Discussion in 'Pistons and NBA' started by blueadams, May 31, 2009.
A team that wouldn't make it past the 2nd round.
So, an improvement!
Regardless of whether it's legal or not for those things to happen, they happen all the time. The Cavs were making a leap of faith and doing a favor for someone they valued as a player and obviously as a person. For Boozer to do what he did says alot about his character, business or not.
It was still an ILLEGAL agreement verbal or otherwise. IF they indeed made an illegal "verbal" agreement with any player and subsequently got screwed, they got what they deserved for trying to broker an ILLEGAL agreement in the 1st place.
IF (and I'm not saying he promised something and backed out...it's all hearsay) they went along trying to make this deal, it was in the interest of benefiting themselves and circumventing the rules therefore, not creating a level playing field with the rest of the teams in the league where they may have very well had to pay up to compete with other owners trying to lure him away at the end of his contract. They tried to cheat and got burned. GOOD. They deserved it.
I love how the player is ALWAYS the bad guy. No one has any love or tolerance for millionaire players, but BILLIONAIRE owners can do no wrong.
If Boozer had gone along with the Cavs "agreement", and the NBA had gotten a whiff of it, Boozer himself could have been penalized. Better not to risk serious money for no good reason. As a law student, I'm surprised to hear you argue that Boozer should have been living in some fantasy-land where benevolent businesses exist and nice guys finish first and all that stuff.
My thought was that they get a guy who will play EVERY game and has Play Off Experience. He will not be as worn out at the end of the year because he would have Yao protecting the basket allowing him to exert less effort on defense each night. I think it makes them even better when you pair him with T-Mac.
That's now what i'm saying at all. Boozer was the one IIRC that asked for the opt out, re-sign, etc. This move was initiated by him. If the Cavs offer was not to his liking, then by all means go somewhere else, but he set this in motion, knew how much the Cavs could offer/salary cap, and chose to go along with the deal.
Good business move or not, it's still a dirty move.
And if Boozer was concerned about his culpability, he should have never agreed to it in the first place.
edited to add; if the Cavs came to him w/ this move then my opinion changes, but he still should not have agreed.
It's really good to know that instead of renegging, he was really just following the letter of the law and trying his best to avoid any impropriety. Once Cleveland made that indecent proposal, he probably thought to himself "these guys are dishonest and I need to find a way to get as far away from them as possible."
Here is what Gund wrote in a letter:
Did that letter open him up to legal trouble or a reprimand from the league? If not, why?
Is there any reason why Gund's comments couldn't be taken as suspect as well? It's all finger pointing and accusations. Not to mention, all over a "verbal" agreement. That mean's there's no hard evidence to prove anything against either party. Furthermore, why assume that management is telling the truth without holding them to the same scrutiny that Boozer is being held to? They were in fact trying to side step the rules. They aren't the 1st team that's gone out of their way to make the outgoing guy the escape goat.
Why take sides?
...and with the NBA's reputation, do you really take the lack of an NBA investigation as proof of innocence?
Perhaps you misunderstood me. My question is why didn't Gund get in trouble for admitting in writing that he had an understanding/ verbal agreement with Boozer? Doesn't this violate the CBA because it is collusion?
As far as believing management over Boozer. The reason that I'm choosing to do so is because management made an actual move that would have been completely irrational had there not been a verbal agreement (letting a productive player out of a low priced contract for nothing in return). Why would Cleveland make up a story that they colluded with Booz and he renegged if that didn't in fact happen? It would make no sense. It doesn't benefit them in any way and in fact puts them at risk for incrimination. It's like calling the cops on your buddy after he stole your weed.
(For me) it's not about was there actually an agreement or not. I'm assuming there may well have been some sort of agreement. My beef is that it's ridiculous for a human being to think that Carlos Boozer failing to fulfill a freaking verbal agreement (that was shady or illegal to begin with) in favor of an extra 30 million dollars in his pocket is anything other sound economic sense. I would be seriously questioning his intelligence if he had stayed in Cleveland for less money and the possibility of the NBA rescinding his contract due to a rules violation. The Cavs bit the big one and deserved it for their utter foolishness. Then the shady execs tried to put the blame on Boozer, and the fans BOUGHT it. Maybe my problem is that I'm not giving the Cavs front office enough credit for how smart they really are - pulling off that kind of PR stunt takes guts and maybe even some sort of brains after all.
Perhaps, but it's mighty silly IMO for an outsider to then be actively ticked at the guy who stole the weed. As if the guy who endeavored to purchase the illegal substance was justified in doing so just because it got stolen from him. Best case scenario, they're ALL wrong.
Now, if you ask me, comparing Boozer to a weed snatcher is a little overboard, but at any rate, that scenario is implausible and unlikely to ever come to a head if he becomes a Piston. So, it's a moot point to me. Joe won't be making any under the table deals and cutting guys loose from their contracts in order to "lock them up" long term. It's like Michael Vick getting into your garden and you freaking out as if he's going to make your geraniums fight.
You know what? If Boozer was such a belt and suspender guy, then he would have told Gund initially that he wasn't comfortable entering into an agreement that would violate the CBA and would have then proceeded to report the incident to the league. He would have played out his remaining season, honored his existing contract, and then tested the FA market the following year, where he would have been paid handsomely.
Of course it made economic sense for Boozer to reneg. But he had to lie to accomplish his goal. My overriding point is that I wouldn't feel comfortable entering into a financial arrangement and long term committment with a guy who is willing to lie in order to increase his personal take. It's what you would call a red flag.
Am I taking sides with Gund? Not really. But I don't think they Pistons are about to hire him in any capacity, so I'm not worried about his character... which I'm sure is just rotten to the core! That guy can take his non profits and go stuff it.
I'm not actively ticked. I just don't want to invite him over when we have all our weed sitting out.
A verbal agreement is a contract. He would not have been able to earn that $30 million if he had not agreed to re-sign with Cleveland. He lied in order to get the $30 million.
It's fraud. And fraud is a form of theft.
I probably should have worded that better...I didn't mean you personally. I just don't see the chance of any kind of scenario like that popping up here in DET and we need the talent right now.
It wasn't my intention to say that Boozer is a particularly high-character guy, but it seemed that some were just laying waste to him where in reality, everyone did what financially was best for them. And the Cavs took the hit for being foolish. And I just have no sympathy for them. I'm not an unsympathetic guy, just not for multi-billion dollar companies that screw over their employees when it's in their best interests and then try to get sympathy when an employee in a good position wises up and does what's best for him.
I understand where you're going with this. But if it was that open-and-shut, the Cavs would have had avenues to pursue to enforce that verbal agreement. In this particular case, it appears to me that those avenues weren't available for the Cavs because they were on shaky ground regulations-wise anyway. And so they shouldn't have entered into an unenforceable verbal agreement to begin with.
C Chris Anderson
PF Carlos Boozer
SF Tashawn Prince
SG Rip Hamilton
PG Rodney Stucky
How can you be so sure?
This new frontline would solve 3 of the pistons glaring weaknesses. Rebounding, Low post scoring, and Blocked Shots.
The Birdman could easily get you a double-double with starter (30+) minutes. And you could pencil in Boozer for 20-10 on most nights. The presence of a shot blocker would lead to more fast break opportunities. But lets say you are right. "Out in the second round". Still an improvement from this years embarressment. Realistically, I don't think that there are any moves (as far as free agency is concerned) that will immediately return us to championship contention. But this would be a step forward and probably leave us with money to play with for next summer. Thoughts anyone?
Separate names with a comma.