CBA Doesn't Allow Prearranged Restructured Contracts

[Froob]

had to believe Gilbert didn't go with the charges anyways to screw lebron.

[KI-DW-TT-AB]

had to believe Gilbert didn't go with the charges anyways to screw lebron.

He probably did, a lot of things in the NBA are handled internally.

[cochiseuofm]

Via the NBA savant (AKA Zach Lowe)

By the way: Spare me the dreck about how the Miami players are rigging the game by agreeing among themselves to take less collective salary. Stars have been taking less in order to win for years, including on the team that literally just beat Miami in the Finals. This is not new. And you can’t be ripping LeBron and Carmelo for seeking the max while at the same time lamenting how the Heat players manipulate the system by accepting less to chase titles. You can’t call players greedy and then whine when they sacrifice cash for the greater good. It just doesn’t compute.

Can we just end this stupid argument once and for all?

[kodo]

Via the NBA savant (AKA Zach Lowe)

By the way: Spare me the dreck about how the Miami players are rigging the game by agreeing among themselves to take less collective salary. Stars have been taking less in order to win for years, including on the team that literally just beat Miami in the Finals. This is not new. And you can’t be ripping LeBron and Carmelo for seeking the max while at the same time lamenting how the Heat players manipulate the system by accepting less to chase titles. You can’t call players greedy and then whine when they sacrifice cash for the greater good. It just doesn’t compute.

Can we just end this stupid argument once and for all?

Who is “ripping” Lebron for taking max?

The only people who I see criticize Lebron for getting max (he deserves more than max, more than $22M) are Miami fans who want to add more depth to the team.

Miami fans aren’t the ones “lamenting how the Heat players manipulate the system”.

Is there a single poster who is this mythical person that rips Lebron for taking max and also rips the Heat for taking less to play together?

[WD]

WOW, another thread about MIAMI created by someone not from MIAMI.....when will it end?

[cochiseuofm]

Who is “ripping” Lebron for taking max?

The only people who I see criticize Lebron for getting max (he deserves more than max, more than $22M) are Miami fans who want to add more depth to the team.

Miami fans aren’t the ones “lamenting how the Heat players manipulate the system”.

Is there a single poster who is this mythical person that rips Lebron for taking max and also rips the Heat for taking less to play together?

LeBron specifically? Maybe not - is there a poster whose called NBA players greedy and has also bashed the Heat for collusion - I'd bet the answer to that is yes. The point that players have basically been working the system to win all over the league is valid though - he gives a great example of Richard Jefferson opting out with the Spurs in a similar wink-wink deal. Hell, as a Pistons fan I remember they were the kings of trading guys to make the deal work and having a pre-arranged deal to resign the player after he was cut by his new team (before the NBA disallowed it.)

Point being - if you want the NBA to make a hard and fast rule to ban players from opting out of a deal and signing for a deal that pays less per year with the same team than fine. At least it applies to all teams. But there's no reason this topic should be brought up every day when teams have been doing this for years. It is truly just because everyone, myself included, hates the Heat and wants them to be screwed over somehow. But like I said, it is a stupid argument because people in here try to argue semantics to make the Heat seem different than other teams and it is pointless.

[DatWerkk]

circumstantial evidence is just that, circumstantial evidence

there's still no actual evidence

This remains to this day one of the dumbest things people say when talking about the law.

First of all, the NBA does not need to adhere to regular legal rules of evidence to prove things. So there's that.

Second of all, CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

Stop watching Law & Order and read a book.

[druggas]

What's the difference between what the Heat are doing with their players and what the Mavs are doing with Nowitzki right now?

Why do the Spurs have Parker, Ginobilli, and Duncan all at reduced numbers?

Because their contracts weren't prearranged.

When it was time to sign Duncan, they agreed to a deal.

When it was time to sign Parker, same.

Manu too.

3 different occasions independent of each other or any other contract, the pay cut was to be able to remain flexible, but with no actual players in mind or anything like that.

Also, none of them opted out of larger per year contracts to sign longer ones that are less per year.

same with Nowitzki.

Do you really think that Parker, Duncan, and Ginobli didn't have talks and discussions with eachother on what to do with their contracts just because they happened at a separate times? These guys see eachother everyday ofcourse they discussed their options, Parker taking 12 million was a joke.

What's that make Miami's players contracts when they colluded the first time?

[Blame Rasho]

circumstantial evidence is just that, circumstantial evidence

there's still no actual evidence

This remains to this day one of the dumbest things people say when talking about the law.

First of all, the NBA does not need to adhere to regular legal rules of evidence to prove things. So there's that.

Second of all, CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

Stop watching Law & Order and read a book.

A better way to explain it is um...It is like finding DNA on your sheets with another woman who isn't your g/f or wifey (circumstantial) unlike having a clear video tape proof(direct) of you banging that chick that you made for **** and giggles and you stupidly posted it on some porn tube channel later used as proof of your infidelity.

[miltk]

(a) At no time shall there be any agreements or transactions of any kind ,,,,concerning any future Renegotiation, Extension, or other amendment of an existing Player Contract, or entry into a new Player Contract;


it sounds like the key word is "future". in other words, the three players didn't collude back in the beginning to alter their contracts to bring in another player 4 yrs later down the road. am i wrong?

[Dr Aki]

circumstantial evidence is just that, circumstantial evidence

there's still no actual evidence

This remains to this day one of the dumbest things people say when talking about the law.

First of all, the NBA does not need to adhere to regular legal rules of evidence to prove things. So there's that.

Second of all, CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

Stop watching Law & Order and read a book.

every person that quotes me without reading through the thread where i elaborate further only looks like an idiot, including you

[EntropyPR]

Because their contracts weren't prearranged.


When it was time to sign Duncan, they agreed to a deal.

When it was time to sign Parker, same.

Manu too.

3 different occasions independent of each other or any other contract, the pay cut was to be able to remain flexible, but with no actual players in mind or anything like that.

Also, none of them opted out of larger per year contracts to sign longer ones that are less per year.

same with Nowitzki.

Do you really think that Parker, Duncan, and Ginobli didn't have talks and discussions with eachother on what to do with their contracts just because they happened at a separate times? These guys see eachother everyday ofcourse they discussed their options, Parker taking 12 million was a joke.

Ok... I am getting tired of people being ignorant and put posting stupid things about the Spurs. I was having a trip people talking out of their asses with the Spurs and their contracts in the collusion thread.

Did you know that Parker got an extension during the 2010 season that everyone agreed was fair? No, because it doesn't jive with your clueless narrative.

Why don't you take a look at how everyone was outraged with the Parker extension. You are on the ball... what a joke...

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1062579


You want to talk about Duncan... he took a paycut after making over 20 million dollars in his last year of his 2 year extension from 100 million dollar contract that he signed in 2003. I guess you wanted him to go the Kobe route and get 30 million dollars despite his declining production and less and less mins played. It was the classic smaller contract for smaller production deal that countless of other stars have done at their tail end of their career. How important was it? I couldn't even find a thread about it with anyone praising it or bashing it on the general board in 2012.

Oh... yeah... Ginobili

You know the guy who got 7 million dollars this past offseason after a horrible finals and constant injuries. It was considered a overpay since no team other than the Spurs were going to throw big numbers at his age(35) and injury history.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1263500

So stop with the absurdity or you know what... you can keep talking as if you know what you are talking about while proving your ignorance and that goes for everyone...hahahaha

[mopper8]

circumstantial evidence is just that, circumstantial evidence

there's still no actual evidence

This remains to this day one of the dumbest things people say when talking about the law.

First of all, the NBA does not need to adhere to regular legal rules of evidence to prove things. So there's that.

Second of all, CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

Stop watching Law & Order and read a book.

A better way to explain it is um...It is like finding DNA on your sheets with another woman who isn't your g/f or wifey (circumstantial) unlike having a clear video tape proof(direct) of you banging that chick that you made for **** and giggles and you stupidly posted it on some porn tube channel later used as proof of your infidelity.

Eh, your example just kind of confuses things. Evidence on the sheet is actual, direct evidence of sexual relations in that bed. Circumstantial evidence might be that the suspected girlfriend called in sick to work that day, but was also seen eating a fancy lunch with the husband that same afternoon.

So you have actual evidence--DNA puts some random woman in bed with the husband--plus circumstantial evidence--this woman called in sick to work when she wasn't sick, and was eating lunch with the husband in a romantic setting--pointing to that particular woman as the culprit.

It would be accurate to say you don't have direct evidence that the woman eating lunch with the husband was the woman he cheated with (without a DNA match), but it wouldn't be accurate to call the evidence in the bed circumstantial. The calling into work sick and eating lunch is circumstantial. It gives her the opportunity and possible motive. But the evidence in the bad is actual physical, concrete evidence; it's not circumstantial.

[Chandler55]

i think for it to be illegal you need an actual binding contract, like on paper. i imagine riley respects them enough to do it casually. though this means he can get carlos boozered but he'll take that risk

[Blame Rasho]

I was always under the impression that DNA, fingerprint proof, and etc were circumstantial since you need an expert to validate it, but perhaps I am wrong.

[mopper8]

I was always under the impression that DNA, fingerprint proof, and etc were circumstantial since you need an expert to validate it, but perhaps I am wrong.

To me, a good way to think about it is this

Situation A: a hitman concedes to the police that someone (he doesn't know who) paid him $10,000 to kill a woman, who just so happens to be Blame Rasho's wife. Blame Rasho withdrew $10,000 from his bank the same day that the hitman claims to have been paid in cash. Turns out Blame Rasho and his wife were having marital problems and she was contemplating an (expensive) divorce. That is all circumstantial evidence.

Situation B: cops find a duffel bag at the hitman's house with $10,000 in it. The money has Blame Rasho's fingerprints all over it. That is concrete physical evidence corroborating the hitman's story and point to Blame Rasho as the mystery man taking out the hit.

[cochiseuofm]

I was always under the impression that DNA, fingerprint proof, and etc were circumstantial since you need an expert to validate it, but perhaps I am wrong.

You're right - circumstantial evidence is any evidence which requires an inference to link it to a crime (just reading the direct definition). Your fingerprint being present on a crime scene doesn't mean you did it but it is a strong indicator you were there which can be used to prove you did it.

[INKtastic]

every person that quotes me without reading through the thread where i elaborate further only looks like an idiot, including you

please read the OP

(c) A violation of Section 2(a) or 2(b) above may be proven by director 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).

Signing Haslem to any contract that ensures he gets the 4.6 million he just opted out of that will clearly fit this definition.

[Dr Aki]

every person that quotes me without reading through the thread where i elaborate further only looks like an idiot, including you

please read the OP

(c) A violation of Section 2(a) or 2(b) above may be proven by director 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).

Signing Haslem to any contract that ensures he gets the 4.6 million he just opted out of that will clearly fit this definition.

and i've addressed this. i've talked about the RJ deal with the spurs, and the league didn't do jack

[Heat3]

They didn't have a 2010 first round pick!!! They traded it away before the draft to clear cap space. They traded picks to the cavs and raptors so that they could get Lebron and Bosh's bird rights and offer them an extra year. Are you arguing that the Cavs and Raptors would in fact have taken fewer draft picks to help Miami/Lebron/Bosh get the max contracts but because of "tampering" they decided they wanted more?

i think you are seriously underestimating how little miami cares about draft picks. Riley traded a 1st away just to get rid of Antoine Walker in 2009. That really hurt us in the long run huh? The picks we have given up and and still owe are worthless to Miami when compared to what we got in return. LOL...in 19 damn years I can only think of 3 players of significance that Miami has drafted: Wade, Caron Butler, Beasley and Beasley is a bust. That poor drafting has hurt Miami right? Only 3 times have we missed the playoffs in that period.

I replied to a post that claimed this

Mia needed that space so they could sign Lebron/Bosh to the max's they wanted, getting rid of the rookie contracts keeps that room open. I forgot the 1st rds but its still the norm and what most teams do when signing and trading players.

I know they didn't have a 2010 pick, which is why the trade had nothing to do with that.

They didn't give them an extra year that will never be seen. I'm saying the Cavs and Raptors both opted to take the picks instead of pursuing the tampering charges because that worked out better for them. Had they gone the tampering route, the heat might forfeit picks, the Cavs and Raptors don't get those picks, they are just gone. The heat would lose the players, the players would sign elsewhere.

The heat themselves really had no reason to give away so many picks. They gave the cavs 4 picks plus a pick swap. They gave the raptors 2 picks including a lottery pick. The heat would have been far better off keeping those 6 picks and signing LeBron and Bosh with the exact same cap space they had to use to take the players in the sign and trade.

This has gotten way sidetracked, the issue is what is happening now, not what happened 4 years ago.

oh please this is just a conspiracy theory on top of a conspiracy theory with nothing to back it up.

Just judging from Dan Gilbert's letter after the Decision, does anyone believe he wouldn't have lashed out and tried to screw over Lebron if he could reveal actual tampering?

What would have been the punishment for tampering anyway?

More draft picks? If so why wouldn't Cleveland go for tampering charges to get more picks?

What about Less picks? Then why wouldn't Miami go for that instead. big deal, get labeled a tamperer pay a fine and give up LESS picks and still get Lebron.

Or maybe the simplest answer is the right one. There was no tampering and the Cavs free agent simply went to another team like hundreds of free agents have done in the past and will do in the future.