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

[austin316]

Originally posted by: 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)

um, Boozer is getting way, way, way more than a double pay raise. went from $700,000 next year to $11,000,000!!!!!!!

 

[iamme]

1. There is NO loyalty in sports.
2. Boozer's loyalties go to himself and his family before the Cavs.
3. You'd have to be a fool to turn down 15 times your salary, to do the exact same job.

Cleveland took a gamble exposing Boozer to the free agent market. ESPECIALLY after Boozer's solid year. Cleveland took a gamble and lost. Like i mentioned earlier, if the Cavs could have gotten a player better than Boozer at the same price, they would have dumped his ass in a second.

 

[NeoV]

It wasn't a gamble at all - they took he and his agent's word, and they were betrayed, plain and simple. Agents don't quit for no reason.

The funny thing, is that in the long run, he could make more if he were to accept the Cavs new offer of 1 year, at 5M - then he would be a restriced free agent, but because of the 'Larry Bird' rule, the Cavs could offer him more money and a longer contract than the one he is getting from Utah.

 

[iamme]

Originally posted by: NeoV
It wasn't a gamble at all - they took he and his agent's word, and they were betrayed, plain and simple. Agents don't quit for no reason.

The funny thing, is that in the long run, he could make more if he were to accept the Cavs new offer of 1 year, at 5M - then he would be a restriced free agent, but because of the 'Larry Bird' rule, the Cavs could offer him more money and a longer contract than the one he is getting from Utah.

they had a verbal agreement. that's it. anyone in the business world who thinks a verbal agreement is "good enough", is bound to get screwed over left and right. get it in writing or you're taking a risk.

 

[gleong]

Letter from Gordon Gund (Cavs Owner) regarding Carlos Boozer

 

[kalster]

Originally posted by: gleong
Letter from Gordon Gund (Cavs Owner) regarding Carlos Boozer

wow

wat a peice of scum

 

[Zombie]

bahahahaha, I see nothing wrong with it. Cleveland tried to lowball him and he screwed them over. Cleveland management is probably stupid for not coving their ass with some legal agreement to begin with.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: Zombie
bahahahaha, I see nothing wrong with it. Cleveland tried to lowball him and he screwed them over. Cleveland management is probably stupid for not coving their ass with some legal agreement to begin with.

They aren't allowed to form any legal agreements while the player is still under contract.

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.

 

[TheNinja]

Originally posted by: Zombie
bahahahaha, I see nothing wrong with it. Cleveland tried to lowball him and he screwed them over. Cleveland management is probably stupid for not coving their ass with some legal agreement to begin with.

You should understand what you are saying before you say "Clevland tried to lowball him". Clevland offer the maximum that they could at at the time and were legally not allowed to offer anything until after the offically released him. Their offer of $41 mil for 6 years was far more than his guarenteed $695,000 that they were required to pay. Yes he made more in the open market and clevland said he would, but he said he would take less to play for them and for the security of getting a long term deal done quickly. He straight out lied.

 

[CTrain]

How is Cleveland trying to lowball him ???
He knew how much Cleveland can offer him before hand.

You do realize that Cleveland is at risk too, right ??
He is a 2nd year player with 1 good yr.
So what if Cleveland sign him to a long term contract he has a bad yr next season or injured ??
Theres risk on both sides.

But basically again back to the POINT.
He knew all this from the beginning and agreed to it.
He is just FINK !!


And basically I don't believe Boozer's story one bit.
If you have any and I mean any common sense at all....why would Cleveland let him out of his last year based on a "hunch" that he would resign.....nobody is that dumb....and we're talking about the owner and GM here.

Cleveland had so little to lose if they just kept him for the last year.
1) Hes a bargain at $700,000
a) He has a bad next year......so they can sign him for cheaper than they were expecting.
b) He has another good year....so he commands more money....who cares...Cleveland can match anything even if they're over the cap....they know they are getting a good player now instead of a 1 yr wonder.

Cleveland is just dumb for trusting someone.