He will never, ever be Michael Beasely. Please don't talk like that, it scares me I'll just go back to my earlier post. Having the right to do something doesn't make it a good idea to do it. Why is it a good idea to press forward and exercise this right?
Because unresolved issues are a two way street. Better to clear the air now. If Boozer has the capability to step outside himself for a second he shouldn't have much of an issue with the Bulls doing a little bit of understandable fact-checking. I think some fans have this built up in their heads like Jerry Reinsdorf is going to kidnap potential witnesses and perform no Novocaine root canals under bare light bulbs a la Laurence Olivier in Marathon Man. I think the Bulls are entitled to ask some questions and in the interest of maintaining a good relationship SHOULD ask any questions on their mind -- as opposed to the suggestion that they should bury their concerns and pretend they don't exist rather than risk the potential of imposing on Carlos Boozer's karma and have questions lingering under the surface. The fact this went public is the only complicating issue and shame on whoever is responsible for that happening both from the source side and from the reporting side. There are adults on both sides of this incident that could deal with questions like adults. It is the introduction of the press and public scrutiny that amplifies and magnifies that process that turns the situation sour and awkward.
I don't really follow this. It could very easily be re-worded as "Because unresolved issues are a two way street. Better to clear the air now. If the Bulls had the capability to step outside themselves for a second they shouldn't have much of an issue with the explanation they've been given". Which fans? Could you be specific as to who you think believes this? I think this is much more on the mark. The reality is the Bulls seem to have lingering concerns. That being said, I still don't see how this is a situation where asking questions resolves those concerns and promotes a good relationship. If Boozer is caught lying, the relationship suffers from the revelation he was lying. If Boozer is telling the truth (about something that happened in his own private residence), whatever follow up the Bulls could possibly get is going to depend on his telling the truth. Which the Bulls already question... so how is asking again gonna put their minds to rest?
I probably neglected the most obvious point about this which is that this sort of investigation is more trouble than it could possibly worth for the simple reason that once if it get out, which is fairly forseeable even if it's a pretty mild asking around, it can and probably will take on a life of it's own.
I don't know Tom. It's probably a stretch for either of us to know exactly what their insurance policies look like. But regardless, it was a boxer's injury so I don't think it's unreasonable to anticipate that insurance would look into this.
iirc the standard NBA insurance clauses only kick in after a player has missed 41 games. Since that's not anticipated at those point I wonder if they even go through the claims process.
There is nothing to be gained from the Bulls point of view IMO from digging into this. They just invested a shitton of money into this guy and he's our 2nd legit all-star. By and large, he's not a character problem and was just covering his ass after likely getting to a fight or punching a wall. Not exactly a serious issue, IMO. No point in developing bad blood before he even plays a game.
What should the Bulls do if he's telling the truth? That is, he tripped over a bag and hurt himself. What should the Bulls do if he punched a wall out of frustration during an argument with his wife? If he hit is wife, it is a big deal, but she has to come forward. If he hit someone else, it is a big deal, but he has to come forward. In either case, the world deserves to know.
The world doesn't deserve Jack. I think the divorce was filed a couple months back, so I doubt they're maintaining the same residence.
I think it's fair for the Bulls to have a certain amount of disclosure WRT Boozer and his injury. The major issue is how they go about doing it. If Reinsdorf or Pax call Carlos and have a heart to heart with him to see what's going on, then that's fine and I can't imagine there would be any fallout from it. If they're really having an 'official investigation' and hiring third parties or something like that then they're being idiots, for all the reasons mentioned in this thread. I too find it suspicious that this story is being leaked by a non-Chicago newspaper. I can't imagine the Bulls see any benefits to making an issue like this a media char-rah so for now I'll assume that's not what they're doing.
If I were to purely speculate from the tone of the purely speculative article, I think it's basically the result of the gossipy nature of NBA execs. They sit around and laugh at the perceived misfortune of others and assume the worst about everyone else's players. So some GM calls up Gar Paxdorf and says, "Oh yeah, how's your big FA Carlos?" Gar Paxdorf says "Yeah, what was that all about" and suddenly that transforms into "The Bulls are investigating..."
And KC chimes in: Well, there's no investigation, but there is the lack of evidence that a wall was punched. Shucks, and I was getting all worked up talking about what is wrong with America these days...
I don't really care about an investigation one way or the other. I don't want Boozer to feel like he's being pilloried but also don't want the Bulls feeling like they are hearing "and there I was, walking down the street, minding my own business, when..." stories and planting the seeds of distrust in that manner. As long as the air is clear and everyone is copacetic, all is good.
KC is naive to think that Jim Paxson's influence on the Bulls absolves Boozer of any shadiness regarding leaving Cleveland. It's seems pretty clear to me that Boozer and Jim Paxson conspired to cheat the NBA and Boozer double crossed Paxson/Cleveland which is apt to happen when collusion partners can't hold the other side to an illegal deal. What are the Bulls going to do? Decide it's ok to use the consultant that agreed to an illegal deal as a GM but go with a lesser power forward because a player backed out of a illegal deal. That would be odd logic.
Collusion is yet another thing that sounds like a big deal in theory and makes for entertaining movies, but in practice tends to fall apart pretty quickly
