Would NBA and the Player Association allow opposite in D.Jordan situation?

[Texstyles]

I was watching the summer league game and listening to the commish talk about the D.Jordan situation.  Then asked myself would they have allowed it the other way around.  So Dallas verbally offers Jordan 4 for 80 and they agree.  Then Dallas goes after Aldridge and gets him to agree to the same contract.  On signing day Dallas lets Aldridge in the building but then locks all the doors so Jordan cant walk in, as they are apologizing on twitter and saying they had a change of heart.   I think  the NBA and the Union would be taking Dallas/Cuban to court over this,  but in all reality it is no different.

[Moranis]

What can they do though?

Where it would hurt the team is future free agent negotiations.  Nothing could be done about Jordan though.

[saltlover]

Yes, they would, barring something in writing.  Even then they probably would.

[Endless Paradise]

They have to, for the exact reason that Silver brought up: nothing agreed to during the moratorium is binding. That said, there'd be significantly more severe ramifications, in terms of future business relationships, if a franchise were to renege than if a player were to do the same. After all, the players are the ones with the in-demand talent. Teams will fall over themselves to throw money at a guy who can play basketball effectively. Hell, teams will fall over themselves to throw money at guys who may or may not be able to play basketball effectively - see one Smith, Josh.

[Donoghus]

They should just get rid of the stupid moratorium all together.

[saltlover]

They should just get rid of the stupid moratorium all together.

The moratorium exists so that they can count revenue from the prior fiscal year, which ends June 30th.  Each team's books, as well as the league's, go through a full audit.  It takes a little time to do those things.  The salary cap in the following year is based on revenue projections from the prior year, as well as determining if the players or owners got too much of a share of the revenue (which could further alter the cap).  Maximum salaries are also based on the cap, and the Early Bird is based on average salary paid to players. If teams don't know how much money they have to spend, and players can't know how much they're being paid, they can't sign contracts.  They could put in a rule that says "no talking at all", but that wouldn't work, because obviously everyone would try to get around it (as the NFL found out).  So they do it this way.  And it works just fine.  So someone changes his mind before putting pen to paper on a contract.  Better then than after the thing is signed.

[Donoghus]

They should just get rid of the stupid moratorium all together.

The moratorium exists so that they can count revenue from the prior fiscal year, which ends June 30th.  Each team's books, as well as the league's, go through a full audit.  It takes a little time to do those things.  The salary cap in the following year is based on revenue projections from the prior year, as well as determining if the players or owners got too much of a share of the revenue (which could further alter the cap).  Maximum salaries are also based on the cap, and the Early Bird is based on average salary paid to players. If teams don't know how much money they have to spend, and players can't know how much they're being paid, they can't sign contracts.  They could put in a rule that says "no talking at all", but that wouldn't work, because obviously everyone would try to get around it (as the NFL found out).  So they do it this way.  And it works just fine.  So someone changes his mind before putting pen to paper on a contract.  Better then than after the thing is signed.

I understand the history behind it.  It still doesn't answer the question of having a "publicized" moratorium at all. 

[Rhyso]

They should just get rid of the stupid moratorium all together.

The moratorium exists so that they can count revenue from the prior fiscal year, which ends June 30th.  Each team's books, as well as the league's, go through a full audit.  It takes a little time to do those things.  The salary cap in the following year is based on revenue projections from the prior year, as well as determining if the players or owners got too much of a share of the revenue (which could further alter the cap).  Maximum salaries are also based on the cap, and the Early Bird is based on average salary paid to players. If teams don't know how much money they have to spend, and players can't know how much they're being paid, they can't sign contracts.  They could put in a rule that says "no talking at all", but that wouldn't work, because obviously everyone would try to get around it (as the NFL found out).  So they do it this way.  And it works just fine.  So someone changes his mind before putting pen to paper on a contract.  Better then than after the thing is signed.

I understand the history behind it.  It still doesn't answer the question of having a "publicized" moratorium at all.

Because it generates publicity for the NBA. The moratorium allows for media and fans to generate hype, discussion and outside interest to grow the NBA brand. You can surely see yourself how many fans are active online during these times, which otherwise would not be seen and people focusing their attention elsewhere.

[hodgy03038]

They should just get rid of the stupid moratorium all together.

The moratorium exists so that they can count revenue from the prior fiscal year, which ends June 30th.  Each team's books, as well as the league's, go through a full audit.  It takes a little time to do those things.  The salary cap in the following year is based on revenue projections from the prior year, as well as determining if the players or owners got too much of a share of the revenue (which could further alter the cap).  Maximum salaries are also based on the cap, and the Early Bird is based on average salary paid to players. If teams don't know how much money they have to spend, and players can't know how much they're being paid, they can't sign contracts.  They could put in a rule that says "no talking at all", but that wouldn't work, because obviously everyone would try to get around it (as the NFL found out).  So they do it this way.  And it works just fine.  So someone changes his mind before putting pen to paper on a contract.  Better then than after the thing is signed.

I understand the history behind it.  It still doesn't answer the question of having a "publicized" moratorium at all.

Because it generates publicity for the NBA. The moratorium allows for media and fans to generate hype, discussion and outside interest to grow the NBA brand. You can surely see yourself how many fans are active online during these times, which otherwise would not be seen and people focusing their attention elsewhere.

In addition I got the idea from the commish interview at Sumer League that if there were no moratorium and say at 12:01AM of the first day possible DeAndre Jordan signs with Mavericks it would raise eyebrows as to how he could sign that quickly without their being some contact prior to the available free agency period. I think it covers the owners from being guilty of illegal prior contact with player(s) which we know probably does happen maybe not directly but hush hush conversations with agents, etc.

[Donoghus]

They should just get rid of the stupid moratorium all together.

The moratorium exists so that they can count revenue from the prior fiscal year, which ends June 30th.  Each team's books, as well as the league's, go through a full audit.  It takes a little time to do those things.  The salary cap in the following year is based on revenue projections from the prior year, as well as determining if the players or owners got too much of a share of the revenue (which could further alter the cap).  Maximum salaries are also based on the cap, and the Early Bird is based on average salary paid to players. If teams don't know how much money they have to spend, and players can't know how much they're being paid, they can't sign contracts.  They could put in a rule that says "no talking at all", but that wouldn't work, because obviously everyone would try to get around it (as the NFL found out).  So they do it this way.  And it works just fine.  So someone changes his mind before putting pen to paper on a contract.  Better then than after the thing is signed.

I understand the history behind it.  It still doesn't answer the question of having a "publicized" moratorium at all.

Because it generates publicity for the NBA. The moratorium allows for media and fans to generate hype, discussion and outside interest to grow the NBA brand. You can surely see yourself how many fans are active online during these times, which otherwise would not be seen and people focusing their attention elsewhere.

That's valid.  It certainly does which is why we probably won't see it go away.  You had the national sports media focusing on the NBA last week rather than MLB which is full swing or any other sport.

[BaronV]

The situation you describe could become more common in the future as a result of the Jordan situation.  If a team is looking for a star at a certain position - say a center in this case, they may make offers to multiple players to hedge their bets in case one of the players decides to withdraw.  Once the moratorium is lifted, the team will try and sign their contract with their #1 choice, then tell the other(s) there is no longer a spot for them.

Honestly, this situation is much better for the player than the team, so not sure the league or players association would try and stop it.  If you are Dallas this year, you get screwed.  All the stars at center have already signed elsewhere by the time you find out Jordan pulled out, and you get nothing.  If you are the #2 option for them at center, and they say thanks but no thanks, you can then move on to other teams.  And by receiving offers from multiple teams, the player may end up with a better contract in the end, then if other teams are scared off by the leaked 'verbal commitment' noise during the moratorium period. 

[saltlover]

The situation you describe could become more common in the future as a result of the Jordan situation.  If a team is looking for a star at a certain position - say a center in this case, they may make offers to multiple players to hedge their bets in case one of the players decides to withdraw.  Once the moratorium is lifted, the team will try and sign their contract with their #1 choice, then tell the other(s) there is no longer a spot for them.

Honestly, this situation is much better for the player than the team, so not sure the league or players association would try and stop it.  If you are Dallas this year, you get screwed.  All the stars at center have already signed elsewhere by the time you find out Jordan pulled out, and you get nothing.  If you are the #2 option for them at center, and they say thanks but no thanks, you can then move on to other teams.  And by receiving offers from multiple teams, the player may end up with a better contract in the end, then if other teams are scared off by the leaked 'verbal commitment' noise during the moratorium period.

I doubt teams will actually ever try to pull such a situation.  When Jordan changes his mind, he will not negotiate another contract for four years, so his credibility doesn't matter all that much.  Teams negotiate with 5-10 free agents every season.  Lie to one, and players will only negotiate with you as an option of last resort, or as a way to drive up prices on other teams.

What will happen more in the future is teams doing what the Clippers did -- continuing to talk to fee agents who have agreed to go elsewhere.  Jordan changed his mind -- that's not what the story is.  The story is that the Clippers decided to go en masse and continue to recruit Jordan to sign with them after he agreed with the Mavs, which is what never happened.  Next year I don't expect we'll see teams who think they were close with a free agent give up so quickly if they miss out.