I thought this was the key to the article. Boozer said financial security and staying in Cleveland was important. The thing is that the Cavs and Boozer had two different views of this answer. The Cavs thought Boozer would resign a financially secure deal now (6 yrs 42 million) if the Cavs let him out of the option. Boozer thought the Cavs would take the option and then sign him to a long-term deal after that (where Boozer would get even more $ than the 6 yrs 42 million) I think the Cavs put their Boozer chips on red and it came up black at the roulette table.
When a huge ethical violation occurs, it leads to widespread changes. We have all seen the impact of the fall of Enron. The government reacted and enacted Sarbanes Oxley. Bigwigs now have to certify financials in a serious way, lawyers have to blow the whistle, and more. I agree. Boozer's conduct is going to lead to widespread changes in the rules. It will cause ownership and players/agents to look at each other with greater suspicion and mistrust. Boozer has hurt a lot of people.
Hogwash.. Did Steve hurt anyone when he refused to play in Vacouver? Did Elway hurt anyone when he would not play in Baltimore? etc...etc....etc...... People need to quit overeacting. IT was a business move by both parties, and Clevland TOTALLY misjudged his value. You NEVER put a 2nd year PF that is averaging 15 and 11 up for bid....NEVER.... Way stupid on their part and they deserve what they get...NOTHING. DD
What do you mean? Which kind of people did he hurt if there are any? Most likely those people who will try to lie and get out of a deal after an agreement, but isn't it a good thing ? So Boozer did most people a favor then!
Sorry, my statement was ambiguous. When I say he hurt many people, I was primarily referring to players that, in the future, want to make handshake deals and are honest in their intentions. The distrust that this creates may impair players' abilities to get deals done. I'm not saying the guy is a murderer or rapist. I'm just saying that he hurt the system. All the players should respect the game and the system that have given them so much. Virtue is its own reward. Boozer went for the money. I can't say for certainty that I would not have taken the Utah offer, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have.
Why do you keep labeling Boozer's lie and backstabbing as a "business move"? If you want to have a strong argument, don't hide behind weasel phrases. Just say this: "I, DaDa, totally support Boozers decision to lie and backstab a franchise to get out of a contract so he could make millions more." Then I will respect your position.
Steve did not make an oral commitment to play in vancouver. Indeed, he did the exact opposite. He told them please do not draft me. Steve was unequivocal and clear. His actions were not dishonest. Same goes for Elway. I agree it's a business. Nobody acted illegally. This is a question of ethics. Call Cleveland stupid. That's fine. Perhaps they were. All Cleveland learned was . . . trust nobody unless you have a valid binding written agreement. And that legacy will pass to all teams and players hereafter. Cleveland's intelligence is not my issue. I'm just saying that Boozer was unethical. I don't think you are disagreeing with me on this point, but maybe you are. I don't know. Maybe you're saying it's a eat or be eaten business world and business ethics are pretty and nice but they really don't matter. I'm not sure what your take is. I'm not trying to condescend or even criticize you. I'm just not clear on where you stand.
Why can't they sign the contract at the time they agree with each other? What's the big deal? I am pretty sure the NBA could accommodate them. Oh, I see, so some players prefer to make handshake deals over contract?
How? Boozer said that there was NO oral agreement. He specifically mentioned that his agent pulled out the CBA to tell Paxson that they couldn't make an oral agreement. Why do you put your thinking into Boozer's mouth? Did Boozer tell Paxson that he would make an oral commitment EVEN THOUGH the CBA forbids it? not really, what he says is something like this: "I can't make an oral agreement, I will do my best to sign with your guys." ---- It's not an oral agreement, it is just nice of Boozer to say these words.
Sun, I was not there for the conversation but it might have gone down like you describe. If so, I'm off base. To me, Logic compels (not suggests) the conclusion that there was a tacit agreement between Boozer and the Cavs for the MLE. Not just I'll do my best to sign for it. I do think they agreed orally, in contravention of the CBA. I do think it happens a lot. But its fairly useless to debate the facts as to what really happened, b/c only they know. Under your description, I don't think he acted unethically. Under mine, he did. As for why handshake deals are good. Lets say another situation arises, exactly like Boozers. The player wants security, would like to be let out early, will take a slightly lesser contract. The team is willing to sign the player now at a discount. Everyone benefits. After boozer, that deal does not get done. The team exercises its option. Because of Boozer, that won't happen anymore. Let's modify the circumstances. The player really needs this to happen b/c of personal circumstances (family health, other things). The damage done by Boozer is all the greater. But my primary point (based on what I think happened factually) is that Boozer sold his own integrity and hurt the system.
Why is the agent seen as being moral ONE QUESTION: Do you think Carlos negotiated the deal with UTAH? so one of two things is happening 1. the agent was not at the meeting when carlos promised to resign . . . and was shocked about the release and got to work . . . and then got th deal . .then the CAVS said they had a deal . .he was again shocked. . and BELEIVE THE TEAM OVER HIS OWN CLIENT WHO TOLD HIM IT WAS A LIE . .. yea. . a guy i want on my side. or 2. He was there. . he did the utah deal anyway . .. cannot handle the heat. . .and is getting out of the kitchen OR 3. there was no deal . . .the agent made the utah deal . .cannot handle the heat . . and is getting out of the kitchen the agent is pretty spineless in this to me. . . don't make him out to be the naive guy neither he not the Cavs were naive As for the league changing the rules i don't think so .. . becuase these deals are illegal anyway BUT they won't be ANNOUNCED so much next year cause it is like telling folx how much great stuff is in ya house then be surprised when those same folx steal it Rocket River
Right on. If your word has a price tag, you have no integrity. Who cares how much you make or are worth (other than yourself, of course). Rotten.
These 'handshake deals' likely happen all the time. For all we know, there could have been a handshake deal between Boozer/agent and Utah before Cleveland decided to opt out for no reason...
Mr. Clutch, Since you and I were not there to hear the supposed agreement. I am going by the letter of the CBA which states NO SUCH AGREEMENT IS ALLOWED. Therefore it was a misunderstanding, and yes I do think taking the bigger deal is a smart business move. DD
So teams do this all the time is OK? Dishonest teams were OK but a dishonest player lost all his dignity? I don't buy it. It's the Cavs initiated all the mess. Therefore it is the Cavs who should be blamed the most. Boozer should take his share of the blame because he made the team THOUGHT he would resign with them. But it is the Cavs started all the money saving scam on Boozer. Do you think Boozer was so stupid that he did not know that the Cavs wanted to pull this underpay trick on him for 6 or 5 years? I think not. So why beyond all the logic sense that he would have make a verbal agreement with the Cavs? The only thing that is logical is that the Cavs took a calculated risk on Boozer. It is not logic to assume that Boozer took any calculated risk because there were no risk to be taken on his side. He would surely be underpaid for years to come under this 'verbal arrangement'. Tell me why he would make the verbal agreement?
User, Exactly It is just business. Anyone who has ever owned a business knows that you NEVER go by words....contracts, signed contracts are the ONLY thing that matter. DD
He could get the money 1 year earlier. He was due to make 700,0000. The MLE would give him more than 5 million. That's more than 4 million more. People talks about the 28 million. But that's over 6 years. And there's no guarantee next year's market would be the same as this year. And he could get injured or underperform and become less valuable. In other words, if he didn't make the agreement, he would make about 5 million less this year and wouldn't know what he'd get next year, although both party knew it's probably more than the MLE. Guaranteed money NOW would be the motive on Boozer's part. What's interesting is that when news of this "agreement" came out, nobody said anythig negative about it as if it's a normal fair play. Now when Boozer didn't do what he's supposed to do under this "agreement" some people point fingers at the Cavs and say they were stupid and doing illegal stuff and therefore deserve to be screwed.
