Why couldn't we re-sign Keyon Dooling?

[Roy H.]

On March 27, Sean Grande tweeted

"Doc on Keyon Dooling singing with Memphis; “we wanted to [sign him] but couldn’t because of the buyout. He would have been with us."

The Boston media largely reported this as a fact; we couldn't sign Dooling because he was bought out.

I was aware of no provision of the CBA that would have prevented us from signing Dooling, so I emailed Larry Coon:

I'm stumped regarding something Doc Rivers said about Keyon Dooling.

On March 27, Sean Grande tweeted "Doc on Keyon Dooling singing with Memphis; “we wanted to [sign him] but couldn’t because of the buyout. He would have been with us."   

Am I overlooking a provision of the new CBA, where players who are bought-out aren't eligible to re-sign with the old teams for a period of time?  I know that there are similar rules for traded players and amnestied players. 

Also, if there is such a rule, does this apply to all waived players, or only bought out players?  If the Celtics waive Paul Pierce and only pay him his guaranteed $5 million salary, would he still be eligible to sign in Boston?

Thanks for any clarification you can provide.

Larry Coon is the man when it comes to knowledge of the CBA, so I figured if anybody knew what Doc was talking about, he would.  His response:

Nope, there's no such rule. As you said, restrictions only exist for traded and amnestied players. Josh Harrelson with the Heat is one example where this had happened.

So, what gives?  Was Doc just spouting nonsense with nobody in the media knowledgeable enough to call him on it?  Or am I and Larry Coon overlooking something?

[diconzo]

I think it had to do with Rondo being out for the year. Without Rondo, Dooling saw the Grizz as a more likely title contender.

[Monkhouse]

Keyon Dooling so overrated...

I'm glad he didn't come back.

[Lucky17]

So, what gives?  Was Doc just spouting nonsense with nobody in the media knowledgeable enough to call him on it?  Or am I and Larry Coon overlooking something?

Not sure. Maybe Ainge/Doc assumed they couldn't, and didn't pursue it? Who knows?

More importantly, did Coon explicitly confirm that Pierce could be waived and then brought back at a lesser salary?

[ron_z]

So, what gives?  Was Doc just spouting nonsense with nobody in the media knowledgeable enough to call him on it?  Or am I and Larry Coon overlooking something?

Not sure. Maybe Ainge/Doc assumed they couldn't, and didn't pursue it? Who knows?

More importantly, did Coon explicitly confirm that Pierce could be waived and then brought back at a lesser salary?

I heard two different versions:

1. Dooling's contract was under the new CBA, but PP's under the old CBA, so they couldn't sign Dooling.

2. A player who has been signed and then waived in the same season, he couldn't come back again in that season.NOT includes 10 days contract though. PP is in a different situation.

I prefer to trust the 2nd one cuz the first one looks kinda ridiculous.

Here's more thoughts...

PP could been waived and Celtics could resign him when he becomes an unrestricted free agent. However, if a team decide to give him an offer in the time from he's been waived to he becomes an unrestricted FA(seems like 30 days), Celtics have no chance to bring him back.

I did a bit of research n it seems right but not quite sure. I do believe Larry Coon was not wrong, so I think Celtics could waive n resign PP if they both really want it happens.