C'mon--you're better than this. When exactly did Boozer make that comment? Was Lebron even on the Cavs at that point? Wouldn't any good teammate say that that his own team's starting SF is better than a high-schooler?
And then he left the Cavs for less money after the Cavs drafted Lebron and after Boozer had played a full season with him. And no, I would expect a good teammate would probably say something more like "Young fella is killing it! We'd be excited to get a guy like that who can play any position on the court". Do you expect Scoot or Sharpe to talk shit about Flagg this season? I'd personally be disappointed if they did. *Edit* Now, this isn't to say any of these guys are bad guys. Just that you have to get guys who are on the same page if you want to build a successful team. Regardless of how good the guys you are drafting are.
That's a totally different issue. Most teams try to keep their prize rookies away from negative influences. If that's all it's about, Silas was probably just being nice by not calling them out as such, instead saying LeBron needed the runway cleared. Context matters.
Boozer left for more money. Perhaps you didn't read the link I provided. Utah offered $27M more than Cleveland was able to because the Gilbert Arenas rule didn't exist yet. Regardless, it's incredibly disingenuous to suggest that comments Boozer made while Lebron was still in high school were somehow indicative of his opinion of Lebron's leadership abilities in the pro's.
There was a loophole around that limit, and Cleveland was going to do it. Boozer claims he was afraid that it wouldn't be allowed, so he took the Utah offer. But it all stinks to me, especially given Paul Silas's comments. I'm not claiming conclusively anything about Boozer. I'm simply saying there are signs that he may have been among those not excited about Lebron. There are signs that Miles was one. There are signs that Ricky Davis was one. I believe Paul Silas when he says there were guys who weren't happy. And there is a lot of evidence other than Paul's comments that some guys weren't happy and were not supportive. That's it. All of this evidence together makes it pretty clear that some guys weren't happy and the roster needed to be shuffled to get the new era going to the right direction.
No, there wasn't. The $41M was the max the Cavs could offer. The $68M was far more than they could offer. Boozer knew that had he chosen to accept the much lesser amount, the league would probably investigate the Cavs for tampering, which was why he took the Jazz's money. https://cavaliersnation.com/2023/03...n-2004-in-order-to-avoid-them-being-crippled/
Wasn't that $40 million offer just shorter years, but more per year? Then the Cavs could have maxed him out. It's not like Utah offered twice as much per year, right?
Yes due to their locker room presence, nothing to do with them on the court and then taking away from Lebron which is what we are talking about here. Lebron was the man on the that team from day 1 regardless who he was on the court with. Ant, Grant and Ayton are not locker room problems so difference in what we are discussing. boozer was suppose to resign with them and gave them his word then turned around and signed with the Jazz and left the Cavs fuming.
Do you also realize who you’re quoting? Both are a waste of time to have any serious discussions with imo
So pretty much exactly what I originally said. Though, I was wrong about the salary differences offered to Boozer. For some reason I had thought the Cavs could have made the difference up to Boozer somehow, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Thanks for confirming the rest!
IIRC....didn't the NBA change the CBA in a reaction to the Boozer situation? and that reminds me, didn't Blazer situations cause two changes in the CBA? one was the loophole signing of Chris Dudley that the NBA tried to void but an arbiter said was legal. the other was the Darius Miles signing by Memphis that put Miles back on the Blazer cap, wiping out some of KP's big cap-space plans (career-ending injury waiver?). If I'm remembering correctly, the pre-season games Miles played counted toward the total games and that's what aced the Blazers out of the cap-space
how the fuck have we gone three pages about carlos boozer and lebron and what supposedly was said and or happened in 2003 in a sharpe injury thread....?
It's a comparison to developing young players. How sometimes having certain vets can be counterproductive to the development of said young players.
have you ever been in a conversation with 20 people at a party? How often does that discussion stay on the original topic? roses are red violets are blue I like peanut butter do you swim?
Boozer wasn’t a “vet.” He was drafted the year before LeBron. Losing Boozer was a setback in LeBron’s career. Not a positive.
