KnicksGod wrote:suicidedeuce wrote:KnicksGod wrote:
This is SD just being stubborn (this is pride on his part, but a 100% false assertion). The CBA provision was cited showing, very clearly, that if Riley made verbal promises (or even just a verbal statement implying his intent to the agent) to induce Wade and Bosh to opt out, it would violate the CBA.
No ifs, ands or buts.
"Dwayne, Chris, Lebron. We value you and hope you remain Heat for life. Whether you choose not to exercise your ETO or exercise it and become a free agent, we want you to know we're prepared to do whatever it takes so that you remain a member of our family, individually or as a group.
You think that's illegal?
CBA: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).
Case closed.
And as a footnote, the "cannot rationally be explained" does provide a kind of "right mind" test. The NBA could simply say that a player coming off Wade's Finals appearance could not rationally be expected to earn $42 million over the next two years, and/or would not seemingly forfeit all or a large share of that money without an assurance.
Why are you arguing over something you KNOW has NEVER been enforced and you yourself are arguing won't be enforced.
As I've previously explained, rules are less about what's written and more about what's enforced.
And you don't understand the rationally explained threshold.
"We REALLY like Dwayne Wade as a person and a professional and we choose to use our available cap space to rewards him for his service satisfies the threshold."
'Rationally explained' doesn't mean wise, smart, or astute. It just means you need A reason. Rewarding Dwayne Wade for this tenure as a member of the team with available cap space is a REASON. And that's ALL you need.
But yes, keep arguing for a violation YOU KNOW won't be enforced. That's always a good look.
