Report: LeBron James, annoyed with Micky Arison, not ready to commit to Heat
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> General Basketball Discussion Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 26511

PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2014 9:32 am    Post subject:

golakersgo121 wrote:
activeverb wrote:
golakersgo121 wrote:
AV, I certainly didn't expect "if it's legal it's not circumvention" pearl of wisdom coming from someone as intelligent as you are. You simply misspoke, perhaps?


Not sure what you mean: If the league allows something, it isn't circumvention. Circumvention implies people are doing something illegal; if a team and players are making clever moves within the rules, that's okay,

The question is what the league would allow. If the league warns teams and players about what is acceptable and what is not, there isn't any problem.

I have no idea if the league would have a problem with players opting out, taking X dollars less for a one-year deal, and signing again for lots of money. As far as I know, that's never happened. Like I said before, it might depend on the specifics, like how much less they take.

C'mon, AV - is it you?

Do I really need to type here the definition of the word "circumvention" for you

Sure - if it is legal by finding a loophole in the CBA that violates the spirit of the agreement - it is circumvention. Transparent circumvention, I might add (that AH pointed out previously). Are you not aware of Joe Smith/Minny fiasco? Celtics/Clipps trade that never happened?



Hunter spelled it out better than either of us did in his post right above this one. No reason to get worked up over the semantics of "circumvention" -- the only consideration is whether something is allowed or not allowed under the CBA.

It's the league's job to create CBA language that ensures the spirit of what it wants is achieved. It's the team's job to take whatever steps it can within the rules to field the best team possible.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
golakersgo121
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 11076
Location: 8 miles from Staples Center

PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2014 10:08 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
golakersgo121 wrote:
Sure - if it is legal by finding a loophole in the CBA that violates the spirit of the agreement - it is circumvention. Transparent circumvention, I might add (that AH pointed out previously). Are you not aware of Joe Smith/Minny fiasco? Celtics/Clipps trade that never happened?


Hold up. I think that you and AV are saying the same thing, but are banging heads because you're using different verbiage.

If the CBA allows something, it isn't "circumvention" just because someone finds a clever way to use it.

If the CBA prohibits something, it isn't legal to evade it through subterfuge.

Let's us the Joe Smith case to illustrate this. The CBA did not permit the TWolves to sign Joe Smith to a max deal. The TWolves tried to circumvent that prohibition by (1) signing Smith to a series of small, legal contracts, (2) with a secret, under the table agreement to give him a big contract down the road. That's illegal, because the TWolves and Smith agreed to a future contract that was not permitted by the CBA. The key is that they actually agreed to it in advance. It wasn't just talk.

Here is a more detailed description:

Quote:
Smith had a promising first three seasons as a pro with the Golden State Warriors, but his production took a hit when he was traded to the Philadelphia 76ers in 1998. After the 1999 NBA lockout, he became a free agent, and was highly sought after. He signed a one-year, $1.75 million deal in Minnesota, well below market value, to allow the team to make other moves that offseason. It was a curious decision to say the least, especially considering he had turned down an $80 million extension with the Warriors prior to being traded, only to find that free agency wasn’t as friendly as he had hoped.

As it turns out, Smith and the Timberwolves had an under-the-table agreement in place, where Smith would sign three one-year deals for very little money, allowing the Timberwolves to acquire his Bird rights, which would allow them to go over the salary cap to re-sign him. He would have then been rewarded with a lucrative contract that would have paid him up to $86 million. This arrangement, of course, was highly illegal, and sanctions came down hard on the Timberwolves when the league found out.

According to J.A. Adande, then of the Los Angeles Times, the entire plan was blown open when agents Eric Fleisher and Andrew Miller parted ways. Miller retained Smith and superstar teammate Kevin Garnett in the split, which prompted a lawsuit that led to the unearthing of many documents, including those detailing the Timberwolves’ illegal agreement with Smith.


However, if the CBA did not put a limit on annual increases in a contract, and if the TWolves had cleverly gotten Smith to agree to take $1.75M in years one through three with balloon payments in later years, that would not be illegal or circumvention. But in fact the CBA did not allow that.

So in a sense AV is right: You can circumvent the salary cap, but only as long as you do it within the rules. If Wade, Bosh, and James got together and decided to roll the dice on pay cuts, they could do it. But it just isn't plausible that they would really do that without a promise from Mickey Arison. Given his age and health, would Dwyane Wade really roll the dice on a one year contract without a promise that the Heat would make it up to him?


The whole point of my contention is "agreed in advance" on the future deal. I understand your intent to play "in a sense AV is right" card - but no cigar here.

If the trio decided to roll a dice - no problem. If "the trio" becomes a "quartet" with Arison or Riles added - that's a different story. On the surface - everything is kosher. There is no contract in place between the trio and the Heat. The same as in Minny case. However - in that Minny case they stupidly decided to put this "side" agreement on paper that made it all but impossible to hide.

In this case - it will be so transparent that (I can all but guarantee) will warrant the investigation. And they put all four on the stand, under oath, asking them to testify that there was no "wink-wink", not even promises of "we will take care about you, we always have".

As to "you can circumvent the salary cap" statement - c'mon now. I know you have been following other leagues' labor situations close enough. So - just tell the same thing to the New Jersey Devils of the NHL and the arbitrator that ruled on their circumvention of the salary cap case. Just to remind you - the perfectly kosher signing of Kovalchuk (per CBA) was paying him through the age of 44 in order to minimize the cap hit during his active years. CBA didn't prohibit it at the time of signing the contract.
_________________
Major bullets dodged: DH12 - twice, LMA, Melo - twice, PG-13
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Vino24
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 08 Mar 2013
Posts: 152

PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2014 10:11 am    Post subject:

I think LeBron risks his reputation somewhat by another team but the heat or the cavs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Bard207
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 08 Jan 2013
Posts: 5735

PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2014 10:35 am    Post subject:

Scherm wrote:
As much as Kobe's deal may appear to hamstring the Lakers, you still have to think that the other superstars in the league are noticing it. Kobe basically says, "Hell no I'm not undercutting my value. I'll get my money and still find a way to compete."



Define compete in terms of W/L record and/or progression in the Playoffs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 26511

PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2014 10:54 am    Post subject:

golakersgo121 wrote:
There is no contract in place between the trio and the Heat. The same as in Minny case. However - in that Minny case they stupidly decided to put this "side" agreement on paper that made it all but impossible to hide.



The Twolves and Smith did have a written contract - that was the issue. The NBA uncovered that the wink-wink deal was put on paper, which is a contract.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
golakersgo121
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 11076
Location: 8 miles from Staples Center

PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2014 11:13 am    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
golakersgo121 wrote:
There is no contract in place between the trio and the Heat. The same as in Minny case. However - in that Minny case they stupidly decided to put this "side" agreement on paper that made it all but impossible to hide.



The Twolves and Smith did have a written contract - that was the issue. The NBA uncovered that the wink-wink deal was put on paper, which is a contract.


so - are you saying here that if the trio does NOT have a written contract but rather a VERBAL promise from Riles - they are good to go?

Good luck with that
_________________
Major bullets dodged: DH12 - twice, LMA, Melo - twice, PG-13
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 20579

PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2014 11:22 am    Post subject:

golakersgo121 wrote:
but no cigar here.


. . . cigar . . . cigar . . . Why did you have to say that on a Friday afternoon?

golakersgo121 wrote:
If the trio decided to roll a dice - no problem. If "the trio" becomes a "quartet" with Arison or Riles added - that's a different story. On the surface - everything is kosher. There is no contract in place between the trio and the Heat. The same as in Minny case. However - in that Minny case they stupidly decided to put this "side" agreement on paper that made it all but impossible to hide.


How is that different from what I said?

golakersgo121 wrote:
As to "you can circumvent the salary cap" statement - c'mon now. I know you have been following other leagues' labor situations close enough. So - just tell the same thing to the New Jersey Devils of the NHL and the arbitrator that ruled on their circumvention of the salary cap case. Just to remind you - the perfectly kosher signing of Kovalchuk (per CBA) was paying him through the age of 44 in order to minimize the cap hit during his active years. CBA didn't prohibit it at the time of signing the contract.


Do they still play ice hockey? I can barely bring myself to care about the NHL. But just for you . . . .

Okay, I read about the Kovalchuk case, even though I could give a flip about a game that is a cross between soccer and lacrosse that is played on ice by a bunch of guys named Pierre. The NHL circumvention clause was a bit broader than the NBA circumvention clause. The NHL has a net-effect test: a contract can be voided if the net effect is to circumvent the CBA, even if that is not the intent of the parties. I don't see anything in the NBA CBA that goes so far. The NHL CBA also prohibits contracts that are "designed to" circumvent the CBA. I would say that the Kovalchuk contract meets all of those standards with flying colors.

To be fair, there is some vague language in the NBA CBA that could be interpreted to support an expansive view of circumvention. The language isn't anywhere near as strong as the NHL language, though.

Since I actually pulled out the CBA, let me quote the provisions that are relevant to this particular discussion:

Quote:
At no time shall there be any agreements or transactions of any kind (whether disclosed or undisclosed to the NBA), express or implied, oral or written, or promises, undertakings, representations, commitments, inducements, assurances of intent, or understandings of any kind (whether disclosed or undisclosed to the NBA), between a player (or any person or entity controlled by, related to, or acting with authority on behalf of, such player) and any Team (or Team Affiliate):

(i) concerning any future Renegotiation, Extension, or other amendment of an existing Player Contract, or entry into a new Player Contract; or

(ii) except as permitted by this Agreement or as set forth in a Uniform Player Contract (provided that the Team has not intentionally delayed submitting such Uniform Player Contract for approval by the NBA), involving compensation or consideration of any kind or anything else of value, to be paid, furnished or made available by, to, or for the benefit of the player, or any person or entity controlled by, related to, or acting with authority on behalf of the player; or

(iii) except as permitted by this Agreement, involving an investment or business opportunity to be furnished or made available by, to, or for the benefit of the player, or any person or entity controlled by, related to, or acting with authority on behalf of the player).


Now here's the kicker:

Quote:
A violation of Section 2(a) or 2(b) above may be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence, including, but not limited to, evidence that a Player Contract or any term or provision thereof cannot rationally be explained in the absence of conduct violative of Section 2(a) or 2(b).


. . . cigar . . . cigar . . . cigar . . .
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
golakersgo121
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 11076
Location: 8 miles from Staples Center

PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2014 11:51 am    Post subject:

@AH:

My original version of "cigar" reference was "...but no cigar here (no pun intended on Friday afternoon)" but then I decided to delete it as it was personal reference

Anyhow - you referenced exact provisions of the CBA I was referring to. And my point was - it is irrelevant whether this future deal the trio agrees to is a written contract or a verbal agreement, understanding and whatnot. In Minny case it was easy - written contract. In this (hypothetical) case - its a question of whether or not they all want to be subject of such investigation (and I am sure - it's coming their way) and lie under oath on the question whether or not there have been a promise, representation, commitment, etc.
_________________
Major bullets dodged: DH12 - twice, LMA, Melo - twice, PG-13
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Dreamshake
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 05 May 2006
Posts: 12208

PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2014 12:16 pm    Post subject:

golakersgo121 wrote:

You might have your opinion - the league would have their own.


The league needs facts, not opinions, to prohibit a free agent from signing somewhere.

golakersgo121 wrote:
Any sign of "wink-wink" side agreement - and it is not even a circumvention.


The league has to prove a wink-wink agreement is in place. The Wolves got popped because they wrote theirs down. If a guy has a desire to go to a certain team later on that is his right and the league can't do anything about it.

golakersgo121 wrote:

I am not sure if you heard such terms as "basketball reasons", "need to keep a competitive balance", etc - that if you have no proof of the "wink-wink" agreement.


Basketball reasons involved a league owned team and getting that team a better deal. Kinda not the same here.

golakersgo121 wrote:

Sure - the league will allow these guys to sign one year deals. I am not sure they will signoff on the next year long term max deals. And - the league might forewarn the players about it too. If this kind of unfolding is not called "circumvention" I am not sure what circumvention is.


If you are using circumvent in the form of "to outwit", then sure. If you are using it in the form of something not allowed that can be punished (free agents not allowed to go somewhere) then you are wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
golakersgo121
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 11076
Location: 8 miles from Staples Center

PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2014 12:41 pm    Post subject:

@Dreamshake

Sorry if it sounds offensive - but it's a shame when a guy of Russian origin has to quote a dictionary for you as to "what I meant under "to circumvent". Would Merriam-Webster suffice?
Quote:
to avoid being stopped by (something, such as a law or rule) : to get around (something) in a clever and sometimes dishonest way


As to
Quote:
The league has to prove a wink-wink agreement is in place.
- that's correct. Somewhat. Because "to prove" doesn't mean a written agreement between the parties necessarily. At all. The standard of proof is not what you think it is from criminal law - but much more relaxed, including circumstantial evidence and what they call lack of rational explanation other than side agreement being in place.
_________________
Major bullets dodged: DH12 - twice, LMA, Melo - twice, PG-13
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 26511

PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2014 1:50 pm    Post subject:

golakersgo121 wrote:
activeverb wrote:
golakersgo121 wrote:
There is no contract in place between the trio and the Heat. The same as in Minny case. However - in that Minny case they stupidly decided to put this "side" agreement on paper that made it all but impossible to hide.



The Twolves and Smith did have a written contract - that was the issue. The NBA uncovered that the wink-wink deal was put on paper, which is a contract.


so - are you saying here that if the trio does NOT have a written contract but rather a VERBAL promise from Riles - they are good to go?

Good luck with that



First, I suspect Riley is smart enough to say the appropriate things, "Now you know we can't really promise you this. ..." Which is one reason I would not expect your scenario to happen in the way you laid it out -- where the Big Three opt out for one year deals. If they did, though, the players would be taking a risk since they have no guarantees and no way to hold the Heat accountable if they renege.

Second, practically speaking, I suspect it would be hard for the league to do anything about a wink-wink deal in the absence of written proof. But again that would depend on the exact scenario. I have no idea what the exact threshold the league would accept.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
golakersgo121
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 11076
Location: 8 miles from Staples Center

PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2014 2:00 pm    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
golakersgo121 wrote:
activeverb wrote:
golakersgo121 wrote:
There is no contract in place between the trio and the Heat. The same as in Minny case. However - in that Minny case they stupidly decided to put this "side" agreement on paper that made it all but impossible to hide.



The Twolves and Smith did have a written contract - that was the issue. The NBA uncovered that the wink-wink deal was put on paper, which is a contract.


so - are you saying here that if the trio does NOT have a written contract but rather a VERBAL promise from Riles - they are good to go?

Good luck with that



First, I suspect Riley is smart enough to say the appropriate things, "Now you know we can't really promise you this. ..." Which is one reason I would not expect your scenario to happen in the way you laid it out -- where the Big Three opt out for one year deals. If they did, though, the players would be taking a risk since they have no guarantees and no way to hold the Heat accountable if they renege.

Second, practically speaking, I suspect it would be hard for the league to do anything about a wink-wink deal in the absence of written proof. But again that would depend on the exact scenario. I have no idea what the exact threshold the league would accept.


As to the practicality of all of it - suffice to say - I can't tell you for sure as to the league's threshold either. However - in Dock/KG to the Clippers trade idea the league has created a precedent. If you remember - the Clipps tried to use an argument "those are two separate deals" as it wouldn't create any CBA problem. To which the league replied "circumvention, we will not approve the second deal" - and the rest was history; KG and Pierce are playing in Brooklyn...

Precedent - I mean it not to the extent that the situation is identical but rather as to someone trying to outsmart the system. BTW - I do consider CP3 "basketball reasons" veto being a result of it as well
_________________
Major bullets dodged: DH12 - twice, LMA, Melo - twice, PG-13
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 26511

PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2014 2:12 pm    Post subject:

golakersgo121 wrote:
activeverb wrote:
golakersgo121 wrote:
activeverb wrote:
golakersgo121 wrote:
There is no contract in place between the trio and the Heat. The same as in Minny case. However - in that Minny case they stupidly decided to put this "side" agreement on paper that made it all but impossible to hide.



The Twolves and Smith did have a written contract - that was the issue. The NBA uncovered that the wink-wink deal was put on paper, which is a contract.


so - are you saying here that if the trio does NOT have a written contract but rather a VERBAL promise from Riles - they are good to go?

Good luck with that



First, I suspect Riley is smart enough to say the appropriate things, "Now you know we can't really promise you this. ..." Which is one reason I would not expect your scenario to happen in the way you laid it out -- where the Big Three opt out for one year deals. If they did, though, the players would be taking a risk since they have no guarantees and no way to hold the Heat accountable if they renege.

Second, practically speaking, I suspect it would be hard for the league to do anything about a wink-wink deal in the absence of written proof. But again that would depend on the exact scenario. I have no idea what the exact threshold the league would accept.


As to the practicality of all of it - suffice to say - I can't tell you for sure as to the league's threshold either. However - in Dock/KG to the Clippers trade idea the league has created a precedent. If you remember - the Clipps tried to use an argument "those are two separate deals" as it wouldn't create any CBA problem. To which the league replied "circumvention, we will not approve the second deal" - and the rest was history; KG and Pierce are playing in Brooklyn...

Precedent - I mean it not to the extent that the situation is identical but rather as to someone trying to outsmart the system. BTW - I do consider CP3 "basketball reasons" veto being a result of it as well


The Rivers/Garnett situation was a very different scenario than what you're talking about here. That was about teams not being allowed to trade a player for a coach.

And also, in that case nothing actually happened. There were just a lot of rumors of what might happen.

So I don't really see that that has any bearing on the Big Three scenario you made up here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 20579

PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2014 2:27 pm    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
Second, practically speaking, I suspect it would be hard for the league to do anything about a wink-wink deal in the absence of written proof. But again that would depend on the exact scenario. I have no idea what the exact threshold the league would accept.


Read the last block quote in my prior post. That's the standard. Obviously, the league anticipated this problem. If someone challenged the league's decision, it would go to an arbitrator.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 26511

PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2014 2:52 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
activeverb wrote:
Second, practically speaking, I suspect it would be hard for the league to do anything about a wink-wink deal in the absence of written proof. But again that would depend on the exact scenario. I have no idea what the exact threshold the league would accept.


Read the last block quote in my prior post. That's the standard. Obviously, the league anticipated this problem. If someone challenged the league's decision, it would go to an arbitrator.


It's interesting. The players position would be: We can rationally explain it. We decided to take a one year hit to sign a good teammate because that's how much winning means to us. And we are stars, so we were confident that after one year we could resign for the max again, even though there was no promise of that.

But, as I said before, I don't see them taking that chance.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
golakersgo121
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 11076
Location: 8 miles from Staples Center

PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2014 3:39 pm    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
activeverb wrote:
Second, practically speaking, I suspect it would be hard for the league to do anything about a wink-wink deal in the absence of written proof. But again that would depend on the exact scenario. I have no idea what the exact threshold the league would accept.


Read the last block quote in my prior post. That's the standard. Obviously, the league anticipated this problem. If someone challenged the league's decision, it would go to an arbitrator.


It's interesting. The players position would be: We can rationally explain it. We decided to take a one year hit to sign a good teammate because that's how much winning means to us. And we are stars, so we were confident that after one year we could resign for the max again, even though there was no promise of that.

But, as I said before, I don't see them taking that chance.


Right - the players' position would be one that you described or something similar.

However - just imagine the situation unfolding this way - and the league (while approving the one year deals - fore warns the players that they will not approve their max deals next season as they consider it circumvention of the salary cap (yeah, I know that you don see the situation as similar to the Doc/KG deal, prefer to call it a rumor - but it's just your choice. The league has warned the Clipps and the Celtics what they will do. Please feel free to say what you want). What do the players do then? Challenge? Or take a risk "try me" to go to arbitrator?
_________________
Major bullets dodged: DH12 - twice, LMA, Melo - twice, PG-13


Last edited by golakersgo121 on Fri Jun 20, 2014 3:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
golakersgo121
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 11076
Location: 8 miles from Staples Center

PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2014 3:43 pm    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:

The Rivers/Garnett situation was a very different scenario than what you're talking about here. That was about teams not being allowed to trade a player for a coach.

And also, in that case nothing actually happened. There were just a lot of rumors of what might happen.

So I don't really see that that has any bearing on the Big Three scenario you made up here.


Really? Well, you see what you want to see. I have to rest my case
_________________
Major bullets dodged: DH12 - twice, LMA, Melo - twice, PG-13
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 26511

PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2014 4:04 pm    Post subject:

golakersgo121 wrote:
activeverb wrote:

The Rivers/Garnett situation was a very different scenario than what you're talking about here. That was about teams not being allowed to trade a player for a coach.

And also, in that case nothing actually happened. There were just a lot of rumors of what might happen.

So I don't really see that that has any bearing on the Big Three scenario you made up here.


Really? Well, you see what you want to see. I have to rest my case


I think we can safely file this under: We both got bored of this conversation about 5 posts ago, but both of us wanted to have the last word so we kept it going long after it should have died.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 26511

PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2014 4:06 pm    Post subject:

golakersgo121 wrote:
activeverb wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
activeverb wrote:
Second, practically speaking, I suspect it would be hard for the league to do anything about a wink-wink deal in the absence of written proof. But again that would depend on the exact scenario. I have no idea what the exact threshold the league would accept.


Read the last block quote in my prior post. That's the standard. Obviously, the league anticipated this problem. If someone challenged the league's decision, it would go to an arbitrator.


It's interesting. The players position would be: We can rationally explain it. We decided to take a one year hit to sign a good teammate because that's how much winning means to us. And we are stars, so we were confident that after one year we could resign for the max again, even though there was no promise of that.

But, as I said before, I don't see them taking that chance.


Right - the players' position would be one that you described or something similar.

However - just imagine the situation unfolding this way - and the league (while approving the one year deals - fore warns the players that they will not approve their max deals next season as they consider it circumvention of the salary cap (yeah, I know that you don see the situation as similar to the Doc/KG deal, prefer to call it a rumor - but it's just your choice. The league has warned the Clipps and the Celtics what they will do. Please feel free to say what you want). What do the players do then? Challenge? Or take a risk "try me" to go to arbitrator?


You want to know what I honestly think? I don't care. This has turned into a silly what-if topped on what-if topped on what-if scenario that I don't think has a remote chance of happening in real life.

So I think I will bail out of more conjecture on fictitious scenarios that strike me as unlikely.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
golakersgo121
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 11076
Location: 8 miles from Staples Center

PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2014 4:43 pm    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
golakersgo121 wrote:
activeverb wrote:

The Rivers/Garnett situation was a very different scenario than what you're talking about here. That was about teams not being allowed to trade a player for a coach.

And also, in that case nothing actually happened. There were just a lot of rumors of what might happen.

So I don't really see that that has any bearing on the Big Three scenario you made up here.


Really? Well, you see what you want to see. I have to rest my case


I think we can safely file this under: We both got bored of this conversation about 5 posts ago, but both of us wanted to have the last word so we kept it going long after it should have died.


Sure, filed. You can even have the last word.
_________________
Major bullets dodged: DH12 - twice, LMA, Melo - twice, PG-13
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 20579

PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2014 4:47 pm    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
It's interesting. The players position would be: We can rationally explain it. We decided to take a one year hit to sign a good teammate because that's how much winning means to us. And we are stars, so we were confident that after one year we could resign for the max again, even though there was no promise of that.

But, as I said before, I don't see them taking that chance.


I agree. As you say, we're over-analyzing a hypothetical situation. But hey, the bulk of the posts on this board in the off season fall into that category.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
wolfpaclaker
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 51572

PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2014 5:33 pm    Post subject:

This is where the lakers would have had a chance if Dr Buss were alive and Phil was in some sort of position with the team.

Dr Buss just points to his recent championships where he paid huge tax dollars.
Phil replaces what Riley gave to LBJ in Miami.

If Kobe is a FA, we pitch a team of Lebron, Kobe and Dwight to James. It was what I was hoping for last year in us keeping Dwight. I thought we would have had a great shot at making Kobe take a lot less because you add James/Dwight and Phil around .... Kobe knows that'll be 6 and possibly 7 there.

Alas now it just seems like a real long shot. One thing great about Dr Buss - he was willing to pay for a winner. I think Jim is as well, but the track record isn't there and you have Kobe's contract .... Have a hard time seeing James leave for LA. Even if we added James, our team is weaker than Miamis last year and we play in the far tougher West.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Telleris
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 May 2013
Posts: 2360

PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2014 5:44 pm    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
golakersgo121 wrote:
activeverb wrote:
golakersgo121 wrote:
AV, I certainly didn't expect "if it's legal it's not circumvention" pearl of wisdom coming from someone as intelligent as you are. You simply misspoke, perhaps?


Not sure what you mean: If the league allows something, it isn't circumvention. Circumvention implies people are doing something illegal; if a team and players are making clever moves within the rules, that's okay,

The question is what the league would allow. If the league warns teams and players about what is acceptable and what is not, there isn't any problem.

I have no idea if the league would have a problem with players opting out, taking X dollars less for a one-year deal, and signing again for lots of money. As far as I know, that's never happened. Like I said before, it might depend on the specifics, like how much less they take.

C'mon, AV - is it you?

Do I really need to type here the definition of the word "circumvention" for you

Sure - if it is legal by finding a loophole in the CBA that violates the spirit of the agreement - it is circumvention. Transparent circumvention, I might add (that AH pointed out previously). Are you not aware of Joe Smith/Minny fiasco? Celtics/Clipps trade that never happened?



Hunter spelled it out better than either of us did in his post right above this one. No reason to get worked up over the semantics of "circumvention" -- the only consideration is whether something is allowed or not allowed under the CBA.

It's the league's job to create CBA language that ensures the spirit of what it wants is achieved. It's the team's job to take whatever steps it can within the rules to field the best team possible.


That's just simply not true, the circumvention rule refers specifically to things that are not prohibited in the cba. If it only referred to things prohibited, there wouldn't even be a point for it existing, the issue would be prohibited, not circumvention.

There were two such cases last year where the league's far more pro active stance took place, the Clippers scenario and the Boston Brooklyn scenario (the teams were told that even if they broke their trade up into multiple pieces, it needed to be such that it would have been legal if done as a single nuclear trade - technically there is no rule stating you can't make 3-4 trades using the 150% rule, but the league was specific that you couldn't use the lower matching criteria on a smaller trade to break down a larger trade with stronger criteria, e.g the cba says you can technically trade 3 players at $8m for 3 players at $12m, but if you do it with the same team, the nba will say since it's not legal for a $24m for $36m, no deal!)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 20579

PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2014 6:30 pm    Post subject:

^^^^

That is accurate. I realize that we're beating a dead horse, but for sake of completeness, here is the general non-circumvention provision of the CBA:

Quote:
It is the intention of the parties that the provisions agreed to herein, including, without limitation, those relating to the Salary Cap, the Exceptions to the Salary Cap, the scope of Basketball Related Income, the Escrow and Tax Arrangement, the Rookie Scale, the Right of First Refusal, the Maximum Player Salary, and free agency, be interpreted so as to preserve the essential benefits achieved by both parties to this Agreement. Neither the Players Association, the NBA, nor any Team (or Team Affiliate) or player (or person or entity acting with authority on behalf of such player), shall enter into any agreement, including, without limitation, any Player Contract (including any Renegotiation, Extension, or amendment of a Player Contract), or undertake any action or transaction, including, without limitation, the assignment or termination of a Player Contract, which is, or which includes any term that is, designed to serve the purpose of defeating or circumventing the intention of the parties as reflected by all of the provisions of this Agreement.


There are then specific provisions about contracts, which I quoted earlier.

AV is correct when he says that clever moves within the rules are okay and are not circumvention. But there is a difference between a clever move within the rules and structuring something to evade the rules. As you say, splitting a single trade (that would be illegal) into three pieces is an evasion of the rules. Under-the-table agreements are an evasion of the rules. Making a facially legal player trade with a side understanding that a coach will be released from his contract in a "separate" deal is an evasion of the rule that you can't trade players for coaches.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Basketball Fan
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Posts: 22613

PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 4:49 pm    Post subject:

http://nba.nbcsports.com/2018/02/02/report-heat-believe-lebron-james-checked-out-in-2014-nba-finals/

Quote:
Report: Heat believe LeBron James checked out in 2014 NBA Finals

LeBron James averaged 28.2 points, 7.8 rebounds, 4.0 assists and 2.0 steals per game in the 2014 NBA Finals. He shot 57.1% from the field, including 51.9% on 3-pointers.

But his Heat lost in five games to the Spurs. The next month, LeBron signed with the Cavaliers.

Dan Le Batard on ESPN:

Final season with the Heat, LeBron James, the Heat organization believed, knew he was leaving and checked out on the Finals. It looked like he was trying. The stat sheet looked like he was trying. But the Miami Heat believed that he checked out and was no longer trying.

I trust that members of the Heat organization believe this. Le Batard is well-connected in South Florida. There’s also clearly resentment in Miami toward LeBron for leaving, especially by Pat Riley.

But this is incredibly unfair by the Heat.

For most of the series, I believed LeBron deserved to win Finals MVP. It wasn’t until Game 5 Kawhi Leonard – the actual winner – surpassed LeBron to me. Even then, LeBron had a case.

He and his teammates just ran out of gas. This was an aging roster with many of its players on their fourth straight long playoff run. LeBron might argue the Heat’s thriftiness left too much on his shoulders. He infamously left Game 1 with cramps.

I can’t know what was in LeBron’s mind during the 2014 NBA Finals. But he kept a fading supporting cast competitive with an excellent opponent. If he can do that without trying, more power to him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> General Basketball Discussion All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2010 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB