Clips and Celts must convince the NBA that Doc and KG are not packaged

Which would seem like..... spin this thing as a separate trade, announce Doc Rivers will remain the Celtics coach for the time being.... then wait a few weeks to then negotiate a buyout with Doc.

 

Clips/Celts,Doc are Kane and the investigator is Stern

NSFW language

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/K2v-8ctq5x4?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

I can't disagree. At the same time, Celtics might not want Doc around anymore. The league isn't going to stop them from firing him if they sincerely don't want a traitor coaching the team. And then if they were to negotiate a buy-out of his contract so they can get some savings on the money they owe him, again the league wouldn't object to that. So, at that point Doc has no contractual obligations and Boston hasn't done any quid pro quo anything -- just cleaned house. At that point, if LAC interviews Doc for the head coaching job, does the league step in at that point and say that's wrong? They can interview anybody without an existing contract except that guy?

 

Yeah. So my point is if they are going to require some sort of time element here between multiple transactions then why not spell that out in the CBA the same way the 60 day wait to trade a player received in trade is spelled out? It's bad business to simply make up rules as you go along. Once again, circumvention was all about the Joe Smith debacle from years past. It's all about having under the table agreements about paying players. It shouldn't be about trades. There are trade rules. If the trade rules are followed that should be enough.

 

Buy your point is wrong.

The CBA isn't created specifically for free agency and circumvention isn't specifically about free agency. It's about trying to go around the CBA. And that's what this deal is. The problem they've run into is that it's obvious to everyone. It isn't about a time requirement, it's about specifically breaking the rules by including an under the table agreement to let go of a coach in order to facilitate a trade.

 

The problem is would KG waive his no trade clause to Clippers with a promise that Doc Rivers will "eventually" become the coach of the Clippers?

 

No it isn't.

This the league acting ON BEHALF of the other 28 owners who are not involved in the illegal trade. All owners negotiate and signed the CBA to ensure no unanticipated loopholes.

You have no idea how business contracts work. All lawyers know that the only way to stop loopholes like this is to not attempt to define every single thing that is not allowed. Instead, all owners just agree that the burden of proof is on the two owners making the trade to proof they aren't trying to circumvent to rules.

 

Link

The Celtics and Clippers were informed days ago that such an arrangement is not permitted under league trade rules, even if the deals were separated into two distinct transactions, a league source told CBSSports.com on Thursday.

In a radio tour in the hours before Game 7 of the NBA Finals on Thursday, commissioner David Stern appeared on several programs in an effort to put this saga out of its misery. His strongest comments came on ESPN Radio in New York, where Stern said, "The teams are aware that the collective bargaining agreement doesn't authorize trades involving coaches' contracts."

"The teams know that," Stern said. "It has been confirmed to them. ... It can't be gotten around by breaking it up into two transactions."

Stern said -- and a person familiar with the communication between the league and the teams confirmed -- that there is no separating the two deals at this point because it is obvious all the pieces are part of the same negotiation.

"If you think those, at this point -- having been all over the media for the last week -- are separate transactions ... I have a bridge that I would very much enjoy selling to you," Stern said.

Despite indications that the teams had since re-engaged in talks, a league source said Thursday, "I don't think they are. They've both known for some time already" that the league wouldn't allow the deal.

The concern from the league's perspective is that Rivers' value and salary cannot be accounted for under cap rules and thus cannot be included in a trade involving players -- nor can it be negotiated as a contingency to a trade.

"It would be an issue of getting around the cap," a league source said.

 

This is absolutely hilarious.

 

Straight from the horses mouth...!!

Now that this is over......lets talk about Dwight coming to Houston...AGAIN!!

 

I think the issue is presumably that the Clippers are paying for Doc and Garnett right now. If you reduce the price, you can argue that they are just paying for Garnett. Then if Boston releases Doc, they aren't being compensated for it.

 

Show me in the CBA where there is a time requirement between executing a trade and buying out a coach so he can go coach somewhere?

Show me in the CBA where this is an under-the-table transaction. How can it be under-the-table when everyone knows about it?

 

Boston needs to give up more, are they nuts?? Deandre isn't worth much without a Chris Paul or Blake taking away attention and those picks will be very low.

 

There is no need to show you anything in the CBA - you don't seem to grasp that point. Coaches can't be traded. Here, it's clear the teams are attempting to trade a coach. That's all that is relevant. As has been pointed out many times already, the CBA is not a list of things that you can't do.

 

Isnt it a good thing is the NBA vetos the trade? i mean if the Can Get rid DJ's contract and keep Eric gordon, then they can do a SnT with the lakers. The clippers can offer eric gordon and Blake Griffin for Dwight Ho

 

I dont think Doc wanted to return to Boston regardless of the Clippers and that talk was going on way before this.

Its not a secret Boston needs to restructure their team for the future and if Doc doesnt want to be apart of that then they should try to buy him out.

At that point im not sure what rule is in place where they can stop him from joining whatever team he wants, it would have to be some kind of wacky small clause that restricts the teams a non working coach can go to.

 

So they buy him out for a dollar and then the league says circumvention because no way a coach will give up that much money without having another deal already done?

This is going to get out of hand.

 

And that's a hard sell, isn't it. This melodrama gets more convoluted, more crazy by the hour.