What's the problem with the trades again?

[droopdog7]

Okay, in theory I think I understand why teams aren't allowed to break trades apart.  I think.

So, how exactly are we talking advantage of the rule?  I mean, what advantage are we gaining by trading KG and Doc this way? 

They say you can't trade a coach, but you can get compensation for releasing a coach.  Okay.  So couldn't we just trade KG for Jordan and two picks and release Doc?  I mean, we wouldn't technically be trading Doc, so there would only be one trade.  Or does the league mean two separate transactions?

Someone educate me please.

[LooseCannon]

If you make a trade involving players, the only thing that can be involved are other player contracts, draft considerations, and cash.  You can't have player contracts involved in compensation for releasing a coach.

While you can technically try to structure the trade as two separate deals, if it is pretty clear that one deal is contingent upon the other, so you would not do one without the other, then the league would consider that an attempt to circumvent the salary cap by including impermissible compensation as part of the deal.

Kevin Garnett's prior public statement that he only wants to play for Doc is rather compelling evidence that he would only waive his no-trade clause if Doc Rivers was allowed to coach the Clippers.  That's simply not allowed.

[Q_FBE]

Okay, in theory I think I understand why teams aren't allowed to break trades apart.  I think.

So, how exactly are we talking advantage of the rule?  I mean, what advantage are we gaining by trading KG and Doc this way? 

They say you can't trade a coach, but you can get compensation for releasing a coach.  Okay.  So couldn't we just trade KG for Jordan and two picks and release Doc?  I mean, we wouldn't technically be trading Doc, so there would only be one trade.  Or does the league mean two separate transactions?

Someone educate me please.

Let me take a stab at this one. Doc Rivers is a coach. All coaches have a "no compete clause" in their contracts which excludes them from trades with players in the CBA. Doc Rivers should have resigned his position as HC of the Celtics and Danny still has the right to ask for a draft pick from the team that wants to hire Doc within his original contract period in this case until July 2016.

THe KG for Deandre Jordan is a player trade that works under the parameters of the CBA according to the trade checker websites.

So there are two separate deals that must be made. One for the coach (Doc) and one for the player (KG).

[D.o.s.]

If you make a trade involving players, the only thing that can be involved are other player contracts, draft considerations, and cash.  You can't have player contracts involved in compensation for releasing a coach.

While you can technically try to structure the trade as two separate deals, if it is pretty clear that one deal is contingent upon the other, so you would not do one without the other, then the league would consider that an attempt to circumvent the salary cap by including impermissible compensation as part of the deal.

Kevin Garnett's prior public statement that he only wants to play for Doc is rather compelling evidence that he would only waive his no-trade clause if Doc Rivers was allowed to coach the Clippers.  That's simply not allowed.

Yup. Got it in one.

[Jonny CC]

If you make a trade involving players, the only thing that can be involved are other player contracts, draft considerations, and cash.  You can't have player contracts involved in compensation for releasing a coach.

While you can technically try to structure the trade as two separate deals, if it is pretty clear that one deal is contingent upon the other, so you would not do one without the other, then the league would consider that an attempt to circumvent the salary cap by including impermissible compensation as part of the deal.

Kevin Garnett's prior public statement that he only wants to play for Doc is rather compelling evidence that he would only waive his no-trade clause if Doc Rivers was allowed to coach the Clippers.  That's simply not allowed.

Didn't they discuss a deal earlier in the year with KG and Jordan?  Doesn't that prove that the KG and Doc deals are not contingent on each other??

[Boris Badenov]

If you make a trade involving players, the only thing that can be involved are other player contracts, draft considerations, and cash.  You can't have player contracts involved in compensation for releasing a coach.

While you can technically try to structure the trade as two separate deals, if it is pretty clear that one deal is contingent upon the other, so you would not do one without the other, then the league would consider that an attempt to circumvent the salary cap by including impermissible compensation as part of the deal.

Kevin Garnett's prior public statement that he only wants to play for Doc is rather compelling evidence that he would only waive his no-trade clause if Doc Rivers was allowed to coach the Clippers.  That's simply not allowed.

I think the coach/player thing is a pretty rare case, and what Stern is worried about more generally are pairs of deals that fit the CBA where a single deal would violate it.

For example, sign and trades of FAs can include only the one signed player (I think). But a team could S&T one guy with a wink-wink arrangement, then concoct a separate trade with the same partner that is "unfair," when considered by itself, so that the full set of traded players is really one single deal that both trade partners have assembled.

I said this in a separate post last night, but I'm not a fan of these complications that force the league to regularly evaluate the "fairness" of deals. Fairness should be evaluated by the traders, not a third party, IMO.

[Vermont Green]

I think there is some misinformation circulating.  I don't think there is any problem with these two deals:

KG for Jordan and a Pick

Doc Permission for a Pick

Those are both reasonable deals I think.  It seems to me the problem starts when you get to Paul Pierce.  There is always a suggestion that Pierce will get bought out and end up in LA as well.  This would be the part of the deal where I could see the league calling foul.

You can't have a direct connection with either trade and an action with Paul Pierce or a side deal where PP has agreed to go to LA if bought out.

It seems to me that this will get done but may need to be expanded to include PP directly, not indirectly (if he is in fact part of the discussion).

Of course if Pierce ends up staying or actually playing for another team, no problem.

[JSD]

There is no reason for the league to intervene. At least with Chris Paul, The league was the owner of the Hornets at the time. This is just unnecessary meddling

[clover]

I think there is some misinformation circulating.  I don't think there is any problem with these two deals:

KG for Jordan and a Pick

Doc Permission for a Pick

Those are both reasonable deals I think.  It seems to me the problem starts when you get to Paul Pierce.  There is always a suggestion that Pierce will get bought out and end up in LA as well.  This would be the part of the deal where I could see the league calling foul.

You can't have a direct connection with either trade and an action with Paul Pierce or a side deal where PP has agreed to go to LA if bought out.

It seems to me that this will get done but may need to be expanded to include PP directly, not indirectly (if he is in fact part of the discussion).

Of course if Pierce ends up staying or actually playing for another team, no problem.

Then if anyone's giving out misinformation, it's Stern himself.  He said the issue was the coach and the player deals being linked, which is indeed apparently illegal within the League.  I actually think the Pierce-type stuff happens all the time--it was just a bad deal for the C's to make that commitment, if they did, in this case.

[LooseCannon]

If you make a trade involving players, the only thing that can be involved are other player contracts, draft considerations, and cash.  You can't have player contracts involved in compensation for releasing a coach.

While you can technically try to structure the trade as two separate deals, if it is pretty clear that one deal is contingent upon the other, so you would not do one without the other, then the league would consider that an attempt to circumvent the salary cap by including impermissible compensation as part of the deal.

Kevin Garnett's prior public statement that he only wants to play for Doc is rather compelling evidence that he would only waive his no-trade clause if Doc Rivers was allowed to coach the Clippers.  That's simply not allowed.

I think the coach/player thing is a pretty rare case, and what Stern is worried about more generally are pairs of deals that fit the CBA where a single deal would violate it.

For example, sign and trades of FAs can include only the one signed player (I think). But a team could S&T one guy with a wink-wink arrangement, then concoct a separate trade with the same partner that is "unfair," when considered by itself, so that the full set of traded players is really one single deal that both trade partners have assembled.

I said this in a separate post last night, but I'm not a fan of these complications that force the league to regularly evaluate the "fairness" of deals. Fairness should be evaluated by the traders, not a third party, IMO.

I don't think fairness matters at all in the league's objections. 

The coach/player thing is a rare case.  The league intervening to block a trade is a rare case.

[fairweatherfan]

I think the big issue here is that during the Finals - the crown jewel of the season for the league - the 2nd biggest story was negotiations for a transaction that was clearly and repeatedly described as a coach/player package deal in violation of the CBA. 

Not at all surprising that Stern would take action against it, it's a very public undermining of his authority and circumvention of the CBA that they nearly lost a season to get.