Boozer Bird rights?

[imahustla]

I realize that this really doesn't deserve a separate thread but I saw no where to put it.
But, please stop saying that Boozer was going to be a RFA or that they gave up his Bird rights. These comments just are not true. Boozer was a 2nd round pick and therefore had no Bird rights. The Cavs only could pay him according to the amount of cap room that they had (or the MLE). That was all. They tried to pay him as much as they could, but Utah offered him more than double that amount.

BTW, this happened twice first with GSW and Arenas then with the Cavs and Boozer. After that, the NBA changed the rule to make it easier for teams to resign their 2nd rounders.

You are a fool. Please learn the facts before so arrogantly rattling off crap as if it's true when it's not.

The Cavs had a team option...a TEAM OPTION...on Boozer for 2004-05. As a second round pick, it was peanuts for a 22-year old PF who was coming off a 15 and 11 season in his second year. Top 5 in both rebounds and FG percentage in the league. Bird Rights come into play (at least under the old rules) after a player's THIRD year. Pick up the option, ride it out, and boom. We have Boozer's Bird Rights.

Of course he somehow convinced the Cavs that he deserved more and that they owed it to him to let him out of his contract and give him what he "deserved." The Cavs didn't have to, especially since they didn't have Bird Rights. A firm management team would have said "tough s***" to Boozer and picked up the option. At the worst, if he cries, then trade him. The value for him was off the charts. Or what would have happened in all likelihood is that Boozer mans up, plays out his contract with more furor, and we then have his Bird Rights and are in the driver's seat regarding his free agency.

This entire ordeal really killed us from creating an OKC-type team for LeBron. That and recklessly trading draft picks for Jiri Welsch. Those two moves hampered our franchise so much and LeBron deserved better than the sh*t show he was stuck with in Eric Snow, Donyell Marshall, and Damon Jones.

[Harper4Ferry?]

The other thing was that his cap hold that following offseason would have been about 3m dollars, so we could have still signed Larry Hughes, Z, Donyell Marshall and Damon Jones in Free agency and retained him.

[TheOUTLAW]

I still disagree that the Cavs had many option with Boozer. No doubt they could have kept him one more year, but after that he was good as gone. Cavs didn't have cap space until the summer before 2005-2006 not 2004-2005 so all they had was the MLE. They could not go over the cap to sign Boozer, that is the only reason they tried to get him to sign the previous year. Had they used their option, they wouldn't have been able to trade him.

[AnaheimRoyale]

someone above already noted this:

Bird Rights come into play (at least under the old rules) after a player's THIRD year. Pick up the option, ride it out, and boom. We have Boozer's Bird Rights.

[TheOUTLAW]

However at the time you still couldn't go over the cap to resign a second round pick.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1836318

Boozer, recently named to the U.S. Olympic team, could have been Cleveland's next season for $695,000, but the Cavaliers did not pick up their option after, the club said, Boozer had committed to re-signing for the team's full mid-level exception -- somewhere around six years and $40 million.

Now Cleveland almost certainly cannot retain Boozer. While the Cavs have the right to match the Utah offer, they are only about $4 million under the current cap and would have to trade and/or renounce the rights to a number of players to clear enough room to sign Boozer.

[Harper4Ferry?]

Pick up the third year option, you have bird rights. How many more times are you going to be wrong in this thread?

However at the time you still couldn't go over the cap to resign a second round pick.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1836318

Boozer, recently named to the U.S. Olympic team, could have been Cleveland's next season for $695,000, but the Cavaliers did not pick up their option after, the club said, Boozer had committed to re-signing for the team's full mid-level exception -- somewhere around six years and $40 million.

Now Cleveland almost certainly cannot retain Boozer. While the Cavs have the right to match the Utah offer, they are only about $4 million under the current cap and would have to trade and/or renounce the rights to a number of players to clear enough room to sign Boozer.

[TheOUTLAW]

No matter how often I'm wrong, I'm still right about one huge point. Even if the Cavs had kept picked up Boozers option, they would not have been able to sign him after that unless they traded away some guys for cap space. They had the right to resign him, but the bird exemption didn't allow them to go over the cap for him since he was a second round pick. That was the only reason the Cavs tried to circumvent the rules, they knew that Boozer would be offered more than they could have signed him for. I don't know why you guys don't remember or understand this. Like I said, the Arenas rule was added to help teams resign their second round picks since previous to that (like Boozer) they'd have to sign them utilizing only the amount they had available under the cap.

The "Gilbert Arenas Rule" was later created to allow teams like the Warriors the ability to re-sign restricted free agents.

Oh well, I give, all I can guess is that I'm not explaining this correctly. But no matter what, the Cavs would only have had Boozer one more year and they couldn't have traded him.

However, if the Cavs could have signed Boozer under those existing rules they wouldn't have had any incentive to acquiesce to Boozers requests

[AnaheimRoyale]

The Arenas rule was created because Arenas had been on the Warriors for only 2 years... and thus they didn't have his Bird rights, and lost him. If the Warriors could have kept Arenas a 3rd year, there would have been no problem. The problem was they signed him to a 2 year contract, and were over the cap.

[Harper4Ferry?]

No matter how often I'm wrong, I'm still right about one huge point. Even if the Cavs had kept picked up Boozers option, they would not have been able to sign him after that unless they traded away some guys for cap space. They had the right to resign him, but the bird exemption didn't allow them to go over the cap for him since he was a second round pick. That was the only reason the Cavs tried to circumvent the rules, they knew that Boozer would be offered more than they could have signed him for. I don't know why you guys don't remember or understand this. Like I said, the Arenas rule was added to help teams resign their second round picks since previous to that (like Boozer) they'd have to sign them utilizing only the amount they had available under the cap.

The "Gilbert Arenas Rule" was later created to allow teams like the Warriors the ability to re-sign restricted free agents.

Oh well, I give, all I can guess is that I'm not explaining this correctly. But no matter what, the Cavs would only have had Boozer one more year and they couldn't have traded him.

However, if the Cavs could have signed Boozer under those existing rules they wouldn't have had any incentive to acquiesce to Boozers requests

Nope, you're still wrong about this point. 3 years with the same team=bird rights.

[thetrapman]

No matter how often I'm wrong, I'm still right about one huge point. Even if the Cavs had kept picked up Boozers option, they would not have been able to sign him after that unless they traded away some guys for cap space. They had the right to resign him, but the bird exemption didn't allow them to go over the cap for him since he was a second round pick. That was the only reason the Cavs tried to circumvent the rules, they knew that Boozer would be offered more than they could have signed him for. I don't know why you guys don't remember or understand this. Like I said, the Arenas rule was added to help teams resign their second round picks since previous to that (like Boozer) they'd have to sign them utilizing only the amount they had available under the cap.

The "Gilbert Arenas Rule" was later created to allow teams like the Warriors the ability to re-sign restricted free agents.

Oh well, I give, all I can guess is that I'm not explaining this correctly. But no matter what, the Cavs would only have had Boozer one more year and they couldn't have traded him.

However, if the Cavs could have signed Boozer under those existing rules they wouldn't have had any incentive to acquiesce to Boozers requests

Nope, you're still wrong about this point. 3 years with the same team=bird rights.

Then why didn't we do it? You think the owner who was on verge of selling the team was really looking for a deal to pay couple million a year less for all star player who alone makes his team much more valuable?

That makes no sense, although I don't see why we didn't aggressively try to create cap space to match the RFA though, perhaps the previous ownership was really that clueless...

[AnaheimRoyale]

The ownership thought they had a secret deal with Boozer. He would get paid a year sooner (security) and in exchange Boozer would take much less money. Except Boozer, whatever he said, had no intention of agreeing, and "understandings" aren't enforceable (that's why the Joe Smith incident caused the Wolves trouble, because they had an enforceable written contract). If Boozer said "I never promised nuthin", the Cavs were boned, which he did, which is another reason Paxson is perhaps the worst GM of all time.

[thetrapman]

I understand that.

But like I said, why would the owner take that chance, on the team he's about to sell within a year anyway?

[AnaheimRoyale]

It's like the owner was literally blind to Paxson's folly...

[vct33]

I understand that.

But like I said, why would the owner take that chance, on the team he's about to sell within a year anyway?

Like I said earlier. The Cavs screwed the pooch. It really is as simple as that. They stupidly assumed that Boozer would be honorable and re-sign with them if they didn't exercise the option.

Had they exercised the option, he would have been an RFA the following offseason AND they would have had his Bird rights AND they could match any offer he received.

Stupid is as stupid does.

[gflem]

At that point in time, outside of Utah I dontthink any team was willing to offer him a max type of contract. Remember that season, Lecon was out for a ew games and Boozer put up 30/20 against Utah, and in the following game but I'm not sure who they played. I still believe that game was the reason Utah offered that huge contract. At that point Boozer was still more of a role player than a headliner, though he was in the begining stages of really making a name for himself.