Caveat Emptor

[guava_wrench]

The rules are all players in a trade have to pass the physical from the team they are traded to  before the trade is complete.  Until they all pass, none of the players are allowed to suit up for their new team.  A team may waive a player's physical but that would really only happen if the player was trade filler that the new team planned on waiving anyway. 

It certainly wasn't a given that IT would need surgery this season.  The story until now has been IT's hip wasn't going to need surgery but that he might miss the beginning of the season while he rehabbed.   That's a significant difference for the Cavs who were at a minimum looking to make one last championship run before they started a rebuild.

What I want to know is what is the rule when you choose to trade for a known injured player. From the outside it seems that the inclusion of Crowder and the unprotected BK pick was to compensate for the injury.... so how can all parties complete the trade call with NBA and now have an issue.... nothing was hidden. If IT was healthy there is no way we would give up both Crowder and the BK pick.

Interesting, wonder what the perceived value of IT was pretty trade by the Cavs. Was his injury really quantified and considered? This Cavs front office and GMT may find it difficult in the future to make deals if they blow this up with the idea they 'didn't know' how Thomas injury rehab would progres if at all. No player, coach, agent or organization in any sport wants to take its players through this kind of scenario. Too much chance for hard feelings and damaged reputation going forward.

I wonder if Lebron had his hand in this? He could have said OK go ahead and trade Kyrie, but you better hope IT is healthy or I'm gone. I don't believe  they make this or any deal without his approval.

No one will care that the Cavs stopped the trade if time shows that their diagnosis was correct. You might be being a bit too overdramatic.

Celtics medical staff ends up with more of a hurt reputation than anyone else. While Danny would look like he was trying to pull one on Cleveland, I think GMs understand that teams don't have complete control over players in offseason and can't monitor injuries day to day. They also understand the subjective nature of medical diagnoses.

It is also possible the Celtics didn't monitor him too closely for plausible deniability, though I find that to be a bit too tin-foily for my taste.

[Ogaju]

It boils down to the terms of the contract and the conditions and representations that were made. Example, what if the Celtics told the Cavs that IT's hip was non-surgical as far as they knew, but IT now reveals to the Cavs the name of one of the many doctors he has seen on his own who may have told him he definitely needs surgery? That will be knew information that Boston did not have and could not have shared.

Second, what if Boston had traded IT as is subject to given future consideration if he really needs surgery. Question then becomes who determines 'if he really needs surgery'.

Remember, Cavs do not owe IT anything. His team may have told him to tank the physical so he can fully rehab for a year and then go after his brinks truck.

You can't tank an evaluation of a labrum tear.

I said tank the physical, not the clinical or diagnostic testing, so we do not disagree. There are many ways a player can tank a physical. It is up to the evaluators to figure out what is going on.

[Ogaju]

The rules are all players in a trade have to pass the physical from the team they are traded to  before the trade is complete.  Until they all pass, none of the players are allowed to suit up for their new team.  A team may waive a player's physical but that would really only happen if the player was trade filler that the new team planned on waiving anyway. 

It certainly wasn't a given that IT would need surgery this season.  The story until now has been IT's hip wasn't going to need surgery but that he might miss the beginning of the season while he rehabbed.   That's a significant difference for the Cavs who were at a minimum looking to make one last championship run before they started a rebuild.

What I want to know is what is the rule when you choose to trade for a known injured player. From the outside it seems that the inclusion of Crowder and the unprotected BK pick was to compensate for the injury.... so how can all parties complete the trade call with NBA and now have an issue.... nothing was hidden. If IT was healthy there is no way we would give up both Crowder and the BK pick.

Interesting, wonder what the perceived value of IT was pretty trade by the Cavs. Was his injury really quantified and considered? This Cavs front office and GMT may find it difficult in the future to make deals if they blow this up with the idea they 'didn't know' how Thomas injury rehab would progres if at all. No player, coach, agent or organization in any sport wants to take its players through this kind of scenario. Too much chance for hard feelings and damaged reputation going forward.

I wonder if Lebron had his hand in this? He could have said OK go ahead and trade Kyrie, but you better hope IT is healthy or I'm gone. I don't believe  they make this or any deal without his approval.

No one will care that the Cavs stopped the trade if time shows that their diagnosis was correct. You might be being a bit too overdramatic.

Celtics medical staff ends up with more of a hurt reputation than anyone else. While Danny would look like he was trying to pull one on Cleveland, I think GMs understand that teams don't have complete control over players in offseason and can't monitor injuries day to day. They also understand the subjective nature of medical diagnoses.

It is also possible the Celtics didn't monitor him too closely for plausible deniability, though I find that to be a bit too tin-foily for my taste.

And the bolded part is why the NBA should have an independent examiner for these kind of situations.

[mctyson]

It boils down to the terms of the contract and the conditions and representations that were made. Example, what if the Celtics told the Cavs that IT's hip was non-surgical as far as they knew, but IT now reveals to the Cavs the name of one of the many doctors he has seen on his own who may have told him he definitely needs surgery? That will be knew information that Boston did not have and could not have shared.

Second, what if Boston had traded IT as is subject to given future consideration if he really needs surgery. Question then becomes who determines 'if he really needs surgery'.

Remember, Cavs do not owe IT anything. His team may have told him to tank the physical so he can fully rehab for a year and then go after his brinks truck.

You can't tank an evaluation of a labrum tear.

I said tank the physical, not the clinical or diagnostic testing, so we do not disagree. There are many ways a player can tank a physical. It is up to the evaluators to figure out what is going on.

This issue has nothing to do with his overall physical from what was reported. It has to do with the Cleveland medical staff's interpretation of his hip injury based on their own examination, which probably includes an MRI.

If Cleveland's staff thinks the risk of re-injury is more likely without surgery, then there is a real reason for them to rescind the trade since IT would be out for most of the season.

I am on Cleveland's side on this one, considering it is was well known that IT had a serious enough injury that surgery could be required.  The Celtics had to know this outcome was a possibility, and maybe that is why they added the Brooklyn pick, to ensure the deal went through.  Let's hope it does.