How can Stern "Block" trades?

[ScoobyDoo]

I know the did it with the first incarnation of the Clippers deal and has now put the "poo poo" on any future KG to the Clippers scenario, but I don't get how he can wield that kind of power over teams.

I mean I understand it has to do with the CBA, but it still doesn't make sense to me. As long as Salaries match, who cares...

Doc has a contract with Boston
Doc wants to coach the Clippers
KG has a contract with Boston
KG wants to play for Doc

So what, big deal. Get the salaries to match, make the deal, move on. The owners of those teams are the ones paying the rent, not Stern. If each owner likes the deal and the money matches, who cares, it's their business, their cash, their signature on the line.

I don't see why there should be any issue as long as both sides are comfortable with what they are getting in the deal and the money matches.

I'm not tied to the deal. I think with the young players we have the Celtics are in good shape either way to rebuild this year or next, whatever. I just think it's BS for the league to tell the teams what they can and can't do.

I didn't like it with the initial Chris Paul deal and I don't like it now.

I also think KG will eventually be wearing a Clippers uni this fall - which makes the whole thing an even bigger charade and waste of everyone's time.

Can someone explain why it is such a "huge deal" if the Clippers were to give the Celts a pick or two in connection with Rivers going to the Clips.

First deal: Clippers 2015 first for Rivers
Next deal: Clippers 2013 1st and Jordan for KG

What is the big deal? It's a couple deals, who gives a crap?   

[ScoobyDoo]

Does Stern run these teams or the owners who laid down 3,4 5 hundred million + for them?

Make sure the money matches, move on to something worth everyone's time... 

[PhoSita]

The league has final approval on all personnel moves made between teams.  Teams have to consult with the league office to make trades official.

This is to ensure that teams are following the rules imposed by the CBA and generally not doing things that would undermine or be against the best interests of the league (e.g. tampering, collusion etc).

[indeedproceed]

The league has final approval on all personnel moves made between teams.  Teams have to consult with the league office to make trades official.

This is to ensure that teams are following the rules imposed by the CBA and generally not doing things that would undermine or be against the best interests of the league (e.g. tampering, collusion etc).

Also to guarantee that teams don't exploit loopholes in the CBA that weren't intentional.

I get the feeling that once a week Stern calls Morey in Houston and says, "Real cute, Daryl. Real freakin cute. No chance."

[ScoobyDoo]

Thanks and I get that there is value to the league and to the teams because of the CBA.

But if you allow Bosh, LeBron and Wade to state they want to play together and then they do, shouldn't that also be an issue? Didn't they arrange their contract to all be free agents at the same time?

I guess I get why they want to keep coaches and players separate so a coach can't leave and influence a player to go with him and therefore why the league didn't want Doc and KG tied to the same trade - but if the team with the player refuses the deal, e.g., Boston says Doc you can go but we're not trading KG, then the deal is dead anyway....

But if both teams like the deal, why would the league then be up in arms about two separate deals - one for Doc and one for KG?

I always thought ground for penalties based on collusion had to be that damage was done because of the collusion. In this case, with this trade I see benefits to the Clippers, the Celtics and the league and neither team is disgruntled, they both want it.

     

[ScoobyDoo]

I actually see the league blocking it as harmful.

If you have to create two separate trades for appearances, fine, whatever. But to block it entirely?

KG, Pierce and Doc in LA gives the league another real power house team in the West to go head to head with OKC, SA, etc. - That's a positive.

Meanwhile, Boston jump starts it's rebuild - another positive.

 

[Celtics4ever]

Commissioners have a lot of power.  They can be sued however but it takes time and we don't have that time with our old guys.

[PhoSita]

Thanks and I get that there is value to the league and to the teams because of the CBA.

But if you allow Bosh, LeBron and Wade to state they want to play together and then they do, shouldn't that also be an issue? Didn't they arrange their contract to all be free agents at the same time?

I guess I get why they want to keep coaches and players separate so a coach can't leave and influence a player to go with him and therefore why the league didn't want Doc and KG tied to the same trade - but if the team with the player refuses the deal, e.g., Boston says Doc you can go but we're not trading KG, then the deal is dead anyway....

But if both teams like the deal, why would the league then be up in arms about two separate deals - one for Doc and one for KG?

I always thought ground for penalties based on collusion had to be that damage was done because of the collusion. In this case, with this trade I see benefits to the Clippers, the Celtics and the league and neither team is disgruntled, they both want it.

   

It's like any situation where a governing body is enforcing rules.

It's not a matter of equity, here.  We're not just concerned with whether or not this particular situation raises problems.  It may be true that both the Clippers and Celtics were going to get what they wanted.  But the league has to be concerned what kind of precedent it would set, and how it might motivate future behavior that would be exploitative or problematic.


As for players colluding, it's not really something that the league can prevent.  The CBA dictates the way that teams are allowed to deal with each other and give contracts to players.  It doesn't have the power to dictate the way that players act outside of their obligations as employees of  their teams and the NBA as a whole.  Even if the CBA did have the power to prevent players from conferring with one another about where they want to play, it would be pretty much impossible to enforce.

[D.o.s.]

Thanks and I get that there is value to the league and to the teams because of the CBA.

But if you allow Bosh, LeBron and Wade to state they want to play together and then they do, shouldn't that also be an issue? Didn't they arrange their contract to all be free agents at the same time?

I guess I get why they want to keep coaches and players separate so a coach can't leave and influence a player to go with him and therefore why the league didn't want Doc and KG tied to the same trade - but if the team with the player refuses the deal, e.g., Boston says Doc you can go but we're not trading KG, then the deal is dead anyway....

But if both teams like the deal, why would the league then be up in arms about two separate deals - one for Doc and one for KG?

I always thought ground for penalties based on collusion had to be that damage was done because of the collusion. In this case, with this trade I see benefits to the Clippers, the Celtics and the league and neither team is disgruntled, they both want it.

   

It's like any situation where a governing body is enforcing rules.

It's not a matter of equity, here.  We're not just concerned with whether or not this particular situation raises problems.  It may be true that both the Clippers and Celtics were going to get what they wanted.  But the league has to be concerned what kind of precedent it would set, and how it might motivate future behavior that would be exploitative or problematic.


As for players colluding, it's not really something that the league can prevent.  The CBA dictates the way that teams are allowed to deal with each other and give contracts to players.  It doesn't have the power to dictate the way that players act outside of their obligations as employees of  their teams and the NBA as a whole.  Even if the CBA did have the power to prevent players from conferring with one another about where they want to play, it would be pretty much impossible to enforce.

Very well said. TP.

[LooseCannon]

Thanks and I get that there is value to the league and to the teams because of the CBA.

But if you allow Bosh, LeBron and Wade to state they want to play together and then they do, shouldn't that also be an issue? Didn't they arrange their contract to all be free agents at the same time?

I guess I get why they want to keep coaches and players separate so a coach can't leave and influence a player to go with him and therefore why the league didn't want Doc and KG tied to the same trade - but if the team with the player refuses the deal, e.g., Boston says Doc you can go but we're not trading KG, then the deal is dead anyway....

But if both teams like the deal, why would the league then be up in arms about two separate deals - one for Doc and one for KG?

I always thought ground for penalties based on collusion had to be that damage was done because of the collusion. In this case, with this trade I see benefits to the Clippers, the Celtics and the league and neither team is disgruntled, they both want it.

   

They were drafted in the same year.  They all signed contracts intended to allow them to hit free agency in 2010 so that they could cash in on a big contract before the anticipated lockout of 2011 could create a downward pressure on the highest salaries.  So did other players, including Paul Pierce, who walked away from a $21.5 million year to sign a cap-friendly extension of four years for about $60 million.  Several teams planned in advance to have cap space to go after this bonanza, expecting a deep free agent class where they weren't screwed if they couldn't get their first choice because they could have a Plan B, C, and D to go after and still get an All-Star to build around.

The problem in this case isn't collusion or tampering or anything like that.  The problem here is making a trade involving an asset (Doc) that can't be included in a trade and trying to make it look like two separate deals doesn't actually change anything in the eyes of the league.

Consider structuring in banking.  You're supposed to report currency transactions over $10,000.  Some criminals (such as money launderers) may try to deposit or transfer sums below that threshold in attempt to avoid triggering automatic reports.  Structuring to avoid reporting requirements is illegal.

A reasonable response from the league might be to tell the teams "no" for now, but allow them to revisit the deal once the season starts, pushing any potential deal far enough into the future so that circumstances are bound to change as both teams draft players, sign free agents, and possibly make other trades.

[ScoobyDoo]

Thanks for the answers - I get it.

Then it seems if these rules are so clearly stated the mess of the discussion between the Clippers and Celtics over KG is a result of the monumental stupidity of one or both of the parties discussing the deal.

I mean, if you know these rules why wouldn't you just do one deal first and then the other 2-3 months later?

How do you not know managing the deal the way they did would create a major Edited.  Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline. show? 

[LooseCannon]

Then it seems if these rules are so clearly stated the mess of the discussion between the Clippers and Celtics over KG is a result of the monumental stupidity of one or both of the parties discussing the deal.

According to the thread on Jackie Mac's WEEI appearance, the Clippers screwed up the deal.

clippers messed up the trade because they were the ones who initiated it , and didn't let the league office know

She says "typical clippers"

[PhoSita]

Thanks for the answers - I get it.

Then it seems if these rules are so clearly stated the mess of the discussion between the Clippers and Celtics over KG is a result of the monumental stupidity of one or both of the parties discussing the deal.

I mean, if you know these rules why wouldn't you just do one deal first and then the other 2-3 months later?

How do you not know managing the deal the way they did would create a major **** show?

That's the magic of the Clippers being the Clippers.

[ScoobyDoo]

Which is also why it's probably not a bad thing to have an unprotected first round Clipper pick because it's likely that either bad or dumb luck will greatly increase that pick's value over the course of two years.