Would it be legal if...

[Curmudgeon]

One team offered financial consideration to induce another team to buy a player out and then waive him? Scenarios:

1. If you buy the player out, well trade our minimum salaried second round pick plus three million dollars for your minimum salaried second round pick. (This would not be tampering since the offer would be made to the team, not the player.)

2. Same scenario as #1, except that the team planning to buy the player out initiates the discussions in hopes of defraying the cost of the buyout.

3. Team A offers to make a 10 million dollar contribution to the charitable foundation of Team B's owner if Team B agrees to buy the player out.

4. Keep it simple: if you but the player out we'll send you a check (pick a number).

Where is any of this forbidden in the rules? Let's assume that there has been no contact between the team attempting to induce the buyout and the player or the player's agent, but that the player in question had made it publicly known that he would love to be bought out and sign with that team.

[Three34]

You sure as hell do post the same thing a lot, don't you?

[Curmudgeon]

LOL, when did I post this before?

[Modern_epic]

Has anyone ever answered one of your under the table payment, or even over the table payment, questions before with : "yes, that form of circumvention of the intent of the CBA would be legal"?

In this case, it is obvious that the intent of the CBA is that if you are to receive compensation for a player, it has to happen through a legal trade, before the trade deadline. What you are proposing is clearly intended to circumvent trade rules.

So yes, that form of circumvention of the intent of the CBA would be legal.

[Dunkenstein]

Let's assume that there has been no contact between the team attempting to induce the buyout and the player or the player's agent, but that the player in question had made it publicly known that he would love to be bought out and sign with that team.

Your questions 1 through 4 are all circumvention plain and simple.

Your last scenario is basically what happened with Sam Cassell. Boston and Cassell never contacted each other, at least not that anyone can (or wants to make any effort to) prove. However, Cassell made it public that he wanted to be bought out so that he could join the Celtics. This is legal as long as:

1) there was no obvious contact between Celtics management and Cassell and/or his agent prior to the buyout

2) there was no obvious contact between Celtics management and Clippers management

3) the Celtics gave no consideration (financial, draft pick, contributions to favorite charites, etc) to the Clippers to buyout Cassell's contract.

When David Falk and the Clippers management met to arrange the buyout, it was understood that part of the money Cassell left on the Clipper's table would be made up by the pro-rated minimum contract Cassell would be able to sign with the Celtics, or any other team for that matter. But if there was obvious proof that the Celtics had made some pre-arrangement with Cassell before the buyout, the league would likely step in and not allow the Celtics to sign him.

The "Stackhouse Affair" was the obvious example of a bunch of guys who couldn't keep their mouths shut. Brent Barry returning to San Antonio was a text book example of how to do it on the QT.

[Curmudgeon]

Why is offering a team cash to do what you want it to do "curcumvention?" There is no trade here, so those rules don't apply. What is being "circumvented?" My hypotheticals assume that there has been no contact whatsoever between the player and the team seeking to induce the buyout. There is no prearranged deal whatsoever.

The player publicly states "I hate it here and want to be bought out. If I am, I'd love to go to team A." Why shouldn't team A have the right to take advantage of that situation?

This is completely different from the Stackhouse or Brent Barry situations, where there might well be an understanding that a player traded away and then waived has arranged to return to his old team in 30 days.

[unstandable]

I asked this question in reverse a few weeks ago but got no response:

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=758627

I noted in that post that Detroit once traded a draft pick to Orlando in return for them holding onto a pick that they could have sent to another team:

http://media.cnnsi.com/inside_game/mart ... s_insider/

[Modern_epic]

Why is offering a team cash to do what you want it to do "curcumvention?" There is no trade here, so those rules don't apply. What is being "circumvented?" My hypotheticals assume that there has been no contact whatsoever between the player and the team seeking to induce the buyout. There is no prearranged deal whatsoever.

The player publicly states "I hate it here and want to be bought out. If I am, I'd love to go to team A." Why shouldn't team A have the right to take advantage of that situation?

This is completely different from the Stackhouse or Brent Barry situations, where there might well be an understanding that a player traded away and then waived has arranged to return to his old team in 30 days.

There is a trade here, though. You send him to us, we give you money. That is a pretty clear trade. But it is outside of the rules the CBA sets up for trades. So that is what is being circumvented.

[Curmudgeon]

You're completely wrong. There is no trade. A buyout isn't a trade. And signing an unrestricted free agent who has cleared waivers (where, at least in theory, 29 other teams had a shot at assuming his contract) is not a trade.

The waiving team isn't "sending" the player to the acquiring team. An unrestricted free agent is making that determination entirely for himself.

[Modern_epic]

I asked this question in reverse a few weeks ago but got no response:

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=758627

I noted in that post that Detroit once traded a draft pick to Orlando in return for them holding onto a pick that they could have sent to another team:

http://media.cnnsi.com/inside_game/mart ... s_insider/

I looked around, and see no record of that trade being completed. That is, no record of Detroit sending Orlando a pick, nor of it being outstanding still. Do you have anything other then that article on it?

[FGump]

One team offered financial consideration to induce another team to buy a player out and then waive him?

Where is any of this forbidden in the rules?

It is explicitly forbidden below. This section has a lot of "or" phrasing to make it as catch-all as possible, but if you elide over the inapplicable-to-this-situation parts I've not bolded, you can see clearly it's banned activity you've described.

Subject to Section 2 below, no NBA Team, its employees or agents, will enter into any contracts, combinations or conspiracies, express or implied, with the NBA or any other NBA Team, their employees or agents: (a) to negotiate or not to negotiate with any Veteran or Rookie; (b) to submit or not to submit an Offer Sheet to any Restricted Free Agent; (c) to offer or not to offer a Player Contract to any Free Agent; (d) to exercise or not to exercise a Right of First Refusal; or (e) concerning the terms or conditions of employment offered to any Veteran or Rookie. XIV - 1

To condense the bolded parts ...
No NBA Team will enter into any contracts, combinations or conspiracies, express or implied, with any other NBA Team concerning the terms or conditions of employment offered to any Veteran.

[Modern_epic]

You're completely wrong. There is no trade. A buyout isn't a trade. And signing an unrestricted free agent who has cleared waivers (where, at least in theory, 29 other teams had a shot at assuming his contract) is not a trade.

The waiving team isn't "sending" the player to the acquiring team. An unrestricted free agent is making that determination entirely for himself.

Okay, lets ignore the player being sent for now, even though that is clearly the intent, and Stern cares about intent. Regardless of what happens with the player, sending money to the other team happens as part of a trade. Do you know of other reasons where one team directly gives another money in the NBA? There is one other reason I can think of, and territorial rights aren't being violated here.

[Modern_epic]

And bam! FGump for the win.

[Curmudgeon]

Why does sending money to another team have to involve a trade? Business entities pay each other all the time in exchange for services rendered. It's what makes the world go round.

[Curmudgeon]

Thanks FGump, you've answered my question. But in what document do these words appear? Is it a public document?

[Dunkenstein]

Thanks FGump, you've answered my question. But in what document do these words appear? Is it a public document?

It's called the NBA Collective Bargaining Agreement. It can be found here:

http://www.nbpa.org/cba_articles.php

You should read it some time. Then maybe you wouldn't need to regularly ask if some new form of circumvention you've come up with is legal

[Curmudgeon]

Yes, my bad. I had never really focused on Article XIV. I have now.

[Modern_epic]

Why does sending money to another team have to involve a trade? Business entities pay each other all the time in exchange for services rendered. It's what makes the world go round.

NBA teams are not regular business entities when dealing with each other, and don't go around paying each other all the time for services rendered. Otherwise you would have given me examples of when they do like I asked for.

[unstandable]

-= original quote snipped =-



I looked around, and see no record of that trade being completed. That is, no record of Detroit sending Orlando a pick, nor of it being outstanding still. Do you have anything other then that article on it?

Here's another link:

http://www.nba.com/draft2001/news/rocke ... 10602.html

The reason it's hard to find a record of it is because the pick Detroit traded to Orlando was actually an Orlando pick that they owed to Detroit. In the Corliss Williamson/Jerome Williams trade Toronto sent Detroit an Orlando first-rounder they had got from the McGrady trade. But Detroit never ended up getting that pick because they sent it back to Orlando in return for Orlando delaying sending a pick they owed to Houston. The NBA.com article has it a little differently, but the basic idea is the same - Detroit traded a draft pick to Orlando not for a player or cash but in exchange for Orlando waiting to make another transaction until a time that was beneficial to Detroit. If that was legal I was wondering if it would be legal to send a team a pick in return for them delaying buying out a player until after March 1.