RealGM

Before the official start of free agency on July 1, Adrian Wojnarowski reported that the Miami Heat had "the framework of deals in place" with LeBron James, Chris Bosh, Dwyane Wade and Udonis Haslem to remain with the team.

"Everybody has their [contract] number and has left a little bit of room to let [Pat Riley] maneuver," one source briefed on the contract discussions reportedly told Wojnarowski.

The NBA's collective bargaining agreement, however, does not allow a team and players to have an "express or implied" deal in place in what essentially becomes a restructured contract.

The risk of loss for some Wade and Haslem would be severe since the contracts they opted out of are considered vastly more lucrative than what they would command as free agents on the open market.

The following text is from Article XIII of the CBA in regards to circumvention:

Section 2. No Unauthorized Agreements.

(a) 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;

-----

(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).

Dr Aki wrote:it's illegal, but how are they going to prove it?

unless of course one of them decides to do what joe smith did, i don't see how they can prove it if everyone keeps mum

Dr Aki wrote:you'd need a smoking gun (ie, actual irrefutable, unsidestepable evidence)

you'd need at the very least, one of the following to connect the FAs and the heat:
- a signed contract BEFORE july 1st
- key witness testimony stating there was a verbal/signed agreement before july 1st
- one of the FAs blabbing their mouth (a confession)
- video evidence showing the heat FO and the players agents (inc. melo, if melo is involved) having a meeting with the known agenda of the meeting about capspace and contract numbers before july 1st

and so on... if you don't have one of those things, it's nigh impossible to prove

jefe wrote:

Dr Aki wrote:you'd need a smoking gun (ie, actual irrefutable, unsidestepable evidence)

you'd need at the very least, one of the following to connect the FAs and the heat:
- a signed contract BEFORE july 1st
- key witness testimony stating there was a verbal/signed agreement before july 1st
- one of the FAs blabbing their mouth (a confession)
- video evidence showing the heat FO and the players agents (inc. melo, if melo is involved) having a meeting with the known agenda of the meeting about capspace and contract numbers before july 1st

and so on... if you don't have one of those things, it's nigh impossible to prove

All of those are examples of direct evidence - the CBA section quoted above permits direct or circumstantial evidence.

Dr Aki wrote:you'd need a smoking gun (ie, actual irrefutable, unsidestepable evidence)

you'd need at the very least, one of the following to connect the FAs and the heat:
- a signed contract BEFORE july 1st
- key witness testimony stating there was a verbal/signed agreement before july 1st
- one of the FAs blabbing their mouth (a confession)
- video evidence showing the heat FO and the players agents (inc. melo, if melo is involved) having a meeting with the known agenda of the meeting about capspace and contract numbers before july 1st

and so on... if you don't have one of those things, it's nigh impossible to prove

pylb wrote:

Dr Aki wrote:you'd need a smoking gun (ie, actual irrefutable, unsidestepable evidence)

you'd need at the very least, one of the following to connect the FAs and the heat:
- a signed contract BEFORE july 1st
- key witness testimony stating there was a verbal/signed agreement before july 1st
- one of the FAs blabbing their mouth (a confession)
- video evidence showing the heat FO and the players agents (inc. melo, if melo is involved) having a meeting with the known agenda of the meeting about capspace and contract numbers before july 1st

and so on... if you don't have one of those things, it's nigh impossible to prove

Section C disagrees.

I doubt anything happens, but the league doesn't need to prove anything.

Dr Aki wrote:

pylb wrote:

Dr Aki wrote:you'd need a smoking gun (ie, actual irrefutable, unsidestepable evidence)

you'd need at the very least, one of the following to connect the FAs and the heat:
- a signed contract BEFORE july 1st
- key witness testimony stating there was a verbal/signed agreement before july 1st
- one of the FAs blabbing their mouth (a confession)
- video evidence showing the heat FO and the players agents (inc. melo, if melo is involved) having a meeting with the known agenda of the meeting about capspace and contract numbers before july 1st

and so on... if you don't have one of those things, it's nigh impossible to prove

Section C disagrees.

I doubt anything happens, but the league doesn't need to prove anything.

that's the thing, what if say wade or haslem opt out, only to re-sign for more years for sig. greater than the amount owed to them.

that can be rationally explained, there's already a precedent - the spurs had the RJ contract a few years ago

Dr Aki wrote:

jefe wrote:

Dr Aki wrote:you'd need a smoking gun (ie, actual irrefutable, unsidestepable evidence)

you'd need at the very least, one of the following to connect the FAs and the heat:
- a signed contract BEFORE july 1st
- key witness testimony stating there was a verbal/signed agreement before july 1st
- one of the FAs blabbing their mouth (a confession)
- video evidence showing the heat FO and the players agents (inc. melo, if melo is involved) having a meeting with the known agenda of the meeting about capspace and contract numbers before july 1st

and so on... if you don't have one of those things, it's nigh impossible to prove

All of those are examples of direct evidence - the CBA section quoted above permits direct or circumstantial evidence.

it's a tad broad, and a little impossible to police

pylb wrote:

Dr Aki wrote:

pylb wrote:Section C disagrees.

I doubt anything happens, but the league doesn't need to prove anything.

that's the thing, what if say wade or haslem opt out, only to re-sign for more years for sig. greater than the amount owed to them.

that can be rationally explained, there's already a precedent - the spurs had the RJ contract a few years ago

That's why section C contains the almighty "including, but not limited to" words.

Really, if the league wants to do something, it can do it. Doesn't need to justify itself. It won't do so because it could get tangled in a legal mess and it would sow discord amongst owners.

Nets didn't get bothered much after signing Kirilenko last year.

FinNasty wrote:The players can all decide to opt out and take less assuming it is offered. And it's an easy assumption on their part that they'd get offered new contracts by the team in an attempt to bring them back. Why wouldn't the team want to bring them back? There's nothing to worry about on the players part. Why would they have any fear that the Heat wouldn't want to try to bring them back at all costs if they opted out?

So, they players get together, hash out what kinda money they all feel they would need while leaving enough to allow the team to get them more help. Opt out. And then ask for that amount the players determined when FA starts.

None of that is against the rules...

pylb wrote:

Dr Aki wrote:

pylb wrote:Section C disagrees.

I doubt anything happens, but the league doesn't need to prove anything.

that's the thing, what if say wade or haslem opt out, only to re-sign for more years for sig. greater than the amount owed to them.

that can be rationally explained, there's already a precedent - the spurs had the RJ contract a few years ago

That's why section C contains the almighty "including, but not limited to" words.

Really, if the league wants to do something, it can do it. Doesn't need to justify itself. It won't do so because it could get tangled in a legal mess and it would sow discord amongst owners.

Nets didn't get bothered much after signing Kirilenko last year.

Shuttlesworth34 wrote:How many times are we going to have this discussion on the GB? Just lock it already. Everyone knows that pre-arranged contracts are against the CBA, but the reality is that it happens all the time anyway and nobody cares