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

[Fafnir]

Personally I don't know what's so unfair about this deal that the league office has to intervene.  If every involved party is alright with it, why should some uninvolved party have the right to call it off?

I think it is about the league wanting to avoid a precedent being set for trading a coach along with a player.

This is really about the salary cap.

Coaches salaries are outside the cap, allowing them to be thrown in would allow for teams to "dump" a lot more salary than would otherwise be legal.

[rutzan]

here's a novel concept...doc has 3 years left on his contract...kg has 2 years left on his contract...celtics have an option for the capt for 1 more year...how about playing out their contracts...isn't that what a contract is for...

[tyrone biggums]

Is it legal to receive draft pick compensation for releasing a coach from his contract? That seems to be the biggest issue.

Which should not be a problem if the deal sent to the NBA would be KG for DeAndre + 2 picks.

The Doc thing is merely just an agreement after the deal is made, it wasn't part of the trade. Basically if the said deal is done, Celtics will release Doc from his contract provisions and he will be hired by the Clippers. While it sounds like he's being traded, he is not.

I don't know why the NBA could not get this...

The league would never view what you are saying as legit because the value doesn't match up. Based on what the Celtics are at the moment, the Clippers should not have to give up that much for just KG. If we were a better team, perhaps.

While I am glad that Stern killed the deal for "Basketball Reasons" he probably shouldn't be allowed to play GM for non NBA owned teams

[guava_wrench]

Personally I don't know what's so unfair about this deal that the league office has to intervene.  If every involved party is alright with it, why should some uninvolved party have the right to call it off?

I think it is about the league wanting to avoid a precedent being set for trading a coach along with a player.

And they should not allow that, but it isn't like we are forcing the Clippers to take anyone that won't be a major help in getting a ring.

If the Celtics allowed KG's agent to talk to Clips about a trade, and KG's agent said he would only play for Doc, and then if the Celtics allowed Doc to negotiate with the Clips and Doc said that he things that KG would be a real help to the team, how are the Celtics doing anything wrong? Nevertheless, would it always seem like something was wrong, even if their wasn't?

Doc is going to have to coach the team. I don't see why Doc would go along if he though a deal was going to rip off the Clippers. If Doc likes this, he must think that it is a good move for the Clippers, who he would be coaching for years.

[KingChre]

Stern loves the limelight,   Vince McMahon wannabe
 

The end of the day doc has value and  we are entitled to compensation

Kg has value and we are entitled to compensation

Who is  the league to say what compensation we are entitled  to either

The league position might make sense if kg had no trade value and was a stiff,  say the trade was doc and DJ white for 2 picks and bledsoe,  but the position of the league that we getting overdue player compensation because we are trading doc is ridiculous

Right.  The league position only really makes sense if you think Deandre Jordan straight up for Kevin Garnett is an unfair trade for the Clippers.

The picks don't matter because it would be legal for the Clippers to trade us two 1st round picks for Doc.

The only thing that's not allowed (and is considered cap circumvention) is trading players for a token player when what you're really trading for is a coach.

This is the key part of this whole thing for me, and also what is confusing me immensely.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the CBA has nothing to do with coaches salaries, which therefore means that coaches salaries have nothing to do with the Salary Cap, correct?

So how in the heck does trading Deandre Jordan for Kevin Garnett and Doc equal "cap circumvention?" One could infer that they are completely unrelated in terms of the CBA. I don't see how Stern has the legal authority here. There is nothing impacting the Salary Cap at all in this deal.

That being said, I fully expect David Stern to overrule this trade, because he is a fascist, and has no regard for any rule or authority other than his own. In short, I hate him.

[#1P4P]

Where was Stern for the Pau Gasol to LA trade?

If a first ballot HOF veteran that is still one of the best defensive players in the league isn't enough value for a player that's never been an All Star... What is?

[guava_wrench]

Personally I don't know what's so unfair about this deal that the league office has to intervene.  If every involved party is alright with it, why should some uninvolved party have the right to call it off?

I think it is about the league wanting to avoid a precedent being set for trading a coach along with a player.

This is really about the salary cap.

Coaches salaries are outside the cap, allowing them to be thrown in would allow for teams to "dump" a lot more salary than would otherwise be legal.

I don't agree. The Celtics and Doc can mutually agree at any time to rip up his contract. The Celtics don't want to dump Doc. If Doc was completely on board, he would be kept.

Also, both teams are over the cap, so salaries will have to match regardless. I could see this argument if we were under the cap and getting Jordan for a second round pick while letting Doc out of his contract.

[Neurotic Guy]

Is it legal to receive draft pick compensation for releasing a coach from his contract? That seems to be the biggest issue.

It's legal to give a team a draft pick in compensation for allowing a coach under contract to leave.


However, it's not legal to trade a team one of your players with the understanding that the other team will release their coach so he can sign with you.

It took me a while,  but this post helped me understand it better -- thanks.  The reality is that a KG trade to Clips, whenever it occurs, is connected to a side agreement that Doc will be realeased and come to Clips too.  There is no question that the practical result is a player and coach traded for compensation, no matter how they couch it.  I can see if the NBA wants to avoid such a precedent that indeed this would set one.  The think I am confused about is why this is a bad or dangerous precedent.

[guava_wrench]

Where was Stern for the Pau Gasol to LA trade?

If a first ballot HOF veteran that is still one of the best defensive players in the league isn't enough value for a player that's never been an All Star... What is?

As I see it, the problem is appearances. The way the negotiations have gone seems weird. The trade talks have seemed to be always both moves or neither. We never hear that they have agreed on one and not the other.

On the other hand, trades are often going to be contingent on other moves. Sometimes teams even combine 2 moves into one by doing a multi-team trade.

[Fafnir]

Personally I don't know what's so unfair about this deal that the league office has to intervene.  If every involved party is alright with it, why should some uninvolved party have the right to call it off?

I think it is about the league wanting to avoid a precedent being set for trading a coach along with a player.

This is really about the salary cap.

Coaches salaries are outside the cap, allowing them to be thrown in would allow for teams to "dump" a lot more salary than would otherwise be legal.

I don't agree. The Celtics and Doc can mutually agree at any time to rip up his contract. The Celtics don't want to dump Doc. If Doc was completely on board, he would be kept.

Right but what if the C's wanted to fire Doc but not pay him? How could the C's save $21 million dollars, easy trade him to a team!

The no trading of coaches rule is entirely about the salary cap.  Just as teams are limited to sending $3 million in a trade is to limit the amount of payments that can be used to grease the wheels for a trade.

[guava_wrench]

Is it legal to receive draft pick compensation for releasing a coach from his contract? That seems to be the biggest issue.

It's legal to give a team a draft pick in compensation for allowing a coach under contract to leave.


However, it's not legal to trade a team one of your players with the understanding that the other team will release their coach so he can sign with you.

It took me a while,  but this post helped me understand it better -- thanks.  The reality is that a KG trade to Clips, whenever it occurs, is connected to a side agreement that Doc will be realeased and come to Clips too.  There is no question that the practical result is a player and coach traded for compensation, no matter how they couch it.  I can see if the NBA wants to avoid such a precedent that indeed this would set one.  The think I am confused about is why this is a bad or dangerous precedent.

Here is the twist on this. KG has a no trade clause. So KG can refuse to report to the Clippers without Doc eventually following.

[erisred]

Is it legal to receive draft pick compensation for releasing a coach from his contract? That seems to be the biggest issue.

Yeah, I think so. There is precedent of picks and cash as compensation. Riley and SVG, I think.

It's the picks in consecutive years and maybe the "wink, wink" about Pierce that are the hang ups, I believe.

Frankly, if I'm Danny and Wyc, I'd step away from the whole deal right now and work on other things. If the Clippers come back in a few days with something as good or better and that the NBA will accept, take a look, but don't count on it.

[guava_wrench]

Personally I don't know what's so unfair about this deal that the league office has to intervene.  If every involved party is alright with it, why should some uninvolved party have the right to call it off?

I think it is about the league wanting to avoid a precedent being set for trading a coach along with a player.

This is really about the salary cap.

Coaches salaries are outside the cap, allowing them to be thrown in would allow for teams to "dump" a lot more salary than would otherwise be legal.

I don't agree. The Celtics and Doc can mutually agree at any time to rip up his contract. The Celtics don't want to dump Doc. If Doc was completely on board, he would be kept.

Right but what if the C's wanted to fire Doc but not pay him? How could the C's save $21 million dollars, easy trade him to a team!

The no trading of coaches rule is entirely about the salary cap.  Just as teams are limited to sending $3 million in a trade is to limit the amount of payments that can be used to grease the wheels for a trade.

But the Celtics don't want to fire Doc so that is irrelevant in this case and this is the only case that matters. Doc is the one interested in leaving. If the Clips stuff doesn't go through, Doc probably doesn't coach at all next year.

I think a bigger issues is that 28 other owners might find this trade questionable.

[Fafnir]

Personally I don't know what's so unfair about this deal that the league office has to intervene.  If every involved party is alright with it, why should some uninvolved party have the right to call it off?

I think it is about the league wanting to avoid a precedent being set for trading a coach along with a player.

This is really about the salary cap.

Coaches salaries are outside the cap, allowing them to be thrown in would allow for teams to "dump" a lot more salary than would otherwise be legal.

I don't agree. The Celtics and Doc can mutually agree at any time to rip up his contract. The Celtics don't want to dump Doc. If Doc was completely on board, he would be kept.

Right but what if the C's wanted to fire Doc but not pay him? How could the C's save $21 million dollars, easy trade him to a team!

The no trading of coaches rule is entirely about the salary cap.  Just as teams are limited to sending $3 million in a trade is to limit the amount of payments that can be used to grease the wheels for a trade.

But the Celtics don't want to fire Doc so that is irrelevant in this case and this is the only case that matters. Doc is the one interested in leaving. If the Clips stuff doesn't go through, Doc probably doesn't coach at all next year.

Right in this case its Doc pushing for this move as much as the teams, but that's not why they put the rules about trading coaches in the CBA.

It'd be a very easy way to evade the salary caps spending limitations on player transactions.

[sed522002]

@ramonashelburne:

Clips new strategy is to land Doc first, roll dice on KG/PP later. Story with @ESPNSteinLine coming shortly