Oh, don't even go there.
Yep -- hey **** over anyone you need to to get yours right?
Wrong.
You've got people in the world who have honor and are true to their word, and then you've got weasels who are just out for themself. Boozer showed everybody what he was. And then of course compunded it by taking a nice little year off of basketball there for the Jazz. Wonderful personality to add to your team.
Yep -- hey **** over anyone you need to to get yours right?
Wrong.
You've got people in the world who have honor and are true to their word, and then you've got weasels who are just out for themself. Boozer showed everybody what he was. And then of course compunded it by taking a nice little year off of basketball there for the Jazz. Wonderful personality to add to your team.
I agree that Carlos Boozer doesn't exactly have the best karma, but given that so many people are advocating bringing on board a guy who shot at his girlfriend (Eddie Griffin) and actively support a guy who started a riot (um, you know), it's kind of amazing that people feel that Carlos Boozer somehow crossed the line.
Assault with a deadly weapon? Come right in!
Take more money from another team while your current team was trying to break the rules to re-sign you? We don't want any!
I don't want Boozer because he's overpaid and he's got an injury history. But not because he took more money from another team.
Assault with a deadly weapon? Come right in!
Take more money from another team while your current team was trying to break the rules to re-sign you? We don't want any!
I don't want Boozer because he's overpaid and he's got an injury history. But not because he took more money from another team.
That's BS.
There was no breach, other than Boozer's breach of ettiquette, and there certainly would have been no breach of NBA rules; he was still under contract...
Boozer didn't do anybody any favors, except for F. Carlos Boozer. Cleveland still had his rights; he wanted a contract extension that was more than what his contract was set up for him to receive, because he was a second-round pick. The only way that he could have gotten the money that he was asking for was if Cleveland released him to free agency. So Gordon Gund asked him to agree to re-sign with Cleveland if Gund agreed to release him to free agency... Boozer shook Gund's hand and gave him his word...
And then he stole away like a thief in the night.
F. Carlos Boozer is a treacherous dog.
There was no breach, other than Boozer's breach of ettiquette, and there certainly would have been no breach of NBA rules; he was still under contract...
Boozer didn't do anybody any favors, except for F. Carlos Boozer. Cleveland still had his rights; he wanted a contract extension that was more than what his contract was set up for him to receive, because he was a second-round pick. The only way that he could have gotten the money that he was asking for was if Cleveland released him to free agency. So Gordon Gund asked him to agree to re-sign with Cleveland if Gund agreed to release him to free agency... Boozer shook Gund's hand and gave him his word...
And then he stole away like a thief in the night.
F. Carlos Boozer is a treacherous dog.
You know what? I trust the guy who committed assault more. He was out of control. Stupid. Maybe a bad guy, maybe just lost. There is room for growth there. On the other hand, once you intentionally **** over a franchise, with the key word being intentionally, lie, deceive, reveal where your real loyalties lie (i.e. yourself), I don't trust you. In the end, reputation is critical. I know why he did it, understand the temptation, and also understand that that is precisely the time you prove you are a standup guy.
My basic argument against Boozer has always been similar to yours -- big contract, injury-prone, not a defender -- but beyond that is an important backdrop: self-centered and untrustworthy. When you build a team, they need to trust each other and have loyalty to each other if nothing else. I simply do not trust Carlos Boozer to display those traits. If put to the test, he's looking out for #1.
My basic argument against Boozer has always been similar to yours -- big contract, injury-prone, not a defender -- but beyond that is an important backdrop: self-centered and untrustworthy. When you build a team, they need to trust each other and have loyalty to each other if nothing else. I simply do not trust Carlos Boozer to display those traits. If put to the test, he's looking out for #1.
Last edited:
Y
I'm not a big fan of what boozer did. But i'm sure his intention wasn't to get out of the team option to test the market.. The jazz approached him after he was let out of the team option...they made the offer. And lets be honest too....look at CWEBB...doyou think he wanted to stay in sacramento soooo bad that he woulda taken a lot less money? NO WAY, CWEBB wanted to get paid. Everyone of these players wants to get paid.
I was watching an interview with Chris Kaman about why he didnt attempt to punch Reggie Evans after that low blow...expecting to hear something like " I dont want to let my team down the playoffs," he uttered "I dont want to lose the pay of 1 game." Money is big for all these players.
I was watching an interview with Chris Kaman about why he didnt attempt to punch Reggie Evans after that low blow...expecting to hear something like " I dont want to let my team down the playoffs," he uttered "I dont want to lose the pay of 1 game." Money is big for all these players.
I think the point that Bricklayer and Slim are making, which I have come around to seeing is a good one, is that the type of player who would make that kind of choice is a me-first individual to the max, to the point of being duplicitous and, as Bill Simmons has said, stabbing a blind man in the back. Do you really want someone with that much of a me-first attitude on your team? Is that the type of person that is going to make the sacrifices and display the team-focus necessary to be a part of a winning team?
Maybe that was just all "business," but it was pretty bad...
Maybe that was just all "business," but it was pretty bad...
Uh, no. Get your facts straight:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2428627
"I told [the NBA] in complete detail what happened," Kaman said, according to the Times. "The three refs also knew what happened."
Kaman said he showed restraint in not punching Evans.
"With what we're trying to do, I didn't want to get thrown out," he said, according to the Times. "I thought about it, but I knew what would happen. "One of the refs said he would have knocked [him] out. It was crazy."
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2428627
"I told [the NBA] in complete detail what happened," Kaman said, according to the Times. "The three refs also knew what happened."
Kaman said he showed restraint in not punching Evans.
"With what we're trying to do, I didn't want to get thrown out," he said, according to the Times. "I thought about it, but I knew what would happen. "One of the refs said he would have knocked [him] out. It was crazy."
Y
umm...how about you get your facts straight....and hear what comes out of his MOUTH:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFcinlrgojk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFcinlrgojk
Y
you know, i'm not trying to argue or make a big deal out of this...my point was that players heavily consider money and it's tough to deny that. As Kaman said himself...the first thought about not playing would be that he'd lose out on money. For some reason when i said that Kaman made that statement, that guy finds some quotes about what Kaman said which have no reference to money...i have no idea why he was trying to call me or something, but it was a mook point anyway.
No, he was pointing out that there was more than one comment out there by Kaman about the incident. You emphasized the money part; he emphasized the "not good for the team" part. Probably both were correct...
It's not about Warhawk trying to call you (whatever that means). It's about perspective. Quite frankly, I think you're wrong about players thinking heavily about money. From what I've seen, their actions on the court are very rarely motivated by monetary considerations. They're athletes and they're competitors. Off the court and under calms circumstances, yes, they might consider the financial aspects. ON the court, in the heat of the moment, I seriously doubt if any of them stop and think what effect their actions or words might have on their checking accounts.
It's not about Warhawk trying to call you (whatever that means). It's about perspective. Quite frankly, I think you're wrong about players thinking heavily about money. From what I've seen, their actions on the court are very rarely motivated by monetary considerations. They're athletes and they're competitors. Off the court and under calms circumstances, yes, they might consider the financial aspects. ON the court, in the heat of the moment, I seriously doubt if any of them stop and think what effect their actions or words might have on their checking accounts.
I think most people are neutral on Griffin if they even know who he is. Certainly if you were to take a poll in Arco on any given night I'm sure you'd get more shrugs than positive responses. I don't think he's the answer to our problems though.
As for Artest, he didn't start the riot. The cup thrower did. Artest was the NBA's official scapegoat but Artest isn't serving jail time for it. The cup thrower is.
As for Boozer, enough's already been said. Utah's involvement in this is also pretty disgraceful though.
As for Artest, he didn't start the riot. The cup thrower did. Artest was the NBA's official scapegoat but Artest isn't serving jail time for it. The cup thrower is.
As for Boozer, enough's already been said. Utah's involvement in this is also pretty disgraceful though.
Only 30 days plus fines and probation and AA. Some other fans got community service time as well:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2006-05-04-comm-service-brawl_x.htm
John Green, the spectator who threw the cup that struck Artest in the chest, was convicted of misdemeanor assault and sentenced Monday to 30 days in jail, two years' probation and a $500 fine by Judge Lisa Asadoorian. Green must also attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and anger-management classes and pay for breath and urine testing.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2006-05-04-comm-service-brawl_x.htm
John Green, the spectator who threw the cup that struck Artest in the chest, was convicted of misdemeanor assault and sentenced Monday to 30 days in jail, two years' probation and a $500 fine by Judge Lisa Asadoorian. Green must also attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and anger-management classes and pay for breath and urine testing.