OT: How Did the McDyess Deal Not 'Circumvent' the Cap?

Discussion in 'Portland Trail Blazers' started by PapaG, Jan 14, 2009.

Moderators: 6

Moderators

  1. BrianFromWA
  2. Chris Craig
  3. Darkwebs
  4. Ed O
  5. PtldPlatypus
  6. SlyPokerDog
Page 1 of 2
  1. PapaG

    PapaG Banned User BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    32,870
    Likes Received:
    291
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tualatin, OR
    I mentioned this in another thread, but why did the NBA allow Denver to lower cap space by trading for a player they immediately waived? A player that is now back with the team that originally traded him (Detriot), and with the ability to sign for more money with more cap space next season?

    http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/nuggets/archives/2008/11/mcdyess_gives_u.html

     
    PapaG, Jan 14, 2009
    #1
  2. Ed O

    Ed O Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    10,701
    Likes Received:
    2,826
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    You obviously don't pay attention to the NBA and/or you are simply grasping at straws to find support for your "oppressed Blazers" theories.

    This kind of thing happens on a regular basis.

    It's not circumventing the cap because the league doesn't say it is.

    Ed O.
     
    Ed O, Jan 14, 2009
    #2
  3. PapaG

    PapaG Banned User BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    32,870
    Likes Received:
    291
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tualatin, OR
    Yes, that is pretty much my point. The NBA allows teams to conspire in a trade to circumvent cap space, yet the Blazers aren't allowed to legitimately claim a waived player.

    Vague rules = lawsuits. It's not an "oppresed Blazer" theory, either. It's a legitimate legal question, and your clouded personal opinion seemingly is overriding logic.
     
    PapaG, Jan 14, 2009
    #3
  4. Ed O

    Ed O Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    10,701
    Likes Received:
    2,826
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    First of all, there's still little evidence that the Blazers tried to claim him.

    Secondly, there is no conspiracy when teams are acting within the rules. Trades for expiring contracts, buyouts for players, etc., are all well accepted within the rules and standard practice of the NBA.

    You're looking for tootsie rolls here and are just being silly about it.

    Somehow the NBA has managed to go years and years without a lawsuit... and yet you think that MY personal opinion is clouded?

    OK.

    Ed O.
     
    Ed O, Jan 14, 2009
    #4
  5. PapaG

    PapaG Banned User BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    32,870
    Likes Received:
    291
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tualatin, OR
    Find me one other instance of a team not being allowed to claim a waived player under the current CBA. You keep spouting of about "standard practice" and such. The point is that this case is hardly "standard practice". In fact, it's one of a kind and the NBA is obviously making up the rules as it goes along. You can say that is their right, but I'm sure the Blazers have a different take on it.
     
    PapaG, Jan 14, 2009
    #5
  6. PapaG

    PapaG Banned User BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    32,870
    Likes Received:
    291
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tualatin, OR
    The NBA players' union sued the NBA after Stern changed the ball in 2006. That also wasn't covered in the CBA, and the league relented and went back to the old ball.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2006/12/04/players-sue-nba-over-new-balls-tighter-calls/

    Whoops...
     
    PapaG, Jan 14, 2009
    #6
  7. Ed O

    Ed O Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    10,701
    Likes Received:
    2,826
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Of course the NBA is making some things up as they go along. It's totally necessary to be able to react to dynamic situations quickly, rather than wait years until a new CBA is formed. That's why the league has wide and general abilities to do so.

    I'm not sure why you think I'm "spouting off" about standard practices and then getting confused.

    Let's be abstract. There are two different actions that can be accepted or denied by a decision-maker.

    Action A is done all the time. It is accepted by the decision-maker. Action B has never been done before. It is denied by the decision-maker.

    "Action A" is something like the McDyess trade. "Action B" is something like the Blazers attempted to do, reportedly, by claiming Miles on waivers.

    You bringing up examples of other Action A's is irrelevant to Action B.

    Ed O.
     
    Ed O, Jan 14, 2009
    #7
  8. Ed O

    Ed O Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    10,701
    Likes Received:
    2,826
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    I don't see much, if any, relevance.

    The suit was a non-starter and was not based on lax rules but non-bargained changes. By the PLAYERS.

    The teams are the NBA, so suing based on non-bargained changes would be like those Coke ads where they try to sue their own company.

    Ed O.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2009
    Ed O, Jan 14, 2009
    #8
  9. PapaG

    PapaG Banned User BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    32,870
    Likes Received:
    291
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tualatin, OR
    Not true at all if you look at the "circumvention of cap" conditions set forth in the CBA. The McDyess move actually IS addressed, yet the NBA looks the other way.

    You were wrong about the NBA not being sued, and it happened because of the NBA making up rules that were not covered in the CBA.

    I do agree, however, that it is rare that the league would take a dump on one of their own members in respect to the CBA.
     
    PapaG, Jan 14, 2009
    #9
  10. Ed O

    Ed O Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    10,701
    Likes Received:
    2,826
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    The NBAPA filed two unfair labor practice charges. Not lawsuits.

    I said lawsuits.

    Ed O.
     
    Ed O, Jan 14, 2009
    #10
  11. PapaG

    PapaG Banned User BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    32,870
    Likes Received:
    291
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tualatin, OR
    Of course you don't. You said the NBA had not been sued, I pointed out that the players did sue specifically because of the CBA. You could either admit you were wrong and that the current CBA has been successfully challenged, or you could go roundy-round. We've conversed enough for me to know which approach you will take.

    As for the "Coke" analogy, "Coke" essentially did challenge "Coke" in the Joe Smith case you mentioned a while back.
     
    PapaG, Jan 14, 2009
    #11
  12. PapaG

    PapaG Banned User BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    32,870
    Likes Received:
    291
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tualatin, OR
    It is a lawsuit.
     
    PapaG, Jan 14, 2009
    #12
  13. Ed O

    Ed O Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    10,701
    Likes Received:
    2,826
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    You sent a link to unfair labor practice charges being filed.

    Those are not lawsuits. Sorry.

    No they did not. The UNION appealed. That's why I posted that info that you seemed to immediately dismiss, wondering why I would bring it up.

    Ed O.
     
    Ed O, Jan 14, 2009
    #13
  14. Ed O

    Ed O Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    10,701
    Likes Received:
    2,826
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Dude. No. You don't know what you're talking about.

    A lawsuit is filed in court.

    Those unfair labor practice complaints were filed with the NLRB, which is an adminstrative body and not a court.

    Are you doing this just to bug me?

    Ed O.
     
    Ed O, Jan 14, 2009
    #14
  15. PapaG

    PapaG Banned User BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    32,870
    Likes Received:
    291
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tualatin, OR
    Yes, they are legal filings, i.e. lawsuits.



    I dismissed it because it is irrelevant to this situation. I still don't understand what it proves other than the NBA punished the T-Wolves for acting outside of the bounds of the CBA.
     
    PapaG, Jan 14, 2009
    #15
  16. Ed O

    Ed O Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    10,701
    Likes Received:
    2,826
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    That definition is not specific enough to be correct. Sorry.

    Ed O.
     
    Ed O, Jan 14, 2009
    #16
  17. PapaG

    PapaG Banned User BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    32,870
    Likes Received:
    291
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tualatin, OR
    The bottom line is that the NBA reversed course before the NLRB sponsored a formal lawsuit because they knew that didn't have the explicit right in the CBA to change the ball. If the NBA hadn't changed the ball, a suit would have been brought.

    I want to be clear on my understanding of your position. The NBA can deny any move or approve any move by its members based solely on a subjective opinion? Is that correct?
     
    PapaG, Jan 14, 2009
    #17
  18. Ed O

    Ed O Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    10,701
    Likes Received:
    2,826
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Wrong again.

    The NLRB doesn't sponsor or bring suits. Lawsuits are not brought before it. It can petition courts for injunctions, but it is a quasi-judicial (administrative) body that doesn't have anything to do with lawsuits.

    You really think that's my position? REALLY?

    Ed O.
     
    Ed O, Jan 14, 2009
    #18
  19. PapaG

    PapaG Banned User BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    32,870
    Likes Received:
    291
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tualatin, OR
    Whatever, Ed. The bottom line is the CBA was successfully challenged when the NBA tried to go outside of it regarding the ball, and also when the league punished the T-Wolves for going outside of it in the Joe Smith debacle.
     
    PapaG, Jan 14, 2009
    #19
  20. PapaG

    PapaG Banned User BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    32,870
    Likes Received:
    291
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tualatin, OR
    Yes, other than the entire legal semantics thing, which was not my point in bringing up the players and their balls (heh), or you bringing up Joe Smith, which actually is another precedent for challenging a violation of the CBA.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2009
    PapaG, Jan 14, 2009
    #20
Page 1 of 2

Share This Page