What do Elton Brand and Carlos Boozer have in common?

[Bankshot]

Did anyone see the Elton Brand interview on PTI yesterday? Brand tried to explain himself, but to me he didn't do himself any favors.  It did sound to me like both Brand and the Clippers were wrong.  The Clippers did give him a take it or leave it offer, but then (in Elton's own words), they did step up and increase their offer.  Brand also admitted that he never gave the Clippers a chance to match Philly's offer.  Now Dunleavy is saying that Brand did commit to the Clippers.

http://www.realgm.com/

After everything I read and heard and the interview by Brand, looks like Brand bamboozled the Clippers.

[Roy Hobbs]

Did anyone see the Elton Brand interview on PTI yesterday? Brand tried to explain himself, but to me he didn't do himself any favors.  It did sound to me like both Brand and the Clippers were wrong.  The Clippers did give him a take it or leave it offer, but then (in Elton's own words), they did step up and increase their offer.  Brand also admitted that he never gave the Clippers a chance to match Philly's offer.  Now Dunleavy is saying that Brand did commit to the Clippers.

http://www.realgm.com/

After everything I read and heard and the interview by Brand, looks like Brand bamboozled the Clippers.

You can find a direct link to the story here.

Sounds like Falk really steered that negotiation.  I think it's sleazy of Brand to back out of the deal and hide behind his agent.

[Bankshot]

Here is the Brand interview on PTI if anyone is interested in listening to it.  Select the 7/10 show and go to the 10:12 mark to go directly to the interview.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espnradio/podcast/feeds/itunes/podCast?id=2406595

[expobear]

Cleveland could have given Boozer the money Utah gave him.  If they did he would still be a Cav and the Cavs might have a championship. 

That's not really true.  Yes, as a restricted free agent, the Cavs had the right to "match".  However, since Boozer was coming off his second season, they didn't have Bird rights.  That meant the team would have had to clear sufficient salary cap space to be able to match Utah's offer, and couldn't do so. 

After the same thing happened with Gilbert Arenas, the CBA was modified.  Now, a team can't sign a restricted free agent with one or two years in the league to an offer sheet worth more than the MLE in its first year.  If that had been the rule at the time, Golden State could have matched Arenas and Cleveland could have matched Boozer.

Roy,

This may be a stupid question but why couldn't (or didn't) the Warriors and Cavs have signed Arenas and Boozer to a contract similar to what the Celtics gave Powe? All were second round picks and it seems like the team would have leverage over second round picks.  

[Roy Hobbs]

Cleveland could have given Boozer the money Utah gave him.  If they did he would still be a Cav and the Cavs might have a championship. 

That's not really true.  Yes, as a restricted free agent, the Cavs had the right to "match".  However, since Boozer was coming off his second season, they didn't have Bird rights.  That meant the team would have had to clear sufficient salary cap space to be able to match Utah's offer, and couldn't do so. 

After the same thing happened with Gilbert Arenas, the CBA was modified.  Now, a team can't sign a restricted free agent with one or two years in the league to an offer sheet worth more than the MLE in its first year.  If that had been the rule at the time, Golden State could have matched Arenas and Cleveland could have matched Boozer.

Roy,

This may be a stupid question but why couldn't (or didn't) the Warriors and Cavs have signed Arenas and Boozer to a oontract similar to what the Celtics gave Powe? All were second round picks and it seems like the team would have leverage over second round picks.  

To sign a second rounder to a three year rookie contract, you have to use either your salary cap space or the MLE.  A three year contract is important, because it vests "Bird rights" in your draft pick, allowing you to go above the salary cap to sign your own free agent for any amount (up to the maximum salary).  Some teams like to use the full MLE on the free agents, and worry about rookies down the line, etc.  Danny has been very shrewd in making sure he locks up our #2s to three year deals (non-guaranteed) when possible, which allows us the ability to resign those picks for whatever amount we want at a later time, should we so choose.

The bad part, and the part that makes people dislike Boozer, is that the Cavs *had* been smart, in that they signed Boozer to a contract that had an option for a third season.  The Cavs could have brought back Boozer for something like $600,000 or so. 

However, Boozer went to the team's owner, and asked that they not pick up the option, because he wanted to sign a long-term contract with Cleveland for 6 years, $39 million.  The Cavs (stupidly) agreed, presumably because they wanted to lock up Boozer long-term at a bargain deal.

Boozer then went back on his word, listened to offers from other teams, and signed a huge deal in Utah.

Golden State never had the option of retaining Arenas, because they hadn't planned ahead and only signed him to a two-year deal.  Cleveland, on the other hand, negated its smart planning by acting incredibly stupidly / naively. 

[Truth Hurts]

Sounds like a lot of people are "misremembering" what Boozer did. Boozer's agent convinced the Cavs to not pick up a team option, and had a deal in place. They gave the Cavs blind, benevolent owner their word that he would sign a long-term deal with CLE. As soon as they declined the option, Boozer bolted for Utah.

Dunleavy was adamant on SportsCenter last night that Brand gave him his word that he was coming back to LA. He claims that Brand told him "I just want $75 million". Then Falk started asking for $150 million. He even quoted Brand saying "It's going to be me and BD!"

Bottom line: Dukies are scumbags. That's why a slang term for feces is "Dukie".

[Bankshot]

Sounds like a lot of people are "misremembering" what Boozer did. Boozer's agent convinced the Cavs to not pick up a team option, and had a deal in place. They gave the Cavs blind, benevolent owner their word that he would sign a long-term deal with CLE. As soon as they declined the option, Boozer bolted for Utah.

Dunleavy was adamant on SportsCenter last night that Brand gave him his word that he was coming back to LA. He claims that Brand told him "I just want $75 million". Then Falk started asking for $150 million. He even quoted Brand saying "It's going to be me and BD!"

Bottom line: Dukies are scumbags. That's why a slang term for feces is "Dukie".

LOL.  TP for that one!

[Fan from VT]

Cleveland could have given Boozer the money Utah gave him.  If they did he would still be a Cav and the Cavs might have a championship. 

That's not really true.  Yes, as a restricted free agent, the Cavs had the right to "match".  However, since Boozer was coming off his second season, they didn't have Bird rights.  That meant the team would have had to clear sufficient salary cap space to be able to match Utah's offer, and couldn't do so. 

After the same thing happened with Gilbert Arenas, the CBA was modified.  Now, a team can't sign a restricted free agent with one or two years in the league to an offer sheet worth more than the MLE in its first year.  If that had been the rule at the time, Golden State could have matched Arenas and Cleveland could have matched Boozer.

Roy,

This may be a stupid question but why couldn't (or didn't) the Warriors and Cavs have signed Arenas and Boozer to a oontract similar to what the Celtics gave Powe? All were second round picks and it seems like the team would have leverage over second round picks.   

To sign a second rounder to a three year rookie contract, you have to use either your salary cap space or the MLE.  A three year contract is important, because it vests "Bird rights" in your draft pick, allowing you to go above the salary cap to sign your own free agent for any amount (up to the maximum salary).  Some teams like to use the full MLE on the free agents, and worry about rookies down the line, etc.  Danny has been very shrewd in making sure he locks up our #2s to three year deals (non-guaranteed) when possible, which allows us the ability to resign those picks for whatever amount we want at a later time, should we so choose.

The bad part, and the part that makes people dislike Boozer, is that the Cavs *had* been smart, in that they signed Boozer to a contract that had an option for a third season.  The Cavs could have brought back Boozer for something like $600,000 or so. 

However, Boozer went to the team's owner, and asked that they not pick up the option, because he wanted to sign a long-term contract with Cleveland for 6 years, $39 million.  The Cavs (stupidly) agreed, presumably because they wanted to lock up Boozer long-term at a bargain deal.

Boozer then went back on his word, listened to offers from other teams, and signed a huge deal in Utah.

Golden State never had the option of retaining Arenas, because they hadn't planned ahead and only signed him to a two-year deal.  Cleveland, on the other hand, negated its smart planning by acting incredibly stupidly / naively. 

didn't they just change this rule so that other teams cannot offer second round draft picks with 2 years service anything more than the MLE, so that the original team always has a chance to match without being outbid? I believe the MLE salary lasts 2 seasons, then can jump up to the max, just to ensure that a great second round player is not locked into an MLE contract for life.

[expobear]

Cleveland could have given Boozer the money Utah gave him.  If they did he would still be a Cav and the Cavs might have a championship. 

That's not really true.  Yes, as a restricted free agent, the Cavs had the right to "match".  However, since Boozer was coming off his second season, they didn't have Bird rights.  That meant the team would have had to clear sufficient salary cap space to be able to match Utah's offer, and couldn't do so. 

After the same thing happened with Gilbert Arenas, the CBA was modified.  Now, a team can't sign a restricted free agent with one or two years in the league to an offer sheet worth more than the MLE in its first year.  If that had been the rule at the time, Golden State could have matched Arenas and Cleveland could have matched Boozer.

Roy,

This may be a stupid question but why couldn't (or didn't) the Warriors and Cavs have signed Arenas and Boozer to a oontract similar to what the Celtics gave Powe? All were second round picks and it seems like the team would have leverage over second round picks.  

To sign a second rounder to a three year rookie contract, you have to use either your salary cap space or the MLE.  A three year contract is important, because it vests "Bird rights" in your draft pick, allowing you to go above the salary cap to sign your own free agent for any amount (up to the maximum salary).  Some teams like to use the full MLE on the free agents, and worry about rookies down the line, etc.  Danny has been very shrewd in making sure he locks up our #2s to three year deals (non-guaranteed) when possible, which allows us the ability to resign those picks for whatever amount we want at a later time, should we so choose.

The bad part, and the part that makes people dislike Boozer, is that the Cavs *had* been smart, in that they signed Boozer to a contract that had an option for a third season.  The Cavs could have brought back Boozer for something like $600,000 or so. 

However, Boozer went to the team's owner, and asked that they not pick up the option, because he wanted to sign a long-term contract with Cleveland for 6 years, $39 million.  The Cavs (stupidly) agreed, presumably because they wanted to lock up Boozer long-term at a bargain deal.

Boozer then went back on his word, listened to offers from other teams, and signed a huge deal in Utah.

Golden State never had the option of retaining Arenas, because they hadn't planned ahead and only signed him to a two-year deal.  Cleveland, on the other hand, negated its smart planning by acting incredibly stupidly / naively. 

Could the Cavs had picked up the option for Boozer's third year and then continue to renegotiate a new contract for Boozer? Once a new contract was drawn up i.e. 6 yrs for 39 million, could the Cavs have just torn up the old contract for 600k?

[Roy Hobbs]

Cleveland could have given Boozer the money Utah gave him.  If they did he would still be a Cav and the Cavs might have a championship. 

That's not really true.  Yes, as a restricted free agent, the Cavs had the right to "match".  However, since Boozer was coming off his second season, they didn't have Bird rights.  That meant the team would have had to clear sufficient salary cap space to be able to match Utah's offer, and couldn't do so. 

After the same thing happened with Gilbert Arenas, the CBA was modified.  Now, a team can't sign a restricted free agent with one or two years in the league to an offer sheet worth more than the MLE in its first year.  If that had been the rule at the time, Golden State could have matched Arenas and Cleveland could have matched Boozer.

Roy,

This may be a stupid question but why couldn't (or didn't) the Warriors and Cavs have signed Arenas and Boozer to a oontract similar to what the Celtics gave Powe? All were second round picks and it seems like the team would have leverage over second round picks.   

To sign a second rounder to a three year rookie contract, you have to use either your salary cap space or the MLE.  A three year contract is important, because it vests "Bird rights" in your draft pick, allowing you to go above the salary cap to sign your own free agent for any amount (up to the maximum salary).  Some teams like to use the full MLE on the free agents, and worry about rookies down the line, etc.  Danny has been very shrewd in making sure he locks up our #2s to three year deals (non-guaranteed) when possible, which allows us the ability to resign those picks for whatever amount we want at a later time, should we so choose.

The bad part, and the part that makes people dislike Boozer, is that the Cavs *had* been smart, in that they signed Boozer to a contract that had an option for a third season.  The Cavs could have brought back Boozer for something like $600,000 or so. 

However, Boozer went to the team's owner, and asked that they not pick up the option, because he wanted to sign a long-term contract with Cleveland for 6 years, $39 million.  The Cavs (stupidly) agreed, presumably because they wanted to lock up Boozer long-term at a bargain deal.

Boozer then went back on his word, listened to offers from other teams, and signed a huge deal in Utah.

Golden State never had the option of retaining Arenas, because they hadn't planned ahead and only signed him to a two-year deal.  Cleveland, on the other hand, negated its smart planning by acting incredibly stupidly / naively. 

didn't they just change this rule so that other teams cannot offer second round draft picks with 2 years service anything more than the MLE, so that the original team always has a chance to match without being outbid? I believe the MLE salary lasts 2 seasons, then can jump up to the max, just to ensure that a great second round player is not locked into an MLE contract for life.

Read my first post in this string.

And you're right, for offer sheets for first- or second-year players, the first two years are limited to the MLE, but the third year can be a big raise.  Raises in the fourth and fifth year are then limited again (to 6.7%).  There are other restrictions based upon how these contracts count against the cap, etc.

[Roy Hobbs]

Could the Cavs had picked up the option for Boozer's third year and then continue to renegotiate a new contract for Boozer? Once a new contract was drawn up i.e. 6 yrs for 39 million, could the Cavs have just torn up the old contract for 600k?

I don't believe so.  Under the current CBA, contracts for four years or fewer can't be extended.  That's why the Cavs found themselves in that predicament, I believe.

I believe, though, that had the option been picked up, Boozer would have entered free agency the following off-season as a restricted free agent, meaning the Cavs could have matched any offer he received.

[sk7326]

besides going to Duke?  Nothing.

Boozer cheated a blind guy.

Brand got lowballed by the Clippers, and his buddy told him to do what was best for him -- and he did not take the best offer.  Clippers let somebody else set the market and so this is what they wrought.

[Fan from VT]

Could the Cavs had picked up the option for Boozer's third year and then continue to renegotiate a new contract for Boozer? Once a new contract was drawn up i.e. 6 yrs for 39 million, could the Cavs have just torn up the old contract for 600k?

I don't believe so.  Under the current CBA, contracts for four years or fewer can't be extended.  That's why the Cavs found themselves in that predicament, I believe.

I believe, though, that had the option been picked up, Boozer would have entered free agency the following off-season as a restricted free agent, meaning the Cavs could have matched any offer he received.

I'm pretty sure you are right. And that's why Boozer is a cautionary tale to not let a player hit unrestricted free agency for any reason if you want to keep them and you can avoid it. Teams are always better off picking up that 3rd year because you get bird rights and don't have to worry about cap space and if you match an offer, the player has to stick with your team.

[Moranis]

Cleveland could have given Boozer the money Utah gave him.  If they did he would still be a Cav and the Cavs might have a championship. 

That's not really true.  Yes, as a restricted free agent, the Cavs had the right to "match".  However, since Boozer was coming off his second season, they didn't have Bird rights.  That meant the team would have had to clear sufficient salary cap space to be able to match Utah's offer, and couldn't do so. 

After the same thing happened with Gilbert Arenas, the CBA was modified.  Now, a team can't sign a restricted free agent with one or two years in the league to an offer sheet worth more than the MLE in its first year.  If that had been the rule at the time, Golden State could have matched Arenas and Cleveland could have matched Boozer.

yeah I wasn't sure if they were under the cap.  I just found an article stating they were only 4 million under the cap.  Still Cleveland tried to lock him up long term for less than market value.  Cleveland is every bit as much as fault as Boozer.

[BballTim]

Cleveland could have given Boozer the money Utah gave him.  If they did he would still be a Cav and the Cavs might have a championship. 

That's not really true.  Yes, as a restricted free agent, the Cavs had the right to "match".  However, since Boozer was coming off his second season, they didn't have Bird rights.  That meant the team would have had to clear sufficient salary cap space to be able to match Utah's offer, and couldn't do so. 

After the same thing happened with Gilbert Arenas, the CBA was modified.  Now, a team can't sign a restricted free agent with one or two years in the league to an offer sheet worth more than the MLE in its first year.  If that had been the rule at the time, Golden State could have matched Arenas and Cleveland could have matched Boozer.

I never said they had the right to match, I said they could have given him the money.  I actually may be wrong given they would have had to have cap room to sign him and I don't know if they did at that point in time.  That still doesn't change the fact that the Cavs were trying to sign Boozer long term for below market value and that is what got them into the mess to begin with.

  They couldn't have given him the money. Boozer played the Cavs. What happened was something like: Boozer, who was in a crappy 2nd rounder contract, told Ferry he wanted more money. Ferry told him that he'd only been in the league for 2 years so the Cavs could only offer him some middling sum of money based on their available cap space, but if he waited a year the Cavs could offer him much better money. Boozer said he wanted the lower deal now because he wanted the security. The Cavs voided his deal and Boozer signed with the Jazz. The way the Cavs did the negotiations was against the rules, but Boozer screwed them by lying to them.