Deals with players on waivers technically = tampering?

[HartfordWhalers]

I'm not asking about enforcement, as it seems pretty common practice.

But to the extent that a player on waivers is still under contract to his old team, and to the extent that he could be picked up by a different team (with higher priority), never becoming a free agent in between, isn't discussing and potentially agreeing to a deal with a guy on waivers technically tampering? It seems to me that if someone wanted to make it an issue, they would technically be able to do so.

[Smitty731]

That is a tricky one. You are right that for the waiver period the original team still holds the rights to a player. I wonder if it is one of those deals where everyone says "We all do this, so let's not make a thing of it.".

[HartfordWhalers]

That is a tricky one. You are right that for the waiver period the original team still holds the rights to a player. I wonder if it is one of those deals where everyone says "We all do this, so let's not make a thing of it.".

Yeah. And even in the T Robinson case, it really wasn't a big deal. But taking it from there, could a team like the Sixers in that situation file a complain and be on sound technical standing? (Assuming so I could see a league letter reminding people not to do it versus a fine, because it is so standard.) But confirming I'm not missing anything that formally loopholes and makes it not tampering, versus that it is simply not worth filing is my question.

[giberish]

I remember a few years ago when Sacramento waived JJ Hickson, he (unofficially) agreed to a deal with another team - but it got called off because Portland claimed him off waivers. I don't recall any talk of tampering with it though.

[Dunkenstein]

As Larry Coon points out "the league's practice has been to wait until a team lodges a complaint before investigating" a charge of tampering. But the rule is really there to protect another team from trying to induce a player to leave the team to whom he is under contract. Since by waiving him, his original team itself has already started the process of severing ties with the player, the team would have a difficult time convincing the league that another team was trying to induce the player to leave.

[giberish]

As Larry Coon points out "the league's practice has been to wait until a team lodges a complaint before investigating" a charge of tampering. But the rule is really there to protect another team from trying to induce a player to leave the team to whom he is under contract. Since by waiving him, his original team itself has already started the process of severing ties with the player, the team would have a difficult time convincing the league that another team was trying to induce the player to leave.

The team claiming the player would have some case for arguing that they were hurt. It would only come up when a player actually is claimed (otherwise there's no one hurt), though even then it seems to just be considered part of doing business.

[Scoot McGroot]

Since there's not really revokable waivers, it seems really hard for the waiving team to allege tampering, since that player will no longer be their's. Once a player is placed on waivers, he's not staying on that team. He'll either be claimed, or hit free agency. Not be pulled back from waivers, like can be done in baseball.

[HartfordWhalers]

Since there's not really revokable waivers, it seems really hard for the waiving team to allege tampering, since that player will no longer be their's. Once a player is placed on waivers, he's not staying on that team. He'll either be claimed, or hit free agency. Not be pulled back from waivers, like can be done in baseball.

Right. So, in essence the injured team will never be the team with him under contract. On the other hand, I could see teams with higher waiver priority not wanting players -- players who are still under contract and not in control of their place of employment -- agreeing to deals and parameters (playing time, starter status, etc) with another team.

Obviously it happens rarely enough, and these are players being waived so its not like there is a huge demand. But does the irrevocable waivers make this side effect for an acquiring team inevitable, or is it still technically tampering -- just on a scale that no one cares about.

[andyhop]

I'd go with its tampering but the only team that could cause the NBA to investigate given precedence is the team they are under contract to who are waving them and don't care.

[winter_mute_13]

^ this. In the T-Rob case, presumably the discussion with the Nets occurred before the Sixers claimed him, at which time the Sixers didn't have any rights yet.