boozer!

#31
Mr. S£im Citrus said:
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. :mad:

F. Carlos Boozer is a treacherous dog.


Not trying to defend Boozer, but to say you want no part of him is silly.

Besides, the agreement WAS a violation of NBA rules. Had the NBA been able to prove it, the Cavs could have lost a bunch of 1st Round picks just like the TWolves did in the Joe Smith fiasco. You seem to be unaware of what was alleged to have happened.

The team had an option on him for a 3rd season. If they did not exercise it, they could only sign him to a very limited amount because he did not have his Larry Bird rights because he was a 2nd round pick and the team was over the cap (similar to what the Warriors went through with Arenas).

So, the team supposedly agreed to waive the 3rd yr if Boozer agreed to sign for what they could afford (something like 6 yrs, 40M). This agreement is a violation of NBA rules.

Frankly, no one knows what happened. I blame Cavs GM Jim Paxson. He should have allowed Boozer to play the third year, and then signed him to a fair market value the next summer. Instead, he figured he could convince Boozer to sign way under market value for the prize of more immediate money, but far less long run.