Definitely, the Cavs had something to gain from releasing Boozer and signing him to the MLE. They were not primarily motivated by a desire to help Boozer. (1) They could get Boozer in a long-term deal far below his market value. (2) They would pre-empt any possibility of Boozer becoming disenchanted with the team next season and simply leaving because he was unrestricted. (3) They maintain the possibility of moving contracts around this offseason to match whatever offer Boozer was given. Something they would not be able to do next season. (This is an option they've somewhat submarined by trashing Boozer in the paper.) But, the Cavs being jerks doesn't keep Boozer from being a jerk. They were a couple of conspirators who found that their interests coincided. Boozer wanted the security of a longterm deal right away. The Cavs wanted the security of locking Boozer up to that deal. Only problem was that Boozer found a way to get a little bit more, if only at the Cavs' expense.
I will go ahead and say what I previously said... "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." Unrestricted or not.
The reason the Cavs are this bad is just because of incompetent owners and GMs. Let's say this clear here: The Cavs will not be able to build anything special with LeBron because it is a bad organization. Any team that tanked the season in order to get a high lottery pick is a bad team. That's exactly what the Cavs did before they landed LeBron. No way Jerry West or the Chicago GM waive the option on Boozer's contract. No way Boozer had an ORAL agreement with the Cavaliers before July 1st, at least Boozer and his agent did not think so!!! His agent pulled out the CBA to show the Paxon and the owner that they can't have an ORAL agreement, so why did Paxson believe it is an oral agreement? It is just laughable. Of course, Boozer would say he would like to sign with the Cavaliers if the Cavs let him go, but at the same time, the agent said they can't do an ORAL agreement because of CBA restriction. Now if you are Paxson and the owner, legally speaking, you know Boozer can't commit to the Cavaliers because of the CBA, why do you still let him out? Because you are either dirty that you don't want to obey the CBA, or you misjudge the market because you think no way anybody will pay him 28 mil more!!! Especially after your coach told you that Boozer was just an energy guy!!! and if Boozer is an energy guy, why would anybody pay him 28 mil more? moreover, if someone is stupid enough to pay him 28 mil more, Paxson and the owner just won't match because Boozer is not WORTH it! See, that's the whole rationale behind this. Cavaliers did not get cheated by Boozer. It is a calculated risk they took and lost. If anybody believes that it is Boozer's "oral" agreement that Cavaliers did not pick him option, that guy is too naive.
Hmm NIKEStrad, I won't pretend to be an expect on this topic. If Cavs picked up Boozer's option, it does appear that he will still be a RFA next year. Maybe that's why I am posting here where Chad Ford can write for ESPN Insider?
Why do you even believe that Cavs will offer Boozer a max contract next year, while offering him a MLE this year? $68M 6-year deal is way better than MLE 7-year deal. Full Bird rights or not.
They would do that for 2 reasons 1) They cant offer him more than the MLE this year 2) To save money for the future
Paxson is not dumb to trust Boozer's word. First of all, he never thought anybody would pay him 28 mil more, maybe an offer 5mil or 6mil more from another team, then Boozer still will sign with the Cavaliers. Second, Silas basically told Paxon that Boozer was an energy player. So if in the extreme event that somebody pays Boozer 28 mil more, then so be it. Cleveland won't match because Boozer is not worth it as an energy player. In the end, Paxson believes Boozer's value to the team is about MLE for 6 years, so there is no risk letting Boozer out of the option even if Boozer wants to look for a big deal. So for Paxson, it is deal with all the upside (locking Boozer into a reasonable long term deal) with no downside (1. nobody will pay Boozer 28mil more. 2. Boozer is not worth 28mil more, so Cleveland will not match an high offer) Boozer's word does not matter that much in Paxson's calculation. This explains it.
Help yourself or help others?? More like help everyone, or screw everyone but yourself. Come to think of it, the split might fall along party lines, but that's a topic for the D&D. people, think about $40 million vs $68 million. More money than you could spend, or more money than you could spend +$28 million. What's the difference? One way, everyone's happy, the other way, you're happy and everyone else is pissed. It's just standard issue senseless greed. I'm not surprised, but the initial story (about him signing long term for the MLE) had surprised me a little, thinking this was a guy who had some loyalty for the team that gave him a chance. Turns out he's the same as most others.
Yes. At that time, they believe Boozer is an energy guy who is worth pretty much around MLE for 6 years. Why would anybody pay 28mil more for an energy guy? 20/20 hindsight is a good thing. But on June 30th, Paxson believes that Boozer is worth around MLE for their team. Market thinks otherwise after 6/30.
Exactly. If Foyle can pull a 40 mill contract, Boozer is worth a crapload more than the 5 year, 40 million the Cavs had him priced at.
Good point. Cavs believe Boozer is worth around MLE 6-year for an energy guy. It does not matter how much the market thinks of Boozer.
Not really, it defies YOUR common sense and logic, not Paxson and Gund's common sense and logic. Paxson thought MLE for 6 years would be enough to get Boozer signed no matter whether there is an oral agreement or not. If the Cleveland's organization has common sense and logic, how come it is so bad for a long time?
Did the Rockets promise Mobley they wouldn't trade him if he signed cheap? Did Boozer promise the Cavs he'd sign with the Cavs if they let him out of his current contract? Big difference. I just don't understand why you keep pitching teams against players and accusing people of siding with teams and not players? Why would fans side with teams against players for no good reasons? Don't we always bash owners and GMs? I just don't get why you keep saying that people say Boozer is wrong simply because he's a player doing bad things against a team. Maybe you are blinded by your hatred against team managements?
1) Did they know it was below fair market value at the time? It seems like contracts have skyrocketed since then. And it was my impression that he was intending to sign with the Cavs until he saw his market value was much higher. 2) Wasn't he going to be restricted next year?
Let's sum up the situation. Facts: Cleveland released Boozer's contract option and intend to sign him long term for the MLE. Boozer got a much better contract from another team which the Cavs couldn't match. Boozer's agent came out trying to distance himself from this mess. Speculation possibility 1: They had an agreement Boozer knew the Cavs's intention and agreed verbally he would go along. He either (1) lied in his agreement fully intended to get big money elsewhere or (2) he got an offer too good to refuse and dumped his promise. In any case, Boozer lied in the article of this thread. Why would the Cavs make the agreement? Because Boozer's value will probably be higher than the MLE next year. Why would Boozer make the agreement? Because he could get financial security one year earlier without the risk of a career ending injury in the next year. Speculation possibility 2: They did not have an agreement The Cavs did it knowing that Boozer could bolt. Boozer did bolt. The Cavs lied. Why would the Cavs release Boozer without an agreement? No reason at all. This possibility doesn't make sense. Speculation possiblity 3: They did not have an agreement but the Cavs thought they did This is the case of misunderstanding. The Cavs talked with Boozer about their intention. Boozer did not make a clear commitment but the Cavs thought he did. Neither side lied. Why would the Cavs do it? Because they were stupid. That's the only explanation. While this is possible, it is very unlikely. If you consider the fact that the agent tried to wash his hands, you know that Boozer must have done something that misled the Cavs.
Opinions on this are based on people's sense of fundamental fairness. Boozer's actions are incredibly unfair and, in my opinion, contemptuous. But he had the legal right to do so and he did it. Question: what if the most Boozer could get on the open market was $3MM per year? Well, does Cleveland back out of their handshake agreement and say, Carlos, I know we agreed to the full MLE . . . but we've got you over a barrell. We'll never know, but I suspect that CLE would have lived up to the deal.
Boozer is a liar! Cavs tried to take advantage of the situation. But, Utah is the biggest loser. They overpaid for a role player! I hate the Jazz!
It is a business, and Boozer is playing by the rules. There was "NO AGREEMENT" if there was, it was illegal, and non-enforcable. Who in here would not even LISTEN to other offers? I mean we are talking 28 million over the same number of years, and he can still get another monster contract at the age of 28. Also, if Coach Silas said he was an energy player, he may have felt like the team did not really appreciate what he is capable of doing. I say Carloss proved to be the better negotiator, and he should do what is right for himself. He played the game, and he is the winner, and no one will care outside of Clevland in a year. AND...If he wanted to come play in Houston in 6 years, and is a star player, ALL OF US WOULD ACCEPT HIM WITH OPEN ARMS. DD
Wrong. What he did was unethical. Yes, he can get away with it. But there will be repercussions. His agent fired him and the NBA will change the rules. Just because you can get away with something does not make you a "smart business man." He didn't negotiate, he lied.
