• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Carlos Boozer

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
I became a Cavs fan back in 2008, so I was not 100% sure what had happened with Boozer and just went along with it. Can anyone help me make sense of this article? Like is there merit to what he is saying about the NBA investigating the Cavs if he were to resign?

https://www.wkyc.com/article/sports...liers/95-975cc15f-6a44-48b8-b823-47bcaffa38c8
I didn't read the whole thing, and I'll be honest my memory of all this is a little spotty, but my take from all of it was:. 1. Boozer is a smuck, 2. Jim Paxson is an absolute moron, 3. I can't believe ownership signed off on all this. To me, all sides had egg on their face.

1. Boozer and his agent are schmucks. I guarantee Booz's agent knew he could get a better deal and saw this as an easy route to free agency. I don't think tampering went on though, Pelinka is just a cocky douche and knew a guy like Booz would get one team to bid high.

2. Paxson had proven to be a horrible GM several times prior to this, and somehow topped himself here. He also knew this was illegal, and knew it was risking losing Boozer a year early for nothing. About all I can think is that he figured Booz would walk in a year regardless if he didn't try this, no one was going to bust down the Cavs door for Boozer since that team would have the same issue, and for some reason believed one of the sleeziest agents was worth his word.

3. What was Gund thinking when he thought this was a good idea? I've never figured this one out. Booz's word was pointless, he knew this was trying to skirt the rule and was a huge risk.

At the end of the day, the NBA rules for 2nd rounders are what set up this silliness to begin with. But imo everyone here looked like dirtbags:. Boozer for going back on his word, Pelinka for being two faced, Paxson for thinking he could game the system, and Gund for going along with any of this. I think the Cavs were lucky LBJ didn't demand a trade right then IMO; and he would have been justified.
 
I read that Boozer consulted with LeBron, asking him if he should stay or leave. The reply? "Do what is best for your family."
 
I became a Cavs fan back in 2008, so I was not 100% sure what had happened with Boozer and just went along with it. Can anyone help me make sense of this article? Like is there merit to what he is saying about the NBA investigating the Cavs if he were to resign?

https://www.wkyc.com/article/sports...liers/95-975cc15f-6a44-48b8-b823-47bcaffa38c8
Boozer was a second-round pick of the Cavs in 2002. He signed a standard second-round contract for two years with a team option for the third.

He had two strong years and obviously would have had his option picked up. However, the Cavs wanted to lock him in long-term. So (allegedly; this is one of those things we’ll never know for sure) they agreed with Boozer that they would decline his option, allow him to become a restricted free agent, and sign him to a long-term deal. Under the salary rules then in effect, the most they could offer Boozer was $41 million over six years. Boozer had a strong incentive to go along - his option for 2004-05 was for $750K, so he stood to make a lot more money that season.

So the Cavs declined Boozer’s option …. and Boozer promptly signed with Utah for $68 million.

Why didn’t the Cavs offer him $68 million? Because they couldn’t. A loophole in the salary rules at the time meant other teams with cap room could offer a former second-round pick more money than the current team. This loophole would eventually be closed (Google “Gilbert Arenas provision” if you care), but it was the rule at the time, and it hosed the Cavs.

Did Boozer and the Cavs have a (likely illegal) handshake agreement in place? Who knows for sure. I doubt the Cavs would have ever declined a team-friendly option otherwise. They tried to do something that stood to benefit both Boozer and the team, and they got burned.
 
Boozer was a second-round pick of the Cavs in 2002. He signed a standard second-round contract for two years with a team option for the third.

He had two strong years and obviously would have had his option picked up. However, the Cavs wanted to lock him in long-term. So (allegedly; this is one of those things we’ll never know for sure) they agreed with Boozer that they would decline his option, allow him to become a restricted free agent, and sign him to a long-term deal. Under the salary rules then in effect, the most they could offer Boozer was $41 million over six years. Boozer had a strong incentive to go along - his option for 2004-05 was for $750K, so he stood to make a lot more money that season.

So the Cavs declined Boozer’s option …. and Boozer promptly signed with Utah for $68 million.

Why didn’t the Cavs offer him $68 million? Because they couldn’t. A loophole in the salary rules at the time meant other teams with cap room could offer a former second-round pick more money than the current team. This loophole would eventually be closed (Google “Gilbert Arenas provision” if you care), but it was the rule at the time, and it hosed the Cavs.

Did Boozer and the Cavs have a (likely illegal) handshake agreement in place? Who knows for sure. I doubt the Cavs would have ever declined a team-friendly option otherwise. They tried to do something that stood to benefit both Boozer and the team, and they got burned.

He lied to a blind man.
 
Boozer was a second-round pick of the Cavs in 2002. He signed a standard second-round contract for two years with a team option for the third.

He had two strong years and obviously would have had his option picked up. However, the Cavs wanted to lock him in long-term. So (allegedly; this is one of those things we’ll never know for sure) they agreed with Boozer that they would decline his option, allow him to become a restricted free agent, and sign him to a long-term deal. Under the salary rules then in effect, the most they could offer Boozer was $41 million over six years. Boozer had a strong incentive to go along - his option for 2004-05 was for $750K, so he stood to make a lot more money that season.

So the Cavs declined Boozer’s option …. and Boozer promptly signed with Utah for $68 million.

Why didn’t the Cavs offer him $68 million? Because they couldn’t. A loophole in the salary rules at the time meant other teams with cap room could offer a former second-round pick more money than the current team. This loophole would eventually be closed (Google “Gilbert Arenas provision” if you care), but it was the rule at the time, and it hosed the Cavs.

Did Boozer and the Cavs have a (likely illegal) handshake agreement in place? Who knows for sure. I doubt the Cavs would have ever declined a team-friendly option otherwise. They tried to do something that stood to benefit both Boozer and the team, and they got burned.
Would he be a restricted or unrestricted free agent the next season if they had accepted his option? He would be obligated to play for the $750k and then the Cavs could have offered more because they have his full bird rights. I think?

I can understand trying to pay a player closer to their actual value, but an alleged handshake deal without weighing the risk of restricted free agency... Seems too stupid to be true.
 
Would he be a restricted or unrestricted free agent the next season if they had accepted his option? He would be obligated to play for the $750k and then the Cavs could have offered more because they have his full bird rights. I think?
Nope. Again, there was a loophole in the CBA at that time that limited how much teams could offer to their own pending free agents who were second-round picks coming off their rookie contracts. Other teams with available cap room could offer more money.

This loophole was most famously exploited by the Wizards when they signed Gilbert Arenas away from Golden State. They offered Arenas more money than GS could, and there wasn’t a damn thing GS could do about it. The loophole was closed in the next CBA.

That’s probably why the Cavs offered to waive Boozer’s option year and re-sign him to a big deal. The Cavs would have gotten something (avoiding that loophole and locking up a key young player long term) and Boozer would have gotten something (a roughly $6 million raise for 2004-05).

But then, as @The Human Q-Tip observed, Boozer lied to a blind man.
 
This is also worth noting:
The Utah Jazz forward is known to the 1.3 billion people in China as "Fan Gu Zai," which, loosely translated, means "Betrayal Skull Dude."
 
Did the Cavs have the option to match his offer sheet? His Wikipedia page seems to imply they could have, although my recollection is they couldn't. And why does he lie about the promise he made the Cavs, they never would have made him a free agent otherwise. Does he think a single person on the planet believes him? Carlos Loozer, what a loser.

It does seem they were screwed regardless, as he would have been able to do the same thing after the next season.
 
Did the Cavs have the option to match his offer sheet? His Wikipedia page seems to imply they could have, although my recollection is they couldn't. And why does he lie about the promise he made the Cavs, they never would have made him a free agent otherwise. Does he think a single person on the planet believes him? Carlos Loozer, what a loser.

It does seem they were screwed regardless, as he would have been able to do the same thing after the next season.
Pretty much a poison pill contract
 
Let's be fair and say that it was a cheap move by Gund. He thought if he could give him a 40M dollar contract it would save him a lot of money.

I believe there may have been tampering or whatever it is called when you try to circumvent the cap in this way.
 
Did the Cavs have the option to match his offer sheet? His Wikipedia page seems to imply they could have, although my recollection is they couldn't. And why does he lie about the promise he made the Cavs, they never would have made him a free agent otherwise. Does he think a single person on the planet believes him? Carlos Loozer, what a loser.

It does seem they were screwed regardless, as he would have been able to do the same thing after the next season.
The Cavs could match but couldn't freely go over the cap to do so like teams can today.

IIRC matching on Boozer would have meant waiving Zydrunas and then some others.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-11: "Clipping Bucks"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11 "Clipping Bucks"
Top