I personally thought more about the Boozer situation and concluded that the Cavaliers deserved it.

 

An under the table agreement is illegal by NBA standards and they decided to break the league rule in order to save a substantial amount of money. Boozer has played amazing for the Jazz proving that he is worth the maximum contract. The Cavs wanting to jew Boozer out of some money by breaking laws does not make Boozer entirely a scumbag. Boozer agreed to his deal not knowing his market value, when he realized that he could get more than double the money from the team he grew up admiring, why should he pass that up?

 I like both Eric Gordon and Thornton, so I might be a bit biased, but I see the Clippers with Brand just as good if not better than the Warriors with Brand. Better PG and better C-PF combo, imo.

Adelman:

The Cavs wanting to jew Boozer out of some money

You just lost a lot of my respect. 

Adelman:

I personally thought more about the Boozer situation and concluded that the Cavaliers deserved it.

 

An under the table agreement is illegal by NBA standards and they decided to break the league rule in order to save a substantial amount of money. Boozer has played amazing for the Jazz proving that he is worth the maximum contract. The Cavs wanting to jew Boozer out of some money by breaking laws does not make Boozer entirely a scumbag. Boozer agreed to his deal not knowing his market value, when he realized that he could get more than double the money from the team he grew up admiring, why should he pass that up?

 

Because integrity is more important than money?

And, once again, the Cavs did not approach Boozer, he approached them.  Boozer knew his market value, the Cavs knew his market value.  The Cavs knew that if they waited a year they could sign him and nobody else would even have a chance, so there was no reason to give up the cap space they had that year to re-sign Boozer.  The whole "Boozer didn't know what was going on" stuff is nonsense, it doesn't make sense at all.  EVERYBODY knows the market value of a power forward in his early 20's who has just averaged a double double so Boozer knew exactly what he was worth.  There is absolutely no reason to believe that the Cavs were trying to screw Boozer. 

greenteam:

Adelman:

The Cavs wanting to jew Boozer out of some money

You just lost a lot of my respect. 

 

 

Bad choice of wording, I do apologize. But you get the gist of what I was getting at. 

Either way, the Cavs got what was coming to them. Maybe Boozer is a scumbag, but that does not take anything away from the fact that the Cavaliers entered into an agreement which was in violation of league rules. The fact that the Cavaliers ownership is looked at as victims is laughable to me.
 

Adelman:

Either way, the Cavs got what was coming to them. Maybe Boozer is a scumbag, but that does not take anything away from the fact that the Cavaliers entered into an agreement which was in violation of league rules. The fact that the Cavaliers ownership is looked at as victims is laughable to me.

 

Then explain one possible scenario in which it makes sense for the Cavs to have initiated this, not Boozer.  Look at the facts again:

- the Cavs knew Boozer was worth more than that

- the Cavs needed Boozer

- the Cavs knew there was no way they could stop Boozer from signing elsewhere once he was out of his contract

- the Cavs could have used the money they spent on Boozers replacement that year on another solid player to build a title contender

The Cavs did nothing wrong, unless you think illegal and wrong are synonyms.  They broke a rule in the collective bargaining agreement because Boozer approached them asking for a favour, that's it.  Boozer was the one who led them into that knowing he could get more money elsewhere, so what does that make the Cavs?  His victims.  It's not difficult to understand if you actually think about it.

Here is what you are neglecting. Had the Cavaliers exercised Boozer's deal, they would have had him under contract for 3 years giving them bird rights to Boozer. This would allow them to sign Boozer to a bigger contract than any other team can possibly offer.

 

Also do you even entertain the possibility that Boozer thought the MLE was what he felt he was worth. While he was young and promising, he really did not accomplish that much (not maximum level contract anyways) when he was let out of his deal. When Boozer "approached the Cavaliers" (none of us are there so none of us really know the situation exactly), the Cavaliers offered him the MLE. If the Cavaliers knew Boozer's market value, then they damn well should have known that teams would come out and offer Boozer a maximum deal. They took that risk when they let him out of his contract, something they did not have to do. It was a dumb move on their part.

 

I am sorry. I am not going to feel sorry for a team that failed at their chance to bamboozle somebody out of money with an illegal agreement. 

Put yourself in Boozer's shoes. You and the Cavaliers enter into negotiations, and come to an agreement in which they let him out of his contract and re-sign him for the midlevel exception.

 

Once you hit the free agency market, you are offered a deal worth about 2 times as much. Money talks.

 

Are you serious? You're trying to sell that Cleveland just wanted to do Boozer a favor and that's it....with no incentive for themselves?  Like getting to lock up Boozer long-term at half his market value?

Adelman:

If the Cavaliers knew Boozer's market value, then they damn well should have known that teams would come out and offer Boozer a maximum deal. They took that risk when they let him out of his contract, something they did not have to do. It was a dumb move on their part.

Cleveland didn't have to let Boozer out of his contract and, as xduck_shoex outlined, had plenty reasons not to let him out. They also had to have been aware of the huge risk in letting Boozer out of his contract. Why would Cleveland ever agree to do it w/o some sort of benefit in return?

Adelman:

Put yourself in Boozer's shoes. You and the Cavaliers enter into negotiations, and come to an agreement in which they let him out of his contract and re-sign him for the midlevel exception.

 

Once you hit the free agency market, you are offered a deal worth about 2 times as much. Money talks.

 

Money talks .. integrity walks. Scum Scum Scum.   His college coach called him to not sign the Utah deal, his agent was forced by his agency to drop him as a client for that contract ... yeah .. Boozer did nothing wrong.   You're delusional if you think Boozer was the good and innocent guy in the Cavs situation

 

When the agent comes off as the example of morality, you've done something wrong.  The agent had to walk away from him, no team would ever negotiate with the agent again after the player reneged on an agreed deal.

 

B-balltm:

Are you serious? You're trying to sell that Cleveland just wanted to do Boozer a favor and that's it....with no incentive for themselves?  Like getting to lock up Boozer long-term at half his market value?

 

 

Why else would they let him out of his deal? What else is in it for them?

 

You are foolish if you think Cleveland was doing Boozer a favor. 

B-balltm:

Adelman:

If the Cavaliers knew Boozer's market value, then they damn well should have known that teams would come out and offer Boozer a maximum deal. They took that risk when they let him out of his contract, something they did not have to do. It was a dumb move on their part.

Cleveland didn't have to let Boozer out of his contract and, as xduck_shoex outlined, had plenty reasons not to let him out. They also had to have been aware of the huge risk in letting Boozer out of his contract. Why would Cleveland ever agree to do it w/o some sort of benefit in return?

 

 

You do realize that "benefit" (an under the table agreement) is in violation of the CBA don't you? 

Lil LJ:

Adelman:

Put yourself in Boozer's shoes. You and the Cavaliers enter into negotiations, and come to an agreement in which they let him out of his contract and re-sign him for the midlevel exception.

 

Once you hit the free agency market, you are offered a deal worth about 2 times as much. Money talks.

 

Money talks .. integrity walks. Scum Scum Scum.   His college coach called him to not sign the Utah deal, his agent was forced by his agency to drop him as a client for that contract ... yeah .. Boozer did nothing wrong.   You're delusional if you think Boozer was the good and innocent guy in the Cavs situation

 

 

 

I don't think Boozer is innocent, I just do not think the Cavaliers are as innocent as everybody is making them out to be. They let him out of his contract so that they could give him a deal half his market value. This is illegal by CBA rules, yet for some reason people seem to believe that rule only applies to Minnesota (Joe Smith case).

 

I understand Boozer's decision. While it does prove that he is a scumbag, a vagina whose word means nothing. Double the money from the team he grew up admiring. The year in which they had the capspace to spend and the year in which they were looking to replace his idol Karl Malone. It was a dream situation for Boozer. It is not an easy situation to pass up. And once again, money talks. $10M a year is significantly more than $5M per year, that should be obvious to anybody.

I've seen people here say they'd have anal sex for $1 million...

I don't see how anybody can be a "scumbag" for changing teams for figures 10-20x that size... (unless they "*** a blind man over" for that kind of money, of course).

 

Adelman:

B-balltm:

Are you serious? You're trying to sell that Cleveland just wanted to do Boozer a favor and that's it....with no incentive for themselves?  Like getting to lock up Boozer long-term at half his market value?

 

 

Why else would they let him out of his deal? What else is in it for them?

 

You are foolish if you think Cleveland was doing Boozer a favor. 

I don't. I'm in agreement with you on that part.

Adelman:

B-balltm:

Are you serious? You're trying to sell that Cleveland just wanted to do Boozer a favor and that's it....with no incentive for themselves?  Like getting to lock up Boozer long-term at half his market value?

 

 

Why else would they let him out of his deal? What else is in it for them?

 

You are foolish if you think Cleveland was doing Boozer a favor. 

 

Again, explain how it makes sense for them approach him with that offer knowing he could get twice as much elsewhere and knowing that they had his Bird rights AND knowing that they had enough cap space to sign another good player that year.  They could have built a title contender right there. 

B-balltm:

Are you serious? You're trying to sell that Cleveland just wanted to do Boozer a favor and that's it....with no incentive for themselves?  Like getting to lock up Boozer long-term at half his market value?

 

I didn't say that they didn't benefit from it, I'm just saying it doesn't make sense that the whole thing was their idea. 

Cavs didn't have to do *** for Boozer .......they had him locked for another year for minimum pay.

Would the Cavs have benefitted? sure .... but they could've simply waited another year.  But the Booz wanted to get paid ....... and he screwed over a blind man, an organization and a city.  I don't know how anyone could defend the piece of trash ....
 

Lil LJ:

Cavs didn't have to do *** for Boozer .......they had him locked for another year for minimum pay.

Would the Cavs have benefitted? sure .... but they could've simply waited another year.  But the Booz wanted to get paid ....... and he screwed over a blind man, an organization and a city.  I don't know how anyone could defend the piece of trash ....
 

 

 

Once again, the Cavs were not doing a favor for Boozer, they were trying to lock him up for cheap.

 

Yes he had one year on minimum pay, but after this year they would have been forced to give Boozer a big deal.

 

They were able to reach an (once again, people tend to forget about this) ILLEGAL agreement in which they pay him half of what they would have had to the following offseason, had they exercised the option.

 

Had Boozer stuck to his word and taken the agreement, then the Cavs would have looked like the bad guys. It would have been the Joe Smith situation all over again.

Adelman:

Lil LJ:

Cavs didn't have to do *** for Boozer .......they had him locked for another year for minimum pay.

Would the Cavs have benefitted? sure .... but they could've simply waited another year.  But the Booz wanted to get paid ....... and he screwed over a blind man, an organization and a city.  I don't know how anyone could defend the piece of trash ....
 

 

 

Once again, the Cavs were not doing a favor for Boozer, they were trying to lock him up for cheap.

 

Yes he had one year on minimum pay, but after this year they would have been forced to give Boozer a big deal.

 

They were able to reach an (once again, people tend to forget about this) ILLEGAL agreement in which they pay him half of what they would have had to the following offseason, had they exercised the option.

 

Had Boozer stuck to his word and taken the agreement, then the Cavs would have looked like the bad guys. It would have been the Joe Smith situation all over again.

 

 

The only way the whole thing makes sense is if Boozer approached them asking for the new contract...how is agreeing to do something you are not obligated to do for a person NOT that person a favour?  Whether it's something that benefits you or not, it's still doing them a favour.

And nobody is forgetting that the Cavs made an illegal agreement with Boozer.  It just doesn't matter.  Illegal is a word that doesn't really have any meaning in this context because we are talking right and wrong, not legal and illegal.

And please, explain to me how the Cavs would have looked like the bad guys for giving Boozer exacly what he asked for.  The Wolves never looked like bad guys, the only criticism I recall them receiving revolved around the stupidity of getting something like that in writing, not in the act itself.  Did the Heat look like bad guys for giving Tim Hardaway a 12 million dollar one year deal at age 34 because Pat Riley had promised to take care of him after he re-signed for less than his market value a few years earlier?  Nope, I don't think most people even remember that. I think it's assumed that teams violate the CBA by making illegal promises on a pretty regular basis and this has been going on for quite a while now.  It's part of doing business, and while it's illegal I don't think it's necessarily wrong.