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

[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.

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.

I tend to think that if they both decide it's legally unreasonable that their's nothing stopping them from taking the NBA to court.
The NBA teams are part of a franchise system. It's like Dunkin Donuts- the head office has authority over what food gets released in the franchise stores, but they must be reasonable about it and they most certainly can't be unreasonable about it.
This does not seem reasonable in the slightest. It's almost discriminatory.

[Clench123]

The question is even if the Celtics can get around it somehow, why would the Clips trade a young talented Bledsoe for KG when they already have what they really wanted in Doc Rivers?

[BballTim]

The question is even if the Celtics can get around it somehow, why would the Clips trade a young talented Bledsoe for KG when they already have what they really wanted in Doc Rivers?

  Probably because having KG in the lineup would do more to bolster their title chances next year than having Doc coach the team.

[Kane3387]

Because rivers wants kg

[Evantime34]

I think involving a third team might push a trade through. That way the league couldn't argue that the Doc deal was connected since the third team would not be getting any value out of Doc.

How about
To Boston: DeMarcus Cousins, Chuck Hayes
To LA: Kevin Garnett
To Sacramento: Eric Bledsoe and DeAndre Jordan.

[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.

I tend to think that if they both decide it's legally unreasonable that their's nothing stopping them from taking the NBA to court.
The NBA teams are part of a franchise system. It's like Dunkin Donuts- the head office has authority over what food gets released in the franchise stores, but they must be reasonable about it and they most certainly can't be unreasonable about it.
This does not seem reasonable in the slightest. It's almost discriminatory.

It's not like Dunkin Donuts.  The NBA is an association, and to join the association you agree to certain rules, one of which is that the NBA has final say on all trades of contracts.  Another rule may be (and I think it is for at least one of the other major sports) that teams cannot sue the league.  Now, the NBA needs to be reasonable in asserting its authority, otherwise its members may get angry and form a new association, or oust its leader, etc.

This isn't going to court unless the player's association wants to get involved, and they'll only want to get involved if it helps them in future battles, which at present, this issue doesn't seem to offer.

[RyNye]

Oh, for **** people, this isn't an anti-Celtics conspiracy by the league. That's foolishness.

It is against league rules for coaches to be involved in the trade of a player. Plain and simple. And it is obvious to every single person in the country that the KG and Doc trades were contingent upon one another, because every single ESPN story portrayed it that way.

If you really want to be mad at someone here, don't be mad at the league for enforcing a rule that is already in place, be mad at the sports media for talking about the two trades together and forcing the league to make a move.

Also, if you really think that David Stern "hates the Celtics," I have a bridge to sell you.

[sed522002]

Oh, for **** people, this isn't an anti-Celtics conspiracy by the league. That's foolishness.

It is against league rules for coaches to be involved in the trade of a player. Plain and simple. And it is obvious to every single person in the country that the KG and Doc trades were contingent upon one another, because every single ESPN story portrayed it that way.

If you really want to be mad at someone here, don't be mad at the league for enforcing a rule that is already in place, be mad at the sports media for talking about the two trades together and forcing the league to make a move.

Also, if you really think that David Stern "hates the Celtics," I have a bridge to sell you.

Exactly,

Be mad at both teams and their "sources" leaking every single detail of the trade and forcing Stern's hand. Especially, when it was said that the league's lawyer told them days ago it wouldn't work. Just let it go.

[jay]

I think involving a third team might push a trade through. That way the league couldn't argue that the Doc deal was connected since the third team would not be getting any value out of Doc.

How about
To Boston: DeMarcus Cousins, Chuck Hayes
To LA: Kevin Garnett
To Sacramento: Eric Bledsoe and DeAndre Jordan.

Can you trade to Sacramento and then they take Garnett and flip him to the Clippers after the fact?


What if we included Pierce in the deal:

KG and Pierce to Kings for:

Cousins, Salmons, filler.
 
http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=kfoztxm


Then the Kings flip them for Butler, Crawford, Jordan, Green, 1st round pick.

[saltlover]

I think involving a third team might push a trade through. That way the league couldn't argue that the Doc deal was connected since the third team would not be getting any value out of Doc.

How about
To Boston: DeMarcus Cousins, Chuck Hayes
To LA: Kevin Garnett
To Sacramento: Eric Bledsoe and DeAndre Jordan.

Can you trade to Sacramento and then they take Garnett and flip him to the Clippers after the fact?


What if we included Pierce in the deal:

KG and Pierce to Kings for:

Cousins, Salmons, filler.
 
http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=kfoztxm


Then the Kings flip them for Butler, Crawford, Jordan, Green, 1st round pick.

I doubt that would be allowed.  Why on earth is KG waiving his no trade clause to go to Sacramento, if not because he's been promised to be traded to the Clippers?  They might allow the first part of the deal, but never the Sac-Clippers trade.  That screams a side deal more than our KG-Doc deal even does.

[LarBrd33]

Well now that we know we officially can't trade with the Clippers this year, could we do a three team trade or would they frown on that too? 

[bfrombleacher]

Just out of curiosity.

What if we waive Garnett so the Clips can sign him, then "trade" for DeAndre Jordan and Bledsoe with our pu pu platter?

Still don't like Jordan. But just curious.

[lon3lytoaster]

Just out of curiosity.

What if we waive Garnett so the Clips can sign him, then "trade" for DeAndre Jordan and Bledsoe with our pu pu platter?

Still don't like Jordan. But just curious.

No player movement is allowed by us and the Clippers until next year.

I don't really agree with the NBA's stance here, but I don't think there's going to be any way to circumvent their ruling on this one here.