota) time span within the league to accrue capital for his "starving" family. Put in either person's shoes, I'm not sure I wouldn't make the same decision again, but I believe there's a reason players are never opted out of contracts when they are extremely undervalued because of this reason alone. I believe that the Cavaliers had an "understanding" with Boozer, but that two things forced Boozer's hand after the fact. A. Silas' depiction of Boozer as a high energy guy B. Utah's extremely generous offer I think Cleveland offering a 6 year MLE contract was somewhat of a slap in the face to Boozer as he saw the outrageous contracts being handed to players below his skill level. I believe he would have been more enticed with the contract if it would have been for 6 years with a player option on the 3rd year. In the end though, this is a business and this is the exact reason this scenario has never unfolded itself before. Players don't need to have good faith agreements with teams because their reputation is secondary to their production. Teams on the other hand need to have an excellent history with the way in which they handle their players in order to attract other players which is why Houston has been such an attractive destination for so many players. So all in all, I feel for both parties for the amount of negative attention this has drawn, but I believe this will all work itself out and the earth will begin revolving again.
What are you talking about? Cleveland could have just sit tight and kept boozer for the ultimate deal of $690,000 for next year and laughed all the way, but they decided to show some ETHICS and rework a deal for him to get more security now! All for him. They gained nothing. The only thing they risked was getting screwed by Boozer himself. After trying to do him a favor, he stabs them in the back!! He should be ashamed of himself, and you should be ashamed for taking his side!!! Late
Just for the sake of the argument, let's assume all Cavs said were true and Boozer lied. So what? Are you saying it is morally right for Cavs to screw Boozer long-term by getting him for half of market value, but morally wrong for Boozer to crew Cavs by getting his correct market value? That's pure HYPOCRISY. Like DD said, both parties did what's best for themselves, and Boozer came out ahead. Considering that he was not financially secure and Cavs owner is filthy rich, I cheer for Boozer. Regardless of what exactly were said between Boozer and Cavs, Gund/Paxson sure look like idiots. Boozer was Cavs's real MVP last season and is just 22 years old big man. Most other GMs would tried desperately to never let go of Boozer. But look at what they did: 1. They never knew, or pretended not to know, the real market value of Boozer. It turned out to be around $40M vs $68M. A big difference. 2. Utah threw Okur a big fat contract two days before the news leaked about Utah offer sheet to Boozer. Gund/Paxson never bother to contact Boozer to find out what his situation is. Most other GMs would be calling Boozer 5 times a day to know what's going on. 3. When the news about Utah's offer sheet to Boozer leaked out, Cavs started immediately blasting Boozer, Silas calling him a just energy player, etc. A smart GM would probably made some roster moves to match. Boozer is more valuable than rest of the Cavs except LeBron. What the hell they are thinking? 4. Would any good FA want to go the Cavs after all this mess shown by Gund/Paxson? Unlikely. Would LeBron want to bolt when his contract is up in 2 years? Very likely.
The Cavs did nothing morally wrong. From every account so far, Boozer asked to be let out of his contract, and they(the Cavs) made it explicitly clear that the most they could pay is the MLE. He didn't have to agree to that, but he CHOSE to do so. If they naively let him out of his option year that would be different, but all the evidence points to the contrary. I ask you why plenty of NBA people in the know have said this is the worst thing they've seen? I ask you why Boozer is refusing calls from his college coach, the legendary Coach K, if he knows he did the right thing? I ask you why Larry Miller was concerned with pursuing Boozer and wanting to talk to Gund first? I ask you why Boozer's agent resigned in the fallout and why Gund himself wrote a sincere letter to Cavs fans everywhere on the teams website? Are those all concidences? I think not. Believe whatever you want, but this idea that the Cavs were trying to screw Boozer is ludicrous. And regardless, if he agreed to their offer, he has to live with that decision and the team did nothing wrong. The Cavs would have never let him out in the first place if he didn't come to them asking for that and giving them the knowledge he was staying for what they could offer. Supporting Boozer in this is a sad state of affairs for values everywhere. And about Kobe, etc, who said any of us like him? Just because ESPN and the media rides his and other prima donna athletes jocks all day long doesn't make it right. And if Kobe was convicted and wanted to try and sign with my team after he served his sentence(provided he would still have game) I would turn him down on moral principles. Nothing is more important than one's own moral fabric.
In an indivdual vs corporate, employee vs employer, he says vs they say situation, I tend to believe Boozer more than Cavs. But regardless of what I believe, let's assume Cavs told the truth and Boozer lied for argument sake. Boozer's #1 priority is to get financial security for him and his family. Cavs' #1 priority is to sign Boozer as cheap as possible. I agree that it is morally wrong for Boozer to back out of his word to seek offer elsewhere. However, I think it is EQUALLY morally wrong for Cavs to insist on signing Boozer to MLE after knowing his real market value. If Boozer had taken Cavs's MLE offer, it is essential Boozer get paid $4M more this season by getting paid $28M less for the next 6 years. You do the math. So from that moment on when Cavs tried to screw Boozer, Boozer made the right decision to take his fair market offer, thus keep his #1 priority in good hands. In a black vs white situation, a morality argument makes sense. But in a black vs black (or grey vs grey) situation, morality argument is hypocrisy.
1) How did the Cavs screw Boozer, when Boozer REQUESTED and was in on the decision making to not pick up his option?? 2) How can you believe Boozer's side, when his agent fired him after he agreed to sign Utah's offer?
You still don't get the point, after so many posts by so many excellent posters. Getting the market value is everybody's right, owners and players. We all agree about that. But we are NOT, I repeat NOT, talking about market value. If it's about market value, then Boozer has every right to stay put for one more year and get his fair market value. We are NOT talking about market value. Boozer could not negotiate for market value under contract. The only way he could get market value THIS YEAR is for the Cavs to opt out of the team option. The only way the Cavs would do that was they believed he would re-sign. The only way they would believe that was Boozer somehow led them to believe that. You see. We are NOT talking about market value. We are talking about making an agreement that seemingly benefits both party, then turning around and trashing that agreement because he can get more money.
1) Trading $4M this year for $28M saving in the next 6 years, Cavs is screwing Boozer big time. 2) Who did you think negotiated the offer sheet from Utah, and also talked to Cavs on June 30th, the date of the alleged agreement?
We are not talking about this year market value, neither are the offers from Cavs and Utah. We are talking about the market value for the next SIX years. With Cavs offer, they pay Boozer $4M more this year, but save $28M in the next SIX years. Anybody can do that math.
Then why did Boozer give his verbal committment?? Its not like Cleveland didn't know how much they would be willing to offer. Why didn't Boozer say "ya know, Id rather just play out my option year and be a FA next summer so I can get more $$$$". That didn't happen though. HIs agent probably didn't negotiate anything with Utah. I would guess that Utah sent in a max offer to begin with. Its not like his agent can refuse to give him offers that come in.
I didn't argue that Boozer didn't scew Cavs. All I am trying to say Cavs tried to screw Boozer big time as well, verbal agreement or not. And, since when do NBA do business with player directly when the player has an agent?
So if Boozer says, if you let me out of my option year, Ill resign for the MLE ..............then the Cavs are still screwing him??? No. I am sure Utah sent the contract to Boozer's agent. Regardless, Boozer's agent CANNOT refuse to send that offer sheet to his client.
