Doc compensation agreement states Celtics/Clippers can't exchange players

[BballTim]

  Too funny. Hope the Clips have some other big deals on the back burner. Or maybe I don't.

[nickagneta]

I think that's bad practice. The coaching profession in the NBA, as a whole is already so unstable(witness Karl, Doc, Hollins and VDN all taking their teams to the playoffs but leaving their teams), why add to that?

Biggest issue is that it evades CBA restrictions for trading money. The Clippers sent us a first round pick and the Celtics saved probably 10-15 million over 3 years.

That's a heck of an incentive to a deal for some owners.

Not sure where you are going here.

Yes the C's saved that money because they don't have to pay it to Doc, but that's not teams exchanging money for deals in trading players, which is in the CBA. Coaches are not a part of the CBA. There is precedent for giving compensation for letting coaches out of their contracts and that precedent is giving up draft picks.

[LooseCannon]

I don't understand why the owners (as a collective) are signing off on this.  They should be telling Stern to pound sand.  This seems like a bad move for the league.

Maybe they think this limits the ability of players to act as de facto GMs, dictating what transactions need to occur.  Whether or not it effectively does that, do you believe the owners are interested in reigning in the power of star players?

[BballTim]

  I guess we'll get to test that "I'll only play for Doc" statement KG made, although I don't think he expected Doc to bail when he said that.

[Galeto]

It serves the Clippers right since it appears they were the ones leaking everything to the Los Angeles media.  Getting Doc without KG is not really a coup for them.  On the plus side, they're supposedly guaranteed to get Paul back but I'm confused why he's supposedly so enamored with Doc.  I thought he wanted to get both KG and Doc.  Maybe he does and will have reservations but not enough to go back on his word.

For the Celtics, I'm not broken up about not getting Jordan and a first round pick.  The first round pick for Doc being set in 2015 gave the two teams an opening to trade KG for Jordan and a 2013 first round pick but I guess Doc and the teams agreed to close down that avenue.

[Boris Badenov]

I'm happy about this for one simple reason: we won't have to spend the next month obsessing about all the ins and out of whether a KG/LAC trade is happening.

And obsess we would.

[LooseCannon]

On the plus side, they're supposedly guaranteed to get Paul back but I'm confused why he's supposedly so enamored with Doc.  I thought he wanted to get both KG and Doc.  Maybe he does and will have reservations but not enough to go back on his word.

I don't think it is wildly implausible that Chris Paul thinks Doc is the best or second-best coach in the league and values that immensely, having had to live through Vinny Del Negro as a coach.

[Who]

A one year embargo is fair. No complaints. 

[JBcat]

How good do you think the Clippers will be next year, or 2 years from now?   I still see some good size holes with the team.  I think they are thin up front after Griffin.  You can't play Jordan major minutes in the 4th quarter right now.  Odom, Hollins, and Turiaf are all free agents, and they need to find a way to upgrade there. 

Their wing players are either nearing the end and/or just solid role players in Green, Butler, and Crawford.   Barnes and Billups are free agents.  Billups can play the 2.  In 2 years all these guys will all be at least in their mid 30s.  Crawford did have a very good year but he is 33.  Can he keep doing that. 

Maybe you can play Bledsoe and Paul together more.  Not sure how that would work.   I think they will have to trade Bledsoe to fill other holes.   I know people are excited about Bledsoe but is he really starter quality.    How good is he really going to be, and what can you fetch for him. 

Will Jordan, Griffin, and Paul all get along. 

I don't think it's a home run they will be a very good team in 2 years when we have their pick.  We'll see. 

[Galeto]

It figures that at the same time the Clippers become so desirable that a championship coach wants to go there, they decide to get all cute and create "leverage" by leaking everything to the press, which leads to the league office forbidding them from trading for KG.  It's so fitting for that franchise.  With KG and maybe Pierce, they might have been legitimate championship contenders.  I don't think they are right now.  Swapping out Del Negro for Doc isn't going to fix the shooting problems or defensive IQs of their starting bigs.

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

THANK YOU STERN!! Hahaha, if KG plays it will be with us!!! Yes!!!! KG isn't playing for any other team that would have anything we'd be interested in taking in exchange for him! Hahahaha WIN!

[saltlover]

The nbapa must be very weak to allow this type of collusion, it nullifies part of kg no trade clause, no way the mlbpa would put up with this crap, no wonder the owners are eager for another lockout

My fiancee is an attorney with a lot of experience in labor/employment law.  While she qualified her answer saying that she obviously hasn't looked at the CBA or KG's contract, she said that the player's association wouldn't have a strong argument, since a no-trade clause is a contractual right to refuse a trade, and not a right to be traded.  Accordingly his contract has not been weakened or violated, and nor, presumably, has the player's association.  If, for instance, he had a right in his contract to request a trade to the Clippers, and the Celtics had an obligation to at least negotiate in good faith, then there would be obvious grounds for the player's association to object, but not with merely a no-trade clause.

[goCeltics]

The nbapa must be very weak to allow this type of collusion, it nullifies part of kg no trade clause, no way the mlbpa would put up with this crap, no wonder the owners are eager for another lockout

My fiancee is an attorney with a lot of experience in labor/employment law.  While she qualified her answer saying that she obviously hasn't looked at the CBA or KG's contract, she said that the player's association wouldn't have a strong argument, since a no-trade clause is a contractual right to refuse a trade, and not a right to be traded.  Accordingly his contract has not been weakened or violated, and nor, presumably, has the player's association.  If, for instance, he had a right in his contract to request a trade to the Clippers, and the Celtics had an obligation to at least negotiate in good faith, then there would be obvious grounds for the player's association to object, but not with merely a no-trade clause.

it not an easy argument, but what the use of having a no trade clause or even playing under the cba, if the league starts adding their own conditions when ever they like, it's not like the players agreed that should a coach be released from one team to another that they will no trade between those teams for a year, this is something stern made up on the fly with any representation from the players or the coaches

[Fan from VT]

The nbapa must be very weak to allow this type of collusion, it nullifies part of kg no trade clause, no way the mlbpa would put up with this crap, no wonder the owners are eager for another lockout

My fiancee is an attorney with a lot of experience in labor/employment law.  While she qualified her answer saying that she obviously hasn't looked at the CBA or KG's contract, she said that the player's association wouldn't have a strong argument, since a no-trade clause is a contractual right to refuse a trade, and not a right to be traded.  Accordingly his contract has not been weakened or violated, and nor, presumably, has the player's association.  If, for instance, he had a right in his contract to request a trade to the Clippers, and the Celtics had an obligation to at least negotiate in good faith, then there would be obvious grounds for the player's association to object, but not with merely a no-trade clause.

it not an easy argument, but what the use of having a no trade clause or even playing under the cba, if the league starts adding their own conditions when ever they like, it's not like the players agreed that should a coach be released from one team to another that they will no trade between those teams for a year, this is something stern made up on the fly with any representation from the players or the coaches

It's not entirely made up. The current CBA states that you cannot involve or associate parts of the cba (players, picks, trade exceptions, money under 3million i think) with non-parts of the cba (stock, owner shares, money greater than a certain amount, coaches, gms, etc), or make CBA parts contingent on non-cba parts. That was already written. Then, with all the leaks to the press (how does that happen?) it was clear that this was a package deal, in that LAC wanted KG but only if they got Doc (or wanted Doc but only if they could bring in KG) and it seemed like the only way the C's could get what they wanted was to send out Doc and KG for a bundle in return; not worth it for the C's to give out KG but still have Doc unhappy with a younger rebuilding team.

So it was very clear that C's and LAC were circumventing the written CBA. So now that the Doc part was done, how do you protect against a "well, we'll do the Doc part now then wait a couple weeks...know one will notice when KG gets to LAC!" type of collusion?

[rondoallaturca]

Personally I think this is another reason of David Stern absolutely overstepping his bounds as a commissioner. I seriously can't wait for his retirement next year.

That being said, I'm not too p---ed because this means we get to keep KG and not get DJ.