Getting Around the league's ridiculous anti KG-to-Clippers stance

[LarBrd33]

So the Celtics got a 1st rounder as compensation for Doc Rivers.  Fine.

Now the rumor is that league wouldn't allow a KG for DeAndre trade, because it would be seen as being part of the same trade? 

First of all... that's complete nonsense.  The NBA can't prevent teams from trading just because they had a prior agreement. This is not the first time a team has received compensation for releasing their coach from contract: 

June 7, 2007: Name Stan Van Gundy head coach; Orlando acquired rights to Van Gundy from Miami in exchange for a second round selection in the 2007 NBA Draft (No. 39) and the ability to swap first round picks in the 2008 NBA Draft. The first round pick is lottery protected (1-14). If Miami can't or chooses not to exercise the option of swapping first round picks, the Heat obtain Orlando's second round pick in 2008 and cash considerations

At that point did the league prevent the Magic and Heat from making any trades?  It would be an odd precedent. 

Regardless... couldn't the two teams get around that by including a 3rd team? 

For instance, someone suggested to me that the Blazers were really interested in getting a big center to put next to Aldridge.  I think the Blazers have about 14 million in cap space.  Couldn't you trade KG to them for the #10 pick and a trade exception?... and then the Blazers could trade KG to the Clippers for Deandre Jordan... essentially trading the #10 for DeAndre Jordan. 

Is the #10 pick too much for the Blazers to give up for DeAndre?


How about the fact that the Golden State Warriors were initially the team to give DeAndre the 4 year 43 million dollar offer sheet (that the Clippers matched).  Do you think they'd still be interested in DeAndre?    You could trade KG to the Warriors for Biedrins 9 million dollar expiring contract + a future 1st rounder (protected?).   Then the Warriors could flip KG to the Clippers for DeAndre Jordan.

How would the league possibly say no to that if a 3rd team got involved?

I think Boston would rather have an expiring contract and a draft pick than DeAndre anyways.  We're trying to tank... acquiring future assets is the best move.

[SparzWizard]

Because David Stern hates Boston Celtics 

[bfrombleacher]

Maybe the Warriors?

It wouldn't hurt them to keep KG. Come to think of it, they might as well keep KG.

Heck, he could join Pierce in GS. I'd be ecstatic even as someone who wants to let them retire in green.

As for the Blazers, if their subsequent deal gets nixed, would they want to even keep KG? This is a risk they'll have to run. If they don't want KG, then they won't want to do it.

But, yet again, KG turns the Blazers into contenders. And, again, I wouldn't mind Pierce joining KG there.








I rather like your 2 ideas without the Clipper part.

[LooseCannon]

The NBA can't prevent teams from trading just because they had a prior agreement.

The NBA can.

[j804]

The NBA can't prevent teams from trading just because they had a prior agreement.

The NBA can.

The NBA.....where vetoed trades happen.

[LarBrd33]

The NBA can't prevent teams from trading just because they had a prior agreement.

The NBA can.

The NBA.....where vetoed trades happen.

The NBA was acting owner of the Hornets.  I'm sick of seeing that mentioned.  It was a different situation.

Is there any history of the NBA vetoing a trade, because they had already made a prior transaction? 

[LooseCannon]

The NBA can't prevent teams from trading just because they had a prior agreement.

The NBA can.

The NBA.....where vetoed trades happen.

The NBA was acting owner of the Hornets.  I'm sick of seeing that mentioned.  It was a different situation.

Is there any history of the NBA vetoing a trade, because they had already made a prior transaction?

The question is, is there an history vetoing a transaction that would violate salary cap rules?  And the answer is yes.  Kevin McHale trying to sign Joe Smith with an under-the-table deal would be an example.

I'd be happy if Stern told both teams not to discuss a KG-for-Jordan trade until the regular season starts and threaten both teams with fining them draft picks so I don't have to hear about this for a few months.

[Celtics4ever]

When it comes to screwing the Celts, Stern is the master and does so at every chance.

I would love to see someone take him to court for violating their rights to happiness or the like.

[saltlover]

The NBA can't prevent teams from trading just because they had a prior agreement.

The NBA can.

The NBA.....where vetoed trades happen.

The NBA was acting owner of the Hornets.  I'm sick of seeing that mentioned.  It was a different situation.

Is there any history of the NBA vetoing a trade, because they had already made a prior transaction?

The question is, is there an history vetoing a transaction that would violate salary cap rules?  And the answer is yes.  Kevin McHale trying to sign Joe Smith with an under-the-table deal would be an example.

I'd be happy if Stern told both teams not to discuss a KG-for-Jordan trade until the regular season starts and threaten both teams with fining them draft picks so I don't have to hear about this for a few months.

The Joe Smith situation was different, in that there was actual evidence in the form of a written agreement that an illegal agreement had been put into place.  Here it is merely conjecture, and frankly poor conjecture at that, considering how dysfunctional the negotiations for only Doc were the last four days.  Furthermore, this has little to do with salary cap avoidance, and everything to do with teams understanding each other's constraints.  KG isn't wiling to waive his no trade clause for most teams -- the Clippers in fact may be the only team.  Jordan makes a salary that is close enough to KG to be tradeable for him.  And they play the same position, so the Clippers would not need both players.  That both teams know this while negotiating for Doc does not make it a side agreement.  It's just teams rationally thinking about further consequences of Doc going to LA.

Regardless, I'm on board with the Celtics shipping Jordan to a third team just because I'm not really enamored with him, and all the better if it gets a deal done.

[Rondo2287]

I really don't want to do business with the clippers again, I would only try to get around it if KG won't waive his NTC to anybody other than the clips.

[chambers]

I'm sure that they've got the lawyers working on it as we speak.

It's complete garbage to think they can veto a trade like this because the two situations are related.

Doc Rivers wants to quit and his number one preference is the Clippers.

The Clippers and Celtics were discussing this deal at the trade deadline last season.
I really don't see how this holds up in court and Stern doesn't have a leg to stand on to be honest.

I went to law school (and dropped out admittedly) and there is no way they can legally stop this.
They're only screaming about it because the Lakers and Kuptchack obviously don't want their cross town team getting stronger (it cuts a little deeper knowing that the Celtics are the ones gifting them the keys to the city too).
He's probably covering his ass by saying they'll veto it but they really can't do anything about it.
They have nothing but media leaks and 'sources' as proof. If that's their proof then we'll show them the same 'sources' talking about a KG trade back in February that had nothing to do with Doc Rivers.
I just can't believe a player and coach can't go to the same team via separate trades.

[saltlover]

It just occurred to me that getting Bledsoe and shipping Jordan to a third team would be hard for Stern to veto.  Merely shipping Jordan to a third team means that all the players the Celtics and Clippers would have traded are still involved, just not going to all the same places, and I can still see Stern playing God in his last months on the job.

However, because of Jordan's trade kicker, the Celtics cannot fit both Jordan and Bledsoe in a trade for KG straight up under the cap rules.  Accordingly, there is no way they could have pre-arranged that deal, because a third team necessarily would have to be involved.  (Yes, Jordan is allowed to waive a portion of his traded kicker to help a deal go through, but he is in no way required to, and Stern vetoing that deal might also bring in the player's association, since it would create a precedent that player's should waive their trade kicker.)

So hopefully the Celtics can use Stern's intransigence as a way to get Bledsoe.

[LooseCannon]

They're only screaming about it because the Lakers and Kuptchack obviously don't want their cross town team getting stronger (it cuts a little deeper knowing that the Celtics are the ones gifting them the keys to the city too).

If the league is biased, it's towards discouraging tanking and preferring to not see the number of viable national TV draws decrease by one, not by trying to please the Lakers.

[chambers]

They're only screaming about it because the Lakers and Kuptchack obviously don't want their cross town team getting stronger (it cuts a little deeper knowing that the Celtics are the ones gifting them the keys to the city too).

If the league is biased, it's towards discouraging tanking and preferring to not see the number of viable national TV draws decrease by one, not by trying to please the Lakers.

I'm not saying they're trying to please the Lakers, I'm saying they're covering their asses by not allowing this to happen. Kuptchack is just one voice that's not happy with the idea of this going through.
It has nothing to do with tanking, it has to do with teams doing 'side deals' for coaches and players as Stern stated.

This is the part that is bogus. They can't actually prove that KG is dependent on Doc and vice versa. They're just assuming they are and because a coach and player are both interested in the same club that puts way too much power in the players coaches and GM's hands.

The question is WHY is this not allowed?
What is the problem? If Lebron and Wade and Bosh and conspire on the offseason to make a superteam, why the hell can't the Celtics and Clippers agree on a fair value trade for their assets that they rightfully acquired?
Complete snot.

There is no way Stern can stop it. The two organizations know this. They'll do the politically correct thing and draw it out and make them look far apart and lay out the media lines and story so protect the NBA's image.
But there's nothing they can do. They can't win this in court.

[saltlover]

They're only screaming about it because the Lakers and Kuptchack obviously don't want their cross town team getting stronger (it cuts a little deeper knowing that the Celtics are the ones gifting them the keys to the city too).

If the league is biased, it's towards discouraging tanking and preferring to not see the number of viable national TV draws decrease by one, not by trying to please the Lakers.

I'm not saying they're trying to please the Lakers, I'm saying they're covering their asses by not allowing this to happen. Kuptchack is just one voice that's not happy with the idea of this going through.
It has nothing to do with tanking, it has to do with teams doing 'side deals' for coaches and players as Stern stated.

This is the part that is bogus. They can't actually prove that KG is dependent on Doc and vice versa. They're just assuming they are and because a coach and player are both interested in the same club that puts way too much power in the players coaches and GM's hands.

The question is WHY is this not allowed?
What is the problem? If Lebron and Wade and Bosh and conspire on the offseason to make a superteam, why the hell can't the Celtics and Clippers agree on a fair value trade for their assets that they rightfully acquired?
Complete snot.

There is no way Stern can stop it. The two organizations know this. They'll do the politically correct thing and draw it out and make them look far apart and lay out the media lines and story so protect the NBA's image.
But there's nothing they can do. They can't win this in court.

I'm sure the league can win this in court.  All trades must be approved by the league.  About the only way this ends up in court is if the players association steps in and says that preventing the deal is in some way against the CBA.  Which it may be, I don't know, but the Celtics and Clippers aren't going to challenge this in a legal setting.