Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Vescey- BOOZ, AGENT LOW LIFES

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Vescey- BOOZ, AGENT LOW LIFES

    http://nypost.com/sports/17903.htm

    BOOZ, AGENT LOW LIFES

    July 11, 2004 -- WHO'S gonna believe SFX agent Rob Pelinka next time he says Kobe Bry ant is innocent?
    Who's gonna believe Carlos Boozer next time he promises to do something?

    Why should anyone take the word of these lowlifes again after the double-cross they pulled on the Cavaliers?

    Why would an owner or an executive for any professional team ever think of doing a favor for Pelinka or consider cutting one of his clients a break?

    Why would an upstanding franchise like the Jazz want to associate with someone so shamelessly untrustworthy as Boozer? Of all professional proprietors, why would Jerry Sloan align himself with such a fugitive of fidelity?

    Roughly two weeks ago, Boozer stood in front of Gordon Gund and VP Jim Paxson and pledged his allegiance in return for the team not picking up next season's ($695,046) option. Told it'd be too big a risk to make him a restricted free agent because of all the teams with salary-cap room, Boozer insisted he wanted to remain a Cavalier. He vowed to repay the owner's respect with loyalty by taking the best deal ($41 million over six seasons) the capsized team could give him.

    Within four days of being granted his wish, Boozer, accompanied by his wife, was in Paxson's office. He'd changed his mind. Said he wanted to be the man. Said he wanted more plays run for him. And since there was no longer a contract in place, he planned to see what was out there; the Jazz provided the financial windfall, $68M over six.



    The bad news is, Boozer has yet to find another country that wants him to represent it in the Athens Olympics.

    As we're well aware, it takes an unscrupulous so-and-so to negotiate for someone so discernibly disingenuous. Survey says the unethical committee of Boozer & Pelinka doesn't get any slimier.

    "I haven't [seen] anything so contemptible in all my years in the league," an outraged eastern CEO declared, sentiments echoed by owners, coaches, players and agents throughout the league.

    "All teams operate on a level of trust. The Cavs are the last team that'll take that chance. Everyone suffers from this, but none more than Pelinka and any client of his not fortunate enough to have great leverage. Nobody will ever trust him again. You watch, he'll be out of SFX within three months."

    "You can blame the player all you want," said an L.A.-based business manager for several players. "But this situation is 100 percent the agent's baby. The agent is the one that filters interest, conveys demands and outlines the deal to the player. I could make a deal seem more attractive than another with a long-term emphasis, location, taxes, family, winning ability, etc. So it is the agent that burned a bridge and did not keep his word."

    Which reminds me, if you're the Jazz, how confident can you really be that Boozer will honor his verbal commitment? Apparently that doesn't mean a helluva lot. What if the Hawks or Nuggets offer him more paper and guarantee him more designer plays between now and July 14, the first day free agents are allowed to sign?

    The only sure thing, I suspect, is the Cavs want nothing more to do with Boozer unless they're able to match Utah's offer and trade his corrupt carcass for someone worthwhile. This is the thanks Gordon Gund gets for trying to do right by the Dukie.

    "It's like being hit by friendly fire," a team official lamented.


    [edit=91=1089541660][/edit]

  • #2
    Re: For once I agree with Vescey, BOOZ, AGENT LOW LIFES

    It's like in Bussiness , there is alot of cutthroat tactics , the guys who are wealthy didn't get there being honest or loyal. Not saying I agree with what happen , just that's a way alot of things go these days , boozer and of course his agent has the money eyes it profits them both greatly in the long run.

    Another big reason I still wanna Reggie get a Ring , he has been Loyal and could have easily sold out for money or a easy ring .
    Broadcasting Classic Rock Hits 24/7 SauceMaster Radio!!!!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: For once I agree with Vescey, BOOZ, AGENT LOW LIFES

      Yeah, well, it gets even slimier, especially when you consider what Paxson is going through right now...

      Thankless job
      Paxson, Cavaliers pay price for trying to do right by Boozer

      Posted: Friday July 9, 2004 6:29PM; Updated: Friday July 9, 2004 7:02PM
       
      Why would anybody want Jim Paxson's job?

      While the full story has yet to be told, it appears that the emerging Carlos Boozer turned his back on a Cavaliers team intent on doing him a multimillion-dollar favor.

      Paxson, the Cleveland Cavaliers' general manager, is being ripped for allowing forward Carlos Boozer to escape as a free agent to the Utah Jazz.

      Boozer was a second-round pick by the Cavaliers in the 2002 NBA Draft. Despite being a three-year star at Duke, he was ignored in the first round because many NBA teams believed he was too unathletic and small at 6-foot-8 (which is his true height, though he is listed as 6-9) to excel at power forward. But Paxson saw Boozer's potential and signed him to a two-year guaranteed contract for $989,000 (more than the minimum salary awarded to most second-rounders) with a team option for the third year.

      Boozer turned out to be a steal. He averaged 15.5 points and 11.4 rebounds last year and earned a spot on the U.S. Olympic team. But Boozer was apparently worried about his longterm financial future. That's why he asked the Cavaliers to cancel their option for next season and instead allow him to become a free agent. In that case, Boozer promised (according to sources -- and common sense) that he would then re-sign with the Cavaliers for as much as $41 million over six years, the maximum they could offer a free agent with fewer than three years experience under their salary-cap constraints.

      Paxson held all the cards on this deal. He could have ignored Boozer's pleas and forced him to fulfill the team option at a salary of $695,000 in 2004-05. Next summer Boozer would have been a restricted free agent, giving the Cavs the right to pay him as much as they wished along with the ability to match any offer Boozer received.

      Instead, Paxson and Cleveland owner Gordon Gund nullified their option. They gambled on Boozer's word and set him free. According to a source who was in the room at the time the verbal deal was struck, Boozer told Gund, "If you respect me by not picking up the option, I'll show trust and loyalty to you by signing with you."

      But instead of keeping to his word, Boozer agreed this week to a six-year, $68 million contract with Utah. (I tried, through a variety of sources, to give Boozer's agent, Rob Pelinka an opportunity to respond, but I was unable to reach him.)

      Cleveland cannot match the offer because the Cavaliers are over the salary cap. The only way Cleveland could retain Boozer would be to dump several players and create more than $10 million of cap space, because Pelinka negotiated an offer that is front-loaded to make it that much harder for Cleveland to match.

      "This is the worst thing I've ever seen," a top NBA agent told me. A respected NBA team executive confirmed the opinion in a separate conversation.

      "There is no honor in this," the agent said. "You don't shake a man's hand, get him to do something nice for you, and then turn around and screw him."

      The executive echoed the sentiments. "That was so bad. [Boozer and his agent] convinced Cleveland to let them out, and then instead of saying thanks, they said, '(expletive) you.'"

      Paxson is being taken to task in the press for allowing Boozer to escape, but the short-sighted duplicity of a basketball player is the least of his troubles. Paxson's wife, Candice, has spent the past year fighting central nervous system lymphoma, a rare form of brain cancer. This week Jim and Candice flew to Portland, Ore., for the funeral of Candice's daughter-in-law from a previous marriage, Tina Kosmos, who died of cancer.

      Paxson was trying to console his wife and family in-between calls from Pelinka, who, according to a source, matter-of-factly explained how he was reneging on his agreement with the Cavaliers.

      Speculation has held that LeBron James is angry with Paxson for losing Boozer.

      Not true, says James' agent, Aaron Goodwin.

      "LeBron gave his thumbs up (to the plan enabling Boozer to become a free agent) because he believed his friend just wanted to be taken care of," says Goodwin. "He thought it was great that the Cavs wanted to help him out." Goodwin says that James was "disheartened" when he realized that Boozer was exploiting his free agency by negotiating with other teams.

      Goodwin adds -- and I've confirmed this with other sources -- that Gund took personal responsibility for approving the plan to make Boozer a free agent.

      "My understanding is that Carlos, his wife and Pelinka all gave their words to Paxson and Gordon Gund that Boozer would re-sign with Cleveland," Goodwin says. "By letting him become a free agent, Gordon was saying, 'I'm doing this to help the Boozer family, not just Carlos.'

      "Gordon Gund isn't stupid. He knew there was a chance Boozer would leave if he let him out of his $700,000 contract. But he was [telling] the kid 'I respect you and I care about you and your family.' For him to get slapped in the face is wrong; even as an agent I have to say it's wrong. I talk to Gordon and I hear the devastation in his voice because he's from the old school, where if someone says something to you, you take him at his word.

      "What Rob Pelinka did," said Goodwin, "was he figured out a way to get his guy out of his contract. And he lied to do it."

      One can spin this any number of ways, but here's how I see it. On the court Boozer appears to be a player of integrity because he plays and practices hard. But if I were Paxson, I'd be glad he was gone. His integrity has a price tag of $30 million -- money that Boozer could have made up over the long run by playing alongside James.

      I'm sure Paxson has his share of enemies who will accuse him of being tough, and possibly unfair, in negotiations; most of the contracts in this league are conducted on the edge. Some people will also point out that the Cavaliers were trying to sign Boozer to a smaller contract than he could have negotiated next summer.

      But Boozer and his agent made their choice. Instead of rewarding Paxson, they are punishing the GM for doing a good deed.

      The Cavaliers will now try to fill their power forward vacancy by applying their $5 million free-agent salary exception to either Antonio McDyess, who is coming off three injury-ruined years, or Vin Baker (represented by Goodwin), who is looking for a one-year opportunity to raise his stock.

      But those are short-term answers. Over the long haul, you have to wonder if Jim Paxson, given all that he and his wife have been through in the last year, will simply say life's too short to be involved in this dirty business.

      Sports Illustrated senior writer Ian Thomsen covers the NBA beat for the magazine and is a regular contributor to SI.com.

      http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...paxson.boozer/

      [edit=27=1089529624][/edit]

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: For once I agree with Vescey, BOOZ, AGENT LOW LIFES

        Good find Bulletproof! Thank you!

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: For once I agree with Vescey, BOOZ, AGENT LOW LIFES

          For him to get slapped in the face is wrong; even as an agent I have to say it's wrong.


          See? Agents agree that they're not very moral!

          This space for rent.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Vescey- BOOZ, AGENT LOW LIFES

            Wow, reading how Boozer "asked" to be let out of his contract totally changes how I feel about this whole deal. Before, I thought Carlos was just a restricted FA and assumed Carlos just got the best deal after making a half hearted promise to the Cavs.


            Boy, was I wrong. Boozer officially goes on the "what a dick!" list!
            ...Still "flying casual"
            @roaminggnome74

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Vescey- BOOZ, AGENT LOW LIFES

              God, I feel so dirty agreeing with Vecsey.
              Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Vescey- BOOZ, AGENT LOW LIFES

                Originally posted by Roaming
                Wow, reading how Boozer "asked" to be let out of his contract totally changes how I feel about this whole deal. Before, I thought Carlos was just a restricted FA and assumed Carlos just got the best deal after making a half hearted promise to the Cavs.


                Boy, was I wrong. Boozer officially goes on the "what a dick!" list!
                I would never wish anything bad on anyone who doesn't deserve it, but if there's any justice in this world, Boozer has a karmic bommerang headed his way.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Vescey- BOOZ, AGENT LOW LIFES

                  What's worse is he did it to a blind man.



                  "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                  "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Vescey- BOOZ, AGENT LOW LIFES

                    Originally posted by Arcadian
                    What's worse is he did it to a blind man.


                    Oh yeah I forgot he was blind. I thought i was missing out on some kind of joke...

                    You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Vescey- BOOZ, AGENT LOW LIFES

                      I've posted this a couple of times in regards to this subject.

                      As Tony Montana once said, "All I have in this world is my balls and my word and I don't break them for no one."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Vescey- BOOZ, AGENT LOW LIFES

                        That would appear to be some fine reporting there. No fluff, just the facts. Assuming it is al true

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Vescey- BOOZ, AGENT LOW LIFES

                          If everything is as it is being reported I will say two things.

                          1. Carlos Boozer is a great basketball player. He will be an all-star for years to come. Probably.

                          2. Carlos Boozer is a bag of crap as a human being.

                          If after all is said & done & he did what is said he did, then I have no use for him whatsoever.


                          Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Vescey- BOOZ, AGENT LOW LIFES

                            Intresting article here :

                            Fans could forgive if Boozer returns

                            http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/sports/...9129417.htm?1c

                            By Terry Pluto

                            Can Carlos Boozer come back and play for the Cavaliers, assuming they find a way to clear salary cap room and match the six-year, $68 million contract offer from the Utah Jazz?

                            Why not?

                            His teammates will welcome him back. They don't know who said what between Boozer and management, and they don't care. Players almost always side with players in these disputes.

                            And the fans?

                            Reader Walt Smith wrote, ``Once again, the Cavs look like the fools of the NBA. If they don't send Boozer on his way, they'll look like morons of the universe. They don't need to add to the mistakes they made in the past. This time, they need to tell Boozer to hit the road and don't look back. His credibility won't wash here anymore.''

                            Then who plays power forward? Tony Battie? DeSagana Diop?

                            They have no one.

                            Nor will their $5 million salary cap exception lead to a contract for a free agent the same caliber of Boozer, who is a rebounding fanatic with a nice medium-range jumper. It's hard to replace 15 points and 12 rebounds a game from a guy who has very few offensive plays set up for him to shoot.

                            Two power forwards looking for work are the troubled Vin Baker (alcohol and weight problems) and the oft-injured Antonio McDyess. Not exactly inspiring options.

                            What if Boozer comes back?

                            Most fans will initially react like reader Greg Kaufman, who wrote: ``All I can say about Boozer is BOOOOO!!!''

                            Reader Paul Wilson (of Tallmadge) wrote: ``It's sad for the fans who supported (Boozer) so willingly and emotionally. Not just because Booz played well, but because they believed Booz was just a little different. That he had what most sports celebrities and sports stars often lack -- integrity. The moral integrity to play hard, even though you think you are worth more than you are paid . . . It's sad for Carlos, because he is tarnished. He is diminished. He is corrupted.''

                            But sports is the ultimate bottom-line business, and most sports fans just want to win.

                            As Vinny Testaverde once said, ``I throw a couple of interceptions and get booed. Some guy gets out of jail for rape or drugs, and he gets a standing ovation.''

                            If Boozer plays well, the players won't care.

                            If Boozer plays well, most fans will eventually forgive.

                            If Boozer plays well and the Cavaliers win big, most fans will cheer.

                            Reader Paul Warner (of Cuyahoga Falls) wrote: ``I'm having a hard time focusing on anything other than a broken heart. That's how I feel about Boozer betraying the fans and the Cavs . . . Shame on him.''

                            Some Cavaliers fans were upset in 1991 when John ``Hot Rod'' Williams signed a huge offer sheet from Miami and then proclaimed, ``I'm a Heat now!''

                            Two weeks later, the Cavaliers matched it. They tried to trade him to the Seattle SuperSonics for Xavier McDaniel and Nate McMillan, but Williams had the right to veto the trade -- and he did.

                            Many fans didn't like it.

                            But Williams stayed and remained a productive player. Within a few years, most fans forgot about the contract and cheered for Hot Rod.

                            It would not be a shock if the same thing happened with Boozer.

                            Cavs tried to do what's best

                            What should the Cavaliers have done with Boozer?

                            The obvious answer now is play hardball and pick up the $695,000 option for this season. Then none of this would have happened, and the only unhappy party would be Boozer.

                            But the Cavaliers really did try to reward Boozer. Yes, they were out to save some money perhaps in the long run. But six years at $41 million is not ``chump change,'' as Boozer characterized his $600,000 salary last season.

                            I'm convinced the Cavaliers were honorable in their actions, and that they were sure they had an oral agreement. They are not idiots. They know better than to put Boozer on the open market.

                            But there is no proof of this.

                            The Cavaliers' only statements since the Utah offer point to the remarks made by Boozer and his agent on July 1 to Tom Withers of the Associated Press:

                            ``I want to be in Cleveland,'' Boozer said. ``I like it here. My wife and I are very, very happy here, and I want to be with the Cavs. Good things are happening. Now it's up to my agent and the Cavs to work things out. I hope they will.''

                            Boozer added he was thankful ``for everything the Cavs have done for me.''

                            July 1 was the first day that a free agent could enter into an oral agreement with a team. Boozer did not say they had a deal with the Cavaliers.

                            His agent, Rob Pelinka, said, ``I'm confident (general manager Jim Paxson) and I will continue to have conversations and we'll work something out.''

                            Once again, no mention of a done deal.

                            It's obvious the Boozer camp was keeping its options open in these public statements, even if stronger things had been said privately. Did the agent outsmart the Cavaliers? Did he hint at a deal to be soon agreed upon, then take the six-year offer and shop to see if any team would top it? That seems to be possible.

                            The Cavaliers' problem is no oral agreement could be made before July 1, according to NBA rules. They had to pick up the option by July 1. So the Boozer camp can say, ``No matter what you think we did or didn't say -- none of it matters. It all was before July 1, and no deals can be made.''

                            More thoughts:

                            • The Cavaliers could not pick up his $695,000 option for next season, then talk about an extension during the year. He could not receive a new contract until after next season.

                            • Boozer considered himself highly underpaid by NBA standards. He averaged 15 points and nearly 12 rebounds. He did not want to be paid only the $695,000 option. If the Cavaliers had done that, they would have had a very unhappy player.

                            • But Boozer would be playing for a new contract at the end of next season. Unhappy or not, he would still have tremendous motivation to play well. He also would have been a restricted free agent, meaning the Cavaliers could have matched any offered he received -- just as they can now with the Utah offer.

                            • Under the current rules, the most the Cavaliers could have offered right now was a six-year, $41 million deal -- and they could do it only if they declined the option for this season. The Cavaliers say not picking up the option was the only way to get Boozer far more money and security right now, which is what he wanted.

                            • Yes, a $41 million package after Boozer had played another season would have been a bargain for the Cavaliers if he continued to play at his current level. But he also would have received $5 million this year, rather than $695,000. Boozer wanted the big money now for obvious reasons -- he could get hurt at any time. If he ripped up his knee during the season, his market value would have declined as a free agent in 2005.

                            • Next year, the Cavaliers could have offered him anything -- they could even go over the salary cap. He would qualify for the ``Larry Bird Exemption'' in 2005, but not in 2004. The Larry Bird Exemption is why teams like the Los Angeles Lakers and New York Knicks have outrageous payrolls, well over the cap.

                            • The Cavaliers can match the six-year, $68 million offer from Utah. He will sign it July 14, and the Cavaliers have 15 days to clear cap room and match. Depending upon how much Boozer is getting in the first year -- it's rumored to be at least $10 million -- the Cavaliers might have to move at least $8 million in salaries. It won't be easy, but it can be done.

                            • Reader Chris Bommer wrote that Paxson and owner Gordon Gund both ``need to go.'' Well, Gund is the owner, so unless you plan to buy the team, he's not going anywhere. It's believed Gund approved this strategy, so do you fire Paxson? It's hard to imagine Paxson doing this on his own without ownership's backing.

                            TALKIN' SIZEMORE...

                            It's big-league time

                            for Buffalo outfielder

                            It's time for the Indians to bring up Grady Sizemore and put him in center field.

                            He went into the weekend hitting .297 at Triple-A Buffalo, but that doesn't indicate how he's been playing of late. He batted .344 in June. He has 20 doubles, 8 triples, 6 home runs and 12 steals.

                            Here's perhaps the most remarkable statistic: The left-handed batter is hitting .296 vs. lefties, .297 vs. righties.

                            Last year at Double-A Akron, it was .305 vs. righties, .304 vs. lefties.

                            At 21, Sizemore doesn't seem especially intimidated by any type of pitching. The Indians need to do with Sizemore what they did with Victor Martinez a year ago -- give him a good dose of big-league pitching to set him up for next season.

                            Let's face it, the Indians don't have much outfield depth.

                            Coco Crisp went into Saturday night in an 0-for-16 slump. He's batting only .218 in July, .255 on the season. He can take over the fourth outfielder role, which is now held by Mark Little.

                            Right fielder Jody Gerut also is struggling, hitting .258 with 7 home runs and 33 RBI heading into Saturday. Since June 1, he's batting only .226 in 134 at-bats. The Tribe can easily rotate Matt Lawton, Gerut, Crisp and Sizemore between the three outfield spots.

                            TALKIN' TRIBE...

                            Denney deserves

                            some time in rotation

                            • I'd like to see Kyle Denney get a shot in the starting rotation, along with Kaz Tadano. Denney does not have overpowering stuff, but he's 7-1 with a 3.42 earned-run average at Buffalo. His minor-league record is now 43-25. He'll turn 27 on July 27, so it's time to see what he can do.

                            • Jason Davis was only 3-11 in his last 29 starts. The Indians think he needs to regain his confidence at Triple-A Buffalo. Opposing batters were hitting .322 against him, highest of any American League starter. When Davis feels anxiety, he tends to ``overthrow,'' which means rush his delivery. That causes control problems.

                            • Reader Bob Maistros (Arlington, Va.) wonders why Russell Branyan (.264, 20 home runs, 66 RBI) has not been promoted from Buffalo. He still strikes out once every three at-bats. Branyan is 28 years old. He's had 1,104 big-league at-bats with 449 strikeouts, 70 home runs and a .227 average. I sense him becoming the next Jeff Manto, who had a strong career in Triple A but never could cut it for long in the majors.

                            • More interesting is Eric Crozier (.295, 18 home runs, 44 RBI), who batted .324 with eight home runs in June for Buffalo and started July at 11-of-22 with three home runs. He'll be 26 next month. He's a left-hander who plays first, and if nothing else, gives the Indians depth for trades. He had several injuries last year at Double-A Akron, where he batted only .245 with 18 home runs. He had been one of the most pleasant surprises in the farm system. If Crozier batted right-handed, he could be promoted soon -- but the Indians are loaded with left-handed hitting first basemen in Ben Broussard and Travis Hafner.
                            Broadcasting Classic Rock Hits 24/7 SauceMaster Radio!!!!

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X