Carlos Boozer

[KevinL]

Sarge, you usually know what you are talking about but you are misinformed on this one.

 

From the Dallas thread.

YOu might want to read that article. the coach of the Cavs then, wanted Boozer to be nothing more than an energy guy who could rebound when called upon and said they were going to ride Z Ilgauska until his legs fell off. What? If I was boozer Id have left too if my coach thought that of me. Cleveland could have kept Boozer one more yr, but chose to try and lock him up early to save them considerable cash the next yr. It was a mistake, as the coach couldnt stop running his trap about how fine they would be without Boozer, to try and get him to sign the 41 mil deal, as if no one else would consider giving him close to that. So I hardly think Boozer screwed the fans, the Cleveland front office screwed the fans, by releasing him, instead of just signing him to an extension like most clubs do their good players. They tried to railroad him into a lesser contract and he walked for 27 million more. Oops.

 

 

Boozer screwed the fans and the team.

 

He wasn't up for an extension. He had 1 year left on his contract for $695K, well under market value. NBA teams can't just extend a contract however long they want at any time. Rookies sign for X number of years, with an option, and when that contract is up, (or the option is not picked up) they become RFA. Then and only then. The Cavs could not give him an extension without opting out of the $695K final year of the contract.

 

If there was not a verbal agreement, why would the Cavs opt out of the last year of this contract which was obviously beneficial to them?

 

If there was not a verbal agreement, why did his agency team, SFX, drop him as a client and turn down $2 million that they should have received from the Jazz contract?

 

We'll never know for sure if there was a verbal agreement because verbal agreements are just that, verbal, they are not written down or published in any way.

 

The Cavs are better off with Gooden and Varejao, who we got from Orlando for Tony Battie and 2 2nd round picks. But all signs indicate that Boozer made a verbal deal and then broke his word. Boozer did what's good for himself, if he wants to be the star of a decent team and get paid. But I hope he never wins a championship.

[BigMikeinNY]

As a Jazz fan since the 3rd grade, I am glad Boozer left Cleveland. We wouldn't be a 35 win team without him this year. And with his Mailman-like performance last night, it looks like we again are going to have another 1st team PF

[Doc Holliday]

I have to admit..boozer is alot better than I ever thought he would be. I thought he would be a 9 pt 9 rebound kind of guy. I never thought he would do as well as he has offensively.

[Sgt. Ryan]

Why not let him play for the 695K, then sign him to an extension after that. I dont know if there was a verbal commitment or not, but I do know if he is locked up under contract, isnt threatening to hold out, where no signs point that he was, the only reason to release him and resign him was to get him at a bargain rate. Why else would Cleveland do this. Either way fault Cleveland for letting him walk when they did. They didnt have to do that, so its their fault it happened.

 

And I hardly think Utah is just a decent team, they were the 5th best team out west, beat the 4th best team in round 1, and would mop the floor with Cleveland today, if they played in a 7 game series. Boozer is the best player on the Jazz, and is twice the player Gooden and Varejao are combined.

Edited May 8, 2007 by Sgt. Ryan

[wildcat2334]

Sarge, you usually know what you are talking about but you are misinformed on this one.

 

 

 

 

, right.......................................

[Sgt. Ryan]

, right.......................................

 

 

 

You got alot to learn Sh*tty Cat

[KevinL]

Why not let him play for the 695K, then sign him to an extension after that. I dont know if there was a verbal commitment or not, but I do know if he is locked up under contract, isnt threatening to hold out, where no signs point that he was, the only reason to release him and resign him was to get him at a bargain rate. Why else would Cleveland do this. Either way fault Cleveland for letting him walk when they did. They didnt have to do that, so its their fault it happened.

 

Of course Cleveland was hoping to get future years at a bargain. But they were also willing to pay way more than the $695K for the next year. Boozer gets more money up front in exchange for slightly less in the long run. A potential win-win situation, if you can trust him. Cavs management is at fault for trusting Boozer.

 

 

And I hardly think Utah is just a decent team, they were the 5th best team out west, beat the 4th best team in round 1, and would mop the floor with Cleveland today, if they played in a 7 game series. Boozer is the best player on the Jazz, and is twice the player Gooden and Varejao are combined.

 

 

I wouldn't be so sure if I were you. Cleveland hasn't lost a game since Easter Sunday. That was a month ago. Cleveland went 1-1 vs Utah, losing 99-98 in February in Utah, and winning 82-73 in Cleveland in March.

 

Gooden is getting 10.8 rebounds, 14.4 points, and shooting .571 in the playoffs. He's playing 33 minutes per game.

 

Boozer is getting 12.1 rebounds, 23.6 points, and shooting .494 in the playoffs. He's playing 38 minutes per game.

 

Boozer is certainly the star in Utah, the focus of the offense. Comparing their points per game is really not fair as Boozer takes more shots than Gooden.

 

I shouldn't have said the Cavs were better off. That was my mistake. I should have said that Gooden fills the role that Boozer left. A solid rebounder who hits the shots he takes, but not a player the offense is highly dependent on.

 

And Varejao adds depth at SF, PF, and C.

 

Saying that Boozer is twice the player of Gooden & Varejao is assanine, but that's not the point. The bottom line is, it's clear to see that Boozer did something to indicate to Cleveland that he would re-sign if they let him out of his option year. He did not. He left to become the star of a Utah team, as he knew Cleveland belonged to LeBron.

 

Good for him, but as I said before, it puts into question his integrity.

[Sgt. Ryan]

Of course Cleveland was hoping to get future years at a bargain. But they were also willing to pay way more than the $695K for the next year. Boozer gets more money up front in exchange for slightly less in the long run. A potential win-win situation, if you can trust him. Cavs management is at fault for trusting Boozer.

I wouldn't be so sure if I were you. Cleveland hasn't lost a game since Easter Sunday. That was a month ago. Cleveland went 1-1 vs Utah, losing 99-98 in February in Utah, and winning 82-73 in Cleveland in March.

 

Gooden is getting 10.8 rebounds, 14.4 points, and shooting .571 in the playoffs. He's playing 33 minutes per game.

 

Boozer is getting 12.1 rebounds, 23.6 points, and shooting .494 in the playoffs. He's playing 38 minutes per game.

 

Boozer is certainly the star in Utah, the focus of the offense. Comparing their points per game is really not fair as Boozer takes more shots than Gooden.

 

I shouldn't have said the Cavs were better off. That was my mistake. I should have said that Gooden fills the role that Boozer left. A solid rebounder who hits the shots he takes, but not a player the offense is highly dependent on.

 

And Varejao adds depth at SF, PF, and C.

 

Saying that Boozer is twice the player of Gooden & Varejao is assanine, but that's not the point. The bottom line is, it's clear to see that Boozer did something to indicate to Cleveland that he would re-sign if they let him out of his option year. He did not. He left to become the star of a Utah team, as he knew Cleveland belonged to LeBron.

 

Good for him, but as I said before, it puts into question his integrity.

 

 

 

To be fair to Boozer, he is the main focus of the offense in Utah, while Gooden is what the 3rd or 4th option for Cleveland. That being the case, Gooden gets more dunks than Boozer as Goodens man often leaves him to stop Lebron from driving to the basket, and Boozer is doubled most of the time, where that is not the case for Gooden. If Cleveland and Utah traded those 2 for Boozer now, Utah doenst make the playoffs, and Cleveland is a legit title contender. So those 2 may have filled the roll of Boozer, but Boozer wasnt utilized properly in Cleveland and probably would have never maximized his potential with Lebron pulling a Kobe every night, had he originally stayed. Where now Boozers skill set is developed and if he went back to Cleveland, hopefully the coach there would realize he is better than Z Ilgauskas.

 

 

And unless we are in those meetings, we dont know that Cleveland didnt try and trick Boozer into staying for less long term with a promise to give him more now by making him a RFA. If boozer was going to the highest bidder the next yr anyway, and they thought if they promosed to give him more money now would get him signed cheaper long term, that isnt on Boozer. He may not have promised anything, they may have thought no one else would step in, because he was never the main option in Cleveland. Cause Im telling you, if you tell me Im only worth 41 mil, and try and sign me for that, and someone else comes in at 68 mil, Im leaving you for them every day, and twice on Sunday.

Edited May 8, 2007 by Sgt. Ryan

[KevinL]

And unless we are in those meetings, we dont know that Cleveland didnt try and trick Boozer into staying for less long term with a promise to give him more now by making him a RFA. If boozer was going to the highest bidder the next yr anyway, and they thought if they promosed to give him more money now would get him signed cheaper long term, that isnt on Boozer. He may not have promised anything, they may have thought no one else would step in, because he was never the main option in Cleveland. Cause Im telling you, if you tell me Im only worth 41 mil, and try and sign me for that, and someone else comes in at 68 mil, Im leaving you for them every day, and twice on Sunday.

 

 

But if your choice is to make $695K this year and wait a whole year for the big payday (remember Boozer was a 2nd round pick by Cleveland), while all your buddies are making the mad cash, OR sign a $41 million deal that starts this year, which would you choose?

 

Those were the 2 options Cleveland could have offered him. There was no $68 mil deal even available until Cleveland canceled the option year, and there was no way Cleveland would do that if they thought Boozer would bolt.

 

I know you're a man of your word, Sarge. And I know that if you had a handshake deal, you would honor it.

 

Boozer is not like you. (In more ways than one )

[Sgt. Ryan]

No sh*t, he is worth 68 mil.

[Menudo]

Go Jazz !!!!

[detlef]

It is not lost on me that Cleveland was trying to lock him in at less than the max, but $41 mil is hardly chump change. So, maybe Boozer thought he could do better. Maybe Boozer thought he could flourish in a better offense.

 

You don't think it's a bit slimy that he didn't just say, "You know guys, what do you say I just play out my contract and see what the market bears. I think I can do better than $41 mil." Hell, maybe CLE would have upped their offer.

 

I can't imagine that CLE didn't have some sort of assurance that he wasn't gonna bolt. His agent/devil must have explained to him that he could have his cake and eat it, so he did.

 

I will never fault a player for getting paid. I am not the type of fan who gets attached to players and gets pissed when they move on. It's a new game and I totally get that. I find it appalling that people get high and mighty about kids skipping college to get paid. Don't think this is about the money.

[billay]

I read an article on this a while back. Whil;e I don't recall all of the specific details, Boozer definately screwed the Cavs. Releasing him was a contract maneuver that was originally intended to improve Boozer's deal with the Cavs. They would immediately resign him for a better deal. Boozers play in Cleveland had been very solid, worth far more than his base salary (an idea shared by the Cav's brass) I think Boozer and his agent suggested this maneuver, it was a huge risk for the Cavs as, once released, Boozer could do anything he wanted, but he gave his word that he has happy in Cleveland, and only wanted to rectify his apparently gross pay discrepancy. Cleveland wanted to help him out, and since he gave his word, they went for it. Within days or hours, however, Utah, who had been eyeing Boozer, got wind of something and made him a hugh offer, far more than the cavs could match.

 

Boozer went back on his word and signed with Utah.

 

Whether or not it was a premeditated maneuver by Boozer and his agent, you decide. Boozer says it was merely a matter of taking advantage of a hugh opportunity. Either way, Boozer gave his word and then backed out. But it still beggs the question, why would you ever risk losing a player you have locked up? The Cavs were trying to have a little heart and they got screwed for it

Edited May 9, 2007 by billay

[Sgt. Ryan]

Anyone still think Boozer is easily replacable. Dude is a beast

[KevinL]

Anyone still think Boozer is easily replacable. Dude is a beast

 

 

Against Golden State.

 

Who couldn't beat them!

 

[Sgt. Ryan]

Against Golden State.

 

Who couldn't beat them!

 

 

 

 

I surrender

[KevinL]

I surrender

 

 

Sorry bud, that one was just too easy.

 

Boozer is playing outstanding, no doubt, and would be an asset to any team.

 

Doubt even he could have stopped Jason Kidd from playing out of his gourd on Saturday afternoon though.

[detlef]

Anyone still think Boozer is easily replacable. Dude is a beast

 

Of course, that's not what the argument is really about. Is it. You started some baseless crap about how he didn't hose Cleveland and everyone proved you wrong. So, like the spineless twit that you are, rather than owning up to the fact that you were proven wrong, you just changed the subject. Freaking typical.

[Sgt. Ryan]

Of course, that's not what the argument is really about. Is it. You started some baseless crap about how he didn't hose Cleveland and everyone proved you wrong. So, like the spineless twit that you are, rather than owning up to the fact that you were proven wrong, you just changed the subject. Freaking typical.

 

 

 

Um, Show me where I was proven wrong. . Does anyone know what was said behind closed doors, hell no. Its speculation. So for you to come here and say you know, and I was proved wrong is ignorance at best. How was I proven wrong. Seriously mouth, prove it to me, that Boozer had an agreement to resign for less money than anyone else would have offered, if CLE released him.

 

 

Thats What I thought.... What a dumbF*ck.

Edited May 15, 2007 by Sgt. Ryan

[billay]

Um, Show me where I was proven wrong. . Does anyone know what was said behind closed doors, hell no. Its speculation. So for you to come here and say you know, and I was proved wrong is ignorance at best. How was I proven wrong. Seriously mouth, prove it to me, that Boozer had an agreement to resign for less money than anyone else would have offered, if CLE released him.

Thats What I thought.... What a dumbF*ck.

 

Based on what I posted earlier and this release, I think it's pretty evident that Boozer went back on his word.

 

The huge offer, coming after Boozer drew interest from half a dozen teams once he hit the free-agent market, proves the Cavaliers made a mistake in relinquishing their contractual rights to Boozer for the upcoming season.

 

"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.

 

The statement said the Cavaliers' approach with Boozer was entirely consistent with his public statements in an interview July 1 with The Associated Press.

 

"We are both very surprised and very disappointed by what is now being reported," the statement said.

 

Messages left with Boozer and agent Rob Pelinka were not immediately returned Thursday.

 

 

[detlef]

What he said.

[Sgt. Ryan]

Based on what I posted earlier and this release, I think it's pretty evident that Boozer went back on his word.

 

 

 

Cleveland tried to lowball him and figured no one else would come in and blow him away. But if he had another strong season, his price would only go up, so they tried to get him signed earlier, for cheaper and it backfired. Same thing happened in Dallas. Mavericks had a 4 yr 40 mil deal offered to Nash, and figured no one else would offer 6 yr like he wanted or 60 million. Once Phoenix did, it was over, he was gone and the front office then went into PR control saying he was wearing down, didnt have 6 yrs left, we need a Center more than a PG, etc. Dallas was disappointed Nash didnt take their offer, but at least they let him hit FA before allowing him to leave. Cleveland had an agenda to not pick up the option, and that was to low ball Boozer. Why else wouldnt they have waited, then paid the man what he deserved.

[detlef]

Cleveland tried to lowball him and figured no one else would come in and blow him away. But if he had another strong season, his price would only go up, so they tried to get him signed earlier, for cheaper and it backfired. Same thing happened in Dallas. Mavericks had a 4 yr 40 mil deal offered to Nash, and figured no one else would offer 6 yr like he wanted or 60 million. Once Phoenix did, it was over, he was gone and the front office then went into PR control saying he was wearing down, didnt have 6 yrs left, we need a Center more than a PG, etc. Dallas was disappointed Nash didnt take their offer, but at least they let him hit FA before allowing him to leave. Cleveland had an agenda to not pick up the option, and that was to low ball Boozer. Why else wouldnt they have waited, then paid the man what he deserved.

 

Nobody is trying to argue that CLE was trying to get him at a deal or claiming that the move was out of altruism. If Boozer played out that year and waited to test the market, he risked injury. Right? It appears Cleveland said, "Here's the deal. You play out your year, take your chances on the free market, or we can void out your contract right now and sign you for a whole lot more than you're making. It's not the max, and you might get more if you play this year out. Of course, you might not."

 

Simple choice, much more money now or the chance at even more later. He obviously decided he wanted his cake and eat it as well.

 

The evidence is insanely stacked against the fact that Boozer acted honorably on this. If Cleveland "got what they deserved" then you're apparently saying that taking a man on his word is a bad thing. That's truly a shame. It seems entirely unplausible that Cleveland didn't get some assurance from Boozer that he was not going to pull this crap before they did this.

 

Heaven forbid a team try to pay as little as they can. If Boozer thought he was worth more than CLE was offering him, and he was a man of character, he would have simply said, "Thanks guys, I'm just going to play this season out and see what I can get."

 

That is the only point that everyone is trying to drive though your thick freaking skull.

 

I'm sure you have more to spew on this, but if it isn't better than repeating yourself and pretending the argument isn't about something that you've been shown to be entirely wrong on, I'll be moving on.

[Sgt. Ryan]

Nobody is trying to argue that CLE was trying to get him at a deal or claiming that the move was out of altruism. If Boozer played out that year and waited to test the market, he risked injury. Right? It appears Cleveland said, "Here's the deal. You play out your year, take your chances on the free market, or we can void out your contract right now and sign you for a whole lot more than you're making. It's not the max, and you might get more if you play this year out. Of course, you might not."

 

Simple choice, much more money now or the chance at even more later. He obviously decided he wanted his cake and eat it as well.

 

The evidence is insanely stacked against the fact that Boozer acted honorably on this. If Cleveland "got what they deserved" then you're apparently saying that taking a man on his word is a bad thing. That's truly a shame. It seems entirely unplausible that Cleveland didn't get some assurance from Boozer that he was not going to pull this crap before they did this.

 

Heaven forbid a team try to pay as little as they can. If Boozer thought he was worth more than CLE was offering him, and he was a man of character, he would have simply said, "Thanks guys, I'm just going to play this season out and see what I can get."

 

That is the only point that everyone is trying to drive though your thick freaking skull.

 

I'm sure you have more to spew on this, but if it isn't better than repeating yourself and pretending the argument isn't about something that you've been shown to be entirely wrong on, I'll be moving on.

 

 

 

There you go again speculating. No one said Boozer went back on his word. Period. No one said that, but you and the fans of Cleveland. Prove he went back on his word. You can't, you can only speculate, and even my side has merit. And why would Boozer turn down a chance to make more money now, for those risks. That doesnt mean Cleveland didnt think he would stay out of loyalty, for a hometown discount. It also doesnt mean Boozer told Cleveland he wouldnt sign with another club, if he was released. Boozer wanted to get paid, I think we can all agree on that. And when Cleveland released him, they opened up pandoras box. And Im not so sure what fans in Cleveland are saying happened isnt a violation of NBA rules. Didnt Minnesota lose draft picks for handshake deals under the table. This seems to me why no more was made of this than there was. It sucks for the fans, but their front office is to blame. They held his rights for 1 more yr and could have waited to see what happens then, either way he would have played one mroe yr in Cleveland, as opposed to bolting for more cash when teams obviously had plenty to burn.

[KevinL]

If there was not a verbal agreement, why did his agency team, SFX, drop him as a client and turn down $2 million that they should have received from the Jazz contract?

 

 

 

Link

 

Waiting for an answer on this one Sarge.