Boozer says he's opting out

[beb0p]

I don't understand all this people who screamed at rebuilding and then as soon as some half-way decent borderline star is available, they jump up and down wanting to sign/trade for that player. It makes sense for Miami to go after Boozer because they are a good team with a future HOF SG. It makes no sense for the Kings to get Boozer because at best we become a consistent 7th/8th/9th seed in seasons in which Boozer decides he's healthy enough to play.

Also another note, Boozer is not a top 20 player in the league. He's someone who gets owned by the top 20 players in the league but beat up on the bottom feeders. I wonder how anyone can see Boozer as the answer after watching him repeatedly wet his shorts against the Lakers in the playoff.

 

[Bricklayer]

Are you guys so desperate for talent that you will overpay a second rate former all star? He wants a near max paycheck (over 13 mil a year), but isn't a max player. He's not a first option player. He's not a franchise guy who can carry a team to the next level. Remember the big deal they gave Miller on the downside of his career. Boozer is a good PF now, not a great one, and I don't want to see the team in another Brad Miller type situation down the road.

Where do people get this stuff? I don't even like the guy, but this "Boozer is good not great" is just...bizarre. Might want to tell that to the voters who put him Third Team All NBA last season. And he just turned 27 a few weeks ago.

Boozer's numbers the last three years:

06-07: 20.9pts 11.7reb 3.0ast
07-08: 21.1pts 10.4reb 2.9ast
08-09: 20.5pts 11.7reb 2.7ast

For comparison the other, well apparently good but not great PFs around the league:

Bosh: 23.6pts 9.7reb 2.6ast
Nowitzki: 26.4pts 9.3reb 2.5ast
Amare: 22.2pts 8.8reb 2.1ast
Jefferson 21.7pts 10.2reb 1.8ast
Duncan 20.8pts 10.7reb 3.2ast
Garnett 16.5pts 9.5reb 2.6ast
West 20.3pts 7.4reb 2.0ast
Randolph: 22.4 11.2rebs 2.0ast
Gasol 18.0pts 9.3reb 3.5ast
Jamison 19.9pts 9.7reb 2.0ast


He's not the superstar to carry you by himself. None of them are at this stage. But you don't sign that level of guy as a FA. Almost ever, and certainly not if you're Sacto. This is like the equally strange Chris Bosh thread of last month -- when you are at our level you are not in a position to turn down that level of help.

 

[beb0p]

Where do people get this stuff? I don't even like the guy, but this "Boozer is good not great" is just...bizarre. Might want to tell that to the voters who put him Third Team All NBA last season. And he just turned 27 a few weeks ago.

Oh please. Michael Redd was also on a Third Team All NBA. In fact, Peja Stojakovic and Ben Wallace were on the Second Team All NBA. Imagine the logic of giving any of those guys the maximum contract just because some sports writers look at their stats and thought them pretty.

"The Boozer is good but not great" is not bizarre to anyone who actually saw him play; versus those who only read the box score.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Yes, he was disloyal to the Cavs; however if he had decided to bolt to Sac 5 years ago we would be much happier today. Opt out clauses are written into contracts for a reason. If your employer gave you the option to cancel your current annual salary and take more money for the same job and responsibilities...you would say "no"?

Boozer did not have an opt out clause, the Cavs had his option. Boozer promised the Cavs he'd resign with them at less than max value if they let him out of the option and gave him the raise now.

Now this kind of deal was a behind the scenes deal that plenty of other players and teams took mutual advantage of. Boozer not only screwed the Cavs, but he screwed over his fellow players who would be in similar situations by effectively ending this practice by going back on that word.

 

[Packt]

Boozer did not have an opt out clause, the Cavs had his option. Boozer promised the Cavs he'd resign with them at less than max value if they let him out of the option and gave him the raise now.

Now this kind of deal was a behind the scenes deal that plenty of other players and teams took mutual advantage of. Boozer not only screwed the Cavs, but he screwed over his fellow players who would be in similar situations by effectively ending this practice by going back on that word.

The Cavs tried to break the rules and got screwed? I have no problem with what Booze and the Cavs did, that's between them. No one has any animosity towards the the Cavs for trying to break the rules, why apply that standard to Booze, only.

That said, I'm not a Boozer fan. He's good, can't deny he's a legit 20/10 guy. He'd help us, but it's not an exciting move for me. For a big acquisition, he doesn't do it for me. I wouldn't be against going after him, but I wouldn't bet everything on him.

 

[kings4lyfe32]

Why would he want to come here? He'd have to battle for playing time with Kenny Thomas and Mikki Moore. I mean I'm sure theres an easier route somewhere

 

[Bricklayer]

The Cavs tried to break the rules and got screwed? I have no problem with what Booze and the Cavs did, that's between them. No one has any animosity towards the the Cavs for trying to break the rules, why apply that standard to Booze, only.

Boozer didn't break the rules, he broke his word. He showed no sense of honor, or gratitude, or obligation. He made it about himself, and like all selfish people had no compunction about suckering in silly people who believe in things like honor or keeping your word. Such behavior should not be anything but reviled.

All of which is still entirely separate from people radically underestimating what acquiring a 20-10 post playing elite PF would mean to a team with fww post players and even fewer rebounders. You take Boozer, add in a high pick, add in a decent haul from trading Brad, and you could be back in the hunt next year and on the way up. Not title worthy -- neither Kevin nor Boozer makes anybody better, and without that there is no title. But starting to accumulate the sort of talent, young and veteran, that it might take to land a special player if one ever became available.

 

[Warhawk]

Boozer didn't break the rules, he broke his word. He showed no sense of honor, or gratitude, or obligation. He made it about himself, and like all selfish people had no compunction about suckering in silly people who believe in things like honor or keeping your word. Such behavior should not be anything but reviled.

All of which is still entirely separate from people radically underestimating what acquiring a 20-10 post playing elite PF would mean to a team with fww post players and even fewer rebounders. You take Boozer, add in a high pick, add in a decent haul from trading Brad, and you could be back in the hunt next year and on the way up. Not title worthy -- neither Kevin nor Boozer makes anybody better, and without that there is no title. But starting to accumulate the sort of talent, young and veteran, that it might take to land a special player if one ever became available.

Agreed 100%. Well put.

 

[Jerryaki]

Boozer didn't break the rules, he broke his word. He showed no sense of honor, or gratitude, or obligation. He made it about himself, and like all selfish people had no compunction about suckering in silly people who believe in things like honor or keeping your word.

but weren't the cavs (and NBA teams) not supposed to be doing shady deals like this in the first place?

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

That's the thing, though: it wasn't a "shady deal." Cleveland wasn't doing anything illegal, or even frowned upon. Don't confuse the fact that Gordon Gund trusted Boozer to honor a "gentleman's agreement" with the thought that something untoward was going on.

I wasn't a violation of the contract, the CBA, or any other NBA statute. Just because it wasn't written down on paper doesn't mean it was a shady deal... Basically, what happened was this:

Boozer: I want more money.
Gund: Well, Carlos, this is the contract you signed; I'm afraid we can't give you more money until your contract runs out.
Boozer: I tell you what: decline the team option, I'll be able to re-sign with you for more money.
Gund: I don't know... if I let you out of your contract, couldn't you just leave and sign with someone else?
Boozer: Nah, man, I want to be part of something special here with LeBron and them. I'll re-sign with you, I give you my word as a gentleman.
Gund: Well, you seem like an honest sort, Carlos... Okay.

:: they shake hands ::

Boozer: So long, suckers!

And that was basically it: Cleveland had a team option attached to Boozer's rookie contract, Boozer conned them into thinking that if they declined their team option, that he would just re-sign with them, and then hauled *** as soon as the ink was dry. The only thing that was "shady" in that whole exchange was F. Carlos Boozer.

 

[Emma]

Really, I wonder how much his agent was involved in this whole mess. Do you honestly think that someone with that little business experience, that young, would have the ability to concoct and follow through with such a sinister plan?

What Boozer (or Boozer's agent) did takes a very special kind of slimy manipulation. The sort that rarely comes without years of experience trying to screw people over. I don't know Boozer, but I think he may have been sort of pushed to do the Cavs like that.

 

[Showtime]

Really, I wonder how much his agent was involved in this whole mess. Do you honestly think that someone with that little business experience, that young, would have the ability to concoct and follow through with such a sinister plan?

What Boozer (or Boozer's agent) did takes a very special kind of slimy manipulation. The sort that rarely comes without years of experience trying to screw people over. I don't know Boozer, but I think he may have been sort of pushed to do the Cavs like that.

His agent isn't the one who recently said he's opting out to get paid. That was boozer.

 

[Emma]

His agent isn't the one who recently said he's opting out to get paid. That was boozer.

Whoops I meant "previous mess" with Cleveland.

 

[rhythmless]

Yes, he was disloyal to the Cavs; however if he had decided to bolt to Sac 5 years ago we would be much happier today. Opt out clauses are written into contracts for a reason. If your employer gave you the option to cancel your current annual salary and take more money for the same job and responsibilities...you would say "no"?

did you JUST become an nba fan? Boozer implored the owner to decline the TEAM's player OPTION to have Boozer play in his last year of his rookie contract. There was no opt out clause. Boozer told him that he would resign with the Cavs at the agreed upon terms of a new contract. He then screwed the owner and left for more money. Neither here nor there, but the owner's blind too. So Boozer basically screwed over a blind man.

I do not want him on the team. Period. If you can tell the future and tell me that Boozer would be the difference between a championship and not, I would tell you that it's fine by me to leave him. I don't need crap like that in Sac.

Actually, I would try to offer him more than anyone else, and then when he agrees, I'll say that I changed my mind. What goes around comes around.

 

[Emma]

Actually, I would try to offer him more than anyone else, and then when he agrees, I'll say that I changed my mind. What goes around comes around.

That would be poetic justice indeed. I want him on our team, but that would probably be hilarious, as well as kill our ability to get future big name free agents.