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 2 of 2
  1. 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 understand.

    How was it "successfully challenged" in either of these cases?

    I certainly do not believe that the NBA office is above being challenged, but in neither of these cases did the NLRB or an arbitrator change the NBA's course of action.

    While we may never know for SURE why Stern and Co. went back to the old leather ball, I seriously doubt that they were worried about an unfair labor practice claim as much as they were the negativity coming from the players' reactions to the change.

    Ed O.
     
    Ed O, Jan 14, 2009
    #21
  2. 1 Eye Jack

    1 Eye Jack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,343
    Likes Received:
    1,920
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Vice President for Display company
    Location:
    Albany, Oregon
    Entertaining thread thanks guys ;)
     
    1 Eye Jack, Jan 14, 2009
    #22
  3. PapaG

    PapaG Banned User BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    32,870
    Likes Received:
    291
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tualatin, OR
    1) Players got their ball back AFTER filing with NLRB. Not before, when they were just complaining about the thing.

    2) The T-Wolves were severely punished by the NBA for Joe Smith. The T-Wolves went outside of the CBA in that instance in dealing with Smith.

    3) The Blazers have not gone outside of the CBA in dealing with Miles. In fact, the NBA seemingly has by not (allegedly) allowing the Blazers to make a claim on him.

    Let's suppose the NBA really did block the Blazer claim to Miles. Where is this exception in any of the league rules. The only things I've seen posted seem to be geared more toward the McDyess/luxury cap buy-out by Denver, and the NBA did not challenge that deal which was solely to free up cap space and lessen a tax payment.
     
    PapaG, Jan 14, 2009
    #23
  4. rocketeer

    rocketeer Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    3,250
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    if you read the article you posted you'll see that denver wanted mcdyess to play for them and mcdyess's agent confirmed that.

    of course the trade itself(and it was a trade not a signing) was much more about getting billups for iverson than anything else.
     
    rocketeer, Jan 14, 2009
    #24
  5. PapaG

    PapaG Banned User BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    32,870
    Likes Received:
    291
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tualatin, OR
    Well, they certainly covered their bases well. Denver gets $5 million in cap relief, and McDyess gets a new contract next season in addition to his buy-out.
     
    PapaG, Jan 14, 2009
    #25
  6. PapaG

    PapaG Banned User BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    32,870
    Likes Received:
    291
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tualatin, OR
    Yep. I called it a trade twice in the first post of this thread. :dunno:
     
    PapaG, Jan 14, 2009
    #26
  7. 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.
     
    PapaG, Jan 14, 2009
    #27
  8. oldmangrouch

    oldmangrouch persona non grata

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2008
    Messages:
    12,403
    Likes Received:
    6,325
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry, but Ed is right on. NLRB proceedings are administrative proceedings, not judicial proceedings. The rules are very different.
     
    oldmangrouch, Jan 14, 2009
    #28
  9. PapaG

    PapaG Banned User BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    32,870
    Likes Received:
    291
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tualatin, OR
    The challenge to the CBA was the subject of my post and not whether a grievance is a lawsuit or is a filing. The legal process is varied based on the party challenging it, I suppose. What does matter is the CBA was referenced as the reason for the complaint.
     
    PapaG, Jan 14, 2009
    #29
  10. BrianFromWA

    BrianFromWA Editor in Chief Staff Member Editor in Chief

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2008
    Messages:
    26,096
    Likes Received:
    9,073
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can't answer your bolded question, PapaG.

    In addition, I'm wondering about where the union furor is over a player taking less money than was originally in his contract. Doesn't something (I want to say MLE, but I'm not sure) hinge upon the average salary of league players? So someone deliberately taking less money than they could get causes problems with the union.

    This happens all the time in baseball...maybe the NBAPA doesn't have "jurisdiction" (for lack of a better word) over players' salaries like that? Just their "right to work" situations?
     
    BrianFromWA, Jan 14, 2009
    #30
Page 2 of 2

Share This Page