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

Once again: The CBA is not a list of things you can't do; it is mainly a list of things you can do. The owners agreed in writing that anything outside the list of things you can do can be reviewed and stopped by the league office on behalf of all owners.

How are you still having trouble understanding that circumvention is not a list of illegal actions. It is a signed agreement by owners that circumvention does not require the CBA to list every single possibility. The owners THEMSELVES want protection against other owners, so they agreed to a broad, interperatative definition. This is common in business contracts everywhere. Your expectations of how a business contract should be written provides for MANY loopholes that no one thought of. The normal way of writing contracts attempts to close all loopholes with broad, interpretative language.

bottomline: Owners agree to not act in a way that gets around the CBA rules. It is like an honor code that the league gets to interpret on behalf of protecting all owners.

 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Sources tell ESPN it's been communicated to Celts &amp; Clips that league has questions about proposed deals and appearance they are connected</p>&mdash; Marc Stein (@ESPNSteinLine) <a href="https://twitter.com/ESPNSteinLine/statuses/347731126477017088">June 20, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>NBA rules prohibit any trade/signing being made w/contingencies or side deals. Can Celts &amp; Clips prove Doc &amp; KG deals are &quot;separate&quot; moves?</p>&mdash; Marc Stein (@ESPNSteinLine) <a href="https://twitter.com/ESPNSteinLine/statuses/347731770390745088">June 20, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>As <a href="https://twitter.com/ESPNSteinLine">@ESPNSteinLine</a> indicates, there are concerns at league office about Doc Rivers contingency being placed on a Celtics-Clippers trade.</p>&mdash; Ken Berger (@KBergCBS) <a href="https://twitter.com/KBergCBS/statuses/347734162834329601">June 20, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Contingencies and side deals that can't be accounted for under cap rules aren't permitted in player trades. Deals would have to be separate.</p>&mdash; Ken Berger (@KBergCBS) <a href="https://twitter.com/KBergCBS/statuses/347734382871707648">June 20, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

While Doc is obviously getting traded for all practical purposes, I think the league office will allow it. A couple of teams (like the Rockets) might complain because it hurts their chances at Chris Paul, but no one is actually directly injured by it. So, I think the NBA goes along with it so Boston can rebuild more quickly, and they have a more interesting team in LA.

But, I think Doc has badly mismanaged the whole thing. He's been too much in the papers about it and looks to be orchestrating according to rumors. If he kept a lower profile, this wouldn't look like a package. I think his active involvement has made the whole thing cheaper for the Clippers, so it'd probably serve them right if the trade was denied. But, I don't think it will be.

Are you aware that the NBA appointed Jac Sperling to govern the Hornets as a sort of regent so the league could maintain a firewall between the league office and the Hornets' front office? It was inappropriate for Stern to act as owner of the Hornets because they had structured the governance of that team to preclude his involvement. He acted in the Hornets' best interests, but ignored his own rules to do so.

 

Somebody wants a a down payment on a beach house in Malibu.

 

I have been wondering about this ever since the Clippers Celtics talks/rumors began.

I didn't chime in until now, but has there ever been a deal like this before where a coach was offered in a trade deal with players?

I didn't understand it from the beginning how everyone was assuming Rivers was part of a two team deal...

 

It's obviously against the CBA, but how the heck could the league prove it?

Just complete the deal for the players and then a few weeks later the Celtics fire/buy out Doc and he goes and coaches the Clips.

 

Stern was just on the herd, colin brought it up, & sounded like stern is going to have none of it. He would know.

 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Source tells ESPN that Celts &amp; Clips have today begun discussing new trade scenarios to try to satisfy league's misgivings on these deals</p>&mdash; Marc Stein (@ESPNSteinLine) <a href="https://twitter.com/ESPNSteinLine/statuses/347753616699969536">June 20, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

Stern with one last hurrah before he goes out. Fitting.

If they were smart, they would have done DeAndre and a pick for KG, then waited at least a few days while the Celtics "decide" what they want to do with Doc and give the other pick for Doc.

 

I hope you'll eat your humble pie now on this and realize that the league does try to prevent circumvention of the CBA.

 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Last tweet means that Celts/Clips deals -- IF agreed -- won't necessarily take form of DeAndre Jordan &amp; two firsts going to Boston</p>&mdash; Marc Stein (@ESPNSteinLine) <a href="https://twitter.com/ESPNSteinLine/statuses/347755575091789825">June 20, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

The league doesn't need to "prove it." Burden of proof is on the owners.

Note: calling it the "league" is somewhat wrong. It's 28 owners vs 2 owners. The league is supposed to stop illegal behavior on behalf of the other 28 owners, and in order to stop precedence.

I dislike Stern as much as the next guy.

But saying it's all about Stern is wrong, imso.

 

The closest is Stan Van Gundy being traded, but no players were involved, just picks.

"Orlando will send the 39th pick of the NBA draft to the Heat and give Miami the option of swapping first-round selections in 2008 for SVG."

 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>David Stern on proposed Clips-Celtics deal: &quot;What the rules won’t allow, it can’t be gotten around by breaking it up into two transactions.&quot;</p>&mdash; Baxter Holmes (@BaxterHolmes) <a href="https://twitter.com/BaxterHolmes/statuses/347764578417000449">June 20, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

Then I dont understand what the problem is in the first place. I just dont get it,what details are they not sharing

 

Wow, this might not happen at all then, get out the popcorn!

 

Read all the tweets J.R. posted in this thread.

in a nutshell

• coaching moves cannot have anything to do with trades (e.g., Clippers won't do trade unless Doc Rivers is released), and
• No quid pro quo deals are allowed, even if divided into two separate transactions

 

<script src="http://player.espn.com/player.js?playerBrandingId=4ef8000cbaf34c1687a7d9a26fe0e89e&adSetCode=91cDU6NuXTGKz3OdjOxFdAgJVtQcKJnI&pcode=1kNG061cgaoolOncv54OAO1ceO-I&width=576&height=324&externalId=espn:9407119&thruParam_espn-ui[autoPlay]=false&thruParam_espn-ui[playRelatedExternally]=true"></script>

 

Why do people keep thinking the burden of proof is on the league? If they don't like it, they'll disallow it. All they have to say is that it looks to them like circumvention.

Once upon a time, they could have done what you suggested. But Doc screwed it up and now everyone knows they were trying to include a coach in a trade, so any mechanism used that results with KG and Doc on LAC next season will look like circumvention. If Stern is indicating now that he doesn't like how this looks, I think it portends badly. But, I see 2 ways it can go: (1) Stern means it and this deal is dead; (2) Stern is only talking big to protect the league's reputation and will allow the deal to go through after Boston and LA have put enough window-dressing on it that Stern can pretend the deal is different than before.

But, I think the league invited this problem by not allowing coaches to be traded, but allowing a team to pay compensation to terminate a coach's contract. That's a de facto trade, and the only thing that's different is the coach can choose his destination. If they wanted to avoid coach-swapping, they shouldn't allow any compensation.