RealGM

He's an ultimate Mfer seriously. Let me explain...

The Cavs tried to get Boozer to play on the cheap for a yr with a wink promise to take care of him when he hit the market Monta Ellis style, following yr. They wanted Booz to agree if they picked up his option on the 3rd yr to give him Bird's rights then they could Max him out the following season. Paxson and Gund tried to seriously talk him into a lowball proposal with a ton of risk on Boozer's end if he were to agree to such an illegal proposal. Like what if he got injured that season, maybe the Cavs look to sign him still but at what figures? What if he sucked statistically that yr? What if the Cavs decided not involve him into their scheme as much as the previous yr to play for the worth of a new deal? I believe Boozer was only going to make around 600,000k that season if they would have picked up his option. The Cavs knew Boozer was a stud and that if he decided to test the waters by them not picking up his option, there was a major risk he'd walk and they didn't have enough cap space to beat a deal better than the MLE really. I mean why propose such a preposterous deal, which shouldn't have been presented in the first place. Well Booz agreed to this wack proposal initially according to rumors but he probably didn't expect to be hit with a near Max offer for a player of his caliber at the time by Utah. Once his agent picked up on his clients interests he told the Cavs to not pick up his option and he'd want to sign for 3yr deal near MLE money with them because he wanted financial security now. So the Cavs being the conniving idiots they were obliged and let him become a FA. They got beat at their own game and they picked up in this. Booz then entertains offer from Utah. The Cavs had very minimal cap space at the time, I think it was like $6-7mil to sign a Free Agent. They couldn't offer Booz anymore than this because he was only a 2yr player Early Veteran FA under CBA terminology. Booz went back to them and showed them Utah's offer. Now the Cavs had a couple choices at this point, they could have renounced 1 or 2 more players to get even lower beneath the cap, which would have weakened their roster but so what if they were willing to Max him out the following season why not pony up and sign him to a deal that wasn't quite Max from Utah. IMO they would have saved themselves money in the long run. They could have signed him to a 1 yr deal with their available cap space and hope he accepts and then do the wink deal the following yr. You could at least reason why Boozer wanted and did high tail it out of there. Sorry to this very day I don't feel sorry for what happened to the Cavs. They tried to steal Boozer's services so to speak by paying him his 600,000k slated salary which they knew was was below his market value regardless of the TO with a promise to take care of him the following yr. They could then use their available cap space to sign a FA(s). They tried to be greedy just like the athletes are. Sorry his situation IMO is not even remotely close to the Fukkery/Dickery Elton just pulled.

It was widely known well before now Elton would give the Sixers a legit shot to obtain his services. He did a radio interview on a New York station a week or two before the draft took place about his possible pending Free Agency. If he seriously thought Philly was going to a be a legit option why not tell the Clips what his intentions were when he opts out to at least give the Clippers a chance to plan for all options? Why tell them you plan on opting out so they can improve the team by going after another possible big time FA in order to retain you? At least show some gratitude and tell the Clips S&T option would be welcomed if it came to it, where it helps both parties. So the Clips don't walk away without any compensation? If he would have informed them and been a true pro about the situation he could have allowed the Clips to swing a S&T deal with Philly. The Clips could have been the team to receive Carney and pick and that's all that would be necessary because both team are under the cap and salaries wouldn't have to match. But instead he opts out, let's the Clips pursue Baron immediately, then let's the Warriors set his market value, then B-lines to Philly allowing them to come very close to the market value, while giving time to Philly, letting them get far enough under by working a S&T with Minny instead of going back to the Clips or even allowing them to work this angle from the very beginning. The Clippers could have given Elton a 6yr deal in a S&T to Philly. Make no mistake about it, Elton for Carney and a 2009 first round conditional draft pick is not an equal trade on paper but compensation nonetheless.

Come on EB if you seriously were considering walking away why not be up front and let the Clips prepare and try and get some reasonable compensation when you do so?

I'm sure this could have been done.

EB=Dickery/Fukkery!

Actually the TE would be included in a team's cap space if they are far enough under by that amount or more.

Still EB could have allowed some S&T dialogue.

Yeah, I think there's some fishy business between Brand and Falk on going to Philly well before he decided to opt out.

Wow you guys' got screwed. No maggette, No Elton. I really thought that Baron Davis took the paycut to go to LA so Brand could resign.

That was one of the best explanations about the boozer/brand duality. It beats the hell out of that bull the media says about how noone was happy where they were and try to make the teams out to be the victims and ****. Put the sole responsibility on the free agents that leave after giving their word, and also puts the truth about how the players are actually treated. I agree 100% man.

Elton Boozer is a 'Judas' just like his twin Carlos.

I thought that the Cavs had a team option on Boozer that they didn't pick up so that they could pay him more.

yeah, boozer didn't have an option, the team did. they could have kept him for other yr at his low salary if they wanted to.

dcash4 wrote:yeah, boozer didn't have an option, the team did. they could have kept him for other yr at his low salary if they wanted to.

Absolutely.

This is what people are forgetting: It was the CAVS who had the option of exercising Boozer's 3rd year, not Boozer himself.

If the Cavs were smart, all they would have done was pick up Boozer's option. End of story. They get him a 3rd year for cheap, then they get full Bird rights along with the rights to match all offers. Simple and easy.

It was the Cavs who tried to outsmart themselves and they wound up getting screwed. They got conned by Boozer into an agreement they'd let him out of his 3rd year and have him take a full MLE deal, full well knowing they'd be able to lock in on a good young PF for well below market price. Of course Boozer screwed them by taking a huge offer from the Jazz that paid TWICE as much.

In this case, Elton Brand talked a lot about staying, trying to do great things for the Clips and opting out in hopes to give the Clips more flexibility to bring in other FAs.

Now Brand ultimately went against his word, but understand this: Unlike Boozer, this was Brand's player option. Whether it was to lure in other FAs or not, Elton Brand could have chosen to opt out for no reason at all in order to sign with another team for any reason he wanted to. It was his player option and he had the right to do whatever the hell he wanted.

dc wrote:

dcash4 wrote:yeah, boozer didn't have an option, the team did. they could have kept him for other yr at his low salary if they wanted to.

Absolutely.

This is what people are forgetting: It was the CAVS who had the option of exercising Boozer's 3rd year, not Boozer himself.

If the Cavs were smart, all they would have done was pick up Boozer's option. End of story. They get him a 3rd year for cheap, then they get full Bird rights along with the rights to match all offers. Simple and easy.

It was the Cavs who tried to outsmart themselves and they wound up getting screwed. They got conned by Boozer into an agreement they'd let him out of his 3rd year and have him take a full MLE deal, full well knowing they'd be able to lock in on a good young PF for well below market price. Of course Boozer screwed them by taking a huge offer from the Jazz that paid TWICE as much.

In this case, Elton Brand talked a lot about staying, trying to do great things for the Clips and opting out in hopes to give the Clips more flexibility to bring in other FAs.

Now Brand ultimately went against his word, but understand this: Unlike Boozer, this was Brand's player option. Whether it was to lure in other FAs or not, Elton Brand could have chosen to opt out for no reason at all in order to sign with another team for any reason he wanted to. It was his player option and he had the right to do whatever the hell he wanted.

Not true. Boozer promised the Cavs that if they didn't pick up that option, he would sign long term with the Cavs. That back-stabbing devil...

Anyways, Boozer can score, but IMO he is not better than Brand. Too soft.

Did the Clippers offer Brand the same contract as the Sixers? Don't they have his Bird rights?

Obviously, the fans generally don't know all of the details of these types of deals, but if the Clippers offered him an equal/better deal than the Sixers then the fans can be disappointed in EB. If the Clippers held true to their historical form and under shot the contract, then EB really can't be blamed for anything other than stating he wanted to give them flexibility and intended to return.

The deal is shocking to me.

Hey at least you got Baron on the cheap.

The Cavs tried to work a fast one and get Boozer long term locked a year early. They under estimated the market for him. I believe Utah offered 28M more over the life of the contract than what Cleveland offered (after letting him out of the option). Boozer had also been told by Silas that he'd never be even the #2 option and that he saw him as an energy/rebounding guy. He did betray their trust by accepting the better offer because they didn't have to let him out a year early. They could have kept him at low dollar and lost him the following year.

By contrast, Brand was top dog here and the money difference wasn't that great. Any slight he experienced was imaginary and just an excuse. Brand didn't have any contractual obligations that had to be waived by the team to gain his freedom. He was free to leave by rule. The big problem is the public stance that he was opting out a year earlybecause he wanted the team to show they were dedicated to improving. They did exactly that and he left anyway. That's the trust he betrayed.

LeBron+CavsFan wrote:Not true. Boozer promised the Cavs that if they didn't pick up that option, he would sign long term with the Cavs. That back-stabbing devil...

Anyways, Boozer can score, but IMO he is not better than Brand. Too soft.

So you are accusing the Cavaliers management of collusion with Carlos Boozer? Perhaps there was a wink-deal there, but lets face it... Would you rather get the slapping the Wolves got for their wink deal with Joe Smith or just let the team be smart about their players? Really, no draft picks for a couple of seasons, and that player can't resign with you anyway. Also, who on this Earth would take 4-5Mil for 1 season when someone drops a 68 mil 6 year front loaded deal in your lap? You would be a complete moron not to.

dcash4 wrote:yeah, boozer didn't have an option, the team did. they could have kept him for other yr at his low salary if they wanted to.

Boozer asked them to not exercise the option, saying that he would be grateful & return the favor by signing a contract with the team. When the Cavs did him the favor, Boozer immediately signed with the Jazz. Cleve were unable to match due to lack of cap room. (That has been changed with new CBA. It's called the Gilbert Arenas Rule , but it could have just as easily been named after Boozer.)

I'm not a Clips fan, but I can join in on your hate of Brand. IMO, this has nothing to do with your front office for once. From the articles I've read, and the people I've talked to, Brand and the Clips had a "wink" deal set before he opted out. He would opt out with a deal worth 70 mil already for him from the Clips, and Brand agreed to that. He only opted out to get a big time free agent to sign (Baron). Now the Clips gave up on Maggette because they thought they knew they had Brand and Davis signed for the long term at big bucks.

So, IMO, the front office refusing not to up a 70 mil offer (according to sources) is not their fault. If you offered someone 100 dollars for their tv, they accepted it, but turned right around and got a 200 dollar offer from someone else, you would be reluctant to up your deal because you thought you had a deal. This is a tremendous dick move by Brand, and I will never like him as a player again.

dc wrote:

dcash4 wrote:yeah, boozer didn't have an option, the team did. they could have kept him for other yr at his low salary if they wanted to.

Absolutely.

This is what people are forgetting: It was the CAVS who had the option of exercising Boozer's 3rd year, not Boozer himself.

If the Cavs were smart, all they would have done was pick up Boozer's option. End of story. They get him a 3rd year for cheap, then they get full Bird rights along with the rights to match all offers. Simple and easy.

It was the Cavs who tried to outsmart themselves and they wound up getting screwed. They got conned by Boozer into an agreement they'd let him out of his 3rd year and have him take a full MLE deal, full well knowing they'd be able to lock in on a good young PF for well below market price. Of course Boozer screwed them by taking a huge offer from the Jazz that paid TWICE as much.

In this case, Elton Brand talked a lot about staying, trying to do great things for the Clips and opting out in hopes to give the Clips more flexibility to bring in other FAs.

Now Brand ultimately went against his word, but understand this: Unlike Boozer, this was Brand's player option. Whether it was to lure in other FAs or not, Elton Brand could have chosen to opt out for no reason at all in order to sign with another team for any reason he wanted to. It was his player option and he had the right to do whatever the hell he wanted.

I'm going to edit original post because this correct and I'll add later in this thread.

Jazz fan here.

The two situations are completely different.

Cavs did not pick up their dirt cheap option on Boozer and he became an unrestricted free agent. It was suggested and probably true that the Cavs and Boozer had an "understanding" that Boozer would sign a 5yr deal starting at the full MLE. The first problem for the Cavs was their "understanding" with Boozer was illegal under the CBA and completely unenforceable. The second problem for the Cavs was that their offered Boozer waaaay to little $$$ so the Jazz swooped in with an offer almost twice the amount that the Cavs were offering. The third problem for the Cavs was that they didn't have cap room enough to match the Jazz, or even increase their original offer. This was Boozer's first major NBA contract and with a 100% or $30m difference in value, of course Boozer took Jazz' offer and of course the Cavs got screwed - but the Cavs got screwed primarily by their own stupidity thinking they could sign Boozer to half his market value.

Brand did something very different than Boozer. The Clips has paid him handsomely over the years, he said he would take less to play for a competitive team, and asked specifically that the Clips would recruit talent. So the Clips did by releasing Maggette and signing BD and offered a large but not biggest possible contract to him. BD signs with the Clips because he can play with Brand. What does Brand do - he turn his back on the organization and screws BD to take $12m or 15% more to go somewhere else. The Clips is already offering him $70m and he was coming off an $82m contract!!!

So Brand got the Clips to lose Maggette, lure away BD (who has now cancelled his press conference and who knows might back away from the Clips), and walk away himself without the Clips getting anything in return. If this happens, instead of the Clips becoming a powerhouse, the Clips will be destroyed.

Brand's situation is very different from Boozer.

Boozer beat the Cavs at playing the Crook game.

Elton flat out Crooked the Clips who weren't trying to play a Crook game. I mean the Clips were even considering extending him at one point during the season.

Then to find out he left over $1mil LOL! He's one of the worst athletes in professional sports and he represents everything that's wrong with today's society.

All he had to do was tell the Clips what his intentions potentially could be so they could better plan for FA. There's nothing wrong with him wanting leave but don't tell them something and cause them to make moves under the assumption he would be with the team. If he would have stated otherwise maybe they target different FA. Not to mention this **** played around with Baron's money and options. If I were Baron I would have the Philly games marked on my calendar.

Elton is right there with Kobe as far as I'm concerned, ultimate Scumbags. It doesn't get any worse than these two. He makes Boozer look like a Choir Boy.

BTW the original post in this thread was edited to reflect more an accurate account.

I brought this up in another thread, but somebody needs to put together an ad like the ones they were running during the playoffs with the players' faces side by side.....do one with Boozer/Brand.