More blatant tampering

DBoys · Post #1 » by **DBoys** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:30 pm

Per the ESPN report, Paul Pierce has openly admitted that J Kidd recruited him to the Nets, and persuaded him to pitch Garnett as well, while both were under contract to Boston.

The story tries to hide the tampering issue by telling the story that Kidd was not yet the coach of the Nets, but that's clearly an untruth. Kidd was hired in early June, long before Doc Rivers went to LAC (June 25) and the subsequent dismantling of the team. Pierce/KG actually should have been off-limits to Kidd until they were traded to the Nets in July.

The NBA has no character on enforcing their tampering rules, so look for them to act as if they didn't notice.

giberish · Post #2 » by **giberish** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:06 am

This was about getting players to waive their no-trade clauses so the deal could be made. It seems reasonable that a team could talk to the player(s) in a trade. They weren't FA's being courted before July.

DBoys · Post #3 » by **DBoys** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:15 am

LOL Pierce didn't have a no-trade. And Kidd, the Net coach, was recruiting them to want to play with the Nets, when they were under contract with another team. That's as classic a case of tampering as there can be.

Dunkenstein · Post #4 » by **Dunkenstein** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 4:41 pm

I've recently learned from a team executive that the league will not investigate charges of tampering unless a team complains to the league that another team has tampered with one or more of its players. In the case of Pierce and Garnett, Ainge wanted the trade to be made. So there was no reason for him to file a complaint with the league.

giberish · Post #5 » by **giberish** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:32 pm

Dunkenstein wrote:I've recently learned from a team executive that the league will not investigate charges of tampering unless a team complains to the league that another team has tampered with one or more of its players. In the case of Pierce and Garnett, Ainge wanted the trade to be made. So there was no reason for him to file a complaint with the league.

Pierce didn't have a no-trade clause, but KG did. And given Pierce's relationship with the Celtics he wouldn't be traded somewhere he didn't want to go.

Meanwhile Boston did want the trade to go down, so they would have no problem with NJ talking to KG/Pierce. If Boston wants KG/Pierce to accept a trade to NJ, how are they remotely hurt by NJ talking to KG/Pierce? They may have even agreed to it beforehand (NJ would have at least known that Boston wanted the trade so they were acting in Boston's interest as well as their own).

HurricaneKid · Post #6 » by **HurricaneKid** » Mon Jul 29, 2013 10:54 pm

DBoys wrote:LOL Pierce didn't have a no-trade. And Kidd, the Net coach, was recruiting them to want to play with the Nets, when they were under contract with another team. That's as classic a case of tampering as there can be.

You can always grant permission to speak to the players involved in a theoretical trade (to make sure they will sign an extension, etc). And given that Boston was aggressively persuing the trade I am sure that is what happened.

Nothing to see here.