# SI Describes Boozer Circumstances



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writers/ian_thomsen/07/09/paxson.boozer/index.html

*Boozer was apparently worried about his longterm financial future. 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 a free agent with fewer than three years experience under their salary-cap constraints.

Paxson held all the cards on this deal. He could have ignored Boozer's pleas and forced him to fulfill the team option at a salary of $695,000 in 2004-05. Next summer Boozer would have been a restricted free agent, giving the Cavs the right to pay him as much as they wished along with the ability to match any offer Boozer received.

Instead, 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."

But instead of keeping to his word, Boozer agreed this week to a six-year, $68 million contract with Utah. (I tried, through a variety of sources, to give Boozer's agent, Rob Pelinka an opportunity to respond, but I was unable to reach him.)*

*Paxson is being taken to task in the press for allowing Boozer to escape, but the short-sighted duplicity of a basketball player is the least of his troubles. Paxson's wife, Candice, has spent the past year fighting central nervous system lymphoma, a rare form of brain cancer. This week Jim and Candice flew to Portland, Ore., for the funeral of Candice's daughter-in-law from a previous marriage, Tina Kosmos, who died of cancer.

Paxson was trying to console his wife and family in-between calls from Pelinka, who, according to a source, matter-of-factly explained how he was reneging on his agreement with the Cavaliers.*

*Aaron Goodwin (LeBron James' agent) adds -- and I've confirmed this with other sources -- that Gund took personal responsibility for approving the plan to make Boozer a free agent.

"My understanding is that Carlos, his wife and Pelinka all gave their words to Paxson and Gordon Gund that Boozer would re-sign with Cleveland," Goodwin says. "By letting him become a free agent, Gordon was saying, 'I'm doing this to help the Boozer family, not just Carlos.'

"Gordon Gund isn't stupid. He knew there was a chance Boozer would leave if he let him out of his $700,000 contract. But he was [telling] the kid 'I respect you and I care about you and your family.' For him to get slapped in the face is wrong; even as an agent I have to say it's wrong. I talk to Gordon and I hear the devastation in his voice because he's from the old school, where if someone says something to you, you take him at his word.

"What Rob Pelinka did," said Goodwin, "was he figured out a way to get his guy out of his contract. And he lied to do it."*

If Gund signed off on the arrangement then Jim Paxson's job is safe. It does make you wonder if any team will want to deal with an agent like Pelinka again. Since he's also Kobe Bryant's agent, how do you think teams negotiating with the free agent feel about accomodating his demands including rearranging their rosters, coaching staffs, etc.? Did Coach K doubt Bryant's and Pelinka's word when he chose to turn down the Lakers offer? Who knows.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writers/ian_thomsen/07/09/paxson.boozer/index.html
> 
> *Boozer was apparently worried about his longterm financial future. 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 a free agent with fewer than three years experience under their salary-cap constraints.
> ...


 a couple of thoughts Kismet

Its sad to hear what Jim Paxson is going through. But at the end of the day, people have to overcome their problems and do the job they are paid to do. I have done it, and I am sure many others have. If Paxson cant think clearly enough because of the extracurricular things in his lift, then he should have the good sense to step down as GM of the Cavs. I know that sounds cold blooded, but its how I feel

Now, as for GMs dealing with Pelinka, I dont think they are going to have much of a choice at all. Players are going to see the deal that Pelinka got Boozer and will get Kobe and see here is an agent, who at the end of the day, as a players best interest in mind. Trust me, that will travel far with the players. In fact, it wouldnt surprise me if Eddy Curry is calling Pelinka now. Was it underhanded? Sure. but at the end of the day, the players best interest was satisfied. I bet Pelinka will get many new clients out of that, FORCING GMs to deal with him

At the end of the day, this was a good reading. I dont dig around the SI site much so I appreciate it. But it doesnt really change how I feel. Jim Paxson put the Cavs at risk by letting Boozer out. They did it to try and lock him up to a nice raise, but lets face it, way under market value price. its not pretty, but both sides were looking out for their best interest. I think Jim Paxson really missed the boat here. And while I feel sorry that he has so many extracurricular things going on his life, he ought to still be fired for this mishap. In fact, I think Chad Ford said it best, he ought to resign. Heck, even Lebron James is infuriated at this.

Final Lesson, a word doesnt mean much in business. Unless you have someones name on a contract, it isnt going to stand up. At this point, thats just simply common sense. The Cavs didnt have it and now it cost them a couple of years. But there is one way they can fix their problem and do it right away, sign Stromile Swift. But at the end of the day, this was a disaster and someone has to pay the price


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

I don't think Jim Paxson did anything wrong here. I didn't agree with not taking out the option, but when it came clear that there was a handshake deal going on, it seemed like a reasonable move. But Boozer went back on his word. HE is the one in the wrong. Verbal contracts are just that, contracts. It's not legally binding, but it should be morally binding. I just can't condone what Boozer and his agent did.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

*Re: Re: SI Describes Boozer Circumstances*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> a couple of thoughts Kismet
> ...


Regarding agents and their reputations...I don't know if you follow baseball very much, but there's an agent out there by the name of Scott Boros. He's well known for playing hardball with teams. That's helped and hurt his business and the earning power of his clients. Most notably you've seen teams at the very top of the amateur baseball draft refuse to select his clients because they don't want to negotiate with him. An agent's reputation can be a blessing and a curse. I suspect any potential clients may think twice about hiring this guy when they see how Boozer is treated at each NBA venue this season. Its one thing to be booed because you're the enemy's best player. It's quite a different thing to be booed because you're viewed as a dishonest snake. And don't kid yourself...fans have memories like elephants...there will be plenty of hecklers who will never let him forget what he did.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: SI Describes Boozer Circumstances*



> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> Regarding agents and their reputations...I don't know if you follow baseball very much, but there's an agent out there by the name of Scott Boros. He's well known for playing hardball with teams. That's helped and hurt his business and the earning power of his clients. Most notably you've seen teams at the very top of the amateur baseball draft refuse to select his clients because they don't want to negotiate with him. An agent's reputation can be a blessing and a curse. I suspect any potential clients may think twice about hiring this guy when they see how Boozer is treated at each NBA venue this season. Its one thing to be booed because you're the enemy's best player. It's quite a different thing to be booed because you're viewed as a dishonest snake. And don't kid yourself...fans have memories like elephants...there will be plenty of hecklers who will never let him forget what he did.


a couple of thoughts mate

First off, I doubt a fan in Golden State is going to think twice about that. Will Boozer get booed in Cleveland? Yes. Will anyone in Chicago care? No. Certainly he will be welcomed with open arms in utah

Second of all, at the end of the day, Boozers agent looked out for his client. That is the best complement you can give an agent. Its not the agents job to look out for a team, its the agents job to look out for the client. He did that. My gut tells me he wont have any problems adding clients from here on out. This isnt baseball. If Pelinka adds an Eddy Curry for instance, teams arent going to avoid a proven commodity like Curry because they dont like Pelinka. With Baseball, there is so many more question marks

Lastly, David Falk used to do this in the 90s and had the biggest stead of clients in the NBA. The NBA was at his beck and call for a number of years. Falk has retired since then, but the fact remains, that an agent in basketball is going to carry alot more weight then any other sports (there seems to be an agent for QBs in the NFL) and teams will have to deal with him. Again, I say that Pelinka did the right thing for his client. And at the end of the day, as a player, thats all you want. Everything else is moot. How he went about it was a bit underhanded. But then again, the best attorneys often are. but the end result says to me that he did a great job for his client. 

As for Pax, he didnt do a good job for his client. And this has to be taken in context with drafting Diop, Wagner, hiring and firing Lucas (and the mess with working out James a year before he was available for the draft). The trade with Boston was so so. The FA signings of Ollie and Newble have been terrible. You throw this MASSIVE oversight onto his resume and yes, he ought to be fired. This isnt Jerry West getting screwed by some low life agent. This is a guy who is lucky to have a job, trying to get Boozer at a below market value, who got caught. I feel bad for Jim Paxson, but how anyone can dispute that he should be let go is truly beyond me


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

true, he got his client the most money possible, Isn't that an agents job.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: SI Describes Boozer Circumstances*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!This isnt Jerry West getting screwed by some low life agent.


Yea, it's Jim Paxson getting screwed by some low life agent and a client with no morals.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

I heard a rumor that Jamal wants to make a verbal agreement with John .

Just sign him to the max and if for some reason hes not a star in 2 seasons he will retire and leave all the money on the table . :laugh:


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SI Describes Boozer Circumstances*



> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Yea, it's Jim Paxson getting screwed by some low life agent and a client with no morals.


low life agent who did his job, which is very clear. looking out for the best interest of his clients. In fact, I am not sure Pelinka shouldnt be applauded for this. PERIOD


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

As a future sports agent (I take the NFL collective bargaining agreement exam in august 2005)...the actions of Rob Pelinka sicken me. It's scum like him that makes it hard for lawyers and agents to do their job. I'm not saying Goodwin is a saint. He's got the ego of an insane dictator, but even he knows when stooping low is too low. I mean you look at Gordon Gund on TV.....he's one of the good guys left there....a trusting individual a lot like a Rudy Tomjanovich of ownership. To see someone like Gund done like this hurts my moral sense.....that voice that tells you when you are doing something that is just WRONG even when technically it is legal. This is just disgusting.


----------



## synthdogg (Jul 14, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SI Describes Boozer Circumstances*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> low life agent who did his job, which is very clear. looking out for the best interest of his clients. In fact, I am not sure Pelinka shouldnt be applauded for this. PERIOD


I can't agree with that, and I say that with all respect to you, rlucas. Pelinka lied, and he preyed managements good nature (BTW, according to the article it was Gund who greenlighted the move...I don't know if Pax can be blamed for his bosses mistake...)
Pelinka pulled the same move as the theives who dupe people into pulling onto the side of the road to help them with their car trouble before jumping them. They pose as one thing (people in need of help) and then show their true nature once they get the upper hand. But hey, they should be applauded because they're just doing what they need to do. 
Pelinka cheated...he lied. I can't subscribe to the "Whatever it takes to get a better deal" philosphy. Where is that line drawn? What if Pelink just hired some goons to go into Gunds office and "convince" him to let Boozer out of his deal? Is that the next step? Is that acceptable? It seems like a pretty fine line if we're already cheering on underhanded behaviour to get your client more money. And while GM's may have to deal with Pelinka and his clients in the future...you can bet that no GM will ever trust him or go out of their way to help the client out if it puts them in any kind of awkward situation.
I have to add that I'm not taking Pax and Gund's side on this either. While the article paints a picture of management taking pity on Boozer and trying to help him out, isn't the "handshake deal" they made a violation? How is that so different than the Minny/Joe Smith situation. It clearly went further than a simple "We'll take care of you", numbers were mentioned. While I despise Pelinkas methods here, the Cavs management isn't exactly in the clear either.


----------



## Aesop (Jun 1, 2003)

I don’t think Paxson and Gund are innocent victims. The motivation of the Cavs’ brass was clear: they were trying to capitalize on a player’s desire for short-term security. There is no doubt that signing Boozer to the deal the Cavs wanted would have been highway robbery. If Boozer would have re-signed, is there any doubt there would be regrets a year from now? 

Nobody is a saint here.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Aesop</b>!
> I don’t think Paxson and Gund are innocent victims. The motivation of the Cavs’ brass was clear: they were trying to capitalize on a player’s desire for short-term security. There is no doubt that signing Boozer to the deal the Cavs wanted would have been highway robbery. If Boozer would have re-signed, is there any doubt there would be regrets a year from now?
> 
> Nobody is a saint here.


Bingo. It's a two way street.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SI Describes Boozer Circumstances*



> Originally posted by <b>synthdogg</b>!
> 
> 
> I can't agree with that, and I say that with all respect to you, rlucas. Pelinka lied, and he preyed managements good nature (BTW, according to the article it was Gund who greenlighted the move...I don't know if Pax can be blamed for his bosses mistake...)
> ...


Synthdogg, mutual respect right back at you mate

There are alot of angles here but in the end I ask myself one question. Did the agent have his clients best interest in mind? I think its fairly clear the answer is yes. Did he break the law? No. Is Pelinka a saint? ofcourse not. But jeez, its hard to argue that he didnt do his job. And he did his job without breaking any laws. And at some demented level, he deserves kudos for that


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SI Describes Boozer Circumstances*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Synthdogg, mutual respect right back at you mate
> ...


RL - I agree the Agent was doing his job,thinking of his client.

But,I wouldn't go so far as saying he should be applauded for the way he did it - It's real ugly - bigtime!

I mean,we don't know this for sure - but lying with a straight face (Cavs R not that innocent since they were looking for the coopon of signing Boozer to a longturm for less than his real value) in buisness is not the way I'd go.How far is alright - I mean he did not murder anyone but as far as I know the nba is a serious buisness and a handshake(which I know was not in place for starts - but it probably came from Boozers side) should stand , otherwise it's no different than the flea market in Mongolia(no disrespect).

Yes - he did his Job,but turned out a real slime while doing it,him and Boozer,It's their perogetive(did I use the right word???) - but in my eyes they both turned out really bad,I don't like it and I hope I don't see it happen again(probably won't after this).


----------



## NorthSideHatrik (Mar 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Aesop</b>!
> I don’t think Paxson and Gund are innocent victims. The motivation of the Cavs’ brass was clear: they were trying to capitalize on a player’s desire for short-term security. There is no doubt that signing Boozer to the deal the Cavs wanted would have been highway robbery. If Boozer would have re-signed, is there any doubt there would be regrets a year from now?
> 
> Nobody is a saint here.


Of course Paxson and Gund were trying to capitilize on a players desire for short term security, but Boozer came to them. Boozer approached the Cavs about doing this. Sure, it was better long term for the Cavs.... BUT ITS WHAT BOOZER WANTED. How could paxson and Gund say no?


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NorthSideHatrik</b>!
> 
> 
> Of course Paxson and Gund were trying to capitilize on a players desire for short term security, but Boozer came to them. Boozer approached the Cavs about doing this. Sure, it was better long term for the Cavs.... BUT ITS WHAT BOOZER WANTED. How could paxson and Gund say no?


Because they had the option. All they had to says is "While we appreciate the offer, we cannot take such a risk."


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NorthSideHatrik</b>!
> 
> 
> Of course Paxson and Gund were trying to capitilize on a players desire for short term security, but Boozer came to them. Boozer approached the Cavs about doing this. Sure, it was better long term for the Cavs.... BUT ITS WHAT BOOZER WANTED. How could paxson and Gund say no?


Quite easily. They could have said, "Look Carlos, this is the contract you've agreed to. If you opt out now, not only is there the possibility for double dealing, but the contract you sign now will more likely than not under pay you. Don't worry, you'll be in demand next year, and we have every intention of paying you".

As I said in the other thread, Boozer and Pelinka are serious turds for doing this, but as much as I feel bad for Paxson's situation, TB#1 is right on the money in that they also saw an opportunity to maybe get a "steal" here.


----------



## NorthSideHatrik (Mar 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> Because they had the option. All they had to says is "While we appreciate the offer, we cannot take such a risk."



Sorry i should have been clearer about what i was saying... i was refering to Kismets comment about Paxon and Gund trying rip boozer off.


----------



## PatBateman (May 26, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SI Describes Boozer Circumstances*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Synthdogg, mutual respect right back at you mate
> ...


with all due respect, do you have any experience working with agents or sports/entertainment lawyers? My guess is no. For the most part, they are scum and extremely underhanded people. They have to be, it's their job. But get a grip and get off this stupid, "oh he had his client's best interests in mind, blah blah blah bullshhit." Pelinka was looking out for someone alright: himself. There is a no. 1 for Pelinka, and it ain't Kobe or Boozer. Notice how you are one of the only ones left defending here Rlucas? Gund is old school, and while not a saint and free from blame for being greedy here, certainly got the very wrong and short end of the stick.


BTW, someone needs to start an "I hope Carlos Boozer breaks his leg next season" Club. I'll be the first to join. I hope a player on the Cavs next season bashes his face in.


----------



## KaRuN (Jan 27, 2004)

Ric Bucher said on ESPN radio that the Cavs should be in a "Joe Smith scenario". what i mean is that a team is not allowed to get out of one contract to sign another contract, its against the collective bargaining agreement . that is what the cavs were essentially doing. Bucher then when on to say he would therefore reserve judgement on the issue because theres maybe something else going on that we dont know of.

he also said that it could just be that Boozer just backed out and theres nothing else going on

so its just somthing else to think about...


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

My feelings... If Boozer were to tear his leg in some freak skiing accident and end never play again I would not feel one iota of sympathy. In fact, it would bring me closer to believing in a higher being...


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

in my opinion the agent is blameless, he is an agent , he did his job which is to be the guy who brings his client as much money as possible. i am sure at some point he told boozer he would do his best in the interest of boozer so really , the word he gave to the cavs management conflicts with it and he did what he is supposed to do and did a number on the cavs.

my blame here lies with carlos boozer , no one said he had to go back on his word to accept the deal with the jazz , there could have been ways to make sure he didn't get shorted in the long run like with an opt out clause . he choose not to do it and choose to stab someone in the back who did him a favor .

he is pretty low for that.

the cavs management did try to get a deal but thats what they are supposed to do , boozer agreed to it and if its their foolish trust that allowed it then so be it. there is suppposed to be some semblence of trust in business , some belief that the other person will do what they said they are going to do.

stigmas follow people, and this one wont go away as quick as people think.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: SI Describes Boozer Circumstances*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> First off, I doubt a fan in Golden State is going to think twice about that. Will Boozer get booed in Cleveland? Yes. Will anyone in Chicago care? No. Certainly he will be welcomed with open arms in utah


Was it you who claimed a black fellow wouldn't want to go to Utah?

Peace, mate.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Re: SI Describes Boozer Circumstances*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Heck, even Lebron James is infuriated at this.


Rumor has it that he is infuriated at Boozer. Not Paxson. Lebron signed off on this idea along with Paxson, Gund, and presumably Silas. Boozer didn't just betray Paxson, he betrayed the entire organization, and presumably the city of cleveland.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SI Describes Boozer Circumstances*



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Was it you who claimed a black fellow wouldn't want to go to Utah?
> ...


are you sure he's black? he's from alaska he may be indian more than anything else


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: SI Describes Boozer Circumstances*



> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> Rumor has it that he is infuriated at Boozer. Not Paxson. Lebron signed off on this idea along with Paxson, Gund, and presumably Silas. Boozer didn't just betray Paxson, he betrayed the entire organization, and presumably the city of cleveland.


Awfully easy for someone who has $100 million in endorsement deals alone to point a finger at a guy who was slated to make only $700k.

Even moreso when James decided not to go to college instead for those same big dollars.

James = Pot.


----------



## Aesop (Jun 1, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SI Describes Boozer Circumstances*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> are you sure he's black? he's from alaska he may be indian more than anything else


It's all about perception and culture, not genetics.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Aesop</b>!
> I don’t think Paxson and Gund are innocent victims. The motivation of the Cavs’ brass was clear: they were trying to capitalize on a player’s desire for short-term security. There is no doubt that signing Boozer to the deal the Cavs wanted would have been highway robbery. If Boozer would have re-signed, is there any doubt there would be regrets a year from now?
> 
> Nobody is a saint here.


This is true, but I find it very hard to believe that, at some point, this sticking point wouldn't have come up in the conversation between Boozer/Pelinka and the Cavs. Of course, Gund and Pax would have absolutely loved to have Boozer locked into an MLE deal for the next 5 or 6 years, but I don't really think Boozer and his agent were naive enough to think that's all he was worth on the open market. And as happygrinch pointed out, Boozer could have asked for an opt out after two or three years so that he could get his much-deserved raise.

All of them must have known that Boozer's market value probably exceeded the MLE by a fair amount. I mean, he averaged 16 and 11 last year in only his 2nd year. 

If Boozer acknowledged this and still asked to be let out of his contract so that he could sign the MLE offer with Cleveland, that's pretty low. I see where rlucas is coming from, and maybe this is my own naivete talking, but I'd like to believe that a person's word and honesty can still play a role in business. I don't blame Pelinka so much because I already consider agents to generally be scum and he just did what he could do to get a bigger payday. I just think it's really sad that money overrides morality so often in all walks of life, and this is just another example. Pax and Gund definitely deserve to be branded as fools on some level, but I can't fault them for trusting a man at his word.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SI Describes Boozer Circumstances*



> Originally posted by <b>PatBateman</b>!
> 
> 
> with all due respect, do you have any experience working with agents or sports/entertainment lawyers? My guess is no. For the most part, they are scum and extremely underhanded people. They have to be, it's their job. But get a grip and get off this stupid, "oh he had his client's best interests in mind, blah blah blah bullshhit." Pelinka was looking out for someone alright: himself. There is a no. 1 for Pelinka, and it ain't Kobe or Boozer. Notice how you are one of the only ones left defending here Rlucas? Gund is old school, and while not a saint and free from blame for being greedy here, certainly got the very wrong and short end of the stick.
> ...


Haha, looks like others agree with me, perhaps you read what you want

And yes, I have dealt with agents, my guess is no you havent

And let me guess, it was in Boozers interest to stay in Cleveland for 5 mil per and NOT GO TO UTAH FOR 12? Arent you a bit foolish for thinking otherwise?

And for the record, i think its really shameless to wish illwill on a player for wanting his market value. Again, foolish


----------



## synthdogg (Jul 14, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>KaRuN</b>!
> Ric Bucher said on ESPN radio that the Cavs should be in a "Joe Smith scenario". what i mean is that a team is not allowed to get out of one contract to sign another contract, its against the collective bargaining agreement . that is what the cavs were essentially doing. Bucher then when on to say he would therefore reserve judgement on the issue because theres maybe something else going on that we dont know of.
> 
> he also said that it could just be that Boozer just backed out and theres nothing else going on
> ...


I mentioned this in an earlier post, wondering if it were the case. Thanks for confirming it.

Karma sucks, eh? Even if they weren't trying to get Boozer on the cheap and they were just trying to help him out, breaking the rules is breaking the rules.
Going a step further, I wonder if the Cavs got off easy by Boozer signing elsewhere. If Boozer stayed in Cleveland and the league got wind of an under the table deal, the punishment could have ended up being a lot worse than just losing Boozer. It could have been Boozer and numerous future draft picks....who knows?


----------



## synthdogg (Jul 14, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> in my opinion the agent is blameless, he is an agent , he did his job which is to be the guy who brings his client as much money as possible. i am sure at some point he told boozer he would do his best in the interest of boozer so really , the word he gave to the cavs management conflicts with it and he did what he is supposed to do and did a number on the cavs.
> 
> my blame here lies with carlos boozer , no one said he had to go back on his word to accept the deal with the jazz , there could have been ways to make sure he didn't get shorted in the long run like with an opt out clause . he choose not to do it and choose to stab someone in the back who did him a favor .
> ...


I sould note that when I blamed the agent, I was responding to an assertion that Pelinka directed Boozer to make the plea to get out of his contract in the plans of trying to get a better deal all along.
That is speculation, of course...and it is very possible (if not probable) that Boozer asked out of his contract without Pelinka's prodding, and Pelinka didn't get involved actively until Utah came into the picture.
That's a high possibility and changes the scenario a bit.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: SI Describes Boozer Circumstances*



> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> Awfully easy for someone who has $100 million in endorsement deals alone to point a finger at a guy who was slated to make only $700k.
> ...


Except Boozer wasn't slated to make 700k. The Cavs let him out of his deal so they could pay him more next season.

He took what was essentially an act of faith on the Cavs organization and exploited it.

Boozer has made the league just a little bit worse off on the whole. What GM is going to ever try to do anything for his players ever again after this?

Jim's brother's approach to his players seems so much more justified right now.

Boozer was flat out greedy and he screwed everyone associated with the Cavs organization with his greediness. So far Lebron has yet to do that. So your arguement doesn't really fit.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>synthdogg</b>!
> 
> 
> I sould note that when I blamed the agent, I was responding to an assertion that Pelinka directed Boozer to make the plea to get out of his contract in the plans of trying to get a better deal all along.
> ...


it doesn't matter to me , its the agents job to be underhanded if need be to get his client the the best opportunities possible. , it is still boozer who makes the ultimate decision on his word , on whether he keeps it or not.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

If they hadn't picked up his option, how much would Boozer have made next year?

Looking at what other people have signed for, do you think what Cleveland would have offered Boozer would be fair to him, regardless of what "deal" was reached months ago?

Further, why have a CBA is a player and team will just make under the table deals to get around what it is intended to do?

Give me a break. Everyone is at fault, and at the end of the day, it is up to the player to get the best deal for himself.


----------



## Nater (Jul 10, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SI Describes Boozer Circumstances*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> low life agent who did his job, which is very clear. *looking out for the best interest of his clients.* In fact, I am not sure Pelinka shouldnt be applauded for this. PERIOD


I take issue with this position. Is he really looking out for his client's "best interest" if he only takes into consideration the money?

What about his immortal soul? Dante speculated that the innermost circle of hell is reserved for the traitors.

If you don't like religion... let's look at it from a secular perspective. Remember the movie, "Indecent Proposal"? Committing an unethical act for the sake of greed allowed jealousy, mistrust, and all manner of ugliness to destroy their relationship. Check it out: according to SI, Boozer lied to faces of Gund and Paxson, with his wife standing at his side. What will be the ramifications in their relationship of this clear disregard for honesty and integrity?

My point is this... Pelinka didn't look out for Boozer's best interests -- he looked out for Boozer's bank account. It's easy to confuse the two.

---

Sorry for such a soapbox-esque post. But many people dismiss ethics as a purely philisophical subject. I advise you to not underestimate its basis in reality.

---

The word "you" in this post refers to the reader, not just rlucas (whom I quoted). Just wanted to make sure that was understood.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Regardless of how anyone feels, this is a good debate


----------



## synthdogg (Jul 14, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Regardless of how anyone feels, this is a good debate


:yes:


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SI Describes Boozer Circumstances*



> Originally posted by <b>Nater</b>!
> 
> 
> I take issue with this position. Is he really looking out for his client's "best interest" if he only takes into consideration the money?
> ...


Nater, the easy counter to this is

Would it be in Boozers best interest to work at 50% of his fair market value? Would Pelinka be doing his job if he let his client do that? Its my opinion, that its fairly clear he was working for his client. And my gut tells me Carlos Boozer appreciated the extra 30 million bucks or so that his agent got him. If you want to fault him for that, then I cant continue to debate it.

As for religion. Its not my cup of tea. If your insinuating that Boozer is going to go to hell for lying to Paxson and Gund, well, I simply cant debate that, no one can. But I can say one thing, in economics and finance, your market value is represented by dollars. The Cavs were trying to STEAL from Boozer at the MLE. Boozer, in a demented way, outsmarted them. Im all for capitalism and all for getting what you deserve. Boozer, at 18 pts and 12 bds (or whatever) got what he deserved at 11 mil. My hats off to him and Pelinka, though I agree that it wasnt the cleanest way to do it. But then again, this isnt 1850 when a handshake and your word constituted a contract. Lets be real here and join the 21st century. Unless you have it on paper, dont assume anything. Its a great lesson for the younger people on the board who have never been involved in the sale of a home, a big loan, a lawsuit, or any kind of contract. Those youngsters will now realize that unless you have a biinding contract, it doesnt mean anything


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SI Describes Boozer Circumstances*



> Originally posted by <b>Nater</b>!Check it out: according to SI, Boozer lied to faces of Gund and Paxson, with his wife standing at his side. What will be the ramifications in their relationship of this clear disregard for honesty and integrity?


Good post!

Are you saying that Boozer will have an extra $30M to enjoy but only with his wife by his side constantly b/c she will now never believe a word he says?

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: 

p.s. I bet wifey was pushing for the money.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Is it too late for the Cavs to call Coach K and ask him to have this discussion on morality with Boozer?


----------



## curry_52 (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SI Describes Boozer Circumstances*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> Nater, the easy counter to this is
> 
> Would it be in Boozers best interest to work at 50% of his fair market value? Would Pelinka be doing his job if he let his client do that? Its my opinion, that its fairly clear he was working for his client. And my gut tells me Carlos Boozer appreciated the extra 30 million bucks or so that his agent got him. If you want to fault him for that, then I cant continue to debate it.


Yeah, LeBron should sit out until they give him 120M over the next 5 seasons.


----------



## synthdogg (Jul 14, 2003)

I think there is still question as to Boozer's intentions when he made the handshake deal in the first place. Was he lying to Gund? Did he make that deal with the intent of screwing the Cavs? Or did he always intend on following through and re-sign with the Cavs until ultimately being wooed by a LOT more money. 
While the end result is the same for the Cavs, one scenario is definitely more devious than the other.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>synthdogg</b>!
> I think there is still question as to Boozer's intentions when he made the handshake deal in the first place. Was he lying to Gund? Did he make that deal with the intent of screwing the Cavs? Or did he always intend on following through and re-sign with the Cavs until ultimately being wooed by a LOT more money.
> While the end result is the same for the Cavs, one scenario is definitely more devious than the other.


The only question that I feel is somewhat important is who initated the scheme. All reports thus far have indicated that it was Boozer and his agent.

Clearly, the Cavs and Boozer and his agent talked about the scenerio that another team might make a huge offer and Boozer said he would be loyal.

Whoops.....

Whether he was lying at that time or got persuaded later by the big bucks, this is an amoral act.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SI Describes Boozer Circumstances*



> Originally posted by <b>curry_52</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah, LeBron should sit out until they give him 120M over the next 5 seasons.


Curry, its funny how you try to pick a fight with me on every thread. Makes me think that you didnt learn anything from your past actions and the results that came from them?

James is tied into the CBA that applies to first rounders, HE HAS A CONTRACT. Guys like Boozer and Marquis Daniels dont apply to the rule because they arent tied into the rookie wage scale. So while you come in here and try and start stuff, maybe you ought to understand that I know the rules and be a little more intelligent about it, particularly when you quote me on about 90% of your posts.

Now to discuss one topic on a more mature level, what can be done to not allow things like this to happen? Well the most obvious one, and it hasnt been mentioned on this thread, is this moratorium on trades and actual signings until the 15th of July. This 2 week window serves no real purpose. Cleveland probably wouldnt have had this happen to them if this rule was bunk. I wish Dan were around to explain why this rule exists. However, there are all sort of loops in the rules and Boozer took advantage of one. More power to him.

Again, lets remember, Marquis Daniels makes more then Lebron James next year. Thats fair market value.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

Imagine this scenario...

Kobe and Pelinka inform the Lakers management that they will be signing a maximum contract with the Clippers on July 15, UNLESS they agree to trade Shaq before then. 

Lakers trade Shaq to Miami tomorrow...

Kobe signs with the Clippers ANYWAY, leaving the Lakers without Kobe AND Shaq...

Lakers management cries to the media that Kobe and Pelinka lied to their faces, that they had a verbal contract etc....

Now let's be honest here, if this scenario were to occur, I guarantee you that because we're talking about the Lakers getting screwed, everyone here would be laughing their butts off and agree the Lakers got what they deserved! 

Gund will get a lot of sympathy because he's an elderly blind man who still believed in the "old school" ways of a man keeping his word. 

Gund as victim = sympathy

Kupchak and Buss as victims = laughingstock

I feel bad for Gund and Pax for being lied to, but I will admit if the same thing were to happen to the Lakers, I would be LMAO. It would be the same situation, just different victims.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>SALO</b>!
> Imagine this scenario...
> 
> Kobe and Pelinka inform the Lakers management that they will be signing a maximum contract with the Clippers on July 15, UNLESS they agree to trade Shaq before then.
> ...


very likely Salo

Id also like to say that I believe that 90% of those people who think this is immoral would have done the exact same thing Boozer would have done in the same situation.


----------



## curry_52 (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SI Describes Boozer Circumstances*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> James is tied into the CBA that applies to first rounders, HE HAS A CONTRACT. Guys like Boozer and Marquis Daniels dont apply to the rule because they arent tied into the rookie wage scale. So while you come in here and try and start stuff, maybe you ought to understand that I know the rules and be a little more intelligent about it, particularly when you quote me on about 90% of your posts.
> 
> ...


Sorry, but the Cavs wanted to give Boozer a deal at market value instead of giving him 2 bucks next season (And they didnt have to), so they decided to opt out of this current deal in order to reward Boozer for his great 2003/04 season. Boozer agreed to it and then he went to Utah. So....


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SI Describes Boozer Circumstances*



> Originally posted by <b>curry_52</b>!
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the Cavs wanted to give Boozer a deal at market value instead of giving him 2 bucks next season, so they decided to opt out of this current deal in order to reward Boozer for his great 2003/04 season. Boozer agreed to it and then he went to Utah. So....


market value was 12 mil, not 5. Not to correct you, but your first sentence ought to read, the Cavs wanted to lock Boozer up at a far under market value price, though it was a nice raise from what he was getting. That was not a reward for his great season, they thought they would be saving money on him after next year. Plain and simple

Boozer and his agent gave his word. But not since 1850 has someones word or a handshake meant anything. There was no contract, hence no agreement.


----------



## curry_52 (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SI Describes Boozer Circumstances*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> market value was 12 mil, not 5. Not to correct you, but your first sentence ought to read, the Cavs wanted to lock Boozer up at a far under market value price, though it was a nice raise from what he was getting. That was not a reward for his great season, they thought they would be saving money on him after next year. Plain and simple
> ...


<strike>This is so pathetic, but I guess agreeing with Boozer and his agent show who you are. </strike>. This is totally unnecessary - MikeDC 
And the Cavs couldnt give him a Max deal, not even if they wanted to. 
Again, Pathetic. And since 1850 maybe your word hasnt meant something, because not everyone is like Boozer and his agent


----------



## RoddneyThaRippa (Jun 28, 2003)

If the SI account of the story is true, Boozer is garbage. First of all, how can you be *worried* about your financial future if you're making that much money? Honestly...

Second of all, if the account of the story is true, Boozer was released from his contract out of respect for him, not the other way around. In other words, the Cavs didn't release him from his contract to lowball him into signing a lower contract. They did so to help him and his family out, and he gave them his word that he would resign with him. That's shady. Really, really shady.


----------



## curry_52 (Jul 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RoddneyThaRippa</b>!
> If the SI account of the story is true, Boozer is garbage. First of all, how can you be *worried* about your financial future if you're making that much money? Honestly...
> 
> Second of all, if the account of the story is true, Boozer was released from his contract out of respect for him, not the other way around. In other words, the Cavs didn't release him from his contract to lowball him into signing a lower contract. They did so to help him and his family out, and he gave them his word that he would resign with him. That's shady. Really, really shady.


Agreed 110%. I dont see why is it so hard to understand this.


----------



## RoddneyThaRippa (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>curry_52</b>!
> 
> 
> Agreed 110%. I dont see why is it so hard to understand this.


I don't think it should be hard to understand. Sure, from a strictly business standpoint, the Cavaliers were stupid. But considering that they took the relationship to a different level in showing respect to Carlos, why couldn't Carlos stay loyal, and since when is there anything wrong with loyalty? Honor your word, it's that simple.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RoddneyThaRippa</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't think it should be hard to understand. Sure, from a strictly business standpoint, the Cavaliers were stupid. But considering that they took the relationship to a different level in showing respect to Carlos, why couldn't Carlos stay loyal, and since when is there anything wrong with loyalty? Honor your word, it's that simple.


But in taking the relationship to a different level, they were trying to work around the CBA, the legal document that governs player/team contracts.

Who started the chain?


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

I'll go even further in saying that I hope the NBA punishes the Cavaliers to trying this stunt. 

A several million dollar fine and loss of future draft picks should be the same result as what was done with Minnesota..


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> I'll go even further in saying that I hope the NBA punishes the Cavaliers to trying this stunt.
> 
> A several million dollar fine and loss of future draft picks should be the same result as what was done with Minnesota..


I see this as different that the Joe Smith case because they are not tampering with another team's assets and there was no hidden written contract. 

What the Cavs and Boozer did would seem to be reasonable. The discussed various scenerios and understood they would have to trust each other.

Whoops....

p.s. I would like Stern's office to weigh in whether this was illegal or legal but not binding.


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> I'll go even further in saying that I hope the NBA punishes the Cavaliers to trying this stunt.
> 
> A several million dollar fine and loss of future draft picks should be the same result as what was done with Minnesota..


arent the cavs punished enough rights now ??


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> I see this as different that the Joe Smith case because they are not tampering with another team's assets and there was no hidden written contract.
> ...


It does not have to be another team's player to be considered tampering. They essentially hatched a plan to evade the CBA so they could lock up Boozer for the long haul, and under his market value. 

If someone's word is as good as their signature, then it sounds like they had a deal in place, whether it was on paper or not. They should not have discussed terms.

The whole problem is that they agreed to this deal awhile ago before the market seemingly blew up. Looking at it, Cleveland has some absolute boneheads running the show, owner on down. This isn't the old school anymore, so that theory and excuse is pretty funny to me.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>toros_locos</b>!
> 
> arent the cavs punished enough rights now ??


They have LeBron. I consider that more then ample compensation for any troubles over the last 15 years.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Retrodreams, how does what the Cavs did violate any CBA rules? Unless you know something extra, I didn't think verbal agreements before the signing period were against the CBA.

Wasn't the deal with Joe Smith that it was more than just a verbal agreement. That there was a paper trail.


----------



## synthdogg (Jul 14, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> I see this as different that the Joe Smith case because they are not tampering with another team's assets and there was no hidden written contract.
> ...


This is the place where I see a double standard.

If it's true that there was a handshake deal and numbers were discussed then yes, Boozer renegged on an "unofficial" contract (immoral) but the Cavs violated the CBA by making the deal in the first place.

If the deal wasn't binding enough, or valid enough, as to get around the CBA rules...was it binding enough that Boozer should have ignored Utah's offer?


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SI Describes Boozer Circumstances*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> low life agent who did his job, which is very clear. looking out for the best interest of his clients. In fact, I am not sure Pelinka shouldnt be applauded for this. PERIOD


Rlucas, Retro.... I don't understand. Do you feel there was 
*nothing* wrong with Boozer or his agent's actions? That he should be applauded for this? 



> But in taking the relationship to a different level, they were trying to work around the CBA, the legal document that governs player/team contracts.





> Who started the chain?


They may have started the chain but Boozer did not necessarily have to finish it in this way. 

...I think what we have here are people who take this move as good business and nothing more, and people who are perhaps more idealistic and moral (not to say that you don't have morals or anything. I mean no insult by that.). Yes, the world is a business, but if we just simplify to only business and nothing more, wouldn't the world just *suck*? 

I think a balance is needed in all situations about what is good and what is most beneficial, between business and morals. Sure, it would be more beneficial to society if we just started killing old people who don't provide or work anymore. Their life is almost over anyways; they're wasting away in hospitable beds. We would have more money to spend on things other than healthcare, etc. The majority of important society would be a lot better off, and old people are stupid, anyways! Who cares? But obviously we have morals and we don't do this. 

Very, very, very, extreme example, I know, but I think this is sort of how I feel. If we don't have a moral sense, then aren't we just animals? Isn't that what separates us? In my opinion, Pelinka and Boozer have no morals whatsoever. If you promise *outright*, saying that I will reward you if you trust me, and then break that promise, then that is an outright lie of the strongest extent. Boozer gave his honor and lied. 

You can say the NBA is a business, and you would be right. You can say this was a good business decision and you would be right. But there's more to the world than just business. 

----

I believe that the two of you are businessmen, correct? I once read a book... I forget the name. Anyways, it talked about how a business person was a poor choice to have as a ruler because all he would care about is profit and the bottom line, and that moral sense is needed to truly serve all aspects of a society. Just a thought. 

anyways, i'm not saying that you guys don't have morals or are not good people. just want to make that clear.


----------



## synthdogg (Jul 14, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> I'll go even further in saying that I hope the NBA punishes the Cavaliers to trying this stunt.
> 
> A several million dollar fine and loss of future draft picks should be the same result as what was done with Minnesota..


I doubt there would be any punishment toward the Cavs since the deal didn't work and they lost Boozer.
Like I said previously, though, the Cavs may have gotten off easy only losing Boozer. If the deal had gon through and the league discovered it, they could have lost Boozer+ future picks+ cash.....


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> It does not have to be another team's player to be considered tampering. They essentially hatched a plan to evade the CBA so they could lock up Boozer for the long haul, and under his market value.
> ...


Look, Boozer doesn't have to sign a long term deal that underpays him. He can still sign with the Cavs for 5 million, one year, and then they can give him fair value if he wanted to reward them and honor his word. 5 million that is a big raise from the 780k he would have had.


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: SI Describes Boozer Circumstances*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Will Boozer get booed in Cleveland? Yes. Will anyone in Chicago care? No. Certainly he will be welcomed with open arms in utah


obviously other people do care, other wise nobody then cleveland fans would discuss this issue.

if i had the possibilty to watch a game at the uc against the cavs, i would boo at c-bo straight up. that guy is a rat , and he will see what he gets.
i predict not only cavs fans will boo at him. next season....or even season to come.


----------



## PatBateman (May 26, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SI Describes Boozer Circumstances*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Haha, looks like others agree with me, perhaps you read what you want
> ...


nice try, but you'll have to guess again. I cannot fathom why you continue with this mindless argument that he served his clients best interests. He served Pelinka's best interests. For you to claim that Boozer is not going to be booed or hated throughout the league is what is foolish my friend. 

Check out most of the posts, they favor the side that Boozer is a low-life, and while going for the money isn't necessarily wrong, the way he did it was underhanded, disloyal, and cheap. What's shameless is your defending of someone who does not give any stake or credibility to the old school thinking that a man's word is his bond. 

Karma comes around to bite people like you and Boozer in the *** eventually, so watch out for that oncoming bus.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rwj333</b>!
> 
> 
> Look, Boozer doesn't have to sign a long term deal that underpays him. He can still sign with the Cavs for 5 million, one year, and then they can give him fair value if he wanted to reward them and honor his word. 5 million that is a big raise from the 780k he would have had.


The market tends to work in peaks and valleys. The last time that FAs were paid like this was 3 years ago. Odds are, we won't see this level of spending for some time to come.

You can come up with all the ideas you want, fact is, the Cavs took the risk and lost. If they want to keep Boozer, who is now being paid market value, they still have that option.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SI Describes Boozer Circumstances*



> Originally posted by <b>PatBateman</b>!
> 
> 
> nice try, but you'll have to guess again. I cannot fathom why you continue with this mindless argument that he served his clients best interests. He served Pelinka's best interests. For you to claim that Boozer is not going to be booed or hated throughout the league is what is foolish my friend.
> ...


People also tend to act like someone they are not on the Internet, and most have never been put in a position that is even remotely close to this.

Your logic, if anything, is as fault as mine, or rlucas.


----------



## PatBateman (May 26, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SI Describes Boozer Circumstances*



> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> People also tend to act like someone they are not on the Internet, and most have never been put in a position that is even remotely close to this.
> ...


hey look, I will be the first person to admit that what the Cavs did was idiotic, poor business practice, deplorable.

But, Carlos and Pelinka acted in an underhanded manner here. There is no if or but about it. The Cavs should be punished for being so fukking pathetic, but Boozer should also get his comeuppance as well. Hopefully, he will get a Maloneesque elbow to the face or break his leg. Hopefully Pelinka will be blackballed as much to an extent is possible by other owners and teams. 

For those of you that don't think he will be booed next season, man do you have the wool pulled over your eyes.

The lesson to be learned is that you cannot trust anyone.....ever. But that doesn't mean that I don't think Boozer and Pelinka should suffer for the way they went about their business. Hopefully, they'll get what's coming to them.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SI Describes Boozer Circumstances*



> Originally posted by <b>PatBateman</b>!
> 
> 
> hey look, I will be the first person to admit that what the Cavs did was idiotic, poor business practice, deplorable.
> ...


I've never said he won't be booed. But if he is booed, then the Cleveland fans should boo Paxson and Gund every time as well, as there would be no Point B (Boozer leaving) without Point A (Not picking up the option, making him a FA).

The NBAPA, owners and the league offices work on the CBA for a reason and this is a prime example on why it's there. 

Further, I don't see why you would wish harm on Boozer. It really defies logic as he simply did what most (If not all) NBA players would do if put in a similar position.

Lastly, no one felt bad for Boozer when he slipped to the 2nd round in the draft, when he obviously should have been a lottery pick. He lost out on a lot of money because owners and GMs wanted to go for potential over a proven. 

Don't cry for me Argentina!


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> The market tends to work in peaks and valleys. The last time that FAs were paid like this was 3 years ago. Odds are, we won't see this level of spending for some time to come.
> ...


The point is he obviously had higher value and the Cavs would have had his bird rights. If they would take care him now, then they would later, correct? And if Boozer was good enough to merit 68 million, then surely he would have gotten a comparable contract next year. He was one of the few signings that was actually worth it this year. Nobody has complained about him being overpaid, unlike Foyle, Alston, and the others.

They could have kept Boozer anyways by picking up his option, and getting his bird rights. Wouldn't he have been a restricted free agent next year, too? Obviously the Cavs were dumb, no one disputes that.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SI Describes Boozer Circumstances*



> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> I've never said he won't be booed. But if he is booed, then the Cleveland fans should boo Paxson and Gund every time as well, as there would be no Point B (Boozer leaving) without Point A (Not picking up the option, making him a FA).
> ...


Why should we have felt bad for Boozer when he dropped to the second round? No one thought he was going to be this good. He was drafted according to his expected rate of return, there's nothing sad about that. 

Which second round players did you feel very badly about in this year's draft?

Are you not going to answer the first part of my first post? Do morals count for nothing?


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

My opinion- Carlos Boozer is a guy who had a sterling Dookie reputation, and he just ruined it. This is the lowest-class thing I've heard of in years. How many times have we heard from pro athletes how their organization is disrespecting them? Shaq running down court in the preseason yelling at his GM "are you going to pay me now?" when he had THREE years left on his contract? How about Ty Law in New England? Well, this is what happens when organizations "respect" people and tear up the contracts that only the teams are ever expected to live up to - never the players. He looked them in the eye PERSONALLY and screwed 'em. Every franchise everywhere now can say nothing means anything unless we're legally obligated to do it. JWill? Good luck with the rest of your limping life. Alonzo? Pippen? Sean Elliot? You're just a contract pal. Renegotiate? Isn't this your signature here on this contract? 

As for whether anyone else here would keep their word at their own expense - I would like to think so, yes. In the last 5 months I have had two situations change on me, and I did what I said I would do anyway to my detriment. (Details upon request! LOL) Now I'm in South Carolina instead of Sweet Home Chicago, after two months of no job, and also now making less money that I could have if I "made the best business decision" and ditched my new job for another offer, because when I gave somebody my word I freaking KEPT it. And that measly 20K I just passed up just might mean more to me than Boozer's extra 4 million means to him. So I know of what I speak. That's what people do. Anyway. Now, how do I get off this high horse? It's a long way down :laugh:


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SI Describes Boozer Circumstances*



> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> Don't cry for me Argentina!


someone should rewrite this song for this occasion.....

anything like this?

Don't cry for me Cleveland
The truth is I never loved you
All though you trusted in me
My steady progess
I broke my promise
Please keep your distance

:whoknows:


----------



## hps (Jul 23, 2002)

I think this whole situation will cause deal-making in the NBA to be that much more difficult to complete.

Gone will be ANY scenario where team management will be willing to take a player's word on a contract-related situation. No team will ever again gamble at being back-stabbed like the Cavaliers were, and when a player asks for 'trust', the team will simply point out the Boozer situation and say 'nothing personal, but we cannot risk it.'

Bottom line, a bad move by Paxson(showing trust), bad ethics by Boozer and his agent(betraying trust), and the good, opportunistic play by the Jazz made this situation possible.

I have a feeling Boozer will have a very nasty time playing away from the confines of Salt Lake City, especially in Cleveland where it will be outright dangerous.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SI Describes Boozer Circumstances*



> Originally posted by <b>toros_locos</b>!
> 
> 
> obviously other people do care, other wise nobody then cleveland fans would discuss this issue.
> ...


Toros, no offense, but i 100% disagree

Kobe was accused of rape and outside of Denver, didnt hear too much about it. 

Jason Kidd beat up his wife, and they dont even boo him in Phoenix. Only in Boston, IN THE PLAYOFFS

Boozer takes more money. I seriously doubt anyone outside of Cleveland will remember.............or care.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

If I by chance go see Utah play Denver, I'll heckle him. After the 1st foul is whistled againt Boozer I'll yell," Ref Boozer didn't foul, you can take his word for it"


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>L.O.B</b>!
> If I by chance go see Utah play Denver, I'll heckle him. After the 1st foul is whistled againt Boozer I'll yell," Ref Boozer didn't foul, you can take his word for it"


LOB, your hardcore though! 

The average fan come November, including 98% of the people on this board wont remember who Pelinka is or what happened. Its just human nature. People talk tough now, but come November, itll be water under the bridge.


----------



## QBF (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SI Describes Boozer Circumstances*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> low life agent who did his job, which is very clear. looking out for the best interest of his clients. In fact, I am not sure Pelinka shouldnt be applauded for this. PERIOD


I'm sorry, rlucas, you're an excellent poster, but about this you are simply wrong. A man's reputation, honor and honesty are his highest interests, and, with this, Pelinka has destroyed both his own and his client's interests.

Also, my guess is that Pelinka, like most agents, is an attorney and a member of one or more bar associations. These associations have codes of conduct regarding honesty in the practice of the profession, and attorneys can be disbarred for patterns of dishonesty. He was not doing his job. My guess is this incident will do him irreparable professional harm.

(Jim Paxson has been a horrible GM and should have been fired long ago - just not for this.)


----------



## JPBulls (Aug 15, 2003)

RLucas you are my favorite poster by far here but its insane that you think that what Boozer did was normal, he is the biggest son of a ***** in the NBA, I would boo him every single time I saw a game where he played. I don´t thing this is something that you forget easily, what he did was immoral and ridicolous.

And one more thing in the long run he will lose money!!! Endorsements would made this 28 million disppear easilly, or do you think Pippen didn´t gain more than 28 million becouse he played together with MJ... Boozer has no word and is stupid, I REALLY hope he brake a leg or something, I wouldn´t feel bed him not even for a second...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I really don't think people realize how much money $28M really is. It's not like Boozer accepted an extra $1M or something only slightly higher. 

RLucas is right when he says most people would go for the extra buckage. Think about how many $250M lottery winners don't take the $160M in cash instead of the $250M over 20 years. The same reasoning goes on there.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

Vote: Did Boozer behave cavalierly?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SportsNation

Thank you for voting. See below for the results from across SportsNation.

Your responses in bold text below. 

1) Did the Cavaliers make a mistake?

65.5% Yes -- they should never have opened the door for Boozer to leave.

34.5% No -- they expected him to keep his word.


2) Will and should Cleveland GM Jim Paxson be fired for letting Boozer get away?

45.1% He won't, and he shouldn't.

26.6% He won't, but he should.

14.2% He will, but he shouldn't.

14.1% He will, and he should.


3) How angry do you think LeBron James is right now?

55.0% Extremely

36.4% Somewhat

8.6% Not at all


4) What do you think of Boozer's action?

53.8% He should be ashamed.

46.2% All's fair in love and basketball.


5) What do you think of Utah's action?

89.7% They are just trying to win.

10.3% They should have honored the Cavaliers' oral agreement.


6) Is this a good signing by Utah?

66.7% Yes -- 22-year-old power forwards are worth it.

33.3% No -- they overpaid.


Total Votes: 126,920


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

Boozer would have gotten what the market would bear next year regardless, market fluctuations aside. It wasn't worth publicly declaring yourself a dishonest WEASEL to take this year's dough, imho. If you just can't STAND making 750K this year, take their midlevel exception plus whatever they can clear with raises for two or three years, to convince them not to make you basically play for free next year, then get your $11 mill deal from them (who would have Bird rights at that point) or someone else. In fact, with salaries continuing to escalate, it'll probably be a $12 million deal by then.

But DON'T go crying to management, "PLEASE PLEASE trust me and tear up my contract! I'm a good guy!", make and break a verbal agreement to do it CONDITIONAL on you staying and then leave them high and dry after taking advantage of their good will. Too much to ask I guess. 

(btw - in football they just renegotiate and extend contracts, and the previous contract isn't torn up until the new one is signed. I wonder why you can't you do that in basketball.)

Unless every agent in the world makes Boozer and his agent into outcasts and completely repudiates this move to every GM, I agree, dealmaking in the NBA just got harder. "Understandings" grease the skids in this league, seems to me. Alonzo Mourning, for example, had less than a season on his contract if I remember when the Heat traded for him. There was an obvious understanding that he would re-sign. And, he did what he said he'd do even though he could have bolted for anywhere. "Understandings" aren't new, even when they bend the rules to the point of fracture. Danny Manning had an understanding with the Suns... etc.

If teams break understandings, they simply don't get any more free agents. I guess Boozer got his deal... what does he care what anyone thinks of him? He may never have to do business with anybody every again. Besides, in 6 years if he has the numbers, the GMs will likely be returning to his agent like the freakin swallows to Capistrano... ugh. :sigh: Punk. Carlos Boozer, in the absence of further evidence, philomath calls you a PUNK.

( I bet he's shaking now... )


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

this is another interesting account of the story. probably the best one I've read. 

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

excerpt

In late April, after Boozer completed his breakout season, Pelinka brought it back to the Cavaliers' attention and both sides agreed to consider it in June. The parties met twice, once before the NBA's Pre-Draft Camp and once June 30. 


Meeting time 


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Caucus time 


At that time, the parties broke and had separate discussions. It was a tense 10-minute period that might be remembered as one of the most crucial moments in Cavaliers history that didn't take place on a basketball court. 


Gund asked Paxson if he thought the Cavaliers could trust Boozer. Paxson pointed out that Pelinka was present when the Boozers said they knew it was possible to get a larger offer than the Cavaliers could put on the table after July 1 -- but they still preferred to stay in Cleveland. At that time, Paxson and Gund agreed to allow Boozer to become a restricted free agent if that was what he wanted. 


The Boozers and Pelinka came back into the room and said they indeed wanted to be let out of the contract. They knew they could not make a deal on that day, but Pelinka said he was sure he could work out a deal with Paxson after July 1. Paxson promptly left the room and went to his office, where he had prepared a "qualifying offer," which is part of the procedure in making a player a restricted free agent. Under NBA rules, all qualifying offers have to be issued before July 1. 


The meeting then broke up, midnight passed, and Carlos Boozer was no longer a Cavalier. 


Crunch time 


On July 1, the Cavaliers stunned the NBA by revealing they had not picked up Boozer's option. Boozer and Pelinka granted interviews to the Associated Press stating their preference to re-sign with the Cavaliers. But, in retrospect, they did not issue any guarantees. 


"I want to be in Cleveland, I want to be with the Cavaliers," Boozer told the Associated Press. "Now it's up to my agent and the Cavs to work things out." 


"Carlos and his wife, CeCe, made it clear to me that they are very comfortable with the Cavaliers organization," Pelinka told the AP. "I'm confident (Paxson) and I will continue to have conversations and we'll be able to work something out." 


That afternoon, Utah Jazz owner Larry H. Miller made a previously scheduled phone call to a reporter in Salt Lake City. During the course of the conversation, the reporter asked Miller if the Jazz had any interest in Boozer. Until that moment, Miller didn't know the Cavaliers hadn't picked up Boozer's option. Miller told the reporter he was planning to call Jazz vice president Kevin O'Connor to have him look into Boozer's availability. 


On July 2, Boozer disconnected a cell phone that the Cavaliers and media had been using to contact him. 


On July 3, the Boozers were telling people that there was no deal with the Cavaliers in place. 


Over the July 4th weekend, the Golden State Warriors came to an agreement with center Adonal Foyle on a five-year, $41.6 million contract, a deal worth more per year than what Boozer could sign for with the Cavaliers under NBA rules. 

...

man, Jim Paxson is an idiot.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

All I have to say is I guess John Paxson and the Bulls must be freakin' idiots to have not immediately voided Jay Williams's contract under the strict terms of the CBA.

It would be interesting to see if the Bulls handled that situtuation differently today-- especially given the family ties between the two situations.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Kneepad, I disagree. I learned a long time ago that you shouldn't let the business practices of others dictate the way you yourself do business.

And I am a firm believer in what goes around, comes around.


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

Geez, this Carlos Boozer saga should be made into a movie, or at least a novel


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> Kneepad, I disagree. I learned a long time ago that you shouldn't let the business practices of others dictate the way you yourself do business.
> 
> And I am a firm believer in what goes around, comes around.


TB#1, my comment was meant tongue-in-cheek for all those here who are justifying team Boozer's "by-the-book" dealings.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

again i ask, what law did Boozer break

Ill also guarantee that in no building outside of Cleveland will Boozer see any extra mistreatment from the fans. 

Boozers agent got Boozer the best deal. How is that not doing his job?


----------



## The OUTLAW (Jun 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> All I have to say is I guess John Paxson and the Bulls must be freakin' idiots to have not immediately voided Jay Williams's contract under the strict terms of the CBA.
> 
> It would be interesting to see if the Bulls handled that situtuation differently today-- especially given the family ties between the two situations.



I really believe that the ramifications of this will be felt in situations similar to that of Jay Williams. Teams will actually work disregarding players feelings and goodwill. IMO


----------



## life_after_23 (Jul 24, 2002)

> again i ask, what law did Boozer break
> 
> Ill also guarantee that in no building outside of Cleveland will Boozer see any extra mistreatment from the fans.
> 
> Boozers agent got Boozer the best deal. How is that not doing his job?


It not about the law...it depends on how business gets done in the NBA. ESPN Radio had a few guests on after this saga and in unison they said that this was a standard business practice. So, reneging on a verbal agreement changes the way business will be conducted in the future. 
For successful negotiations / win-win deals, it is important to trust the party sitting in front of you...if this sets a precedent for breaking that norm / changes the current practices it messes it up for the other players as well as management. Each party is going to come in not even trusting the other...
What if:
The management does away with the 15 day signing period where the agent / player can shop around and gauge interest level based on a semi-offer in hand and there is comfort in knowing that the courtship is going to end in 15 days....

The lesser players are going to get shafted and they will soon have Boozer Rules/Exceptions...as a result of what Pelinka and Boozer did....


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>life_after_23</b>!
> 
> It not about the law...it depends on how business gets done in the NBA. ESPN Radio had a few guests on after this saga and in unison they said that this was a standard business practice. So, reneging on a verbal agreement changes the way business will be conducted in the future.
> For successful negotiations / win-win deals, it is important to trust the party sitting in front of you...if this sets a precedent for breaking that norm / changes the current practices it messes it up for the other players as well as management. Each party is going to come in not even trusting the other...
> ...


You bring up the best point on this thread. whats the point of this 15 day period? While people can cry about what Boozer did or didnt do, why isnt anyone asking HOW this happened. THIS HAPPENED, because the NBA has a 2 week period that allows stuff like this to happen. They are as much at fault as anyone else.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Free Arenas.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> You bring up the best point on this thread. whats the point of this 15 day period? While people can cry about what Boozer did or didnt do, why isnt anyone asking HOW this happened. THIS HAPPENED, because the NBA has a 2 week period that allows stuff like this to happen. They are as much at fault as anyone else.


Thats how I feel on it. I don't like the 2 week period, why not just open the floor for talks and sign them if you want to at the same time?


On a side note, this Rob Pelinka, does anyone know if he's the teammate of Rose and Webber and that gang from 1992 at Michigan?
If I'm not mistaken there was a Rob Pelinka who was a senior when they were either freshmen or sophomores.
He was also part of the 89 championship team.

Same guy?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JRose5</b>!
> 
> 
> Thats how I feel on it. I don't like the 2 week period, why not just open the floor for talks and sign them if you want to at the same time?
> ...


http://www.prosportsgroup.com/SportsAgentNews/Mar2004/News/pelinka.htm

FORMER U-M PLAYER HAS TO STAY IN TOUCH AS A SPORTS AGENT


Question: What do NBA players Kobe Bryant, Carlos Boozer, Morris Peterson, Corey Maggette, Chris Kaman, Keyon Dooling, Gerald Wallace, DeShawn Stevenson and Fred Hoiberg have in common? 

Answer: Their agent, former University of Michigan basketball player Rob Pelinka.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> http://www.prosportsgroup.com/SportsAgentNews/Mar2004/News/pelinka.htm
> ...


A-ha Thanks DB, I figured there weren't many Rob Pelinka's lurking around the basketball world.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

I would like to start the Carlos Boozer Karma fund and collect 11 million bucks for Gordon Gund,have him match the Utah offer under one condition...Boozer doesnt see 1 minute of playing time the next six years:yes:


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

But, he still would get paid...


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

What law did he break? If someone accused him of breaking a law that's something else altogether. I for one accused him of being a weasel, which juries treat considerably less harshly. And if nothing else comes out, and if I'm there when the Bulls come to town, there will be at least 1/22879th more grief for him than there would have been, for what that's worth.

That said, the Yahoo story did shed interesting new light that has cooled my jets some. First, the Cavs apparently came to the room saying they were probably not going to pick up his option on their own, rather than Carlos explicitly begging for it, at least in that meeting. Second, there's a lot of "preferring" to stay in Cleveland, rather than guaranteeing, being thrown around. Third, Gund encouraged Boozer NOT to sign a contract he would be unhappy with, meaning the Cavs had seriously pondered and accounted for the possibility that this move could result in them losing Boozer, and acknowledged it to his face in a cordial manner. Now, later on, in the mysterious "tense 10 minutes" the article mentions, there apparently was an agreement reached, or at least the Cavs thought they had one. The issue of trusting Boozer explicitly came up between Paxson and Gund, meaning they didn't think the issue was "what will he decide," but instead "will he stick by the decision he just made," and that they thought they had his word in their pocket. 

So, I still think Boozer is a weasel, but the circumstances surrounding the weaselness are less weaselly than was previously suggested. I bet Boozer and his wife started replaying the early part of the meeting about how the Cavs knew they might lose him when the trucks full of money arrived at their house, rather than the tense-10-minutes part, because that was the part they liked better, and they talked themselves into it - let's just remember the part we want to remember! People can remember whole other conversations than what actually occurred by doing that.

Ugh, just stinks all the way around. Carlos Boozer will be fine, but Rob Pelinka has serious career issues at the moment.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> But, he still would get paid...


yes,but he would soon learn that money isnt everything verrrrrry quickly....


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Philomath</b>!
> That said, the Yahoo story did shed interesting new light that has cooled my jets some. First, the Cavs apparently came to the room saying they were probably not going to pick up his option on their own, rather than Carlos explicitly begging for it, at least in that meeting.


I am lost as too why the Yahoo article makes Boozer look any better.

The Yahoo account is not inconsistant with all of the other reports. It does have more details before and after the key meeting and about the meeting itself. But less of the dialogue from the meeting. 

And it's still clear that this was something that Boozer and his agent were pushing for. And Boozer told both Gund and Paxson that they could trust him even though he was likely to get a bigger offer.

p.s. I especially love how Boozer disconnected his cell phone so the Cavs could not get in touch with him on July 2nd.


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

Grant Hill and Jay Williams get paid, and they're going nuts. Plus, they don't have the public humiliation factor Boozer would have, or the aggravating factor that Boozer would be sitting while young and healthy. ERob's pretty close, though, come to think of it. 

I'm in. Sign me up for half of whatever RLucas contributes.


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> I am lost as too why the Yahoo article makes Boozer look any better.
> ...


Oh, yeah. He's a weasel. It just doesn't seem QUITE as egregious to me as I thought initially, mostly based on watching TV reports which may have been sensationalized, for the reasons I mentioned above. But he's definitely a weasel.



> p.s. I especially love how Boozer disconnected his cell phone so the Cavs could not get in touch with him on July 2nd.


What a punk. He's a punk weasel. I should make an avatar of a punk weasel wearing his jersey. I bet his home phone and his cable service are disconnected now since his weasality has become such an issue.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

better a punk weasel than a punk weasel moose.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

Man, it sucks when a man is called a weasel for simply changing his mind.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> Man, it sucks when a man is called a weasel for simply changing his mind.


Yea, he only changed his mind about whether the Cavs could trust him.

Booze then, "You can trust me"

Booze now, "On second thought, you can't. Did me changing my phone number give it away?"


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

The real reason Booze did the nasty was payback pure and simple 

Psssst. Booze ... it was the Cavs that drafted you after everyone else passed on you 

Pssst. Booze... it was Jason Richardson that bounced the ball off your melon.. not Gordon Gund or Jim Paxson in the Rookie challenge and made a fool out of you 

They snoozed

You used

You abused

They lose 

On Ya Booze


----------



## garnett (May 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>F.Jerzy</b>!
> The real reason Booze did the nasty was payback pure and simple
> 
> Psssst. Booze ... it was the Cavs that drafted you after everyone else passed on you
> ...


:laugh: What a post.


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>F.Jerzy</b>!
> The real reason Booze did the nasty was payback pure and simple
> 
> Psssst. Booze ... it was the Cavs that drafted you after everyone else passed on you
> ...


that sumz it up quiet perfectly, with a lace of poetry.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

Well - the "innocent" agent that was just doing his job is going to 'fire' Boozer:laugh: 

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

In a surprising, and rarely seen, move, SFX Sports Group and agent Rob Pelinka have decided to "fire" embattled free-agent power forward Carlos Boozer after he was accused of misleading the Cleveland Cavaliers before negotiating a six-year, $68 million offer with the Utah Jazz. 

"Rob tried to get Carlos to do the right thing,'' said a source close to SFX, claiming that Pelinka chose to dissolve the relationship after it became clear that he could not convince Boozer to live up to his promise of re-signing with Cleveland. 

Boozer abbanded - but he still has a 68 mil contract on the table and an offer of 5 mil from Cavs - Word is Gund is crushed...


I say CeCe is behind all this:laugh:

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

Pelika abbanded too - I love it,everyone in the situation should be punished (imo Cavs too)


----------

