# OT: Boozer oral agreement may violate CBA, cost Cav's even more...



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

If Kurt Thomas really is heading to Cleveland for Big Z, he may be walking into a huge franchise mess.

As we all know, the Cav's got a major dry boning when Boozer signed a huge offer sheet after making an oral promise to re-sign with Cleveland if they did not pick up his option and allowed him to become a UFA.

However, it seems that such an agreement violates the CBA. Those involved in the agreement may be suspended and Cleveland may lose draft picks, a la the Joe Smith deal.

http://www.cleveland.com/sports/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/sports/1089624675142581.xml

Bron Bron may not be enough to keep Clevland from collapsing into oblivion once again. Unless the league decides to ignore the whole thing...



> The six-year, $68 million offer sheet presented to Carlos Boozer by the Utah Jazz may do more than just leave the Cavaliers empty-handed.
> 
> It could literally cost them.
> 
> ...


----------



## realbullsfaninLA (Jan 8, 2003)

Cleveland's doctors must not be too confident about Z's health.Because this is not an intelligent trade IMO otherwise.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Some mitigating factors:

Cleveland was not trying to circumvent the cap.

Every team right now is entering into oral agreements with players, as no one can sign until Wednesday.

I think most teams have conversations with their players before making any contract decisions. The question of whether or not to extend a QO is definitely fair game for talks between a player, his agent, and his ball club.

The orally (dis)agreed upon contract did not violate any league rules or the CBA.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> Some mitigating factors:
> 
> Cleveland was not trying to circumvent the cap.
> ...


There are differences between this and the Joe Smith case, certainly. However, if they were negotiating and entering into promises before they were allowed to, it could spell trouble.

Also, they were clearly trying to play a game of "funny numbers" by not picking up the option and allowing him to become a UFA, with a side promise to re-sign. When I first heard about the deal, I wondered why nobody raised a fuss about it from that perspective.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> There are differences between this and the Joe Smith case, certainly. However, if they were negotiating and entering into promises before they were allowed to, it could spell trouble.


Remember that teams had until June 30 to offer the QO or relinquish the rights to a player. After June 30, any team has the right to negotiate with a FA.

Technically, there was no period in which a team can not have discussions with their own FA.

Am I wrong here?


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> Some mitigating factors:
> 
> Cleveland was not trying to circumvent the cap.
> ...


You cannot begin these talks before July 1st however, and the suspicion is that they started them before that date.


----------



## MongolianDeathCloud (Feb 27, 2004)

Yeah, while everyone has been fuming about Boozer double-crossing the Cavs management, I've kind of been wondering about the breach of the rules that the Cavs management were undergoing in pre-arranging deals with Boozer. Supposedly Pelinka had a copy of the CBA with him and presented it to the management a few times.

Alot of people are angry with Boozer, and while I think it's partially justified I do feel that Cavs management was trying to be cute and breaking not only the official rules, but also the unspoken rule of basketball personnel -- it's owner/management versus players, and it always will be. If you do not adhere to the owner/management vs. player paradigm, you get burned, and that's by design by the machiavellian workings of the CBA and the league in general.

All that said, it would seriously put a headlock on the Cavs (and of course Lebron) if the league were to further worsen the situation by slapping the Cavs with a Joe Smith like penalty. I do think that the Cavs and other managers should learn from this mistake, but I think the fact that they've lost their number two prospect is serious enough. 

It is hard for me to see the league punishing the Cavs though because Lebron is their golden child right now and driving the Cavs into the ground would certainly bounce alot of the bandwagon people off. It would be bad for the health of the league.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> There are differences between this and the Joe Smith case, certainly. However, if they were negotiating and entering into promises before they were allowed to, it could spell trouble.


I'm not really sure how it differs to any other agreement in principle, honestly. Steve Nash agreed to a deal the first day of free agency in principle, and I don't have any doubt the Suns are going to pay him. The only difference here is that Cleveland made their own player a free agent along with making an agreement in principle, which was then broken because of course it is not binding.

I don't think they should receive any additional punninshment by the league. They made a calculated risk, and they came out on the short end of it. In the end, I think this move was risky on Cleveland's part, but not unethical.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> Also, they were clearly trying to play a game of "funny numbers" by not picking up the option and allowing him to become a UFA, with a side promise to re-sign. When I first heard about the deal, I wondered why nobody raised a fuss about it from that perspective.


Is expressing their intentions the same as negotiating an oral contract? JohnPax has been expressing the intention to resign Jamal all summer.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> Is expressing their intentions the same as negotiating an oral contract? JohnPax has been expressing the intention to resign Jamal all summer.


No, it is not the same. Reports are that Boozer and the Cavs exchanged a promise in consideration for a promise -- in other words, a contract.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> No, it is not the same. Reports are that Boozer and the Cavs exchanged a promise in consideration for a promise -- in other words, a contract.


In which case, if the league were to truly punish all parties involved, they'd slap Cleveland with fines and also disallow the new contract and make Boozer honor his initial contract. 

There are certainly grey areas here, but if a team has until June 30th to determine the status of their RFA's (or whether to pick up the option on contracts?), then it would seem perfectly legal for them to participate in discussions with the player and his agent during this period.

I just don't see that the Cavs are in violation. They were discussing a legal contract. The T-Wolf was offering Big Joe a lesser deal with the "wink-wink" under the table contract offering big time payout when they had the Bird rights to do it. They were in a direct attempt to circumvent the rules of the cap.

Very different situations.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't see that the Cavs are in violation. They were discussing a legal contract.


The violation is that they allegedly entered into a contract before they were allowed to do so under the CBA. 



> That's* if the allegations are true that Boozer and the Cavs made an oral agreement before the two-week negotiating period that started July 1,* a violation of the league's collective bargaining agreement. If so, the Cavs could be fined, forced to give up draft picks and any team personnel involved suspended.





Admittedly not the same as the Joe Smith deal, but potentially troublesome for the Cavs nonetheless.


----------



## MongolianDeathCloud (Feb 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> I just don't see that the Cavs are in violation. They were discussing a legal contract. The T-Wolf was offering Big Joe a lesser deal with the "wink-wink" under the table contract offering big time payout when they had the Bird rights to do it. They were in a direct attempt to circumvent the rules of the cap.


Mmmmmm, I think the issue is that there's suspicion that Cavs managment had been offering a contract before the legal period -- while you are allowed to discuss qualifying options and renouncing agents during this period, you are NOT allowed to propose contracts, and this is seemingly what the Cavs were doing. Whether it's a reasonable rule or not is another topic, I personally don't see a problem but I'm not savvy enough to know why the rule is in place.



> In which case, if the league were to truly punish all parties involved, they'd slap Cleveland with fines and also disallow the new contract and make Boozer honor his initial contract.


Now that would be something. A little out there, but I could see it happening. I could see the league wanting to do something like this as it would probably be in their best interest, but I'd think the player's union would be in uproar.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't think they should receive any additional punninshment by the league. They made a calculated risk, and they came out on the short end of it. In the end, I think this move was risky on Cleveland's part, but not unethical.


If this was a CBA violation, I sincerely doubt they allow Boozer back to Cleveland -- that would allow the Cav's to benefit from their own violation of the rules. Certainly there should be consequences to Boozer, if he participated in a violation, but I'm not sure what the consequences would be. Perhaps void the salary Utah gave him over and above what Cleveland had promised? Who knows. But if there is a violation, I don't see any way the league rewards the Cavs with the return of the player they lost as a UFA.

And its all speculation at this point, until we know "what was said to whom and when."


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

Glad to see that the Cavs are probably going to get reprimanded. The NBAPA and the league negotiates the CBA anf uses it as their legal doctrine for a reason.

The Cavs management violated the integrity of the agreement, whether it was Boozer's idea or not and should be penalized.\

Shafted. Twice. Enjoy LeBron.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> If this was a CBA violation, I sincerely doubt they allow Boozer back to Cleveland -- that would allow the Cav's to benefit from their own violation of the rules. Certainly there should be consequences to Boozer, if he participated in a violation, but I'm not sure what the consequences would be. Perhaps void the salary Utah gave him over and above what Cleveland had promised? Who knows. But if there is a violation, I don't see any way the league rewards the Cavs with the return of the player they lost as a UFA.
> ...


Nah, you cannot punish Boozer, especially since every article I've read said that he's said he'd "prefer" to be in Cleveland, and since that is the words he used at the news conference.

This is on Cleveland. They had the ultimate power in this and decided to try and work around it. Boozer like Smith, was just trying to get his.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Retro: "Just Trying to Get His" is not a defense. If he agreed to cirvumvent the CBA, he is just as wrong as Gund.


-----------------------------------------

BREAKING NEWS:

Cavs are now offering Boozer a 1 year/5M deal, that has the benefit of avoiding all the controversy and potential league problems.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writers/ian_thomsen/07/12/boozer.fallout/index.html



> Proving that they are not quite ready to close the door on their relationship with Carlos Boozer, the Cleveland Cavaliers have offered the free-agent power forward a one-year contract worth approximately $5 million, an NBA source tells SI.com.
> 
> Boozer and his agent, Rob Pelinka, have already secured a six-year, $68 million offer with the Utah Jazz. But those negotiations were conducted under a cloud of supposed promises and possible betrayals that has still not fully cleared. According to team sources, Pelinka, Boozer and Boozer's wife, CeCe, convinced Cleveland owner Gordon Gund and GM Jim Paxson to forgo a team option that would have paid Boozer $695,000 next season, thus making the improving forward a restricted free agent this summer. Had Cleveland held Boozer to his original contract, the Cavaliers could have matched any offer to him as a third-year free agent next summer.
> 
> Instead, Gund agreed to set Boozer free with the understanding that Boozer would sign a long-term deal with Cleveland. Because the Cavs are over the league's salary cap, the most they could offer Boozer this summer was a six-year contract for $41 million. The Cavs say that no illegal under-the-table offer was made to Boozer because it was understood that the NBA's collective bargaining agreement prohibited the team from paying more than $41 million.




The article also suggests Boozer has been ducking calls from Coach K. Knowing what I do about K, I don't blame him...


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Boozer and his agent will say that they did not make an oral agreement.

Paxson and Gund have been very careful in their public comments. In their statement the other day they only quoted the end of June press release which was very PC and said that they were sad and disappointed.

Boozer's actions show that there was no agreement in place.

I don't think this illegal agreement issue is cut and dry.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> "Just Trying to Get His" is not a defense.
> 
> 
> ...


It worked for Joe Smith.

Anything else about what Boozer said would be heresey, would it not? Since his only public statement was that of him thanking the Cavs for not picking up his option and that he'd "prefer" to remain in Cleveland.

The Cavs are the one who made the stink regarding the situation, and thus that is why the CBA violation is now taking the forefront. 

They held the bargaining power because they had Boozer under contract and decided to not pick it up. The fact that they didn't pick the option up, which the last day to pick the option up was before the buffer period certainly cements the fact that they believe they had this "oral" deal.

One way or another, it could have and should have been handled correctly by the Cavs management.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

nice move by the cavs.... now Boozer gets a chance to redeem himself. 



> Word around the NBA is that Boozer has refused to take phone calls from his former coach at Duke, Mike Krzyzewski. "That's because he doesn't want to hear Mike telling him not to do this," a league source says.





> Agents throughout the NBA have united in criticizing Pelinka for committing what one agent called a "fraudulent inducement" by using Gund's act of kindness against him. *They believe that Pelinka's betrayal has eroded whatever trust exists between agents and team executives, making it more difficult for each side to take the other at its word. Pelinka could not be reached for comment.*


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> The article also suggests Boozer has been ducking calls from Coach K. Knowing what I do about K, I don't blame him...


That hillarous. I knew that Paxson would be on the phone to Coach K.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> That hillarous. I knew that Paxson would be on the phone to Coach K.


Bush league.

I wouldn't want to play in Cleveland, either.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Sources close to Pelinka's agency, SFX, say that the management group is seeking to distance itself from the agent. Later this summer, after Pelinka's client Kobe Bryant has signed with either the Lakers or the Clippers, look for SFX and Pelinka to cut ties permanently.


Rumor is that after he gets booted out of SFX that Pelinka will start the "Trust Me Mgmt Group".


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> I wouldn't want to play in Cleveland, either.


Are they asking?


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Are they asking?


Yep, I met with Gordon Gund this afternoon.

They kicked a small duffle bag to me under the table. Said it should cover everything and hope that I'll be a good 13th man.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> It worked for Joe Smith.
> ...


I really don't see how you can blame the Cavs for all of this. My take is that Paxson and Gund are just idiots, and were just trying to take care of their player, trying to reward Boozer for his great play thusfar. But I don't feel that they were trying to circumvent the CBA. Many articles have already explicitly stated that there was -no- agreement, and that Pelinka was the one that brought up the issue.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=knight-boozertoryrevolvearoundiu&prov=knight&type=lgns

How is this violating the CBA? Obviously investigations could bring up otherwise, but this seems concrete to me. 


Meeting time 


On June 30, the principals gathered around a Fortune 500-style boardroom table at Gund Arena. Pelinka had flown in from Los Angeles. He sat on one side with Carlos and CeCe, a Duke graduate who has experience working for sports management giant IMG. Owner Gordon Gund flew in from his offices in Princeton, N.J., on his private jet. He joined Paxson and members of his staff on the other side of the table. 


The meeting opened with Gund telling Boozer how valuable he was to the Cavaliers' franchise and their fan base. Gund was perhaps closer to Boozer than any other Cavaliers player. To Gund, players like Boozer and center Zydrunas Ilgauskas represented the transition the organization was trying to make. Each time Gund visited the Cavaliers during the season, either in Cleveland or at road games in Boston, New Jersey, New York or Philadelphia, he spent time talking with Boozer. 


Paxson informed Pelinka and the Boozers that the Cavaliers were considering letting Boozer out of the option year. That decision had to be finalized by midnight that evening. Paxson explained to them that after losing Jason Kapono in the recent expansion draft and making a trade to acquire Sasha Pavlovic, the team's payroll would be $43,434,000 next season. That would put the Cavaliers within $3 million of the salary cap, expected to be announced next week. 


Paxson said that if the Cavaliers allowed Boozer to become a free agent, the only thing the team could do was offer him something referred to as the maximum "Early Bird" contract. That would be a deal starting at $5 million that would increase 12.5 percent each year for six years, making it worth around $40 million. This was not a contract offer to Boozer, just an explanation of what the Cavaliers' salary cap constraint would be. 


Paxson told Boozer that the team would not make any trades or other player moves to try and get drastically under the salary cap to attempt to offer more. 


And, as a part of the goodwill gesture of not picking up the option, Boozer and Pelinka would have to calm the fan base by making public statements July 1 of his intention to return to the Cavaliers. 


*They would not be saying they had agreed to a deal, because that would be in violation of NBA rules because it came before July 1. *


Pelinka had brought a copy of the NBA's collective bargaining agreement and referred to the contract rules and read from it several times. 


The Cavaliers made it clear to Boozer that as many as seven other NBA teams could offer him more money and the team was taking a risk. Gund told Boozer he didn't want him to commit to a contract that he would regret signing a few years down the road. 


The Cavaliers reminded him that by picking up the $695,000 option, the team would be able to sign him to a contract larger than the $40 million deal after the 2004-05 season because they would not be under NBA salary cap restraints. 


But Carlos and CeCe, who only a few days earlier were looking at expensive houses in the affluent eastern Cleveland suburb of Bratenahl, said they wanted security now. They understood there was a limit, due to the league's salary cap rules, on what the Cavaliers could offer, but they wanted to remain in Cleveland. 


Then Boozer and Gund spoke to each other. As they talked, they appeared to come to a trust they both thought would eventually lead to a deal.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Anything else about what Boozer said would be heresey, would it not?


Not necessarily. Hearsay is an out of court statement made by someone other than the declarant, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, and not subject to a hearsay exception. So I can't prove Boozer agreed to a deal by calling Retrodreams as a witness to say that he heard Boozer say he agreed to a deal.

Or maybe I could -- because that would be an admission against Boozer's interest, and admissions are a heresay exception. And anyway, in this case, it would be Gund, Boozer, the agent, anyone else in the room, testifying to their own coversations.

But the point isn't hearsay -- really, what you are getting at is the difficulty of proving the existence of and details relating to an oral contract. That is the problem with oral contract cases. Even though oral contracts are enforceable, if the parties disagree as to what was said, proof becomes the problem.

(unless, of course, you meant to say _heresy_: the corrupting of Christian dogma. In that case, it is a whole 'nother discussion).


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rwj333</b>!
> 
> 
> I really don't see how you can blame the Cavs for all of this. My take is that Paxson and Gund are just idiots, and were just trying to take care of their player, trying to reward Boozer for his great play thusfar. But I don't feel that they were trying to circumvent the CBA. Many articles have already explicitly stated that there was -no- agreement, and that Pelinka was the one that brought up the issue.


Come on. You aren't that naive.

You are telling me that a GM just lets one of his top 2 players become a FA without having something in place? 

If this was really the case, then they deserve to lose him and Boozer is unjustly being called names. If there was no "deal" in place, then he is free to go and find a deal for himself, No?

You can't have it both ways.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

hmmmm... I don't think they had an agreement in place, but I do think they had a limited recognizance that Boozer liked Cleveland and wanted to stay there. There are degrees of distinction between an actual agreement and an understanding, a sort of trust, which in my opinion they had. Also, the article I just posted states that there was no agreement in place. 

I'm not that naive, but I really believe Pax and Gund were. They're obviously not smart people- just look at their past moves. I feel that they were trying to reward Boozer for his good play. And I also believe that they vastly underestimated the FA market. That's all.


----------



## Maestro (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> Yep, I met with Gordon Gund this afternoon.
> ...


:rofl:


----------



## TyGuy (Apr 19, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> Yep, I met with Gordon Gund this afternoon.
> ...


Your constant harassment of the Cleveland franchise is becoming very tiresome :upset:


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

My understanding is that you cannot even broach the subject of a contract or dollars prior to July 1 of any given year. The gist behind this is that you cannot negotiate a new deal until the old deal has expired. June 30 is the magical cutoff date as far as the NBA is concerned. It is strictly prohibited for a team to talk dollars, length or any other terms with an Urestricted FA or even their own Restricted FA until July 1st. You cannot negotiate a contract beyond the contract you are under. IE, the Cavs could not talk to Boozer about ANYTHING prior to July 1.

As far as I can tell, by having a meeting on June 30 and even bantering about the _ possibility _ of allowing Boozer to become a FA and then sign back with Cleveland is a clear-cut violation of the Collective Barganing Agreement and the Cavs should be hit as hard (or pretty darn close to as hard) as Minny. Pelinka should be banned from negotiating any further NBA contracts and Boozers agreement with the Jazz should be ruled null and void.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TyGuy</b>!
> Your constant harassment of the Cleveland franchise is becoming very tiresome :upset:


:boohoo:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

LATEST NEWS FLASH:

Pelinko resigns as Boozer's agent.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1838569




> SFX agent Rob Pelinka informed the NBA Player's Association on Monday that he had resigned as Carlos Boozer's agent, two league sources told ESPN Insider Chad Ford.
> 
> 
> Pelinka's client caused a storm of controversy around the league last week when Boozer agreed to a six-year, $68 million contract with the Utah Jazz.
> ...




As far as I'm concerned, this move has nothing to do with integrity and everyting to do with SXF just covering its butt. I think the reality is that the agent had as much to do with this as anyone.


----------



## TyGuy (Apr 19, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> 
> 
> :boohoo:


Your input was not needed


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> LATEST NEWS FLASH:
> 
> Pelinko resigns as Boozer's agent.
> ...


Clearly, Pelinko broke some agent code by this actions here. And here is the fallout.

The way some of the posters were talking it seemed like Pelinko would get some Agent of the Year award.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TyGuy</b>!
> Your constant harassment of the Cleveland franchise is becoming very tiresome :upset:


Hey, don't fault me. I'm not the moron in the Cav's front office that tried to evade the CBA... you know, the legal document that governs all things business of the NBA.

Anyways, here is what I'd like to see happen.

1) Boozer stay with Cleveland, paid fair market value
2) The Cavs penalized because of their under the table dealings

So, if you don't like the brash truth of the subject at hand, find the door. Knowing the idiots we having running the Bulls organization, well, it is a nice relief to know they have similar idiots (brothers to boot) running the Cavs organization.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Clearly, Pelinko broke some agent code by this actions here. And here is the fallout.
> ...


No, I don't think Pelinka was correct in his dealings, and I never said anything of the sort. I simply said it was his job to go and find Boozer the best deal possible.

The sad thing is people are still dodging the underlying issue at hand, and that is the under the table deal between Pelinka/Boozer and the Cavs. I don't care what stories they make up, you do not pick up the option on your 2nd best player without having a deal struck (oral in this case).


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> The sad thing is people are still dodging the underlying issue at hand, and that is the under the table deal between Pelinka/Boozer and the Cavs


retro,you are off base



> According to team sources, Pelinka, Boozer and Boozer's wife, CeCe, convinced Cleveland owner Gordon Gund and GM Jim Paxson to forgo a team option that would have paid Boozer $695,000 next season, thus making the improving forward a restricted free agent this summer





> Instead, Gund agreed to set Boozer free with the understanding that Boozer would sign a long-term deal with Cleveland. Because the Cavs are over the league's salary cap, the most they could offer Boozer this summer was a six-year contract for $41 million. The Cavs say that no illegal under-the-table offer was made to Boozer because it was understood that the NBA's collective bargaining agreement prohibited the team from paying more than $41 million.



Gund is a first class guy..Go read the SI article..Bozzer is a horrific dirtbag..



> Word around the NBA is that Boozer has refused to take phone calls from his former coach at Duke, Mike Krzyzewski. "That's because he doesn't want to hear Mike telling him not to do this," a league source says.


There is justice after all...For all you guys who thought Bozzer and pelinka did nothing wrong,ethically or financially,I hope you guys learn that integrity and honor still exist..And dont think for a second that Davis Stern is no majorly involved in this


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truth</b>!
> 
> retro,you are off base
> 
> ...


Gund can be a first class guy all day, every day. Just answer me one question.

When Boozer/Pelinka met with Gund/Paxson to let them know they were not picking up his option, do you think there was no mention of a new contract at all?

If you answer yes, you are naive. 
If you answer no, then the meeting was to discuss moves that were in violation of the CBA.

Pick your poison.


----------



## thunderspirit (Jun 25, 2002)

> According to *team sources*, Pelinka, Boozer and Boozer's wife, CeCe, convinced Cleveland owner Gordon Gund and GM Jim Paxson to forgo a team option that would have paid Boozer $695,000 next season, thus making the improving forward a restricted free agent this summer
> 
> Instead, Gund agreed to set Boozer free with the understanding that Boozer would sign a long-term deal with Cleveland. Because the Cavs are over the league's salary cap, the most they could offer Boozer this summer was a six-year contract for $41 million. The Cavs say that no illegal under-the-table offer was made to Boozer because it was understood that the NBA's collective bargaining agreement prohibited the team from paying more than $41 million.


what the hell do you _expect_ the Cavs to say?  

this isn't to be construed that i think Boozer was right in doing what he did, it's to point out that any organization is going to put their spin on the story to make them as bulletproof as possible. it's a no-brainer on their part (much like the whole situation, actually. )


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

*It's now clear why Boozer needed the extra money*



> his ex-roommate is suing him. Former Cleveland Browns defensive back Percy Ellsworth is taking him to court because he says Boozer owes him $15,000 in back rent.


Fox Story


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

There was no reason to discuss an actual contract explicitly when the Cavs let Boozer go. So I doubt the violated rules and discussed it. Boozer knew they only had the MLE to offer. And it was a request of his to get more security...I think it was very easy to have those conversations without actually violating any CBA rules.

My prediction is that the Cavs are at most fined, but probably will face no penalty at all from the NBA. Most of the people who are charging that this is a big deal are quoting this one article which actually states within it that it's not like the Joe Smith situation and that the NBA is probably not going to punish the Cavs.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> There was no reason to discuss an actual contract explicitly when the Cavs let Boozer go. So I doubt the violated rules and discussed it. Boozer knew they only had the MLE to offer. And it was a request of his to get more security...I think it was very easy to have those conversations without actually violating any CBA rules.
> 
> My prediction is that the Cavs are at most fined, but probably will face no penalty at all from the NBA. Most of the people who are charging that this is a big deal are quoting this one article which actually states within it that it's not like the Joe Smith situation and that the NBA is probably not going to punish the Cavs.


Then, if this is the case, why is a big fuss being made about where Boozer chose to get that "security" from?

You cannot get to Point B if you don't hit Point A.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> There was no reason to discuss an actual contract explicitly when the Cavs let Boozer go. So I doubt the violated rules and discussed it. Boozer knew they only had the MLE to offer. And it was a request of his to get more security...I think it was very easy to have those conversations without actually violating any CBA rules.
> 
> My prediction is that the Cavs are at most fined, but probably will face no penalty at all from the NBA. Most of the people who are charging that this is a big deal are quoting this one article which actually states within it that it's not like the Joe Smith situation and that the NBA is probably not going to punish the Cavs.


If Boozer never promised to stay in Cleveland, remind me why you've been making all these absurd posts about how you hope a house lands on him and his agent.

The way I see it there are basically two things that could have happened.

1. There was no promise to stay in Cleveland. In that case there's nothing morally wrong with Boozer ditching them and signing with the Jazz for more money.

2. There was a promise to stay in Cleveland. In that case Cleveland violated the CBA and deserves to be punished.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. Your position seems to be that Boozer never actually broke a promise or did anything objectionable, but he's a jerk and you hate him anyway.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> 
> 
> If Boozer never promised to stay in Cleveland, remind me why you've been making all these absurd posts about how you hope a house lands on him and his agent.
> ...


It's a chronology thing. Have you been reading any of the accounts of what happened? So far there is no actual evidence of wrongdoing on the Cavs side. It sounds like both sides were very careful where they stepped and what they said.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if in the process of talking about letting Boozer out of his contract, Boozer thanked Gund and Paxson and said he would be loyal to them...then techinically speaking the promise would have been made, but no specific contract would have been discussed. Boozer's loyalty to the franchise would have been discussed.

I forget the exact quote of what Pax and Gund say Boozer said, but it's pretty much along those lines.

This version would also explain why Pax and Gund thought they had an understanding with Boozer, and why Boozer didn't think he actually had agreed to anything.

I think it's going to be next to impossible for the NBA to prove anything in this case. It's not like the Joe Smith deal where there was a paper trail.

And for the record, I hoped a house would drop on Kobe and his agent(also Boozer's agent)...unless I also wished a house to drop on Boozer. But I think I just wishd for him to have a sharp metal object forcibly installed in his rectum. Cause Boozer is still a dick for selling Cleveland out like that. The Cavs did a dumb but nice thing for Boozer because he wanted his money now, and he turned around and screwed them for it. I got no respect for him.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

Yawn.

If that is the case, Boozer did nothing wrong. He simply took the best deal for him and his family.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> Some mitigating factors:
> 
> 
> ...


They made an agreement to negotiate in good faith and kept it secret. You can't make future agreements and NOT DISCLOSE them.....no one is blaming them for making an agreement, just not disclosing the agreement.

They violated the CBA to try to re-sign Boozer on the cheap and keep him away from other teams.....you can't do that.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> Remember that teams had until June 30 to offer the QO or relinquish the rights to a player. After June 30, any team has the right to negotiate with a FA.
> ...


Not really wrong.....they weren't merely negotiating. They were making a deal. They made a deal....and did not disclose it before July 1st. That is against the rules.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this...

It's my understanding that teams cannot make ANY contact with a player regarding contracts from the end of their season until July 1 of that year. That applies to Free Agents as well as a teams own restricted Free Agents. Remeber during the draft and they had Bernie Bickerstaff on a video conference? The ESPN host (I can't remember his name) was chatting with BB and going over the expansion draft and their getting Okafor and such. He then asked BB about free agency and who they might be interested in. Bickerstaff's response was something to the effect of "you know I can't talk about that now". He is strictly prohibited from naming any names because that is construed as a form of tampering.

There's a reason why teams had to make qualifying offers on June 30th. They have to decide before that time whether they wanted to retain that players rights before the negotiating period starts on July 1. That decision must be made solely by the franchise that holds that players rights, without consulting with that player or his representation. I believe Mark Cuban in his BLOG dealing with Steve Nash goes into detail about how Cuban struggled with what to offer Nash. He finally arrived at his dollar amount - independant of any conversations with Nash or his agent - and presented that offer after June 30. He could not be in conatct with Nash or his agent prior to July 1 because that would be in violation of the CBA.

What gets me about this whole Boozer thing is that there had to be a meeting prior to July 1 regarding his situation. In no way, shape or form do the Cavs, out of the kindness of their hearts, simply elect to let Boozer become a free agent by not excersising their rights on his contract. Their decision to let Boozer become a free agent had to occur prior to July 1 becaue they had to let the league know that they weren't excersising their rights to have him complete his third year of his contract. The Cavs don't make this move unless they have even a tacit understanding from Boozer and/or his representation that they will re-sign with Cleveland. Unfortunatly for Cleveland, that understanding could only be arrived at prior to July 1 because they would have had to have known this in order not to excersise their option on Boozers third year of his contract. That's tampering - plain and simple.

How could this be any other way? All the Cavs really had to do was to enforce the third year of his deal and then they acquire his Bird rights and they can match anything they want. You don't take that kind of a risk with a guy who's young and proven that he can produce at the NBA level. There must have been an understanding prior to the Cavs decision to no exercise their option. You just can't do that.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

fl_flash: Bingo. This is why I am absolutely sickened with the hatred towards Boozer when it was the Cavs that opened the can of worms to begin with.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this...
> 
> It's my understanding that teams cannot make ANY contact with a player regarding contracts from the end of their season until July 1 of that year. That applies to Free Agents as well as a teams own restricted Free Agents. Remeber during the draft and they had Bernie Bickerstaff on a video conference? The ESPN host (I can't remember his name) was chatting with BB and going over the expansion draft and their getting Okafor and such. He then asked BB about free agency and who they might be interested in. Bickerstaff's response was something to the effect of "you know I can't talk about that now". He is strictly prohibited from naming any names because that is construed as a form of tampering.
> ...


Yes. The more I read and think about this situation, the more I doubt Cleveland will escape punnishment from the league. It should not, however, be anywhere near as harsh as the Joe Smith decision. I would not be surprised, however, if they had one first round draft pick taken away.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Here is the section in the collective bargaining agreement relevant to this situation.

http://www.nbpa.com/cba/articleXIII.html#section1

*Article XIII. Circumvention.
Section 2. No Undisclosed Agreements.* 

(a) At no time shall there be any undisclosed agreements (i.e., undisclosed to the NBA) of any kind, express or implied, oral or written, or promises, undertakings, representations, commitments, inducements, assurances of intent, or understandings of any kind, between a player (or any person or entity acting with authority or apparent authority on behalf of such player) and any Team (or Team Affiliate): 

(i) involving consideration of any kind to be paid, furnished or made available to the player, or any person or entity controlled by or related to the player, by the Team or Team Affiliate either during the term of the Player Contract or thereafter; or 

(ii) concerning any future Renegotiation, Extension, or amendment of an existing Player Contract, or entry into a new Player Contract.

(b) In addition to the foregoing, it shall be a violation of this Section 2 for any Team (or Team Affiliate) or any player (or person or entity acting with authority or apparent authority on behalf of such player) to attempt to enter into or to intentionally solicit any agreement, promise, undertaking, representation, commitment, inducement, assurance of intent or understanding that would be prohibited by Section 2(a) above. 

(c) A violation of Section 2(a) may be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence, including, but not limited to, evidence that a Player Contract or any term or provision thereof cannot rationally be explained in the absence of conduct violative of Section 2(a). 

(d) In any proceeding brought before the System Arbitrator pursuant to this Section 2, no adverse inference shall be drawn against the party initiating such proceeding because that party, when it first suspected or believed that a violation of Section 2 may have occurred, deferred the initiation of such proceeding until it had further reason to believe that such a violation had occurred.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> fl_flash: Bingo. This is why I am absolutely sickened with the hatred towards Boozer when it was the Cavs that opened the can of worms to begin with.


I don't know who initiated what, and I don't particularly care. I think Boozer is a snake for going back on what must surely have been an understanding between him and the Cavs. I think the Cavs should be held accountable for even having these discussions prior to them legally having the ability to do so.

What I'm curious to see now is what, if anything, the league does about this. Does Stern step in and lay down the law ala the T-Wolves? Or does he turn a deaf ear because King James happens to play in Cleveland and the League needs LeBron to be a success because he's the next "saviour" of the league? As far as I can tell there was tampering and the league should take action - King James or no King James.

I think all the parties involved knew perfectly well what they were doing and the ramifications behind it. It's gotten magnified because of Boozer and his agents double-crossing of what must have been a verbal agreement. It's the date that agreement was struck that should be the key here.

At least this summers' been more interesting than past off-seasons!


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't know who initiated what, and I don't particularly care. I think Boozer is a snake for going back on what must surely have been an understanding between him and the Cavs. I think the Cavs should be held accountable for even having these discussions prior to them legally having the ability to do so.
> ...


But that begs the question... Carlos Boozer would have never been in this situation had the Cavs not tried to do this, thus, his reputation would never had been damaged.

It's all pretty shoddy, but the organization gets most of the blame in my book.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> But that begs the question... Carlos Boozer would have never been in this situation had the Cavs not tried to do this, thus, his reputation would never had been damaged.
> ...


I've come around Retro and I agree with you. But Boozer and his agent were stupid if they did not realize that this kind of a manouver would gain them more money but cost them a major, major PR hit.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> I've come around Retro and I agree with you. But Boozer and his agent were stupid if they did not realize that this kind of a manouver would gain them more money but cost them a major, major PR hit.


I don't think they expected the under the table "guarantee" to be made public either. So the Cavs shot themselves in the foot there, as did Boozer.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> What I'm curious to see now is what, if anything, the league does about this. Does Stern step in and lay down the law ala the T-Wolves? Or does he turn a deaf ear because King James happens to play in Cleveland and the League needs LeBron to be a success because he's the next "saviour" of the league?


Wasn't KG similarly regarded at the time of the Joe Smith incident?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> But that begs the question... Carlos Boozer would have never been in this situation had the Cavs not tried to do this, thus, his reputation would never had been damaged.
> ...


Are you serious? Okay. Come clean. What's your bias? Is it an anti-Cavs bias(understandable, I hated the Cavs until Kemp got traded there and they always had dumb jerseys)? Or is it an anti-Pax bias? Anti-Gund? Anti-Lebron?

Because I think it's crazy that you have somehow flipped it in your mind, that the Cavs organization is responsible for what appears is Boozer going back on his word, regardless of the legalities of said agreement. The Cavs did him a favor for next year as he wanted a longterm deal done this summer(actually last summer) and this is how he repaid them.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> Are you serious? Okay. Come clean. What's your bias? Is it an anti-Cavs bias(understandable, I hated the Cavs until Kemp got traded there and they always had dumb jerseys)? Or is it an anti-Pax bias? Anti-Gund? Anti-Lebron?
> ...


No bias at all. I don't like or dislike Boozer, Pelinka, the Cavs or furry little kittens. The only flipping going on here is your opinion on the matter, that much is clear. 

The fact of the matter here is the legalities of said agreement are the MAIN factor in the whole situation. 

1) The Cavs had up until midnight of June 30th, 2004 to decline Boozer's contract option, correct? 

Yes, and they declined.

2) If they declined the option, Boozer would become a free agent, correct?

Yes, and Boozer became a free agent July 1st, 2004.

3) The NBA has an imposed period that says teams cannot make ANY contact with a player regarding contracts from the end of their season until July 1st, correct?

Correct. This is where the Cavs/Boozer situation is a possible violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

4) Boozer had a press conference on July 1st saying that he "preferred" to stay in Cleveland, but that it would be "up to his agent and the Cavs organization," correct?

Yep, he sure did. He alluded that no oral agreement was in place like he was probably instructed to do if there was an oral agreement in place.

5) According to accounts, there was no oral or written agreement in place, correct?

Here is where you jump back and forth. First you said that Boozer had an oral agreement, then you said he didn't. Pick which one it is, because if he did have an oral agreement then they violated the CBA. If he didn't, then what in the hell is your bias here?

6) Would this whole mess even happened if they would have just picked up the option and then resigned him next season?

Nope.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> Are you serious? Okay. Come clean. What's your bias? Is it an anti-Cavs bias(understandable, I hated the Cavs until Kemp got traded there and they always had dumb jerseys)? Or is it an anti-Pax bias? Anti-Gund? Anti-Lebron?
> ...


Wow. I simply don't understand what you don't understand. If (IF) Cleveland made a deal with Boozer that circumvented the CBA, in that it was made prior to the date upon which agreements could be reached, then the organization is in the wrong. So is Boozer. The fact that Boozer went back on his word is an entirely different issue. The focus, from a CBA perspective, is on the deal upon which Boozer gave his word.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> No bias at all. I don't like or dislike Boozer, Pelinka, the Cavs or furry little kittens. The only flipping going on here is your opinion on the matter, that much is clear.
> ...


:yes:


----------



## Nevus (Jun 3, 2003)

At this point I can't claim to know what happened, but I doubt the Cavaliers are penalized if Boozer denies they ever had an agreement and doesn't do what he is alleged to have agreed to do.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Nevus</b>!
> At this point I can't claim to know what happened, but I doubt the Cavaliers are penalized if Boozer denies they ever had an agreement and doesn't do what he is alleged to have agreed to do.


They could still get in trouble if there is proof that there was a meeting before July 1 discussing these matters, which is against the CBA.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> They could still get in trouble if there is proof that there was a meeting before July 1 discussing these matters, which is against the CBA.


Mgmt is allowed to talk to their own players about the future in general terms.

This seems quite gray as opposed to black and white.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Mgmt is allowed to talk to their own players about the future in general terms.


Now if the only talk that went on between Boozer and the Cavs was vague mumbo-jumbo then someone remind me why it's so bad that he decided to leave Cleveland?


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Mgmt is allowed to talk to their own players about the future in general terms.
> ...


If this is true, then perhaps Cleveland will escape with no ADDITIONAL damage.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> 
> 
> Now if the only talk that went on between Boozer and the Cavs was vague mumbo-jumbo then someone remind me why it's so bad that he decided to leave Cleveland?


Because almost every claim and article says Boozer made an oral guarantee to resign with Cleveland, hence why I don't see much grey.

And if he didn't orally agree, I'd say several hundred posters need to write apologies for their holier then thou attitudes.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> Here is where you jump back and forth. First you said that Boozer had an oral agreement, then you said he didn't. Pick which one it is, because if he did have an oral agreement then they violated the CBA. If he didn't, then what in the hell is your bias here?


That's because there are two truths out there right now. From the Cavs prospective they had an agreement with Boozer. Otherwise, why on earth would they let Boozer out into free agency? That's completely counter-intuitive.

The other truth is that Carlos Boozer says not only was there no oral agreement, but his agent pulled out the collective bargaining agreement and pointed to that section of it in their discussions(of course then one would ask, why did that section come up in a meeting where supposedly there was no oral agreement?).

No matter which truth you subscribe to though, the fact still remains that Boozer's new fat paycheck upgrade from the minimum is entirely thanks to the Cavs. They clearly did him a huge favor, and he screwed them for it.

If my points seem in flux on this issue it's because new information is coming to light daily. I'm still trying to piece together what happened.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> Because almost every claim and article says Boozer made an oral guarantee to resign with Cleveland, hence why I don't see much grey.
> ...


If he did orally agree, then wouldn't you agree he's a lying scumbag?


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> If he did orally agree, then wouldn't you agree he's a lying scumbag?


That's the FREAKING POINT.

If he did agree, not only is Boozer a lying scumbag, but the Cleveland organization is too because they tried to handle business under the table, very shady.

Gund, Pelinka, Boozer and Paxson are all sneaky snakes (Mad TV)


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> That's the FREAKING POINT.
> ...


Geez. Sorry dude. Chill. It just seemed like you were only attacking Gund and Paxson. So I wasn't sure if you had any ire for Boozer as well.

I just wanted some freaking clarification.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Boozer, who two weeks ago said he wanted to stay in Cleveland, remained silent until Monday, when he defended Pelinka and blamed the Cavaliers.
> 
> "Rob Pelinka didn't do anything wrong, and I didn't do anything wrong," Boozer told the Plain Dealer newspaper. "He's taken a lot of heat for something he doesn't need to take heat for. This is the Cavs' mistake. The Cavs created this."


Link 

Other Fun Factoids about Pelinka (excerpts)



> Pelinka, a reserve who played on Michigan's "Fab Five" teams, became Bryant's primary representative more than two years ago and is now deep into a business he once described as "sleazy and slimy."
> 
> A former law student who graduated with honors and averaged 2.6 points in 119 career games for Michigan, Pelinka works for Los Angeles-based SFX Sports and includes Bryant, Clipper guard Corey Maggette and Toronto forward Morris Peterson among his clients.
> 
> ...


----------

