<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">One year after it happened, the fallout from Boozer-gate is unmistakable. In Cleveland, Carlos Boozer's controversial decision to leave the Cavaliers and sign a six-year, $68 million deal with Utah shook the local NBA franchise to its core. In Salt Lake City, Boozer's arrival gave the Jazz a potential All-Star at power forward - but one who missed 31 games because of injury last season and angered owner Larry Miller along the way with some inconsistent play. Around the NBA, there have also been ramifications because of a wink-wink deal the Cavs apparently made with Boozer that was intended to keep him in Cleveland. Instead, it exploded in the Cavaliers' face. "It's definitely changed the way things work," said one Eastern Conference executive. "Nobody will ever do a handshake [agreement] like that again. Never, ever. No way. An owner will never allow it to happen. There's too much at stake - too much to lose." Like your job. Since Boozer's decision to leave Cleveland 12 months ago, the Cavaliers have been sold and general manager Jim Paxson, director of player personnel Mike Bratz and coach Paul Silas have been fired. Former owner Gordon Gund bought the Cavaliers in 1984, in partnership with his brother, for $20 million. Last winter, Gund sold the franchise to real estate and mortgage tycoon Dan Gilbert for $375 million, citing disillusionment as one reason he got out. "It's been a wonderful ride," Gund said at the time. "[But] I've been getting pretty burned out by the game. When Boozer walked out the door, it really hit me that this is just a business. I started asking around shortly afterward to see how much I could get for the team." In Utah, the Jazz remain comfortable with their part in the Boozer controversy and their decision to make him a cornerstone of the franchise. "From our perspective, it's just business as usual," said director of basketball operations Kevin O'Connor. Are the 26-win Jazz worried that Boozer's injury-shortened season failed to meet expectations? "Not at all," O'Connor said. "For one thing, he's 23 years old. It was his first year - especially after Andrei [Kirilenko] went down - of being a go-to guy. "We know there's a certain frustration level out there. People expected this and that. But they have to remember: It was only the guy's third year in the league." After Boozer-gate, no one blamed the Jazz for exploring every option while attempting to improve their Karl Malone-less team. In fact, O'Connor was unanimously credited with doing a good job. "He acted ethically and in good faith," one league executive said. The Cavaliers, on the other hand, broke a couple of NBA rules by talking to Boozer and agent Rob Pelinka - both of whom failed to return phone calls to be interviewed for this story - about a contract before the league-mandated deadline of July 1. The Cavs' belief they had entered into a handshake agreement with Boozer about a long-term contract was another no-no. That's one irony of the entire situation. "Maybe they broke a deal" that was in place with the Cavaliers, another league official said. "But they broke an illegal deal." </div> Source
I was hoping this wouldn't see the light of day but it looks like people just won't leave it alone. So here is my take. It's a subject better left dead. There's nothing to be gained by continuing to resurrect and rehash the same old tiresome story. Let the Cavaliers fans do it. How can any of it be of interest to a Jazz fan. I went so far as to e-mail Steve Luhm the Trib reporter who authored the column and here's what he answered. Larry: The gist of the story is that Boozer did nothing wrong. The Cavs broke the rules, tried to low-ball him and ended up paying the price. I got several people to say the same thing. I also include Kevin O'Connor's defense of Boozer for a somewhat inconsistent season. Regarding the Carlos Loozer reference, it was made to show that the Cavs won't forget this for a long, long time. Bottom-line: This was not a negative story that ripped Boozer for the sake of ripping Boozer. It showed what happened to boh teams in the year since it happened, and the fact that other teams might not be so quick to make the same mistake. SLuhm He says his intertions were good. I have my doubts. Controversy sells copy and this will again stir the whole pot...........I'm glad Boozer and Pelinka didn't respond to his request for an interview. They stood nothing to gain. Must be a slow day at the Tribune. This is beating a dead horse.............Let it die!!!!! Tank
Boozer did do something wrong i feel...and i'm not a Cavs fan so its not bias. Sure the deal was illegal, but the kid new what he was doing. He KNEW when he asked not to be extended so he could resign with the Cavs for long term that the most the Cavs could offer was 5-6 mill a season. He knew that! I dont think he knew for sure he'd get a much much much better offer, but i'm sure one would have to at least consider it a possiblity in this crazy NBA where scrubs sign 5 year contracts. I think the Cavs were silly, Boozer was selfish and his word isnt worth much. But end of the day its a small matter and Cleveland is probably in a better situation now than they would of been had they signed Boozer.
I always wanted to know a player getting injured in their first season with a new team , made them a bust. Boozer proved himself throughout his college career and his year wth the cavaliers. through all the bull analysts said about the cavaliers drafting him , he banged opponents. He will eventually show he is worth dem millions ( damn that is a lot of money).
The signing of Carlos Boozer happened about a year ago now, but it's still been written about. Even though there has been plenty written about it in the past. This gives an indication that there isn't much to report about the Jazz regarding Free Agency right now, despite Kevin O'Connor saying he wanted to add a veteran Point Guard, that he still hasn't added.
I sent Steve another e-mail thanking him for his reply and politely suggested he was beating a dead horse. Here's his answer!! Larry: Re: Beating a dead horse....I only do what they tell me to do. Thanks for the reasonable and sound e-mail. You'd be surprised at some of them that I get.. SLuhm Must have been a slow day. It's common knowledge the Media thrives on sensationalism and controversy. It would appear like he didn't want to write this article, his editors just felt the need to open up old wounds. I SAY AGAIN.............IT'S BETTER LEFT DEAD!!!!! Tank
