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

So amusing.

To me this all comes down to how stern the league wants to be on this. If they want to truly enforce the law, they need to tell both sides "Hey, no matter what, we are not going to let both deals happen, no matter how long you space them out." If they let them happen, even if they happen 5 months apart, it is obvious they were a packaged deal.

 

You can almost hear Sterling screaming:

"I am going to be paying that ******* coach $35,000,000 and I have to give up future, cheap assets?"

In all seriousness, I have to think that Rivers ends up in Los Angeles with this thing dragging out so long. The Celtics are not going to want to pay $7,000,000 a year for a coach that is disloyal, and the Clippers feel compeled to get him or lose the best player in franchise history.

Still, the Clippers have the most to lose, if I am Ainge I am demanding two 1st round picks and gambling that Sterling doesn't want to lose Paul. If Rivers doesn't end up the Clippers, they can always workout a cheap buy out, Rivers doesn't want to remain in Boston without the Big 3.

 

This gets at the heart of it. He wasn't interested in dumping Doc for draft picks. He was dumping Doc to dump Garnett (really wanted to dump another contract as well) and get back a player he likes (God knows why) and multiple picks.

 

Doc will just resign and they won't let go work anywhere else. That would be perfect. That's the endgame for me in all this. I don't care what else happens but I hope Doc doesn't end up getting what HE wants.

 

Link

The Los Angeles Clippers are continuing to withhold any offers of compensation to secure the rights to Boston Celtics coach Doc Rivers and are threatening to blow up the blockbuster deal that they've negotiated with the coach, league sources told Yahoo! Sports.

After Clippers management privately insisted to people that they were awaiting approval of owner Donald Sterling on draft-pick compensation for Rivers, no offer has been made to the Celtics and there's growing concern in multiple corners of the these talks that the Clippers' front office has no authority to meet Boston's request of a first-round pick to bring Rivers to Los Angeles as coach, league sources told Yahoo! Sports.

The Celtics and Clippers have been in contact with the league office on the proposed Kevin Garnett and Rivers transactions and NBA commissioner David Stern has made it clear that the Garnett-DeAndre Jordan part of the trade talks cannot be completed simultaneously with the securing of Rivers' rights through draft picks.

As free-agent star Chris Paul pressures the Clippers to get deals done for Rivers and eventually Garnett, the Clippers' unwillingness to make a formal offer to Boston for compensation on Rivers has left many in the process confused, sources said.

Boston will not relinquish the rights to Rivers without compensation – likely a first-round pick – and let him free of the final three years, $21 million on his contract, sources said.

Boston has insisted on Jordan and a first-round pick for Garnett, and would allow Rivers out of his contract to join the Clippers in a separate deal for a first-rounder, sources said.

The Clippers negotiated a five-year, $35 million deal with Rivers that could be worth as much as $8 million annually with bonus incentives, sources said. Rivers has arrangements to bring some Celtics support staff – including assistants coaches Tyron Lue and Kevin Eastman, and possibly others – with him to Los Angeles, sources said.

The Clippers haven't pushed Paul for a firm commitment to re-sign based on the completion of the deal, but Rivers would accept the job with a belief that the All-Star point guard has decided to stay and play for him, sources told Yahoo! Sports.

 

They can say it's two separate deals but isn't it still a 'package' deal? It's the same deal - 2 first round picks and Jordan for Garnett and Rivers but in "separate" deals. Or am I missing something/not understanding correctly?

Boston has insisted on Jordan and a first-round pick for Garnett, and would allow Rivers out of his contract to join the Clippers in a separate deal for a first-rounder, sources said.

 

I wonder if KG would be interested in reuninting with McHale if this falls through. As Clutch stated in a post a while back, Asik for Garnett... who says no? Of course, this is contingent on the Rockets getting Dwight.

 

To me this whole "we're going after Doc and we'll deal with any KG trades at a later date" is just something they're leaking to the media to change perception of the deal but I agree that it will still be the same.

Interesting part will be if a Doc release/signing happens with compensation this week and then early July they trade KG if the league will veto the trade part then. But that sounds like the Clippers strategy to me right now.

 

If I was the Clippers, I'd do Jordan and a pick for KG, and then go hire someone like Hollins. Doc isn't worth the trouble. The trade would be worth it to get out from Jordan's long, expensive contract and bring in a vet that you know knows how to play. Maybe KG won't waive his no-trade clause, and you'd have to go see what other deal you can do to improve the team. It would show, though, that it was Boston that was operating in bad faith.

As for the Rockets, I think Asik should be able to pull something better than KG. He was a great player, but he's got one foot in the grave now. Half the reason he's worthwhile for LAC is to dump Jordan's salary.

 

Not allowed. No side deals. Trade would be disallowed because it was agreed to in advance og being completed.

See where we are headed?

We are headed to the league office determining what trades are fair and balanced. They are playing with the verbage of the CBA to justify their overreach and Stern is poopooing on the league on his way out the door.

Can't you see where this is headed? Nobody is going to want to attempt to discuss trades much less be willing to actually call in an agreement.

 

The thing is, you have to look at this in the terms of a civil case. David Stern will make his ruling based on propensity and not necessarily factual proof. In other words if he can reasonably conclude that it is more likely than not, that releasing Doc from his contract is in any way related to a deal between the Celts and Clipps then he will disallow that deal between the Celts and Clipps.

At this point how do you not make that assumption. If Doc is released and signed by the Clipps then I see absolutely no way that Stern allows a deal between the Celts and Clipps involving DeAndre Jordan & Kevin Garnett.

 

No. Because you're not understanding what the terms mean. The proposal you were referring to is not a side deal. It's still not a deal the Rockets would be interested in unless they managed to pull off a separate, completely unrelated deal.

 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Celtics-Clippers deal never brought to league today... because they have no deal. Clips not meeting Celts' asking price.</p>&mdash; Steve Bulpett (@SteveBHoop) <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveBHoop/statuses/347855252323713024">June 20, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

Would there be a better defensive frontcourt in the league? It's fun to think about.

I'd prefer to trade Lin as well, but I don't think Boston would have interest.

 

It's a side deal. Made between Dwight, the Rockets, and KG. Gotta involve all parties and coordinate it. One deal begats the other. It's actually one acquisition using the interpretation that we are getting from Stern in it's most proper fashion. And if the trade happened right now and KG waived his no-trade clause it would be obvious circumvention because he has stated he would be willing to come here if Dwight came here. So you would have to assume Dwight has already decided to come here while he is still under contract to another team. That would be against the rules you see. All speaking in the hypothetical that was described above.

The league office can take and bend every trade if they so desire using the broad interpretation of terms that is being used right now.

 

Uh, yeah, absolutely if the Rockets trade for Garnett and he indicated he was coming here because he had assurance that Dwight was signing here the Rockets would get penalized big time. That would be clear tampering on the part of the Rockets, and of course the NBA would come down on them.

 

What will be funny is if all this stuff breaks down and Paul finally says ".... it" and decides he wants to come to Houston. Then we trade away the roster and sign both him and Dwight outright. Wala...another big 3. How would the league office stop that? The very thing they are not wanting to happen they force to happen because they are getting too involved and too dicey about these trades.

These type of trade negotiations have gone on for as long as I've been alive. There's always been players that said if so-and-so is the coach of such-and-such I will go there and play. And it's happened. Once again, it's extreme overreach by the league office.

 

No it wouldn't. How is the league going to prove tampering??? Can't do it. Garnett and Dwight simply get together on the beach at Hilton Head and decide amongst themselves that this is what they are doing. Now what?