UPDATED: Perfect example of why NBA players are SCUMS.....

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: OCNewbie
Basketball is just a business, it's about making money. Carlos is in business for himself, he's his own best asset, so he made the best move for himself. I doubt there will be hurt feelings, just a lesson learned by the Cavs. There are no friendly gestures in that situation, when you're talking about 28 million dollars.

Yes. Ctrain, you need to understand this. I wouldnt pass up 28 million dollars either..this is a capitalist society after all. Stop worrying about the personal decisions made by others, he doesn't care what you think of him, nor does anyone else.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: isekii

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Ranger X
Boozer did backstab but I don't see a reason why he has to be bound to a verbal agreement.

Here is a scenario. Let's say you're working for a company as a contractor, making $12/hour. You've been there for 2 years and you've worked your a$$ off. Management has noticed your great performance and promises you a job that pays say .. 60k/year if you stick around another year as a contractor. You think, 60k/year is great and gladly accept by means of a verbal agreement. Then comes a company that offers you 100k/year but wants you to start right away. Would you decline the 100k offer just because you don't want to piss off the people at the current company? Do you try and be a "nice guy", have loyalty, and stick around as a contractor for 1 more year? You would take the 100k job because you, along with everyone else, is looking out for their own best interest. Boozer is just looking out for himself and his family.

I would agree with you if it is only two teams bidding for Boozer's service. Boozer definitely has the right to look out for his interest and go with the highest bidder.

The problem here is, Boozer lied to get the Cavalier make him a free agent. He said he would sign with them, and he told the Cavalier fun he would stay with the team, if the team renegotiated his contract that would have paid him $690,000 this year. That was the only reason Cavalier did what they did. They did a favor for Boozer and his family because of his word. The problem was that Cavalier couldn't have a written agreement because of the NBA labor rules, and they trusted Boozer with a verbal commitment. And the rest is history.

Yes Boozer did not violated any law by leaving Cavalier in the cold. But it doesn't mean it is ethically correct. I am not so sure he made the right financial move either. He was loved in Cleveland and would have many local/national endorsment opp. playing together with LeBron James. You do notice Cleveland game is broadcast more with LeBron on the team do you. I don't think it would be that difficult to make up for that 28 mil from endorsment/advertising over the 6 year.

Going to Utah, he will have to re-establish himself. And because of this bad publicity, if he does not live up to the big expectation, he will loose the fans really quickly.

As for me, an NBA fan, I would not want watch any game that he plays, or touch any product he endorses, just because what he represents. I know not everyone believes in this, but I do think honesty and integrity counts for something.

I dont think Boozer has to worry about his fan base.
He probably doesn't have much of a following. He's not Kobe, Jordan, Garnett

Sure, he is only a second year player after all. But playing with LeBron James, he could've a chance be be someone like Pippen in the future. And in Cleveland, he had a huge fan based and he is giving all that up to go to a brand new city, a smaller market too.

 

[newnameman]

The problem with what Cleveland tried to do is that they are not allowed to release a player while promising him a larger contract.

NBA watching Cavs

Article XIII, Section 2, subsection a-ii of the collective bargaining agreement (cba) between the NBA and the NBA Players Association states:

"At no time shall there be any undisclosed agreements (i.e., undisclosed to the NBA) of any kind, express or implied, oral or written, or promises, undertakings, representations, commitments, inducements, assurances of intent, or understandings of any kind, between a player (or any person or entity acting with authority or apparent authority on behalf of such player) and any team ? concerning any future renegotiation, extension, or amendment of an existing player contract, or entry into a new player contract."

A violation, according to the cba and as determined by an arbitrator, "may be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence ? "

In other words: No deal-making before the league's official two-week negotiating period opens July 1 is permitted.

 

[cchen]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Ranger X
Boozer did backstab but I don't see a reason why he has to be bound to a verbal agreement.

Here is a scenario. Let's say you're working for a company as a contractor, making $12/hour. You've been there for 2 years and you've worked your a$$ off. Management has noticed your great performance and promises you a job that pays say .. 60k/year if you stick around another year as a contractor. You think, 60k/year is great and gladly accept by means of a verbal agreement. Then comes a company that offers you 100k/year but wants you to start right away. Would you decline the 100k offer just because you don't want to piss off the people at the current company? Do you try and be a "nice guy", have loyalty, and stick around as a contractor for 1 more year? You would take the 100k job because you, along with everyone else, is looking out for their own best interest. Boozer is just looking out for himself and his family.

I would agree with you if it is only two teams bidding for Boozer's service. Boozer definitely has the right to look out for his interest and go with the highest bidder.

The problem here is, Boozer lied to get the Cavalier make him a free agent. He said he would sign with them, and he told the Cavalier fun he would stay with the team, if the team renegotiated his contract that would have paid him $690,000 this year. That was the only reason Cavalier did what they did. They did a favor for Boozer and his family because of his word. The problem was that Cavalier couldn't have a written agreement because of the NBA labor rules, and they trusted Boozer with a verbal commitment. And the rest is history.

Yes Boozer did not violated any law by leaving Cavalier in the cold. But it doesn't mean it is ethically correct. I am not so sure he made the right financial move either. He was loved in Cleveland and would have many local/national endorsment opp. playing together with LeBron James. You do notice Cleveland game is broadcast more with LeBron on the team do you. I don't think it would be that difficult to make up for that 28 mil from endorsment/advertising over the 6 year.

Going to Utah, he will have to re-establish himself. And because of this bad publicity, if he does not live up to the big expectation, he will loose the fans really quickly.

As for me, an NBA fan, I would not want watch any game that he plays, or touch any product he endorses, just because what he represents. I know not everyone believes in this, but I do think honesty and integrity counts for something.

I'm sure Boozer is really worried that you won't watch his game... HAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
DO U THINK HE GIVES A SH!T? HE'S LAUGHING WITH THIS 68 MIL CONTRACT ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK

 

[boggsie]

Originally posted by: CTrain

Originally posted by: atom
Like Cleveland did it out of the goodness of their heart. Sounds like they wanted a lock on him so they took a risk and it didn't pan out. Oh well.

Of course they want to lock him to a long contract.
But you have to remebered he is getting a hugh raise regardless with Cleveland.
Even if he didn't want an extention with Cleveland.......Cleveland till had the option for 1 more seasons and they could have easily explore trade options or maybe have more money under the cap room next season.

Cleveland held all the cards in this situation.
They got burn big time but it still makes Boozer look like a SCUM.

I disagree ... The Utah Jazz knew exactly what was going on here. This sounds like a setup between the Jazz and Boozer's agent. If I were Gund, I would be very angry at the Jazz management. Essentially, some quetsionable tactics were utilized to permit Utah to get a player off of the Cleveland roster without providing any compensation.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: cchen

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Ranger X
Boozer did backstab but I don't see a reason why he has to be bound to a verbal agreement.

Here is a scenario. Let's say you're working for a company as a contractor, making $12/hour. You've been there for 2 years and you've worked your a$$ off. Management has noticed your great performance and promises you a job that pays say .. 60k/year if you stick around another year as a contractor. You think, 60k/year is great and gladly accept by means of a verbal agreement. Then comes a company that offers you 100k/year but wants you to start right away. Would you decline the 100k offer just because you don't want to piss off the people at the current company? Do you try and be a "nice guy", have loyalty, and stick around as a contractor for 1 more year? You would take the 100k job because you, along with everyone else, is looking out for their own best interest. Boozer is just looking out for himself and his family.

I would agree with you if it is only two teams bidding for Boozer's service. Boozer definitely has the right to look out for his interest and go with the highest bidder.

The problem here is, Boozer lied to get the Cavalier make him a free agent. He said he would sign with them, and he told the Cavalier fun he would stay with the team, if the team renegotiated his contract that would have paid him $690,000 this year. That was the only reason Cavalier did what they did. They did a favor for Boozer and his family because of his word. The problem was that Cavalier couldn't have a written agreement because of the NBA labor rules, and they trusted Boozer with a verbal commitment. And the rest is history.

Yes Boozer did not violated any law by leaving Cavalier in the cold. But it doesn't mean it is ethically correct. I am not so sure he made the right financial move either. He was loved in Cleveland and would have many local/national endorsment opp. playing together with LeBron James. You do notice Cleveland game is broadcast more with LeBron on the team do you. I don't think it would be that difficult to make up for that 28 mil from endorsment/advertising over the 6 year.

Going to Utah, he will have to re-establish himself. And because of this bad publicity, if he does not live up to the big expectation, he will loose the fans really quickly.

As for me, an NBA fan, I would not want watch any game that he plays, or touch any product he endorses, just because what he represents. I know not everyone believes in this, but I do think honesty and integrity counts for something.

I'm sure Boozer is really worried that you won't watch his game... HAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
DO U THINK HE GIVES A SH!T? HE'S LAUGHING WITH THIS 68 MIL CONTRACT ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK

:thumbsup:

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: jooksing
If i was booze, i would take the money. Basketball is risky for the players....hell he could get injured and never play again. Better to take the money from the Jazz...it's GUARANTEED money!

basketball contracts are guarenteed i do believe. lebron could just "injur" himself and be set.

boozer fvcking sucks, fvck him.

MIKE

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: cchen

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Ranger X
Boozer did backstab but I don't see a reason why he has to be bound to a verbal agreement.

Here is a scenario. Let's say you're working for a company as a contractor, making $12/hour. You've been there for 2 years and you've worked your a$$ off. Management has noticed your great performance and promises you a job that pays say .. 60k/year if you stick around another year as a contractor. You think, 60k/year is great and gladly accept by means of a verbal agreement. Then comes a company that offers you 100k/year but wants you to start right away. Would you decline the 100k offer just because you don't want to piss off the people at the current company? Do you try and be a "nice guy", have loyalty, and stick around as a contractor for 1 more year? You would take the 100k job because you, along with everyone else, is looking out for their own best interest. Boozer is just looking out for himself and his family.

I would agree with you if it is only two teams bidding for Boozer's service. Boozer definitely has the right to look out for his interest and go with the highest bidder.

The problem here is, Boozer lied to get the Cavalier make him a free agent. He said he would sign with them, and he told the Cavalier fun he would stay with the team, if the team renegotiated his contract that would have paid him $690,000 this year. That was the only reason Cavalier did what they did. They did a favor for Boozer and his family because of his word. The problem was that Cavalier couldn't have a written agreement because of the NBA labor rules, and they trusted Boozer with a verbal commitment. And the rest is history.

Yes Boozer did not violated any law by leaving Cavalier in the cold. But it doesn't mean it is ethically correct. I am not so sure he made the right financial move either. He was loved in Cleveland and would have many local/national endorsment opp. playing together with LeBron James. You do notice Cleveland game is broadcast more with LeBron on the team do you. I don't think it would be that difficult to make up for that 28 mil from endorsment/advertising over the 6 year.

Going to Utah, he will have to re-establish himself. And because of this bad publicity, if he does not live up to the big expectation, he will loose the fans really quickly.

As for me, an NBA fan, I would not want watch any game that he plays, or touch any product he endorses, just because what he represents. I know not everyone believes in this, but I do think honesty and integrity counts for something.

I'm sure Boozer is really worried that you won't watch his game... HAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
DO U THINK HE GIVES A SH!T? HE'S LAUGHING WITH THIS 68 MIL CONTRACT ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK

Sure, you are right he dosen't give a $sht about what I think. He is probably gonna be laughing the rest of his life and prove to the world that honesty and integrity don't mean $hit. I am just gonna do my part, and may be some other people who cares is gonna do their part, and in a few year Boozer taste his own medicine when nothing want him as the spokesperson and if he doesn't do as well in Utah, no team will cut him slack because of the crap he pulled.

Or I am just naive and the NBA, or the American society for that matter, is just gonna be lying cheating in the name of money soceity, and that's the way it's gonna be.

 

[TheBDB]

Cleveland should have kept him under contract and given him an extension next season.

 

[CTrain]

Still so many people are missing the point.
If you follow the NBA and follow the story closely, you would agree that Boozer totally backstabbed Cleveland.

Listen, Boozer never had a choice to choose between $40mil and $68mil in the first place.
He had a choice of $700,000 and thats it. By telling Cleveland that he would agree to a new contract, its the only reason why hes even a free agent.

For those who said well, its an extra $28mil.....but he never had that choice in the first place until he verbally agreed to a new contract with Cleveland.

Heres another reason why he and his agent are scums:
The deal they signed with Cleveland are front loaded.
The usual contract goes somthing like $6mil..8mil...10mil...etc. each year.
But his agent got a deal where its $11mil..9mil..7mil....etc....
This is purposely done so there is no way Cleveland can match the offer unless they gutted their team.
This is further proof that Boozer had every intention of looking to sign elsewhere.

I have to further emphasize how STUPID Cleveland is.
Had they just make him play for the $700,000 next season, Boozer would have fall under the "Bird's rule" unrestricted FA which means Cleveland could have matched any offer even if they go over the salary cap.
What Cleveland did was just moronic.

 

[adelphi]

if utah management actually did some shysty secret handshake crap close doors, now i can actually verbalize the reasons why i hate the utah azz

boozers have proven his backstabbing ability, who's to say he's not gonna spend
his contract time on injure list, to be at least consistant to his character track record
then i hope all rookies will bust their ass to get record #, nba rookie teanm etc, just to get the jazz
to sign frontloaded contracts with all of them can chill afterall they'll be set for life

lebron should say something like "i'm gonna score 50 everytime i play them"

 

[CTrain]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: OCNewbie
Basketball is just a business, it's about making money. Carlos is in business for himself, he's his own best asset, so he made the best move for himself. I doubt there will be hurt feelings, just a lesson learned by the Cavs. There are no friendly gestures in that situation, when you're talking about 28 million dollars.

Yes. Ctrain, you need to understand this. I wouldnt pass up 28 million dollars either..this is a capitalist society after all. Stop worrying about the personal decisions made by others, he doesn't care what you think of him, nor does anyone else.

Really ??? You mean we all should just stop having opinions ???
I mean this forum is full of opinions isn't it ???

Your post doesn't make any sense man.
I think hes a scumbag, thats my opinion. Some agree, some don't....its all opinions.
Just like all the treads that thinks Lindsey Lohan or so and so is HOT.....do you those girls give a damm ???? NO.....but who cares....its just opinions.

You make it look like I'm trying to start a crusade or something.....I started 1 thread about the topic.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: CTrain

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: OCNewbie
Basketball is just a business, it's about making money. Carlos is in business for himself, he's his own best asset, so he made the best move for himself. I doubt there will be hurt feelings, just a lesson learned by the Cavs. There are no friendly gestures in that situation, when you're talking about 28 million dollars.

Yes. Ctrain, you need to understand this. I wouldnt pass up 28 million dollars either..this is a capitalist society after all. Stop worrying about the personal decisions made by others, he doesn't care what you think of him, nor does anyone else.

Really ??? You mean we all should just stop having opinions ???
I mean this forum is full of opinions isn't it ???

Your post doesn't make any sense man.
I think hes a scumbag, thats my opinion. Some agree, some don't....its all opinions.
Just like all the treads that thinks Lindsey Lohan or so and so is HOT.....do you those girls give a damm ???? NO.....but who cares....its just opinions.

You make it look like I'm trying to start a crusade or something.....I started 1 thread about the topic.

:beer::sun:

 

[cchen]

Originally posted by: CTrain
Still so many people are missing the point.
If you follow the NBA and follow the story closely, you would agree that Boozer totally backstabbed Cleveland.

Listen, Boozer never had a choice to choose between $40mil and $68mil in the first place.
He had a choice of $700,000 and thats it. By telling Cleveland that he would agree to a new contract, its the only reason why hes even a free agent.

For those who said well, its an extra $28mil.....but he never had that choice in the first place until he verbally agreed to a new contract with Cleveland.

Heres another reason why he and his agent are scums:
The deal they signed with Cleveland are front loaded.
The usual contract goes somthing like $6mil..8mil...10mil...etc. each year.
But his agent got a deal where its $11mil..9mil..7mil....etc....
This is purposely done so there is no way Cleveland can match the offer unless they gutted their team.
This is further proof that Boozer had every intention of looking to sign elsewhere.

I have to further emphasize how STUPID Cleveland is.
Had they just make him play for the $700,000 next season, Boozer would have fall under the "Bird's rule" unrestricted FA which means Cleveland could have matched any offer even if they go over the salary cap.
What Cleveland did was just moronic.

Actually, you're wrong. Utah structured the deal that way so that Cleveland couldn't match it. Get your facts straight. Geez.

 

[CTrain]

Originally posted by: cchen

Originally posted by: CTrain
Still so many people are missing the point.
If you follow the NBA and follow the story closely, you would agree that Boozer totally backstabbed Cleveland.

Listen, Boozer never had a choice to choose between $40mil and $68mil in the first place.
He had a choice of $700,000 and thats it. By telling Cleveland that he would agree to a new contract, its the only reason why hes even a free agent.

For those who said well, its an extra $28mil.....but he never had that choice in the first place until he verbally agreed to a new contract with Cleveland.

Heres another reason why he and his agent are scums:
The deal they signed with Cleveland are front loaded.
The usual contract goes somthing like $6mil..8mil...10mil...etc. each year.
But his agent got a deal where its $11mil..9mil..7mil....etc....
This is purposely done so there is no way Cleveland can match the offer unless they gutted their team.
This is further proof that Boozer had every intention of looking to sign elsewhere.

I have to further emphasize how STUPID Cleveland is.
Had they just make him play for the $700,000 next season, Boozer would have fall under the "Bird's rule" unrestricted FA which means Cleveland could have matched any offer even if they go over the salary cap.
What Cleveland did was just moronic.

Actually, you're wrong. Utah structured the deal that way so that Cleveland couldn't match it. Get your facts straight. Geez.

Thats what I meant......"The deal signed with Utah" meant to be Cleveland.
Geez...you should be able to tell easily that I mistakenly put Cleveland instead of Utah by reading the whole paragraph.

 

[CTrain]

Further proof of guilt.
His agent quit today.

 

[TheAudit]

Originally posted by: CTrain
Further proof of guilt.
His agent quit today.

ESPN

Agent gone and new offer from Cavs - 1 year, $5 million (i.e. more money in seasons ahead).

 

[poopaskoopa]

Originally posted by: CTrain
Further proof of guilt.
His agent quit today.

I can't fault the guy. It's all about landing the best job. We switch jobs for 10k more, 15k, better benefits, etc. He did it for 27 mil. Lying is not good, but I'd be morally flexible too if I were looking to get a 27 million dollar raise.

<---- Money Ho

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: blurredvision
I feel sorry for Utah for thinking he's worth that $68 million. Hmmm, Cleveland is offering him $40 million for 6 years. Utah decides to trounce that by $28 million? Sounds like the Jazz management suck hard.

On the other hand, Boozer has one hell of an agent.

Boozer's agent quit after this happened. He was humiliated that Boozer backed out of his verbal agreement.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: m2kewl

Originally posted by: CTrain
Damm all you guys are missing the point.
Cleveland would have not made him an UNRESTRICTED FA if he didn't already agree to a new contract

I'm all for getting the most money you can but Cleveland rewarded him by letting him off a contract of $695K for next season.

So basically Boozer was bound for another yr at $695K. He say to Cleveland, "Hey let me out of my contract for next yr and I'll sign an extention.
Cleveland holds all the cards in this situation and Boozer basically backstabbed them.

how is that different from my boss giving me a raise if i offered to stay at my current job during my review. then i go get another job twice the pay and tell her to fvck off???

yes, i'll burn a bridge but i'll be rich, biaaatch!

There are two clear differences here:

1) The raise he was given wasn't twice his original pay ($80M would have been twice).
2) Twice for you would be, what, maybe $50 or 60k? His raise was $28M.

<-- (note the sarcastic emoticon smile)

 

[boggsie]

Originally posted by: boggsie

Originally posted by: CTrain

Originally posted by: atom
Like Cleveland did it out of the goodness of their heart. Sounds like they wanted a lock on him so they took a risk and it didn't pan out. Oh well.

Of course they want to lock him to a long contract.
But you have to remebered he is getting a hugh raise regardless with Cleveland.
Even if he didn't want an extention with Cleveland.......Cleveland till had the option for 1 more seasons and they could have easily explore trade options or maybe have more money under the cap room next season.

Cleveland held all the cards in this situation.
They got burn big time but it still makes Boozer look like a SCUM.

I disagree ... The Utah Jazz knew exactly what was going on here. This sounds like a setup between the Jazz and Boozer's agent. If I were Gund, I would be very angry at the Jazz management. Essentially, some quetsionable tactics were utilized to permit Utah to get a player off of the Cleveland roster without providing any compensation.

Cool ... I called it!

 

[alocurto]

Originally posted by: m2kewl
it's all about the bling bling $$$...there's no loyalty.

if you can work it...more power to you

He is smart. How much do you think the team cares about him?

 

[NeoHC421]

Originally posted by: CTrain


Stop comparing the real world to professional sports

hahaha

 

[MrDingleDangle]

Isnt the Cav's owner blind?

so he looked a blind guy in the face and lied...lol...to see the look on his face when he told the owner that he would resign

 

[TheNinja]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: blurredvision
I feel sorry for Utah for thinking he's worth that $68 million. Hmmm, Cleveland is offering him $40 million for 6 years. Utah decides to trounce that by $28 million? Sounds like the Jazz management suck hard.

On the other hand, Boozer has one hell of an agent.

Boozer's agent quit after this happened. He was humiliated that Boozer backed out of his verbal agreement.

Not the way This story from Yahoo points it out
This story basically says that the company that Boozer's agent works for is pissed off about this deal. So much so that the company is probably telling this agent that he needs to walk away from the $2.7mil comission he'd get on this deal (most likely so that he can keep his ties with Kobe for a bigger payday). The company will soon cut ties with this agent and my guess is that it's unlikely many people would hire this guy again and VERY doubtful that many owners/GMs will deal with him.
In my opinion the agent had to know what was going on b/c he was probably the one dealing with both the Jazz and the Cavs. The company probably knew what was going on to but is just making the one agent a scapegoat over it. It's a messed up situation for sure...but a GREAT article.