C's/Clippers Update, Marc Stein Reporting NBA Office forcing reworking

[Celtics Insider]

Good, I'd rather have it not happen. DJ and a low first or 2 isn't enough.

[tyrone biggums]

Basketball reasons people...Basketball reasons...   

Might be the best thing David Stern has ever done for the Celtics (isn't saying much)

[Roy H.]

This is silly.  Are both individual moves legal within the rules of the league?... Then there is no reason to believe the league would stop either.  And thus it doesn't matter if they are contingent in each other or not since the league has zero reason to reject either individually.   

But I guess I see the thought process behind it.  You couldn't submit two trades to the league... One bringing in deandre and one right after it that sends him to the blazers for the #10.  That's why they have three team trades, I guess.

Is there no example of a team ever submitting two separate trades at the same time?... Or do they try to package them into one large trade.  What about at the trade deadline where a team submits back-to-back trades at the wire.... One sending a player to the raptors and another sending a player to the mavericks.  How is that really any different. Clearly they want both deals done and they both fit into their vision... If both trades involved sending out old vets for young players, wouldn't that be looked at as two deals "contingent" on each other?

I have to wonder if the bigger question is if Boston and the clippers have a handshake agreement for Boston NOT to trade pierce to a team in need of shedding cap space (like the mavs) and instead just buy him out.  If Boston buys out pierce instead of trading him, that points to a conspiracy

i am most certainly not privy to the inside discussions in the nba, but i think the nba's point is that these two actions (kg for aj trade, and, doc being released from his contract for 2 picks) are connected since neither one would take place without the other taking place.

that is, if you asked the clips if they would trade for kg and not have doc involved, the answer is it would not happen since kg wont go without doc.

if you asked the clips would they ask the celtics to release doc for two first rounders WITHOUT having kg follow doc to LA, i think they would say "no thanks."

therefore, it would seem that each deal depends upon the existence of the other. and if so, they are joined. and if they are joined, they violate the CBA.

i can see what the nba is saying here, even if i don't like it.

The equivalent of this happens all the time, though.  A lot of the large trades we hear about are actually a series of smaller trades, arranged in a way that either complies with the salary cap or gives some benefit to one of the trade partners.

If the NBA is disallowing concurrent trades that wouldn't occur on their own, then this is going to be a big change in the status quo.

[blink]

This is silly.  Are both individual moves legal within the rules of the league?... Then there is no reason to believe the league would stop either.  And thus it doesn't matter if they are contingent in each other or not since the league has zero reason to reject either individually.   

But I guess I see the thought process behind it.  You couldn't submit two trades to the league... One bringing in deandre and one right after it that sends him to the blazers for the #10.  That's why they have three team trades, I guess.

Is there no example of a team ever submitting two separate trades at the same time?... Or do they try to package them into one large trade.  What about at the trade deadline where a team submits back-to-back trades at the wire.... One sending a player to the raptors and another sending a player to the mavericks.  How is that really any different. Clearly they want both deals done and they both fit into their vision... If both trades involved sending out old vets for young players, wouldn't that be looked at as two deals "contingent" on each other?

I have to wonder if the bigger question is if Boston and the clippers have a handshake agreement for Boston NOT to trade pierce to a team in need of shedding cap space (like the mavs) and instead just buy him out.  If Boston buys out pierce instead of trading him, that points to a conspiracy

i am most certainly not privy to the inside discussions in the nba, but i think the nba's point is that these two actions (kg for aj trade, and, doc being released from his contract for 2 picks) are connected since neither one would take place without the other taking place.

that is, if you asked the clips if they would trade for kg and not have doc involved, the answer is it would not happen since kg wont go without doc.

if you asked the clips would they ask the celtics to release doc for two first rounders WITHOUT having kg follow doc to LA, i think they would say "no thanks."

therefore, it would seem that each deal depends upon the existence of the other. and if so, they are joined. and if they are joined, they violate the CBA.

i can see what the nba is saying here, even if i don't like it.

actually the 2nd part might not be true.  I would think the Celtics would make a separate deal allowing Doc to go to the clippers for 2 1st round picks.  I don't know if the clippers still would do it.  Possibly.  Maybe getting Doc versus not getting doc would still convince CP3 to resign?

To me this is all silly.  What stops us from trading KG for DJ straight up.  Then having a separate compensation package for doc getting released from his contract?

[clover]

Okay, so I'd be happy with just letting Doc go for a first--so why not do that deal first?

Then, they could do KG for DAJ and a first separately.

[Who]

This is silly.  Are both individual moves legal within the rules of the league?... Then there is no reason to believe the league would stop either.  And thus it doesn't matter if they are contingent in each other or not since the league has zero reason to reject either individually.   

But I guess I see the thought process behind it.  You couldn't submit two trades to the league... One bringing in deandre and one right after it that sends him to the blazers for the #10.  That's why they have three team trades, I guess.

Is there no example of a team ever submitting two separate trades at the same time?... Or do they try to package them into one large trade.  What about at the trade deadline where a team submits back-to-back trades at the wire.... One sending a player to the raptors and another sending a player to the mavericks.  How is that really any different. Clearly they want both deals done and they both fit into their vision... If both trades involved sending out old vets for young players, wouldn't that be looked at as two deals "contingent" on each other?

I have to wonder if the bigger question is if Boston and the clippers have a handshake agreement for Boston NOT to trade pierce to a team in need of shedding cap space (like the mavs) and instead just buy him out.  If Boston buys out pierce instead of trading him, that points to a conspiracy

i am most certainly not privy to the inside discussions in the nba, but i think the nba's point is that these two actions (kg for aj trade, and, doc being released from his contract for 2 picks) are connected since neither one would take place without the other taking place.

that is, if you asked the clips if they would trade for kg and not have doc involved, the answer is it would not happen since kg wont go without doc.

if you asked the clips would they ask the celtics to release doc for two first rounders WITHOUT having kg follow doc to LA, i think they would say "no thanks."

therefore, it would seem that each deal depends upon the existence of the other. and if so, they are joined. and if they are joined, they violate the CBA.

i can see what the nba is saying here, even if i don't like it.

The equivalent of this happens all the time, though.  A lot of the large trades we hear about are actually a series of smaller trades, arranged in a way that either complies with the salary cap or gives some benefit to one of the trade partners.

If the NBA is disallowing concurrent trades that wouldn't occur on their own, then this is going to be a big change in the status quo.

I think the problem is that one of the two trades involves a coach.

If they were two concurrent trades involving only players, I don't think there would be an issue.

But a package deal involving player + coach is problematic.

[aingeforthree]

Okay, so I'd be happy with just letting Doc go for a first--so why not do that deal first?

Then, they could do KG for DAJ and a first separately.

Not needed.

Just 1 trade needs to happen.  KG for Jordan + 2 firsts.

Then Ainge lets Doc out of his contract to sign wherever he'd like.

[European NBA fan]

This is silly.  Are both individual moves legal within the rules of the league?... Then there is no reason to believe the league would stop either.  And thus it doesn't matter if they are contingent in each other or not since the league has zero reason to reject either individually.   

But I guess I see the thought process behind it.  You couldn't submit two trades to the league... One bringing in deandre and one right after it that sends him to the blazers for the #10.  That's why they have three team trades, I guess.

Is there no example of a team ever submitting two separate trades at the same time?... Or do they try to package them into one large trade.  What about at the trade deadline where a team submits back-to-back trades at the wire.... One sending a player to the raptors and another sending a player to the mavericks.  How is that really any different. Clearly they want both deals done and they both fit into their vision... If both trades involved sending out old vets for young players, wouldn't that be looked at as two deals "contingent" on each other?

I have to wonder if the bigger question is if Boston and the clippers have a handshake agreement for Boston NOT to trade pierce to a team in need of shedding cap space (like the mavs) and instead just buy him out.  If Boston buys out pierce instead of trading him, that points to a conspiracy

i am most certainly not privy to the inside discussions in the nba, but i think the nba's point is that these two actions (kg for aj trade, and, doc being released from his contract for 2 picks) are connected since neither one would take place without the other taking place.

that is, if you asked the clips if they would trade for kg and not have doc involved, the answer is it would not happen since kg wont go without doc.

if you asked the clips would they ask the celtics to release doc for two first rounders WITHOUT having kg follow doc to LA, i think they would say "no thanks."

therefore, it would seem that each deal depends upon the existence of the other. and if so, they are joined. and if they are joined, they violate the CBA.

i can see what the nba is saying here, even if i don't like it.

The equivalent of this happens all the time, though.  A lot of the large trades we hear about are actually a series of smaller trades, arranged in a way that either complies with the salary cap or gives some benefit to one of the trade partners.

If the NBA is disallowing concurrent trades that wouldn't occur on their own, then this is going to be a big change in the status quo.

True, but the difference here is that there is a coach "trade" involved, which probably makes it trickier.

I'm actually not sure if it's a package deal seen from the Clippers point of view. KG is still a difference maker for a contending team, and it seems obvious that Chris Paul wants Doc as coach.

KG would probably not give up his no trade clause without Doc coming too, though.

[guava_wrench]

It is a tricky situation. Doc has a lot of value, so he is worth compensation. KG is still a good asset with significant trade value to a contender. KG likely doesn't agree to go without Doc, so these moves will be related, regardless of whether they are related in illegal ways.

[blink]

But why can't you just make the Doc deal first?  Clippers give up 1 or 2 1st round picks for doc.  NBA approves that deal.  I mean the NBA can't stop DA from releasing Doc from his contract can they?

Then a day or two later, C's deal KG for DJ.  Players readjust their desires based on coaching moves and other team mates all the time. 

[blink]

Maybe this means more compensation for the C's if each of the deals would need to be realistic compensation standing on their own? 

IE 
Deal 1 - Releasing Doc - 2 1st rounders
Deal 2 - KG for DJ + 1 clippers pick or a larger deal w/ more players involved

[bdm860]

For all you conspiracy theorists out there, maybe Stern just really hates Chris Paul.

Chris Paul to the Lakers, a move that means a much better life for Chris Paul.  Vetoed by Stern.

Now a trade to bring in a coach and player Chris Paul wants, that will probably make life much better next season for him, possibly vetoed again by Stern.

How many times has Stern ever vetoed a deal?  Only two I can think of both involve Chris Paul one way or another.

You think Stern hates the Celtics, Chris Paul probably thinks Stern hates him more than anybody.

[CoachBo]

If you're considering Rondo, Bradley, Green, Sullinger, & Jordan plus the draft picks dark days then sign me up now.

I don't recall dark days of the past being stacked with that type of talent.

This is hilarious, and also quite indicative of how short people's memory can be.

We had another team "loaded" with this type of "talent". I featured Pierce, Jefferson, Rondo, Perkins, Wally, and Delonte West.

Need I remind you how that went?

They became the most popular team in Boston in the last 20 years. SMH

You mean inept.

It just cracks me up when people say that kind of ineptitude was sufficient to acquire Garnett and Allen in anything remotely resembling an equitable deal.

That's just revisionist history, and that's the kindest thing I can say about it. Presti and McHale were unloading HOFers for pennies on the dollar, and Danny had a roster full of pennies.

Right place, right time? Sure. Equitable deals? Don't be absurd.

[celticinorlando]

i still don't think it is enough. Boston has to get rid of jason terry this offseason.

[rondohondo]

Baxter Holmes @BaxterHolmes 1 minute ago

David Stern on proposed Clips-Celtics deal: "What the rules won’t allow, it can’t be gotten around by breaking it up into two transactions."

Chris Forsberg ‏@ESPNForsberg 1m
Stern: "I would say that, if we know that what the parties really want to do is one [trade and] they are going to break it into two for purposes of trying to avoid the restrictions that the collective bargaining agreement places on it, we know how to deal with that."