# OT: Cavs with egg on their face?



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

ESPN is reporting that Carlos Boozer has verbally agreed to a 6 year, $68 million deal with the Jazz. If true, it makes the Cavaliers pretty silly for not picking up the team option on him.....

Let the SAR for Ilgauskas rumors begin!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>So Cal Blazer Fan</b>!
> ESPN is reporting that Carlos Boozer has verbally agreed to a 6 year, $68 million deal with the Jazz. If true, it makes the Cavaliers pretty silly for not picking up the team option on him.....
> 
> Let the SAR for Ilgauskas rumors begin!


no, lets not let those rumors begin..


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>So Cal Blazer Fan</b>!
> ESPN is reporting that Carlos Boozer has verbally agreed to a 6 year, $68 million deal with the Jazz. If true, it makes the Cavaliers pretty silly for not picking up the team option on him.....


Wow... even us yahoos were able to see this one coming.



> Let the SAR for Ilgauskas rumors begin!


That'd be fun, wouldn't it? Would the Cavs be able to trade Z to a team under the cap and get far enough under the cap themselves to match the Jazz's offer?

I don't have your cool spreadsheet handy and I can't remember the URL...

Ed O.


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

Wow, what a great pickup for the Jazz! 15 ppg 11 rpg and only 22 years old! I'm sure there are a lot of P.O'd Cav fans right about now. If they knew this was going to happen they could have picked up a bigman in the draft (Jefferson, Swift , ect) 

On the bright side, there is a team out there who needs a PF, a Shareef Abudur-Rahim.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Do the Cavs have Boozer's bird rights?

I dont think they do, since he's on a 2 year contract..And they aren't under the cap enough to match the contract, right?

Getting "Big Z" works under the cap (which is why, I assume, SoCal suggested it) but where does he play?


what about...

Z to the Sonics, SAR to the Cavs, and Ray Alllen to the Blazers? The Blazers and or Cavs could thrown in 1st round picks + scrubs to the Sonics.


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

The Jazz now have a very nice starting 5:

PG Arroyo
SG Harpring 
SF Kirilenko 
PF Boozer
C Okur


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Luke and Z for Rahim?


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Re: OT: Cavs with egg on their face?*



> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b> Would the Cavs be able to trade Z to a team under the cap and get far enough under the cap themselves to match the Jazz's offer?


SAR and Ilgauskas make the same amount, so no cap room there. Besides, why trade for SAR and then match Boozer?


BTW, my statement was not so much an endorsement of the trade idea as it was a reflection on all the Ilgauskas rumors I've seen in the past. And since SAR and Big Z make the same amount and are both expiring deals....it was more of a "release the hounds!" statement. Pre-emptory more than anything else.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>
> what about...
> 
> Z to the Sonics, SAR to the Cavs, and Ray Alllen to the Blazers? The Blazers and or Cavs could thrown in 1st round picks + scrubs to the Sonics.


way to go Hap... works for me

:allhail:


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> Do the Cavs have Boozer's bird rights?


Nope. Early Bird rights only, meaning they can only match up to the average player salary (the same amount as the MLE).




> what about...
> 
> Z to the Sonics, SAR to the Cavs, and Ray Alllen to the Blazers? The Blazers and or Cavs could thrown in 1st round picks + scrubs to the Sonics.


Nice idea. Pull the trigger!


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

I have not been following it too closely...

but are you telling me the Cavs did not give Boozer a qualifiing offer by July 1 for the runner up MIP to retain RFA status????

:rofl:


----------



## duckman1734 (Jun 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> Z to the Sonics, SAR to the Cavs, and Ray Alllen to the Blazers? The Blazers and or Cavs could thrown in 1st round picks + scrubs to the Sonics.


I like that, the Sonics and Cavs would probably want draft picks or fillers like Woods.


----------



## Captain Obvious (Jun 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
> Luke and Z for Rahim?


:laugh: 

Do you guys ever come up with fair trades? The Cavs will be looking to move Z to a team with cap space so they can match Boozer's offer.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
> I have not been following it too closely...
> 
> but are you telling me the Cavs did not give Boozer a qualifiing offer by July 1 for the runner up MIP to retain RFA status????
> ...


No they did give him a qualifying offer.

However, they had a team option for a 3rd year at $695,046. They decided not to pick up the option in order to pay him more money this summer. 

Honestly, the situation makes Boozer look like a traitor. The Cavs seemingly were "being nice" about paying him more of what he deserves, and he takes the open door and leaves them hanging.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>duckman1734</b>!
> 
> 
> I like that, the Sonics and Cavs would probably want draft picks or fillers like Woods.



I think the Sonics are the only one who could make an argument where they deserve more than what they're getting back.

They're getting the guy with the more questionable injury past, although the last 2 seasons he's been strong.

If it took Woods to go to the Cavs (why they'd want Woods, I don't know, they have someone named LeBron) I'd still do it. Even if he goes to the Sonics (which might make more sense to the Sonics than the Cavs) I'd still do it.


Would the Sonics or Cavs? I don't know. The Sonics probably are the least likely. The Cavs might want to replace a PF they lost, and have one who's a vet, who will have their bird rights, and can be a "calming force". Losing the C spot might be tough, but they can get a C spot easily. Just get some bum.


Portland would do it yesterday, imho.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Captain Obvious</b>!
> 
> Do you guys ever come up with fair trades? The Cavs will be looking to move Z to a team with cap space so they can match Boozer's offer.


Hey, Utah has a lot of cap space. Maybe they could....uhhh, never mind.....

Seriously, though, Atlanta is sitting there with a fair bit of cap space. Would the Cavs really trade Z for a draft pick in order to clear up the $9 million they need to match the offer?


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

makes me more worried about next season

us/jazz/denver were all so close last season and Utah has made huge offseason advances and denver is still looking to spend on a bigname free-agent, where does that leave us in comparison? peddling the status quo..

this is huge for Utah imo , they have made leaps n bounds so far
potentially running a starting lineup of 

Okur
Boozer
AK47
Giricek
Arroyo

it sucks for the Cavs but i think we will probably be the ones left behind in the end unfortunately


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: OT: Cavs with egg on their face?*



> Originally posted by <b>So Cal Blazer Fan</b>!
> 
> SAR and Ilgauskas make the same amount, so no cap room there. Besides, why trade for SAR and then match Boozer?


I'm not talking about trading Z for SAR. I'm talking about trading Z for a team (like Atlanta) that has lots of cap space. I don't know whether Cleveland would be able to get under the cap with that kind of deal enough to match the offer Boozer's received from Utah.

Ed O.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: OT: Cavs with egg on their face?*



> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> I'm not talking about trading Z for SAR. I'm talking about trading Z for a team (like Atlanta) that has lots of cap space. I don't know whether Cleveland would be able to get under the cap with that kind of deal enough to match the offer Boozer's received from Utah.


Sorry, misread your first post.

Yes, trading Z for a draft pick would clear up enough $$$ to match the $9 million in the first year of Boozer's offer sheet.


----------



## The OUTLAW (Jun 13, 2002)

I am a Cavaliers fan and I must admit I don't like seeing Boozer go, but I'd rather him go than for them to match that contract. I am firmly against overpaying for players and I think that is overpaying for Boozer. Love the guy, but thats an average of 11.3 mil/yr. Good bye and good luck.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Captain Obvious</b>!
> :laugh:
> 
> Do you guys ever come up with fair trades?


Nope, not during fire sales.. :rofl:


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Re: OT: Cavs with egg on their face?*



> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> Wow... even us yahoos were able to see this one coming.


Which makes you wonder... are they really that stupid, or did they actually want this to happen for some reason that is not obvious to us?

barfo


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: OT: Cavs with egg on their face?*



> Originally posted by <b>barfo</b>!
> 
> 
> Which makes you wonder... are they really that stupid, or did they actually want this to happen for some reason that is not obvious to us?
> ...


Perhaps Captain Obvious knows the answer...

Captain Obvious?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: OT: Cavs with egg on their face?*



> Originally posted by <b>barfo</b>!
> 
> 
> Which makes you wonder... are they really that stupid, or did they actually want this to happen for some reason that is not obvious to us?
> ...


well, if he was a Blazer, the fact he's a Boozer would be reason enough..but this is Cleveland, and they like their beer..


----------



## AxS50 (Feb 4, 2003)

I am truly shocked. So much for him saying he only wanted to play for the Cavs because all the other teams passed on him and they gave him a chance. So much for playing alongside the next Jordan/Magic. Guess money talks, after all. I wonder how much influence his agent had on all this.

If I were the Cavs I would have done either

a) picked up option
b) not picked up option, then presenting him with a mid level contract with player option after first year, which then would have had enabled him to earn a lot more than with this $68M contract.
If that was their intention, Booze made a huge mistake.

If I were the Cavs, I would not welcome him back, even if they had the chance to match.

As for the Jazz overpaying him, you only have to look as far as Camby's and Blount's deals.


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

There are a number of players I'd prefer to get in trade for Rahim over Ilgauskas, but it's not a bad move. 

A combination of Ratliff and Z would benefit everyone, including the players' longevity. 

I could see the Cavs doing this.

As for what happened, if Paxson didn't know this would possibly happen, he should be fired. That was a huge oversight. If they were going to just let him walk, at least get something out of it.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

congrads to Boozer he is well worth that contract , you know what your gonna get every night from this guy


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Boy, Boozer is REALLY going to hear it when he plays Cleveland next year. Mind you, so is Jim Paxson. What the hell was he thinking? Did Boozer really promise him on a stack of Bibles he'd resign before Paxson refrained from picking up the option?

It's just a pisser that the two teams with enough cap room to absorb SAR (while we get Z) are Atlanta (who obviously don't want SAR) and the Clippers (who wouldn't pay him and have Brand).


----------



## AxS50 (Feb 4, 2003)

Question: had they picked up his option, would he have been a restricted or unrestricted free agent after next year? I read contradicting reports on that, but I'm guessing the former.

If it is so, then Paxson truly needs to be fired.
Mammoth contracts to Kevin Ollie and Ira Newble, and now this.

It is really sad, they could have been contenders in a few years.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "Honestly, the situation makes Boozer look like a traitor. The Cavs seemingly were "being nice" about paying him more of what he deserves, and he takes the open door and leaves them hanging."


I couldn't agree more. It's Boozer who has "egg" on his face, not the Cavs. They were doing him a favor, and he took advantage of them. This is one of the most shameful traiterous things I have ever seen a player do. When you think of Carlos Boozer in the future, just remember his word means nothing.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>AxS50</b>!
> Question: had they picked up his option, would he have been a restricted or unrestricted free agent after next year? I read contradicting reports on that, but I'm guessing the former.


Restricted. Any player with three or fewer years in the NBA is restricted as a FA (except first rounders who do not have their option picked up). http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#34

I guess it's possible that the FAQ is wrong, and somehow Boozer (as a second-rounder) is treated like a first rounder in the FAQ's explanation... I don't have time to dig into the CBA at the moment and look for confirmation.

Ed O.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

I really don't think Boozer is worth $10 million / year. Cleveland made a mistake in letting him out of cheap service early, but if this sort of deal is what it would have taken to keep him after that, then I don't think they've lost too much.

Also, I don't think Boozer made a bad or immoral decision. Cleveland, as far as I can tell, didn't do this out of the goodness of their hearts. They wanted to re-sign him to deal that, yes, would have been a significant raise in pay, but also much less than he can evidently command on the free market. So, basically, it was business on both sides. Cleveland opened the door, hoping to sneak some value through with an early contract extension, and Boozer walked out through it.

I don't think Boozer is the caliber of power forward that is worth double-digit millions per year, even though I admire his rebounding prowess and solid defense. If Cleveland would have had to eventually pony up this kind of money for him, they're better off saving the money for a better buy. Especially since Ilgauskas comes off their cap next offseason, which could leave them with a lot of cap room.

And heck, if they feel like they *must* overpay someone, they'll get chances to overpay someone else's good-but-not-great free agent in future offseasons. You can *always* overpay for goodness...it's worth holding off and seeing if you can good for a better price, or pay the premium for great talent.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> You can *always* overpay for goodness...it's worth holding off and seeing if you can good for a better price, or pay the premium for great talent.


Not to quibble, but it's not accurate to say you can always overpay.

There are two primary opportunities to overpay for a player:

-- when you're significantly under the cap, and/or
-- when you've got Bird rights on a player.

A team like Utah will not have an opportunity to add a player like Boozer once they go over the cap (assuming, of course, that he's a more-than-MLE player). When Kirilenko's rookie deal expires and as all the other players' salaries escalate, the Jazz won't be under the cap and able to make a move like this after another year or two.

And look at the Cavs: they have no opportunity to sign a player like Boozer now, either, irrespective of how much they want to pay... they only have 2.5m under the cap.

Holding cap space in your hip pocket is something that teams have been aiming for for several years, but I think we're starting to see that it might just lead to overpaying the players that are available... then the question is: what is "overpaying"? 

Ed O.


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

Rasheed Wallace will receive a $10M starting salary. It'll be for a shorter length, but given Sheed's history, that's understandable.

Jermaine O'neal gets about 13.4M.

Elton Brand gets about 12M.

Okur's about $8M (right?)

Boozer's price range should be above Okur, but below O'neal. Actually, Brand and Boozer's games are similar. So, I'd think his contract is in line.

Boozer had a eye-opening season. His effort is probably second to none. Assuming he can keep this up or not get injured (i.e. Brian Grant), he _may_ live up to this deal. 

The problem I see with Boozer is I'm not sure whether he makes his teammates better, like many of the other big guys. I think that Rasheed helped Billups game, and Jermaine helps Artest and Miller. Is Boozer making other's better? That's my questions. If so, he's worth the contract. If not, he's being overpaid, and should be signed to a deal similar to Okur's.

My thoughts.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "I don't think Boozer made a bad or immoral decision. . . Basically, it was business on both sides. Cleveland opened the door, hoping to sneak some value through with an early contract extension, and Boozer walked out through it."


But don't you think Cleveland and Boozer had an "understanding"? I'm sure Cleveland would not have opened the door if they thought Boozer was going to walk through it. Surely the two sides sat down and talked about what was going to happen, and Boozer agreed that he would go along. Then, once the Cavs let him see the light of day -- BOOM! -- he was gone. I don't know all the facts, but it seems pretty clear to me that Boozer conned the Cavs into unwittingly providing his escape hatch.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> Not to quibble, but it's not accurate to say you can always overpay.
> ...


You're right, I meant for a team like Cleveland who should have cap space.

But even for other teams, with no cap space, you can generally always do an analogue of overpaying on the free agent market by trading for a good player who's overpaid (and thus a "bad contract") for expiring contracts.

The spirit of my comments was that getting a good player for more than he's worth is not so rare that one should see the chance to do so as an opportunity to quickly snatch if it comes along. I think it's worth letting that chance go and see if one can use the money instead to:

1. Pay top dollar for top-tier talent
2. Pay good talent at good, rather than premium, rates
3. Find undervalued assets, thus actually getting a great buy



> And look at the Cavs: they have no opportunity to sign a player like Boozer now, either, irrespective of how much they want to pay... they only have 2.5m under the cap.


No, not now. But next season when Ilgauskas falls off their cap, they certainly will. But maybe they can instead find deals in the type of the three I listed above and be in an even better situation. Overpayment chances aren't once-in-a-generation, nor even sometimes once-a-season.


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

Chad ford suggest that Jim Paxson should resign over this. I know Jim Paxson. When he worked in the Blazers f/o he was a member at an athletic club in Portland I worked for. The guy was so approachable & loved to talk about hoops with anyone who would oblige. I don't doubt Paxson trusted Boozer/agent and got burned. It's too bad he's being asked to resign for taking a guys word at face value, and maybe I'm naive but I think this stinks. I'm not into personal diatribes on websites, but it's a shame a guy is being labled ignorant, stupid, and green by trusting another guys word. If you know Paxson, than you know he would never make something like this up. I know, I know . . . money talks, but it's not like Cleveland wasn't going to take care of Boozer. I hope Paxson does resign . . . and comes back to Portland--you can't tell me a guy like him isn't valuable is some capacity.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> Overpayment chances aren't once-in-a-generation, nor even sometimes once-a-season.


I agree with that, and with your post generally. I think that with this summer's activity so far, it's entirely possible that our notion (and I mean almost all of us on this board) of what is "overpaid" is off.

Ed O.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "Chad ford suggest that Jim Paxson should resign over this. I know Jim Paxson. When he worked in the Blazers f/o he was a member at an athletic club in Portland I worked for. The guy was so approachable & loved to talk about hoops with anyone who would oblige. I don't doubt Paxson trusted Boozer/agent and got burned. It's too bad he's being asked to resign for taking a guys word at face value, and maybe I'm naive but I think this stinks. I'm not into personal diatribes on websites, but it's a shame a guy is being labled ignorant, stupid, and green by trusting another guys word. If you know Paxson, than you know he would never make something like this up. I know, I know . . . money talks, but it's not like Cleveland wasn't going to take care of Boozer. I hope Paxson does resign . . . and comes back to Portland--you can't tell me a guy like him isn't valuable is some capacity."


Well said! Jim Paxson always struck me as a class act. Boozer's duplicity only makes Boozer look bad. It doesn't tarnish Paxson's character in the least. In fact, it serves to illustrate what a good guy Paxson is.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> Well said! Jim Paxson always struck me as a class act. Boozer's duplicity only makes Boozer look bad. It doesn't tarnish Paxson's character in the least. In fact, it serves to illustrate what a good guy Paxson is.


I don't think Paxson is a bad guy for doing what he did... but he's looking stupid. Even IF he clears the space to match the offer, he's getting back damaged goods in terms of public perception.

Nice, stupid people should not be making NBA personnel decisions. Nice, smart people and ruthless, stupid people each are superior choices.

I also don't think Boozer owes the Cavs anything, and any agreement he made with them was (a) illegal, or (b) not an agreement per the express rules of the NBA. Boozer only has one career to maximize his potential (earning and performance) and since the Cavs would have been willing to cut him or trade him depending on how he did, it's only fair that he should be willing to leave depending on what _they_ did.

Ed O.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "I also don't think Boozer owes the Cavs anything, and any agreement he made with them was (a) illegal, or (b) not an agreement per the express rules of the NBA. Boozer only has one career to maximize his potential (earning and performance) and since the Cavs would have been willing to cut him or trade him depending on how he did, it's only fair that he should be willing to leave depending on what they did."


Spoken like a lawyer.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> Spoken like a lawyer.


Thank you 

Ed O.


----------



## Snicka (Dec 29, 2003)

I guess the opportunity to play with Lebron wasn't worth 20 million dollars.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> I really don't think Boozer is worth $10 million / year. Cleveland made a mistake in letting him out of cheap service early, but if this sort of deal is what it would have taken to keep him after that, then I don't think they've lost too much.
> 
> Also, I don't think Boozer made a bad or immoral decision. Cleveland, as far as I can tell, didn't do this out of the goodness of their hearts. They wanted to re-sign him to deal that, yes, would have been a significant raise in pay, but also much less than he can evidently command on the free market. So, basically, it was business on both sides. Cleveland opened the door, hoping to sneak some value through with an early contract extension, and Boozer walked out through it.


Based on the media reports so far I disagree that Boozer wasn't immoral because Cleveland "did him no favors".

It comes down to keeping your word, which Boozer and his agent appear not to have done. The rationale will be: “It’s $28million dollars, and Cleveland was lowballing us. It is really their fault.” Classic case of blaming the victim. And relies on undervaluing what Cleveland was offering:

Cleveland drafted him and made their rookie deal with him before Boozer was a proven player. They had an option for the season that would pay him $695,000. They owed him nothing more than that.

Next summer, he would be a restricted FA, and Cleveland would hold his Bird rights, allowing them to match ANY offer, even if they were over the cap. They make him get an offer, then can decide whether to match or not.

Based on his play last season it was clear to both parties that his worth on the open market would be AT LEAST the MLE. Because the FA period had not started nobody knew what the market would actually be for a player of his caliber. $6mil per? $7mil per? $9mil per. Neither party knew. They were equals in negotiations.

In having discussions with Boozer's agent, it came to pass that both parties agreed it would be MUTALLY BENEFICIAL for Cleveland to not exercise Boozer's option, on the promise that he would sign for the MAXIMUM that Cleveland could give him without gutting the team - the MLE - a 6 year $40mil contract.

This had the obvious benefit to the Cavs of locking in their young, talented player for 6 years, at a below market price. Though, how far below, no one knew. The Cavs gave up their year at a bargain rate. 

Keep in mind that many NBA players out of loyalty to the teams that "gave them the chance" and "believed" in them, do not bother shopping aggressively to the highest bidder, and happily accept a "reasonable" offer from the team, leaving it at that. Not every player tries to squeeze every last million out of their career. Some place value on loyalty, coaches, ownership, no-trade clauses, guarantees to start, cities, etc. It was not naïve of Cleveland to believe those factors could apply to Boozer since he said they did and he and his agent made the promises they did.

The benefits to Boozer in his verbal agreement with Cleveland:

He gets his Bling Bling 1 year sooner. Without Cleveland's cooperation, he was stuck at a low salary for another season. With a new deal (even below "market") he could now go out and go on a shopping spree. New house. Fancy cars. Fancy clothes. Diamonds. Etc.

His anxiety of signing a guaranteed contract for tens of millions of dollars would be over 1 year sooner. Sure he knew he would sign for less than market, but he would no longer have to worry about a career ending injury or a bad year. He and his family were NOW set for life. Not 1 year from now. NOW. What is the difference between $40mil and $68mil? Let's see. $40mil = set for life. $68mil = set for life. Cleveland was offering the same thing that Utah was. What is 1 year sooner worth to some players? I bet the median answer would be about 1/2.

As it turned out, this summer's FA market is frothier than anyone guessed.
Next summer is very unlikely to exceed it, and may not even match it. For sake of argument let’s say Boozer duplicates his performance on the court and would have garnered the same offer from a team with cap room, thus setting his “market value” at 6 years/ $68mil. Now that is known. 

Cleveland says to Boozer, “we will tear up your current contract, and you can sign a six year deal at $40million NOW ($40mil over the next 6 seasons). Your worries are over. Your family is set. . When that deal expires in 2010 you are only 29 and if you are any good, can still attract a big money, long-term deal. OR, we keep the current deal, and next summer, after another season of dodging a career ending injury, proving your value to the league, and no Bling Bling, you will get a 6 year, $68million deal. ($54mil over the next 6 seasons). Though after that deal expires you will be over 30, making another max length deal a little harder to come by.”

Tell me how those are choices a lot of players wouldn’t seriously consider – thus proving the Cavs weren’t attempting to screw Boozer? Tell me how lying to the Cavs to lure them into giving up their rights to isn’t immoral?


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Outstanding post, Masbee. Cleveland was doing all they could to resign Boozer at the most they could give him without wrecking the team. And, as you said, they offered to give him a heck of a lot of more money RIGHT NOW than they had to. For that kindness, Boozer spit on them and walked away.

To hear people argue that Boozer did nothing wrong makes me shake my head. Apparently loyalty, honor, fairness, and keeping your word mean nothing to a lot of posters here.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> I think that with this summer's activity so far, it's entirely possible that our notion (and I mean almost all of us on this board) of what is "overpaid" is off.
> 
> Ed O.


Bingo. This is what I have been arguing on the NBA board for a few days, but almost no one agreed with me. I'm glad to find someone else who does.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Masbee</b>!
> 
> Cleveland drafted him and made their rookie deal with him before Boozer was a proven player. They had an option for the season that would pay him $695,000. They owed him nothing more than that.


I agree, and Boozer didn't owe the Cavaliers anything, either, beyond playing his hardest.



> This had the obvious benefit to the Cavs of locking in their young, talented player for 6 years, at a below market price. Though, how far below, no one knew. The Cavs gave up their year at a bargain rate.


That seems like a fair exchange? The Cavaliers give up their *one* "bargain rate" year, Boozer gets underpaid (and as much as I felt his Utah deal was overpayment, I do think the MLE plus raises would be underpayment) for *six years*?

Another poster put it well, "Paxson treated Boozer like an idiot and Boozer treated Paxson like an idiot." Paxson was trying to sneak in an underpaying contract under the facade of "paying his hard-working player more." Boozer didn't take the bait.



> Keep in mind that many NBA players out of loyalty to the teams that "gave them the chance" and "believed" in them, do not bother shopping aggressively to the highest bidder, and happily accept a "reasonable" offer from the team, leaving it at that. Not every player tries to squeeze every last million out of their career.


That's fine. And there's nothing wrong with players who *do* try to squeeze every last million out of their career. It's their livelihood.



> The benefits to Boozer in his verbal agreement with Cleveland:
> 
> He gets his Bling Bling 1 year sooner. Without Cleveland's cooperation, he was stuck at a low salary for another season. With a new deal (even below "market") he could now go out and go on a shopping spree. New house. Fancy cars. Fancy clothes. Diamonds. Etc.


I don't find that compelling. He could already have bought any house he wanted (the credit of a guy about to be making millions isn't too bad) and again, getting a much lower payout one year earlier is no grand deal.

I do recognize that a guaranteed contract carries value in the view of a possible career-ending injury, but almost every player takes out insurance against that. While it would still be a concern, it's not like he'd have been pauperized, making it such a risk that he was better off not waiting a year.



> Tell me how those are choices a lot of players wouldn’t seriously consider – thus proving the Cavs weren’t attempting to screw Boozer? Tell me how lying to the Cavs to lure them into giving up their rights to isn’t immoral?


Well, we disagree on how many players would take that deal. Set for life may be set for life, but every player has shown that more money (by a significant amount) is important to them. With a hedge against a career-ending injury, like multi-million dollar insurance, I don't know how many players would choose Cleveland's offer. Almost none is my bet.

I think both sides were being a bit deceptive and, honestly, I think both sides came out okay. Boozer got his huge payday and Cleveland will save that money. They can use it on a similar player perhaps, next offseason, if they want...but they also can see if Diop will develop to take his place and use that money for something better.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

Guys, can we please get back to what's really important here?

...

...

Between Boozer, Okur, and Ostertag, does Utah now boast the most over-paid and whitest (Boozer ... ouch, don't go there) front line in the league?

Dan


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> I agree, and Boozer didn't owe the Cavaliers anything, either, beyond playing his hardest.


He gave them his word. He owed them that. That is the crux of my point. Boozer made a promise, and he broke it. 

All of the rest of my post is an attempt to show that Cleveland COULD HAVE approaced this with good intentions and that their offer wasn't as poor as a $28mil difference may at first glance look. I don't really know what Cleveland was thinking. I certainly don't presume like some others do here that they were gleefully trying to bamboozle him. Maybe they were. Or, maybe they worked through it like I proposed above.



> That seems like a fair exchange? The Cavaliers give up their *one* "bargain rate" year, Boozer gets underpaid (and as much as I felt his Utah deal was overpayment, I do think the MLE plus raises would be underpayment) for *six years*?


Well, since we are all looking at this with the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to see that $40mil was very low for the market. But the FA market could have just as easily been 20% lower this summer and it wouldn't have surprised anybody if all these offers were that much less. Then his open value is $54mil instead of $68mil. And the choice for Boozer is $40mil over the next 6 years, vs. $54mil over six years after waiting a full year before starting that deal. Not far off at all. Kurt Thomas signed a "reasonable" extension for $40mil. Ron Artest signed a "reasonable" extension for $40mil. It happens.



> Another poster put it well, "Paxson treated Boozer like an idiot and Boozer treated Paxson like an idiot." Paxson was trying to sneak in an underpaying contract under the facade of "paying his hard-working player more." Boozer didn't take the bait.


As I said above, no one can presume the intentions of the parties. We can only look at the actions. Boozer made a promise. Boozer didn't keep his promise. End of story. If Boozer felt Paxson was treating him like an "idiot" and honorable man would say "Jim, don't treat me like an idiot. Let me become a free agent and we will see what the market is worth. I am certain it is worth way more than the MLE."

Jim: "Booze, I know you are worth way more than the MLE. But I can't make you a free agent this summer. We don't have the cap room to keep you, nor do we have your Bird rights. What I don't know is how much you value a lot more money NOW over bigger piles of cash an entire year later. I just want to give you the option, and you can decide. Do we get anything out of it? Sure, we get you at a lower salary than we would have to pay next summer, but you would be making what Kurt Thomas and Ron Artest are. But since this process has obviously insulted you, I am exercising out option for next season at $600k. Next summer you will be a free agent and we will have your Bird rights. I want you to shop around and get the best deal you can. We will match whatever offer you get if you have another season like the last one."

Instead this is what Boozer said: "Your offer sounds great. I am very exicted to get a multi-year, guaranteed contract a year sooner. Thank you very much."




> That's fine. And there's nothing wrong with players who *do* try to squeeze every last million out of their career. It's their livelihood.


That rationalizes lying?





> I don't find that compelling. He could already have bought any house he wanted (the credit of a guy about to be making millions isn't too bad) and again, getting a much lower payout one year earlier is no grand deal.


I don't find your statement compelling. If you can't see the difference between what a family feels comfortable spending and what kind of credit you can get when you have only $600k guaranteed vs. $40,000,000 guaranteed, I don't know what to say. 



> I do recognize that a guaranteed contract carries value in the view of a possible career-ending injury, but almost every player takes out insurance against that. While it would still be a concern, it's not like he'd have been pauperized, making it such a risk that he was better off not waiting a year.


There is no way a 2nd round pick earning $600k can afford to take out insurance for tens of millions of dollars. A few million in coverage at most.




> Well, we disagree on how many players would take that deal. Set for life may be set for life, but every player has shown that more money (by a significant amount) is important to them. With a hedge against a career-ending injury, like multi-million dollar insurance, I don't know how many players would choose Cleveland's offer. Almost none is my bet.


I think you underestimate the desire for gratification that is rampant among youth and the peer pressure in the NBA to be a player. But, whatever - it doesn't matter if 1 one have taken the deal or 100. Boozer said he would.



> I think both sides were being a bit deceptive and, honestly, I think both sides came out okay. Boozer got his huge payday and Cleveland will save that money. They can use it on a similar player perhaps, next offseason, if they want...but they also can see if Diop will develop to take his place and use that money for something better.


How on earth can you say Cleveland was being "a bit deceptive", when you have no clue what the pitch to Boozer was or if they even came up with the idea? Maybe the agent planted that seed? The only thing we do know (if reports are true) is that Boozer reniged on his promise. Cleveland's deception is only an assumption on your part of nefarious intent.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Masbee</b>!
> 
> All of the rest of my post is an attempt to show that Cleveland COULD HAVE approaced this with good intentions and that their offer wasn't as poor as a $28mil difference may at first glance look. I don't really know what Cleveland was thinking. I certainly don't presume like some others do here that they were gleefully trying to bamboozle him. Maybe they were. Or, maybe they worked through it like I proposed above.


I just disagree with your reasoning as to why Cleveland's offer was "good enough" that it could have been earnestly offered in the belief that it was a good deal for the player.

As far as Boozer having "given his word," he didn't give anything legally binding. In this business, both teams and players agree to things in principle only to change their minds. I don't see it as an issue of morality, if it's an expected part of the business.

Another poster, Pinball, on the NBA forum pointed out that several years ago John Amaechi declined a guaranteed deal from the Lakers to sign for less, for a year, with Orlando because they could give him a better deal in a year then the Lakers were giving him then. Orlando gave him to believe that they'd take care of him but then never offered the big contract the following year. I don't believe there's morality, trust or loyalty when high finances are involved. There's only legality and looking out for yourself.



> Well, since we are all looking at this with the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to see that $40mil was very low for the market.


The market's higher than normal this offseason, but the MLE was a lowball offer by pretty much anyone's measure.



> Instead this is what Boozer said: "Your offer sounds great. I am very exicted to get a multi-year, guaranteed contract a year sooner. Thank you very much."


Really? Where did you find that reported? I have yet to see any of the specifics of what was said/promised/offered in private.



> That rationalizes lying?


There's outright lying and then there's changing your mind when suddenly offered riches you never expected. Boozer may have agreed at the time, with every good intention, and then was forced to reconsider when an incredible offer washed up at his door. This is the risk Cleveland knowingly ran...that someone could blow Boozer away and force him to reconsider.

Principles are well and good, but few people would honour a non-legally-binding verbal agreement when out of the blue offered double the pay. In my opinion. Of course, it's hard to create an comparable situation, because most employees are not limited on the free market the way athletes are. Which is one more reason why I see no problem with them going after whatever they can get, when they can.



> There is no way a 2nd round pick earning $600k can afford to take out insurance for tens of millions of dollars. A few million in coverage at most.


I realize that. That's why I said, "It's still a concern." But knowing that you still have a "few million" to fall back on if the vanishingly small chance of a career-ending injury happens makes it a poor decision to take a much smaller guaranteed contract just in case the next year brings such an injury.



> How on earth can you say Cleveland was being "a bit deceptive", when you have no clue what the pitch to Boozer was or if they even came up with the idea? Maybe the agent planted that seed? The only thing we do know (if reports are true) is that Boozer reniged on his promise. Cleveland's deception is only an assumption on your part of nefarious intent.


No, I also have the confidence in Paxson to believe that he knew an MLE offer was below market value. I think anytime that essentially a paycut (over the next 6 years, over what he could/should receive) is dressed up as a payraise and a good thing for the player, deception is at work.

The other possibility is that Paxson didn't really understand that his deal was worse than what Boozer could and should get, and he really, honestly believed that he was doing Boozer a real favour...which doesn't speak well to Paxson's intelligence. I'm giving Paxson more credit than that.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Masbee</b>!
> 
> How on earth can you say Cleveland was being "a bit deceptive", when you have no clue what the pitch to Boozer was or if they even came up with the idea? Maybe the agent planted that seed? The only thing we do know (if reports are true) is that Boozer reniged on his promise. Cleveland's deception is only an assumption on your part of nefarious intent.


I don't know why Minstrel would say they were a bit deceptive, but I would say that they were MORE than a bit deceptive if they reached an agreement with Boozer prematurely.

The Cavs seemed to try to circumvent the rules here: creating a special kind of restricted free agency where _only they_ could sign Boozer if they declined to pick up his option.

That kind of free agency does not exist. The Cavs know this and they know that attempting to do what they did is not legal under the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Boozer might have reneged on an agreement--he might even have lied when he said he'd do it. The Cavs were trying to pull something over on the rest of the league, and they got burned.

Ed O.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=thanklessjob&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns

I just read this story about the Boozer situation.

Seems my early read and guesses based on very limited information and common sense were closer to what's now coming out as the story.

I just had the feeling that this was set up by Boozer's agent. He is a shark who is Kobe's agent too. No honor. No trust. No integrety.

Here are some quotes:



> That's why he asked the Cavaliers to cancel their option for next season and instead allow him to become a free agent. In that case, Boozer promised (according to sources -- and common sense) that he would then re-sign with the Cavaliers for as much as $41 million over six years, the maximum they could offer





> Paxson and Cleveland owner Gordon Gund nullified their option. They gambled on Boozer's word and set him free. According to a source who was in the room at the time the verbal deal was struck, Boozer told Gund, "If you respect me by not picking up the option, I'll show trust and loyalty to you by signing with you."





> The only way Cleveland could retain Boozer would be to dump several players and create more than $10 million of cap space, because Pelinka negotiated an offer that is front-loaded to make it that much harder for Cleveland to match.
> 
> "This is the worst thing I've ever seen," a top NBA agent told me. A respected NBA team executive confirmed the opinion in a separate conversation.
> 
> ...





> says James' agent, Aaron Goodwin.
> 
> "LeBron gave his thumbs up (to the plan enabling Boozer to become a free agent) because he believed his friend just wanted to be taken care of," says Goodwin. "He thought it was great that the Cavs wanted to help him out." Goodwin says that James was "disheartened" when he realized that Boozer was exploiting his free agency by negotiating with other teams....
> 
> ...


There is lots more. I encourge a reading of the full story.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

I'm particularly fond of this quote:



> even as an agent I have to say it's wrong


barfo


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Masbee</b>!
> http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=thanklessjob&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns
> 
> ...
> ...


Thanks for the story. It was interesting. Upon reading that, I retract my statements and instead feel that Paxson and Gund were simply stupid, while Boozer *was* dishonorable.

It says Gund was from the "old school," where you simply take a man at his word. I don't know any time in history when people just randomly trusted in everyone. You don't place high levels of trust in people who haven't proven trustworthiness.

And it's not even like this was a relationship where it was important/appropriate for a high level of trust to be attained, necessitating that someone show trust first. In a marriage, trust is important. In a contractual sports league, trust really isn't. There was no reason for Paxson and Gund to do this, yet they did and got burned.

And yes...Boozer acted without honour. He flagrantly went back on his word. But then, I'd say that's what one should expect in business, unless you have previously had your trust in the person validated.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

After reading the article Masbee posted, I want to soften my previous statements about Boozer, too. I had thought Boozer and his agent would have couched their statements in fewer specifics (e.g., "We'll be _very grateful_ if you don't pick up the option... and if you do we'll be looking to leave ASAP.").

If Boozer said specifically that he would re-sign for a certain amount on the condition that the Cavs would not pick up his option, I think that he (and his agent) have some moral culpability.

The Cavs were still stupid, though, to rely on the word of a person who had no legal obligation to follow through on his promise.

Ed O.


----------



## FeloniusThunk (Jan 1, 2003)

The article affirms my first impression of the whole thing: idiots screwed by a liar. It happens everyday in business, and this is most definitely a business.

The comment about Gund being 'old school' is an annoying dramatic touch from the writer. When have contract negotiations ever been about shaking hands? Gosh, they didn't ever even use lawyers before this! Or not.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Has this happened in reverse, where an owner and player have "verbally" agree'd on a contract, only to have the owner go back on his word?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> Has this happened in reverse, where an owner and player have "verbally" agree'd on a contract, only to have the owner go back on his word?


Teams have promised (or made players FEEL like they've promised) that they'd draft a player at a certain spot. Rashard Lewis, for one, was told by Houston that they'd take him with one of their first rounders but he lasted until the second round.

Not exactly the same thing, but similar.

Ed O.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> Has this happened in reverse, where an owner and player have "verbally" agree'd on a contract, only to have the owner go back on his word?


A few years ago, John Amaechi had had a surprisingly good couple of seasons. In the offseason of 2001, the Lakers offered Amaechi a full MLE contract for four or five years. The Magic couldn't give him that much that offseason, but could give him more the following offseason if he resigned with them for another year (at considerably less than the Lakers were offering)....that third season would give them Bird rights.

Amaechi re-signed with the Magic, given to believe that the Magic would take care of him the next offseason. Instead, he had a poorer year and the Magic dispensed with him. No one else was particularly interested and he signed a small league minimum deal with Utah for a couple years before passing out of the league.

Handshake agreement terminated because he no longer seemed like a good buy.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> Outstanding post, Masbee. Cleveland was doing all they could to resign Boozer at the most they could give him without wrecking the team. And, as you said, they offered to give him a heck of a lot of more money RIGHT NOW than they had to. For that kindness, Boozer spit on them and walked away.
> 
> To hear people argue that Boozer did nothing wrong makes me shake my head. Apparently loyalty, honor, fairness, and keeping your word mean nothing to a lot of posters here.


It really doesn't boil down to loyalty or anything like that.



> Originally posted by <b>The Franchise</b>!
> Shocking how everyone is jumping on the anti-Boozer bandwagon when Jim Paxson was the one who thought he could get Boozer for $41 million. There are alot of theories floating around about what the Cavaliers could and couldn't of matched but it all boils down to this: Paxson *could* have kept Boozer for one more year and then matched any offer he got in FA. This because he would have bird rights after Boozer played with the Cavs for 3 years. But because he wanted to save some cash, the Cavs didn't pick up Boozer's contract and then fed some crap about loyalty to the team and verbal agreements to the press. Paxson hoped to sign Boozer for the MLE as opposed to going over it next year to match offers he received from other teams. I guess this reflects more on the owner than the GM.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

Cavs fans talking about a Big Z for reef trade would you do this ????????


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

The bottom line is this is EXACTLY why a team should not let a player opt out of his contract when they have the upper hand ($$ wise, compared to his worth). Boozer was locked in for another year at a bargain rate, CLE had no responsibility to decline on his option, but they did so (apparently) at the behest of Boozer and\or his agent. It backfired, and now they will probably lose him with ZERO compensation as a result. This should be a astrong (but probably unecessary) message to other NBA teams, you don't let guys in Boozer's situation out on the FA market, even IF they promise to resign with you, b\c the bottom line is, their word isn't a signed contract and has ZERO weight.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

ESPN is reporting that the Cavs and Knicks are "close" to a deal... swapping Ilgauskus for K.Thomas.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BEER&BASKETBALL</b>!
> ESPN is reporting that the Cavs and Knicks are "close" to a deal... swapping Ilgauskus for K.Thomas.


(in the process of ducking pieces of the sky as they fall...Hap thought the following)

hm...the Cavs mustn't want SAR...scratch them off the list...

hold the phone...Kurt Thomas doesn't make near the money that Illgauskus does...they'd have to include more players...

The Knicks can't take back more than they give by this wide of a margain. The Knicks would have to include Shandon Anderson probably, and even that might not match up.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> hold the phone...Kurt Thomas doesn't make near the money that Illgauskus does...they'd have to include more players...
> 
> The Knicks can't take back more than they give by this wide of a margain. The Knicks would have to include Shandon Anderson probably, and even that might not match up.


A quick look at my numbers leads me to believe that it might be possible for the Knicks to get a trade exception in the Crawford deal that would be large enough for them to trade Thomas (who has a trade kicker) and Mohammed for Ilgauskas. Of course, that would mean giving Crawford $7.5-8.0 million in the first year.


----------



## daytripper (Feb 22, 2004)

Check out this article regarding Boozer and Pelinka running for cover:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_y...Q--?slug=runningforcover&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>daytripper</b>!
> Check out this article regarding Boozer and Pelinka running for cover:
> 
> http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_y...Q--?slug=runningforcover&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns


That link didn't work, here is another one that is probably similar.

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


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

what a jacka**!


----------

