Also . . who expect anyone to offer Boozer 68 Million? For the steve Francis deal The rockets siad they were building around Steve and Yao but as stated here when a T-mac falls into your lap. .. you take it I agree NOW boozer says hey . .i'll resign and we will build something special here then 28 million extra falls into your lap . . . you take it I hate to see steve go but i accept it .. its a business it was a business move Rocket River
I think it no different than the verbal agreements going all over the place right now in the moratorium. Barry, for instance could sign with a bigger rocket deal - but that would break the long-standing operation of the NBA with regad to the verbal commitment. Whether or not the timing was illegal, Boozer screwed them after verbally agreeing. What makes it worse, the Cavs only gave him the option to screw them because they were being nice to him after he asked for more financial security.
who negotiated the deal with UTah? If he found what Boozer was doing so repugnant why not simply say 'LOS . .this is WRONG . .I will not negotiate this deal I will not be a party to this Instead he said the HEAT IS ON . . and I'm getting out Rocket River
he didn't lie. . he implied Rocket River . . BTW i'm no boozer fan . . but my point is this is business .. and that is how it is done he should do what is best FOR HIM
You would be a great fit in corporate America. I like money as much as the next guy - but I'd never backstab my friends and family for it. I guess I just don't know what's best for me...
Take this for what it's worth, but it would explain why so many people are "speculating" on Boozer's alleged verbal agreement with Cleveland. This came from a Cavs board: According to a source who was in the room at the time the verbal deal was struck, Boozer told Gund, "If you respect me by not picking up the option, I'll show trust and loyalty to you by signing with you." Well now doesn't this make things more interesting... in that quote there it tells what happened by someone who wanted to be unknown because they didn't list the source... Since it goes in the cavs favor, it was probably someone who boozer expected to be on his side, therefore the source didn't want to be named The interesting thing is that half the Cavs board is siding with Boozer, whether he lied or not, because of the money.
We will see if it is good for him. It may come back to bite him. Also, he is hurting other players, because the NBA is likely to change the rules to prevent players and teams from doing wink-wink deals. Also, do you think it is ok to act unethically if it benefits him? What if someone faked an injury to get traded to a better team? Is that ok in your book? What's the difference?
It's not surprising to me that people are half and half. It's really a democratic versus Republican type issue. Help yourself or Help others. The split probably falls along party lines. Would be interesting to find out.
who the h*ll said the CAVs were either Boozer's FRIENDS OR HIS FAMILY? they were his EMPLOYER Rocket River
you mean like mystery back spasms that kept a certain player out of the last 10 odd games? the thing is. . the CBA should change to prevent this FOR INSTANCE the reason Shaq left Orlando was because LA offered him somekind of deal where he got paid in a lump and it worked better for some tax reason or something [this what i heard . .. add to that Shaq wanted to be in LA] next CBA that was prevented that is how laws and rules and made. .through abuse [the thing in you shoe .. that says DO NOT EAt. . has that on it because someone ATE IT] Rocket River
Yes, but I think it not quite that cut and dry. I was making a point. If it makes you feel better I'll try it a different way: I like money as much as the next guy - but I'd never backstab my employer for it if that employer was going out of his/her way to get me a better deal even though he/she did not have to. I don't usually have any loyalty to companies I work for, and I have now worked for a few. However, my current company has now been really good to me, and I would be loathe to disrespect there respect for me. They try to accomodate me, so I try to accomodate them. In Boozer's case it's a no brainer. He was going to make 40 million bucks. It's not like the Cavs were screwing him - that's what he ASKED for! I understand your position RR, I just don't think I could do it - not without motivation. The Cavs only gave him motivation to stay - they accomodated Boozer's request even though they did not have to. I'm done here -- back to work.
Here is the deal, the Cavs were trying to save themselves some money in the future and they got burned. They had 2 choices: 1) Pick up the team option, pay him 700,000 next year. Then, when he is a free agent, sign him to something like 7 years and 80 million. OR 2) Act like they want the best for their player...let him off his little 700,000 contract so that they can provide him with instant financial stability with a 5 year, 40 million dollar contract. This way, they have saved themselves about 40 million dollars over the life of the contract. This would be the smart business move for the Cavs. Unfortunately, they couldnt pull it off. Both parties had money on their minds. The Cavs arent any less innocent than Boozer.
this is exactly it they can spin it to WE WERE LOOKING OUT FOR BOOZER angle but if it did not make economic sense they would not have done it in hindsight it makes no sense but if everything went through everyone would be calling Paxson a Genius Rocket River
Arrgh!! Don't go there, man. Please! I just don't understand the folks that think it was OK for Boozer to be an unethical, lying piece of ****. What is this "the Cavs were just trying to save money" nonsense, as if it's justified to put the blame on the Cavs? Total crap. I love how those of you playing this song just completely IGNORE the overwhelming evidence here. Read the SI article. Boozer played a violin that he needed to take care of his family, that a paltry FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND a year has he and his wife on welfare. He begged them to let him free from his contract, talking about respect, trust and good faith. He said he would re-up with the Cavs. Boozer KNEW the Cavs financial cap situation. Boozer KNEW the Cavs wouldn't let him go. The Cavs KNEW they would have Bird Rights on Boozer next season. Yet defying all common sense and logic, they let Boozer free. -posted by Clutch.
Uh, who would be calling Paxson a genius? Did you just make that up so that the people who disagree with you look like idiots? And they WERE looking out for Boozer. That is a fact. Boozer asked them to do this, and yes, they had some possible future benefit, so they did it. And why did the agent quit if Boozer did nothing wrong? They could have picked up his option and then signed him to a long- term deal next year. There is no guarantee that Boozer would have gotten a better deal next year. The market may be completely different than this year.
The market wouldnt matter next year. Boozer would have his full Bird rights, therefore the Cavs could pay him as much as they wanted to.
One big difference. If Cavs picked Boozer's option, Boozer will be an UNRESTRICTED free agent next season. Now he is a restricted free agent. Paxson took a calculated risk to hope to pay Boozer and cheap and lost.
Don't you hate it when you capitalize a word, but it doesn't matter that you capitalized it? Go read Article XI, Section 5, Part b of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and get back to me.
