# L'affaire de Boozer **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 12, 2004, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laffaire-de-boozer/254786 "2004-07-12T22:07:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2004, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laffaire-de-boozer/254786/41 "2004-07-16T19:04:50Z")
[Here’s the (repaired) CNN/SI link.](http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writers/michael_bradley/07/15/elhombre.0715/index.html) ---
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2004, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laffaire-de-boozer/254786/42 "2004-07-16T19:09:49Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > Maybe Boozer didn’t realize the Cavs were trying to bamboozle him until the Jazz offer came in. Either way, bully for Boozer I say, for refusing to be bamboozled. I shed no tears for the Cleveland brass. I guess the one thing that will decide how I feel in the end is the one thing that we don’t know for sure. Did Boozer say he was going to resign with the Cavs or not? If he did, then he should have confronted Paxon and Gund straight away and honored the last year of the contract he was under and taken his chances as a FA next summer, IMO. If the Cavs thought that Boozer had agreed to resign when he didn’t, well to bad for them. The last question I have on this, is everyone certain that there was no tampering on the part of the Jazz? ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2004, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laffaire-de-boozer/254786/43 "2004-07-16T19:21:22Z")
**Cheesesteak** : So why didn’t the Cavaliers go ahead and give Boozer a new contract before his option expired? Why did they let the option expire at all? Why? Because they didn’t want to sign him to a new contract until after the Olympics. They wanted Boozer alone to bear the risk that he might be injured (or worse) in Athens. And if Boozer had been injured, do you think the Cavs still would have shown up at his doorstep with a $41 million contract in hand? Do you really? :dubious: Oh yes, the Cleveland brass are really a noble, selfless bunch. Boozer did the right thing to ensure his family’s financial security. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2004, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laffaire-de-boozer/254786/44 "2004-07-16T22:41:07Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > After giving this more thought, I think Boozer is in the right. > > The Cavs had Boozer under contract for $700,000 this year. Obviously, far below his market value, but a contract is a contract. > > The Cavaliers’ goal was to try to get Boozer under a long-term contract. But how could they accomplish this? If they wait until Boozer becomes a free agent next year, then Boozer commands far more in the open market than they will be able to pay. > > So they use Boozer’s current small contract to try to wrangle him into a long-term deal. They try to tempt Boozer with the idea of letting him out of the $700,000 year in exhange for a $41 million-dollar deal (more than $25 million below his actual market value). > > In other words, they tried to play him for a chump in just the same way that a pawnbroker making usurious payday loan plays its customers for chumps-- offering a short-term financial benefit at a terrible long-term cost. > > I don’t believe Boozer is lying. I believe he studiously avoided saying that he would agree to sign the long-term deal. (If the Cavs wanted to believe he would, let them. I’m sure Boozer also didn’t disabuse them of the notion.) > > So in my estimation, the Cavs tried to play Boozer for a chump, and he outfoxed them. > > In essence, they were trying to take advantage of Boozer to the tune of $26 million and he turned the tables on them. I feel no more sympathy for them than I would for a pawnbroker who got out-slickered while trying to sign someone up for a loan at 75% interest. If I am reading you correctly you are saying that Carlos Boozer is not a liar, is not greedy, and is not unprincipled. Although this has nothing to do with the OP, I agree with you. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2004, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laffaire-de-boozer/254786/45 "2004-07-17T00:12:17Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > **Cheesesteak** : > > So why didn’t the Cavaliers go ahead and give Boozer a new contract before his option expired? Why did they let the option expire at all? By letting the contract expire, Boozer became a free agent, then the Cavs could sign him for the “mid level exception” and give him $42M over 6 years. Since they are already over the cap, they could not just restructure his deal. To put a finer point on it… the **only way** the Cavs could give him more money was to release him and sign him as a free agent. In addition, this deal would have used up their mid level exception, so the team would have been unable to pursue OTHER free agents. Basically, take a guy making nothing, resign him to a much higher pay rate AND pull yourself out of the free agent game, so you can’t improve your team. Yeah, sounds like the Cavs were trying to screw Boozer. > [@](#): > > Because they didn’t want to sign him to a new contract until after the Olympics. They wanted Boozer alone to bear the risk that he might be injured (or worse) in Athens. If any statement in this thread requires a cite, it’s this one. Free agent signings were not allowed to begin until July 14th, at which time it was “expected” that Boozer would resign with Cleveland, of course he signed with Utah instead. From day one, Boozer’s agent was in negotiations with Cleveland. > [@](#): > > Boozer did the right thing to ensure his family’s financial security. I suppose $42 mil isn’t financial security? Just to cap it off, let’s get a quote from [Mr. Boozer](http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2004-07-08-free-agent-roundup_x.htm) from July 1, the day his contract expired > [@](#): > > “I like it here,” he said. "My wife and I are very, very happy here, and I want to be with the Cavaliers. Good things are happening. > > “Now, it’s up to my agent and the Cavs to work things out. I hope they will.” ---
**Author:** ![litost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c4cdca/32.png) [@litost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/litost)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2004, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laffaire-de-boozer/254786/46 "2004-07-17T05:02:48Z")
> [@](#): > > By letting the contract expire, Boozer became a free agent, then the Cavs could sign him for the “mid level exception” and give him $42M over 6 years. Since they are already over the cap, they could not just restructure his deal. To put a finer point on it… the only way the Cavs could give him more money was to release him and sign him as a free agent. Nope. They could have picked up the option for the current year and exposed him to the market next year and paid the market price. They did not want to do that, so they tried to use this year’s salary as a bargaining chip. At the sametime, given how fickle the NBA is, Boozer also wanted to sign a long-term contract this year as opposed to the next. IOW, both of them had a motive to verbally discuss this. But, once Boozer was released from the contract, he realized that he was being paid far less than market price. So, he took the Utah offer. He might have screwed the Cavs but there was NO altruism in what the Cavs were doing. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2004, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laffaire-de-boozer/254786/47 "2004-07-17T05:13:53Z")
> [@](#): > > “I like it here,” he said. "My wife and I are very, very happy here, and I want to be with the Cavaliers. Good things are happening. > > “Now, it’s up to my agent and the Cavs to work things out. I hope they will.” That’s standard free-agent cliche stuff. He said he wants and hopes to stay in Cleveland, not that he promises to or won’t listen to other offers- it doesn’t strike me as proof he’s dishonest. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2004, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laffaire-de-boozer/254786/48 "2004-07-17T10:39:39Z")
You want to say that this kind of cheapshot negotiation is acceptable? Fine. Guaranteed the next time a Boozer has a year left with a crappy contract, he won’t have the **option** of getting his big contract locked in. Nobody in that negotiating room had their hands tied, each side had the option to engage in this release/sign or not, depending on what they felt about the deal. Now that option is gone. Next time, the player WILL be locked in to his current deal and if his value should suddenly change for the worse, he can thank Mr. Boozer for poisoning any possibility to pull in the big money through a deal like this. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2004, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laffaire-de-boozer/254786/49 "2004-07-17T14:03:52Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > [Re: The Cavs’ unwillingness to sign Boozer until after the Olympics:] If any statement in this thread requires a cite, it’s this one. Free agent signings were not allowed to begin until July 14th, at which time it was “expected” that Boozer would resign with Cleveland, of course he signed with Utah instead. I tried digging up the cite for you but the Plain Dealer’s search function only goes back 14 days. This issue came up in the day or two after the Cavs declined to exercise their option. I remember it because it struck me what a shabby thing it was for the Cavs to do, to delay signing Boozer until after the Olympics (and thereby to put the risk of injury, or worse, on Boozer). [/quote] I suppose $42 mil isn’t financial security? [/QUOTE] It’s not if you don’t get the contraact until after the Olympics. ---
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2004, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laffaire-de-boozer/254786/50 "2004-07-17T14:56:22Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Next time, the player WILL be locked in to his current deal and if his value should suddenly change for the worse, he can thank Mr. Boozer for poisoning any possibility to pull in the big money through a deal like this. Yeah, but then the players can start acting like Alexi Yashin. Which is not a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2004, 10:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laffaire-de-boozer/254786/51 "2004-07-18T10:45:08Z")
spoke- if the Cavs did try and delay the signing until after the Olympics, then I’m right with you on them being a bunch of creeps who got exactly what they deserved. You want to do a deal like this, everything gets signed on the 14th, not delayed and delayed. Adam, what Yashin thing are you thinking of? I didn’t know anything about him (it being Hockey and all) and only saw a contract dispute where he refused to play the last year of his contract and was then denied free agency, being required to play a full year with the team. Given how it seemed to work out, I don’t think anyone would want to follow in his footseps. ---
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2004, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laffaire-de-boozer/254786/52 "2004-07-18T14:17:38Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Adam, what Yashin thing are you thinking of? I didn’t know anything about him (it being Hockey and all) and only saw a contract dispute where he refused to play the last year of his contract and was then denied free agency, being required to play a full year with the team. Given how it seemed to work out, I don’t think anyone would want to follow in his footseps. Yashin held out and refused to play under his valid contract three times. The Senators caved and re-negotiated the first two times. What you describe is from the third time he welched. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laffaire-de-boozer/254786.md?page=2)