<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">The six-year, $68 million offer sheet presented to Carlos Boozer by the Utah Jazz may do more than just leave the Cavaliers empty-handed. It could literally cost them. That's if the allegations are true that Boozer and the Cavs made an oral agreement before the two-week negotiating period that started July 1, a violation of the league's collective bargaining agreement. If so, the Cavs could be fined, forced to give up draft picks and any team personnel involved suspended. The Minnesota Timberwolves were slapped by the league in 2000 for signing forward Joe Smith to a series of illegal contracts in violation of the salary cap. The league voided the contract, fined the Timberwolves $3.5 million and stripped the club of five first-round draft picks. Two of the picks, in 2003 and 2005, have since been restored. There's a major difference between the two cases. In Minnesota, Smith signed a written contract. Boozer allegedly made an oral agreement with owner Gordon Gund and General Manager Jim Paxson. This incident between the Cavs and Boozer may have a rippling effect on future negotiations. Right now, there's a 13-day waiting period for players and teams to express their interest to negotiate and decide their intentions. The 14th day is the first time players and teams can sign offer sheets. Once an offer sheet is signed, the player's current team has 15 days to either match the offer or allow the player to move on.</div> <div align="center">Link</div>
I wouldn't worry too much about this. As they stated, Smith signed a written agreement with the T'Wolves, so it was pretty simple to prove. In this case, there's no written agreement, only a supposed oral agreement, which both Boozer and his agent have denied repeatedly. Add to that the fact that Boozer did NOT, or does not plan to, sign with us... which if he did, would be major circumstantial evidence to support an agreement being made. I'm sure they will look into it, but I imagine they'll come up empty. EDIT: I've also heard that Boozer was very unhappy with Paul Silas recently. If they can show there was some friction there, it's also a reason they can claim for not picking up Boozer's option. Sure it's not the greatest reason, but then again, there's already a precedent for us dumping guys (Davis, Miles) that just weren't working out with Silas.
I don't think they should be really worried. He said that he would sign, but didn't actually do anything. In the end they didn't even keep him, so they shouldn't have to worry about anything.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Heppy Lotmore:</div><div class="quote_post">In the end they didn't even keep him, so they shouldn't have to worry about anything.</div> My thoughts exactly. This shouldn't be a factor due to the simple fact that he didn't resign with the Cavs. Had he stayed with the Cavs and given the oral agreement as stated, things could and should be different.
It's not in writing, so there isn't a huge amount the NBA can do. Both parties will deny it - the Cavs to save from being penalised, and Boozer to try and keep his reputation intact. It'll just be one of those things most people assume did happen, but the league can't do anything about it.
I doubt anything will happen. It was not a signed agreement, and it looks as if Boozer wont even be in Cleveland next season. Boozer has already lied to the Cavs to get more money, which hurts his reputation, and the last thing he would want is to be accused of illegal negotiations. He (and the Cavs) are likely to deny it, if the NBA are to put a serious investigation into this.
