Gordon Gund writes about Boozer

[Evilmav2]

July 14th, 2004

To: Cavaliers Fans
From: Gordon Gund

I know last week’s developments with respect to Carlos Boozer are a source of extreme disappointment for you. I want to assure you that I feel exactly the same way. Like you, I believed in Carlos.

Several days have now gone by. This has helped me to gain perspective. I hope this letter will do the same for you.

First, Jim Paxson has taken a tremendous amount of criticism in the media for what happened. As the team owner, I made the decision not to pick up the option on Carlos’ contract. Any criticism should be directed to me, not to Jim Paxson. I want to be very clear that any fault is mine.

Up until late last week when the trust was broken, I believed in Carlos Boozer, the player, and Carlos Boozer, the person. That is why I tried to do what he said he wanted. We tried to do right by him, by the team and by you in trusting in his repeated insistence that if we showed him respect, he would show respect to us.

Carlos and his agent first approached us in December of 2003, stating his desire for financial security as well as his desire to remain in Cleveland and be a key part of the future of this franchise. He and his agent made it very clear that if we respected them, and provided the security he was looking to gain, he would respect us. Given his record on the court, with the franchise, and in the community, we had every reason to believe his commitment.

Over the course of several months, we had multiple meetings that involved Carlos, his wife and his agent. In our most recent meeting on June 30, Jim Paxson and I told Carlos we had two options. He could play this year on his existing contract and test the market for free agency next year, or we could elect not to exercise the option if we had the understanding with him that as soon as legally possible he would negotiate a contract with us for the maximum we could pay him under league rules.

I told him that as we could not have an agreement at that time given the NBA's Collective Bargaining Agreement, we would have to trust one another’s intentions. I said I define trust as his intention to stay in Cleveland and enter into a long term contract with us as soon as possible under the league rules. In that meeting, we were clear with him that he could make more money in the open market a year from now than we could pay him by redoing his contract this year. I told him he needed to understand that and we did not want him to later think we had taken advantage of him. Jim told him, “There are at least seven teams that have cap space right now who will want to pay you more than we can now. We don’t want to lose you. Why would we not pick up the option?” Carlos said “Because we'd like long term security and we want to stay in Cleveland.” Carlos went on to say that he was happy to be a Cavalier and never indicated any concern with his role on the team or his relationship with Coach Silas.

Carlos, his wife and his agent – all of whom were in that room -- knew what our maximum ability would be to pay him. Both Carlos and his wife responded that they wanted financial security now and therefore were anxious to pursue the second option of entering into a long term contract with us as soon as possible and that they would live with any consequences from this decision.

Carlos’ agent then said he wanted to go to another room to talk with his client and his wife alone which they did. When they returned, his agent said he had again explained everything to them so that they understood everything involved and said that their thinking had not changed.

Jim Paxson then told him, “We'd like to begin, as soon as permissible, to negotiate an agreement that we can sign on July 14th.” Carlos responded, “That’s exactly what I want. I want to get this done as quickly as we can.”

Over time Carlos had told Jim and me repeatedly, “If you show respect for me, I will show respect for you.” So, in the June 30 meeting, I reminded him of that and said, “We are all counting on what you said in earlier meetings and again today.” He responded, “That’s right and you can trust me on that.” I asked if we could all trust each other? Carlos, his wife and agent each responded “Yes.” At that point, believing so strongly in Carlos, I said we would not pick up his option. Our intent, as soon as we could do so, was to re-do his contract. The quotes you saw in the media July 1 about his desire to remain here were entirely consistent with what he told us.

In the final analysis, I decided to trust Carlos and show him the respect he asked for. He did not show that trust and respect in return. That’s what happened. I wanted you to hear it directly from me. The decision was mine and I take full responsibility. We currently have no intention of matching Utah's offer to Carlos. In order to match it, and within the restrictions of the NBA's Collective Bargaining Agreement, we would need to make player personnel moves of such a magnitude that it would have significant negative impact on our team moving forward. We are continuing to look at every possible option that will allow us to improve our team and continue to build on the tremendous momentum we have experienced in recent years. More than ever, we are committed to bringing a championship to this city. Thank you for your continued support of the Cleveland Cavaliers.

[mavsfanforever]

I feel sorry for this guy. However, I appreciate his decision to not match Boozer's contract by making moves.

[MavKikiNYC]

Suckers.

[LRB]

Well we now know Boozer's price on his integrity. He's a damn poor man IMO because he could have had the money and kept his integrity if he'd just waited a year or if he hadn't lied through his teeth to the Cavs. I don't wish a career ending injury on him, but I wouldn't shed any tears if he had one either.

[Dirkenstien]

Originally posted by: LRB
Well we now know Boozer's price on his integrity. He's a damn poor man IMO because he could have had the money and kept his integrity if he'd just waited a year or if he hadn't lied through his teeth to the Cavs. I don't wish a career ending injury on him, but I wouldn't shed any tears if he had one either.

Well said and agreed.

[Poindexter Einstein]

Fortunately, what goes around comes around.

I would be leery of puting any bets on Utah or on Boozer's future, for that reason. Thats just how I see it.

[MavKikiNYC]

The power forward's reputation has taken a beating over the past week after he stunned Cleveland by agreeing to a $68 million offer from the Utah Jazz. Days earlier, the Cavs declined to exercise a $695,000 option on Boozer's contract -- thereby making him a free agent -- in the belief he would accept a 6-year, $41 million deal to remain in Cleveland.

But the move backfired when Boozer reneged on a verbal understanding with the Cavs and decided to take $27 million more from Utah.

Interesting how Gund's piece never actually cites the numbers.

To be honest, I'm not all that sympathetic to the Cavs' cries of "He done us wrong." The CBA is a contract as well--a labor contract, and the Cavs: 1) should not have been trying to circumvent it on the cheap with a wink-and-a-nod; and 2) knew the risks to which they were exposing themselves. Boozer's contract (the $700K one) was an asset, and they should have taken more reasonable steps to protect themselves.

The Cavs, Gund and Paxson can talk about integrity all they want, but they themselves may have been playing a little loose with the rules.

Boozer took the better of two deals--the difference between which was $27M. That's not all that tough a choice to make.
And if he's in the market for a little second-hand integrity, I have a deal for him.

[chumdawg]

So...no honor among thieves, eh?

[EricaLubarsky]

I stole it from DB.com

you can find the website here.

[Poindexter Einstein]

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC


Interesting how Gund's piece never actually cites the numbers.

To be honest, I'm not all that sympathetic to the Cavs' cries of "He done us wrong." The CBA is a contract as well--a labor contract, and the Cavs: 1) should not have been trying to circumvent it on the cheap with a wink-and-a-nod; and 2) knew the risks to which they were exposing themselves. Boozer's contract (the $700K one) was an asset, and they should have taken more reasonable steps to protect themselves.

Boozer took the better of two deals--the difference between which was $27M. That's not all that tough a choice to make.
And if he's in the market for a little second-hand integrity, I have a deal for him.

Either you dont know the WHOLE story, or you dont give the Cavs credit.

The numbers are well known, so no need to cite them. Their offer was the max they could give, full MLE with 12.5% raises. Boozer knew in advance what was available, as did the cavs.

What you have to ask is, why did the Cavs not exercise the option? It was cause they were trying to make an underpaid player get more money. They could have taken Boozer and FORCED him to play for less, and have him wrapped up long term too. Boozer came to them, asked them to be kind and allow him to get a raise (only way was to not exercise option), and they did.

So you deride them for kindness to a player, and laud Boozer for knifing them in the back for a willingness to accommodate him? Thats just dumb.

What goes around comes around. He will get his, one day. Of that I am sure.

[SaltwaterChaffy]

Well, another reason for the Cavs to do it other than the goodness of their heart was to get Booze locked up long term to a cheaper contract than he would have commanded if they waited another year.

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally posted by: Poindexter Einstein

Either you dont know the WHOLE story, or you dont give the Cavs credit.

The numbers are well known, so no need to cite them. Their offer was the max they could give, full MLE with 12.5% raises. Boozer knew in advance what was available, as did the cavs.

What you have to ask is, why did the Cavs not exercise the option? It was cause they were trying to make an underpaid player get more money. They could have taken Boozer and FORCED him to play for less, and have him wrapped up long term too. Boozer came to them, asked them to be kind and allow him to get a raise (only way was to not exercise option), and they did.

So you deride them for kindness to a player, and laud Boozer for knifing them in the back for a willingness to accommodate him? Thats just dumb.

What goes around comes around. He will get his, one day. Of that I am sure.

Actually, I'm not giving the Cavs credit, since we both know about the same amount of the story.

And the numbers which Gund conveniently ignores, ARE quite important, since the Cavs are left standing there all forlorn. Sure, the Cavs would've liked to've locked him up long-term for less than he could get on the open market. Just like they would've liked to've done so by playing a little loose with the CBA.

Boozer took the money--$27M extra. I don't even wonder about how many other people would've done the same, given the opportunity, not even among the armchair capologists.

When the money is that big, and the stakes that high, 'kindness' shouldn't be coming into it. It's a multi-million dollar business deal, and the Cavs either should've protected their investment, or should just accept the loss. No whining about how they tried to do the 'right thing' when their notion of the 'right thing' meant paying the man $27M less. He knew it, but just as importantly, the Cavs knew it too.

Whatever else Boozer gets or doesn't get, he has a tidy amount of money to live on for the rest of his and his family's life. I don't doubt that that's what he was thinking about more than any fan's admiration. And that's going to be the same whether he goes on to have a 10-, 12-, or 15-year career with championship rings and All-Star appearances, or whether he blows out his knee in training camp.

And for the record, I said the same thing about Steve Nash. Just take the money and everybody shut up.

[chumdawg]

Kiki, is $40mm not a tidy amount of money to live on for the rest of his and his family's life? If indeed he does go on to have a 15-year career, will it be worth it for him to live with that stigma the whole time? For that matter, might his next contract suffer as a result of his unethical "negotiations" on this one?

I for one do not believe that everyone is willing to sacrifice their ethics, and their reputation, for $27mm. Now, if you don't have anything to begin with, surely you are more likely to. But when you already have $40mm or more? Not sure.

That would be kinda like interviewing for a job and then negotiation your compensation. Let's say you come to the company with an outstanding reputation in your field. You have a great amount of talent, and plus you have a lot of upside. Things are rosy in your world. This is an outstanding company, with a fine reputation of its own, and you are honored that they want your services.

So the company offers you, say, $200,000 a year for the next six years. This is quite nice, as you've only been making $50K or so. But you tell them you need a week to think about it.

Then another company calls and offers you a job that will pay $350K a year for the same six years. But the only thing is, this is a shady company, known to be involved in a lot of untoward activities. If you take the job, you will lose the respect of all your friends and family. They will know that your ethics and morals had a price.

I would think that a lot of people would take the big raise to $200K and keep their integrity intact. If they have any faith at all in their own abilities, they will have confidence that their future will be fine.

[LRB]

Kiki,

Boozer could still have gotten almost as much money and kept his integrity by siging a multiyear deal with the Cavs with a player option after 1 year. He would have had his security, a chance at the big bucks with a possibly even more lucritive contract next year, and kept his integrity.

The difference in money wouldn't prevent him from providing anything that his family needs and few things if any that they want. The Cavs were stupid to trust Boozer and incredibly naive. However hindsight is much better than foresite.

The eldery are stupid and naive to trust con artists who bilk them out of millions per year. Does that make it OK to lie to an old person to con them out of money just because they're stupid and naive? IMO, definitely hell no. Boozer should have told the truth period. Lieing is never excused IMO just because it nets you a few million. I could never be close friends with Boozer because I could never trust someone with his character or lack thereof.

[seal614]

Whoever said that Boozer will "get his" in due time... I agree, he'll get what he deserves in due time. It might be a few years but you know that something will happen.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: seal614
Whoever said that Boozer will "get his" in due time... I agree, he'll get what he deserves in due time. It might be a few years but you know that something will happen.

At least you know that any team will be absolutely ruthless in dealing with him in contract negotiations and enforcements. He's used up all of his get out of jail goodwill cards.

[Poindexter Einstein]

MAVSKIKI.... Lets go through a few points one by one, that you have used twice now ...

"the numbers which Gund conveniently ignores, ARE quite important"

The numbers are relevant to an extent. But it doesnt mean you are IGNORING them if you dont cite them.

"the Cavs would've liked to've locked him up long-term for less than he could get on the open market."

The Cav could have locked him up for $700,000. He asked them to trust him, and let him re-sign with them for $5M. Both numbers are less than a total FA deal, but Boozer requested the $5M deal with CLE. You think they were stupid to say yes? Maybe they were - but Boozer is the jerk in the deal, not CLE.

He asked for their trust, and for a way to get a raise. They gave their trust and he betrayed it. Plain and simple.

"playing a little loose with the CBA."

There was nothing done that was contrary to the CBA. The Cavs knew they wouldnt have a contract, when they let him into RFA status. They never said otherwise. But they trusted him to be a man of integrity. It is perfectly permissible to agree in advance - only you cant claim you had a CONTRACT. Cavs didnt claim that - they just had an understanding, and trust. Unfortunately they trusted the word of a piece of sh!t dirtbag.

"Boozer took the money--$27M extra" and "When the money is that big, and the stakes that high, 'kindness' shouldn't be coming into it" and "the Cavs either should've protected their investment" and "their notion of the 'right thing' meant paying the man $27M less"

You sir are full of crap. The Cavs didnt (as you try to infer) attempt to hoodwink Boozer out of 27M. In fact, they could have paid him 0.7M this year. And then next year, they could have matched any offer whatsoever. Boozer was the one who initiated the scenario where he would sign with them for the MLE - you try to make it sound like a CLE scheme, and it wasnt. Boozer knew exactly what he could get from CLE, before he ever gave his word.

So if your view is that CLE is at fault because Boozer is a dirtbag liar, then I reject that. BOOZER is the dirtbag, and he alone bears the brunt of responsibility for being the piece of trash he is. It doesnt mtter the size of the deal, when everyone knew in advance what was being iscussed. Boozer knew he would get bigger offers from other teams. CLE knew it too. He said "trust me, it wont matter" - and he was a scumbag liar when he said those words. Does the size of the offer matter, if it was known in advance when he said trust me? Nope.

Boozer is now forever rightly branded as untrustworthy, til he dies. He earned that designation. A Judas is a Judas, plain and simple. Yes he has a ton of cash - but he is still a dirtbag, always will be, and everyone knows it. He got away with his cash heist using treachery because it was legal. Doesnt make it right, though.

As Gund says in the article, the Cavs knew in advance that other teams could and would be able to offer much more than they could. They never ignored that, but rather discussed it in advance. They discussed it with Boozer, right up front. Did the numbers ever change, or the situation? No. Boozer said in advance - if you let me be a RFA, and get a raise, I will stay here even when that much bigger offer is made by another team. Scumbag lies, plain and simple.

As for any comparison to Nash, there is none. Nash wanted money and got an offer. Cuban didnt match it. Nash had never commtted to stay with Dallas at ANY price, only that he wanted to be here if the money was right. PHO offered too much money, Cuban said no I cant, so Nash took the PHO deal. Nothing wrong with that at all.

[kg_veteran]

Let's not sugar-coat things. What Carlos Boozer did was commit fraud. And that's what he is. A fraud.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
Let's not sugar-coat things. What Carlos Boozer did was commit fraud. And that's what he is. A fraud.

You can't really prove that though. The second I read that they let Boozer become a free-agent, I was thinking to myself (that's dumb). It's always going to be an argument, so you blame the team for offering the money or the play for taking it.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: DevinHarriswillstart

You can't really prove that though. The second I read that they let Boozer become a free-agent, I was thinking to myself (that's dumb). It's always going to be an argument, so you blame the team for offering the money or the play for taking it.

Sure I can.

He lied to the Cavs to get them to let him out of his contract. That's been established.

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
Let's not sugar-coat things. What Carlos Boozer did was commit fraud. And that's what he is. A fraud.

I disagree. But if it was fraud, then I would imagine that some sort of civil action will ensue. I'll wait and see.
Actually what this case did was expose a flaw in the system that the league may now have to respond to so that teams aren't put in the same position as the Cavs, and so that players aren't forced to play at far below their value (as determined by the highest amount that another owner is willling to pay them.

As for the points that Poindexter makes:

1) The numbers--relevant because of the magnitude. Gund skirted mention of them, because to do so weakens his argument.

2) Playing loose with the CBA--This is, IMO, part of the problem with the system. The problem with an agreement to agree in advance, i.e., an agreement in principle, is that it's not enforceable. Agreements in principle get changed all the time. Boozer's market value rose considerably from December 2003 when the issue was, according to Gund, raised by his agent. While he may have known that he could receive higher offers from other clubs, did Boozer know the magnitude of the difference in the offers in June? Did Gund? IMO, there are some serious questions to be asked about a system that would constrain a player like Boozer's earnings power to such a degree. One thing that needs to be reconciled for my understanding is how Cleveland was limited 'by the rules' in the maximum amount of the contract that they could offer Boozer on the one hand, and how on the other, Gund talks of choosing not to make roster changes that would have given the Cavaliers a salary structure that would have allowed them to match Utah's contract offer. Either they could match the offer, or they couldn't. Which was it, and why?

3) Cleveland 'at fault'....Cleveland 'to blame'--Not my words. Rather, Cleveland stood to benefit from "the rules" that Gund referred to by being limited in what they could pay Boozer. They could lock him in to a lower amount. Because of that, nobody would be bad-mouthing Gund and the Cavs---they could claim that they'd done all they could do. But Boozer would be forced to play for a considerably less amount of money.

4) Boozer's value to Cleveland--Gund and Paxson chose not to make roster moves in order to be able to match the contract offer Boozer received from the Jazz, because they felt it would impact the team negatively overall. So while it appears they could have matched the contract and retained his services they elected not to. I do not agree that Boozer should be obligated to play for less money, simply because they value him less. He should be able to offer his services to the bidder who values him the highest.

5) Relation/comparison to Nash --The relation from my POV is that both players accepted contract offers that maximized the value of their services. I didn't fault Nash for doing so and I don't fault Boozer for doing so either. A further similarity, from my POV, is that Boozer, like Nash, was reported to have indicated at some point that non-pecuniary factors such as the glory of living in Cleveland mattered more to him than raw dollars, but in the end, raw dollars won out, as, in my opinion, they always should......ESPECIALLY when the magnitude of the difference is to the extent it was here. Further, Gund like Cuban, appears to have elected not to match the offer--probably good business decisions on both their parts.

6) Full of crap --Again, not my words, but I will allow them to echo here as my reaction to the characterization of Boozer as a 'dirtbag liar', 'untrustworthy', 'a Judas', 'scumbag'', etc. To be direct, I don't believe a person here who says he/she wouldn't have cognitively accommodated somehow in order to see his/her way clear to take the contract offering $27M more. And I wouldn't fault anyone here either for doing so, just like I'm not faulting Boozer or Nash.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

I disagree. But if it was fraud, then I would imagine that some sort of civil action will ensue. I'll wait and see.

People don't always sue, even if they have the right to do so. Plus, their only legal remedy would be to get an injunction prohibiting Boozer from playing for Utah. The 13th Amendment prohibits a court from ordering Boozer to play for Cleveland. I don't see any incentive for Cleveland to pursue a lawsuit when that's the only remedy that they'd have.

2) Playing loose with the CBA--This is, IMO, part of the problem with the system. The problem with an agreement to agree in advance, i.e., an agreement in principle, is that it's not enforceable. Agreements in principle get changed all the time. Boozer's market value rose considerably from December 2003 when the issue was, according to Gund, raised by his agent.

They met and discussed the issue on June 30 before the Cavs made their decision. His market value was pretty clear at the time.

One thing that needs to be reconciled for my understanding is how Cleveland was limited 'by the rules' in the maximum amount of the contract that they could offer Boozer on the one hand, and how on the other, Gund talks of choosing not to make roster changes that would have given the Cavaliers a salary structure that would have allowed them to match Utah's contract offer. Either they could match the offer, or they couldn't. Which was it, and why?

They couldn't match because they didn't have full Bird rights and were therefore limited to an MLE offer (a contract starting out at $4.9m). To be able to match Utah's offer, the Cavs would have had to clear $8-9 million under the cap to have enough room to re-sign Boozer. Thus, they would have had to dump Big Z or a combination of players on a team with cap room just to be able to retain Boozer.

3) Cleveland 'at fault'....Cleveland 'to blame'--Not my words. Rather, Cleveland stood to benefit from "the rules" that Gund referred to by being limited in what they could pay Boozer. They could lock him in to a lower amount. Because of that, nobody would be bad-mouthing Gund and the Cavs---they could claim that they'd done all they could do. But Boozer would be forced to play for a considerably less amount of money.

It was BOOZER that approached them with the idea of the MLE deal. They didn't approach him with the idea. Gund wasn't looking to benefit from the rules. If he was doing that, he would have just kept him under his original contract. Gund was trying to accommodate Boozer's request to make more money.

4) Boozer's value to Cleveland--Gund and Paxson chose not to make roster moves in order to be able to match the contract offer Boozer received from the Jazz, because they felt it would impact the team negatively overall. So while it appears they could have matched the contract and retained his services they elected not to. I do not agree that Boozer should be obligated to play for less money, simply because they value him less. He should be able to offer his services to the bidder who values him the highest.

You tell me. If a player does what Boozer did, would you deal your starting center and/or multiple players from your roster for basically nothing just to be able to retain Boozer? I don't think so.

[Poindexter Einstein]

"One thing that needs to be reconciled for my understanding is how Cleveland was limited 'by the rules' in the maximum amount of the contract that they could offer Boozer on the one hand, and how on the other, Gund talks of choosing not to make roster changes that would have given the Cavaliers a salary structure that would have allowed them to match Utah's contract offer. Either they could match the offer, or they couldn't. Which was it, and why?"

Obviously CLE could have attemped to strip down their entire roster, freeing up cap space, and thus enabling them to match Boozer's offer. But sort of such draconian measures to the overall health of the franchise, the cap rules said they could only go to 5M in matching an offer for Boozer. And Boozer was well aware of such limits - heck, I knew the limits, as did any astute student of the NBA. There were no surprises here.

So to say they "could have matched" skirts the question of whether Boozer had agreed to leave the Cavs in a position where matching wouldnt wreck the team, if they would let him be a RFA. He did. Then he weaselled. Indeed, there shoud have been no reason for him to even solicit and explore offers.

And for all your pontificating on "fair value" MavsKiki, re your desire that Boozer get "market value", you conveniently ignore the fact that CLE already had a binding deal available for this year with Boozer at $700,000 if they wanted. That number was contractually negotiated 2 years ago with Boozer. Boozer was not somehow "entitled" to a bigger deal for this year. It was a contract he agreed to. You ignore the fact that this whole scenario arose because CLE was open to reworking a deal that underpaid him. He rewarded kindness with treachery.

PS - Since the NBA system guarantees players the full deal even if they suck after they sign, it is quite fair that NBA players should have to honor deals when they outplay what they signed. You cant have it both ways. You decry a system that the players themselves have worked hard to create.

You equate this to a player merely taking the money. In most circumstances i would agree - nothing wrong with taking the best offer. BUT the difference here is that there would have been NO OFFERS if CLE had just gone forward. Boozer persuaded CLE to put him in a world of offers, only he would stay with them anyhow, and get a raise in so doing. That puts this in a far different category. You seem well spoken so it is surprising you cant see the obvious and gigantic difference with Boozer.

[Jeremiah]

...

[kg_veteran]

If you want to call what Boozer did fraud, then I'll say CLE was looking to get defrauded.

This statement makes absolutely no sense.

[Bookit]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran

This statement makes absolutely no sense.

I liken this to a man who convinces his neighbors to leave their house unlocked and then robs them blind. And then people blame the homeowners for leaving the house unlocked!! Come on Kiki. Boozer is a complete slimeball.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran

Sure I can.

He lied to the Cavs to get them to let him out of his contract. That's been established.

No. It's all "he said, she said" kinda of matter. I'm not saying Boozer is innocenthere at all, but unless there is actual recorded proof that he gave his word to the organisation, then it's all "he said/she said"

[Bookit]

Originally posted by: DevinHarriswillstart

No. It's all "he said, she said" kinda of matter. I'm not saying Boozer is innocenthere at all, but unless there is actual recorded proof that he gave his word to the organisation, then it's all "he said/she said"

Ask yourself the question...why would Cleveland let Boozer out of a favorable contract when they knew they had Bird Rights the next year? "He said, She said"? Come on. Think about it. Everybody knew the exact amount Cleveland could offer. Open your eyes.

[Jeremiah]

...

[Jeremiah]

...

[MavKikiNYC]

And for all your pontificating on "fair value" MavsKiki,

I stopped 'pontificating' about most basketball-related topics long ago. But I'm glad to see there's still someone on this board who can do so without the slightest bit of self-awareness.

..re your desire that Boozer get "market value", you conveniently ignore the fact that CLE already had a binding deal available for this year with Boozer at $700,000 if they wanted.

Actually, this is what I would've been inclined to do, in Gund's shoes. But there is also a cost associated and a risk involved in having a player who feels hie's being grossly undercompensated. Gunn apparently took this into account as well.

Boozer was not somehow "entitled" to a bigger deal for this year.

He's 'entitled' to the best deal he can negotiate (or have negotiated) for himself. Apparently even Cleveland thought he was being undercompensated based on performance (which is one of the few things that we appear to see the same way, considering your next sentence).

You ignore the fact that this whole scenario arose because CLE was open to reworking a deal that underpaid him.

I'm not ignoring the fact at all--I allude to it explicitly. Unlike you, however, I point out that Cleveland also apparently judged it to be in their best interest and to their benefit to pay him MORE than they had to under his present contract, but LESS than they would have had to with him as a UFA. They took the gamble. They lost.

He rewarded kindness with treachery.

He took advantage of the opportunity presented him by Cleveland's gamble.

PS - Since the NBA system guarantees players the full deal even if they suck after they sign, it is quite fair that NBA players should have to honor deals when they outplay what they signed. You cant have it both ways. You decry a system that the players themselves have worked hard to create.

I can agree that there is the potential for inequities to cut both ways. Raef was such a case. Walker is another one. As much as I like Fin as a player, I don't think his performance merits his salary. But no, I don't agree that an individual player like Boozer should have to play for considerably less than his market value.

Maybe a solution might be a new labor agreement similar to the NFL's that gave both sides more flexibility, so that underperforming contracts could be terminated in exchange for granting the player free agency, or so that players whose performance greatly outstips their contracts (particularly rookie contracts) would be able to extend their contract at a higher level of compenation, without having to be given Free Agency. I tend to think that entering players sometimes get a bit of a raw deal--they enter the league with salaries constrained by a wage scale that they themselves never got a chance to vote on. I understand that that is the nature of colective bargaining agreements, but there's something unsavory about it constraining the ability of high-performers to be proportionately compensated.

You equate this to a player merely taking the money. In most circumstances i would agree - nothing wrong with taking the best offer. BUT the difference here is that there would have been NO OFFERS if CLE had just gone forward. Boozer persuaded CLE to put him in a world of offers, only he would stay with them anyhow, and get a raise in so doing. That puts this in a far different category. You seem well spoken so it is surprising you cant see the obvious and gigantic difference with Boozer.

Boozer bucked the system a bit here. He managed to put himself in a position NOT to have to wait for his compensation to catch up to his performance. In so doing he has highlighted some weaknesses in the system that expose owners to asset loss and/or players to financial loss. I just think some of the language and some of the opinions that have been expressed here are a little over-the-top in terms of how reactionary and yes, 'pointificatory' they have been.

In all honesty, in Boozer's position, I think that I would have been looking similarly to improve my situation. It's a harsh world out there.

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally posted by: Bookit

I liken this to a man who convinces his neighbors to leave their house unlocked and then robs them blind. And then people blame the homeowners for leaving the house unlocked!! Come on Kiki. Boozer is a complete slimeball.

Stupid neighbors. I chastise my parents for doing that very thing.

[kg_veteran]

No. It's all "he said, she said" kinda of matter. I'm not saying Boozer is innocenthere at all, but unless there is actual recorded proof that he gave his word to the organisation, then it's all "he said/she said"

Nonsense. If you listen to what both sides say and look at what both sides did, there is only ONE legitimate explanation. Cleveland doesn't gamble on letting him out of the contract unless he's given them assurances. If you expect anyone to believe otherwise, you're kidding yourself.

[Bookit]

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

Stupid neighbors. I chastise my parents for doing that very thing.

Did your parent's neighbors convince then to leave their doors unlocked? And then you blame your parents and the theives are ok. Hey, your parents are suckers and deserve it right? Come on.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran

Nonsense. If you listen to what both sides say and look at what both sides did, there is only ONE legitimate explanation. Cleveland doesn't gamble on letting him out of the contract unless he's given them assurances. If you expect anyone to believe otherwise, you're kidding yourself.

Like I said, I don't know all of the facts and neither do you. It doesn't doesn't make sense to me. I can't imagine anyone being stupid enough to let a player out of his contract like that. If it was the case where Boozer gave his word, then yikes. Hey, we all thought Steve Nash was a lock to return. Players go for the money, tis the biz.

[kg_veteran]

There's a clear difference between Nash and Boozer, and you know it. Nash was no longer under contract; Boozer still was. Nash is a traitor, but as far as I can tell, he's not a fraud. That'd be Boozer.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
There's a clear difference between Nash and Boozer, and you know it. Nash was no longer under contract; Boozer still was. Nash is a traitor, but as far as I can tell, he's not a fraud. That'd be Boozer.

It's fraud if you break a veral agreement? I didn't know that.

[Bookit]

Originally posted by: DevinHarriswillstart

It's fraud if you break a veral agreement? I didn't know that.

Why hasn't Boozer come out to defend himself? I read the statement he made early on and he never actually said anything. All he did was lash out at the Cavs for saying there was an agreement. But why hasn't he come out recently? They Cavs and Boozer's agent both have come out recently with press releases and both of their accounts of the situation pretty much jive with each other. Boozer hasn't said shit because he is just hoping his slimeball lies will blow over. I will hate that guy from now on.

Nash left when his conctract was up. Boozer lied his way out of his contract and then switched teams. There is no comparison. The Jazz should get some blame here too. They are scum for getting involved in this. But what can you expect from a slime organization like the Jazz.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: DevinHarriswillstart

It's fraud if you break a veral agreement? I didn't know that.

No, it's fraud if you lie to induce someone to let you out of a WRITTEN agreement.

And Bookit is right. Carlos Boozer has complained about the "character assassination" by the Jazz, but he hasn't come out to defend himself. He hasn't given his version of events. That's because he's hoping that we all forget about it and move on.

I won't forget what a sleazeball, lying sack of crap fraud that he is.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: DevinHarriswillstart

It's fraud if you break a veral agreement? I didn't know that.

From Dictionary.com:

Main Entry: fraud
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin fraud- fraus
1 a : any act, expression, omission, or concealment calculated to deceive another to his or her disadvantage; specifically : a misrepresentation or concealment with reference to some fact material to a transaction that is made with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity and with the intent to deceive another and that is reasonably relied on by the other who is injured thereby

Looks like it meets the definition to me.