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

[PapaG]

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

McDyess gives up big bucks in buyout
By Chris Tomasson
Rocky Mountain News

Score it a victory for the Nuggets.
Yes, they did beat Dallas 108-105 at the Pepsi Center. But also Friday, they got as good of a deal as one could expect in reaching an agreement on a buyout of Antonio McDyess' contract.
A source said McDyess, who was due nearly $15 million, will be bought out for about $6 million. McDyess was acquired last Monday from Detroit (along with Chauncey Billups and Cheikh Samb for Allen Iverson), but didn't want to play for the Nuggets.
A source said McDyess, 34, had little leverage. If he didn't want to play for Denver and was unwilling to take a generous buyout, his only other option would have been retirement, and then he would have gotten nothing.
McDyess' agent, Andy Miller, who wouldn't discuss financial arrangements, said the paperwork likely will be finalized Monday. McDyess would then clear waivers Wednesday, and be a free agent able to immediately sign with any team except Detroit. If it's true McDyess wants to return to the Pistons, NBA rules don't allow him to re-sign with them until 30 days after being waived.
The move will get the Nuggets to around $1 million over the luxury-tax threshold of $71.15 million. Prior to the McDyess negotiations, the Nuggets had a payroll of $75.9 million.

 

[Ed O]

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.

 

[PapaG]

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.

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.

 

[Ed O]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[PapaG]

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.

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]

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

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...

 

[Ed O]

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.

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]

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...

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.

 

[PapaG]

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.

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.

 

[Ed O]

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.

The NBAPA filed two unfair labor practice charges. Not lawsuits.

I said lawsuits.

Ed O.

 

[PapaG]

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.

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]

The NBAPA filed two unfair labor practice charges. Not lawsuits.

I said lawsuits.

Ed O.

It is a lawsuit.

 

[Ed O]

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.

You sent a link to unfair labor practice charges being filed.

Those are not lawsuits. Sorry.

As for the "Coke" analogy, "Coke" essentially did challenge "Coke" in the Joe Smith case you mentioned a while back.

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]

It is a lawsuit.

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.

 

[PapaG]

You sent a link to unfair labor practice charges being filed.

Those are not lawsuits. Sorry.

Yes, they are legal filings, i.e. lawsuits.

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.

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.

 

[Ed O]

Yes, they are legal filings, i.e. lawsuits.

That definition is not specific enough to be correct. Sorry.

Ed O.

 

[PapaG]

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.

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?

 

[Ed O]

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.

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.

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?

You really think that's my position? REALLY?

Ed O.

 

[PapaG]

That definition is not specific enough to be correct. Sorry.

Ed O.

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]

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.

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.

 

[Ed O]

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.

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.

 

[1 Eye Jack]

Entertaining thread thanks guys

 

[PapaG]

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.

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.

 

[rocketeer]

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.

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.

 

[PapaG]

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.

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]

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.

Yep. I called it a trade twice in the first post of this thread.

 

[PapaG]

Find me one other instance of a team not being allowed to claim a waived player under the current CBA.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Yes, they are legal filings, i.e. lawsuits.

Sorry, but Ed is right on. NLRB proceedings are administrative proceedings, not judicial proceedings. The rules are very different.

 

[PapaG]

Sorry, but Ed is right on. NLRB proceedings are administrative proceedings, not judicial proceedings. The rules are very different.

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.

 

[BrianFromWA]

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?