One thing I'm confused about: Doc said something to the media along the lines of "we couldn't re-sign Dooling, because we bought him out".
This is from the Globe:
After the cleansing, Dooling wanted to play again. He wanted to return to the Celtics, but because his contract had been bought out, he was ineligible to play for them. So he agreed to a contract with the Grizzlies and has played in seven regular-season and three playoff games for them as a reserve point guard.
And then there was this tweet:
Doc on Keyon Dooling signing with Memphis; “We wanted to (sign him) but couldn’t because of the buyout. He would have been with us."
Does anybody know what provision of the CBA Doc was referring to? Or was he just completely wrong, and nobody in the media called him on it?
I assume it's #2. However, if there is a rule barring it, would it apply to re-signing Pierce, as well?
Pierce has a team option that would end his contract. I suspect that the option makes the case completely different. They would be trying to do what Elton Brand and Carlos Boozer said they would do (and then didn't do).
I don't believe that Pierce has a team option. Rather, I think he has a partially-guaranteed contract. It's a narrow distinction, but there's a difference.
Yep. One of the major distinctions is that a player with a final year that is only partially guaranteed can be traded after the trade deadline passes and before the new fiscal year begins (e.g., on draft night). Players whose last remaining contract year is either a player or a team option cannot.
I think Dooling's buyout/release prevented him from returning to his original team during the same season (the loophole that the Celtics were able to exploit to bring Sam Cassell back). I don't know if that might also apply to Pierce's situation if the Celtics were to release him for payroll savings, although it certainly begs the question.
Topic: Larry Coon explains Paul Pierce's contract situation (Read 8556 times)