# Wow, Jim Paxson bamboozled, Utah scores with Boozer



## LIBlue (Aug 17, 2002)

*Wow, Paxson really screwed up on Boozer ...*

Jim Paxson that is. Carlos Boozer has just agreed to a contract with the Utah Jazz (6 years, $68MM according to ESPN's David Aldridge). So, Cleveland decided not pick up the option on Boozer's contract so that he could become a free agent. Cleveland thought that Boozer agreed to sign a long-term deal if he was granted free agency. Boozer then says thanks "for the good faith" act, but I am going elsewhere. Kind of a bush-league move by Boozer, IMO. Plus, it is a blow to Cleveland.


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

I wouldn't call taking $20+ million more from another team "bush league." I'd call it the smart choice.

I called this as a possibility as soon as I saw them not picking up his option. I didn't think it would actually come to this, but I can't say I'm shocked.


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

Sorry, mispost.


----------



## Hous1978 (Jun 15, 2004)

I can't believe he'd leave playing next to Lebron, to go to the Jazz


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

1. Boozer is worth it if anyone this offseason is.

2. Jim Paxson just got absolutely taken to the cleaners. He should be fired. Even though he had a "verbal agreement", this is a high stakes game and he shouldn't have relied on everyone else being a nice guy.

3. Boozer and his agent ought to be blackballed for the crummyness of their business practices. In practice, I don't see how they didn't just violate a binding contract with Jim Pax. Just because the agreement was oral doesn't mean a binding contract couldn't be formed. The problem will be proving it.


----------



## girlygirl (Dec 6, 2003)

*Carlos Boozer to Jazz*

ESPNews is reporting that Carlos Boozer has agreed to a 6 year, $68 million deal with the Utah Jazz. If this is true, the Cavaliers really screwed up. They can only offer him the MLE, so he's GONE.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

Boy, the Jazz are going to be one scary group of kids.

What I don't get though, is AK47 is a better PF then he is a SF. They drafted both PFs and SFs in the draft.

Someone has got to go.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> What happens to the Cavs if he bolts? One of two things. Either Paxson loses his job or the Cavs are quick on their feet and try to make a deal that gets them far enough under the cap to match the offer for Boozer. Assuming the cap is set at $45 million cap, Cleveland already is about $2 million under. They could attempt to trade a player or two, like a combination of Tony Battie and Dajuan Wagner or Zydrunas Ilgauskas to a team with enough cap room to absorb their contracts. That's not easy, but it's not impossible either.


----------



## JPBulls (Aug 15, 2003)

I can´t believe this. Even if they go to 9 million under the cap, do you want a player with no word, the biggest s** of a b*** in the NBA that screw you up in your team??

They need to go under the cap, and then trade him, he can´t stay in the Cavs after this...


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Wow. Great offseason by Utah. What a frontcourt.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Here is a link to the ESPN story:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1836318


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Holy mother of God. Boozer gets a 68M deal....assuming the Cavs cant match:

Arroyo, Harpring, AK47, Boozer, Okur
Lopez, Giricek, Snyder, Humphries, (Ostertag)

Stacked. Maybe someone gets dealt...?


----------



## curry_52 (Jul 22, 2002)

*WOW: Boozer agrees to a 68M deal with Utah*

Carlos Boozer and the Utah Jazz have agreed on a six-year, $68 million offer sheet Thursday, ESPN's David Aldridge reports, sending a crushing blow to the Cleveland Cavaliers, who made Boozer an unrestricted free agent with the belief he would re-sign with the team for its mid-level exception...

...Boozer, recently named to the U.S. Olympic team, was under contract for next season at $695,000, but Cleveland did not pick up its option on Boozer for the 2004-05 season after, the club said, Boozer had committed to re-signing with the Cavs for the team's full mid-level exception -- somewhere around six years and $40 million.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1836318


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Can we change the thread title?

It'd be nice to discuss the deal on the table instead of Paxson's ineptitude. Gracias 

[edit]
looks like curry started another one. don't sweat it guys... i'll gripe about the contract there...


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Jim Paxson should lose his job. And I am serious about that. Gordon Gund should fire him on the spot for doing something like this. He set the franchise back a couple of years, minimum over a few million bucks.


----------



## LIBlue (Aug 17, 2002)

*Well, Jim Paxson did screw up*

But let me see if I can change it for you.


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

*Re: Well, Jim Paxson did screw up*



> Originally posted by <b>LIBlue</b>!
> But let me see if I can change it for you.


Heh you probably should. There's actually a good four threads that have been merged into this one, because the title doesn't really tell people what it's about.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

This is a pretty surreal situation. A bit similar to the G. Arenas situation in GSW with the whole early Bird rights... but different in the apparent agreement between Boozer and management to sign for the MLE.

I have no problem with what Boozer did. I'm a big fan of his and his market value is much more than the MLE... especially in this crazy offseason!


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Jim Paxson should lose his job. And I am serious about that. Gordon Gund should fire him on the spot for doing something like this. He set the franchise back a couple of years, minimum over a few million bucks.


Exactly... he was never a good GM in the first place. This is the guy that drafted stiffs like Dajuan Wagner, Dasagna Diop, and Trajan Langdon when Much, Much better players were on board. He traded Andre Miller for Darius Miles. People forget this. 

Cavs fans should look at this as a blessing.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

I seriously can not believe this. I lost a lot of respect for Boozer here. Rlucas is right. This just set them back a few years. WOW.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

I retitled it with a little clearer picture....just for SuperDave.


----------



## curry_52 (Jul 22, 2002)

Are the Bulls a better team than the Boozer-less Cavs? I know LBJ will be even better next season, they added Luke Jackson, and so on, but can we say the Bulls will have a better season than Cleveland (Record-wise, obviously)?


----------



## onetenthlag (Jul 29, 2003)

I agree that Boozer is entitled to "get his" and that the NBA is a business and all, but the Cavs did him a favor by not picking up the option. Jim Paxson could have screwed Boozer over the made him play next year for $700K. Instead, the Cavs let him out of the deal with the verbal understanding that Boozer would resign for more money. The whole arrangement was a charitable act by the Cavs to reward Boozer.

The fact that he would then turn around and bail for more cash is pretty low handed IMO. I agree that he should get the most money, but he essentially "tricked" the Cavs into letting him out of his deal.

Boozer's agent is going to get a bad rep from this. Anyone know who it is?


----------



## Arclite (Nov 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>onetenthlag</b>!
> I agree that Boozer is entitled to "get his" and that the NBA is a business and all, but the Cavs did him a favor by not picking up the option. Jim Paxson could have screwed Boozer over the made him play next year for $700K. Instead, the Cavs let him out of the deal with the verbal understanding that Boozer would resign for more money. The whole arrangement was a charitable act by the Cavs to reward Boozer.
> 
> The fact that he would then turn around and bail for more cash is pretty low handed IMO. I agree that he should get the most money, but he essentially "tricked" the Cavs into letting him out of his deal.
> ...


No, Cleveland wasn't going, "Ohh, you played so well last season we want to just throw 5 million bucks at you." They were trying to get him to sign long-term to a deal for far less than what he was worth, probably working under the assumption that as an RFA next year he was going to cost them a lot more. Then they took it a step further because they miscalculated their cap space and wanted him to take EVEN LESS over 5 years. 

Boozer didn't trick anyone out of anything. He analyzed the situation and made the best choice.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Arclite</b>!
> 
> 
> No, Cleveland wasn't going, "Ohh, you played so well last season we want to just throw 5 million bucks at you." They were trying to get him to sign long-term to a deal for far less than what he was worth, probably working under the assumption that as an RFA next year he was going to cost them a lot more. Then they took it a step further because they miscalculated their cap space and wanted him to take EVEN LESS over 5 years.
> ...


link? I would really like to know how you know this. 

Anyways, either way, it's still bad faith. The *least* Boozer could have done is resigned for one more yeat at the mle.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Arclite</b>!
> 
> 
> No, Cleveland wasn't going, "Ohh, you played so well last season we want to just throw 5 million bucks at you." They were trying to get him to sign long-term to a deal for far less than what he was worth, probably working under the assumption that as an RFA next year he was going to cost them a lot more. Then they took it a step further because they miscalculated their cap space and wanted him to take EVEN LESS over 5 years.
> ...




Paxson isn't that dumb to offer just the MLE to him. That's all they could offer and were doing him a favor. There was rumored to have opt out clauses in it and I guarantee you there would have been on (probably after one year) where he would have gotten a huge deal.


----------



## JPBulls (Aug 15, 2003)

I don´t know how somwone can aprove what Boozer did...

He was one of my favorite players, now he is the player that I hate the MOST by FAR!!!

Paxson was stupid, but was the Boozer agent that propose that for him, so he knew he deserved more but thought he was talking with men...

I know that´s 30 million more, but would live better with 40 million and sleeping well at night than with 70 being such an ashole, WORD matters, and at least here in Brazil the Cavs could sue him, I just studied it here im my law school.

He could be the better player ever but I still wouldn´t want him in the Bulls, character metters...


----------



## onetenthlag (Jul 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Arclite</b>!
> 
> 
> No, Cleveland wasn't going, "Ohh, you played so well last season we want to just throw 5 million bucks at you." They were trying to get him to sign long-term to a deal for far less than what he was worth, probably working under the assumption that as an RFA next year he was going to cost them a lot more. Then they took it a step further because they miscalculated their cap space and wanted him to take EVEN LESS over 5 years.
> ...


From what I read on Insider this morning, your description of the events is wrong. Obviously I don't have any inside info, but Cleveland would have just offered Boozer a deal if they were trying to sign him for less than his value. They wouldn't have let him out of the final year and waited if there was still a risk that Boozer could leave.

The whole scenario makes it very likely that they has some sort of agreement that he would stay. Otherwise, there's no way that they just would have let him out of the deal for the hell of it.

I think I'm right - IMO.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Makes you wonder why we cheer for these guys sometimes. We'll have to wait for the details to come out. If Paxson was outright lied to...if it turns out there was tampering...anything's possible at this point given the extremely unique set of circumstances that brought the involved parties to this point.

Anyone know who Boozer's pimp...er, agent is?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Until Jim Pax denies it, Boozer is slimy as all get out.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

*Boozer, recently named to the U.S. Olympic team, could have been Cleveland's next season for $695,000, but the Cavaliers did not pick up their option after, the club said, Boozer had committed to re-signing for the team's full mid-level exception -- somewhere around six years and $40 million.*

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1836318


----------



## De_dauntless (Oct 2, 2003)

I think Paxson was trying to get the maximum from Boozer by letting him become a free agent. He didn’t do it out of the goodness of his heart. Therefore, I cant blame Boozer for going for the bling bling. It is all business and Paxson knows this.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Geez! Ya work a little late out of the office, get home and all hell's broke loose! My question is when was this supposed verbal agreement given? Also, doesn't this look alot like the whole Joe Smith fiasco a few years back? A promise given of future earnings to a player before such a promise can be given? I gotta wonder if there's something in writing between Boozer and the Cavs and Boozer (or his agent) know full well that the Cavs couldn't possibly go public with any sort of a written agreement because they'd be sanctioned just like the T-Wolves were.

In any event, Boozer is getting his and the Cavs got snookerd!


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Okur- 8mil 
Boozer- 11mil 
ak47
Harpring - 5.4 mil 
Arroyo 4mil 

Giricek 4 mil 

all thats left is signing Ak47 next year


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> Geez! Ya work a little late out of the office, get home and all hell's broke loose! My question is when was this supposed verbal agreement given? Also, doesn't this look alot like the whole Joe Smith fiasco a few years back? A promise given of future earnings to a player before such a promise can be given? I gotta wonder if there's something in writing between Boozer and the Cavs and Boozer (or his agent) know full well that the Cavs couldn't possibly go public with any sort of a written agreement because they'd be sanctioned just like the T-Wolves were.
> 
> In any event, Boozer is getting his and the Cavs got snookerd!


That's a very good point. I'd really like to know the details of what was said, because it seems to me that although it's scummy, this situation probably could have been avoided by more caution on the Cavs' part. While Boozer looks like a bad (but very wealthy) guy, it also seems like the Jim Paxson was trying to pull a fast one on them that blew up in his face. And it's hard to have a whole lot of sympathy with that too.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

HOLD ON..Am I hearing you guys correctly???



> I have no problem with what Boozer did. I'm a big fan of his and his market value is much more than the MLE


Surely you jest....

I can not imagine for a split second that Cleveland management did not have an ORAL commitment from Boozer and his agent to resign for the MLE...Does anyone think for a split second Paxon would put himself in this situation without some sort of a comitment..No matter how stupid he may be,He had to have Boozers word....

As far as I can tell Boozers agent was approached,entertained the offer and sold it to Boozer...And he bought it...

There is no "market value" issue to be debated.And yes,the Cavs were doing it ftom a business perspective,not an act of kindness.But that is irrelavant..

I fully believe Boozer made an oral comitment and his agent kept on negotiating and got a huge contract..Its unethical,possibly illegal and is sickening to see..

Sorry guys,unless the facts are materially different,this is not about "market value"..Its about honor,someones word,and a total lack of character


----------



## pavlo11 (Jul 8, 2003)

I dont know what the salary cap situation is but we are hearing in Salt Lake that the Cavs wouldnt have the money to pay the MLE and thats why Boozers agent went loooking for the $$$$$


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> I dont know what the salary cap situation is but we are hearing in Salt Lake that the Cavs wouldnt have the money to pay the MLE and thats why Boozers agent went loooking for the $$$$


I find that VERRRRRRYY hard to believe...VERY

there is a one percent chance that Pax is that DUMB....

But I sincerely doubt it..

Unless Pax went up to Boozers agent and said "We cant live up to our verbal commitment" something unethical went on..

And if it did,you can be sure this is going to be legally contested,and rightfully so


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

It's still conceivable Cleveland could match this. It depends on how much the cap is set at first of all. Say it goes up to 45 million. Cleveland is at 39.8. Arenas got 6 years, 65 million last year and his first year salary was 8.666 I believe so I would assume Boozer's is about 9. 

Would a team like Atlanta take Dejuan Wagner (good young player) and Diop (is good at defense/expiring contract) for nothing which would enable Cleveland to match this deal? I would say Cleveland does this without a doubt and Atlanta can do no wrong here since they are not likely to strike gold with all of their play money this summer. You need to have a minimum payroll. It's possible. Though Atlanta could play hard ball and make them give up a first too or something.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truth</b>!
> 
> And if it did,you can be sure this is going to be legally contested,and rightfully so



Can they even do that though? Since it was just a handshake agrrement? I mean it's not like they could have signed papers (legally, CBA wise) that said Boozer was going to re-sign.


----------



## Weasel (Oct 18, 2003)

It is going to be an interesting summer when both Boozer and Lebron play with each other in the olympics.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> Can they even do that though? Since it was just a handshake agrrement? I mean it's not like they could have signed papers (legally, CBA wise) that said Boozer was going to re-sign.


As far as I know a verbal commitment is binding...Now it has to be proved and that amy not be easy..

Think about it...Pax approaches Boozers agent and offers to forgo the final year of his contract if Booz would sign for the MLE...Obviously Boozers agent came back and siad yes,we will do that.

Now Boozers agent calls Utah and says he tricked Pax,hurry up and make us an offer we cant refuse..

Sound ethical and legal??:no:


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

I don't understand why Boozer who with his ability gave up being a 2nd or 3rd option playing with the best young star in the league. This was a grab for cash and Boozer and his agent should've been thinking clearly. Also, A front line of Harpring, Boozer, and Okur doesn't scare me.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> Also, A front line of Harpring, Boozer, and Okur doesn't scare me


That doesnt scare me either..

But how about a front line of Boozer Okur and AK47


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>T.Shock</b>!
> I don't understand why Boozer who with his ability gave up being a 2nd or 3rd option playing with the best young star in the league. This was a grab for cash and Boozer and his agent should've been thinking clearly. Also, A front line of Harpring, Boozer, and Okur doesn't scare me.


Utah will be a force out West for years to come. All that young, mature talent locked up for several years? Utah and Houston will be duking it out much like the Lakers and Blazers did in the 80s. And if Snyder amounts to anything that people predicted, then watch out. I see a well coached, intelligent, defensive team out there. Dare I say, this team <i>might</i> end up better than those Malone/Stockton teams ever were.  

Their rebuilding effort has put ours to shame. :no:


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>sp00k</b>!
> 
> 
> Utah will be a force out West for years to come. All that young, mature talent locked up for several years? Utah and Houston will be duking it out much like the Lakers and Blazers did in the 80s. And if Snyder amounts to anything that people predicted, then watch out. I see a well coached, intelligent, defensive team out there. Dare I say, this team <i>might</i> end up better than those Malone/Stockton teams ever were.
> ...


And they never missed the playoffs until last year and even then it was just one game.


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> It's still conceivable Cleveland could match this. It depends on how much the cap is set at first of all. Say it goes up to 45 million. Cleveland is at 39.8. Arenas got 6 years, 65 million last year and his first year salary was 8.666 I believe so I would assume Boozer's is about 9.
> 
> Would a team like Atlanta take Dejuan Wagner (good young player) and Diop (is good at defense/expiring contract) for nothing which would enable Cleveland to match this deal? I would say Cleveland does this without a doubt and Atlanta can do no wrong here since they are not likely to strike gold with all of their play money this summer. You need to have a minimum payroll. It's possible. Though Atlanta could play hard ball and make them give up a first too or something.


Yeah, it's possible they could shed some salary to teams under the cap. Or even to a team like Houston that has a sizable trade exception. Lots of three way possibilities too...

They have a team option on McInnis, or is it too late to renounce that contract ?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Scinos</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's possible they could shed some salary to teams under the cap. Or even to a team like Houston that has a sizable trade exception. Lots of three way possibilities too...


Will Cavs even want to do this after the way that Boozer used them?


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

II have one word reharding the boozer situation


arbitration 

bozzer is a cav.....period


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> Will Cavs even want to do this after the way that Boozer used them?


I'm not sure, but if I was Cavs GM I sure would. Boozer's a young 16/11 PF, which is pretty hard to replace. Losing him would be a huge set back.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Boozer's pimp...sorry, I mean...agent is none other than Rob Pelinka who also happens to be the agent for the one and only Kobe Bryant.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Again, I am shocked that Jim Paxson even has his job right now. Gordon Gund should have fired him on the spot. Say what you want about Boozer, but we are talking about a huge difference between 5 mil and 11 mil (?). While it isnt the cleanest transaction, you cant blame him. There is not one person who wouldnt jump on that opportunity. If they say they wouldnt have, they are lying


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Again, I am shocked that Jim Paxson even has his job right now. Gordon Gund should have fired him on the spot. Say what you want about Boozer, but we are talking about a huge difference between 5 mil and 11 mil (?). While it isnt the cleanest transaction, you cant blame him. There is not one person who wouldnt jump on that opportunity. If they say they wouldnt have, they are lying


So a man's word means nothing?

The story is that Boozer approached the Cavs with this idea.

So if both Boozer and Boozer's agent looked both Paxson and Gund in the eye and shook hands on the deal, then it's ok to go back on the deal?

p.s. There is a big difference between 700k and $5M, too.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> So a man's word means nothing?
> ...


Just remember, it doesnt mean anything until the name is signed on the dotted line. Any GM should know that. If they agreed to this a week ago, why didnt Boozer sign on the 1st? Paxson sure waited and he paid the price. again, there is a big difference between 11 mil and 750k. Big difference between 11 mil and 5 mil. Can anyone really blame him? Everyone here would jump on Utahs deal. Paxson should have handled this on the 1st. A good GM/person with half a brain, would never allow themselves to be exposed like this


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

Some of you people need to get off your high horse. Quite frankly ALL of us would have done the same thing. NOBODY can tell if they were being offered more money than they are making now from another company, that they wouldn't take it.

Jim Paxson got screwed, plain and simple.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Just remember, it doesnt mean anything until the name is signed on the dotted line. Any GM should know that. If they agreed to this a week ago, why didnt Boozer sign on the 1st? Paxson sure waited and he paid the price. again, there is a big difference between 11 mil and 750k. Big difference between 11 mil and 5 mil. Can anyone really blame him? Everyone here would jump on Utahs deal. Paxson should have handled this on the 1st. A good GM/person with half a brain, would never allow themselves to be exposed like this


Paxson could not have handled this on the first. Contracts can't be signed until the 14th. That's why it was a gentleman's agreement.

By the way, in reading the story, it's clear that Gund signed off on the deal.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1836318



> "Our actions have been based upon what Carlos told us he wanted," the Cavaliers said in a statement by owner Gordon Gund and general manager Jim Paxson.


Still waiting to see if a man's word means nothing to you.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Paxson could not have handled this on the first. Contracts can't be signed until the 14th. That's why it was a gentleman's agreement.
> ...


Hmmm why not agree to a deal on the 1st like Nash did? or Daniels? Its quite clear they didnt. 

Does a mans word mean anything to me? Not when 11 mil or 6 mil is on the table. And I am certain, you would have taken Boozers deal, or been smart enough to not expose yourself with this type of money out there. Nothing means anything, legally, until their is signature. Thats just the way the world works. Any argument against that just doesnt hold water. And they could have agreed with him on the 1st, and clearly didnt


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Does a mans word mean anything to me? Not when 11 mil or 6 mil is on the table.


So I gotta ask... Just how small amount of money would have to be involved for your word to count?

p.s. Guys like Nash or Daniels could still change his mind.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Does this deal remind anyone of HoGrant-Reinsdorf circa 1994?

Jerry R tries to come out smelling like roses on his handshake deal in that teary press conference (though he was dealing behind the back of Grant's agent Sexton). Sexton gets word and gets a bigger deal from Orlando and the rest is history. Always two sides to the story friends.


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>sp00k</b>!
> 
> 
> I see a well coached, intelligent, defensive team out there. Dare I say, this team <i>might</i> end up better than those Malone/Stockton teams ever were.
> ...



:sigh:


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> So I gotta ask... Just how small amount of money would have to be involved for your word to count?
> ...


i dont believe anything regarding money until I have a legal document in my hands. Period. Thats just how the world works. Anyone who puts weight on a word, particularly when there is 50-100 million on the line, is a fool. Plain and simple. Jim Paxson should be fired for being such a fool


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1833065

I did a little digging and found the story when Cavs declined Boozer's option.

Only the Cavs and Boozer know what was said behind closed doors, but Boozer would seem to be in the clear by what was said publically.

OK. I am on board. Fire Paxson.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 1. Boozer is worth it if anyone this offseason is.
> 
> 2. Jim Paxson just got absolutely taken to the cleaners. He should be fired. Even though he had a "verbal agreement", this is a high stakes game and he shouldn't have relied on everyone else being a nice guy.
> ...


Wrong! They made the agreement and then the Cavs substantially lowballed Boozer compared to what he thought he was getting.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1833065
> 
> I did a little digging and found the story when Cavs declined Boozer's option.
> ...


Yup... if there was some kind of agreement, it should have been publically acknowledged by everyone (a la the Nash and Daniels deals). That acknowledgement was pretty clearly absent.

It looks to me like Jim Pax totally misjudged the FA market and made a rash assumption that Boozer wouldn't have made a better offer. 

Maybe Boozer and his agent gave him the inside track or something, but if there was an agreement it could have come out and said it.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Yup... if there was some kind of agreement, it should have been publically acknowledged by everyone (a la the Nash and Daniels deals). That acknowledgement was pretty clearly absent.


Well, the deadline on the option was Wednesday and no signing announcements came out until Thursday. So it's not clear that this could have been executed w/o some trust.

Who knows? Maybe Boozer and his agent verbally agreed and then have not returned a Paxson phone call since.....


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> Wrong! They made the agreement and then the Cavs substantially lowballed Boozer compared to what he thought he was getting.


And you know this how?

Not only is your opinion irritatingly presented (with the exclamation point and everything... :sigh: ), is pretty counterintuitive.

1st, it's pretty irrelevant given the facts as they are coming out, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

2nd, what you are saying clearly cannot be the case since the max the Cavs could have offered in any case was apparently the MLE. I don't see how Boozer could have been low-balled after making the agreement, since it was clear all along what the Cavs could and would be offering.

Are you trying to say that, once they made him a UFA, the Cavs suddenly decided to offer him less than the 6 year 40 million deal? That doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.

Nor would it make any sense for the Boozer to believe the Cavs could offer him more than this, since doing so isn't allowed by the CBA.

Either way you cut it, I'm having a pretty hard time figuring out what sort of information you're basing the "low ball" statement on since the rules are clear cut and I've read nothing of the sort from any reputable source.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>curry_52</b>!
> Are the Bulls a better team than the Boozer-less Cavs? I know LBJ will be even better next season, they added Luke Jackson, and so on, but can we say the Bulls will have a better season than Cleveland (Record-wise, obviously)?


YES! Boozer gave the Bulls and Tyson fits. Now look at the matchups:

Ilgauskas/Diop v. Curry/Davis = Advantage Chicago
Battie v. Chandler/Williams = Advantage Chicago
Jackson/Newble v. Deng/Johnson = Advantage Cleveland
Brown/Pavlovic v. Gordon (Crawford) = Advantage Chicago
James et al v. Hinrich, Duhon = Advantage Cleveland

The SF and SG advantages are at least close. Up front its not even a contest.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, the deadline on the option was Wednesday and no signing announcements came out until Thursday. So it's not clear that this could have been executed w/o some trust.
> ...


Could be... I guess I'm not sure what to make of it. I do think, however, that a firing of Jim Pax is in order. Any way you cut it, he screwed the pooch.

Boozer comes off looking pretty unimpressive in most circumstances, but I guess it's hard to say.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> Not only is your opinion irritatingly presented (with the exclamation point and everything... :sigh: ), is pretty counterintuitive.


Yes ! Ahahahahaha (I need to write it out so you get the full feeling of laughter)

Its posts like that in which I wonder if the person behind Matrix is trying to make a point with the way his posts are written sometimes.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>E L D R U H M A I</b>!
> 
> Yes ! Ahahahahaha (I need to write it out so you get the full feeling of laughter)
> 
> Its posts like that in which I wonder if the person behind Matrix is trying to make a point with the way his posts are written sometimes.


Really! No! They taught me to write like that in law school too!

Matrix, just remember... we kid because we love :yes:


----------



## PatBateman (May 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> i dont believe anything regarding money until I have a legal document in my hands. Period. Thats just how the world works. Anyone who puts weight on a word, particularly when there is 50-100 million on the line, is a fool. Plain and simple. Jim Paxson should be fired for being such a fool


superb post. Hate to say it guys, but I agree 100%. Never trust anything until you have it in writing, and even then, you could very well be screwed depending on how good your lawyer is. Jim Paxson is a moron and should be fired, done in by the parol evidence rule he was!

In this line of business, for Paxson to do this, is one of the largest NBA blunders ever.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

My take in one sentence.

If Boozer, in any way, shape, or form, agreed to sign with Cleveland after being released from his rookie contract and didn't sign, even though he was offered the deal he agreed to in principle, and was not in fact offered a lesser deal, then the only way this evens out karmically is if he blows out a knee and never plays again.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> And you know this how?
> ...


Mike.....you aren't smarter than me lol.

The Cavs miscalculated their cap situation. They CANNOT offer him 40 mill over 6 years.......many have been saying the Cavs have 2 million in cap room. what probably happened is they actually went under the cap and thought that they'd still have 5, when, if you are under the cap you get the amount you are under the cap by. 

Go to hoopshype.......the Cavs AREN'T over the cap. Now I'm no capgeek, but several cap geeks have told me that if you aren't over the cap, you don't have the mid level EXCEPTION. So the Cavs are at 39 million......what if the cap only goes up to 42, or 43......point is impossible for them to know just yet what it will be, so Boozer took the deal before it was off the table and he was left to take what the Cavs offered. What if, as many people have expected (though I think they're wrong), the cap doesn't budge, or only goes up a little. Then Boozer gets stuck with a couple mill a season?


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>E L D R U H M A I</b>!
> 
> Yes ! Ahahahahaha (I need to write it out so you get the full feeling of laughter)
> 
> Its posts like that in which I wonder if the person behind Matrix is trying to make a point with the way his posts are written sometimes.


This is not on topic. Please don't try to lynch me or build "strength in numbers".....I've done nothing wrong.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> Mike.....you aren't smarter than me lol.
> ...


If you are under the cap by less than the MLE, you can use the MLE instead of the cap space.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> My take in one sentence.
> 
> If Boozer, in any way, shape, or form, agreed to sign with Cleveland after being released from his rookie contract and didn't sign, even though he was offered the deal he agreed to in principle, and was not in fact offered a lesser deal, then the only way this evens out karmically is if he blows out a knee and never plays again.


Well said.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Really! No! They taught me to write like that in law school too!
> ...


LOL DC you must also remember that the little kids on the block (law student) have to put up them dukes with the big kids like you and boerwinkle (lawYERS) and get our respect lol. It's all in good fun. Hey....you're a Bulls fan right? Therefore any disagreements are "in the family" Michael lol. 

In my first post I honestly didn't even look at the name and see that it was you


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> If you are under the cap by less than the MLE, you can use the MLE instead of the cap space.


Well see.....then there are a million different theories flying around because try telling that to the guys on the NBA board....


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> If you are under the cap by less than the MLE, you can use the MLE instead of the cap space.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

*TSN - "Benedict Boozer, as folks in Cleveland will come to know him "*



> Then, this summer, Boozer and the Cavs explored a different possibility — they could toss out the team option for 2004-05 altogether, make Boozer a restricted free agent, then re-sign him to a six-year deal in the $40 million range. That way, Boozer could start collecting on a big contract earlier, and the Cavs would have one of their rising stars locked up. Boozer, according to a statement from Cavs owner Gordon Gund and general manager Jim Paxson, verbally agreed to this.





> Essentially, Boozer had to choose which was more important — his word or his bank account. He chose bank account.





> But the fact is, he lied to the Cavs, the team that gave him a shot in the second round of the draft, the team that inserted him in the starting lineup and allowed him to shine, the team that was trying to do the right thing by him. Boozer and his agent, Rob Pelinka, double-crossed the Cavs by getting them to allow him out of his contract, then bolting for bigger money when the Cavs could have had him another year for minimum-contract money.





> *Paxson bungled this, and could get fired. But he shouldn't, not for this (there may be other reasons to fire Paxson, but that's another column). As far as Boozer goes, Paxson's only fault was that he trusted a guy who turned out to be a liar. According to the statement, Gund seemed to trust Boozer as much as Paxson did — if the owner was gullible enough to be duped by Boozer, then he probably won't fire his GM because he was duped, too. "* Our actions," the joint statement read, "have been based on what Carlos told us he wanted."



Boozer reveals he's all about the money - The Sporting News (2 hours ago)


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

TSN:



> Utah, which drafted Kris Humphries and Kirk Snyder, could now look to deal Matt Harpring.


Harpring anyone?


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> To be fair, the Cavs would have gotten a bargain by signing Boozer for $40 million, and Boozer did nothing wrong by NBA rules. He got the most money he could, which is something most employees would do. But the fact is, he lied to the Cavs, the team that gave him a shot in the second round of the draft, the team that inserted him in the starting lineup and allowed him to shine, the team that was trying to do the right thing by him. Boozer and his agent, Rob Pelinka, double-crossed the Cavs by getting them to allow him out of his contract, then bolting for bigger money when the Cavs could have had him another year for minimum-contract money.



I dont understand this logic...How can you do nothing wrong by NBA rules and in the same sentence claim he lied to his employer,and his agent double crossed the cavs by getting him out of his contract and then bolt!!!!

I am not an attorney but I am a business man,and I can assure you I would be on the phone with my attorney if I ever commited a brain fart as large as Pax..

I can not imagine David Stern not stepping in...Arent verbal commitments binding????

QAny attorneys here?


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Cleveland's message board has an idea how to make up for the loss of Boozer:



> c) Chandler from the Bulls, via a sign and trade for Eric Williams. Chicago likes Williams and would deal Chandler for him.





> Sign Fizer. He's going to be the steal of the summer.


:laugh: 

Link


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> Well see.....then there are a million different theories flying around because try telling that to the guys on the NBA board....


http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#18



> A team may lose their exceptions (Disabled Player, $1 Million, Mid-Level and/or Traded Player), or never receive them to begin with. This happens when their team salary is so low that <b>when the exceptions are added to the team salary, the sum is still below the salary cap</b>. If the team salary is below this level when the exception arises, then teams don't get the exception. If the team salary ever drops below this level during the year, then any exceptions they still have are lost.


You just need to direct them to this link.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>sp00k</b>!
> 
> A team may lose their exceptions (Disabled Player, $1 Million, Mid-Level and/or Traded Player), or never receive them to begin with. This happens when their team salary is so low that when the *exceptions are added to the team salary, the sum is still below the salary cap*. If the team salary is below this level when the exception arises, then teams don't get the exception. If the team salary ever drops below this level during the year, then any exceptions they still have are lost.


Based on this, there isn't anyway any team couldn't offer a player the MLE. You'd either be under the cap and flat out offer them the available money OR you'd offer them the MLE. 

Hence the theory that the Cavs couldn't offer him the MLE because they were below the cap would not be true.


----------



## Brian. (Jul 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> My take in one sentence.
> 
> If Boozer, in any way, shape, or form, agreed to sign with Cleveland after being released from his rookie contract and didn't sign, even though he was offered the deal he agreed to in principle, and was not in fact offered a lesser deal, then the only way this evens out karmically is if he blows out a knee and never plays again.


I don't begrudge anybody that grabs at the big bucks but I totally agree with you. If you agree to a deal and then break it you deserve to pull your achilles.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

*may god strike him dead.*



> Originally posted by <b>Brian</b>!
> I don't begrudge anybody that grabs at the big bucks but I totally agree with you. If you agree to a deal and then break it you deserve to pull your achilles.


Mitch Cupcake and Lakers management are still walking.


----------



## ChiBullsFan (May 30, 2002)

My theory on the situation:

Since the Cavs agreed to release him from his contract so that they could re-sign him to a deal, then I think Boozer only has the right to sign an offer sheet for an amount the Cavs can realistically match.

If not, then he pulled a huge Benedict Arnold. It's OK to try and get as much money as you can, but not at the expense of your organization doing you a favor.

If it turns out the Cavs can't re-sign him, Boozer will lose out in the end. Nobody will remember the guy who grabbed 17 and 10 for the lowly Jazz during this decade. But everybody remembers Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant, and Boozer would've been remembered alongside these guys forever if he's made the wise decision to stick as Lebron's 2nd or 3rd gun.


----------



## Lusty RaRue (Sep 9, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>truth</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'd say this post expresses my concerns the best.

The question IMO goes to the integrity of the process which is a league issue and not restricted to the characters here.

If this thing got overturned by Stern, can you say persona non grata? 
===========================
Apparently:
Paxson:chump
Boozer:turd
Agent:snake
===========================
The symbolism of doing this to someone who is blind is not good either.

http://www.jwen.com/rp/articles/renaissanceman.html
===========================
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#89

Maybe they should eliminate the "talk but don't sign period" and have a total ban until the new cap number is released?


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Lusty RaRue</b>!
> Maybe they should eliminate the "talk but don't sign period" and have a total ban until the new cap number is released?


I was thinking the same thing Lusty. Will this change the way the NBA does business? What happens when something like this sets off a domino effect in other agreements? What happens when other players or teams "change their mind"? Whats the point of doing ANY business under these conditions? How is Boozer verbally agreeing to an original deal with the Cavs any different than any other free agent verbally agreeing to a deal (such as Ginobli tonight)? Stern will likely need to address this, but he's prone to sticking his head in the sand. Will we have and do we need "The Boozer Rules"?


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Excerpts:



> Kenyon Martin wanted to come to Utah but never arrived. Not even for a short visit. Carlos Boozer never visited but wants to stay in Utah. For a long time.
> 
> "We have an offer sheet that's been accepted by Carlos Boozer that will be signed on the 14th (Wednesday), and we have to wait 15 days," said Kevin O'Connor, the Jazz's basketball operations senior vice president.
> 
> ...



Deseret News


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I think I was right on initially.

Pax was a moron and was also skirting the rules, so he deserves to get fired.

Boozer and his agent are some classless mofos, and I would have a really hard time dealing with either of them.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

*When your word counts*

"What about the Suns and Danny Manning?" he asks. "Jerry Colangelo had gotten Manning out there on a one-year, $1 million deal. He promised Manning he'd get a $40 million contract the following season. And then, while he was on the $1 million contract, Manning blew out his knee. Colangelo had no obligation to make good. But he'd given his word. And he gave Manning the contract."

David Aldridge


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

I have nothing to say, but I love the fact that "bamboozled" is in the title of this thread.

I know this is off-topic, so ban me if you must!


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> I have nothing to say, but I love the fact that "bamboozled" is in the title of this thread.
> 
> I know this is off-topic, so ban me if you must!


On realgm, they probably would.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> On realgm, they probably would.


They do a lot of bamboozling over there?


----------



## onetenthlag (Jul 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> I think I was right on initially.
> 
> Pax was a moron and was also skirting the rules, so he deserves to get fired.
> ...


I completely agree with this. The Cavs made a huge mistake, and Paxson should be on the hot seat.

At the same time, Boozer and his agent made an immoral decision. They went for the cash, which isn't always the right thing to do. In this specific situation, he should have gone back to Cleveland (if it's true that they were still offering the MLE). He could have signed a 2 year MLE deal and then gone back into the market. Both sides would have won, and Boozer would have a shred of integrity left around the league.

One other thing that nobody's mentioned yet (I think): you'd think that Boozer would feel just a little loyalty to the Cavs after every other team in the league thought he be a bust when he left Duke. I'm not saying he has to play in Cleveland for the minimum his whole career as a result, but it makes him look even more like a snake IMO.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Jim Paxson must be the worst GM in the NBA. How he could let a future all star PF leave for nothing is just STUPID. Paxson must be courting the days until he is un employed.

david


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

Jim Paxson deserves to be fired-- but not because of the Boozer incident, which ranks far down on the list of dumb moves he's made.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Dabullz should start the fire Jim Paxson club. My guess is he would have 500+ members


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Dabullz should start the fire Jim Paxson club. My guess is he would have 500+ members


since the club is named fire paxson club......doesn't it include both now ? :yes:


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>onetenthlag</b>!
> At the same time, Boozer and his agent made an immoral decision. They went for the cash, which isn't always the right thing to do. In this specific situation, he should have gone back to Cleveland (if it's true that they were still offering the MLE). He could have signed a 2 year MLE deal and then gone back into the market. Both sides would have won, and Boozer would have a shred of integrity left around the league.


A common theme among many fans are we'd all do what Boozer did. He had to do it when the difference was 28M. We'd all renege on our word if we could nearly double our salary by doing so. The Cavs were inept.

I disagree with all of this.

*we'd all do what Boozer did*
I wouldn't have done what Boozer did. He was only given the opportunity of being a free agent because he made an agreement with the Cavs. The Cavs lived up to their end of the deal and he did not.

*He had to do it when the difference was 28M*
Someone else on these boards put it best and I'll paraphrase - "What can you buy with 68M that you couldn't buy with 40M"? The guy was going to be set for life. He was given the opportunity to achieve lifetime security because he reached an agreement with the Cavs on his contract situation. It would have been good for both parties. Some argue in Boozers favor that the Cavs were selling their soul to the devil to get Boozer cheap. Well, what if Boozer tore an ACL this year? Fizer anyone? What if Boozer had a crummy year? Lots can happen in a year. The Cavs gave him the opportunity for lifetime security NOW. Waiting a year still presents risk of both injury and performance.

*We'd all renege on our word if we could nearly double our salary*
Again, he was only given the opportunity in the first place (free agency) because of his agreement to re-sign. So NO, I would not renege. But, for those who would I suppose there is this caveat - doubling a middle-class salary represents an incredible change in the standard of living. Changing a salary that will yield 68M instead of 41M will not. Unless of course, Boozer has his eye on a 3rd world country he'd like to buy.

*The Cavs were inept*
While they certainly were taking a gamble it had its rewards. They also thought they were dealing with an honorable man. Add to that the fact that they were approached with the idea. If I'm the Cavs I do the deal as well - providing it really isn't circumventing the NBA rules. If it is circumvention, the NBA should come down HARD.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> A common theme among many fans are we'd all do what Boozer did. He had to do it when the difference was 28M. We'd all renege on our word if we could nearly double our salary by doing so. The Cavs were inept.
> ...


NENV, no offense, but you would have done it. Anyone would have. Its easy to be righteous in a what if scenario but with actual money in your face, i doubt you would pass


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> NENV, no offense, but you would have done it. Anyone would have. Its easy to be righteous in a what if scenario but with actual money in your face, i doubt you would pass


I can certainly understand your skepticism, but I assure you I wouldn't given the exact same circumstances. If I gave my word and thats how I was given the opportunity to begin with - I would be bound by my agreement. Once a free agent and seeing the landscape for my services change I might go back to the Cavs and ask for a modification. If they couldn't come up with more money, I would have sought a 1-year deal and pursued the big money next year knowing I was still going to get an extra 4 million this year. If they couldn't agree to any of this I would have accepted the set for life 40 million and moved on.

Where it would not be so easy to be righteous RLucas, is if I had a chance to double my current income. While I live comfortably enough, I won't be making 40 million over the next 6 years. I still BELIEVE I would do the right thing, but I suppose one could only say with complete certainty if one was presented with the scenario. ( I'm now open for offers  ) 

It does say that the situation and money might matter and I don't deny that. That acknowledgement does not make it righteous at all. But, at the end of the day I still believe I'd honor my word in either case.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I agree. Boozer gave his word and ASKED them to do this, Paxson would never have done it if Boozer hadn't given his word. Just shows that Boozer is all about the Benjamins rather than his own personal honor. If I were Paxson I wouldn't even make a move to match his offer sheet. If he wants to lie and play games why would you want him on your team? Pax should throw some money at Martin, Swift, or maybe even Thomas or Cardinal, replace him and move on.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> NENV, no offense, but you would have done it. Anyone would have. Its easy to be righteous in a what if scenario but with actual money in your face, i doubt you would pass


Clearly, not everyone would have done it.

Tilman turned down millions to go get killed in Afganistan.

The Suns kept their commitment to Danny Manning.

Etc.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> It looks to me like Jim Pax totally misjudged the FA market and made a rash assumption that Boozer wouldn't have made a better offer.


Hmm, maybe him and his brother got together and decided how the market was going to be.

Knowing their brothers, and his blunder, how does that make you feel regarding Jamal's situation?


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

Can't Cavs just Match as is and go over the cap???


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Clearly, not everyone would have done it.
> ...


Clearly, however, not everyone gets offered a contract so large that he could take care of his entire family for life.

I would have done it in a second as well and spoiled my family rotten.


----------



## Like A Breath (Jun 16, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> Can't Cavs just Match as is and go over the cap???


They can't go over the cap because they don't have full Bird rights.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> I can certainly understand your skepticism, but I assure you I wouldn't given the exact same circumstances. If I gave my word and thats how I was given the opportunity to begin with - I would be bound by my agreement. Once a free agent and seeing the landscape for my services change I might go back to the Cavs and ask for a modification. If they couldn't come up with more money, I would have sought a 1-year deal and pursued the big money next year knowing I was still going to get an extra 4 million this year. If they couldn't agree to any of this I would have accepted the set for life 40 million and moved on.
> ...


NVNE, you know I think your a class act. However, I dont believe a word of it. Its like saying, would you deliver the lottery to someone else if you won it? I mean, its 40 million bucks. and lets face it, Cleveland was going to give Boozer way under market salary for his services. My gut is that you and Johnston, while mates of mine, would be dancing in the streets of Salt Lake if you were in Boozers spot.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> I would have done it in a second as well and spoiled my family rotten.


Noted. 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: 

Personally, I am quite surprised at whom many of the posters on here would willingly admit that they would be perfectly happy to scheme, lie and backstab.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Noted.
> ...


Im just as shocked at how many people have said they wont


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> Many suspect a wink-wink deal, even though that's seemingly against NBA rules





> The Cavs practically admitted it, evidenced by this prepared Paxson statement issued June 30: "The Cavaliers elected not to exercise our team option for Carlos Boozer's third season. As a result, we now are able, and fully intend, to enter into a long-term contract with Carlos . . .



This is the crux of the matter...If what the Cavs did does not break the spirit of the law,or as you say wink wink,team Boozer will be hearing from David Stern.....

No qustion what Pax did was DUMB..There is a question as to what team Bozzer did being legal..


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

*the MLE!*



> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> Can't Cavs just Match as is and go over the cap???


Nope they can only match up to the MLE.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Noted.
> ...


Who is to say that Pelinka didn't call up the Cavs and inform them of the offer sheet the Jazz proposed and Paxson tell them there is now way?

Obviously, someone within the Cavs organization undervalued Carlos Boozer and that is as bad as his agent's actions to see a deal elsewhere.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> Personally, I am quite surprised at whom many of the posters on here would willingly admit that they would be perfectly happy to scheme, lie and backstab


I am 100% with you.It is a sad commentary on the state of professional sports and on a higher level ,humanity....


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> Hmm, maybe him and his brother got together and decided how the market was going to be.
> ...


Scared, but also happy Jamal is a RFA.

Do you really think he's worth a $10M a year contract? 

I think the Pax Bros misjudged the market, but my judgement is the market is inflated too. This wouldn't be the year I'm out looking for big money players. However, the keg is going to get tapped pretty quickly, because only so much cap room is left.

When that happens, there are still going to be some guys out there worth looking at. Once Manu, Kobe, and KMart sign up somewhere we'll see just what's left. Only the latter two are worth the deals they're getting (and honestly, I'd try to sign and trade for KMart, but I know you'd disagree on that one


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truth</b>!
> 
> 
> I am 100% with you.It is a sad commentary on the state of professional sports and on a higher level ,humanity....


I agree. Business is business but your word HAS to be worth something and if Boozer gave his word he should keep it. Honesltly I think a lot of us relatively poor people see that extra 28mil and say "dang I would jump all over that" (I'm not one of them, my word is my bond). But in reality if they had already given their word and realized that the offer wouldn't even be on the table unless the person they gave their word to trusted them they would take the offer from Cleveland and call it a day. Besides, 40mil is a lot of money too..


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

I agree.

I just find it extremely funny, especially in light of the Boozer situation.

I'm really surprised SJax hasn't gotten many calls and I don't see him back in Atlanta. They made that clear on draft day.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Let me clarify my feelings..

Many people will take a different side depending whether or not Team Bozzer approached management or management approached Team Boozer..That is not relevant,regarding the moral issue at hand


If there was a handshake and a verbal commitment made,it should be honored.Doesnt matter whether Pax was trying to get Bozzer locked up cheap,or Team Boozer shortly realised they could get double.A deal is a deal,and your word is your bond.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truth</b>!
> Let me clarify my feelings..
> 
> Many people will take a different side depending whether or not Team Bozzer approached management or management approached Team Boozer..That is not relevant,regarding the moral issue at hand
> ...


But a verbal or handshake deal is ILLEGAL. It is basically the same under the table dealings that has screwed Minnesota out of 4 first round draft picks.


----------



## ztect (Jun 12, 2002)

I'm sure someone probably wrote this somewhere already, but I really don't feel like reading through all nine pages.....

Boozer's a nice young player, but any team willing to pay him on avg. over $11 mil per season is out of their freakin' mind.

Boozer under no circumstances is worth that amount.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>truth</b>!
> A deal is a deal,and your word is your bond.


"All I have in this world is my BALLS and my WORD. And I don't break them, for no one."

"Unless wealth and fame are obtained in the right way, they may not be possessed." - Confucius


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> But a verbal or handshake deal is ILLEGAL.


We are not adressing the legal issue,we are addressing the moral issue and they should not be confused..

Legal will be judged in a court of law...

Moral will be judged by your consicience,and if you believe in karma,be prepared for "whatever goes around,comes around"..


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

And actually it's not illegal to make a handshake deal, just illegal to put that deal in writing unless it's the right time. Like the Joe Smith fiasco, that "unwritten" agreement would have been just fine, putting it on paper is where they screwed the pooch.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Boy, that's a tough moral dilema-type question. Do you honor your word and get $40 million or break your word and get $68 million?

Personally, I've actually turned down a job offer that would have doubled my income. Of course, we're not talking millions of dollars here - but going from 5 digits to 6 digits. For me there were cost of living concerns, uprooting my family and other things. I hadn't necessarily given my word on anything but I seriously considered the move. In the end I declined the offer and I'd like to think I'm happier for it.

Now when you're talking millions of dollars those things really don't factor in. There really is no cost of living concerns. Hell, I'd live in gluteous-maximus fornication Egypt (a euphamism for butt - ****) for $40 mil or $68 mil! Whether I'd break my word for the extra $28 mil is a good question. I don't think I can honeslty answer that. My alturistic side of me says I'd honor the committment and take the $40 mil and be happy. The more pragmatic side of me says screw my word - $28 mil is $28 mil! I know this - I've built my business on my word. In my community it's come to mean something and it's not something that I take lightly. It'd be a difficult decision to basically sell my word for anything. Tough call.


----------



## Nater (Jul 10, 2002)

Just think... I used to feel bad for Boozer, after he got clowned by JRich in that Rookie-Sophomore game.

:no: 

I now retract my previous sypathetic thoughts. What he & his agent did to the Cavs was definitely below the belt. A deal's a deal. A promise is a promise. Shouldn't a man have some integrity?

--------

Also, I wonder what degree of certainty the Jazz have that Boozer will actually sign that deal. They do, after all, only have a _verbal agreement_.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Nater</b>!
> Just think... I used to feel bad for Boozer, after he got clowned by JRich in that Rookie-Sophomore game.
> 
> :no:
> ...


Maybe J-Rich AND 1'd him off the hizzle cuz he knows Boozer isn't honest! lol


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> Personally, I've actually turned down a job offer that would have doubled my income


The HUGE difference is,you werent under contract with your employer,and were an "at will" employee.Keep in mind that Team Boozer verbally commited to staying with the Cavs and that is part of the reason he was let out of his contract.Do you think for a second had Team Boozer said,

"Pax,let us out of our final year at 600 per,let us check out our market value and if we only recieve the MLE,we will sign with you":no:


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Legally speaking, the Cavs have no ground to stand on. An under the table deal sent Howard back to Washington and is still screwing Minnesota. 

Ethically is a bit different. But before making these quick judgements, how about we get the full story first?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/basketball/nba/07/08/bc.bkn.jazz.boozer.ap/index.html



> Just last week, Boozer told The Associated Press he planned to sign a deal with Cleveland.
> 
> "I like it here," he said. "My wife and I are very, very happy here, and I want to be with the Cavaliers. Good things are happening.
> 
> <b>"Now, it's up to my agent and the Cavs to work things out. I hope they will."</b>


To me that quote doesn't sound like he had a concrete deal.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

I do not think this was just 40 million against 68 million. They were doing him a favor for this season. The plan was for him to get paid this season at the MLE and even though it would have possibly been a max 6 year MLE deal, I think there would have been an opt out clause after one year, for surely after two. This was rumored after the Cavs declined his option that there would be an opt out clause. It makes perfect sense. Boozer knows he's worth more than the MLE and that's why there would have been such a clause and Paxson can't be foolish enough to think that's all this guy could get. I just think it's common sense. 

That's why I'm looking at this like Boozer couldn't have waited one year to gain his full bird rights, then sign a big deal like this with Cleveland?


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Like A Breath</b>!
> 
> 
> They can't go over the cap because they don't have full Bird rights.


Thanks!


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

DC also I apologize for my tone last night. Usually I can have it because I am in the know. I know what the F I'm talking about most of the time. Last night was not most of the time and I made the mistake of not having the facts straight. You are right....Boozer is a classless mofo.....but btw.....

Didn't Boozer go to Duke? Duke, what college basketball is all about.....the place that produces the kids you want on your team. Let's see......we now have:

Christian Laettner = attitude problem
Cherokee Parks = attitude problem
Jay Williams = disregards the CBA and rides bikes
Carlos Boozer = renegs on deals
Grant Hill = plays on a broken leg and then maintains that he's coming back for about 15 years so he can get his money


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

No problem, just relax and have a good time man


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> NVNE, you know I think your a class act. However, I dont believe a word of it. Its like saying, would you deliver the lottery to someone else if you won it? I mean, its 40 million bucks. and lets face it, Cleveland was going to give Boozer way under market salary for his services. My gut is that you and Johnston, while mates of mine, would be dancing in the streets of Salt Lake if you were in Boozers spot.


Now RLucas, I'm surprised you still doubt me! I was quite honest in saying I would be tempted if we were talking about doubling MY income. But I'd be adamant about standing pat given 40 MILLION! Boozer's call would be easy IMO. Trust me - Johnston and I would be dancing in the street if we had the deal Boozer left on the table for the 40 MIL! Like I said, I really do understand any skepticism about this position, but at the end of the day I still believe in myself and believe I'd do whats right.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> Clearly, however, not everyone gets offered a contract so large that he could take care of his entire family for life.
> ...


Retro, you couldn't spoil your family on 40 million and still be considered a standup, honorable, hard-working man?


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!Obviously, someone within the Cavs organization undervalued Carlos Boozer and that is as bad as his agent's actions to see a deal elsewhere.


Really it seems more an indication of the level of naivety on behalf of both parties. There SEEMED to be no thought that Boozer would attract other interest and the deal could unfold. They're both guilty in that sense. Its as if they had tunnel vision. Don't pick up option, re-sign at MLE. Unfortunately, teams likely contacted the agent, the agent pursued discussions and the big bounty became a possibility. Agent and player discuss how they misread his value and decide it is not unfair for them to pursue said value. They likely even went back to the Cavs and told them what was going on. Unfortunately, the Cavs aren't in a position to match and now they're left holding the bag. Regardless, a deal is a deal. Boozer was only free because he made an agreement. 40 million would still set him for life. He made a bad decision, but this time next year nobody will probably care - unless Stern fixes this broken system and we get "the Boozer Rules".


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> Retro, you couldn't spoil your family on 40 million and still be considered a standup, honorable, hard-working man?


Man, it's $40M. AND he got paid 2 years earlier than anyone in his draft class. AND he can sign another big contract when this one expires and he is all of 29 years old.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truth</b>!
> 
> 
> We are not adressing the legal issue,we are addressing the moral issue and they should not be confused..
> ...


Sure we are. If we are going to address the moral implications, you have to discuss the illegal aspects, because after all, there would have been no moral implications if the illegal deal plan wasn't set in place.

[RING] [RING]
Kettle: Uh, hello?
Pot: It's me, pot!


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> Retro, you couldn't spoil your family on 40 million and still be considered a standup, honorable, hard-working man?


Nor would I care, because public opinion of me isn't important to me. My family is what comes first, and this would allow me to do things I could have never even thought possible. That is worth much, much more.

Just my 2 copper.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

The least he could've done is signed for one year, 5 million, the most the Cavs could offer. I would have done at least that. 

After all, the Cavs let him out of that year. Instead, he screwed them.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The difference between $40M and $68M is huge. There's no way to blame Boozer for taking that kind of an offer. Basketball isn't a game anymore, it's a business. And business is all about that $28M difference.

Good for Carlos. Bad for Paxson.

Have I said, "Fire Paxson Now!" today yet?


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

I think this article sum's up both sides of the argument. Aldridge didn't take a side though. 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=aldridge_david&id=1836842


----------



## JPBulls (Aug 15, 2003)

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

This say almost everything I had to say, I don´t know how a lot of people are supporting Boozer, it isn´t like 40 million isn´t enough for 10 generations and more than 99,99999% of the USA will ever dream receive, he has to be the worst character guy in the NBA. And if I wore one of his agent clients I would fire the agent...


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JPBulls</b>!
> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writers/ian_thomsen/07/09/paxson.boozer/index.html
> 
> This say almost everything I had to say, I don´t know how a lot of people are supporting Boozer, it isn´t like 40 million isn´t enough for 10 generations and more than 99,99999% of the USA will ever dream receive, he has to be the worst character guy in the NBA. And if I wore one of his agent clients I would fire the agent...


Thanks for posting.....



> 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."
> 
> ....
> 
> ...


Assuming this is the true story, is this still just business?


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

I know this is an off-color joke, but I bet Gund didn't even see it coming. 

Man, if Boozer really did say that, then yes, he is a snake. HOWEVER, the Cavs made an under the table deal here, so I am glad it came back to bite them in the butt.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> I know this is an off-color joke, but I bet Gund didn't even see it coming.


No need to be politically correct - this is simply the POST OF THE DAY! :laugh:


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>JPBulls</b>!
> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writers/ian_thomsen/07/09/paxson.boozer/index.html
> 
> This say almost everything I had to say, I don´t know how a lot of people are supporting Boozer, it isn´t like 40 million isn´t enough for 10 generations and more than 99,99999% of the USA will ever dream receive, he has to be the worst character guy in the NBA. And if I wore one of his agent clients I would fire the agent...


Good post JP. That took my newfound dislike for Boozer to an all new high.

Amazingly enough, I actually found myself feeling better about Aaron Goodwin though.  

Excerpts:



> Boozer turned out to be a steal. He averaged 15.5 points and 11.4 rebounds last year and earned a spot on the U.S. Olympic team. But 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.
> 
> ...


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

That's some seriously slimy stuff.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

What I found interesting was the possibility that Aaron Goodwin may actually have some moral center.  But, is it that or is he just posturing to look better than Pelinka?


----------

