Boozer/Smith question

[Skandery]

Hey Guys...I'm bored...so I have a question:

I was on Wikipedia and was reading the Carlos Boozer paragraph diddy.  Of course three-fourths of it was the whole restricted free agency, Cleveland/Utah, Betrayal fiasco.  I was reading and got to thinking what was the difference between what Cleveland tried to do with Boozer and what Minnesota tried to do with Joe Smith.  Because to me it seems as though the two situations were almost identical.

Boozer was a restricted FA, Cleveland thought they reached a "verbal" agreement with him that he would only sign their offer sheet.  Utah came in with a ridiculous offer, Boozer jumped on it and everyone came down on Boozer for his betrayal.  Saying if he hadn't agreed "verbally" then Cleveland would have just used his services for that one more year and let him go unrestricted.

Joe Smith, now I don't quite remember whether he was restricted or not but Minnesota came to a "verbal" or "under the table" agreement to sign him just before the free agency period.  Only with that situation, the NBA came down hard on Minny citing illegal business practice.  They forced Minny to trade Smith and took away 5 future first round picks (later reduced to 3).  

Didn't Cleveland do what Minnesota did and if so, why wasn't Cleveland punished?

[Joe Vancil]

Here's my take:  Cleveland did not circumvent the league rules by not extending Boozer the extra year, and did have the ability to sign him to the contract they offered him at the time they offered it to him.  In contrast, Minnesota DID circumvent the league rules because the agreement with Joe Smith is one that could not be done at the time when he signed.

Cleveland shot themselves in the foot by offering Boozer only a 2-year deal plus option in the first place.  By offering him the standard 3-year deal plus option when they drafted him, they could have avoided the problem they ran in to - the inability to exceed the cap to extend Boozer while he was a restricted free agent.  Golden State faced the same thing with Gilbert Arenas.

Keep in mind that Cleveland *COULD* have matched Utah's offer, and Boozer would be a Cav.  It's just that they couldn't do it without exceeding the cap because Boozer did not yet have Bird rights, and they would have had to dump other players to do that, since his Utah contract couldn't fit under Cleveland's cap space available.

In other words, if Cleveland did what it said it was going to do, it would have been valid at the time they did it.  If Minnesota did what it said it was going to do, it would not have been valid at the time they did it.


 

[Derek Bodner]

Cleveland shot themselves in the foot by offering Boozer only a 2-year deal plus option in the first place. By offering him the standard 3-year deal plus option when they drafted him, they could have avoided the problem they ran in to

1st round picks are 3 year + option contracts.  2nd round picks (which boozer was) are 2 year unguaranteed contracts.  Most of them don't even have an option for a 3rd year.

[Lurker]

My understanding was that Minnesota actually had a signed document agreeing to the deal.  So it was more than verbal...that is why theywere penalized.

[jn]

Lurker is correct.  Glen Taylor actually SIGNED such an agreement, later claiming he was not thinking clearly due to recent surgery.  Whatever.  

[Skandery]

Okay, I got it.  Cleveland had a "verbal" agreement before the free agency period.  Minnesota had a "signed document" before the free agency period.    

Thanks guys.