Carlos Boozer

[KevinL]

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.

 

 

Can't prove it since there was no written deal and none of us were there.

 

 

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.

 

Because he gave his word that he would resign.

 

That doesnt mean Cleveland didnt think he would stay out of loyalty, for a hometown discount.

 

No one has ever stayed in Cleveland for a hometown discount. There is no such thing. To guess that Cleveland released him, hoping to get one, is assanine. The only reason Cleveland would release him from his year was if they knew he would re-sign.

 

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 his only way to get paid THAT YEAR was to get his option released. And the only way to do that was to convince Cleveland that he would re-sign.

 

 

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.

 

Absolutely, it is a violation. That's why it was a verbal deal and not a written deal that they could hold him to.

[Sgt. Ryan]

Link

 

Waiting for an answer on this one Sarge.

 

 

hmm, I read this

 

 

Carlos Boozer

 

 

 

[edit] Free agency controversy

 

[edit] Reported deal with Cleveland

After the 2003-04 NBA season, in which Boozer averaged 15.5 points and 11.4 rebounds per game, the Cavaliers had the option of allowing him to become a restricted free agent, or keeping him under contract for one more year at a $695,000 salary, which was clearly much lower than he would earn on the free agent market. If the Cavaliers chose that latter option, Boozer would have been able to enter the free agent market unrestricted after that one year expired. Boozer's high level of play meant that he very likely had in his future a substantial pay raise and the security of a long-term contract; the question, depending on what the Cavaliers chose to do, was just whether those benefits would come immediately, or after one more year.

 

Reportedly, the Cavaliers reached what they felt was a verbal understanding with Boozer. They would forgo their right to keep him for an extra year at relatively low pay, and instead allow him to become a restricted free agent. In exchange, he was expected to sign a long-term agreement with the Cavaliers, and not to sign an offer from any other team, despite the fact that he would certainly receive offers for more money than what Cleveland could afford in the new contract. The fact that Cleveland was over the salary cap apparently meant that both sides understood the parameters of the new contract with Cleveland would be approximately $40 million over six years.

 

The deal appeared to be advantageous for both parties. Boozer would immediately get a substantial raise to over $6 million per year and the financial security of having a long-term guaranteed contract as opposed to playing the next season for only $695,000 and lacking any future security in the event of a career-threatening injury during that season. Meanwhile, Cleveland would assure itself of keeping his services for at least five more years under a deal which would be below market value and friendly to their salary cap considerations with respect to the remainder of their roster, rather than risk losing him on the free agent market after his original contract was completed the next season.

 

 

[edit] Offer from Utah

Once Boozer became a restricted free agent, he received an offer from the Utah Jazz. The Jazz had participated in the free agent market in previous years and had failed in attempts to sign Corey Maggette, Jason Terry and Elton Brand. Thus, they were determined to succeed with Boozer and they offered him the maximum contract allowable under the salary cap.

 

As predicted, the offer from the Jazz provided a salary that the Cavaliers could not afford to match. Additionally, a move to Utah would give Boozer the opportunity to be a more integral player on that team than he would be with the Cavaliers, whose top two players were already established as being LeBron James and Zydrunas Ilgauskas. With these factors in mind, Boozer chose to sign with the Jazz, and the Cavaliers were forced to let him go.

 

 

[edit] Original contract

For his part, Boozer has acknowledged that his original intent with regard to free agency was to remain with the Cavaliers. But he has steadfastly denied that he made any explicit verbal promise to the team to do so:

 

There was no commitment, it's unfortunate how it went through the media but I'm really excited to be in the situation I'm in... It's against the rules, first of all, to have [a pre-arranged agreement]. I'm not a guy that gives my word and then takes it away, I think I made that clear.[2]

 

—Carlos Boozer

Edited May 15, 2007 by Sgt. Ryan

[Sgt. Ryan]

Besides, it looks like Cleveland was trying to break NBA rules in the process of getting a hometown discount. And who is to say his agent left becasue he wanted to stay out of the NBA's doghouse for agreeing to an illegal contract and losing his right to be an agent. Doesnt mean Boozer went back on his word. means the agent and the team were trying to use Boozer for their gain. The team a home town discount, the agent obviously getting paid more right now. But when the fire got hot, and the NBA started snooping the agent ran for the hills.

 

 

See there is more than one way to look at this. And I dont think Boozer would stoop to the level he was accused of, but apparently the NBA rules mean nothing to the Cavs, who supposedly are in a delicate way saying they were willing to break the rules for Boozer, to get a hometown discount. This even further supports Boozers claim imo. The Cavs were obviously in the wrong if they were negotiating this type of deal with his agent. Doesnt mean Boozer agreed to do it.

[detlef]

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.

 

There is no argument that fans shouldn't be pissed that Cleveland didn't get something in writing before they did this. There's no argument that they were trying to get him at a deal price. That is probably why they let him out of his contract! Once again, really slowly. That was the deal on the table. You either tear up your contract and resign with us for way more than you're making but perhaps less than you can get next year or you play out your contract and try the market. Perhaps he knew for sure that he could get more. The honorable way to call that bluff is to to say, "no thanks" and play out the contract. That's not what he did.

 

Do I have any proof other than the fact Paxon had been given some reason to believe from Boozer that he wasn't going to hose them on this? Certainly not. However, it is inconcievable that they just did this for the hell of it. Is there any historical precedent for a team just tearing up the contract of a budding super star just for grins? These men do this for a living. Lastly, if you have no problem with what Boozer did, you have no soul or honor. I knew you were a self centered a-hole but I didn't think you had no honor as well. The next time you try to take the high road, you should know that you are being a hypocrite.

[Sgt. Ryan]

There is no argument that fans shouldn't be pissed that Cleveland didn't get something in writing before they did this. There's no argument that they were trying to get him at a deal price. That is probably why they let him out of his contract! Once again, really slowly. That was the deal on the table. You either tear up your contract and resign with us for way more than you're making but perhaps less than you can get next year or you play out your contract and try the market. Perhaps he knew for sure that he could get more. The honorable way to call that bluff is to to say, "no thanks" and play out the contract. That's not what he did.

 

Do I have any proof other than the fact Paxon had been given some reason to believe from Boozer that he wasn't going to hose them on this? Certainly not. However, it is inconcievable that they just did this for the hell of it. Is there any historical precedent for a team just tearing up the contract of a budding super star just for grins? These men do this for a living. Lastly, if you have no problem with what Boozer did, you have no soul or honor. I knew you were a self centered a-hole but I didn't think you had no honor as well. The next time you try to take the high road, you should know that you are being a hypocrite.

 

 

 

As usual, speculation and your opinion.

 

 

Boozer said he didnt have a deal with the Cavs in place, and he wasnt trying to break NBA rules by agreeing to one. Cleveland did try and break NBA rules and offer such a deal, and let him out of his contract to do so. That being said Cleveland is 100% at fault here, PERIOD. For all we know the Cavs and his agent were working behind the scenes to do this and when Boozer found out, he balked.

 

 

Either way he got 27 mil more to be the man, and not have to deal with an organization who would cheat the NBA or a coach who thought Z was the 2 of a 1-2 punch with Lebron for the Cavs.

 

 

Hell even you cant post an opinion without using the word fact, which is hilarious in its own right. Those are the only facts we know. Anything else is just typical speculation on your part, and poorly done at that..

 

 

BTW, Owned again......

Edited May 15, 2007 by Sgt. Ryan

[billay]

Why would CLE ever release him if they did not have his assurance that he wouldn't bolt?

[Sgt. Ryan]

Why would CLE ever release him if they did not have his assurance that he wouldn't bolt?

 

 

 

Why would they intentionally try and break an NBA rule that cost Minnesota 5 1st round draft picks. Because they are stupid as hell. Thats why.

[KevinL]

hmm, I read this

Carlos Boozer

 

[edit] Free agency controversy

 

[edit] Reported deal with Cleveland

After the 2003-04 NBA season, in which Boozer averaged 15.5 points and 11.4 rebounds per game, the Cavaliers had the option of allowing him to become a restricted free agent, or keeping him under contract for one more year at a $695,000 salary, which was clearly much lower than he would earn on the free agent market. If the Cavaliers chose that latter option, Boozer would have been able to enter the free agent market unrestricted after that one year expired. Boozer's high level of play meant that he very likely had in his future a substantial pay raise and the security of a long-term contract; the question, depending on what the Cavaliers chose to do, was just whether those benefits would come immediately, or after one more year.

 

Reportedly, the Cavaliers reached what they felt was a verbal understanding with Boozer. They would forgo their right to keep him for an extra year at relatively low pay, and instead allow him to become a restricted free agent. In exchange, he was expected to sign a long-term agreement with the Cavaliers, and not to sign an offer from any other team, despite the fact that he would certainly receive offers for more money than what Cleveland could afford in the new contract. The fact that Cleveland was over the salary cap apparently meant that both sides understood the parameters of the new contract with Cleveland would be approximately $40 million over six years.

 

The deal appeared to be advantageous for both parties. Boozer would immediately get a substantial raise to over $6 million per year and the financial security of having a long-term guaranteed contract as opposed to playing the next season for only $695,000 and lacking any future security in the event of a career-threatening injury during that season. Meanwhile, Cleveland would assure itself of keeping his services for at least five more years under a deal which would be below market value and friendly to their salary cap considerations with respect to the remainder of their roster, rather than risk losing him on the free agent market after his original contract was completed the next season.

[edit] Offer from Utah

Once Boozer became a restricted free agent, he received an offer from the Utah Jazz. The Jazz had participated in the free agent market in previous years and had failed in attempts to sign Corey Maggette, Jason Terry and Elton Brand. Thus, they were determined to succeed with Boozer and they offered him the maximum contract allowable under the salary cap.

 

As predicted, the offer from the Jazz provided a salary that the Cavaliers could not afford to match. Additionally, a move to Utah would give Boozer the opportunity to be a more integral player on that team than he would be with the Cavaliers, whose top two players were already established as being LeBron James and Zydrunas Ilgauskas. With these factors in mind, Boozer chose to sign with the Jazz, and the Cavaliers were forced to let him go.

[edit] Original contract

For his part, Boozer has acknowledged that his original intent with regard to free agency was to remain with the Cavaliers. But he has steadfastly denied that he made any explicit verbal promise to the team to do so:

 

There was no commitment, it's unfortunate how it went through the media but I'm really excited to be in the situation I'm in... It's against the rules, first of all, to have [a pre-arranged agreement]. I'm not a guy that gives my word and then takes it away, I think I made that clear.[2]

 

—Carlos Boozer

 

 

You pasted that whole article to say that you believe Boozer didn't have a deal, "because Boozer said so"?

 

That's the best you've got?

 

I expected more.

[Sgt. Ryan]

You pasted that whole article to say that you believe Boozer didn't have a deal, "because Boozer said so"?

 

That's the best you've got?

 

I expected more.

 

 

 

I pasted the whole article, of the link you provided, that says Boozer said so. I just bolded that. Everyone can speculate their opinion, and I have mine. But there are 2 undeniable facts that I think validates Boozer. First, Cleveland tried to break NBA rules, so they are less than credible to begin with. Second they released him, and after dooing so the coach at that time said Boozer would be an energy guy, and everything will revolve around Lebron and Z. Looks to me like the organization was clueless on all counts. And were willing to cheat, to get a hometown discount, one Boozer proved he wasnt going to give them.

Edited May 16, 2007 by Sgt. Ryan

[KevinL]

I pasted the whole article, of the link you provided, that says Boozer said so. I just bolded that. Everyone can speculate their opinion, and I have mine. But there are 2 undeniable facts that I think validates Boozer. First, Cleveland tried to break NBA rules, so they are less than credible to begin with. Second they released him, and after dooing so the coach at that time said Boozer would be an energy guy, and everything will revolve around Lebron and Z. Looks to me like the organization was clueless on all counts. And were willing to cheat, to get a hometown discount, one Boozer proved he wasnt going to give them.

 

 

As long as we're changing the subject (which you are, nobody here has ever denied that what any verbal agreement would have been against NBA rules) ...

 

the "clueless" organization needs to win a single home game to advance to the Eastern Finals for a chance to play (probably) Detroit, who they took to game 7 last season, and then (probably) San Antonio, (who the Cavs match up well with, winning both games this year (88-81 on 11/3 in San Antonio, 82-78 on 1/2 in Cleveland) and splitting the season series in 2005-2006.

 

How are your Mavs doing again?

[Sgt. Ryan]

As long as we're changing the subject (which you are, nobody here has ever denied that what any verbal agreement would have been against NBA rules) ...

 

the "clueless" organization needs to win a single home game to advance to the Eastern Finals for a chance to play (probably) Detroit, who they took to game 7 last season, and then (probably) San Antonio, (who the Cavs match up well with, winning both games this year (88-81 on 11/3 in San Antonio, 82-78 on 1/2 in Cleveland) and splitting the season series in 2005-2006.

 

How are your Mavs doing again?

 

 

LMMFAO, Dallas ran into a hot team, that matched up against them perfectly. They lost, period. No excuses. Surely you are not comparing these 2 franchises, because of that series. Also, Surely you are not comparing the East to the West. And surely you dont think Cleveland is a better team than Dallas. BTW, Didnt dallas sweep Cleveland this yr. Mar 1, 95-92 and Mar 21 98-90

 

BTW, Cleveland has no prayer of beating Detroit, so I wouldnt even look to the Finals. Cleveland is lucky they didnt get the Bulls or Pistons in round 2, or they would be home already. Enjoy this series, because like me vs GS, you wont enjoy the next one.

[KevinL]

LMMFAO, Dallas ran into a hot team, that matched up against them perfectly. They lost, period. No excuses. Surely you are not comparing these 2 franchises, because of that series. Also, Surely you are not comparing the East to the West. And surely you dont think Cleveland is a better team than Dallas. BTW, Didnt dallas sweep Cleveland this yr. Mar 1, 95-92 and Mar 21 98-90

 

BTW, Cleveland has no prayer of beating Detroit, so I wouldnt even look to the Finals. Cleveland is lucky they didnt get the Bulls or Pistons in round 2, or they would be home already. Enjoy this series, because like me vs GS, you wont enjoy the next one.

 

 

Surely I am comparing these 2 franchises. One is playing their best ball of the season, and one is home.

 

All I hear is how good the West is. The Cavs went 19-11 against the West this year. I'm not too impressed. Three teams with 58 teams is quite an accomplishment, no doubt, but Phoenix was the only team the Cavs don't match-up well against.

 

As far as the round 2 match-ups, they are based on regular season record and the Cavs had the #2 record in the east so they got the draw they got. And before you spout off about how the Bulls choked on the final night, New Jersey won 9 straight at home from March 28 to May 12, they are a pretty solid team at home and the Nets winning that game should come as no surprise.

[Sgt. Ryan]

Surely I am comparing these 2 franchises. One is playing their best ball of the season, and one is home.

 

All I hear is how good the West is. The Cavs went 19-11 against the West this year. I'm not too impressed. Three teams with 58 teams is quite an accomplishment, no doubt, but Phoenix was the only team the Cavs don't match-up well against.

 

As far as the round 2 match-ups, they are based on regular season record and the Cavs had the #2 record in the east so they got the draw they got. And before you spout off about how the Bulls choked on the final night, New Jersey won 9 straight at home from March 28 to May 12, they are a pretty solid team at home and the Nets winning that game should come as no surprise.

 

 

 

The East is week. Period. Second the Mavs swept the Cavs, so they certainly dont match up well with dallas either. I know what the matchups were based upon, you dont think there is alot of second guesing in Dallas, about resting their starters vs GS the next to last game of the season, instead of playing to win that game and possibly get rid of the only team that has given you problems in the past season, and stands in your way of a title shot. Of course there is. Cleveland is benefitting from a weak conference. Had they played out west, they would be home as well. There is no comparison between the Mavs and Cavs. The Cavs are a one man show, and without Lebron they are a top 5 lottery team, they are the Lakers of the East. Difference is they actually have had to play someone to date to advance, unlike Cleveland thus far.

Edited May 16, 2007 by Sgt. Ryan

[KevinL]

The East is week. Period. Second the Mavs swept the Cavs, so they certainly dont match up well with dallas either. I know what the matchups were based upon, you dont think there is alot of second guesing in Dallas, about resting their starters vs GS the next to last game of the season, instead of playing to win that game and possibly get rid of the only team that has given you problems in the past season, and stands in your way of a title shot. Of course there is. Cleveland is benefitting from a weak conference. Had they played out west, they would be home as well. There is no comparison between the Mavs and Cavs. The Cavs are a one man show, and without Lebron they are a top 5 lottery team, they are the Lakers of the East. Difference is they actually have had to play someone to date to advance, unlike Cleveland thus far.

 

 

Cleveland swept a 41-win Washington team (granted without 2 of their 3 top scorers) and is up 3-1 with game 5 at home vs a 41-win New Jersey team.

 

Dallas lost to a 42-win Golden State team.

 

So don't use the "West is too hard" excuse for this one. Dallas choked and Cleveland is still playing.

[Sgt. Ryan]

Cleveland swept a 41-win Washington team (granted without 2 of their 3 top scorers) and is up 3-1 with game 5 at home vs a 41-win New Jersey team.

 

Dallas lost to a 42-win Golden State team.

 

So don't use the "West is too hard" excuse for this one. Dallas choked and Cleveland is still playing.

 

 

 

Cleveland wouldnt have beaten Washington this yr, if Arenas and Butler were there. And GS would have mopped the floor with Cleveland. When you play the majority of yoru games vs the West, your record wont be as solid as if you played those scrubs in the East, including the Cavs.

[Brewer]

You guys do realize that you are arguing about the NBA right? May as well argue about curling.