3 Sides to Every Story

In the latest developments for the Carlos Boozer/Cleveland Cavs fiasco, we finally have a second version to compare to. Within the last day, we have learned that SFX Entertainment, the company that employs Boozer's agent, and Rob Pelinka, have fired Boozer as a client, SFX has seen Pelinka resign, and Boozer went on the record to say that he never gave his word to the Cavs that he would sign with them, but he only gave his word to the Utah Jazz. Now he is mystified why the Cavs would be slandering his character, why his image would be so tarnished to the general population, and basically what all the fuss is.

So in short, Boozer claimed he never gave his word to the Cavs, SFX fired Boozer because they want people to think he went back on his word and now they want to protect themselves, and Pelinka resigned to distance himself from this mess, quite possibly to protect his crown jewel (which is???).

Why oh why oh why can't people admit that they just did it for the money? Unless some other element comes out that we haven't heard that totally contradicts everything we've learned, this is exactly what happened. Boozer took the money. How can we be so certain? To wit:

1) Boozer claims he never gave his word to the Cavs that he would re-sign with them. The first problem with this comment is that it is directly contradicted by several sources who state that Boozer said in meetings with owner Gordon Gund and GM Jim Paxon that "If you respect me by not picking up the option, I'll show trust and loyalty to you by signing with you." That's a compelling quote, but it can obviously be refuted. The bigger problem is this: unless everyone in the Cavs organization had a collective case of stupidity, there is NO WAY that they would have relinquished Boozer's rights if they weren't positive that he would re-sign with them. So for Boozer to say that he never gave his word to the Cavs that he'd re-sign is farcical and disingenuous.

2) Boozer's claims are also directly refuted by SFX's own actions that they fired him. If Boozer didn't do anything wrong, then SFX would not be compelled to distance themselves from this disaster. And then with regards to this whole firing...there's a simple relationship between employer and employee. An employee cannot fire an employer. Boozer is the employer. SFX is the employee. Boozer can fire SFX, but it can't go the other way around. Maybe it's just semantics, but it warrants mentioning.

3) Pelinka resigned because he 'tried to get Boozer to do the right thing' and get Boozer to honor his commitment to the Cavs, which is what was claimed by a fellow SFX employee. Pelinka clearly DID NOT try to convince Boozer to do the right thing, because it was Pelinka that negotiated the deal with the Jazz. You don't fire your money ticket for agreeing to a deal that you just negotiated. If Pelinka truly tried to get Boozer to do the right thing and Boozer refused to honor his verbal agreement, then Pelinka should have resigned on the spot, not gone out and negotiated a larger contract. Even if his motives were purely in the interest of his player, the perception of impropriety is too great to ignore.

4) for a good 3-4 days, Boozer and his agent refused to take any calls. You know what that is called? Assessing damage control. In one of the more humorous comments, one Boozer source actually said that Carlos was refusing to take calls from his beloved Coach Mike Krzyzewski, because "he doesn't want to hear Mike telling him not to do this."

5) Rob Pelinka's crown jewel is none other than Kobe Bryant. Pelinka stands to make huge bank off of Bryant (barring Bryant's trial outcome) but he grossly miscalculated here. He is now trying to distance himself far enough away from this mess so he doesn't lose Bryant too. Ironically, the only way that Pelinka will likely keep Bryant is if Boozer gets a dose of common sense and accepts the Cavs' olive branch and returns for an offered $5 million 1 year contract which can be renegotiated under restricted agency rules in 2005. But then again, Pelinka may lose Bryant to the Colorado penal basketball league anyway, so this may be moot.

This whole fiasco is sad and somewhat reminds me of the whole Justin Timberlake/Janet Jackson Superbowl controversy. In both scenarios, they did what they did because they had something to gain from it, got caught for what they were trying to do, and then tried to desperately convince everyone that that wasn't what happened. The problem is, the more they try to convince people, the more holes show up in the story, and you eventually realize that what we think happened is really what happened. Carlos gave his word, reneged on his promise, his agent brokered a new deal, and he took the bigger money. That's more or less what happened, so please, just come clean and this will all go away.