Boozer Bird rights?

[TheOUTLAW]

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.

[Harper4Ferry?]

We actually refused a team option in order to cut a shady deal. He wasn't even going to become a free agent. Gund was so freaking stupid. We should have been fined draft picks.

[mcfly1204]

Who?

[BossHoggin]

Can we get a Amare-Hickson thread too?

Clear up these myths

[TheOUTLAW]

We actually refused a team option in order to cut a shady deal. He wasn't even going to become a free agent. Gund was so freaking stupid. We should have been fined draft picks.

Deal wasn't shady at all. Boozer and his wife actually went in and begged to be released early. Now, I do think that releasing him early was a bad business move, but they thought that the good will that they got from doing it would generate a hometeam deal on the back end. Nobody knew that Utah would offer that much.

[shazam]

If they begged to be released for contract early and avoid the team option then why would the Cavs do that? Unless they thought they had a deal in place, so it was shady on Boozer's part and stupid on the Cavs part for trusting a player. If the Cavs knew they would have to compete with other teams,who of which had more money under the cap and knew Boozer may sign for more money, they would have never granted his release early and they would have did a sign trade or just traded Boozer at that point. So I defiantely disagree with there was no shady part to this especially on Boozers part.

[KuruptedCav]

It was shady on both ends. The cavs were lucky the Nba didn't Minnesota them. Boozer and the Cavs had a deal in place in violation of the Cba, the cavs were stupid and Boozer was deceptive. I don't care these days, but rewriting to create innocent parties is absurd.

[TheOUTLAW]

Having a deal in place and believing that you have an understanding really are 2 different things. I do agree however that they were lucky not to have been penalized for this (although, comparisons to Minnesota are completely unfounded). That however is not the point of the thread. Fact is the Cavs never had Bird Rights for Boozer and there was no way for them to keep him. No matter how you slice it he'd have left the following year since the Cavs could not have paid him anywhere close to what Utah did.

[Harper4Ferry?]

hold on...if we picked up the team option for year 3 we would have had bird rights and he would have been a restricted free agent.

We could have paid him anything that next summer.

I guess to rehash an old story, he had borrowed a bunch of money thinking that he was going to go in the first round, and when that didn't happen, he was finally screwed. Or something to that effect.

[gflem]

[b]hold on...if we picked up the team option for year 3 we would have had bird rights and he would have been a restricted free agent.[/b]

We could have paid him anything that next summer.

I guess to rehash an old story, he had borrowed a bunch of money thinking that he was going to go in the first round, and when that didn't happen, he was finally screwed. Or something to that effect.

Outlaw, I believe this is correct, and was what I was talking about in the other thread. They were trying to cash in a year early, and the Cavs thinking that he wouldnt consider any other team thought that they could save themselves some money by letting him out of his contract and then signing him longer term for a little less than what he would get on the open market.
It may not have been "Bird Rights" per say, but he would have been a RFA and the team would have been able to match any offer he had gotten.

[TheOUTLAW]

It is not correct, the rule was changed after Arenas and Boozer. At the time, the only way to pay a 2nd round pick over the MLE was to have cap space. The rule has changed since then.

[fart]

I don't think anyone really cares about any of this.

[TheOUTLAW]

You may not, but people bring it up often enough that I think the information should be accurate. But by all means, if it's not of interest to you, don't comment on it and the thread will die as it should.

[BossHoggin]

I don't think anyone really cares about any of this.

so you only care about making Dwight to Cleveland threads and looking like a fool?

[fart]

I don't think anyone really cares about any of this.

so you only care about making Dwight to Cleveland threads and looking like a fool?

A dwight to cleveland thread might be foolish, but it is much more entertaining then a thread about a slightly above average player that left the Cavs Years ago and has no relevance anymore.

Does that answer your question bud?

[Harper4Ferry?]

It is not correct, the rule was changed after Arenas and Boozer. At the time, the only way to pay a 2nd round pick over the MLE was to have cap space. The rule has changed since then.

If we don't decline the 3rd year option, he completes 3 years with us and we have bird rights on him following his third season. We didn't have bird rights after his 2nd season and we were over the cap so we couldn't match the Utah offer.

[mup]

Outlaw, sorry, you are incorrect here. If we had picked up the option, we would have had Bird rights on Boozer after the following season. The rule, even at the time, had nothing to do with where the guy was drafted. All that mattered was service time. If a player had played three years without getting waived, etc., then there were Bird rights.

The problem with Arenas was not that he was a second round pick. It was that GS foolishly had only signed him to a 2-year contract. So, when his two years were up, he did not have the requisite service time for GS to have acquired his Bird rights. Same thing with Boozer. It was a service time issue.

The change in the rule was that, after Arenas and Boozer, such two-year rookies (whether drafted in the 2d round or undrafted) could only be signed to a contract starting with the MLE. That gave dumb teams like GS and Cleveland a fighting chance.

Also, Arenas and Boozer were, in fact, both Restricted Free Agents. But RFA status without Bird rights is worthless unless the original team has actual cap space to match. So, it didn't matter that Boozer was an RFA because the Cavs could not match what the Jazz offered. But, if you recall, there most certainly was an offer sheet period where there was rampant speculation over whether the Cavs could/would clear space to match. For instance, there was a lot of discussion during the offer period over whether the Cavs could trade Z for a draft pick, etc. Gund then released his famous letter announcing the Cavs would not/could not match and Boozer became a member of the Jazz a few days later.

So, yes, he was a RFA. That's also why the post-Arenas/Boozer change was significant--- a team could then match the MLE and, hence, keep the player.

[TheOUTLAW]

The Cavs could not match Boozer because they didn't have the cap space which was the only way for them to. But you are right, Cavs did have the right to match provided they had the cap space.

http://www.nba.com/cavaliers/news/gund_ ... 40714.html

[vct33]

This is an awfully long discussion for a topic that can be summed up in one sentence:

The Cavs screwed the pooch, BIG TIME!

[AnaheimRoyale]

Just one more anti-genius blunder on the resume of Paxson, worst GM of all time.