# OT: Gordon Gund's letter to Cavs fans regarding Boozer



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

http://www.nba.com/cavaliers/news/gund_boozer_040714.html


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Wow, wow, wow. That is some mass produced mudslinging. I've never seen a letter go on behalf of an organization with so much negativity pointed at an individual. It seems awfully unprofessional even if all of it is ture.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

It seems to me that his letter and the actions he says he and paxson engaged in clearly break the rules of the NBA and suggest an agreement was made. If so the cav's are in deep and the NBA should do to them the same thing that was done to Mini.

david


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

I don't hate Boozer at all. I trust this letter more than Boozer.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

This is the Grant-Reinsdorf debacle of the Internet age.


----------



## LuCane (Dec 9, 2002)

Damn. Like DMD mentioned, even if everything in there is true, common sense says to "take the higher road."

You do something like this, and not only are you exhibiting a bunch of flaws within your own reasoning, as the Cavs organization has, but you are stooping to the level of whom you accuse.

Smooth work.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

This team better be careful or james may be leaving after his 5th year. Losing Boozer was one of the stupidest things i have ever seen and to blame it on Boozer is a joke. Paxson is the worst GM in the game and the only thing he has ever done is luck into the first pick to draft James. This team was heading into the playoffs next year and now it looks like a couple of more years in the lotto.

david


----------



## LIBlue (Aug 17, 2002)

*This is a tough situation*

I think Gordon Gund came out swinging primarily to support Jim Paxson, who has been brutalized in the press for his stupidity.

Plus, maybe the time has come for the gloves to come off. Boozer did not take the high road, and this has been debated in the press. Maybe if athletes would actually faces repercussions from there actions, they might behave differently. But hey, integrity and dignity are not worth $28MM.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

The Cavs could sign a Corie Blount tomorrow and he would give them enough to offset the loss of Boozer. Given that they will added Jackson and Pavlovic already. And they get Mcinnis for a full season, as well as a 2nd year Lebron James.

They would have been better with Boozer, but they'll still improve upon last years team, even without Boozer. At the very least their interior defense will pick up.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

See the funny thing is when the story first broke everybody was like good job Jim Paxson because Boozer had agreed to a deal and they wanted to pay him more to be there because he had been doing such a superb job, and then Boozer STABBED THEM IN THE BACK and signed with Utah cause they offered him more money. Boozer is the one at fault here, not Paxson for trying to be fair to Boozer.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> The Cavs could sign a Corie Blount tomorrow and he would give them enough to offset the loss of Boozer. Given that they will added Jackson and Pavlovic already. And they get Mcinnis for a full season, as well as a 2nd year Lebron James.
> 
> They would have been better with Boozer, but they'll still improve upon last years team, even without Boozer. At the very least their interior defense will pick up.


They need to make more of a splash to make up for Boozer. They need to make a play - the full MLE for Swift, and hope to god West doesn't match.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

Funniest. Letter. Evar!


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>T.Shock</b>!
> See the funny thing is when the story first broke everybody was like good job Jim Paxson because Boozer had agreed to a deal and they wanted to pay him more to be there because he had been doing such a superb job, and then Boozer STABBED THEM IN THE BACK and signed with Utah cause they offered him more money. Boozer is the one at fault here, not Paxson for trying to be fair to Boozer.


LMAO! Whatever, man.

This should be a prime less to those trying to work around the CBA. Don't do it.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

It seems like hes dancing around saying that he and Boozer made a verbal agreement with the whole "respect" and "understanding" thing. 

Theyre basically saying "we didnt pick up the option on his contract because we had an _understanding_ that he would re-sign"...to me thats a verbal agreement and is illegal before July 1st. 

So now their numerous attempts to assassinate Boozers character for breaking this "understanding" only makes them look foolish IMO.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

It's called CYA. Gund repeatedly refers to <i>negotiating as soon as legally possible</i>. I'll be surprised if the NBA is able to prove that the Cavs broke any rules and therefore punish them.


----------



## pavlo11 (Jul 8, 2003)

> I told him that as we could not have an agreement at that time given the NBA's Collective Bargaining Agreement, we would have to trust one another’s intentions. I said I define trust as his intention to stay in Cleveland and enter into a long term contract with us as soon as possible under the league rules. In that meeting, we were clear with him that he could make more money in the open market a year from now than we could pay him by redoing his contract this year. I told him he needed to understand that and we did not want him to later think we had taken advantage of him. Jim told him, “There are at least seven teams that have cap space right now who will want to pay you more than we can now. We don’t want to lose you. Why would we not pick up the option?” Carlos said “Because we'd like long term security and we want to stay in Cleveland.” Carlos went on to say that he was happy to be a Cavalier and never indicated any concern with his role on the team or his relationship with Coach Silas.


What the hell is this? He says "we could not have an agreement at that time given the NBA's Collective Bargaining Agreement" then he defines his idea of trust as them having an agreement.

IMO this is not as bad as Joe Smith and the Twolves (nothing written) but Gund just admitted to breaking the CBA by discussing it at all before 7/1. 

Stern should suspend Paxon for a year or at least fine Gund


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Boozer's wife has brain cancer. At this moment, money is the most important!!!


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ballscientist</b>!
> Boozer's wife has brain cancer. At this moment, money is the most important!!!


Link? :|


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

After reading this again I realize this letter is real slick. Not only does it seemingly absolve Paxson of whatever he might have done, Gund appeals to all Cavs fans and makes it clear that Boozer is the one that lacked scruples. Not to mention that it covers his *** with his countless references to negotiating as soon as legally possible. Excellent PR job IMO.


----------



## FanOfAll8472 (Jun 28, 2003)

I don't believe this article. He tries to make it sound like Boozer backstabbed them but also that they never had a verbal agreement prior to July 1st. :uhoh:


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> This should be a prime less to those trying to work around the CBA. Don't do it.


And there ought to be repercussions for players and agents working around the CBA as well.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

If this is illegal, why did Gund just put it in print?

Of course, Gund has to explain himself to the fans.

I believe this account 100% as compared to Boozer's account.

Boozer is a lying piece of dog do-do. But he is rich.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

I'm cutting and pasting the relavent clauses of the CBA (that were originally posted in one of the other Boozer threads by Dan Rosenbaum):

- - - - -

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.

- - - - -

Three things now seem clear in this situation:

1. Carlos Boozer is a slimebag.

2. Gordon Gund and the Cavs broke the rules of the CBA and should be punished by the league.

3. The fact that so many here realize #2, and the fact that Gund (and presumably his legal advisors) don't, makes me very glad none of them have anything to do with the Bulls organization.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

*And then there's Boozer's version of the high road*



> 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."


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> 3. The fact that so many here realize #2, and the fact that Gund (and presumably his legal advisors) don't, makes me very glad none of them have anything to do with the Bulls organization.


Don't you think that Gund and his advisors would have talked to the NBA about what's legal and what's not?

Maybe you are right, but if so, this is riduculous. If you are right, he just admitted to an offense that could get him kicked out of the game.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I'm absolutely stunned the Cavs would publish this. I think Boozer's a slimebag, yeah, but it's pretty much prima facie evidence of a CBA violation, as Dan and Kneepad pointed out.

Don't they have a lawyer (or at least someone familiar with the CBA) to vet this kind of stuff before they put it out there? Jeez.

Maybe they do, and maybe we just don't know how to read this, but damn...


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> I'm cutting and pasting the relavent clauses of the CBA (that were originally posted in one of the other Boozer threads by Dan Rosenbaum):
> 
> - - - - -
> ...


Seems pretty clear the Cavs are in violation. But, it doesn't change my opinion one iota. There need to be repercussions for the players and agents as well.

I don't care if it "rewarded" the Cavs to put Boozer back into his contract for the coming year. The penalties the Cavs would incur for doing this (like Minny) would more than offset that. However, everybody here knows that the NBAPA would be taking it to court or wherever was necessary to get Boozer his 68M. I'm totally against ANY punishment if it only penalizes the team. I believe fully that this offer was brought to the Cavs. If the team should have known better, so too should the player and agent.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>sp00k</b>!
> After reading this again I realize this letter is real slick. Not only does it seemingly absolve Paxson of whatever he might have done, Gund appeals to all Cavs fans and makes it clear that Boozer is the one that lacked scruples. Not to mention that it covers his *** with his countless references to negotiating as soon as legally possible. Excellent PR job IMO.


See, when I read the letter I thought the exact opposite. I'm thinking does Gordon Gund have any attornies or was this letter reviewed for content prior to publishing it on the web? He's as much as stating that he and Boozer came to an understanding on June 30 about a contract. That contract was going to be for the maximum amount the Cavs could offer and for the maximum length. It's irrelavent that dollars were not discussed. A future contract was discussed prior to July 1. Add to that both parties came to an "understanding" (isn't that what a contract is? - an understanding between parties?) and this sure reeks of tampering.

If the league is looking for something in writing, they just got it.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Don't you think that Gund and his advisors would have talked to the NBA about what's legal and what's not?
> ...


you'd think. and you'd think he would have had this letter vetted by _someone in legal at the nba_ not just the cavaliers lawyers. 

my take on it is he's admitted there was an "understanding". i can't believe he would do that knowing the ramifications.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> Don't you think that Gund and his advisors would have talked to the NBA about what's legal and what's not?


My opinion is this kind of thing goes on all the time. For the most part, it's unenforcable. You don't think Shaq has a verbal "understanding" for a contract extension with the Heat?

The Cavs, like the T'Wolves before them, just got exposed. The fact that Gund and the Cavs organization are babbling about it-- and now, incredibly, writing about it-- is just digging their grave deeper (as you pointed out).


----------



## daytripper (Feb 22, 2004)

Jim Paxson's wife is the one with brain cancer.

I believe Gund is just trying to deflect the criticism away from his GM.

Boozer is a lyin' slimeball.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> 
> you'd think. and you'd think he would have had this letter vetted by _someone in legal at the nba_ not just the cavaliers lawyers.


Agreed.

In fact, if they were smart, the team would have needed to talk to the NBA about what was legal to discuss and how far you could go prior to the conversation, not the letter explaining the conversation.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> I'm absolutely stunned the Cavs would publish this. I think Boozer's a slimebag, yeah, but it's pretty much prima facie evidence of a CBA violation, as Dan and Kneepad pointed out.
> 
> Don't they have a lawyer (or at least someone familiar with the CBA) to vet this kind of stuff before they put it out there? Jeez.
> ...


Gund's old school. He's saying the buck stops here. He says he made the decision on Boozer and he's probably making the decision on this letter despite his own counsel. I'm sure he probably feels very strongly that he did nothing wrong and feels he's doing what he has to do. 

He may not have made a tragic error by falsely trusting Boozer, but if he's blowing by all the stop signs with this open letter and further damages his team by providing evidence of a CBA violation - he has now.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> The Cavs, like the T'Wolves before them, just got exposed. The fact that Gund and the Cavs organization are babbling about it-- and now, incredibly, writing about it-- is just digging their grave deeper (as you pointed out).


The Wolves got cut b/c they put it into writing and Smith's agent had it and Smith canned his agent prior to executing the illegal deal.

If Gund hadn't posted that letter, the NBA would have had no recourse, no proof.

Boozer had already denied that there was any promise.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> See, when I read the letter I thought the exact opposite. I'm thinking does Gordon Gund have any attornies or was this letter reviewed for content prior to publishing it on the web? He's as much as stating that he and Boozer came to an understanding on June 30 about a contract. That contract was going to be for the maximum amount the Cavs could offer and for the maximum length. It's irrelavent that dollars were not discussed. A future contract was discussed prior to July 1. Add to that both parties came to an "understanding" (isn't that what a contract is? - an understanding between parties?) and this sure reeks of tampering.
> ...


I suppose it can go either way. I just refuse to believe that Gund, the owner of a million dollar franchise, does not have a slew of attorneys to advise him in this matter and he shot himself in the foot. No figures were ever mentioned or length of contracts. The only agreement was that Boozer could be trusted *wink wink* and he would take care of the Cavs. How is this much different than Shaq re-upping or TMac promising not to bolt Houston? 

The T-Wolves had a paper trail and Howard and Miami was about directly circumventing the cap to unfairly add a star. Sounds to me like the Cavs were walking a fine line but remained on the legal side.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

I just re-read both the CBA text (thanks Kneepad) and Gund's Letter.

CBA says: No understandings allowed.

Gund says: "Over the course of several months, we had multiple meetings that involved Carlos, his wife and his agent. In our most recent meeting on June 30, Jim Paxson and I told Carlos we had two options. He could play this year on his existing contract and test the market for free agency next year, *or we could elect not to exercise the option if we had the understanding* with him that as soon as legally possible he would negotiate a contract with us for the maximum we could pay him under league rules."

I am no lawyer. But that's illegal.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> If Gund hadn't posted that letter, the NBA would have had no recourse, no proof.


That's why I said the rule is, for the most part, unenforceable.

Seems to me, the only way such a violation can be proved is if there's something in writing, or if the guilty party incriminates themselves.

Seems now the league has both.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

LMAO!

I'm still laughing.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>sp00k</b>!
> It's called CYA. Gund repeatedly refers to <i>negotiating as soon as legally possible</i>. I'll be surprised if the NBA is able to prove that the Cavs broke any rules and therefore punish them.


You don't have a face-to-face meeting to tell someone you'll negotiate as soon as legally possible, especially one that involves your agent, your wife and the team owner.

They discussed numbers. It'll all come out eventually.

[Clinton] I did not have sexual relations with Miss Lewinski [/Clinton]

LMAO!


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

*Re: This is a tough situation*



> Originally posted by <b>LIBlue</b>!
> I think Gordon Gund came out swinging primarily to support Jim Paxson, who has been brutalized in the press for his stupidity.


Probably, and I don't believe him for one second.

Gordon Gund is just a bumbling old man who happens to be very rich. He doesn't know much about basketball, and it's not his job to know about basketball. That's Jim Paxson's job. I don't care if letting Boozer become a free agent was Gund's decision. If Paxson knew what he was doing, he would have gone to Gund and told him "This is the worst thing you can do. Don't do it, or else I'll resign." And Gund, recognizing that Paxson knows more about how to run a team than he does, would have listened to Paxson.

The fact that this didn't happen, says to me that Paxson made no effort to convince Gund to pick up Boozer's option. And to me, that means Paxson should be fired, regardless of which guy technically made the final decision.

Gund might think he's being a good guy and a loyal guy by sticking up for Paxson, but the guy is quite clearly an incompetent GM, and the best move for the franchise would be to can his ***. Gund is putting loyalty ahead of business which is the same stupid move that got him into trouble with Boozer in the first place.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> 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):


Well, it appears to me that Gund admits to having an "understanding."



> (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.


And this "understanding" had to do with 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).


And it appears they don't need any direct proof. In other words, it appears that Gund's letter actually is more "proof" than they need. Remember this is not a legal matter; this is an NBA legal matter; the standard of "proof" is whatever the CBA says or perhaps more precisely whatever the League Office thinks the CBA says (with some input by the NBPA).

But this is why Gund and Paxson probably will get off with at most a token punishment. Gund is a long-time owner and is well-liked in NBA circles. If one of the new owners had done something like this, I am sure there would be severe repurcussions, but with Gund, I suspect there won't be.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

The fairly stunning thing is that a bunch of internet message board and basketball junkies find the legal minutiae so interesting.

Boozer has been painted into a corner by all of this: The owner, with the NBA's apparent approval, has published a fairly scathing letter, and his agent and his agents firm have dumped him.

But he has 68 million to comfort him. I suspect he'll get over "the painting". 

Latrell Sprewells rep seems to recovered from his bad conduct.


----------



## PatBateman (May 26, 2003)

The people who criticize Gund for this letter have absolutely no handle on the situation and pretty much are <strike>clueless. And dumb.</strike>( No reference to the intelligence of other poster, please.):nonono:


Gordon Gund is an old-school, class act. Carlos Boozer is scum, a lying, greedy, listen-to-your-wife pulling the strings loser.

Take the high road?!?!? Why? He's just explaining exactly what happenned, exactly what a piece of <strike>shhit </strike>(do not mask vulgar terms) Boozer is, and what prety much about 90%+ reports have said so far.


The people still defending Boozer are really grasping at straws and look pathetic. 

Just answer me one question: why did Pelinka drop Boozer?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PatBateman</b>!
> The people who criticize Gund for this letter have absolutely no handle on the situation and pretty much are clueless. And dumb.
> 
> 
> ...


Can someone explain to this guy that people are entitled to their opinion without being subjected to being called "pathetic", "clueless" or "dumb". Can someone edit this. Lets remember, this is the same guy who actually wished a player would have "his legs broken", yet people who want to debate this are "dumb"


----------



## PatBateman (May 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Can someone explain to this guy that people are entitled to their opinion without being subjected to being called "pathetic", "clueless" or "dumb". Can someone edit this. Lets remember, this is the same guy who actually wished a player would have "his legs broken", yet people who want to debate this are "dumb"


It was just one leg Rlucas.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PatBateman</b>!
> The people who criticize Gund for this letter have absolutely no handle on the situation and pretty much are clueless. And dumb.
> 
> 
> ...


You're calling me clueless and dumb?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> You're calling me clueless and dumb?


Retro you obviously havent heard, your not allowed to debate a subject on this board anymore if it doesnt conform to what Pat"bait"man thinks is correct


----------



## PatBateman (May 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> You're calling me clueless and dumb?


poor choice of words on my part. I got caught up in the heat of the post.

Essentially I meant to say/label that the people still defending this lowlife scum are basically in total denial about how underhanded, backstabbing, and money-grubbing the Bamboozler is. Not dumb or clueless for their opinion, just in total denial about what a dirtbag this guy is.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

This is an interesting thread. Looking at it from the other way. Also, interesting that the some of the smartest people here agree that the Cavs were guilty of circumvention. I guess there is always 2 sides to every story. Wouldnt it be funny if the Cavs got disciplined to the league AND lose Boozer cause of this? Well, not funny per se, but highly ironic.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>PatBateman</b>!
> The people who criticize Gund for this letter have absolutely no handle on the situation and pretty much are clueless. And dumb.
> 
> 
> ...


Bateman your contentions are ridiculous. I show you this:

"Over the course of several months, we had multiple meetings that involved Carlos, his wife and his agent. In our most recent meeting on June 30, Jim Paxson and I told Carlos we had two options. He could play this year on his existing contract and test the market for free agency next year, or we could elect not to exercise the option if we had the *understanding* with him that as soon as legally possible he would negotiate a contract with us for the maximum we could pay him under league rules."

This understanding isn't allowed. You can have NO UNDISCLOSED UNDERSTANDING OF ANY KIND BEFORE JULY 1. Even if it is disclosed it isn't valid period. If Gund doesn't know this I'll kiss your @ss. He was trying to keep Carlos from going elsewhere by letting him become a free agent, and then locking him up immediately at a bargain rate before anyone knew he was a free agent. He made an agreement that is illegal. You can't hold up an illegal agreement and say "look how I was wronged".....It's like me "supposedly" contracting to give you my neighbor's house. I don't own my neighbor's house. So when you go around saying "I got his word".....What? You got his word that you aren't allowed to get?


----------



## PatBateman (May 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Retro you obviously havent heard, your not allowed to debate a subject on this board anymore if it doesnt conform to what Pat"bait"man thinks is correct


Oh my, Rlucas, you are so witty and masterful with your play on words with my screen name. Did you come up with that all on your own? 



Face it, you're going to defend this lowlife till you're blue in the face, and I'm never going to budge on thinking he's a back-stabbing jerk. Think we'll ever get somewhere with that? :laugh:


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> You're calling me clueless and dumb?


No Retro, I reserve the honor of being called "clueless and dumb" by Pat Bateman all for myself. Nobody else gets to share.

Seriously, when good people do something a bit shady, it isn't too surprising when they all come out looking like stupid slime bags.


----------



## PatBateman (May 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> Bateman your contentions are ridiculous. I show you this:
> ...


nothing more than an agreement to negotiate in good faith at a later period in time. Not barred by the CBA. Why do you have to start off your post so argumentatively though? Kind of rude imho.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>PatBateman</b>!
> 
> 
> nothing more than an agreement to negotiate in good faith at a later period in time. Not barred by the CBA. Why do you have to start off your post so argumentatively though? Kind of rude imho.


Sorry....I write in a sharper tone than what the words would sound like coming out of my mouth. I'm just very formal and I tend to use words that accentuate my point. 

Yes.....ANY agreement is barred. You not only can't agree. You can't agree to agree. For one....if you do so undisclosed you run into Joe Smith territory. If it is disclosed it isn't binding before July 1st.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PatBateman</b>!
> 
> 
> Oh my, Rlucas, you are so witty and masterful with your play on words with my screen name. Did you come up with that all on your own?
> ...


And I have no problem with your opinion in the least bit. What I, and apparently others, have a problem with is your tone, your baiting and the fact that you use words like "dumb", "denial", "pathetic" and "clueless" to describle posters that dont agree with you. And then you wish someone to have his leg broken? Now, you can parade around and say things like I am smart, i have a 3.71 in lawschool, but no one is going to give a damn if you act like such a pompous ***. So tone it down


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PatBateman</b>!
> 
> 
> nothing more than an agreement to negotiate in good faith at a later period in time. Not barred by the CBA. Why do you have to start off your post so argumentatively though? Kind of rude imho.


oh my this is hilarious :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: . 

You accusing someone of being rude? 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## PatBateman (May 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> And I have no problem with your opinion in the least bit. What I, and apparently others, have a problem with is your tone, your baiting and the fact that you use words like "dumb", "denial", "pathetic" and "clueless" to describle posters that dont agree with you. And then you wish someone to have his leg broken? Now, you can parade around and say things like I am smart, i have a 3.71 in lawschool, but no one is going to give a damn if you act like such a pompous ***. So tone it down


I'll tone it down. But this situation makes me personally angry. It reflects all that is wrong with professional sports these days. And I'm not just talking about Basketball. It's just a shame that we've placed such an emphasis on making our athletes out to be heros that things like honor and your word don't mean anything within their confines.

It's just a little surprising just how much athletes have become the apple of our eyes. Hell, I mean people look up to Shaq and use him as a role model and the man can't even speak proper English. 

The problem is the owner's have totally lost control in Basketball and any power they ever really held. The tail is totally wagging the dog now.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PatBateman</b>!
> 
> 
> I'll tone it down. But this situation makes me personally angry. It reflects all that is wrong with professional sports these days. And I'm not just talking about Basketball. It's just a shame that we've placed such an emphasis on making our athletes out to be heros that things like honor and your word don't mean anything within their confines.
> ...


Now Pat, while I dont agree with you, this is a quality post.


----------



## PatBateman (May 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> oh my this is hilarious :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: .
> ...


It's called being tongue in cheek. I thought you'd appreciate it.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PatBateman</b>!
> 
> 
> I'll tone it down. But this situation makes me personally angry. It reflects all that is wrong with professional sports these days. And I'm not just talking about Basketball. It's just a shame that we've placed such an emphasis on making our athletes out to be heros that things like honor and your word don't mean anything within their confines.
> ...


It goes both ways, Pat.

If you cannot see that the Cavs were hoping to capitalize on Boozer's desire for long term security here, then I don't know what else to say. In the process, the owner personally violated the legal document that the NBA abides by.

It works both ways.


----------



## KokoTheMonkey (Aug 4, 2003)

This letter is still BS to me. 



Gordon Gund essentially knew that signing Boozer this year would save him tons of money as opposed to signing him next year. With that said, why would Boozer elect to make more money this upcoming season, only to end up not making as much money over the course of the season. If they wanted to take care of Boozer, they would have held onto his contract for this year, then sign him to a loaded contract for next year. Instead, Gund wanted to get Boozer signed for long term with a huge bargain deal, instead of giving the man what he deserves next year. 



Boozer has some wrong doing in this too, but Gund was the one who was in charge of declining the contract option, as he mentioned, and he is the one who dropped the ball on the incident. If feeling that way makes me stupid, clueless, dumb, idiotic, whatever, then insult away, because we are all entitled to an opinion. Boozer is not completely innocent on the situation, I guess, but Gund was the only one who could have declined that option. "Oh, but Boozer requested that he didn't want his option picked up"......So what? What if Gund picked up his option? Is Boozer going to pull a Duce Staley and hold out? I really doubt it. Either way, Gund might have some good intentions on declining his option, but he also knew that if Boozer accepted their offer this year, they were going to have him way way way below the market value.


----------



## PatBateman (May 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Now Pat, while I dont agree with you, this is a quality post.


thanks. Let's just bury the hatchet.


----------



## PatBateman (May 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>KokoTheMonkey</b>!
> Gund might have some good intentions on declining his option, but he also knew that if Boozer accepted their offer this year, they were going to have him way way way below the market value.


A lot of what I would say to your post is that hindsight is always 20/20. But are we certain they knew what his market value was at the time? It just seems to me like if Boozer had taken the 5million from the Cavs this year that they would have taken care of him big time. It's just my feeling, I don't have any evidence to back it up, but I just believe it.

One thing is for sure. Jim Paxson did not do this alone in the least.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PatBateman</b>!
> 
> One thing is for sure. Jim Paxson did not do this alone in the least.


Nope, he didn't.

But what I think is telling is HE is the GM and knows basketball. He could have stopped the madness before it even started.


----------



## PatBateman (May 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> Nope, he didn't.
> ...


Oh he deserves some of the blame for sure, just not all. As I said hindsight is 20/20. They should have just kept Boozer on the cheap and not taken a chance. C'est la vie.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PatBateman</b>!
> 
> 
> Oh he deserves some of the blame for sure, just not all. As I said hindsight is 20/20. They should have just kept Boozer on the cheap and not taken a chance. C'est la vie.


Yep.

And I don't think people know just how much this is going to set back the Cavs. That great improvement wasn't solely LeBron. Carlos was a legit #2 option and a big banger... something they don't have anymore.

That's too big of a risk to take IMO.


----------



## bullsville.com (Jul 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> Sorry....I write in a sharper tone than what the words would sound like coming out of my mouth. I'm just very formal and I tend to use words that accentuate my point.
> ...


Actually, nothing can be binding on July 1st, no deals are allowed to be done between July 1st and July 14th.

Boozer was still under contract until July 1st, so the Cavs could talk to him about not picking up his option. They could have said "hey, we'll call at Midnight on July 1st to start discussing a new deal".

The problem I have is that Gund admits that he expected Boozer to look nowhere else once the Cavs didn't pick up his option. He's basically admitted that they had a wink-wink deal in place, which is the only CBA rule they violated.


----------



## realbullsfaninLA (Jan 8, 2003)

I hate to beat a dead horse,but the Cavs were in a catch 22 either way you look at it.Boozer went to ownership and asked to be let out now so that he could get a raise NOW.He said if you take care of me,I'll be loyal to you.If Gund says no,then you have a disgruntled player on your hands.He most certainly wouldn't re-sign once his contract ended.

If he says yes,he risks losing Boozer.But you don't expect Boozer to flat out lie,ESPECIALLY if he contacted the team initially.

I blame it on Boozer personally.


----------



## PatBateman (May 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> Sorry....I write in a sharper tone than what the words would sound like coming out of my mouth. I'm just very formal and I tend to use words that accentuate my point.
> ...


See, I see it more from a legal standpoint as just a common understanding, not an "agreement" that the parties will act like old friends and be civil to each other. It's an agreement not on something in the future, but a mutual acknowledgement that at the time they were one big happy family and it was their hope, not their intention or plan, that that would continue many years into the future. The spin works both ways, it just depends on how D. Stern is feeling the day the gavel comes down.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

From a legal standpoint that has no enforceability whatsoever. No agreement of any kind is allowed if it isn't disclosed. Not an agreement to agree. Not even an agreement that if you go in the bathroom you MIGHT see a piece of paper that SOME PEOPLE would call a contract and should you happen to sign that and hide it in a ceiling panel it might come down in 3 weeks and become your contract.


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

First of all, I can't believe Boozer actually said the Cavs were trying to make it look like he "bamboozled" them. Why would he EVER use that particular word? Could he have suggested the signs people are going to have any more clearly? "BAMBOOZERED" with dollar signs, that's all you need. Bamboozled. What was he thinking?

Anyway, I guess I am one of those weird people interested in discussing the details of this thing that were mentioned before. I think this letter has the fingerprints of lawyers and PR people all over it. I've been waiting to see how the Cavs would finesse the public relations end of this mess, because they have to publicly take two opposite positions. They have to make it extremely clear that they had an absolute agreement with Boozer they believed in, or else they look like incompetent clowns for declining the option year. But at the same time, they somehow have to make it extremely clear that they DIDN'T have any agreement with Boozer, so that they don't get Joe Smith'd by the league. The lawyers didn't want JimPax or Gund to say the wrong word that might come up to bite them later in league punishment proceedings, so rather than going on ESPN (unless I missed it) they issued this carefully worded written statement to make their case, preventing the verbal missteps and hard questions that would come by taking their case verbally to the court of public opinion. They deal with the crucial "Did we have an agreement or not?" issue with the ideas of "understanding" and "trust", carefully avoiding anything approaching the word agreement, and avoiding having to explain the difference, which is rhetoric I'd expect from a politician. They insist there was no agreement, yet every insinuation and implication is that they "agreed" - you just can't pin it on them. Their invention of a third category of behavior (the "understanding") that the rules (hopefully) don't apply to reminds me not only of Clinton in Monicagate (again) but also of Bush and the POWs (and basically every other politician in a controversy). Bush didn't want the POWs to be POWs, but he also didn't want them to be NOT POWs where criminal laws might apply. So, he invented a creation the world had never seen before, the "enemy combatant," basically claimed Gitmo was neither "in America" nor "outside America," and generally claimed there was no rule anywhere that applied to these people. So (until the recent Supreme Court ruling), he basically made them jurisdictionless gypsies he found under a fig leaf, without any rights whatsoever, which was a neat maneuver. (Sort of. I'm trying to make a point about the rhetorical strategy, not the situation or the politics.) 

I guess it depends not on what the definition of "is" is, as Clinton said, but what the definition of "agreement" is. I doubt it matters. I say the Cavs get away with it for the same reason the obvious and public injury list shenanigans are never prosecuted - everybody does it, everybody needs it, and nobody involved has an interest in prosecuting it or wants it to change. Same with the "understandings" - what team would encourage Stern to end them? They grease the skids that make free agency work. Well, the Clippers might want them ended, maybe, because they always lose free agents and never get any, so the "understandings" never benefit them. But other than that...


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Philo, since I think you missed it the first time, here is a repost. The CBA specifically forbids "understandings" and they really don't need any direct proof, just circumstancial evidence. The Gund letter is way more evidence than they really need. I would have suggested a very different set of words if I was vetting this letter.

Here is the repost.



> 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):


Well, it appears to me that Gund admits to having an "understanding."



> (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.


And this "understanding" had to do with 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).


And it appears they don't need any direct proof. In other words, it appears that Gund's letter actually is more "proof" than they need. Remember this is not a legal matter; this is an NBA legal matter; the standard of "proof" is whatever the CBA says or perhaps more precisely whatever the League Office thinks the CBA says (with some input by the NBPA).

But this is why Gund and Paxson probably will get off with at most a token punishment. Gund is a long-time owner and is well-liked in NBA circles. If one of the new owners had done something like this, I am sure there would be severe repurcussions, but with Gund, I suspect there won't be.


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

I sure did miss that part about the understandings, and that just refutes the entire novel I just published, sorry for wasting everyone's time. Token punishment seems right, but the understandings will go on I think.


----------



## thunderspirit (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> But this is why Gund and Paxson probably will get off with at most a token punishment. Gund is a long-time owner and is well-liked in NBA circles. If one of the new owners had done something like this, I am sure there would be severe repurcussions, but with Gund, I suspect there won't be.


plus, like an NCAA program caught with their hand in the proverbial cookie jar, full disclosure -- or the illusion of such, if you're as cynical as i am -- often lessens the blow.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>thunderspirit</b>!
> plus, like an NCAA program caught with their hand in the proverbial cookie jar, full disclosure -- or the illusion of such, if you're as cynical as i am -- often lessens the blow.


Interesting perspective, but I could not find anywhere in the letter where Gund admitted that he had attempted to violate the CBA, so I am not sure he has come clean . . . yet.


----------



## bullsville.com (Jul 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> Interesting perspective, but I could not find anywhere in the letter where Gund admitted that he had attempted to violate the CBA, so I am not sure he has come clean . . . yet.


That letter was the closest thing to an admission we are going to see- and like you said, there was no admission.

But why should Gund come clean? He's already tarnished Boozer's name (with some help from Carlos) and he's going to lose him to Utah no matter what, why should he risk *any* league punishment for tampering?

His story will probably state how he didn't want a disgruntled Boozer all year and that he was afraid Boozer wouldn't re-sign next summer unless he paid him now and how they miscalculated Boozer's feelings about staying (since there was no agreement).

My guess is that since the move backfired in his face, Stern will just let this one slide, figuring the public humiliation and loss of a very good young player is punishment enough. Maybe a small fine, nothing more.


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

No, there's no "coming clean" here. Gund is clearly claiming he hasn't broken any rules, as evidenced by the "until legally permissible" type of language that was all over the place. 

Their theory seems to be: "We told them our approximate cap position, and told him his contract options. He told us he liked Cleveland and want to stay given those options and that cap position, and wanted security now rather than in a year. (Fair to say there's no CBA violation yet, as both sides were just expressing desires and priorities.) Then, in several other meetings, Boozer expressed a desire to negotiate and attempt to arrive at an agreement when it was legal, since he liked Cleveland and knew our monetary limits. We never negotiated, only talked about whether and in what framework we would negotiate. And he indicated that he would be happy to negotiate an extention subject to those limits as soon as legally possible."

I think the most critical portion is this: "Jim told him, 'There are at least seven teams that have cap space right now who will want to pay you more than we can now. We don’t want to lose you. Why would we not pick up the option?' Carlos said 'Because we'd like long term security and we want to stay in Cleveland.' Carlos went on to say that he was happy to be a Cavalier and never indicated any concern with his role on the team or his relationship with Coach Silas."

Gund is trying to indicate that Boozer knew their salary limitations, and still had a desire to stay. The implication of "Why would we not pick up the option?" is that you could insert "when we do not and cannot have a real agreement with you?" To which they allege Boozer's reply in effect was "Because you now know what's important to me and the criteria I will use when in the future we negotiate, and even though we do not and cannot have an agreement, you know that I am still happy with this team as my environment going forward, even though I know your money limitations and that others will no doubt be able to offer more money." I think a skillful lawyer would be able to argue successfully before a judge that there was no agreement, only an exchange of states of mind that would dictate future negotiations. And, I'm sure that's what they will tell Stern. However, as you point out, Stern can do what Stern likes and isn't a judge.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

Philo... good post.

My only question is why you would have a meeting with a GM, owner, agent, player and his wife if it was only to discuss not picking up the option?

Loose lips sinks ships. I think we'll see more come out in the next week or so.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> Philo... good post.
> 
> My only question is why you would have a meeting with a GM, owner, agent, player and his wife if it was only to discuss not picking up the option?
> ...


What more can come out? Combine every report but Boozer's and they are all consistant and have a ton of detail.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> What more can come out? Combine every report but Boozer's and they are all consistant and have a ton of detail.


Do you think the League office is just going to read newspaper reports and make a decision off of that? Do you think Boozer or the Cavs organization is going to tell anyone or let anything be published that documented what really went on? 

Don't think so. They NBA will investigate this and if they hand out punishment, they'll tell what really happened.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> You're calling me clueless and dumb?


Not in any venue where it can be heard.  

Nah...not you Retro. Not you. Never, ever.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KokoTheMonkey</b>!
> Gordon Gund essentially knew that signing Boozer this year would save him tons of money as opposed to signing him next year.


Yep.

Instead, he and the agent have colluded to paint Boozer as the bad guy in all of this. Thats the troubling part...


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> Do you think the League office is just going to read newspaper reports and make a decision off of that? Do you think Boozer or the Cavs organization is going to tell anyone or let anything be published that documented what really went on?
> ...


Both parties especially Gund have made fairly complete statements. 

You early referenced Clinton's lying. I don't see the parallel at all b/c Gund laid it all table prior to being hauled into a court of law. Looks like the truth to me. Unlike Clinton who lied and was evasive. 

Now maybe Gund's story proves that the Cavs crossed the line.

I'll wait for Stern's office to confirm.


----------



## oblivion (Aug 6, 2003)

From the letter, it appears that Gund admits they had an understanding. If this is true the Cavs should be punished (maybe not as bad as the wolves were).
But what punishment is delivered to the player who also broke the rule?

Also, If Gund says they had understanding, and boozer says they did not. Just because Gund put it in this letter, it still doesn't prove which side is telling the truth as to whether they actually had an illegal understanding or not.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>oblivion</b>!
> From the letter, it appears that Gund admits they had an understanding. If this is true the Cavs should be punished (maybe not as bad as the wolves were).
> But what punishment is delivered to the player who also broke the rule?
> 
> Also, If Gund says they had understanding, and boozer says they did not. Just because Gund put it in this letter, it still doesn't prove which side is telling the truth as to whether they actually had an illegal understanding or not.


If the NBA was going to find against the Cavs it would be because of intent. If from Gund's letter the NBA concluded the Cavs believed they had an agreement it wouldn't matter what Boozer did or didn't believe. It's enough to hand down the penalties from that alone.


----------



## LuCane (Dec 9, 2002)

Has anyone ever heard of attacking the post(s), not the poster(s)?

The should be a board mantra, and would definitely improve discussions here.

If you cant pick apart the reasoning, etc, within a post, then simply dont attempt to refute someones opinion based on what you think that makes them.

Just my opinion.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

for the people who are saying that what Gund or Pax did was illegal : Were the Cavs obligated to pick up the option for the third year? Nope. If the Cavs didn't pick up the option, it'd be an understanding that EVERYONE would know, that the Cavs want to sign him for the multi-year big contract. They wouldn't even have to say anything. Boozer can't express that he wants financial security for a long time? 

Situation :
*Boozer : * I need financial security, do something about it.

option a) * Gund :* ............

option b) * Gund :* We won't pick up your option for the third year

Which one is illegal? b. even though the whole world may *understand* why they didn't pickup the option, Boozer can't understand it. It's just a managerial strategy. albeit it backfired.

Like the Jay Will situation, he has an understanding with Pax that he would consider the Bulls first when signing a contract when the Bulls organization bought out the rest of the year. It just makes sense.


----------

