PDA

View Full Version : Any trade involving Celtics and Clippers can't happen until after next season



LTBaByyy
06-25-2013, 06:24 PM
@ESPNSteinLine: ESPN source says provision DOES include three-team (and more) trades. NO trade exchanging Celtics & Clippers allowed until after next season

@ESPNSteinLine




Stern hates CP3 lol

spreadeagle
06-25-2013, 06:26 PM
weird

Clippersfan86
06-25-2013, 06:27 PM
Stern di** slapping the Clippers/KG to remind them who's in charge. KG's CBA outburst just cost him dearly and may have forced him into retirement. Can still get Pierce if bought out though, so all good.

ramsizzle
06-25-2013, 06:28 PM
@ESPNSteinLine: ESPN source says provision DOES include three-team (and more) trades. NO trade exchanging Celtics & Clippers allowed until after next season

@ESPNSteinLine




Stern hates CP3 lol

this seems like collusion to stop collusion..... litigation would end this last power move by stern rather quickly.

Theyhateme459
06-25-2013, 06:30 PM
Now I understood most other thing, BUT this right here...... Makes ZERO sense to me unless someone can help me understand...

The only rule in question is that you can not trade a player for a coach because of the CBA correct?

If so it should be very clear that the Doc Rivers to LA Clippers is a VERY independent trade, and the clippers did not pay doc CONTINGENT on the fact they get Garnett also.

Therefore........ ANY subsequent trade has proven to have ZERO to do with the first trade and would be it's separate own trade.... Then to make up this rule until next year... Did he just pull that out of his *****

These rulings are being based on speculation and not coinciding with anything in the CBA. The CBA is there for a reason and teams should be able to operate within those rules... not those and other made up rules on the fly.

Clippersfan86
06-25-2013, 06:31 PM
Stern doesn't work under the rules.

bholly
06-25-2013, 06:34 PM
this seems like collusion to stop collusion..... litigation would end this last power move by stern rather quickly.

Who's colluding?


Stern doesn't work under the rules.

What rule is he breaking?

kobe4thewinbang
06-25-2013, 06:34 PM
Stern's a ********. Chris Paul should've been a Laker, and there is nothing wrong with the Garnett/Jordan trade. After all of the nonsensical 4-team trades and what-have-you in the past that happened under his watch, it's awfully suspicious and despicable for him to be so strict nowadays about trades. Can't wait till he's gone. The man is toxic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/box-seats/post/chris-paul-trade-veto-shows-its-time-for-david-stern-to-go/2010/12/20/gIQAwpwmiO_blog.html

bholly
06-25-2013, 06:36 PM
The rest of the tweets, seeing as OP for some reason only posted one:


Ken Berger ‏@KBergCBS 2h
Doc Rivers' compensation agreement states that Celtics and Clippers can't exchange players until the end of the '13-'14 season, source says.

Marc Stein ‏@ESPNSteinLine 18m
ESPN source says provision DOES include three-team (and more) trades. NO trade exchanging Celtics & Clippers allowed until after next season

Marc Stein ‏@ESPNSteinLine 13m
Provision in Doc's deal does appear to create wiggle room for Pierce or KG to join Clips if they get bought out & hit free agency. But ...

Marc Stein ‏@ESPNSteinLine 11m
But NBA is not yet addressing such hypotheticals, suggesting that a down-the-road signing of Pierce or KG w/Clips would have to be looked at

Marc Stein ‏@ESPNSteinLine 9m
NBA adamant it had to take this step to ensure no player transaction is connected to Clips' hiring of Doc, which would violate league rules

Clippersfan86
06-25-2013, 06:36 PM
Who's colluding?



What rule is he breaking?

Well as the other poster said... he's setting a restriction based on a rumor or assumption. In the courtroom he would get destroyed for this. The only reason the Clippers don't push it is because they know how corrupt Stern is and he will likely get his revenge.

kobe4thewinbang
06-25-2013, 06:43 PM
Well as the other poster said... he's setting a restriction based on a rumor or assumption. In the courtroom he would get destroyed for this. The only reason the Clippers don't push it is because they know how corrupt Stern is and he will likely get his revenge.Like I said, the dude won't be missed. Sadly I hear his crony is replacing him. Just let trades happen FFS.

PhillyFaninLA
06-25-2013, 06:45 PM
Stern's a ********. Chris Paul should've been a Laker, and there is nothing wrong with the Garnett/Jordan trade. After all of the nonsensical 4-team trades and what-have-you in the past that happened under his watch, it's awfully suspicious and despicable for him to be so strict nowadays about trades. Can't wait till he's gone. The man is toxic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/box-seats/post/chris-paul-trade-veto-shows-its-time-for-david-stern-to-go/2010/12/20/gIQAwpwmiO_blog.html

Oh no the milk spilled, here have a tissue

bholly
06-25-2013, 06:48 PM
Well as the other poster said... he's setting a restriction based on a rumor or assumption. In the courtroom he would get destroyed for this. The only reason the Clippers don't push it is because they know how corrupt Stern is and he will likely get his revenge.

The issue isn't the restriction - everyone knew that was going to happen and understood why days ago. The only new thing now is the length of the restriction, and I don't see how now that it's in place for a season it's suddenly baseless and unjustified and corrupt.

chitownredbulls
06-25-2013, 06:49 PM
Not a fan of either team but this rule is stupid....

Heater4life
06-25-2013, 06:52 PM
Danny Ainge is having a pathetic news conference. He seems confused, deflective, overall just clueless.

Clippersfan86
06-25-2013, 06:53 PM
The issue isn't the restriction - everyone knew that was going to happen and understood why days ago. The only new thing now is the length of the restriction, and I don't see how now that it's in place for a season it's suddenly baseless and unjustified and corrupt.

Again... it's on the accusing party to provide EVIDENCE. Where is the EVIDENCE that these deals were connected when it wasn't even sent to the league? Based on Twitter leaks? Like I said... destroyed in the courtroom. The fact that the Clippers still traded for Doc knowing they can't get KG anyways.. proves that it wasn't contingent obviously.

More-Than-Most
06-25-2013, 06:54 PM
Hahahahaha stern is a boss

Clippersfan86
06-25-2013, 06:57 PM
Hahahahaha stern is a boss

Not as much of a boss as Bynum.

Raps08-09 Champ
06-25-2013, 06:58 PM
Now I understood most other thing, BUT this right here...... Makes ZERO sense to me unless someone can help me understand...

The only rule in question is that you can not trade a player for a coach because of the CBA correct?

If so it should be very clear that the Doc Rivers to LA Clippers is a VERY independent trade, and the clippers did not pay doc CONTINGENT on the fact they get Garnett also.

Therefore........ ANY subsequent trade has proven to have ZERO to do with the first trade and would be it's separate own trade.... Then to make up this rule until next year... Did he just pull that out of his *****

These rulings are being based on speculation and not coinciding with anything in the CBA. The CBA is there for a reason and teams should be able to operate within those rules... not those and other made up rules on the fly.

It's being assumed that any trade that occurs after would be in relation to the first deal. And it's fairly obvious that while they are technically 2 separate transactions, they are in relation to each other.

CBA says you can't trade a player for a coach. Clippers and Celtics think they can try to pull a fast one by making 2 separate trades as a loophole. NBA preventing it because they are trying to pull a fast one.

I don't agree with the CBA, but since the CBA is in place, it should be enforced.

Clippersfan86
06-25-2013, 07:03 PM
I love how people are defending Stern but if this was happening to your team you'd be enraged. This is the first EVER trade embargo of it's kind in NBA history and it's ENTIRELY based on perception, rumor and speculation. Absolutely zero facts. Like I said... if this went to court.. Stern's ruling would be overturned, I'm 100 percent sure of that.

Raps your first sentence of "It's being assumed" is exactly why this is invalid.

Raps08-09 Champ
06-25-2013, 07:08 PM
Raps your first sentence of "It's being assumed" is exactly why this is invalid.

It's fairly obvious.

The original deal involved Rivers and Garnett for a pick, Bledsoe and Jordan.

They already did Rivers and the pick. A Garnett for Jordan deal would clearly imply that they just tried to make a loophole to get what they wanted.

Raps08-09 Champ
06-25-2013, 07:10 PM
I love how people are defending Stern but if this was happening to your team you'd be enraged. This is the first EVER trade embargo of it's kind in NBA history and it's ENTIRELY based on perception, rumor and speculation. Absolutely zero facts. Like I said... if this went to court.. Stern's ruling would be overturned, I'm 100 percent sure of that.


I'd probably be pissed if a trade didn't happen, but I'm not going to pissed that the NBA is investigating and doing due diligence.

Any trades involving Garnett and Jordan would obviously be in relation with the Rivers deal. The only reason you are arguing is because it is happening to your team, despite the fact that you know you are in the wrong.

Clippersfan86
06-25-2013, 07:11 PM
It's fairly obvious.

The original deal involved Rivers and Garnett for a pick, Bledsoe and Jordan.

They already did Rivers and the pick. A Garnett for Jordan deal would clearly imply that they just tried to make a loophole to get what they wanted.

Again none of which are facts. What's "obvious" isn't permissible in court. Stern made a LEGAL decision based on rumors. Nothing is going to convince a judge of upholding that ruling. You're making nothing but assumptions here. I'd be defending ANY team, including the Grizzlies who I dislike in this kind of scenario. As I said... Doc Rivers trade was still completed when Stern shutdown KG so obviously that's EVIDENCE and FACT verifying that one trade was NOT contingent on the other. Therefor there was no connection.

Strumpy
06-25-2013, 07:14 PM
Basketball Reasons.

Clippersfan86
06-25-2013, 07:18 PM
If the Clippers backed off of Doc when Stern said he would veto a KG trade and said "You know what, nevermind". Then THAT would be evidence that the deals were contingent obviously. To agree on a contract not to trade for a full year, even only getting one asset? Proof of NOT being contingent obviously.

Raps08-09 Champ
06-25-2013, 07:21 PM
Again none of which are facts. What's "obvious" isn't permissible in court. Stern made a LEGAL decision based on rumors. Nothing is going to convince a judge of upholding that ruling. You're making nothing but assumptions here. I'd be defending ANY team, including the Grizzlies who I dislike in this kind of scenario. As I said... Doc Rivers trade was still completed when Stern shutdown KG so obviously that's EVIDENCE and FACT verifying that one trade was NOT contingent on the other. Therefor there was no connection.

Just because you are not bright enough to realize it doesn't mean that they are not related.

A Rivers and Garnett for Bledsoe, pick and Jordan trade is equivalent to 2 trades of Rivers for a pick and Garnett for Jordan + Bledsoe if it were to arise.

You need to stop before you get embarrassed even more.

If you want to be mad at anyone in this situation, be mad at the people who accepted the details in the CBA of coaches not being traded.

Theyhateme459
06-25-2013, 07:22 PM
It's being assumed that any trade that occurs after would be in relation to the first deal. And it's fairly obvious that while they are technically 2 separate transactions, they are in relation to each other.

CBA says you can't trade a player for a coach. Clippers and Celtics think they can try to pull a fast one by making 2 separate trades as a loophole. NBA preventing it because they are trying to pull a fast one.

I don't agree with the CBA, but since the CBA is in place, it should be enforced.

This is where we agree to disagree. IF the Clippers where trying to pull a fast one, or needed KG to be included to make this deal with Doc go down, then they would not have made this trade knowing that may not be a possibility...

For me clearly the Clippers and Celtics are Okay with an independent Doc for Draft Pick trade... Since that is the case I consider this trade independent of any other trades these tames may make.

Clippersfan86
06-25-2013, 07:27 PM
Just because you are not bright enough to realize it doesn't mean that they are not related.

A Rivers and Garnett for Bledsoe, pick and Jordan trade is equivalent to 2 trades of Rivers for a pick and Garnett for Jordan + Bledsoe if it were to arise.

You need to stop before you get embarrassed even more.

If you want to be mad at anyone in this situation, be mad at the people who accepted the details in the CBA of coaches not being traded.

I'm getting embarrassed lol? Seems you don't understand how the legal system works. NOTHING in the CBA actually talks about this trade embargo Stern just created and Larry Coon (CBA guru) said as much. In fact he even went as far as to say he's one of the few who's reviewed the entire document of the CBA and it doesn't even say what you CAN'T do, but rather lists what CAN be done mostly.

What would have been logical to do would be... maintain this embargo but if Clippers STILL trade for Doc (proving trades weren't contingent) then they lift embargo and honor the KG deal. If Clippers backed off of Doc, it's obviously contingent and the embargo stands. That would have been fair and logical.

Do you know what contingent means in this context? It means dependent on. Obviously given the results, a Doc trade was NOT dependent on a KG trade.

Clippersfan86
06-25-2013, 07:29 PM
Larry Coon ‏@LarryCoon 2m
CBA contains a general prohibition against pissing off David Stern.

Haha no kidding. I think KG didn't realize it would come back to haunt him when he got into a serious shouting match with Stern during CBA negotiations.

bholly
06-25-2013, 07:30 PM
Again... it's on the accusing party to provide EVIDENCE. Where is the EVIDENCE that these deals were connected when it wasn't even sent to the league? Based on Twitter leaks? Like I said... destroyed in the courtroom. The fact that the Clippers still traded for Doc knowing they can't get KG anyways.. proves that it wasn't contingent obviously.


Again none of which are facts. What's "obvious" isn't permissible in court. Stern made a LEGAL decision based on rumors. Nothing is going to convince a judge of upholding that ruling. You're making nothing but assumptions here. I'd be defending ANY team, including the Grizzlies who I dislike in this kind of scenario. As I said... Doc Rivers trade was still completed when Stern shutdown KG so obviously that's EVIDENCE and FACT verifying that one trade was NOT contingent on the other. Therefor there was no connection.

I think you don't understand the law very well, and are basing your comments about the law on how you feel about this ruling. The threshold for admissibility evidence isn't that it shows what you're accusing with absolute verified certainty. The fact that something is obvious isn't evidence in itself - but all the bits and pieces that make it obvious to us (the reports, the comments from teams, the fact that the Doc part of the deal ended up being true) would be admissible, and would make it obvious to a court.

RiceOnTheRun
06-25-2013, 07:33 PM
Not as much of a boss as Bynum.

LOL


I'm getting embarrassed lol? Seems you don't understand how the legal system works. NOTHING in the CBA actually talks about this trade embargo Stern just created and Larry Coon (CBA guru) said as much. In fact he even went as far as to say he's one of the few who's reviewed the entire document of the CBA and it doesn't even say what you CAN'T do, but rather lists what CAN be done mostly.

What would have been logical to do would be... maintain this embargo but if Clippers STILL trade for Doc (proving trades weren't contingent) then they lift embargo and honor the KG deal. If Clippers backed off of Doc, it's obviously contingent and the embargo stands. That would have been fair and logical.

Do you know what contingent means in this context? It means dependent on. Obviously given the results, a Doc trade was NOT dependent on a KG trade.

Honestly, both sides should've just kept their mouths shut about it.

Do the Doc trade now, and wait till later on to trade KG. Then you skip this whole ****-mess of a situation.

More-Than-Most
06-25-2013, 07:33 PM
Not as much of a boss as Bynum.

This is truth.... How far did the sixers/Clippers get last year?

bholly
06-25-2013, 07:34 PM
What would have been logical to do would be... maintain this embargo but if Clippers STILL trade for Doc (proving trades weren't contingent) then they lift embargo and honor the KG deal. If Clippers backed off of Doc, it's obviously contingent and the embargo stands. That would have been fair and logical.

Except if they did that, the next team in this situation knows they can make a contingent deal, then enact only half of it, then the embargo will be lifted and they can enact the second part - so under your plan, contingent deals become easy. That's not enforcing the rules, it's just wasting everyone's time.

Clippersfan86
06-25-2013, 07:34 PM
This is truth.... How far did the sixers/Clippers get last year?

Not as far as Bynum who collected 17 million to sit on the bench, go to playboy parties, go bowling and then walk in free agency the following summer.

Clippersfan86
06-25-2013, 07:37 PM
Except if they did that, the next team in this situation knows they can make a contingent deal, then enact only half of it, then the embargo will be lifted and they can enact the second part - so under your plan, contingent deals become easy. That's not enforcing the rules, it's just wasting everyone's time.

How would the trading teams know Stern planned to lift this embargo prior to making the first trade? The whole premise of this idea is that IF the teams still make a deal, knowing the so called connected deal won't be allowed... they are proving that a SINGLE trade would be made anyways. How is that not fair or logical?

bholly
06-25-2013, 07:38 PM
Not as much of a boss as Bynum.


Not as far as Bynum who collected 17 million to sit on the bench, go to playboy parties, go bowling and then walk in free agency the following summer.

All this sort of derail does is show that you're emotional and have a short fuse right now. Stick to the topic and don't discredit yourself by turning it into "yeah well you're a fan of xyz so there!" ********. Hell, most Sixer fans hate Bynum, so I'm not even sure what you're trying to get at.

bholly
06-25-2013, 07:40 PM
How would the trading teams know Stern planned to lift this embargo prior to making the first trade? The whole premise of this idea is that IF the teams still make a deal, knowing the so called connected deal won't be allowed... they are proving that a SINGLE trade would be made anyways. How is that not fair or logical?

Because he'd have to enforce the rule the same way each time. If he does what you're suggesting now for the Clippers and Celtics, then the next time a team wants to do this they know he's going to do the same thing - so they just have to put through the first half and then wait for him to let them do the second half.

Clippersfan86
06-25-2013, 07:41 PM
All this sort of derail does is show that you're emotional and have a short fuse right now. Stick to the topic and don't discredit yourself by turning it into "yeah well you're a fan of xyz so there!" ********. Hell, most Sixer fans hate Bynum, so I'm not even sure what you're trying to get at.

I'm not even emotional or mad, I was just fu**ing with him. I actually laughed when I typed this.

Clippersfan86
06-25-2013, 07:42 PM
Because he'd have to enforce the rule the same way each time. If he does what you're suggesting now for the Clippers and Celtics, then the next time a team wants to do this they know he's going to do the same thing - so they just have to put through the first half and then wait for him to let them do the second half.

Well considering this type of transaction has NEVER been attempted in NBA history and this type of embargo has NEVER been implemented... I don't think there is enough evidence to support teams will suddenly start trying this. I think it's a VERY, VERY rare circumstance.

More-Than-Most
06-25-2013, 07:45 PM
Not as far as Bynum who collected 17 million to sit on the bench, go to playboy parties, go bowling and then walk in free agency the following summer.

:laugh:

He is a genius in my opinion. He knows size equates to money and thus when injured knew he could collect a ton and do nothing and still get paid a ton this off season. I do not blame him. I would have done the same thing over risking myself on a 1 year deal just to get injured and get nothing from any team including the sixers. Had Bynum severely injured himself we would have dropped him like he had the plague... He was just doing what was best for him. He screwed us but I would have done the same thing if I were him.

Clippersfan86
06-25-2013, 07:46 PM
:laugh:

He is a genius in my opinion. He knows size equates to money and thus when injured knew he could collect a ton and do nothing and still get paid a ton this off season. I do not blame him. I would have done the same thing over risking myself on a 1 year deal just to get injured and get nothing from any team including the sixers. Had Bynum severely injured himself we would have dropped him like he had the plague... He was just doing what was best for him. He screwed us but I would have done the same thing if I were him.

Haha. I know man I'm just trolling a bit. I don't have any ill will towards the Sixers. If anything I think Bynum's a ******** for what he did.

king4day
06-25-2013, 07:47 PM
Stern di** slapping the Clippers/KG to remind them who's in charge. KG's CBA outburst just cost him dearly and may have forced him into retirement. Can still get Pierce if bought out though, so all good.

I get the feeling that if they have to pick between paying 5 mil to buy him out or dealing him to a semi-contender like the Cavs for a couple second rounders (on top of not having to pay that 5 mil), they will choose to deal him.
Unless they want to do what's best for him and let him go to the Clippers by buying him out. (Like the Suns did with Nash to LA)

More-Than-Most
06-25-2013, 07:48 PM
Haha. I know man I'm just trolling a bit. I don't have any ill will towards the Sixers. If anything I think Bynum's a ******** for what he did.

Lol I take nothing personally... I just love the hate stern gets in general. People see him as the antichrist.

Clippersfan86
06-25-2013, 07:50 PM
Lol I take nothing personally... I just love the hate stern gets in general. People see him as the antichrist.

Yea I don't think Stern is some conspiracy guy with helping Lakers, Heat etc.. but I DO think he imposes himself WAY too much in things like this. CP3 nixed trade may be more debatable because it was owned by the 29 other NBA owners so the power structure is different. But his actions during CBA, threats about buried bodies and now this? Just a major control/power freak.

bholly
06-25-2013, 07:51 PM
Well considering this type of transaction has NEVER been attempted in NBA history and this type of embargo has NEVER been implemented... I don't think there is enough evidence to support teams will suddenly start trying this. I think it's a VERY, VERY rare circumstance.

That doesn't really change anything, though. Stern can't just set up an enforcement system that allows teams to essentially bypass a rule just because it hasn't come up much in the past. For all he knows, the only reason it's been rare is because other teams have just known the rules and not tried it. Every year there are coaches and other non-players moving and teams getting permission to talk to guys and what not. If he effectively makes this type of transaction legal by enforcing it in the easily-circumvented way you're suggesting, there could be many many more of them - who knows?

Clippersfan86
06-25-2013, 07:58 PM
That doesn't really change anything, though. Stern can't just set up an enforcement system that allows teams to essentially bypass a rule just because it hasn't come up much in the past. For all he knows, the only reason it's been rare is because other teams have just known the rules and not tried it. Every year there are coaches and other non-players moving and teams getting permission to talk to guys and what not. If he effectively makes this type of transaction legal by enforcing it in the easily-circumvented way you're suggesting, there could be many many more of them - who knows?

That's not the premise on which laws and rules should be set though man. You set the rules to prevent abuse AFTER people try to take advantage, not before. Let's say he allows this one.. then other teams suddenly start trying to abuse the "loophole". THEN you go and make a rule. But considering as I said this is a first time occurrence, it feels like he's overstepping his bounds.

bholly
06-25-2013, 08:07 PM
Of course that's how you should enforce rules - you try and do it in a way that is going to work the same every time, you can't plan on just trying whatever and then changing it each time when the previous thing doesn't work anymore. You don't create a system that you know has big loopholes that could get exploited knowing you can close them next time; you try to avoid loopholes.

As much as this bothers you now, you can't really think that a better solution would be to have one rule for the Clippers now and then a new rule when another team tries it. That inconsistency would be far far worse - and something you would be absolutely furious about if the teams were reversed.

Clippersfan86
06-25-2013, 08:10 PM
Well the KG deal doesn't bother me. Considering multiple teams have offers for Jordan, I'd almost rather not have a 38 year old guy who has flat out said he HATES playing center, playing center. What bothers me is how Stern is going about it.

richiesaurus310
06-25-2013, 08:14 PM
This is a stupid rule. But I can't blame Stern for enforcing an existing rule.

Clippersfan86
06-25-2013, 08:19 PM
This is a stupid rule. But I can't blame Stern for enforcing an existing rule.

I think you missed it. There is no existing rule about this because it's never been attempted. At least not exactly.

bholly
06-25-2013, 08:24 PM
Well the KG deal doesn't bother me. Considering multiple teams have offers for Jordan, I'd almost rather not have a 38 year old guy who has flat out said he HATES playing center, playing center. What bothers me is how Stern is going about it.

Well that's fine and you're welcome to that opinion, but I don't think it's really justified.

We all knew and accepted that there was going to be a gap between the deals, and understood and accepted why there had to be, and recognized that the gap would be pretty arbitrary. I don't think you can do all that, and be fine with having to wait until draft day or whatever for the KG part, and then suddenly turn around now and say any restriction is unjustified and that Stern isn't working within the rules and would get beat in a courtroom and all that, when all that's really changed is the length of time.

Look, I would've thought a month or a few months would've been fine too. Even though I have no rooting interest, I would've liked seeing KG and Pierce stick with Doc and go to LAC - that would've been a story I would've watched with interest.
But the owners have a commissioner for exactly this reason - to enforce these rules when situations come up for which there aren't exact written guidelines. He's just doing what he's supposed to. This is exactly his job.

TheNumber37
06-25-2013, 08:25 PM
this is BS. Doesn't mean Kg and Pierce can't be cut. or traded and cut and then sign.

Clippersfan86
06-25-2013, 08:26 PM
Well that's fine and you're welcome to that opinion, but I don't think it's really justified.

We all knew and accepted that there was going to be a gap between the deals, and understood and accepted why there had to be, and recognized that the gap would be pretty arbitrary. I don't think you can do all that, and be fine with having to wait until draft day or whatever for the KG part, and then suddenly turn around now and say any restriction is unjustified and that Stern isn't working within the rules and would get beat in a courtroom and all that, when all that's really changed is the length of time.

Look, I would've thought a month or a few months would've been fine too. Even though I have no rooting interest, I would've liked seeing KG and Pierce stick with Doc and go to LAC - that would've been a story I would've watched with interest.
But the owners have a commissioner for exactly this reason - to enforce these rules when situations come up for which there aren't exact written guidelines. He's just doing what he's supposed to. This is exactly his job.

I understand but a 12 month gap? Insane.

goingfor28
06-25-2013, 08:27 PM
Dumb.

shep33
06-25-2013, 08:28 PM
This is stupid. Stern sucks

bholly
06-25-2013, 08:29 PM
I think you missed it. There is no existing rule about this because it's never been attempted. At least not exactly.

That's your spin on it, but it's not what's really happening. He isn't creating rules, he's enforcing them.

The CBA rules are that you can't trade players for coaches or have player trades with contingencies like letting a coach go, etc.
Coaches and picks aren't covered by the CBA, however, so you can use picks to compensate a team for letting a coach go.

In short, it's an existing rule that the deals couldn't be one deal, and couldn't even be linked. It's up to the league office to determine when trades are linked and when they aren't - that's entirely up to them and it's exactly the sort of thing they're there for. That's their job. That's why there's a commissioner.
All the league office is doing is saying that waiting until next season is the point at which they'll be convinced the trades aren't related. They aren't making a rule up or anything like that, they've just given the guideline about how they're going to enforce the existing rules.

bholly
06-25-2013, 08:35 PM
I understand but a 12 month gap? Insane.

Probably longer than I would've picked, but I don't know about insane. It makes sense in a lot of ways.

Clippersfan86
06-25-2013, 08:36 PM
Probably longer than I would've picked, but I don't know about insane. It makes sense in a lot of ways.

Holly comon man. You're speaking like you've seen this before. To begin with the so called "rule" which is more of a very loose guideline... is dumb. If the trade is fair both ways (which everybody seemed to agree it was) and not some robbery... who cares? Nobody is harmed in this transaction even if it it was a loophole.

Raidaz4Life
06-25-2013, 08:50 PM
Clips are getting shafted here. I won't complain because I don't want to see them get better, but at the same time this is an incredibly unjust precedent being set.

Clippersfan86
06-25-2013, 08:52 PM
Clips are getting shafted here. I won't complain because I don't want to see them get better, but at the same time this is an incredibly unjust precedent being set.

Exactly. It's the precedent being set here, not the actual trade itself.

bholly
06-25-2013, 08:53 PM
Holly comon man. You're speaking like you've seen this before. To begin with the so called "rule" which is more of a very loose guideline... is dumb. If the trade is fair both ways (which everybody seemed to agree it was) and not some robbery... who cares? Nobody is harmed in this transaction even if it it was a loophole.

Stern's job isn't to decide whether or not to enforce the rules and whether or not anyone is harmed or who would care or whether it's dumb. It isn't a loose guideline. It was negotiated into the CBA that coaches can't be involved in player transactions in any way. I don't know who wanted it, because I wasn't there, but my guess would be the NBPA. Regardless, it's a rule in a legal agreement between the players and the owners. Everything else in your post is irrelevant - Stern's job is to enforce that written rule, not to judge whether it's a good rule or not.

The question isn't whether they should be allowed to do such a deal or not. Nobody is seriously arguing that Stern is wrong to say that they can't make a player/coach deal - because it's written clearly in the CBA that they can't, and that's all that matters.

The only question - the only debatable issue - is when and how the league is convinced that the deals are separate. I'm saying I might well have picked a matter of weeks or months if I was the one making the decision, but that a season also makes a lot of sense and is totally justifiable.

Clippersfan86
06-25-2013, 08:55 PM
I think a fair deadline if any is fair... would be something like until the season starts, which would be 4+ months.

bholly
06-25-2013, 08:57 PM
Exactly. It's the precedent being set here, not the actual trade itself.

What unfair precedent is being set here? You can't negotiate a deal involving players and coaches and then expect it to go through - that's all they're enforcing, which is as it should be because that's what was negotiated into the CBA.
What other precedent are they setting?

You can't credibly argue that the rule is actually a guideline, and that they should essentially ignore the guideline, and they should do it knowing that it opens up a big hole that they're just going to close on other teams when they try it - and then on the other hand say your issue is about what precedent they're setting.

Clippersfan86
06-25-2013, 08:59 PM
What unfair precedent is being set here? You can't negotiate a deal involving players and coaches and then expect it to go through - that's all they're enforcing, which is as it should be because that's what was negotiated into the CBA.
What other precedent are they setting?

You can't credibly argue that the rule is actually a guideline, and that they should essentially ignore the guideline, and they should do it knowing that it opens up a big hole that they're just going to close on other teams when they try it - and then on the other hand say your issue is about what precedent they're setting.

Well as I already said Stern's entire premise is based on assumption. If the teams actually submitted the trade to the league as structured, I'd be defending Stern's assumption.

bholly
06-25-2013, 09:09 PM
Well as I already said Stern's entire premise is based on assumption. If the teams actually submitted the trade to the league as structured, I'd be defending Stern's assumption.

Please. Stern can't just say "oh, well, you didn't send me a piece of paper saying 'we're trying to get around the rules' on it, so therefore you must not have been" and allow it. The league office knows as well as everybody else that this was all negotiated together. They can't just ignore that. Yes some of it's based on reports and what not that they can't individually confirm with 100% certainty, but it's ridiculous to go from that to saying they should just pretend it was always separate deals with nothing to do with each other. For all we know the teams could've directly consulted with the league to ask what's legal and what's not, and that's a pretty big tipoff.
There is a LOT short of making an official trade call that should be enough to make it clear to the office that the rule was being circumvented.
Again, these judgement calls are exactly why there's a league office and a commissioner and not just a set of rules and a computer. This is their job, it's exactly what they're supposed to do. It's why they're there.


I think a fair deadline if any is fair... would be something like until the season starts, which would be 4+ months.

Sure, but evidently the league office didn't like the precedent that sets for future teams who know they can just do such a deal and still have everything they want in place for the playoffs, so they set it for longer.
Again, and I don't mean to be personal about this, but as a fan of one of the teams involved your idea of what's fair is probably different to the league, who have to take into account a lot more that you evidently aren't.

Theyhateme459
06-25-2013, 09:19 PM
Stern's job isn't to decide whether or not to enforce the rules and whether or not anyone is harmed or who would care or whether it's dumb. It isn't a loose guideline. It was negotiated into the CBA that coaches can't be involved in player transactions in any way. I don't know who wanted it, because I wasn't there, but my guess would be the NBPA. Regardless, it's a rule in a legal agreement between the players and the owners. Everything else in your post is irrelevant - Stern's job is to enforce that written rule, not to judge whether it's a good rule or not.

The question isn't whether they should be allowed to do such a deal or not. Nobody is seriously arguing that Stern is wrong to say that they can't make a player/coach deal - because it's written clearly in the CBA that they can't, and that's all that matters.

The only question - the only debatable issue - is when and how the league is convinced that the deals are separate. I'm saying I might well have picked a matter of weeks or months if I was the one making the decision, but that a season also makes a lot of sense and is totally justifiable.


I agree with this, and this is what some of us are arguing. It's my opinion that because the Clippers and C's are okay on this DOc for picks deal that this trade is 100% independent from any other trade.... Meaning the teams are satisfied with this deal regardless of what may or may not happen.

For that reason the deals should be looked at as separate in my opinion starting today since the deal that went down clearly is not based on any other conditions. Saying so is pure speculation with zero evidence in my opinion and not enough for stern to veto any subsequent trades.

ThuglifeJ
06-25-2013, 09:32 PM
so bla bla bla justice system. Is CP3 gonna stay or leave now?

love how Clippers fans are so possessive now about CP3 like he's their guy when he was New Orleans first if you remember.

bholly
06-25-2013, 09:38 PM
I agree with this, and this is what some of us are arguing. It's my opinion that because the Clippers and C's are okay on this DOc for picks deal that this trade is 100% independent from any other trade.... Meaning the teams are satisfied with this deal regardless of what may or may not happen.

For that reason the deals should be looked at as separate in my opinion starting today since the deal that went down clearly is not based on any other conditions. Saying so is pure speculation with zero evidence in my opinion and not enough for stern to veto any subsequent trades.

Yup, and I outlined that argument last week myself - that if this is a standalone case, then the fact that they're willing to do the Doc part while knowing they can't do the next part could be enough to make clear that they're standalone trades.
The problem, though, is that Stern can't just look at it as a standalone case, they need to look at it as the best way to enforce this rule long-term. If they enforce it now by saying they can do it as long as there's a gap between, then other teams can use that knowledge later to get away with deals that shouldn't be allowed - and they can't have that.


so bla bla bla justice system. Is CP3 gonna stay or leave now?

love how Clippers fans are so possessive now about CP3 like he's their guy when he was New Orleans first if you remember.

Um, he is their guy right now. He's a free agent who played for them the last few season and they hold his Bird rights. What a ridiculous point of view.

Clippersfan86
06-25-2013, 09:55 PM
so bla bla bla justice system. Is CP3 gonna stay or leave now?

love how Clippers fans are so possessive now about CP3 like he's their guy when he was New Orleans first if you remember.

What do you think man? CP3 would sign the papers if they arrived today.

topdog
06-25-2013, 09:59 PM
Again, these judgement calls are exactly why there's a league office and a commissioner and not just a set of rules and a computer. This is their job, it's exactly what they're supposed to do. It's why they're there.


1. Love this point
2. The teams' real issue is that someone within their organizations couldn't keep quiet.
3. As a Wolves fan, hell yeah there better be consequences! We got ***** slapped for years because the FO tried to circumvent the CBA to sign Joe f'n Smith :mad:

LakersIn5
06-25-2013, 11:59 PM
atleast stern gave the clippers cp3

Cracka2HI!
06-26-2013, 01:14 AM
I think this is pretty dumb. Especially if it were a trade for a guy like Courtney Lee. I'm not too mad about it and have actually started leaning against trading a 25 year old DJ for a 37 year old KG. I am painfully aware of how much better KG is then DJ. Painfully but I would rather hold onto the 25 year old freak that is DJ.

bholly
06-26-2013, 02:47 AM
Marc Stein ‏@ESPNSteinLine 49m
Clips, I'm told, now concede there's probably only one way they ever get KG: KG retires, sits out a few months, unretires and signs w/Clips

Not really sure how that would work - I have a feeling it wouldn't - but posting anyway.

LeonFSU
06-26-2013, 04:24 AM
Really stupid on the part of LAC and Boston for negotiating KG, Doc, and DJ as part of one trade. Or if it wasn't negotiated as one trade, then it's just as inexcusable from whoever leaked out the teams' intentions. Someone clearly didn't know the rules or wanted to sabotage this deal.

bholly
06-26-2013, 04:26 AM
Really stupid on the part of LAC and Boston for negotiating KG, Doc, and DJ as part of one trade. Or if it wasn't negotiated as one trade, then it's just as inexcusable from whoever leaked out the teams' intentions. Someone clearly didn't know the rules or wanted to sabotage this deal.

I think they genuinely just thought they could arrange it as separate trades and it'd be fine - the same way you can negotiate regular trades as one big thing when really they only work as multiple trades. I think they really just weren't to know that the league would take a hard line on it.