why does Doc act like he is doing Celtics a favor

[Ogaju]

Ogaju, neither you nor I nor anyone else was in the room when Doc Rivers signed his 5 year contract. In discussions of that type, with friends doing a professional contract, there could have been a spoken word between the parties that Doc will have the opportunity to get out of his contract at anytime for whatever reason, personal or professional. Heck, that might even be written in his contract.

If so, then Danny and Doc are just acting within the guidelines of a previously agreed to verbal agreement or within the language of the contract. Rather than giving Doc one year contracts and resigning him every year, Danny and Doc and their representatives could have just come up with the 5 year deal where Doc, if he so chooses, can end the contract after any season he wishes.

If this is the case, and quite honestly, given the amount of times this has come up, I think this probably is what happened, then Doc is not acting arrogantly or doing something that he doesn't have a right to do.

You are just introducing your personal feelings about Doc into a business situation where there are no feelings, just people exercising their options within a written or verbal contract or both.

Of course it is my personal feeling, that does not make it wrong does it?

By the way, what you describe the 5 year contract not really being a five year contract would be an illusory contract. Basically, the Celtics are bound to a five year contract and Doc is  not because he can leave at anytime he wants with no repercussions. The Celtics get nothing in return for committing to Doc for 5 years, not even the public perception that they have a coach's commitment for 5 years.

It just seems to me that many here love Doc more than they love the Celtics.

[KGs Knee]

of course not. Doc is free to walk away from the contract but he will then be in breach of the legal obligation and will have to pay damages unless the Cs waive their right to collect.

I'll bet you every dime you own, the Celtics will in fact have no issue.

[Boris Badenov]

of course not. Doc is free to walk away from the contract but he will then be in breach of the legal obligation and will have to pay damages unless the Cs waive their right to collect.

Again, I think you're mistaken here about how these deals work, and what it means to "honor the contract."

The Celtics cannot write a contract forcing Doc to work for them for a specific period of time. Forbidding an employee to resign (i.e. creating a "legal obligation" against it, as you say) is indentured servitude.

Empirically we see NBA coaches resigning all the time without any mention of punitive measures.

What seems most likely here is that the contract primarily binds the behavior of the team, not the coach. Loosely it probably says "If Doc wants to keep working, the Celtics must pay him under the terms described."

This is why we routinely see teams buying out the remaining terms of coaches' contracts, but not the other way around.

So, using the term "honor the contract" here seems to me totally misguided.

The Cs might be able to include clauses saying that Doc needs to give appropriate notice, or that he cannot go and work for the Knicks for a year, or that he can't make tasteless jokes about Danny's mom - basically, that he can't do something that would damage the Celtics as a franchise.

You also seem to make this argument, implying that what Doc has done is "broadcast to the whole world and free agent class that coming back is a day to day thing" and "play out [his] wavering in public" because this "unnecessarily hurts the team."

But of course, Doc has done nothing of the kind. Doc himself has not uttered a single word on the subject, other than to say, when interviewed immediately after the lass loss of the season, "I haven't thought about it yet."

The only things we've heard since then have come straight from the mouth of his boss, Mr. Danny Ainge, who says everything is fine. It's hard to see how Doc can be perceived as doing something harmful when he actually has not done anything except go home and play golf.

And if the argument is that Doc is somehow acting in bad faith by even contemplating resigning - setting aside the fact that one would need psychic powers to settle that mystery - well, we have a direct quote from his employer saying that what he's doing is totally within the bounds of any implicit agreement they had.

I'm honestly baffled by the idea that what Doc is doing represents not "honoring" the contract, in any legal or even ethical sense.

[Ogaju]

of course not. Doc is free to walk away from the contract but he will then be in breach of the legal obligation and will have to pay damages unless the Cs waive their right to collect.

Again, I think you're mistaken here about how these deals work, and what it means to "honor the contract."

The Celtics cannot write a contract forcing Doc to work for them for a specific period of time. Forbidding an employee to resign (i.e. creating a "legal obligation" against it, as you say) is indentured servitude.

Empirically we see NBA coaches resigning all the time without any mention of punitive measures.

What seems most likely here is that the contract primarily binds the behavior of the team, not the coach. Loosely it probably says "If Doc wants to keep working, the Celtics must pay him under the terms described."

This is why we routinely see teams buying out the remaining terms of coaches' contracts, but not the other way around.

So, using the term "honor the contract" here seems to me totally misguided.

The Cs might be able to include clauses saying that Doc needs to give appropriate notice, or that he cannot go and work for the Knicks for a year, or that he can't make tasteless jokes about Danny's mom - basically, that he can't do something that would damage the Celtics as a franchise.

You also seem to make this argument, implying that what Doc has done is "broadcast to the whole world and free agent class that coming back is a day to day thing" and "play out [his] wavering in public" because this "unnecessarily hurts the team."

But of course, Doc has done nothing of the kind. Doc himself has not uttered a single word on the subject, other than to say, when interviewed immediately after the lass loss of the season, "I haven't thought about it yet."

The only things we've heard since then have come straight from the mouth of his boss, Mr. Danny Ainge, who says everything is fine. It's hard to see how Doc can be perceived as doing something harmful when he actually has not done anything except go home and play golf.

And if the argument is that Doc is somehow acting in bad faith by even contemplating resigning - setting aside the fact that one would need psychic powers to settle that mystery - well, we have a direct quote from his employer saying that what he's doing is totally within the bounds of any implicit agreement they had.

I'm honestly baffled by the idea that what Doc is doing represents not "honoring" the contract, in any legal or even ethical sense.

Just to clarify, I agree that Doc has the right to resign and cannot be forced to work for the Celtics, I know that specific performance of personal service contracts are largely disfavored. This however does not mean that Doc is not contractually obligated to the Celtics.

Second, 'I have not thought about it yet' speaks volumes. Many here have suggested that Doc is one of the key reasons free agents come to Boston. I do not necessarily agree, but if this were true then the statement will cause pause for free agents. Doc could simply state I will be back he is always free to change his mind. Coaching stability is important for free agent recruiting. I just don't know any other area of commitment that would allow one party to be committed and the other not. That is like being married but your wife has to tell you every year that she is thinking about whether to stay or not. As far as DA, he is doing exactly what management must do try to steady the ship. He like Doc cannot say 'I don't know'.

How come Doc has not come out to shut up SAS's rumors?

[LooseCannon]

Are you suggesting that Doc is legally bound to work for the Celtics for the entire term of the contract, and/or that his resigning in these current circumstances would violate the contract or be wrongful in some way?

I cant answer your question because I have not read his contract, but I will say this, if there are no escape clauses in his contract, then the answers to your questions are yes and yes.

Doc didn't sell himself into slavery.

[bucknersrevenge]

One could argue that Doc IS doing us a favor. He's an excellent coach who is coaching the Celtics. Then again, the Celtics are doing a favor by paying him extremely well for his services. Big deal. Move on /thread

[Boris Badenov]

of course not. Doc is free to walk away from the contract but he will then be in breach of the legal obligation and will have to pay damages unless the Cs waive their right to collect.

Again, I think you're mistaken here about how these deals work, and what it means to "honor the contract."

The Celtics cannot write a contract forcing Doc to work for them for a specific period of time. Forbidding an employee to resign (i.e. creating a "legal obligation" against it, as you say) is indentured servitude.

Empirically we see NBA coaches resigning all the time without any mention of punitive measures.

What seems most likely here is that the contract primarily binds the behavior of the team, not the coach. Loosely it probably says "If Doc wants to keep working, the Celtics must pay him under the terms described."

This is why we routinely see teams buying out the remaining terms of coaches' contracts, but not the other way around.

So, using the term "honor the contract" here seems to me totally misguided.

The Cs might be able to include clauses saying that Doc needs to give appropriate notice, or that he cannot go and work for the Knicks for a year, or that he can't make tasteless jokes about Danny's mom - basically, that he can't do something that would damage the Celtics as a franchise.

You also seem to make this argument, implying that what Doc has done is "broadcast to the whole world and free agent class that coming back is a day to day thing" and "play out [his] wavering in public" because this "unnecessarily hurts the team."

But of course, Doc has done nothing of the kind. Doc himself has not uttered a single word on the subject, other than to say, when interviewed immediately after the lass loss of the season, "I haven't thought about it yet."

The only things we've heard since then have come straight from the mouth of his boss, Mr. Danny Ainge, who says everything is fine. It's hard to see how Doc can be perceived as doing something harmful when he actually has not done anything except go home and play golf.

And if the argument is that Doc is somehow acting in bad faith by even contemplating resigning - setting aside the fact that one would need psychic powers to settle that mystery - well, we have a direct quote from his employer saying that what he's doing is totally within the bounds of any implicit agreement they had.

I'm honestly baffled by the idea that what Doc is doing represents not "honoring" the contract, in any legal or even ethical sense.

Just to clarify, I agree that Doc has the right to resign and cannot be forced to work for the Celtics, I know that specific performance of personal service contracts are largely disfavored. This however does not mean that Doc is not contractually obligated to the Celtics.

You didn't respond to my comments. But anyway, what specific contractual obligation has Doc not fulfilled? What obligation would not be fulfilled if he resigned, as is his right? You're the one leveling the accusation here, I think the burden is on you to be specific.

Second, 'I have not thought about it yet' speaks volumes. Many here have suggested that Doc is one of the key reasons free agents come to Boston. I do not necessarily agree, but if this were true then the statement will cause pause for free agents. Doc could simply state I will be back he is always free to change his mind. Coaching stability is important for free agent recruiting.

He had not thought about it at the time of a post-game interview immediately following the final game of the season. One could argue that focusing only on the current task at hand is in fact exactly the right thing to do, and that the time for thinking about next year comes later.

And as far as free agency goes, even if you thought Doc was a critical player in the whole process, the NBA free agency period does not begin until July 1st. As long as Doc decides by then, any potential free agent will know whether he's the coach.

And finally, if you're a potential free agent, what would you prefer? That Doc say, as you recommend, "I will be back" when he doesn't intend to come back (or even, if he isn't sure)? Or that he be honest?

I just don't know any other area of commitment that would allow one party to be committed and the other not. That is like being married but your wife has to tell you every year that she is thinking about whether to stay or not.

Well, like I keep saying, I think this is something pretty fundamental about how these things work that you seem to be missing. This is not a marriage, it's an employer/employee relationship.

[Ogaju]

and most employment contracts are at-will which means that they can be terminated at anytime. The contract Doc has with Celtics is not an at-will contract otherwise it would not be for a definite term. Doc signed a contract voluntarily to coach the Cs for five years. He is legally obligated to fulfill that contract, if he does  not, he is in breach of contract. You argument seems to be that because he can breach the contract then there is no obligation. That is just wrong as a matter of law. The fact that a party to a contract can fail to perform the contract does not make the contract any less valid.

I understand that because these professional contracts are frequently abused my players and coaches the public may not understand that they were valid to begin with, but that does not change the fact.

I believe the contract and Doc's commitment is valuable to the Celtics that is why they pay him handsomely. He was not enslaved he negotiated and entered into the contract voluntarily.

The fact that teams do not sue coaches that leave early is more of a PR move than a legal move.

Perhaps you do have a point and these pro contracts are illusory contracts rather than real contracts. In which case the Celtics are no more bound to the contract than Doc.

[Boris Badenov]

and most employment contracts are at-will which means that they can be terminated at anytime. The contract Doc has with Celtics is not an at-will contract otherwise it would not be for a definite term. Doc signed a contract voluntarily to coach the Cs for five years. He is legally obligated to fulfill that contract, if he does  not, he is in breach of contract. You argument seems to be that because he can breach the contract then there is no obligation. That is just wrong as a matter of law. The fact that a party to a contract can fail to perform the contract does not make the contract any less valid.

I understand that because these professional contracts are frequently abused my players and coaches the public may not understand that they were valid to begin with, but that does not change the fact.

I believe the contract and Doc's commitment is valuable to the Celtics that is why they pay him handsomely. He was not enslaved he negotiated and entered into the contract voluntarily.

The fact that teams do not sue coaches that leave early is more of a PR move than a legal move.

Perhaps you do have a point and these pro contracts are illusory contracts rather than real contracts. In which case the Celtics are no more bound to the contract than Doc.

OK, you didn't answer my questions again.

I disagree with almost everything you wrote above, and it in fact ignores, contradicts and/or misinterprets what I wrote above, which makes me think you didn't read it.

I just don't understand why you think that this contract can or does legally require Doc to coach this team for five years. Nor have you given any specifics about what term of the contract you think he'd be violating if he resigned (or entertained the idea). I keep asking you to tell me this and you won't.

Part of me wants to respond line by line to your comment, but I can't bring myself to keep beating this dead horse.

[nickagneta]

Of course it is my personal feeling, that does not make it wrong does it?

No, you can dislike Doc all you want. But when you manufacture imaginary situations about a business relationship based on your personal feeling, simply to vilify a person you don't like, then what you do is create a false image of reality.

By the way, what you describe the 5 year contract not really being a five year contract would be an illusory contract. Basically, the Celtics are bound to a five year contract and Doc is  not because he can leave at anytime he wants with no repercussions. The Celtics get nothing in return for committing to Doc for 5 years, not even the public perception that they have a coach's commitment for 5 years.

What the Celtics get out of such a contract is the services of Doc Rivers for as long as he decides he wants to coach this team, which is no more or less than they would have gotten if it was strictly a five year commitment. Doc could still resign any time he wants and not take any more money from the Celtics.

Also, the Celtics can terminate the contract any time they want. Firing a coach is always within the rights of any team, so they have the same rights as Doc to get out of the contract, only they would have to pay Doc.

If after being here as long as he has and enduring the best of the best seasons and the worst of the worst seasons, if the public perception isn't that Doc is 100% committed to this team, I don't know what to tell you. My guess here is you are in the humungously small sample of people that feel that there is a perception that Doc isn't committed to the organization. You have the right to feel that way. People feel like the USA didn't go to the moon and that the US government blew up the World Trade Center as well. They have that right. It doesn't make them right, but they can feel that way and look at things that way if they wish. Same goes for your opinion on this matter.

It just seems to me that many here love Doc more than they love the Celtics.

Actually what I think is happening here is that the vast majority of people, even a bunch that have had problems with Doc and his coaching, are taking you to task for your opinion because it is so far out there and interjecting some emotion into the situation that just doesn't appear to exist. People who both like and dislike Doc are bringing this matter to your attention. I think that speaks volumes about just how far from reality your opinion might be.

[Ogaju]

and most employment contracts are at-will which means that they can be terminated at anytime. The contract Doc has with Celtics is not an at-will contract otherwise it would not be for a definite term. Doc signed a contract voluntarily to coach the Cs for five years. He is legally obligated to fulfill that contract, if he does  not, he is in breach of contract. You argument seems to be that because he can breach the contract then there is no obligation. That is just wrong as a matter of law. The fact that a party to a contract can fail to perform the contract does not make the contract any less valid.

I understand that because these professional contracts are frequently abused my players and coaches the public may not understand that they were valid to begin with, but that does not change the fact.

I believe the contract and Doc's commitment is valuable to the Celtics that is why they pay him handsomely. He was not enslaved he negotiated and entered into the contract voluntarily.

The fact that teams do not sue coaches that leave early is more of a PR move than a legal move.

Perhaps you do have a point and these pro contracts are illusory contracts rather than real contracts. In which case the Celtics are no more bound to the contract than Doc.

OK, you didn't answer my questions again.

I disagree with almost everything you wrote above, and it in fact ignores, contradicts and/or misinterprets what I wrote above, which makes me think you didn't read it.

I just don't understand why you think that this contract can or does legally require Doc to coach this team for five years. Nor have you given any specifics about what term of the contract you think he'd be violating if he resigned (or entertained the idea). I keep asking you to tell me this and you won't.

Part of me wants to respond line by line to your comment, but I can't bring myself to keep beating this dead horse.

OKAY I WILL TRY AGAIN

1. It was announced last year that Doc Rivers and the Boston Celtics entered into a new five year contract for Doc to coach the team. That contracts obligates him to coach the team for 5 years. He is bound to the Celtics for 5 years unless the team agrees to let him go.

2. He violates that contract when he acts as if he does not have an obligation. The statements he makes to the press do not acknowledge that he is bound to coach the Celtics for 5 years if he were to honor his contract.

If hope this answers your questions.

[Ogaju]

Of course it is my personal feeling, that does not make it wrong does it?

No, you can dislike Doc all you want. But when you manufacture imaginary situations about a business relationship based on your personal feeling, simply to vilify a person you don't like, then what you do is create a false image of reality.

By the way, what you describe the 5 year contract not really being a five year contract would be an illusory contract. Basically, the Celtics are bound to a five year contract and Doc is  not because he can leave at anytime he wants with no repercussions. The Celtics get nothing in return for committing to Doc for 5 years, not even the public perception that they have a coach's commitment for 5 years.

What the Celtics get out of such a contract is the services of Doc Rivers for as long as he decides he wants to coach this team, which is no more or less than they would have gotten if it was strictly a five year commitment. Doc could still resign any time he wants and not take any more money from the Celtics.

Also, the Celtics can terminate the contract any time they want. Firing a coach is always within the rights of any team, so they have the same rights as Doc to get out of the contract, only they would have to pay Doc.

If after being here as long as he has and enduring the best of the best seasons and the worst of the worst seasons, if the public perception isn't that Doc is 100% committed to this team, I don't know what to tell you. My guess here is you are in the humungously small sample of people that feel that there is a perception that Doc isn't committed to the organization. You have the right to feel that way. People feel like the USA didn't go to the moon and that the US government blew up the World Trade Center as well. They have that right. It doesn't make them right, but they can feel that way and look at things that way if they wish. Same goes for your opinion on this matter.

It just seems to me that many here love Doc more than they love the Celtics.

Actually what I think is happening here is that the vast majority of people, even a bunch that have had problems with Doc and his coaching, are taking you to task for your opinion because it is so far out there and interjecting some emotion into the situation that just doesn't appear to exist. People who both like and dislike Doc are bringing this matter to your attention. I think that speaks volumes about just how far from reality your opinion might be.

So basically the Cs are bound to the 5 years of paying Doc, but Doc can walk at anytime without repercussion - contract of illusion. We really do not have a contract.

Two things are quite telling in this post. The first is that you think a simple question vilifies the coach, and second none of you have given the name of another coach that puts his organization through this in the middle of a contract.

[LooseCannon]

1. It was announced last year that Doc Rivers and the Boston Celtics entered into a new five year contract for Doc to coach the team. That contracts obligates him to coach the team for 5 years. He is bound to the Celtics for 5 years unless the team agrees to let him go.

The contract obligates him to work for the Boston Celtics if he wants to coach in the NBA, unless they release him from the contract.

Do you believe that if Doc Rivers had a medical condition that made his job difficult but not impossible, that the Celtics should be allowed to force him to complete his contract and deny him the ability to retire for medical reasons?

[thirstyboots18]

I have a question for Ogaju...since you seem to know what is in Doc's contract, where can I find a copy.  I don't feel qualified to comment, since I have no idea the wording in it.

[Boris Badenov]

and most employment contracts are at-will which means that they can be terminated at anytime. The contract Doc has with Celtics is not an at-will contract otherwise it would not be for a definite term. Doc signed a contract voluntarily to coach the Cs for five years. He is legally obligated to fulfill that contract, if he does  not, he is in breach of contract. You argument seems to be that because he can breach the contract then there is no obligation. That is just wrong as a matter of law. The fact that a party to a contract can fail to perform the contract does not make the contract any less valid.

I understand that because these professional contracts are frequently abused my players and coaches the public may not understand that they were valid to begin with, but that does not change the fact.

I believe the contract and Doc's commitment is valuable to the Celtics that is why they pay him handsomely. He was not enslaved he negotiated and entered into the contract voluntarily.

The fact that teams do not sue coaches that leave early is more of a PR move than a legal move.

Perhaps you do have a point and these pro contracts are illusory contracts rather than real contracts. In which case the Celtics are no more bound to the contract than Doc.

OK, you didn't answer my questions again.

I disagree with almost everything you wrote above, and it in fact ignores, contradicts and/or misinterprets what I wrote above, which makes me think you didn't read it.

I just don't understand why you think that this contract can or does legally require Doc to coach this team for five years. Nor have you given any specifics about what term of the contract you think he'd be violating if he resigned (or entertained the idea). I keep asking you to tell me this and you won't.

Part of me wants to respond line by line to your comment, but I can't bring myself to keep beating this dead horse.

OKAY I WILL TRY AGAIN

1. It was announced last year that Doc Rivers and the Boston Celtics entered into a new five year contract for Doc to coach the team. That contracts obligates him to coach the team for 5 years. He is bound to the Celtics for 5 years unless the team agrees to let him go.

2. He violates that contract when he acts as if he does not have an obligation. The statements he makes to the press do not acknowledge that he is bound to coach the Celtics for 5 years if he were to honor his contract.

If hope this answers your questions.

I does, but maybe not in the way you think.

You're still talking as though Doc signed a contract that would constitute indentured servitude.

He is not "bound to the Celtics for 5 years unless the team agrees to let him go." If he wants to stop working for the Celtics he can, no matter what the team wants.

Nor does this make the contract "illusory." If Doc wants to keep working, and he hasn't violated whatever good behavior clauses, etc. are in the contract, the Celtics owe him money. The contract is binding under a wide range of circumstances, even as it gives Doc freedom to resign if he chooses.

That's just how it works. Please. Let it go.