Gordon Gund writes about Boozer

[SeriousSummer]

Any agreement between Cleveland and Boozer would have violated the CBA. So either:

1) no agreement existed; or
2) Boozer repudiated an illegal contract.

I don't much like Boozer's actions, but Cleveland was either 1) stupid; or 2) got burned when they tried to cheat. I don't feel any sympathy for Cleveland.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: SeriousSummer
Any agreement between Cleveland and Boozer would have violated the CBA. So either:

1) no agreement existed; or
2) Boozer repudiated an illegal contract.

I don't much like Boozer's actions, but Cleveland was either 1) stupid; or 2) got burned when they tried to cheat. I don't feel any sympathy for Cleveland.

No one said he breached an oral contract. He committed fraud. They are two different things.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Originally posted by: LRB

From Dictionary.com:

Looks like it meets the definition to me.

Geez, some of the people on these boards can be pretty rude. I was actually serious that I didn't know.

[Poindexter Einstein]

SS and MavsKiki .... your point of view says "never trust anyone cause it is YOUR fault if they betray your trust. You shouldnt have trusted them and given them a chance to take advantage of you."

I reject that assertion. The one at fault for betraying trust is the traitor. In society and in life, trust is essential. And proving yourself untrustworthy is not a good thing to be applauded. It is evidence of moral deficiency and lack of character, no matter how you slice it.

[MavKikiNYC]

My point of view is : "Trust but verify. ... ... And get video."

[MavKikiNYC]

Even if opinions are pretty well-formed, and well-entrenched, here's an article from HoopsWorld that offers a pretty middle-of-the-road view of the Cav/Boozer deal/non-deal. It also has links to what a number of other people have written about the issue. May or my not change anybody's mind about anything.

POST-BOOZERGATE: A VIEW TOWARD THE FUTURE

What was supposed to be a summer of anticipation, optimism, and excitement for the Cavalier organization has instead become a summer of scandal and uncertainty. Thank you, Carlos Boozer. [You are hearby ordered to visit CarlosLoozer.com]

One only has to read owner Gordon Gund’s letter the fans to sense the downcast state of the Cavs organization, which is a reflection of the mood that has swept over Cleveland. One only has to see the smarmy smile of Loozer (as he has been affectionately nicknamed) in a Jazz uniform to get steamed again. It’s a smile of a guy who pulled off a heist and knows it. Boozer managed to dupe a naive organization. He used his sterling reputation to abuse the trust of an owner and GM that should have known better. He pulled a once-in-a-millennia scam that is unlikely to be repeated ever in the NBA. Do you think any owner will over ever do place the trust in a player that Gordon Gund did?

Really, there is not much to say about Boozer that hasn’t already been said. Many of the notable national NBA writers, such as Peter Vescey, David Aldridge, and Ian Thomsen, have provided excellent viewpoints about the matter. Boozer himself has spoken out, and even had the cajones to talk smack about coach Silas on the way out. He also shows his Dukie intelligence by saying that he did not have a "verbal agreement" with the Cavs prior to July 1. Of course there wasn’t; because this type of agreement prior to July 1 would have been a violation of NBA rules and cost the Cavs first-round picks for the next decade (as happened with Minnesota). The caveat is that there was, undoubtedly, a "verbal understanding" (i.e., trust-look it up in a dictionary Booze), that was reneged upon. This is why Boozer's agent, Rob Pelinka, urged against the move to Utah and ultimately quit representing him.

The blame doesn’t all fall on Boozer by any means. Collectively, the Cavs organization has to account for dropping the ball. They cannot deflect all the blame onto Boozer because they were solely responsible for allowing his unseemly actions to happen in the first place. They should admit to their own intentions in not picking up the team option, which were not 100% based on "good will." The Cavs were trying to use their "good will" to lock-up Boozer to a long-term contract that was below his market value. This does not justify Boozer's actions, especially since the Cavs did ultimately offer him a one-year deal, but do point to the unnecessary penny-pinching thoughts that led Gund and Paxson to take the gamble.

More alarming is management's bunker mentality since "Boozer-gate," which has sent the wrong message to the current players, prospective players, and the fans. Paxson and Gund need to stop issuing statements and start engaging the media with explanations about what happened and a vision of what happens now, post-Boozer. Maybe they were waiting for good news, and they did finally answer some Boozer questions during the press conference yesterday announcing the acquisition of Eric Snow.

But the questions about Boozer are not going to go away, and the organization's avoidance of the issue only perpetuates the idea that the Cavaliers are in shambles. An example the Cavs should follow is Nets GM Rod Thorn's handling of the departure of Kenyon Martin to the Nuggets. Thorn admitted the obvious, that the Nets had taken a big step back and are no longer a championship contender, but also said that the Nets would stay competitive in the near-term and work toward building a championship contender in the future.

Paxson needs to take the same accountability. Boozer was a core piece of the team and was lost with nothing in return, which will undoubtedly lead to short-term step-backwards for the Cavs. But despite this major setback, the Cavs are not in total shambles (they have LeBron James under contract for several more years for God’s sake) and, if they play their cards right, could have a brighter future without Boozer. How? By not panicking to find an immediate Boozer replacement and harming the team’s potential down the road (i.e., in 2-4 years) when LeBron reaches his full ability.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: DevinHarriswillstart

Geez, some of the people on these boards can be pretty rude. I was actually serious that I didn't know.

That's why I put the definition up because I thought you were serious. I wasn't trying to be rude, and I'm sorry if you felt that I was.

[Bookit]

Here is the agent's statement. Where is Boozer's?


Agent tried to keep Boozer with Cavs

Carlos Boozer's agent tried to to talk him out of signing with the Jazz, and even offered to arrange for $68 million worth of insurance if he would return to the Cavaliers, the Sports Business Journal reported this week.

Rob Pelinka, who resigned as Boozer's agent on July 12, two days before Boozer signed a six-year, $68 million contract with the Jazz, wanted to rid himself of his client once the 22-year-old forward began considering leaving the Cavs, the magazine said. But Cleveland general manager Jim Paxson convinced Pelinka not to, a source inside Pelinka's SFX agency told the magazine, "Because you are our only hope to get him to stay.

Boozer became a free agent on July 1 after the Cavs, believing they had a promise from Boozer and Pelinka to sign a long-term contract, did not exercise a $695,000 option for the 2004-05 season. Once Boozer was freed by the Cavs, teams immediately started calling Pelinka, who "asked Boozer for direction and Boozer told him to take the calls," the SFX source told Sports Business Journal.

Boozer could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

Pelinka kept Paxson informed of the calls from other teams, SBJ said, and Paxson urged him to stay on and counsel his client to fulfill his promise to the team. The article makes no mention of the fact that an agreement reached before July 1 is not legal under NBA rules.

When Paxson made a proposal over the weekend of July 10-11 that Boozer sign a one-year, $4.9 million contract with Cleveland and become a free agent, eligible for an even bigger contract from the Cavs, next summer, Pelinka suggested accepting the offer and insuring himself for the rest of Utah's $68 million, the magazine said.

Arn Tellem, president and CEO of SFX, told the magazine that the agency supports Pelinka, contrary to rumors that the agent, who also represents Kobe Bryant, will soon be asked to leave. "Rob Pelinka acted in a responsible and professional manner and is a valued member of our practice and will continue to be so," Tellem told SBJ.

Tellem said he had decided that the agency would not accept its fee of more than $2 million for negotiating Boozer's contract with Pelinka.

"When [Boozer's decision] became clear to everybody, we all felt that Boozer has to make a decision about what is right, and we had to make a decision about what is right," the SFX source told the magazine. "We resigned. It was a group decision."

Link

[MavKikiNYC]

Boozer fires back
Forward to sign with Utah Wednesday
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Branson Wright
Plain Dealer Reporter
Carlos Boozer has had enough of the character assassination that has pounded him since last week's announcement that the Utah Jazz have offered him $68 million over six years.

Boozer has been accused of lying and backstabbing the team and its fans because he allegedly told the Cavaliers he would remain in Cleveland. As a result, the organization allowed him to become a free agent, with the intent to sign him to the mid-level exemption of $42 million over six years.

According to sources within the Cavs' organization, Boozer told team officials that if they didn't pick up his option, he would sign with them.

Boozer, speaking exclusively to The Plain Dealer by telephone Monday, said that is not true and he wants to set the record straight.

"I didn't make a prior agreement. And if I did, I would've stayed here," Boozer said. "For them [Cavaliers] taking shots at my character is incredibly wrong, and I don't understand that. I thought I had a great relationship with them. Maybe they're trying to save face or trying to make up stuff and kill my character. And if that's the road they want to take, that's OK."

Everything was apparently fine when Cavs management met with Boozer, his wife CeCe and agent Rob Pelinka on June 30. These were friendlier times, when the two sides were prepared to talk about Boozer's future with the organization. The only thing that is clear about this meeting is that the Cavs decided not to pick up the option on the last year of Boozer's contract, which was worth about $700,000. This is where things get cloudy.

"I assumed they were going to pick up my option and work something out for the long term, but they went another route," Boozer said. "I was shocked that they didn't pick up my option. I left the meeting excited because this meant that I was going to get a long-term contract."

Boozer was surprised the Cavs didn't pick up his option because he said management gave him every indication in earlier informal conversations that they would.

So on June 30, according to Boozer, owner Gordon Gund and General Manager Jim Paxson asked him what was important to him. Boozer said that financial security and remaining in Cleveland were important.

"But during that meeting, it seemed like they were going down the road of wanting a commitment," Boozer said. "My agent pulled out the collective bargaining agreement, and he said that the rules don't allow a verbal or written agreement and everyone at the table understood that. During the course of that meeting, it was brought to my attention that [management] weren't going to pick up the option. They made that [decision] on their own."

Boozer said he had no idea why they Cavs didn't pick up the option.

"Maybe with me telling them that I wanted to be in Cleveland and wanting to have security could've made them believe I was going to sign with them, but that wasn't an agreement," Boozer said. "I never gave them my word, never signed a document and I never shook hands with the idea that I was going to sign."

The two parties met again on July 1. Boozer said this is when Paxson told him what the midlevel exemption was worth. During the Fourth of July weekend, Boozer met with Cavs management and they continued to discuss his future, and they talked about his role with the team. This was the turning point during the negotiations.

"During those conversations, I asked those guys about my role on the team, and I expressed to them the direction I wanted to go individually and with the team," Boozer said. "I wanted the chance to become an All-Star and some [in the meeting] didn't think I could accomplish that here. One primary person didn't believe I could."

That primary person, according to an unnamed source in a published report, is coach Paul Silas. From there, Boozer said he told the organization that he would explore his options.

"I called Paxson and Gordon and told them what was out there and the situation that was presented to me in Utah," Boozer said. "They told me 'You can't do this, you gave me your word.' I told them that I didn't give them my word. The only organization I gave my word to was Utah. I called [Utah GM] Kevin O'Connor and I told him that I accepted their offer and that's the only word I gave during this process. I plan to sign the offer sheet tomorrow."

Gund and Paxson were not available for comment. Silas was not available. He's in Oakland because of his mother's recent death.

The Cavs, apparently, have not given up. According to league sources, the team offered Boozer on Monday a one-year deal for $5 million. If Boozer accepts the offer, he would become a restricted free agent next season. Boozer doesn't believe the Cavs' sincerity.

"Why would they try to sign me?" Boozer said. "They've tried to demoralize me as a human being. They tried to depict me as a kind of guy that bamboozled people. They've lied and painted a picture that we had an illegal deal. They tried to say we had an oral agreement before July 1, and that didn't happen."

There also are rumors that Boozer wanted out of Cleveland because of some animosity toward LeBron James, and that he wanted to become the top gun.

"I'm not saying I want to be the man," Boozer said. "I'm going to Utah where Andrei Kirilenko is already an established All-Star in this league, and they have stud players like Matt Harpring and Mehmet Okur. I feel mature enough, educated about the game enough and good enough to take on more responsibility. . . . Obviously, there's no question that the man on the team is LeBron, and he's well-deserving of it. There's no way I would try to overshadow him."

[Bookit]

Originally posted by: SeriousSummer
Any agreement between Cleveland and Boozer would have violated the CBA. So either:

1) no agreement existed; or
2) Boozer repudiated an illegal contract.

I don't much like Boozer's actions, but Cleveland was either 1) stupid; or 2) got burned when they tried to cheat. I don't feel any sympathy for Cleveland.

"I don't like Boozer's actions".. Hmm. Who said anything about sympathy for Cleveland? Cleveland tried to do something moraly right and Boozer crapped all over them. Simple as that. Why would Cleveland help Boozer out of a cheap contract? To save money next year? I doubt it. There were more teams with cap room this year than in most years. Next year they could have easily signed Boozer to a reasonable deal. So why let him out of practically playing for free? Because Boozer pursuaded them on good faith. They loved Boozer and wanted him to be happy.

It sounds to me like you are making excuses for Boozer. So what if Cleveland is stupid. Everybody knew how much money Cleveland could offer so it wasn't like there was a secret agreement.