# Merged: Boozer Screws Cavs Signs with Utah!!



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

How could the Cavs be so dumb???:upset: 

Boozer just signed with Utah, 6 years 68 Million!

You might want to update those Eastern Conference Playoff Predictions...


----------



## sMaK (Jun 13, 2002)

Wow... What a **** Boozer is and what a **** the Cavs GM is...


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

Heh I feel like the only one who supports Boozer's decision. It wasn't super-honorable to back out of his verbal agreement with the Cavs (assuming he really had one), but it was the smart decision and the one I'm sure most people would have made.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Expect the Cavs to trade Z to Atlanta or so for capspace and match that offer.

Marion to Toronto
Carter, Eisley to Atlanta
Z to Phoenix
2nd round pick to Cleveland

Just an idea.


----------



## SilentOneX (Feb 9, 2004)

Whoa, it is just happening out of the blue... I actually though K-Mart was going to visit Utah but apparently dropped it and grabbed Boozer instead.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

Well if you make a verbal agreement, and than just take the money and run, it does seem dishonest, but Boozer was a 2nd round pick, so you can understand him taking the money and running for the hills of Utah.


----------



## Arclite (Nov 2, 2002)

Cleveland made an error in calculating their cap space and wanted to give Boozer WAY less than he is worth. How is Boozer an *** when the Cavs were clearly trying to lowball him from day one? They better be trying desperately to move Ilgauskas. How hard do they try to do that, though, knowing he "went back on his word"? What a crazy offseason.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MJG</b>!
> Heh I feel like the only one who supports Boozer's decision. It wasn't super-honorable to back out of his verbal agreement with the Cavs (assuming he really had one), but it was the smart decision and the one I'm sure most people would have made.


I'm with you on this. His stock is never gonna be higher than it is right now he's an Olympian. He isn't worth that kinda money and his numbers could be inflated just because he plays with Lebron but I can't blame him for the move. How is a guy supposed to turn down that much money to be nice to a franchise. They were stupid is all not honorable. 

They should have been cold blooded and locked him into that contract. 

They can start moving around players to try and match but it would be better to just let him go. He's good not great they can replace him . 

I hope the hell this doesn;t mean they will try and raid Etan Thomas from the Wiz.


----------



## Nevus (Jun 3, 2003)

I'm more upset with Boozer's agent than with Carlos, because it's agents who cause this kind of double cross... the only reason the Cavs didn't pick up his option was because his agent had agreed that Boozer would resign for about the MLE. Now, they change their minds. It's unfortunate.


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

Boozer is a huge pickup for the Jazz. I put him up there with Zach Randolph and Amare Stoudemire in terms of good young PF's


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Lakota_Blazer</b>!
> Boozer is a huge pickup for the Jazz. I put him up there with Zach Randolph and Amare Stoudemire in terms of good young PF's


He is not on Randolphs level and he is for sure not on Amare's level. If he was he would have been the #1 FA outside of Kobe and would have gotten a max offer.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

Lebron must be pissed right now.


----------



## Arclite (Nov 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Nevus</b>!
> I'm more upset with Boozer's agent than with Carlos, because it's agents who cause this kind of double cross... the only reason the Cavs didn't pick up his option was because his agent had agreed that Boozer would resign for about the MLE. Now, they change their minds. It's unfortunate.


Apparently Cleveland miscalculated their cap space and wanted Boozer to take less money than they wanted him to originally. All they wanted from the get-go was to lock him up now for less than it would have taken them next year, and then they want him to take less money than that because they miscalculated their cap space? He owes them nothing. If the Cavs are willing to take the risks on a shady move like that, they're going to have to deal with the repercussions.

I think they're going to deal someone to get the space to match the offer, but having to move important pieces of your team for a guy who is getting overpaid is going to seriously set that team and their future back.


----------



## Nevus (Jun 3, 2003)

I hear that it may be the Cavs' management that wanted to change their verbal deal after not picking up his option, and that's why Boozer looked elsewhere. If that's true then Paxson has some explaining to do.


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

Things happen, I thought there was a problem when the Cavs didn't pick up the option. I'll say it, Jerry Sloan is going to love Boozer, I think he actually compliments Okur pretty nicely.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

If there truly is a scales of justice, Carlos Boozer will blow out both knees sometime around 11:59 pm July 14th.

Do not blame his agent, there is no way an agent would turn his word into mud unless his client was directing him to do so. His agent will either walk away from Boozer or his other clients should walk away from him.

It is really no big deal, the Cavs will match this deal but thanks to Carlos Boozer they will be set back 2-3 years.


----------



## jokeaward (May 22, 2003)

Wait, what? They can't match and they did this?

I thought Boozer would be loyal. Oh well, have fun with Lebron in Athens. 

Poor Kris.


----------



## Arclite (Nov 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BigAmare</b>!
> 
> 
> He is not on Randolphs level and he is for sure not on Amare's level. If he was he would have been the #1 FA outside of Kobe and would have gotten a max offer.


Uhh, no. He wasn't supposed to be a free agent this offseason to begin with, and apparently everyone but the Jazz was operating under the notion that he had already worked something out with Cleveland and any pursuit of him would have been futile.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

This is why people should never count their chickens before they hatch. We've had a few Cavs fans on this board bragging about how they're a contender in the East now, and would probably win a few titles in the future. All this bluster about a team that hasn't made the playoffs in years. Now they're quite possibly going to lose an Olympian for nothing, and miss the playoffs again next year.

Don't brag about your team before it's done anything. Something can always go wrong, whether it's injuries, or another team passing you up, or players leaving, or GM incompetence. That's why most "teams of the future" never become "teams of the present."

I'm going to take a moment to laugh at the Cavs.
:rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
:rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
:rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
:rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
:rotf: :rotf: :rotf:


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

Cavs fans must be sick to their stomache.

They weren't expecting anything like this coming into the off-season. They looked to be a playoff team and had their future set. I hope that Luke Jackson guy is really good...


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Now this is what you call overpaying....


----------



## Nevus (Jun 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> This is why people should never count their chickens before they hatch. We've had a few Cavs fans on this board bragging about how they're a contender in the East now, and would probably win a few titles in the future. All this bluster about a team that hasn't made the playoffs in years. Now they're quite possibly going to lose an Olympian for nothing, and miss the playoffs again next year.
> 
> Don't brag about your team before it's done anything. Something can always go wrong, whether it's injuries, or another team passing you up, or players leaving, or GM incompetence. That's why most "teams of the future" never become "teams of the present."
> ...


You call it bragging, other people call it being excited and optimistic. I find your attitude a bit disturbing. But I guess it's your right. You aren't the only one... there are even bitter fans in Cleveland who try to talk everyone else out of getting excited about the Cavaliers.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

man, this should cost Paxson his job. i mean what the hell is the job description of a GM anyway? 

#1. Retain your good people

#2. Get more of them

this is going to set Cleveland back years.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

> You might want to update those Eastern Conference Playoff Predictions...


No kidding.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Boozer is the next Brian Grant with worse man to man defense.


----------



## Nevus (Jun 3, 2003)

I just hope they don't match it... I think they could make a better team by spending that money in other ways. Assuming the management is capable of making some good moves.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BigAmare</b>!
> Boozer is the next Brian Grant with worse man to man defense.


He's slightly better, but yeah, a young Brian Grant isn't a bad comparison.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

> How is Boozer an *** when the Cavs were clearly trying to lowball him from day one?


That's exactly what I've been saying. They wanted to have him signed long term before his contract ran out and he'd be worth much more.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

the cavs weren't trying to lowball him. They could have had him for another year at like 800k. And had his bird rights. \

instead the waived that next year to try and give him more money.


----------



## Nevus (Jun 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> 
> 
> That's exactly what I've been saying. They wanted to have him signed long term before his contract ran out and he'd be worth much more.


Regardless of how much you like the deal they had... they had a verbal agreement. Whoever broke that deal is the one at fault. The fans are going to want to hold someone accountable. If it's the management, it's going to be ugly.


----------



## ivo_krka (Jan 29, 2004)

Boozer is a great player, but 68 mil. in 6 years. That just seems too much. After this Jazz won't be able to bring many quality players in the upcoming years because Booz took quite a lot of cap space and Giricek is from what I've heard offered 16 mil. in 4 years, so they'll be stuck with Kirilenko and Boozer in the upcoming years. If they don't become a stable Playoff team this move won't prove that good.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BigAmare</b>!
> Boozer is the next Brian Grant with worse man to man defense.


I tend to feel this way also. 

The Jazz will have the league's worse interior defense with Okur and Boozer. Neither blocks shots all that well and neither will prevent people from attacking the basket especially Okur. 

But they will provide some scoring and rebounding with Boozer. 

Boozer is a solid player and a nice piece of a puzzle not a big factor though.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Under Sloan, Boozer is going to be even more than a stud than he already is. Look at their lineup for this season, and the future!

Carlos Arroyo
Matt Harpring
Andrei Kirilenko
Carlos Boozer
Mehmet Okur

With Kirk Snyder, Raul Lopez and Kris Humphries off the bench.


----------



## Ballyhoo (May 30, 2003)

I think the Cavs GM completely underestimated the size of the contracts that would be offered in this off season. He was probably just as shocked as many of us when Foyle got $41 million. I don't blame Boozer, he deserves more than Foyle, so why should be loyal? Teams aren't loyal to players, they trade them all the time. It's just business.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> Under Sloan, Boozer is going to be even more than a stud than he already is. Look at their lineup for this season, and the future!
> 
> Carlos Arroyo
> ...


I am not surprised if utah wins championship.


----------



## Arclite (Nov 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ivo_krka</b>!
> so they'll be stuck with Kirilenko and Boozer in the upcoming years.


Yeah, the Jazz are in quite a quandary right there.


----------



## Anima (Jun 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> 
> It is really no big deal, the Cavs will match this deal but thanks to Carlos Boozer they will be set back 2-3 years.


The Cavs can't match because they don't have full bird rights. The most they could offer him is the MLE with a raise each season which would be about $40 million over 6 years.


----------



## Odomiles (Mar 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>BigAmare</b>!
> Boozer is the next Brian Grant with worse man to man defense.


That's true to an extent, but Carlos Boozer will be a much better player, in my opinion. This past season he played better than Brian Grant in his very best season, and that was only his second year. I think his scoring average will continue to increase in the next few seasons (which Grant's never really did). He's also more aggressive on the boards. I think Boozer will continue to average a double-double for the better part of his career which Brian Grant has only done once (and barely, at that). Boozer isn't even close to being as overpaid as Brian Grant, but it isn't a terrible comparison, I suppose.


----------



## Ballyhoo (May 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Epadfield</b>!
> The Cavs can't match because they don't have full bird rights. The most they could offer him is the MLE with a raise each season which would be about $40 million over 6 years.


Yep. I asked this same question a couple of days ago:
http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=105248&forumid=55


----------



## TheRifleman (May 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> man, this should cost Paxson his job. i mean what the hell is the job description of a GM anyway?
> 
> #1. Retain your good people
> ...


It won't set them back if Luke Jackson is worth it. The only player out there that really makes a difference for any team is "Shaq". I don't see the Cavs matching that offer - and I think that Utah will have a very good team - quicker than any thought - thanks to their owner and most of all - their awesome coach.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

*The Cavs will match though it will cost them letting go of Battie and Wagner or Big Z for next to nothing.*


----------



## Kicito (Jun 3, 2003)

They can try to lure Stromile Swift if they don't want to match. Just an idea though . . .


----------



## SamTheMan67 (Jan 4, 2004)

<strike>artest fan , every post even relating to lebron james or the cavs all you do is hate and show your complete ignorance towards anything.</strike><font color=blue>(Do not single out a poster and deride their intelligence. That is "baiting" and harassment.)</font> :nonono:


back to the cavs...

how could this happen... boozer & lbj for 10 years sounded like a dynasty


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

*seriously cavs fans, don't worry about it you still have bron*

Well the future title celebration is officially on hold Cleveland fans..:laugh:

Maybe now people understand the B in the NBA stands for Business. They tried to screw Boozer over, and now its come back on them. Something I call karma or _ka_. At least it keeps the Cavs from messing with my Knicks for awhile.

Maybe now LeBron has more chance at that triple double, since he will inevitably have to rebound a lot more.


----------



## SamTheMan67 (Jan 4, 2004)

lol , im rooting for the knicks too , I cant wait till they can get allan houston and mutumbo off the contracts so they can actually do something


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

Sounds like the Cavs are out of the playoff chase for a couple more years. LeBron is going to wind up pulling a Shaquille O'Neal and walk.


----------



## Nevus (Jun 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> Sounds like the Cavs are out of the playoff chase for a couple more years. LeBron is going to wind up pulling a Shaquille O'Neal and walk.


I still think they can make the playoffs. But if they don't, I think you may be right. The management has got to find a way to make it up to LeBron, or else he will leave.


----------



## DaUnbreakableKinG (Jun 28, 2003)

I don't think what boozer did is wrong. He went to a better team and better deal. Nothing wrong with that. I would do the same if I was in his place.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

*bahahahaha*

Paxson must be in cahoots with Layden...this is just too rich :laugh:


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BigAmare</b>!
> Boozer is the next Brian Grant with worse man to man defense.


Sloan knows basketball.


----------



## Mongolmike (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>sMaKDiSDoWn</b>!
> Wow... What a **** Boozer is and what a **** the Cavs GM is...


I generally disagree with Hurricane fans, just because I'm an Ohio State fan... but in this case sMAK.... you are 100% right, and I'd buy ya a beer if you is old enough.......


----------



## Mongolmike (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ballyhoo</b>!
> I think the Cavs GM completely underestimated the size of the contracts that would be offered in this off season. He was probably just as shocked as many of us when Foyle got $41 million. I don't blame Boozer, he deserves more than Foyle, so why should be loyal? Teams aren't loyal to players, they trade them all the time. It's just business.


Upset tho I am, what you say is all true. I for one certainly do not blame Utah... good for them. I thought the Clev organization was trying to be decent about it, but boy, did this bite back hard.


----------



## Mongolmike (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: seriously cavs fans, don't worry about it you still have bron*



> Originally posted by <b>sherako</b>!
> Maybe now people understand the B in the NBA stands for Business. They tried to screw Boozer over, and now its come back on them. Something I call karma or _ka_


Actually, Boozer and his agent approached Clev with the idea LAST SEASON when he was doing so well about the possibility of them letting Boozer out of his contract early. They did in no way try to screw him over. It made good sense to them, and Boozer got big bucks a year early. If anything, Boozer and his agent reneged on their word. 

If a verbal contract can hold up in court, why can't a verbal contract hold up in this case?


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TheRifleman</b>!
> It won't set them back if Luke Jackson is worth it. The only player out there that really makes a difference for any team is "Shaq".


whuh? if Luke Jackson becomes a stud, then they could've had Luke Jackson AND Boozer, and they could've been a legit contender in the East in another year. it wasn't an either/or situation. 

as it is now, if Luke Jackson works out they may, MAY, be as good as they were last year. I wouldn't consider that progress. 

this sort of talent loss is exactly why McGrady eventually left Orlando. Lebron is going to put up with a treading water team for only so long. 

I don't understand your other sentence. Lots of guys are really difference makers on lots of teams. Take any top-40 NBA player away from your team and you won't have as good a team. Simple as that. The rule isn't limited to Shaq.


----------



## MiamiHeat03 (Mar 28, 2003)

hahaha

Wow Cleveland must really pissed, especially Lebron.

How could cleveland make such an error.


----------



## Tersk (Apr 9, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>BigAmare</b>!
> 
> 
> He is not on Randolphs level and he is for sure not on Amare's level. If he was he would have been the #1 FA outside of Kobe and would have gotten a max offer.


For that season he was a way better rebounder than either of them and probably just as good as Randolph and close to Amare


----------



## Knicksbiggestfan (Apr 29, 2003)

Poor Chris Humphries.


----------



## Bron_Melo_ROY (Apr 12, 2004)

I still don't understand why Carlos Boozer would turn down playing along side LeBron James who can bring him instant success and credability and leave to the Jazz. I guess it was a money thing. All I know is thst the Cavaliers have to free up some cap space if they want Carlos Boozer in a Cavaliers uniform next year. James, Jackson, and Boozer would have been a devestating trio in the East and by the looks of things, it will just be a duo of James and Jackson. Another question, who is going to replace Boozer at the PF position in Cleveland. Not Ruben Boumtje-Boumtje, or Lee Nailon and I'm not sold on Eric Battie as a starter. He doesn't seem durable enough to start and be productive every night and plus, he is 5 years older than Carlos Boozer. Well the Cavs just took a step back in becoming a force in the NBA. Hopefully, they get someone in a few years who can do what Boozer did if he doesn't resign. When you think about it, Cleveland should have picked up the option on Carlos Boozer's contract so I don't feel sorry for the front office.


----------



## theBirdman (Jun 20, 2003)

How stupid are the Cavs?!? Unbelievable!

This is the indicator that CLE managment doesnt have a clue how to run an NBA team! I mean how can you make a mistake like that! 

This is just the most naive thing ever!


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: seriously cavs fans, don't worry about it you still have bron*



> Originally posted by <b>sherako</b>!
> Well the future title celebration is officially on hold Cleveland fans..:laugh:


Wow, Boozer's importance is really becoming overvalued.

Yes, he's a good player and a useful piece and yes, Paxson is an idiot to release him from his contract early, but Boozer was hardly the make-or-break on a future championship team. Honestly, if they had kept him, they ran this risk of drastically overpaying him next season or season after.

Cleveland's number one priority should be finding another (young) star to pair with James (Boozer wasn't it) and then filling in complimentary pieces around those two. Boozer could have been a nice complimentary piece, but it appears he wants, and can command, star-like cash not complimentary player money.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BigAmare</b>!
> Boozer is the next Brian Grant with worse man to man defense.



Uh Boozer is tough and hard working. Grant is a cupcake who signed a 90+ mil contract years ago and then mailed in the rest of his career.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

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. 

I don't think Boozer is close to the calibre of Randolph or Stoudemire offensively, but he does know how to get work done on the boards. This is a big loss for Cleveland, because having a player like Boozer giving you second chance opportunities and securing rebounds on the defensive end places you above the rest of the Eastern Conference teams. (Detroit, Indiana, NJ, Miami... all have PF's that can rebound)


----------



## Knicksbiggestfan (Apr 29, 2003)

Anyone else feel this is Karma, for tanking the 2003 season to get Lebron.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

> Wow, Boozer's importance is really becoming overvalued.
> 
> Yes, he's a good player and a useful piece and yes, Paxson is an idiot to release him from his contract early, but Boozer was hardly the make-or-break on a future championship team. Honestly, if they had kept him, they ran this risk of drastically overpaying him next season or season after.
> 
> Cleveland's number one priority should be finding another (young) star to pair with James (Boozer wasn't it) and then filling in complimentary pieces around those two. Boozer could have been a nice complimentary piece, but it appears he wants, and can command, star-like cash not complimentary player money.


Please. Complimentary player money gets you guys sitting at the very end of the bench. Consider Zhizhi Wang a nice complimentary piece? That's what you'd be getting.

Boozer wouldn't have been the Scottie Pippen to LeBron's Jordan, but he would have been Horace Grant. Not quite a make-or-break player, but one that is extremely important to success.


----------



## Knicksbiggestfan (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: Re: seriously cavs fans, don't worry about it you still have bron*



> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> Wow, Boozer's importance is really becoming overvalued.
> ...



After reading this I started thinking about the similarity between Boozer and Brand, and their contracts.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> 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.
> 
> I don't think Boozer is close to the calibre of Randolph or Stoudemire offensively, but he does know how to get work done on the boards. This is a big loss for Cleveland, because having a player like Boozer giving you second chance opportunities and securing rebounds on the defensive end places you above the rest of the Eastern Conference teams. (Detroit, Indiana, NJ, Miami... all have PF's that can rebound)


I agree with this. It's just stupid to even risk the possibility of letting Boozer go like this. Dumb, dumb move by the owner and GM. If they had just let him become a restricted FA after next season, they would have Ilgauskus' huge contract coming off the books, so they'd have the cap room to match any offer that Boozer would get. I just don't understand the thinking in what they did, risking losing Boozer for nothing when he was under contract, being paid like the 2nd Round pick he was, and they got greedy and tried to get him to take the MLE when he's worth more than that, especially with guys like Adonal Foyle getting more than the MLE.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> 
> 
> Please. Complimentary player money gets you guys sitting at the very end of the bench. Consider Zhizhi Wang a nice complimentary piece? That's what you'd be getting.


You can get significantly better players than Wang for less than the $10 million / year deal Boozer just signed.



> Boozer wouldn't have been the Scottie Pippen to LeBron's Jordan, but he would have been Horace Grant. Not quite a make-or-break player, but one that is extremely important to success.


He *might* be Horace Grant, based on one, solitary season. Even if he were, that's likely not worth double-digit millions per year.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

*Re: Re: seriously cavs fans, don't worry about it you still have bron*



> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> Wow, Boozer's importance is really becoming overvalued.


True, I don't think he has All-Star potential, I think he's getting overpaid, I think he's a very overrated player. But still, the fact remains that he was the second best player on Cleveland. With him gone, LeBron's supporting cast is close to Orlando Magic level if Big Z gets injured (which happens pretty often).



> Cleveland's number one priority should be finding another (young) star to pair with James (Boozer wasn't it)


You say that like it's easy. Orlando and Toronto tried to do that for years and never had any success.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

> He might be Horace Grant, based on one, solitary season. Even if he were, that's likely not worth double-digit millions per year.


Are you watching what has been going on this offseason? Bench players are getting 8 a year. Yes, double digit millions per year ARE worth the third best player on your team. If that is what Boozer would become eventually after they find a star to compliment LeBron, then double digits is what you'd have to pay. Name the guy who's going to be the Cavs third best player on an eventual dynasty that's not going to make 10 per year? Please.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Cavs looked good last season at the end, but they really just took a step backwards. Diop will have to step in and be an impact player just for them to get back to where they were last season towards the end.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

Like Ballscientist said in another thread Demand > supply. Anyone with any talent at all is going to have money thrown at them. Things've changed. *Take notice*.


----------



## DaUnbreakableKinG (Jun 28, 2003)

> 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.


Thats right. Everybody was saying before how good he was and stuff and now everyone turns their back on him. Thats wrong. What Boozer is doing is not wrong. He's going to a better team and will get more money. Why not??? I don't see anything wrong in that. 

GO BOOZERRRRRRR :yes:


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Yeah, I dont think Boozer did the wrong thing either. Realistically, Utah was a better team than the Cavs last year when Boozer was playing for the Cavs and not the Jazz. So now, so his future is brighter in Utah IMO. He got more team success and more money. 

Man, the Jazz have such an interesting frontcourt now with Boozer and AK47. Those guys do the intangibles at the highest level. Now the Jazz just need an efficient go to guy, a solid big man and a solid ball handler and they'll be title contenders. Definitely a step in the right direction.


----------



## Kezersoze (Mar 3, 2004)

I think Boozer is definitely going to be all-star caliber, Hell he was allstar caliber Last year scoring as many points and grabbing more rebounds than KMart who made the All Star team. don't fool yourself's into thinking something retarded like Boozer is the next Brian Grant . Boozer is ten times better than Brian grant was at his best. this is a HUGE loss for Cavs considering without Boozer there main rebounder and post defender just walked out the ****ing door.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> Yeah, I dont think Boozer did the wrong thing either. Realistically, Utah was a better team than the Cavs last year when Boozer was playing for the Cavs and not the Jazz. So now, so his future is brighter in Utah IMO. He got more team success and more money.
> 
> Man, the Jazz have such an interesting frontcourt now with Boozer and AK47. Those guys do the intangibles at the highest level. Now the Jazz just need an efficient go to guy, *a solid big man* and a solid ball handler and they'll be title contenders. Definitely a step in the right direction.


They have $50 Million banked on Okur becoming that guy.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> They have $50 Million banked on Okur becoming that guy.


Yeah, for some reason that slipped my mind. Okur can definitely become that guy with Sloans guidance. The backcourt still needs some work, but I definitely think they are a dangerous team.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah, for some reason that slipped my mind. Okur can definitely become that guy with Sloans guidance. The backcourt still needs some work, but I definitely think they are a dangerous team.


Their backcourt does need some work, but for the time being I think they're alright. Arroyo and Lopez can hold down the point guard spot just fine for now, and Harpring, Giricek and Kirk Snyder are sufficient at the shooting guard position.


----------



## Nevus (Jun 3, 2003)

What impact do all these large signings by the Jazz have on their ability to resign Kirilenko in the future?


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

They'll have Kirilenkos bird rights, right?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: seriously cavs fans, don't worry about it you still have bron*



> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> 
> You say that like it's easy. Orlando and Toronto tried to do that for years and never had any success.


I didn't say that like it was easy. In fact, I put no degree of difficulty on it all. I was simply saying that that has to be their highest priority, because once you have the championship core of stars, filling in the role-players becomes an easier task because MLE prospects may see your situation as one they could flourish in and you know better what you need.

Also, I think Cleveland has a better situation from which to go after that other star than Orlando and Toronto, who had worse cap situations. Now that Boozer won't be on their payroll and they can let Ilgauskas go after next season, they'll have a fair amount of cap room.


----------



## rebelsun (Nov 25, 2003)

Way too much for Boozer. Simple as that.

I sincerely hope that the Jazz did not open up their wallets just because they could. I really hope, for their sake, they believe that Carlos will be a star.

However, I think this shows just how desperate teams are, especially in the West, and how teams are willing to drastically overpay, just to "keep up," which I believe is the wrong mentality.

I thought the Jazz were brilliant w/ their management of cap space. Then they spend $108mil two solid players, not stars. 

Now that Utah has entered the spending frenzy, I think we have officially entered bizarro world. Could it be that GMs are afraid the heat that coaches are feeling lately slip into the skybox? I wouldn't doubt it.

Way too much money being given to players this summer.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> 
> Are you watching what has been going on this offseason? Bench players are getting 8 a year.


And what crystal ball are you using to determine that the teams doing that will be successful? Generally, the teams that are most successful (in salary capped sports, unlike a sport such as baseball) are the ones that don't get caught up in the frenzy of overspending and make smart purchases...giving huge dollars only to top-tier talent and otherwise looking for undervalued talent.

So just because other teams may be making unwise choices this offseason doesn't mean Cleveland should also make an unwise choice.

Incidentally, I don't think Boozer made the wrong decision. Whenever you can legally get more money, you should. It's your livelihood. Cleveland gambled and opened the door (hoping to sneak in some value with an early contract) and Boozer walked out that door.

But if this is what it would have eventually cost Cleveland, I don't think they're losing a whole lot. If they're desperate to overpay someone, they'll always have the chance to overpay someone else's good-but-not-great free agent some other offseason.


----------



## SamTheMan67 (Jan 4, 2004)

Could the cavs trade z and match utahs offer?


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

> And what crystal ball are you using to determine that the teams doing that will be successful? Generally, the teams that are most successful (in salary capped sports, unlike a sport such as baseball) are the ones that don't get caught up in the frenzy of overspending and make smart purchases...giving huge dollars only to top-tier talent and otherwise looking for undervalued talent.


My point has been the entire time that there *is no undervalued talent* anymore. Everyone is getting more than they're worth. So if you want to be successful from 04 onward, you're going to have to overpay a few guys.

If you disagree, and think there are plenty of 3rd-best on a team players who can be gotten without overpaying, then dispute that claim.



> So just because other teams may be making unwise choices this offseason doesn't mean Cleveland should also make an unwise choice.


There are no wise decisions. There are only variances of bad decisions.



> But if this is what it would have eventually cost Cleveland, I don't think they're losing a whole lot. If they're desperate to overpay someone, they'll always have the chance to overpay someone else's good-but-not-great free agent some other offseason.


They'll be paying more by then, most likely. For one, they'll be even more desperate to keep LeBron happy, and 2, the value goes up when the demand is higher (as it will be when the Cavs have a worse season than last).


----------



## Baron Davis (Apr 14, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Bron_Melo_ROY</b>!
> I still don't understand why Carlos Boozer would turn down playing along side LeBron James who can bring him instant success and credability and leave to the Jazz. I guess it was a money thing. All I know is thst the Cavaliers have to free up some cap space if they want Carlos Boozer in a Cavaliers uniform next year. James, Jackson, and Boozer would have been a devestating trio in the East and by the looks of things, it will just be a duo of James and Jackson. Another question, who is going to replace Boozer at the PF position in Cleveland. Not Ruben Boumtje-Boumtje, or Lee Nailon and I'm not sold on Eric Battie as a starter. He doesn't seem durable enough to start and be productive every night and plus, he is 5 years older than Carlos Boozer. Well the Cavs just took a step back in becoming a force in the NBA. Hopefully, they get someone in a few years who can do what Boozer did if he doesn't resign. When you think about it, Cleveland should have picked up the option on Carlos Boozer's contract so I don't feel sorry for the front office.


Eric Battie?  Are you talking about Eric Williams or Tony Battie? I don't think Eric Williams is a PF so most likely Tony.

Anyways, whoever said Boozer is overrated, I agree. But he is still a decent PF.


----------



## HeinzGuderian (Jun 29, 2004)

Remember guys, there is a reason why Cleveland was the laughing stock of the eastern conference for the past decade before lebron. This is it. 

I wonder what LeBron will do. Once his contract is up (how many years was it? three or four?) will he stay near home in Ohio, or goto a team with more competent management and more chances to be a serious championship contender?


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

> I wonder what LeBron will do. Once his contract is up (how many years was it? three or four?) will he stay near home in Ohio, or goto a team with more competent management and more chances to be a serious championship contender?


I've been wondering the same thing. He has 3 more years, and then is a restricted free agent. Since the Cavs will match anything he's offered, he'll have to resign with them for 1 year to become unrestricted. So we're talking about 4 more years as a Cavs. By that time he'll be a top 10 player in the NBA, if not higher.

And then we'll be talking about the biggest contract any player in any sport has ever gotten, more than likely.


----------



## Greg Ostertag! (May 1, 2003)

Presumably, if LeBron James doesn't like this move, and you'd have to think he doesn't... Gordon Gund will have Jim Paxson fired. Simple. Everyone within the Cleveland Cavaliers franchise is expendable if it means retaining LeBron. Gund brings in a 'competent' GM, and everything is sorted.


----------



## Like A Breath (Jun 16, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> 
> And then we'll be talking about the biggest contract any player in any sport has ever gotten, more than likely.


I don't know if you know but there's something called a Max Contract. The most he could make is significantly less than what Shaq, KG, and even Allan Houston are making. His contract won't be an issue.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

> I don't know if you know but there's something called a Max Contract. The most he could make is significantly less than what Shaq, KG, and even Allan Houston are making. His contract won't be an issue.


After he's resigned for an additional year?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> 
> 
> My point has been the entire time that there *is no undervalued talent* anymore. Everyone is getting more than they're worth. So if you want to be successful from 04 onward, you're going to have to overpay a few guys.
> ...


Salaries have been rising for years, this is not some new phenomenon. And there have always been guys who fly under the radar, usually due to not being part of some great story.

Detroit put together a group of excellent buys:

Richard Hamilton - $6,500,000
Ben Wallace - $5,500,000
Chauncey Billups - $5,000,600

Those player would have made more this offseason, but that's the point...Detroit signed them when they were still undervalued. Rather than when they were at near top value.

And they may re-sign Rasheed Wallace, a more talented player, for as much or less than Boozer just got.



> There are no wise decisions. There are only variances of bad decisions.


That's certainly not the attitude of a successful organization.


----------



## Like A Breath (Jun 16, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> 
> 
> After he's resigned for an additional year?


The most he would get is what Kobe's going to sign for this summer.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

In four years the max contract will be somewhere around 13 for the first year, right? OK, you're right, KG is made around 20 for the first year, didn't he. Still a hell of a contract for a 22 year old.


----------



## Ballyhoo (May 30, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously cavs fans, don't worry about it you still have bron*



> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Now that Boozer won't be on their payroll and they can let Ilgauskas go after next season, they'll have a fair amount of cap room.


Sounds like a great strategy. Lets get rid of the 2nd and 3rd best players on the team to free up cap space.  

The best players available next year (Gasol, Randolph, Kirilenko) will all be restricted and their teams will match any offers. The best unrestricted FAs will be SAR and Ray Allen. Nice players, but not exactly young stars.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

Wow there is another team the Bulls just became better than lol. When we played Cleveland we usually won anyway, BUT Boozer gave us fits. Without him the Cavs can't beat us, can't beat anybody else either except maybe the Bobcats even with Lebron. Lebron now has about as little talent as MJ as a second year player on his team.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously cavs fans, don't worry about it you still have bron*



> Originally posted by <b>Ballyhoo</b>!
> The best players available next year (Gasol, Randolph, Kirilenko) will all be restricted and their teams will match any offers. The best unrestricted FAs will be SAR and Ray Allen. Nice players, but not exactly young stars.


Shaq can opt out of his contract after this season. Depending on where he's playing, that's a very good possibility.


----------



## Ballyhoo (May 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> In four years the max contract will be somewhere around 13 for the first year, right? OK, you're right, KG is made around 20 for the first year, didn't he. Still a hell of a contract for a 22 year old.


I think the CBA will be up for renegotiation by then, so all bets will be off. 

I suspect one of the things the owners will try to address is this MLE madness. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to limit MLE deals to 3 years in a new CBA. Of course the players won't go for that. Things could get ugly.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

> Salaries have been rising for years, this is not some new phenomenon. And there have always been guys who fly under the radar, usually due to not being part of some great story.


Not at this level. No one averaging 3 ppg got the Foyle contract before. If I'm wrong here, please provide names.



> Detroit put together a group of excellent buys:
> 
> Richard Hamilton - $6,500,000
> Ben Wallace - $5,500,000
> ...


Yes, they did. Prior to the insanity of 04 offseason. Give me some names of undervalued players who are as good as Boozer.



> And they may re-sign Rasheed Wallace, a more talented player, for as much or less than Boozer just got.


I doubt the less part. Wallace has age working against him as well as the allure of another championship run possibility.



> That's certainly not the attitude of a successful organization.


The next time I see a good player getting payed what he's worth, and not much more, I'll change my mind.


----------



## FanOfAll8472 (Jun 28, 2003)

IMO, Paxson should've been out of there a long time ago. The LBJ pick was luck and bought him a few years. Check out some of his transactions...drafting Langdon, trading JC for Mihm, drafting Diop, trading DA for JR Reid and Traylor, the infamous Miller-Miles trade...

Honestly, I wanted him gone immediately after that Miller-Miles blunder...


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

IMO this is the best thing that could have happened to Cleveland. Carlos Boozer is not worth this contract. See Carlos Boozer has this nice 'air' about him now because he has been playing for the minimum and was a very good value. Now he will have the burden of leading this franchise...good luck with that Utah.

PS. Isn't becoming a young black millionaire in Utah like owning the nicest yacht in the middle of the desert?


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

*until they land a jordan at least...*



> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> PS. Isn't becoming a young black millionaire in Utah like owning the nicest yacht in the middle of the desert?


Boozer ain't black he's rican don't disgrace us black folk like that. And the franchise player is AK47 anyway.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> 
> PS. Isn't becoming a young black millionaire in Utah like owning the nicest yacht in the middle of the desert?


Speaking of which, I'm glad the myth about how Utah can't ever get a free agent has finally been blown to smithereens. People should have stopped saying that last summer when they signed Maggette and Terry to offer sheets, but apparently those "didn't count" because they got matched. Players will go wherever the money is, even if it's Utah.

I never understood what was so bad about living in Salt Lake City, anyway, it might be my favorite city. Of course, my lifestyle is pretty different from the lifestyle of an NBA player, but still. Have you people been to cities like Cleveland, Sacramento, or Indianapolis lately? :dead:
Those are the teams that should be having trouble getting free agents, not the Jazz.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> 
> 
> Speaking of which, I'm glad the myth about how Utah can't ever get a free agent has finally been blown to smithereens. People should have stopped saying that last summer when they signed Maggette and Terry to offer sheets, but apparently those "didn't count" because they got matched. Players will go wherever the money is, even if it's Utah.
> ...


It is not a myth...if the money is equal or close Utah will more than likely lose that battle. Oh and with this showing of integrity from Boozer, this might just be a preview to his trade demand from Utah.:laugh:

PS. I am sooooooooooooo glad Jerry West is my GM, I don't have to worry about this kind of silly crap happening....


----------



## LA68 (Apr 3, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Bron_Melo_ROY</b>!
> I still don't understand why Carlos Boozer would turn down playing along side LeBron James who can bring him instant success and credability and leave to the Jazz. I guess it was a money thing.


It's *always* a money thing. I see we have some youngsters on these boards. Once you begin to earn your own money you realize that the only loyalty is to green paper!

Anytime you can sign your name and never have to worry about money for the rest of your life and the lives of your children ,you do it! And quickly before they change they're minds !

You don't worry about playing with LeBron or any of that other stuff. You get real financial security first, any way you can do it.

If I can deceive someone for 40mil. Then someone is getting sold a bridge!


----------



## Nate505 (Aug 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>MJG</b>!
> Heh I feel like the only one who supports Boozer's decision. It wasn't super-honorable to back out of his verbal agreement with the Cavs (assuming he really had one), but it was the smart decision and the one I'm sure most people would have made.


I support his decision......for obvious reasons


----------



## Nate505 (Aug 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> PS. Isn't becoming a young black millionaire in Utah like owning the nicest yacht in the middle of the desert?


In Memphis, the young black millionaire would get yachtjacked.....


----------



## LA68 (Apr 3, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> 
> PS. I am sooooooooooooo glad Jerry West is my GM, I don't have to worry about this kind of silly crap happening....


#%@$%&*%:upset: :upset: :upset: :upset: :upset: :upset:

Talk about going from the penthouse to the outhouse! We *used* to have the greatest GM in the world.:no:


----------



## Priest (Jun 24, 2003)

*Re: until they land a jordan at least...*



> Originally posted by <b>sherako</b>!
> 
> 
> Boozer ain't black he's rican don't disgrace us black folk like that. And the franchise player is AK47 anyway.


um no he is black...i saw his parents his little brother charles who is like 6'6 14 yrs old and sister and they r black


----------



## pavlo11 (Jul 8, 2003)

Does it really matter what color he is? This injecting race into every post is getting old.


----------



## Stacka_Lee (Jul 9, 2004)

wonder if this means the cavs come crawling back begging for a jackson-harrington trade


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

While I am still a Boozer fan, 68 million is quite ridiculous. Expect to see Ely, Wilcox or Swift in a Cavs jersey next year.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

> Boozer ain't black he's rican don't disgrace us black folk like that.


What is that supposed to mean?


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously cavs fans, don't worry about it you still have bron*



> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> Shaq can opt out of his contract after this season. Depending on where he's playing, that's a very good possibility.


Don't look for that, if Shaq opted out he'd be leaving the $30+ million on the table. I'm not sure how it works exactly, but the most Shaq could get on the open market if he opted out would be the max for a player of his experience.. and not a raise from his old salary? Right?


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously cavs fans, don't worry about it you still have bron*



> Originally posted by <b>PhillyPhanatic</b>!
> 
> 
> Don't look for that, if Shaq opted out he'd be leaving the $30+ million on the table. I'm not sure how it works exactly, but the most Shaq could get on the open market if he opted out would be the max for a player of his experience.. and not a raise from his old salary? Right?


Yes, that's correct, but there's little doubt in my mind that if he's still on the Lakers, or traded to a team not on his list, he will opt out and leave that money to go to a team he wants to play for.


----------



## Greg Ostertag! (May 1, 2003)

Yeah, you'd imagine Shaq could afford, as a multi gazillionaire to play simply for the max for a couple of years, if only so that he can play in a location of his choosing.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

if shaq were willing to be paid less, there wouldn't be any trade talks involving him...

The reason the talks exist, is that he wants an extension, getting paid similar to what he is getting paid now or more


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously cavs fans, don't worry about it you still have bron*

I thought that him and KG were the only guys because of them not being apart of the regular Max deal could sign for as much as could be allowed. Because when he opts out next year I am almost certain he still could demand 30 million plus


----------



## Bombtrack2k4 (Jun 12, 2004)

I think that Boozer was WORTH the money that Utah is ready to give him. 

He didn't sign anything yet. 

Do you believe anyone could convince him to stay in Cleveland ? 

If I am The NBA I want Boozer in Cleveland, next to Lebron, not Utah. If he had an Oral agreement, they should force him to keep his word. 

Hell Lebron could call Nike to get Boozer a contract that would compensate for the $28 million. I am shure Nike would agree since they want Lebron in the playoffs. 

Those are really unethical ideas, but hey, if they are going to play dirty....


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

_July 17, 2000-John Amaechi turned down a six-year, $17 million guaranteed contract offer from the Lakers to sign a short-term deal with the Magic. He averaged 10.5 points, 3.3 rebounds and 21.1 minutes in 80 games last season. 

Amaechi, 29, can make more in a multiyear deal with the Magic than with the Lakers -- as much as $27 million over six years. But not until after this season, so he is gambling that he won't get injured and that Orlando will reward his loyalty._

That long term contract from Orlando never came. I say do what is best for you. Management has to be fiscally responsible as well and they're not immune to reneging on verbal agreements if it makes their bottom line more "aesthetically pleasing".


----------



## "Matt!" (Jul 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Bombtrack2k4</b>!
> 
> If I am The NBA I want Boozer in Cleveland, next to Lebron, not Utah. If he had an Oral agreement, they should force him to keep his word.


As Boozer takes the NBA to court, the judge laughs at Stern, gives them the finger, and lets Boozer sign with Utah.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

*its all about perception.*



> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> 
> 
> What is that supposed to mean?


It means whatever you want it to mean.


----------



## Bombtrack2k4 (Jun 12, 2004)

^^

He was 29. Boozer is 22

It's not like the Cavs only want Boozer for one year, they want him to stay in Cleveland as long as he can.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Bombtrack2k4</b>!
> ^^
> 
> He was 29. Boozer is 22
> ...


That's not the point, though. The point I'm trying to make is that it was obviously communicated to him by management that they were going to "take care of him" after the season. Why else would he turn down a contract worth nearly $3 million annually to continue playing for about $250,000 or whatever he was making in Orlando? They probably told him that they would give him a better deal down the road and they lied.


----------



## Ballyhoo (May 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Bombtrack2k4</b>!
> If I am The NBA I want Boozer in Cleveland, next to Lebron, not Utah. If he had an Oral agreement, they should force him to keep his word.


Actually the NBA would do exactly the opposite. If he had a secret agreement to sign with Cleveland then that would violate the CBA and you could expect Stern to take away the Cav's 1st round picks for a few years, like they did to the T-Wolves for their secret agreement with Joe Smith.


----------



## Bombtrack2k4 (Jun 12, 2004)

^^^

Your right, but like I said their unethical

But read this

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

interesting article. Makes you want to throw up. 

" 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." " 

I still want Pawson fired. He's the Gm, he's the one that is the most responsible for this crap in the organisation and they can't fire the owner. 

BUT FU BOOZER FU 

PS: can we take parts of an article ? If not, I'll take it out. It's not the entire thing.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

Has it been shown, conclusively, that Boozer agreed to a deal with the cavs and the Cavs didn't try to lower it? I thought that is what people were saying. That Boozer agreed to a deal and then the Cavs found out that they couldn't work that deal so they tried for another deal that was lower. And then Boozer walked. Is this not what happened?


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Bombtrack2k4</b>!
> PS: can we take parts of an article ? If not, I'll take it out. It's not the entire thing.


Yes, you may post parts of an article as long as you provide the link, like you did. Your post is fine.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Reading this thread it's pretty shocking that people are only going after the Cavs and Paxson for this.

To me, this is pretty much all about Boozer and how much of an money driven whore he is. The Cavs didn't have to let Boozer out of his contract. He asked them to, so they could give him more money for next year. In exchange he would remain loyal and sign with the Cavs. But, nah. Boozer didn't want to play it like that. He and his agent basically just scammed the Cavs. It's possibly the most classless thing I've seen a player do in awhile.

Gund and Paxson were not trying to screw Boozer. They were trying to do right by him and take care of him. They thought Boozer was a man. But he's not.

As far as the impact on the Cavs. I kind of agree with Minstrel. If this was the rate for Boozer on the market, then the Cavs are better off having him go. Boozer is simply not worth that now, and likely never will be. He is a liability defensively, the Jazz are going to get lit up in the West next year with Boozer at the power forward. The only justice in this is now all of you who argued against BigAmare about Boozer being better than Amare, can watch in horror as Amare goes for 40 on Boozer 4 times a year. Boozer even has trouble with Nene.

The Cavs need a Pippen for Lebron. They did lose their Grant. But there is no sense paying your grant like a pippen, when he clearly isn't.

It will be interesting to see what the Cavs do to address that whole in the lineup right now.

I would be interested to see how Lebron reacts to Boozer when they meet up for the olympics.


----------



## roastedtoaster (Mar 16, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> To me, this is pretty much all about Boozer and how much of an money driven whore he is. The Cavs didn't have to let Boozer out of his contract. He asked them to, so they could give him more money for next year. In exchange he would remain loyal and sign with the Cavs. But, nah. Boozer didn't want to play it like that. He and his agent basically just scammed the Cavs. It's possibly the most classless thing I've seen a player do in awhile.


its not like the paxson and gund are innocent in all this. it was going to save the franchise millions by maxing out boozer with the mle instead of waiting a year for him to fetch outragous offers in free agency and then have to match. there was a bit of selfishness on both sides in my opinion.


----------



## Burn (Feb 2, 2003)

Wow, I bet Gund never saw this coming.





too subtle?


----------



## dork (Mar 21, 2004)

just sign stromile swift and its done...


----------



## shazha (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> This is why people should never count their chickens before they hatch. We've had a few Cavs fans on this board bragging about how they're a contender in the East now, and would probably win a few titles in the future. All this bluster about a team that hasn't made the playoffs in years. Now they're quite possibly going to lose an Olympian for nothing, and miss the playoffs again next year.
> 
> Don't brag about your team before it's done anything. Something can always go wrong, whether it's injuries, or another team passing you up, or players leaving, or GM incompetence. That's why most "teams of the future" never become "teams of the present."
> ...


Read my signiture, the prediction was made over two years ago. even before we got wagner. I had a poster say to me we'd be 5th -6th seed, i stand by my 8th seed. Im hoping wagner will break out.


----------



## dork (Mar 21, 2004)

we should make a club called " the cavs got screwed club" or like " laughin at the cavs club:rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:


----------



## rookie (Jul 10, 2004)

*Boozer = Benedict Arnold*

This is not your typical, "I am a free agent, I am going for the money" move. This was one of the most betraying moves I have ever heard of in sports. 

I am not a huge Cavs fan, but obviously was interested because of Lebron and watched some games, it seemed like Boozer was a character guy but after hearing this story this is sick. 

Gordon Gund and John Paxson had their usual season ending meeting with every player. Boozer came in and they had a great talk about him and his character and the future he and Lebron would have. Boozer expressed how he felt insecure in his deal, and the cavs and him talked his 695,000 dollar deal. Boozer wanted Security, and the cavs did too. Boozer was worried if he tore his knee up or had a bad season, etc. He wanted to be ok, the cavs agreed and said they would think about offering him their max, 6 year, 41 million dollar deal, with an out clause after 3 yearsfor CARLOS. an unbelieveable deal for Carlos. 

He acknowledges that of course if he were a FA he could get more, but he put his "word" with the cavs, and told them organization and their fans he would be back. He also expressed his utmost respect for Gund in showing class and "He wasn't going to let him down". 

So the cavs and Boozer had the contract set, and Boozer said it was as good as signed, sealed, and delivered. Boozer and his agent would not even listen to other offers. 

Well that all changed when utah offers LOOZER 68 million. This thug committed one of the worst acts of betrayal that we have seen in sports in a long, long time. 

It is a sad story, and is going to ruin the image of sports for a lot of youngsters that see this. What is even crazier is that there are basketball players saying how wrong this was, you will never hear another player comment on contracts of other NBA players, that is an unwritten rule. It will hurt the game, the players, and the fans. A sad sort of affairs when your word means nothing anymore. Very, very sad.


----------



## SamTheMan67 (Jan 4, 2004)

great post 5 stars..


----------



## Priest (Jun 24, 2003)

i know the $$$ was talkin but in this situation i agree...its like he sold his soul to the devil...this was a complete shock...i know clevland messed up but damn this move was kinda shady like a kick in da face


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Dead on.
This story just makes me sick to my stomach.

Oh well. I was actually starting to kind of maybe like the Jazz, since they got rid of Malone. But now I can go back to actively rooting against them.

If there is any justice, Carlos will blow out both of his knees after the olympics.


----------



## HeinzGuderian (Jun 29, 2004)

It seems to me that the Boozer situation is getting thrown a bit out of proportion. To me it doesnt seem like too much more than buisness. I dont believe that players and managements are even supposed to make those little under the table wink-wink sort of deals such as this? The NBA is buisness, this is nothing new or shocking; at least it shouldnt be. This is like the people that compare the Iraqi abuses to the Holocaust. Completely blown out of proportion.


----------



## rookie (Jul 10, 2004)

*Another article*

What is up with the 5 star comment? I am new, sorry bro.

Anyway, Another sickening article.

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


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>HeinzGuderian</b>!
> This is like the people that compare the Iraqi abuses to the Holocaust. Completely blown out of proportion.


Aren't you blowing people blowing it out of proportion out of proportion?

I mean really, it's nothing like people comparing torture with genocide.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>roastedtoaster</b>!
> 
> 
> its not like the paxson and gund are innocent in all this. it was going to save the franchise millions by maxing out boozer with the mle instead of waiting a year for him to fetch outragous offers in free agency and then have to match. there was a bit of selfishness on both sides in my opinion.


That's just it. Everyone is acting like the Cavs just lowballed Boozer. But Boozer ASKED for them to pay him now. It was his idea. Otherwise the Cavs could have just paid him peanuts this year and decided on him next year when they would also have the flexibility of Z's contract coming off the books.

You can't say Paxson and Gund did anything in bad spirit in this. They were trying to do right by boozer. And Boozer and his agent are the ones who decided to screw the Cavs.


----------



## jmk (Jun 30, 2002)

It might have been wrong, but is your word worth $68,000,000?


----------



## rookie (Jul 10, 2004)

Whether it is being blown out of proportion or not, I do not know.

I know one thing. It makes me sick to my stomach. When your word doesn't mean anything, what does? 

Just sick.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jmk</b>!
> It might have been wrong, but is your word worth $68,000,000?


"All I have in this world is my balls and my word and I don't break them for no one"


----------



## Ice Nine (Apr 3, 2004)

I'm just hoping the first Utah @ Cleveland game of the 2004-2005 season is nationally televised.


----------



## Bombtrack2k4 (Jun 12, 2004)

"offering him their max, 6 year, 41 million dollar deal, with an out clause after 3 yearsfor CARLOS. an unbelieveable deal for Carlos."

Do you ahve a link or proof of that. If this is true it changes the whole dynamic of the situation. The Cavs were not trying to low-bal him by signing him to a lower salary that he could have gotten next year, since he could have gotten a new contract in 3-4 years.

***@@@@


----------



## HeinzGuderian (Jun 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> "All I have in this world is my balls and my word and I don't break them for no one"


Either that, or "all I have in this world is my balls and sixty-eight million dollars"
Your pick.


----------



## rookie (Jul 10, 2004)

this isn't even about Loyalty. This is about straight up lying. Pretty much stealing. This guy is a complete thug that is going to have Karma kick him in the ***.

I will get that link about after 3 years having an OUT clause.


----------



## jmk (Jun 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rookie</b>!
> this isn't even about Loyalty. This is about straight up lying. Pretty much stealing. This guy is a complete thug that is going to have Karma kick him in the ***.
> 
> I will get that link about after 3 years having an OUT clause.


I think you're blowing this way out of proportion. You're acting as if he murdered someone. I can tell you this, and I don't care how it makes you think of me. If I was Carlos, I would take the $68,000,000 also. That's way too much money to turn down.


----------



## rookie (Jul 10, 2004)

"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. 

"There is no honor in this," the agent said. "You don't shake a man's hand, get him to do something nice for you, and then turn around and screw him." 

The executive echoed the sentiments. "That was so bad. [Boozer and his agent] convinced Cleveland to let them out, and then instead of saying thanks, they said, '(expletive) you.'" 



SI article that I posted up there.

- THIS IS NOT BUSINESS. 
This is sick. And no I would not do that. I can honestly say that, there is NO WAY I would do this.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jmk</b>!
> 
> 
> I think you're blowing this way out of proportion. You're acting as if he murdered someone. I can tell you this, and I don't care how it makes you think of me. If I was Carlos, I would take the $68,000,000 also. That's way too much money to turn down.


If you did it I would think less of you too. What? 41 million isn't enough for you to keep your word? You can't live off of that? You could opt out in the 3rd year and make even more money and you wouldn't have to prostitute yourself out.

If I gave my word after Gund and Paxson had done me a favor that I asked them to do, I would not have even picked up the phone when the Jazz called. Even listening to offers at that point is mad shady on Boozer's part.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

I really thought that Boozer had more integrity in him that this. It's sad to see how money can change everything.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

I think most people would take the extra $28 million over a non-legally-binding verbal agreement. There really isn't a morality when it comes to things that involve high finances, as far as I can determine from all that goes on. There's only adhering to legality and looking out for one's self. John Amaechi's case showed that teams will wash their hands of an agreement and a player if the finances dictate it. In my opinion, Paxson opened the door to try and slip an underpaying deal through and Boozer walked out the door, unexpectedly.

As a poster, Ed O, on the Portland board pointed out: Paxson was trying to pull one over on the league. He was trying to set up a restricted free agency where he could void the option and only he could negotiate with Boozer. No such type of free agency exists, so he tried to create it with an outside agreement. He lost in trying to sidestep the system.

Does this make Boozer seem particularly trustworthy? No...if there was a true agreement, he broke it for money. On the other hand, that's business.

I truly don't believe for a second that Paxson went into this with the innocent belief that everyone is trustworthy, he was trying to do a nice thing and was victimized horribly. Paxson wanted to create a sweetheart deal with Boozer before having to pay him what a bidding war might set. He took a risk (and I'm sure it was a calculated one, with eyes wide open that another team could insert itself and blow away Boozer's principles) and "lost."

Though more and more, I like Paxson's risk. Take a shot at signing Boozer to a reasonable deal. If it fails, sure, you lose a year of his play, but eventually you would have had to pay that kind of deal to him if you wanted him longer and he probably isn't worth it.

The moral of this story is that everyone is truly out for himself and you'll only be sick to your stomach if you believe otherwise and get blindsided by this happening (and such things will happen again).


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> That's just it. Everyone is acting like the Cavs just lowballed Boozer. But Boozer ASKED for them to pay him now. It was his idea. Otherwise the Cavs could have just paid him peanuts this year and decided on him next year when they would also have the flexibility of Z's contract coming off the books.
> ...


Even if the idea was cooked up by Boozer and his agent, do you really believe that Paxson decided to do it out of the simple goodness of his heart, future?

I suppose it's possible, but put me down as a serious skeptic of that theory. An NBA team isn't a family...Paxson, in my opinion, undoubtedly agreed to void the option and give him a new deal so that he could get a veritable steal, not to make sure that Boozer didn't spend one more season in contractual underpayment with no recompense.

Both sides wanted something, in my opinion, and Paxson took a calculated risk.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> Even if the idea was cooked up by Boozer and his agent, do you really believe that Paxson decided to do it out of the simple goodness of his heart, future?


When I first heard the story of the Cavs not picking up his option, that was my read on it, that it was a class move by an organization trying to take care of it's prime time players.

Even if Boozer was offered more money, he should not have been even fielding other offers. Considering the only reason he was let out of his contract was so that he could re-sign with the Cavs. Otherwise they would have just kept him for a year and worked something out then, so they wouldn't lose him for absolutely nothing.

It was a shocking move of trust on the Cavs organization's part. And you are right, it was a decent deal for the Cavs possibly, though I would bet there was an opt-out after 3 years, so that Boozer could get his market value down the road...but the Cavs would have been better off just paying Boozer the minmum this year and playing hardball next year. And if he left next year they would still have the cap room afforded by Z's contract being up to afford a replacement.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

I just read a fairly full account of how it all went down, and I change my feelings on all this a bit. I read this:

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

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.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

BTW, I think that Cleveland would be prudent not to purge half their roster to match this offer. Sure, Boozer's loss will hurt in the immediate future but it won't hurt the franchise long-term. He can be replaced and at a hell of alot less than $11 million per season. Boozer is an excellent rebounder and a solid low-post scorer but he doesn't defend particularly well. When you couple that with Z's unathleticism and focus on scoring, you don't have a particularly strong interior defense. I think signing McDyess to a one year deal is very good. Sure, durability is a huge ??? with him but he can do everything that Boozer can do. He's a very good rebounder. He can score in the low post. He's also got enough athleticism left in his body to be a solid shot blocker and defender inside. Use McDyess as a temporary bridge gap, dump Z's contract, and use that money to replace Boozer next year.

BTW, reading that article did change my mind somewhat. I don't blame Boozer for taking more money. I'd do the same thing if I were in his situation. I blame him for deceiving Paxson into allowing him to become a FA, only to turn around and sell his services to the highest bidder. It's not illegal but it is unethical.


----------



## Ballyhoo (May 30, 2003)

Leaving aside the whole honour/loyalty thing, I think people are underrating Boozer here when they say he's not worth the $$. He didn't sign a max deal, and he's definitely worth more than the MLE (league average).

He was 6th in rebounding, the only players with more RPG were Garnett, Duncan, Shaq, Ben Wallace, and Dampier. Boozer is a much better scorer than Wallace and Dampier. He has a great work ethic, and he's also the youngest of those players and the most likely to continue to improve. Of course he's not in Duncan and Garnett's league, and never will be, but neither is his salary.

You don't just "easily" replace 15/11.5 for less money.


----------



## Idunkonyou (Feb 23, 2003)

I can do nothing but laugh at the Cavs for taking the word of an NBA player, LOL!!! :laugh: 

I mean the Cavs were only going to offer him a contract that averages out to about 6 million a year, while the Jazz offered a contract worth 10 million a year. 

Which would you choose?


----------



## HeinzGuderian (Jun 29, 2004)

I've said it before, and I will say it again:


> Originally posted by <b>HeinzGuderian</b>!
> When will people realize you are _not_ better off with a Dukie as a primary player on your team


----------



## Ron Mexico (Feb 14, 2004)

when at least we know this will never happen again GM's everywhere will learn a lesson


----------



## jmk (Jun 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>HeinzGuderian</b>!
> I've said it before, and I will say it again:


I was waiting for someone to throw out a Duke comment.










*"Coach K! Ya' gotta teach your kids better bay-by!"*


----------



## PhatDaddy3100 (Jun 16, 2002)

What boozer did was wrong. I feel soooo bad for the kid. He was only going to make 5.5 million a year instead of 11. Especially sincec he cuold of opted out in 3 and gotten the max. Give me a break.This is wrong in all aspects. He screwed the cavs and players for now on.

And isnt it kind of funny how its the JAzz he signed with? I mean, the Jazz our supposed to be the good, hard working ethical team.


----------



## Ballyhoo (May 30, 2003)

Since when are the Jazz supposed to be an ethical team?


----------



## Sean Reynolds (Jul 10, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Ballyhoo</b>!
> Since when are the Jazz supposed to be an ethical team?


What the hell does Utah's ethics have to do with anything? The Jazz didn't do anything unethical here......a player became available on the FA market and the Jazz courted him. Nothing unethical about that, is there? 

Utah is trying to build a team to win, Boozer fits nicely into that team. So the Jazz went after him because, gosh, he was AVAILABLE. Well slap my *** and call me pink, I thought that was exactly what EVERY NBA team was doing this off-season.

Please.......Utah being unethical for signing a player? Pfft.


----------



## jokeaward (May 22, 2003)

I don't think it was that bad.

PTI said it was like Juwan Howard and Washington.

Boozer didn't feel secure? WTF, next summer they'd have his Bird rights AND they could match any offer.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

> 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."


Ouch. I guess word is not bond.


----------



## Nate505 (Aug 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Sean Reynolds</b>!
> 
> 
> What the hell does Utah's ethics have to do with anything? The Jazz didn't do anything unethical here......a player became available on the FA market and the Jazz courted him. Nothing unethical about that, is there?
> ...


No kidding. Utah gets blasted for not being able to sign free agents, and now when they do sign one, they get blasted for it. Oh no, the high standard of ethics that is the NBA is being compramised.......bo-fing-hoo.


----------



## jmk (Jun 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Nate505</b>!
> 
> No kidding. Utah gets blasted for not being able to sign free agents, and now when they do sign one, they get blasted for it. Oh no, the high standard of ethics that is the NBA is being compramised.......bo-fing-hoo.


I haven't heard one person complaining about Utah here, so you should stop whining about it. The guy who you are responding to misunderstood and proceeded to overreact to the comment he was replying to. Originally, someone said that Utah is "supposed to be the hard-working ethical team", and the next poster replied to that by saying, "Since when are the Jazz supposed to be the ethical team" which is exactly what I was thinking. Just because Utah is completely different from an LA or NY, they're ethical? The comment didn't make sense, but no one was blasting Utah.


----------



## Sean Reynolds (Jul 10, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>jmk</b>!
> 
> 
> I haven't heard one person complaining about Utah here, so you should stop whining about it. The guy who you are responding to misunderstood and proceeded to overreact to the comment he was replying to. Originally, someone said that Utah is "supposed to be the hard-working ethical team", and the next poster replied to that by saying, "Since when are the Jazz supposed to be the ethical team" which is exactly what I was thinking. Just because Utah is completely different from an LA or NY, they're ethical? The comment didn't make sense, but no one was blasting Utah.


Uh the Jazz's ethics were brought into this debate. So before you go off telling us to stop whining, maybe you need to tell the people that brought Utah's ethics into this to stick to the debate at hand. Last I checked Utah's ethics weren't on question here, rather a player's ethics...how about we stay consistent here, mkay? 

It was a slam on Utah's ethics because they signed a player that some feel is unethical. That to me is an attack on Utah's ethics and since the original post isn't about Utah's ethics, RATHER Boozers; one would only connect the two and get the perception that the original author meant the Jazz have no ethics if they sign Boozer. 

But you're right, NBA teams aren't ethical......so why should we expect players to be ethical in return? How many times has an NBA team told a player they'd never trade them away or not re-sign them, yet turn around and do a total 180?


----------



## Ballyhoo (May 30, 2003)

If you are referring to my post, I was not calling the Jazz management unethical. PhatDaddy3100 commented how it was funny the Jazz signed Boozer because they normally only sign ethical players. I commented "since when?", meaning the Jazz _players_ have no better history of acting ethically than players on any other team.


----------



## PhatDaddy3100 (Jun 16, 2002)

"And isnt it kind of funny how its the JAzz he signed with? I mean, the Jazz our supposed to be the good, hard working ethical team."

When Did i ever say anything about the Jazz? I know Boozer got many offers, but i just thought it was kind of odd that he signed with utah, becuase with Jerry Sloan they have always been a hard-working ethical team that usually doesnt have any scandals like this. Most people know Utah as Stockton and Malone, and their old fashioned basketball and staying together for a while. A Utah since Jerry Sloan has been there has had loyal and ethical people. In no where in my post did I fault the Jazz for what they did. This fault is all on Boozer. I just thought it was ironic that someone who did something as unethical as Boozer signed with the Jazz, and state and a team known for doing good things and remaining loyal. So sorry to all of you utah fans for thinking that the Utah Jazz were an ethical, hard working team. I will never think that again. :|


----------



## Sean Reynolds (Jul 10, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Ballyhoo</b>!
> If you are referring to my post, I was not calling the Jazz management unethical. PhatDaddy3100 commented how it was funny the Jazz signed Boozer because they normally only sign ethical players. I commented "since when?", meaning the Jazz _players_ have no better history of acting ethically than players on any other team.


Well see you didn't say players, you just left it at the Jazz.


----------



## Nate505 (Aug 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jmk</b>!
> 
> 
> I haven't heard one person complaining about Utah here, so you should stop whining about it. The guy who you are responding to misunderstood and proceeded to overreact to the comment he was replying to. Originally, someone said that Utah is "supposed to be the hard-working ethical team", and the next poster replied to that by saying, "Since when are the Jazz supposed to be the ethical team" which is exactly what I was thinking. Just because Utah is completely different from an LA or NY, they're ethical? The comment didn't make sense, but no one was blasting Utah.


Typically, when someone makes a statement like 'And isnt it kind of funny how its the JAzz he signed with? I mean, the Jazz our supposed to be the good, hard working ethical team.' they are questinoning the ethics of the Jazz.


----------



## g_prince_4_lyfe (Sep 10, 2003)

What a way for Boozer to stick it to the Cavs! If the Cavs wanted Boozer that badly, they wouldn't have made him an unrestricted free agent in the first place! What an idiot Paxson is! He should have known that they are teams out there that could offer Boozer a lot more money than what the Cavs wanted to give him. Geez...GMs these days...:no:


----------



## jmk (Jun 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sean Reynolds</b>!
> 
> 
> Uh the Jazz's ethics were brought into this debate. So before you go off telling us to stop whining, maybe you need to tell the people that brought Utah's ethics into this to stick to the debate at hand. *Last I checked Utah's ethics weren't on question here, rather a player's ethics...how about we stay consistent here, mkay?*
> ...


Are you serious? You're telling me not to talk about the ethics, when you are the one who brought it up to defend the Jazz's ethics, when no one even blasted them! Mkay?


----------



## shazha (Nov 20, 2002)

Can i just say something here.... The deed is done, ethical or non-ethical its been done. Thats not the issue anymore, the issue is what happens now?

Do the cavs go on a roster dumping spree?

Do they really want boozer back? IS there bad blood between players, staff and boozer? 

Imagine his contract being matched by the cavs, having boozer play in cleveland, being labled the guy who screwed the cavs future over.


----------



## Priest (Jun 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>g_prince_4_lyfe</b>!
> What a way for Boozer to stick it to the Cavs! If the Cavs wanted Boozer that badly, they wouldn't have made him an unrestricted free agent in the first place! What an idiot Paxson is! He should have known that they are teams out there that could offer Boozer a lot more money than what the Cavs wanted to give him. Geez...GMs these days...:no:


wasnt paxson doing boozer a favor by letting him become an unrestricted free agent so they can offer him more $$$$$


----------



## Jockrider (Jun 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>shazha</b>!
> Can i just say something here.... The deed is done, ethical or non-ethical its been done. Thats not the issue anymore, the issue is what happens now?
> 
> Do the cavs go on a roster dumping spree?
> ...


Who you going to blame when they get the death penalty like the Twolves? Surely not Paxson.


----------



## Sean Reynolds (Jul 10, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>jmk</b>!
> 
> 
> Are you serious? You're telling me not to talk about the ethics, when you are the one who brought it up to defend the Jazz's ethics, when no one even blasted them! Mkay?


Uh, go re-read the posts......someone questioned Utah's ethics first.


----------

