RealGM

I tried to see if there was anything in the CBA that prohibits this, but I could not even find the rules about coaches being traded, so this is completely hypothetical and possibly not legal.

NOP trades: cash (max allowable: $7,005,000)
PHI trades: Daryl Morey

Why NOP does it: no one has gotten more out of flawed stars that Morey. If anyone can build a team that maximizes Zion even with his warts, it is Daryl.

Why PHI does it: it seems like they need a shakeup. They've been brutalized by injuries, and the atmosphere around the organization seems really bad right now. Bring in new leadership to help right the ship.

Teams can send compensation that another teams executive be let out of his contract, see Doc Rivers leaving Celts for LAC.

I don’t think NOP would want Daryl right now though

i dont think trading coaches was ever an idea that was really entertained in CBA discussions. first and foremost its an agreement between the players and the owners. So coaches are not really part of it.

besides that, it is super rare. you could probably count the coaches being traded on one hand. And i think it is more like portrayed as a trade by the reporting media, than it actually and techincally is. I cant imagine why it would be illegal to "buy out" a coach, if all relevant parties agree. So the Sixers could send a 2nd round pick for whatever number of $ they agree to as cash (which would be the actual trade) and terminate morey's contract. If morey agreed to all this, he would then be hired by the pels. Thats how i always understoof how these things happened. But as i said, this happens so rarely i dont think theres rules how these things are done. behind closed doors they can agree and make deals as much as they want anyway.

im no CBA or american law expert by any means. just trying to use common sense here. It would be interesting how this could be implemented in the CBA, i would like to see that. i dont know why coaches shouldnt be protected or have a right to sit on that table.

Coach and executive contracts are not conveyable agreements.

As reds pointed out above, teams can pay other teams to essentially buyout an executive/coach contract as if it’s a trade, but the existing contract is not transferred. It’s an agreement to buyout a contract (which is explicitly forbidden for players on the CBA).

I have an issue with the premise here. NOP shouldn't be building around Zion at this point.

Scoot McGroot wrote:Coach and executive contracts are not conveyable agreements.

As reds pointed out above, teams can pay other teams to essentially buyout an executive/coach contract as if it’s a trade, but the existing contract is not transferred. It’s an agreement to buyout a contract (which is explicitly forbidden for players on the CBA).

What did the Celtics trade to the Clippers to satisfy the 'touch rule' if Doc Rivers can't technically be included in a trade? As far as I understand it you can't simply donate a draft pick to another team without receiving anything in return.

meekrab wrote:

Scoot McGroot wrote:Coach and executive contracts are not conveyable agreements.

As reds pointed out above, teams can pay other teams to essentially buyout an executive/coach contract as if it’s a trade, but the existing contract is not transferred. It’s an agreement to buyout a contract (which is explicitly forbidden for players on the CBA).

What did the Celtics trade to the Clippers to satisfy the 'touch rule' if Doc Rivers can't technically be included in a trade? As far as I understand it you can't simply donate a draft pick to another team without receiving anything in return.

Probably cash ?

https://www.si.com/nba/2013/06/25/doc-rivers-clippers-coach-official-boston-celtics-draft-pick-deal

And other instances from the same news

meekrab wrote:

Scoot McGroot wrote:Coach and executive contracts are not conveyable agreements.

As reds pointed out above, teams can pay other teams to essentially buyout an executive/coach contract as if it’s a trade, but the existing contract is not transferred. It’s an agreement to buyout a contract (which is explicitly forbidden for players on the CBA).

What did the Celtics trade to the Clippers to satisfy the 'touch rule' if Doc Rivers can't technically be included in a trade? As far as I understand it you can't simply donate a draft pick to another team without receiving anything in return.

They traded a 2nd as compensation for the Celtics to buyout his contract. There was no need for a “touch” as Rivers’s contract was not traded. It was compensation to release him from his contractual agreement. Again, no touch rule needed because his contract wasn’t conveyed via trade.

Devilanche wrote:

meekrab wrote:

Scoot McGroot wrote:Coach and executive contracts are not conveyable agreements.

As reds pointed out above, teams can pay other teams to essentially buyout an executive/coach contract as if it’s a trade, but the existing contract is not transferred. It’s an agreement to buyout a contract (which is explicitly forbidden for players on the CBA).

What did the Celtics trade to the Clippers to satisfy the 'touch rule' if Doc Rivers can't technically be included in a trade? As far as I understand it you can't simply donate a draft pick to another team without receiving anything in return.

Probably cash ?

https://www.si.com/nba/2013/06/25/doc-rivers-clippers-coach-official-boston-celtics-draft-pick-deal

And other instances from the same news

Spoiler:

Teams have surrendered draft picks for coaches and executives before. The Celtics gave up a second-round pick in 1997 to Miami in return for the Heat’s allowing Chris Wallace to become Boston’s general manager. The Heat also received compensation from Orlando when the Magic hired Stan Van Gundy.

In each of these cases, Wallace, Rivers, and Van Gundy signed completely new contracts with their new teams. Their existing contracts were not traded or conveyed. We call them trades because a team was compensated to release the exec from their contract, but it’s not a trade per se.

Scoot McGroot wrote:

meekrab wrote:

Scoot McGroot wrote:Coach and executive contracts are not conveyable agreements.

As reds pointed out above, teams can pay other teams to essentially buyout an executive/coach contract as if it’s a trade, but the existing contract is not transferred. It’s an agreement to buyout a contract (which is explicitly forbidden for players on the CBA).

What did the Celtics trade to the Clippers to satisfy the 'touch rule' if Doc Rivers can't technically be included in a trade? As far as I understand it you can't simply donate a draft pick to another team without receiving anything in return.

They traded a 2nd as compensation for the Celtics to buyout his contract. There was no need for a “touch” as Rivers’s contract was not traded. It was compensation to release him from his contractual agreement. Again, no touch rule needed because his contract wasn’t conveyed via trade.

I'm not sure you understand what is being asked?

Per cbafaq.com:

In all trades (no matter how many teams are involved), each team must send out and take back at least one of the following:
- A player under contract (the player may be a Two-Way player).
- A future draft pick. If a pick is protected (see question number 89), then no more than 55 picks in a single draft can be protected.
- The draft rights to an "NBA prospect" -- a player with a reasonable chance of becoming an NBA player during his career, or a contributing player in a reputable professional league (as determined by the league office).
- The right to swap unencumbered picks in a future draft.
- $110,000 or more.

"Releasing a front office staff member" is not something you can include in a trade, so what did the Celtics actually include to make it a legal trade?

meekrab wrote:

Scoot McGroot wrote:

meekrab wrote:What did the Celtics trade to the Clippers to satisfy the 'touch rule' if Doc Rivers can't technically be included in a trade? As far as I understand it you can't simply donate a draft pick to another team without receiving anything in return.

They traded a 2nd as compensation for the Celtics to buyout his contract. There was no need for a “touch” as Rivers’s contract was not traded. It was compensation to release him from his contractual agreement. Again, no touch rule needed because his contract wasn’t conveyed via trade.

I'm not sure you understand what is being asked?

Per cbafaq.com:

In all trades (no matter how many teams are involved), each team must send out and take back at least one of the following:
- A player under contract (the player may be a Two-Way player).
- A future draft pick. If a pick is protected (see question number 89), then no more than 55 picks in a single draft can be protected.
- The draft rights to an "NBA prospect" -- a player with a reasonable chance of becoming an NBA player during his career, or a contributing player in a reputable professional league (as determined by the league office).
- The right to swap unencumbered picks in a future draft.
- $110,000 or more.

"Releasing a front office staff member" is not something you can include in a trade, so what did the Celtics actually include to make it a legal trade?

I’m pointing out it’s not legally a trade, so no touch rules are required. Compensation sent or paid to a team does not also mean a trade. Teams can compensate other teams to release execs or coaches from their contracts, to allow them to sign a new contract with them. Trades are only when an existing contract is transferred or conveyed from one team to another, and the player has to honor the existing contract.

Why do the Pelicans want overrated Morey? I knew the Sixers were finished as soon as they made Morey their GM.

No one has gotten more out of flawed stars than Morey? Players like Embiid and George?

Scoot McGroot wrote:

meekrab wrote:

Scoot McGroot wrote:
They traded a 2nd as compensation for the Celtics to buyout his contract. There was no need for a “touch” as Rivers’s contract was not traded. It was compensation to release him from his contractual agreement. Again, no touch rule needed because his contract wasn’t conveyed via trade.

I'm not sure you understand what is being asked?

Per cbafaq.com:

In all trades (no matter how many teams are involved), each team must send out and take back at least one of the following:
- A player under contract (the player may be a Two-Way player).
- A future draft pick. If a pick is protected (see question number 89), then no more than 55 picks in a single draft can be protected.
- The draft rights to an "NBA prospect" -- a player with a reasonable chance of becoming an NBA player during his career, or a contributing player in a reputable professional league (as determined by the league office).
- The right to swap unencumbered picks in a future draft.
- $110,000 or more.

"Releasing a front office staff member" is not something you can include in a trade, so what did the Celtics actually include to make it a legal trade?

I’m pointing out it’s not legally a trade, so no touch rules are required. Compensation sent or paid to a team does not also mean a trade. Teams can compensate other teams to release execs or coaches from their contracts, to allow them to sign a new contract with them. Trades are only when an existing contract is transferred or conveyed from one team to another, and the player has to honor the existing contract.

I tried to find if there was a publicly available CBA for coaches and executives, too...could not. Maybe just missed it. This is all really good info and a fun discussion to track!

Celts17Pride wrote:Why do the Pelicans want overrated Morey? I knew the Sixers were finished as soon as they made Morey their GM.

No one has gotten more out of flawed stars than Morey? Players like Embiid and George?

I don't think anyone would have gotten more out of Embiid or Harden than Morey did, so yes, that is the sell.

Celts17Pride wrote:
No one has gotten more out of flawed stars than Morey? Players like Embiid and George?

Yes? That’s the premise here. I’m not the biggest Morey fan but the point here makes obvious sense.

He gave Harden lots of chances to get over the hump and fell just short. Then he got good trade prices for Simmons and Harden, and kept trying to surround Embiid with things that would work with his issues. He came in with a maxed out Tobias Harris and Al Horford in the roster, then dealt with the Simmons debacle (and having Doc as coach/leader), then dealt with Harden wanting a max and moving on. Obviously current situation isn’t ideal but not sure what more you could’ve wanted him to do in the past 6 months to work with that.